B.C. 47, ÆT. 59 yourself understand to have been possible.[1] You say that Oppius has had some talk with you: what he said does not at all disagree with my suspicion about it. But I have no doubt that it would be impossible to persuade that party[2] that their proceedings could have my approval, whatever language I were to hold. However, I will be as moderate as I can. Although what it should matter to me that I incur their odium I don't understand. I perceive that you are prevented by a good reason from coming to see us, and that is a matter of great regret to me. There is no news of Cæsar having left Alexandria; but all agree that no one has come from there either since the 15th of March, and that he has written no letters since the 13th of December. This shews you that there was nothing genuine about that letter of the 9th of February[3]—which would have been quite unimportant, even if it had been genuine. I am informed that L. Terentius has left Africa and come to Pæstum. What his mission is, or how he got out of the country, or what is going on in Africa, I should like to know. For he is said to have been passed out by means of Nasidius. What it all means pray write me word if you discover it. I will do as you say about the ten sestertia. Good-bye.
14 June.
CCCCXXXI (F XIV, 11)
TO TERENTIA (AT ROME)
Brundisium, 14 June
If you are well, I am glad. I am well. Our dear Tullia
reached me on the 12th of June, by whose perfect excel-*
- ↑ Mueller quite alters the complexion of this sentence, reading Pæto for pro ea, and quem ad modum consulenti for quam ad modum consolanti. But there seems no point in a reference to Pætus.
- ↑ The Cæsarians in Rome.
- ↑ See p. 36. Illud de litteris, lit. "the assertion about the letter": it is almost a periphrasis for litteras.
