Interactive Cicero view · Interactive Caesar view
30 Cicero biography claims, nine trial dossiers, three Caesarian speeches and 23 Caesar chronology entries. Counts refer to source entries, not unique historical events. A blank lane means no selected entry, not inactivity.
Negative integers encode BCE years for sorting. No year zero, calendar-day conversion, fabricated publication dates or inferred lifespans. Three trial ranges are explicitly normalized from their existing dateBasis; original fields are retained.
Read the consul’s direction of the executions beside Sallust’s comparison of Caesar and Cato. The selected passages illuminate different parts of the same political crisis.
Sallust 54 and 55 belong to the same work. Adjacent presentations do not add independent testimony or establish a personal exchange between Cicero and Caesar.
The executions under the consul’s direction · Chief pontificate; Catilinarian crisis · 大祭司与喀提林危机
Follow Cicero’s exile and return alongside the early years of Caesar’s Gallic campaigns.
This is a chronological parallel. The selected entries alone do not prove that one development caused the other.
Exile through a letter to the family · Clodius’ measure as a later biography reports it · Return narrated as a public welcome · Campaigns narrated by Caesar in BG 1–7 · 凯撒七卷高卢战记
Place the Sestius trial next to the renewed alliance in the existing Caesar chronology.
Same-year placement is a reading prompt, not evidence that the alliance determined the verdict. The disagreement over the March day remains in the trial’s date basis.
Sestius · public violence · 塞斯提乌斯 · 暴力案 · Renewal of the alliance · 联盟重续
Compare the court narratives concerning Pompey’s influence with the chronological sequence of Julia’s death, Crassus’ death and Pompey’s sole consulship.
These are connected political settings, not one event. Gabinius’ two proceedings remain distinct; the extortion trial may extend into 53 BCE.
Gabinius · first proceeding · 加比尼乌斯 · 首案 · Gabinius · subsequent conviction · 加比尼乌斯 · 后案定罪 · Milo · killing of Clodius · 米洛 · 杀害克洛狄乌斯案 · Death of Julia · 尤利娅去世 · Death of Crassus · 克拉苏战死 · Gallic revolt; Pompey sole consul · 高卢起事；庞培独任执政官
Read Cicero’s uncertainty, his joining Pompey and the later account of his withdrawal beside Caesar’s Italian campaign and Pharsalus.
Shared conflict does not mean the entries describe the same encounter. Cicero’s letters, Caesar’s narrative and later biographies retain separate perspectives and dates.
Civil war as an unresolved choice · Joining Pompey, with a reported criticism · After Pharsalus: withdrawal from command · Tribunes flee; Caesar enters Italy · 护民官出逃；凯撒进入意大利 · Corfinium and the Italian campaign · 科尔菲尼乌姆与意大利战事 · Pharsalus; Pompey killed in Egypt · 法萨卢斯；庞培死于埃及
Open the same numbered speech in either reader and compare advocacy, praise and appeals to Caesar with the surrounding chronology of his rule.
Direct address is grounded in the speeches, not inferred from overlapping dates. The African and Spanish campaigns are context, not the occasion of each speech; the Ligarius dossier does not make every speech a jury trial.
Pro M. Marcello · Pro Q. Ligario · Pro Rege Deiotaro · Ligarius · appeal to Caesar · 利加里乌斯 · 向凯撒求情 · African campaign and Roman reforms · 非洲战事与罗马改革 · Spanish campaign · 西班牙战事 · Extraordinary honours and lifetime dictatorship · 非常荣誉与终身独裁
Move from Caesar’s assassination to Cicero’s retrospective account of an amnesty proposal and the later narratives of Cicero’s death.
Caesar’s lane ends at 44 BCE. Cicero’s 43 BCE entries are aftermath, not continued personal interaction with Caesar. These witnesses do not establish a single inevitable causal chain.
After Caesar: an amnesty proposal remembered · Death and the body of the writer · The rostra turned into a display of violence · Assassination and will · 遇刺与遗嘱
Plutarch reports a birth on the third day of the new Kalends, conventionally understood as 3 January; he couples this report with a portent told about the nurse.
106 BCE is conventional biography chronology. The passage supplies a reported day within the January Kalends, not a BCE year.
