[95] The account of Nicolaus, involving banishment of the tribunes, is at variance with the versions of Appian, 2, 108; 4, 93; Dio 44, 10; 46, 9; Suetonius, Caes., 79; Plutarch, Caes., 61; Ant. 12; Livy, Epit., 116, all of whom concur in saying that the tribunes were merely cast out of the senate, and not sent into exile. It is shown by Cicero, Phil., 13, 15, 31, that the tribunes were simply removed from office: ‘quid ergo, ut Marullum, ut Caesetium a republica removeremus, eum consecuti sumus?’ The term ‘a republica’ means ‘from public life’ and not ‘from the country;’ compare Velleius 2, 68. [96] In a letter to Atticus (Cic., Att., 15, 44, 1) dated about July 20, 45 B.C., Cicero alludes to the reported proposal of Cotta that Caesar be made king in order that Parthia might be subdued according to the terms of the Sibylline prophecy which stated that Parthia would be proof against any but a king (Cic., Div., 2, 110). Compare also the passage, ‘munerum regiorum’ (regionum?) (Cic., Fam., 6, 19, 2; Tyrrell and Purser 5^2, p. 162 and note). On August 2, 45 B.C., Cicero actually speaks of Caesar as ‘the king:’ ‘nisi viderem scire _regem_ me animi nihil habere’ (Cic., Att., 25, 37, 2). The episode of the diadem, involving the tribunes Caesetius and Marullus, seems to have occurred in January, 44 B.C. (Dio 44, 10: ‘later, when he was riding in from Albanum;’ CIL 1, p. 461: ‘C. Iulius C.f.C.n. Caesar VI dict. IIII ovans a. DCCIX ex monte Albano VII Kal. Febr.’). 21. [97] February 16 (CIL 1^2 p. 310, Commentarii diurni, ‘XV K. Mart. Luper’). See also Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer,^2 p. 209.