14 Frederick Warren San ford 



written later than the date of the augural election and later than 

 VIII, 14, as § I of the latter contains the information essential to 

 the understanding of the casual allusion in VITI, 12, i. The only 

 reasonable hypothesis alternative to the one above, that will allow 

 the augural election and Fam. VTII, 14, a later date than the date 

 of VIII, 12, is, that Caelius had, in a letter not preserved to us, 

 informed Cicero of the impending election, of his own support of 

 Antonius, and of Domitius's consequent enmity; or, that VIII, 12, 

 was accompanied by a conuncntariuin that gave the required in- 

 formation. There is no evidence, otherwise, for a lost letter. In 

 respect to a coinmentarium, the item of Domitius's hostility, a 

 matter of personal concern to the writer, is precisely of a sort to 

 elicit an additional word of explanation from Caelius himself, the 

 more so because he employed another to compile the digest of 

 news which he was sending to Cicero from time to time.^^ The 

 absence of such explanation or comment favors the view that the 

 election and Fam. VIII, 14, antedated Fam. VIII, 12. 



Similar evidence is afforded by another line in Fam. VIII, 12, 

 I, in the same sentence with the reference to Domitius's hostility': 

 (Fosteaquam vero comperi eum) . . . velle hoc munusculum 

 deferre Cn. Ponipeio. Caelius's relations with Pompeius are not 

 known to have been distinctly unfriendly before the former de- 

 serted the conservatives in the augural matter. Caelius's clash 

 with Pompeius in connection with the trial of Milo^^ in 52 need 

 not have caused a serious personal breach, any more than Cicero's 

 defense of Milo alienated him and Pompeius. At the same period 

 Caelius gave no uncertain sign of his party loyalty by his tem- 

 porary opposition to the plan to grant Caesar the privilege of can- 

 didacy in absence when he should stand for a second consulship.^'^ 

 In 51 and 50 Caelius seems to have taken no active part in the 

 senate's debates concerning the Gallic provinces, partly, perhaps, 

 owing to his friendship with Curio.^^ On the whole, his letters 

 to Cicero, notwithstanding disparaging allusions to Pompeius and 



'Fam. VIII, I, I. 



' Ascon. in Mil, Or., p. 27- 



' Att. VII, I, 4. 



'Fam. II, 15, 3; VIII, 17, I. 



306 