Plutarch writes long afterward and explicitly introduces the birth as something people say. The portent is a reported story, not independent evidence; this passage does not name the birth year or Arpinum. The nurse’s vision is not a source for the year 106 BCE. Do not derive an exact lifespan from this passage.
Chronology entry supported by the cited modern timeline; no ancient passage dossier is attached in Caesar World.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
The date register supplies year-level navigation. No ancient passage has been newly assigned to this event.
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Cicero recalls learning civil law by hearing Q. Scaevola answer consultations, then devoting himself to Philo after the Academic philosopher fled the Mithridatic war and reached Rome.
The passage supplies a consular sequence, including Sulla and Pompeius (88 BCE); the preceding legal study is conventionally placed in 89 BCE.
This is a retrospective intellectual autobiography in a dialogue. Its sequence joins more than one year; it does not establish every detail of a formal curriculum.
Plutarch remembers a successful defence and a gain in reputation. This is later reported success, with no vote count or jurors’ rationale in the assembled passage.
Plutarch gives no date. The trial fell in late 81 or early 80 BC (Alexander, Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC, no. 129).
Do not confuse him with Quintus Roscius the actor, or treat the biographer’s explanation of Sulla’s involvement as an uncontested court record.
Cicero identifies his defence of Sextus Roscius as his first causa publica and says the case greatly enhanced demand for his advocacy.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
The phrase means his first public criminal case in this retrospective account, not his first legal appearance of any kind. Career success is self-assessment.
Cicero presents physical weakness and strenuous delivery as the reasons for seeking a different speaking style abroad; he says he departed Rome after two years in forensic practice.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
The account assigns a motive retrospectively and need not exclude political concerns. Do not infer a modern diagnosis from his bodily description.
Cicero says he spent six months with Antiochus at Athens and also practised speaking with Demetrius of Syria. He then describes travelling through Asia among rhetoricians.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
Six months is explicit in the passage; the BCE placement is conventional. The present TEI has a textual difficulty after the statement about travelling through Asia, so it should not be silently cleaned into a confident itinerary.
Plutarch says Cicero left for Greece through fear of Sulla after successfully defending Roscius, while circulating a report that his body required treatment.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
This later narrative differs in emphasis from Brutus 313–314. It does not by itself demonstrate that Cicero’s health explanation was false.
Cicero recalls going to Rhodes to study again with Molon and credits him with restraining an excessive youthful manner. He describes returning after two years with a changed voice and delivery.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
This is Cicero’s account of stylistic self-correction; it does not prove a single teacher caused every change. The two-year interval belongs to the whole journey.
The surviving argument concerns accounts and financial liability. No verdict is recorded.
The speech gives no year; Alexander dates the trial between 76 and 68 BC (Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC, no. 166).
The speech gives no year, and dates of 76, 68 and 66 BC have been proposed; Alexander places the trial between 76 and 68 (Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC, no. 166). The list of speeches files it under 76.
Cicero recalls having been quaestor in Sicily and represents that office as the origin of Sicilian confidence in him as a protector.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
The office is first-person testimony; the claim that all Sicilians retained a pleasant and lasting memory is an advocacy claim. This passage does not specify Lilybaeum.
At the opening of the Divinatio, Cicero portrays himself as a long-serving defender who has harmed nobody, then promises to explain why he should now be preferred as prosecutor.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
This is persuasive self-presentation to a tribunal selecting a prosecutor; it is not a neutral census of his legal career or the trial verdict against Verres. The selected sentence does not explicitly say that he had never prosecuted before; laeserim neminem belongs to his ethical self-presentation.
Cicero reports Sicilians saying that Verres had stripped their communities even of sacred images and that three years of rule had endangered the province’s survival.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
These allegations are mediated through Cicero’s indirect speech. Their presence establishes what he represents the petitioners as saying, not independent verification of every accusation.
Plutarch represents Cicero as defeating attempts to delay the Verres proceedings by bringing forward witnesses and asking the judges to vote instead of relying on lengthy speeches.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
This is a compressed later narrative, not a procedural transcript. It must not be used to assert that Cicero delivered no opening speech or that every surviving Verrine was delivered.
The later account reports conviction and contested financial consequences. The selection of Cicero as prosecutor and the eventual case outcome are separate stages.
Plutarch gives no date. The prosecution ran from about January to about October 70 BC (Alexander, Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC, no. 177).
The five Actio II books are not five additional wins. A published accusation cannot supply a verdict for every alleged act.
