[84] The allusion is perhaps to the enthronement of a statue of Caesar in the temple of Quirinus. Cicero expressed much indignation in referring to the matter (Cic., Att., 12, 45, 2; 13, 28, 3; Phil. 2, 43, 110; see also Dio 43, 45; Suet., Caes., 76). Caesar was hailed further as ‘Iuppiter Iulius’ and a temple was erected jointly to him and to ‘Clementia’ (App. 2, 106; Dio 44, 6; Plut., Caes., 57; less specific, Suet., Caes., 76; Flor. 2, 13, 91). [85] The conspirators were pledged among themselves without the usual formalities of either oaths or sacrifices, according to Appian, 2, 114, and Plutarch, Brut. 12. Sacrifices were the proper complement of oaths, but the attention which would have been drawn by their performance would have been at once fatal to the projected undertaking. [86] The same incident is reported by the following authors: Appian 2, 116; Dio 44, 18; Suetonius, Caes., 81; Plutarch, Caes., 65; Velleius 2, 57; Florus 4, 2, 94. It is a noteworthy fact that with the passage of time the statements with regard to this occurrence become more positive. Nicolaus employs indirect discourse, placing the responsibility on the writer used by him as a source; all the other authors mention the matter as an actual happening. 20. [87] On the occasion of the ‘ludi Victoriae Caesaris,’ held July 20-30, 45 B.C. as a continuation of the ‘ludi’ of Sept. 46 (old calendar) a figure of ‘Victoria’ was borne in procession in close proximity to an image of Caesar. The populace refrained from applause, the cause being, according to Cicero, that ‘Victoria’ was in bad company, through the presence of Caesar’s image (Cic., Att., 13, 44, 1). [88] This is perhaps the most gratuitously extravagant statement in the entire fragment of Nicolaus. His purpose is, as E. Meyer suggests (Caesars Monarchie, p. 517) to place the blame for Caesar’s monarchical aspirations upon his associates, some of whom flattered him excessively while others deliberately urged him on with the intention of making him ultimately an object of general hatred. The same tone is exhibited by Dio, 44, 3, and Plutarch, Caes., 57. Caesar was entirely well aware that he was disliked, even by those whom he characterized as ‘easy going’: ‘Ego dubitem,’ Caesar is reported to have said, ‘quin _summo in odio sim_, quom M. Cicero sedeat nec suo commodo me convenire possit? Atqui si quisquam est facilis, hic est, tamen non dubito quin _me male oderit_’ (Cic., Att., 14, 1, 2). Again, ‘Ego nunc _tam sim stultus_ ut hunc ipsum facilem hominem putem mihi esse amicum, cum tam diu sedens meum commodum exspectet?’ (Cic., Att., 14, 2, 3).