Scanned text contains errors.
the Dioscuri (Cic. pro Scaur. 2. §§ 45, 46, with the commentary of Asconius), which point to L. Dalmaticus as her father. She was first married to M. Aemilius Scaurus, consul in 115, by whom she had three children, the eldest of whom was the M. Scaurus defended by Cicero (Cic. L c. pro Sent. 47 ; Plut. Sail. 33, Pomp. 9 ; Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 15. s. 24. § 8), and afterwards to the dictator Sulla, who always treated her with the greatest respect. When she fled from Cinna and Carbo in Italy to her husband's camp before Athens, she was insulted from the walls of the city by Aristion and the Athenians, for which they paid dearly at the capture of the city. She fell ill in 81, during the celebration of Sulla's triumphal feast; and as her recovery was hopeless, Sulla for religious reasons sent her a bill of divorce, and had her removed from his house, but honoured her memory by a splendid funeral. (Plut. Sull. 6, 13, 22, 35.) She purchased a great deal of the property confiscated in the proscriptions. (Plin. Z. c.)
6. The wife of P. Lentulus Spinther the younger, whose father was consul in b. c. 57. She was a woman of loose character, and intrigued with Dolabella, Cicero's son-in-law (Cic. ad Ait. xi. 23), and also, as it appears, with Aesopus, the son of the actor. (Hor. Serin, ii. 3. 239.) She was divorced by her husband in 45. (Cic. ad Ait. xii. 52, xiii. 7.) Her father is not known.
CAECILIA GENS, plebeian; for the name of T. Caecilius in Livy (iv. 7, comp. 6), the patrician consular tribune in b. c. 444, is a false reading for T. Cloelius. A member of this gens is mentioned in history as early as the fifth century b. c.; but the first of the Caecilii who obtained the consulship was L. Caecilius Metellus Denter, in 284. The family of the Metelli became from this time one of the most distinguished in the state. Like other Roman families in the later times of the republic, they traced their origin to a mythical personage, and pretended that they were descended from Cae-culus, the founder of Praeneste [caeculus], or Caecas, the companion of Aeneas. (Festus, s. v. Caeculus.} The cognomens of this gens under the republic are bassus, denter, metellus, niger, pinna, rupus, of which the Metelli are the best known : for those whose cognomen is not mentioned, see caecilius.
CAECILIANUS, a senator, punished in A. d. 32 for falsely accusing Cotta. (Tac. Ann. vi. 7.)
CAECILIANUS, a deacon of the church at Carthage,-was chosen bishop of the see in A. d. 311, upon the death of the African primate, Men-surius. The validity of this appointment was impugned by Donatus, stimulated, it is said, by the malicious intrigues of a woman named Lucilla, upon three grounds : 1. That the election had been irregular. 2. That the ordination was null and void, having been performed by Felix, bishop of Apthunga, a traditor, that is, one of those who, in obedience to the edicts of Diocletian, had yielded to the civil power, and delivered up the sacred vessels used in places of worship, and even the Holy Scriptures. 3. That Caecilian had displayed marked hostility towards the victims of the late persecution. These charges were brought under the consideration of an assembly of seventy Numidian bishops, who declared the see vacant, and, proceeding to a new election, made choice of Majorinus. Both parties called upon the praefect Anulinus to interfere, but were referred by him to the emperor,
and accordingly the rival prelates repaired to Rome, each attended by ten leading ecclesiastics of his own faction. The cause was judged by a council composed of three Gallic and fifteen Italian bishops, who met on the 2nd of October, 313, and gave their decree in favour of Caecilian and Felix. An appeal was lodged with Constantine, who agreed to summon a second and more numerous council, which was held at Aries on the 1st of August, 314, when the decision of the council of Rome was con firmed. The struggle was, however, obstinately prolonged by fresh complaints on the part of the Donatists, who, after having been defeated before various tribunals and commissions to which the determination of the dispute was delegated by the supreme government, at length openly refused to submit, or to acknowledge any authority whatever, if hostile to their claims. The formidable schism which was the result of these proceedings is spoken of more fully under donatus. (Optatus, i. 19, &c.) [W. R.]
CAECILIANUS, DOMI'TIUS, an intimate friend of Thrasea, who informed him of his condemnation by the senate in A. D. 67. (Tac. Ann. xvi. 34.)
CAECILIANUS, MA'GIUS, praetor, falsely accused of treason in a. d. 21, was acquitted, and his accusers punished. (Tac. Ann. iii. 37.)
CAECILIUS. 1. Q. caecilius, tribune of the plebs, b. c. 439. (Liv. iv. 16.)
2. Q. caecilius, a Roman knight, the husband
of Catiline's sister, who had taken no part in public affairs, was killed by Catiline himself in the time of Sulla. (Q. Cic. de Petit. Cons. 2; Ascon. in Tog. Cand. p. 84, ed. Orelli.) This is perhaps the same Q. Caecilius who is mentioned in connexion with the trial of P. Gabinius, who was praetor in 89. (Cic. Divinat. 20.) Zumpt remarks, that he can hardly have belonged to the noble family of the Metelli, as Cicero says that he was overborne by the influence and rank of Piso.
3. Q. caecilius, a Roman knight, a friend of L. Lucullus, and the uncle of Atticus, acquired a large fortune by lending money on interest. The old usurer was of such a crabbed temper, that no one could put up with him except his nephew Atticus, who was in consequence adopted by him in his will, and obtained from him a fortune of ten millions of sesterces. He died in b. c. 57. (Nepos, Ait. 5; Cic. adAtt. i. 1, 12, ii. 19, 20, iii. 20.)
4. T. caecilius, a centurion of the first rank (primi pili) in the army of Afranius, was killed at the battle of Ilerda, b. c. 49. (Caes. B. C. i. i. 46.)
L. CAECI'LIUS. We generally find included among the writings of Lactantius a book divided into fifty-two chapters, entitled De Mortibus Per-secutorum, containing an outline of the career of those emperors who displayed active hostility towards the church, an account of the death of each, together with a sketch of the different persecutions from Nero to Diocletian. The object of the narrative is to point out that the signal vengeance of God in every case overtook the enemies of the faith, and to deduce from this circumstance, from the preservation of the new religion amidst all the dangers by which it was surrounded, and all the attacks by which it was assailed, and from its final triumph over its foes, an irresistible argument in favour of its heavenly origin. The work appears from internal evidence to have been composed after the victory of Constantine over Maxentius, and