Chronology entry supported by the cited modern timeline; no ancient passage dossier is attached in Caesar World.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
The date register supplies year-level navigation. No ancient passage has been newly assigned to this event.
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Suetonius 10 describes Caesar’s decorations, games and gladiatorial display during his aedileship; chapter 39 describes later performances, contests and a sea battle.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
These are distinct occasions, not one dated programme. The witness supplies examples rather than a direct measurement of popular support.
Spectacles and public status · 展演与公共身份
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Sallust explains growing support for Cicero’s consular candidacy through reports of conspiracy and contrasts that support with aristocratic resistance to a homo novus.
64 BCE is the conventional election year for the consulship of 63 BCE; the chapter does not state that modern calendar year.
Sallust is a near-contemporary retrospective historian, not an eyewitness cited here. His causal explanation and characterisation of the nobility should be distinguished from the election itself.
Suetonius and Plutarch portray Caesar’s election to the chief pontificate through competition, borrowing and ambition. Sallust’s comparison opposes Caesar’s giving and forgiving to Cato’s severity and integrity.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
Their accounts are later biographies. Reported bribery and recalled remarks require their own evidential qualification. The paired characterization is Sallust’s moral construction, not a complete inventory of either man’s policies.
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
After the Senate supported Cato’s position, Sallust says the consul ordered preparations and personally led Lentulus to prison; Lentulus and four other conspirators were then executed.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
Sallust’s narrative includes explicit moral judgement. This passage describes action but does not settle the constitutional legality of execution without a popular trial.
Nepos praises Atticus’ friendship with Cicero and points to sixteen rolls of correspondence from the consulship to the end as a rich record of political change.
63–43 BCE represents the period Nepos says the collection covers, not the date of Nepos’ composition and not a verified survival boundary for the present Ad Atticum corpus. The current extant collection must not be assigned this span solely on Nepos’ testimony.
Nepos’ description is near-contemporary testimony about a letter collection. His sixteen rolls should not be automatically equated with the arrangement and contents of every surviving manuscript or modern edition. His praise of Cicero’s foresight is an evaluation.
Chronology entry supported by the cited modern timeline; no ancient passage dossier is attached in Caesar World.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
The date register supplies year-level navigation. No ancient passage has been newly assigned to this event.
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Chronology entry supported by the cited modern timeline; no ancient passage dossier is attached in Caesar World.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
The date register supplies year-level navigation. No ancient passage has been newly assigned to this event.
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Cicero reports an acquittal contrary to his testimony and treats it as a political and moral reverse.
The trial was over by 15 May 61 BC (Alexander, Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC, no. 236); Cicero reports the verdict in Att. 1.16.5.
His hostile explanation is not a reasoned judgement and does not make him the prosecutor.
Plutarch presents Caesar’s reconciliation of Pompey and Crassus as politically decisive; Batstone and Damon date the coalition to 60.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
“First triumvirate” is a modern convenient label for a coalition, not the statutory office of the later triumviri.
Caesar, Pompey and Crassus · 三人结盟
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Suetonius reports Caesar’s marriage to Calpurnia, daughter of Piso, and Julia’s marriage to Pompey. Suetonius associates Caesar’s consular public-land proposal with violent obstruction of Bibulus.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
Kinship is attested in the narrative; its political effects require interpretation. Julia’s death in 54 is separately dated by the modern chronology. This is evidence for a narrated conflict, not the surviving full text of the land law. The build does not label a paraphrase as a statute.
Julia, Pompey and Calpurnia · 婚姻关联
Land proposals and violence · 土地立法与暴力
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Writing to his family, Cicero says he left Brundisium on the day before the Kalends of May and was heading through Macedonia toward Cyzicus; he weighs the possibility of return and separation from wife and children.
The text gives a Roman day and month; 58 BCE is the conventional dating of the letter, not a BCE year printed in the sentence.
A stated intended destination does not prove arrival at Cyzicus. The passage should not be turned into a completed travel route. Its emotional language belongs to a particular letter and crisis.
Plutarch says that after Cicero had fled, Clodius introduced a measure of exile and an edict excluding him from fire, water and shelter within five hundred miles of Italy.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
This is Plutarch’s later report of the sequence and terms. The five-hundred-mile figure should remain attributed and not become a precise GIS exclusion boundary.
The commentary form presents an account of achievements. Batstone and Damon relate the seven Caesarian Gallic books to annual campaigns and to other uses of commentarius.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
Genre does not guarantee an unpolished, complete or neutral record.
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Cicero tells Atticus that he left Dyrrachium on the day of the recall law, reached Brundisium, and later entered Rome amid crowds and applause that accompanied him to the Capitol.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
The travel sequence is first-person testimony; claims about nearly universal enthusiasm are Cicero’s representation of his reception, not a measured public-opinion result.
Plutarch presents Caesar’s reconciliation of Pompey and Crassus as politically decisive; Batstone and Damon date the coalition to 60.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
“First triumvirate” is a modern convenient label for a coalition, not the statutory office of the later triumviri.
Caesar, Pompey and Crassus · 三人结盟
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
A reported unanimous acquittal. Cicero presents consensus as politically valuable and his own service as exemplary. The speech supplies a rationale for protective force; the letter does not say the jurors adopted it.
Q. fr. 2.3.5 dates the accusation to a. d. iiii Idus Febr., 10 February 56 BC. Q. fr. 2.4.1 dates the acquittal, and the editions differ on the day: a. d. v Idus Martias, 11 March, in Purser’s text; a. d. ii Id. Mart., 14 March, in Shackleton Bailey’s, the day given by Alexander, Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC, no. 271.
Causa names the case or the cause; the word alone establishes no binding or informal precedent. Andrew M. Riggsby reads the letter as Cicero presenting the acquittal as an informal precedent (“Did the Romans Believe in Their Verdicts?”, Rhetorica 15 (1997) 239); the jurors’ own reasons are not recorded.
Caesar narrates efforts to end his command and frames the crisis through his own rights and the conduct of opponents.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
His position is not an impartial statement of the law or the only contemporary assessment.
Imperium and the command dispute · 统帅权争议
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Suetonius reports Caesar’s marriage to Calpurnia, daughter of Piso, and Julia’s marriage to Pompey.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
Kinship is attested in the narrative; its political effects require interpretation. Julia’s death in 54 is separately dated by the modern chronology.
Julia, Pompey and Calpurnia · 婚姻关联
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
An acquittal Cicero opposed: 32 votes to condemn out of 70, according to his letter. He explains declining the prosecution and identifies himself as a witness.
The verdict was given on 23 October 54 BC (Alexander, Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC, no. 296); Cicero reports it in Q. fr. 3.4.1, dated by Shackleton Bailey to the following day.
This proceeding is separate from the later repetundae trial, in which Cicero defended Gabinius. In this letter the conviction on repetundae is still a forecast.
Dio reports conviction with Cicero as counsel. The earlier letter anticipates this repetundae proceeding; the two trials end differently, in acquittal and then conviction.
The hearing to choose the prosecutor (divinatio) was held on 12 October 54 BC; Alexander, Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC, no. 303, notes the question whether the trial ran on into 53.
Dio’s account of bribery and popular pressure is his explanation; his account of Cicero’s role at the earlier trial is challenged by the contemporary letters.
Plutarch presents Caesar’s reconciliation of Pompey and Crassus as politically decisive; Batstone and Damon date the coalition to 60.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
“First triumvirate” is a modern convenient label for a coalition, not the statutory office of the later triumviri.
Caesar, Pompey and Crassus · 三人结盟
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Caesar identifies Vercingetorix as Celtillus’ son and narrates his mobilization of dependents and opposition within the Arvernian elite. Caesar says a tribunician proposal had allowed him to seek office while absent, and makes its later restriction part of his complaint.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
The account is the opponent’s narrative; it does not provide a complete Arvernian political history. Permission, expiration of command and immunity from prosecution must be investigated separately; this passage alone does not resolve the legal controversy.
Vercingetorix and mobilization · 维钦托里克斯
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
A defence loss is reported by later narratives. The famous written speech and the performance at trial must be distinguished.
Dio and Plutarch give no date. Milo was charged on 26 March 52 BC and tried in early April (Alexander, Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC, no. 309).
The narratives do not allow a controlled attribution of the defeat to Cicero’s performance alone.
In a report to Cato, Cicero claims to have taken Pindenissum after a fifty-seven-day siege, accepted hostages from neighbouring Tebarani and assigned winter-quarter arrangements to his brother Quintus.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
This is a commander’s self-report seeking favourable assessment. Its characterisation of inhabitants and insistence on no cost to allies require scrutiny; it does not identify the site securely on a modern map.
Suetonius distinguishes Caesar’s two commentaries from the continuations and names Hirtius for the last Gallic book. The reader labels Books 1–7 as Caesar and Book 8 as Hirtius.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
Ancient attribution and modern reconstruction are distinct. The precise composition and publication history remains debated.
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Plutarch reports that Cicero received Cilicia by lot and a military command, with instructions also concerning Ariobarzanes in Cappadocia.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
The later narrative supplies troop totals, but this claim records the office and regional mandate without treating those totals as independently verified. Ancient administrative Cilicia does not equal a modern polygon.
Caesar presents the threatened tribunes and their flight as central to the crisis; Russell explains the office’s sacrosanctity, auxilium and veto in political practice. Plutarch dramatizes Caesar’s advance into Italy. Riggsby contrasts the Rubicon in later accounts with Caesar’s own presentation.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
Caesar’s defence of tribunician rights is a partisan account of the 49 crisis, not a judicial ruling on every action. Narrative staging is not independent proof of a precisely timed scene. The timeline displays the conventional year 49, without calendar conversion.
Tribunician protection and veto · 护民官保护与否决
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Caesar narrates Lentulus Spinther’s request to be spared at Corfinium and presents his own explanation of the campaign.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
A particular narrative of sparing an opponent does not establish universal clemency or transfer directly to a later trial.
Safety at Corfinium · 科尔菲尼乌姆的安全保证
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Cicero confides to Atticus that Pompey’s flight and conduct repelled him, yet attachment to Pompey returned; he describes dread of the exceptionally cruel war he anticipated.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
This records uncertainty at the time of writing, not a fixed policy for the whole war. Later decisions should not be projected backward into the letter.
Plutarch says Cicero sailed to Pompey after Caesar departed for Spain and reports Cato criticising that choice as less useful than remaining neutral at home.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
The movement and Cato’s alleged reasoning are a later biographical report. The speech attributed to Cato is not a surviving contemporary transcript.
Chronology entry supported by the cited modern timeline; no ancient passage dossier is attached in Caesar World.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
The date register supplies year-level navigation. No ancient passage has been newly assigned to this event.
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Plutarch says Cicero missed the battle of Pharsalus through illness, refused a proposed command afterward, and eventually stayed at Brundisium awaiting Caesar.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
The reported illness and confrontation after the battle are later narrative details. This does not justify describing Cicero as having fought at Pharsalus.
Chronology entry supported by the cited modern timeline; no ancient passage dossier is attached in Caesar World.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
The date register supplies year-level navigation. No ancient passage has been newly assigned to this event.
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Suetonius reports payments to veterans, land allotments and distributions of corn, oil and money to the people. Suetonius describes regulating the year by the sun, intercalation and the insertion of additional months in the reform year.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
Amounts belong to this witness and edition. No modern currency or purchasing-power equivalence is asserted. The timeline adopts conventional historical years. It does not silently convert pre-reform calendar days to Julian or Gregorian equivalents.
Soldiers, land and public gifts · 军队、土地与馈赠
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
A speech addressed to Caesar, available by numbered section in both readers.
Speech year inherited from Cicero World’s career register. The introductory section does not independently establish the year.
The two displays are the same work, not independent witnesses. The speech and any linked trial record are separate source entries, not two historical events or two outcomes.
A speech addressed to Caesar, available by numbered section in both readers.
Speech year inherited from Cicero World’s career register. The introductory section does not independently establish the year.
The two displays are the same work, not independent witnesses. The speech and any linked trial record are separate source entries, not two historical events or two outcomes.
Cicero frames his appeal as mercy. Plutarch reports Caesar releasing Ligarius: a favourable result in a distinct decision setting.
Neither the speech nor Plutarch dates the hearing. Gotoff places it in the first of the two intercalary months inserted between November and December 46 BC (Harold C. Gotoff, Cicero’s Caesarian Speeches: A Stylistic Commentary, Chapel Hill 1993, xxxvii).
Caesar decided the case himself; Plutarch’s account of his emotions is a later report.
Cicero explains renewed philosophical work through the loss of room for counsel under one-man rule. He says that during his earlier public career he had time for philosophical reading but no leisure for writing philosophy.
46–44 BCE is a conventional interval for the late philosophical programme; De officiis itself is conventionally dated to 44 BCE.
This is the retrospective justification of a philosophical project. It neither dates every work nor proves that all earlier writing ceased during office. The text’s judgement that no republic remained is Cicero’s political judgement.
Chronology entry supported by the cited modern timeline; no ancient passage dossier is attached in Caesar World.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
The date register supplies year-level navigation. No ancient passage has been newly assigned to this event.
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Cicero tells Servius Sulpicius that the domestic consolation once available after political losses has been taken away and that neither home nor public life now relieves his grief.
45 BCE is the conventional date of this consolation exchange after Tullia’s death; no BCE year appears in the selected section.
The letter’s context is Tullia’s death, but this section does not itself name her. It gives his expression of loss, not a clinical diagnosis or a complete causal account of his writing.
A speech addressed to Caesar, available by numbered section in both readers.
Speech year inherited from Cicero World’s career register. The introductory section does not independently establish the year.
The two displays are the same work, not independent witnesses. The speech and any linked trial record are separate source entries, not two historical events or two outcomes.
Suetonius and Plutarch report the dictatorship for life and connect extraordinary honours with the crisis of Caesar’s rule.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
The biographies evaluate the honours differently. “Emperor” in the old English translation of Suetonius is not a sufficient definition of Republican imperator.
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
Suetonius narrates a coordinated attack in the Senate meeting and qualifies the saying addressed to Brutus as something some authors reported. Suetonius reports Octavius as principal heir and testamentary adoptee and records bequests to the Roman people.
Conventional scholarly chronology; year/range granularity.
The Greek saying is not a secure last utterance. Exact wording and details of the attack vary across narratives. The surviving text reports a will; the graph distinguishes testamentary adoption from marriage and blood descent.
Octavius and the will · 屋大维与遗嘱
Batstone and Damon, Caesar’s Civil War (2006), timeline, pp. 173–177.
At the beginning of the First Philippic, Cicero recalls urging that past discord be erased and invoking the Athenian example in the Senate’s meeting at the Temple of Tellus.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
This is Cicero’s retrospective account of his position after Caesar’s death, embedded in a later speech. It is not evidence that he took part in the assassination.
Plutarch describes Cicero’s killing after he extended his neck from a litter, followed by the severing of his head and hands on Antony’s orders; he links the hands to the Philippics.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
This is a later biographical account. Its reference to Cicero being in his sixty-fourth year must not be silently rendered as sixty-four completed years. The section does not give 7 December or name Formiae. Sections 48.1–3 identify Herennius as the killer and Popillius as a tribune with the party; their roles should not be conflated.
Plutarch says Antony ordered Cicero’s head and hands displayed above the ship beaks on the speaking platform at Rome, and frames the spectacle as an image of Antony’s character.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
The location and act are reported in later biography; Plutarch’s claim about what Romans thought is narratorial interpretation, not a survey of witnesses.
Appian says he saw the property near Caieta associated with Cicero’s death. He transmits a killing story naming Laenas, including the severed head and one hand and their display at the rostra.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
Appian’s personal inspection concerns a place visited long afterward, not eyewitness access to the killing. Appian names Laenas as killer; Plutarch names Herennius as killer and Popillius as an accompanying tribune (48.1–3). Appian’s one hand also differs from Plutarch’s hands. These are differences between preserved narratives; their underlying independence is not established.
Appian, Bellum civile Civil Wars 4.19–20 (local TEI 4.4.19–20)
After recounting a punishment of Philologus for betrayal, Plutarch says some historians tell it this way but that Cicero’s freedman Tiro does not mention Philologus’ betrayal at all.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
The competing histories are not preserved here as independent documents. Tiro’s silence, as reported by Plutarch, is a limit on the tradition, not proof that the betrayal or punishment could not have happened. Plutarch reports silence about the betrayal; he does not say that Tiro expressly denied either event.
Cassius Dio reports Antony ordering prominent display of Cicero’s head and right hand, then adds a story of Fulvia abusing the head and piercing the tongue with hairpins.
Conventional historical chronology used for navigation; the BCE year is not explicitly supplied by this cited passage.
This late historical anecdote must remain attributed to Dio. Its vividness does not provide independent corroboration, and it should not be silently merged into Plutarch’s account.