Brutus: The Noble Conspirator
by Kathryn Tempest
Yale University
Press, 2017
Both a biography of Brutus and a study of how he has been
presented in literary works from his time to the present.
Marcus Junius Brutus (c.85
– 42 BC), later Servilius Caepio Brutus
Challenges of a biography of Brutus
Brutus has been a controversial figure through the ages,
starting with his own time. Some of the earliest references to him evidently
treated him with respect. While the works of Titus Livius, Gaius Asinius Pollio,
or Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus that cover Brutus have not survived, mentions of their passages
referring to Brutus reveal the conspirators against Julius Caesar were regarded
in a positive light. While Plutarch’s biography of Brutus paints a glowing
picture, we have to keep in mind the author’s concern, which was drawing
moralistic lessons in the comparisons of key historical figures. Plutarch’s
pairing of Brutus with Dion, who overthrew the tyrant Dionysus II of Syracus in
the 4th century BC, highlights the author’s praise for men who put
Platonic ideals into action. Criticisms
of Brutus and the conspirators appear early, too, with charges of parricide and
banditry common. The letters between Cicero and Brutus and other letters of
Cicero’s that speak of Brutus help provide a portrait of the conspirator, but
also have to be weighed against the concerns and agendas behind the correspondence.
Tempest’s approach presents the many points of view regarding Brutus in order
to let the reader arrive at their own evaluation of the man.
“As we go in search of Brutus, this book will take an
approach that combines history and historiography , in order to examine what we
can learn not just about his life, but about how that life has been recorded
and transmitted from antiquity to the present day.” (11)
“But Brutus, we are told, was not accused even by his
enemies of such a departure from his principles; nay, Antony at least, in the
hearing of many, declared that in his opinion Brutus was the only conspirator
against Caesar who was impelled by the splendour and by what seemed to him the
nobility of the enterprise, whereas the rest banded together against the man
because they envied and hated him.”
From Plutarch’s Parallel
Lives
The Life of Brutus: 29.7
Chapter 1
Brutus tried to shape how he was viewed, not just a “victim”
of others for his reputation.
In Roman history/legend, his ancestor Lucius Brutus had
deposed the last king of Rome and helped usher in the Republic era. Such a
legendary ancestor could help Brutus’ career and aid in his self-promotion and
defense. On his mother’s side he could boast the ancestor Servilius Ahala,
killer of the (alleged) aspiring tyrant Spurius Maelius in 439BC.
Although little known of Brutus’ early life, Tempest sets
the scene for what a son of the nobility would have experienced in Rome, Athens,
and Rhodes during his studies there. Also, she examines likely influences that
would have shaped his thinking during these years.
Pressure to achieve at level of forbearers’ reputations.
Brutus may have been privileged, but he faced his own challenges (father’s
early death) and political challenges (Sulla’s changes in the laws, Pompey’s
and Caesar’s domination in politics, for examples).
“From these opening two chapters, we have seen how Brutus
used his ancestry and name to forge a political identity, and how his wealth
and education enabled him to accumulate both the social and cultural capital
needed to succeed in political life.” [54]
“All in all, then, we should see Brutus not just as
eloquent, cultured and an outspoken defender of the res publica, but as an active manipulator with his own interests,
an independent operator who knew what he wanted and how to get it.” [54]
After the murder of Julius Caesar, much of Brutus’ life was
viewed with that in mind. He has ceased to be a historical figure and one from
mythology instead.
In civil war between Caesar and Pompey, Brutus chose Pompey,
despite Julius Caesar’s overtures (wanting to avenge the deaths of M. Brutus
and others. His role in Pompey’s camp, though, is uncertain. (60-62)
After Pompey’s loss at Pharsalus (Aug 48 BC), Brutus turns
to Julius Caesar. Uncertain where Brutus was in 48-7 BC, when JC met Cleopatra,
that long affair, and JC’s defeat of Pharaceses II in Zela. (65)
How much of Brutus’ actions around this time reflect an
independent streak? Or opportunism? Or ploys based on his limited but
potentially great political power?
[66] …”Brutus’ whole career displays a remarkable knack for
political side-switching…” Can we assume
consistent principles then? Or does his principles precipitate the switching?
[68] Important to Brutus about his reputation: virtue,
familial devotion
KT positions Brutus as a bridge-builder between Caesar’s
camp and those he had pardoned, such as Cicero (after Cato’s death; see page
74). It is difficult to tell exactly given so missing documents mentioned in
other writers work (contemporary and later).
Marriage as political maneuvering. Brutus divorces his first
wife to marry Porcia, a daughter of Cato. Was this to try to unite or at least
force to “live together” opposing sides? Cato: republic. Brutus’ mother
Servilia: Caesar’s former lover.
Caesar had been calling for reconciliation with former
enemies (such as pardoning the ones he didn’t kill)…Brutus seems to be acting
in accordance.
Chapter 4: Thinking about Tyrannicide
Influences on Brutus joining/leading a plot against Caesar:
Caesar’s actions. While Caesar took many popular actions,
there were many unpopular ones, too, particularly in the political realm. His
taking of the title dictator perpetuo
seems to not just acknowledge but cement the desire of tyranny (despite the
ambiguity of perpetuo, which can mean
either ‘uninterrupted’ or ‘for life’).
Brutus’ family history, which the graffiti mentioned would
throw in his face every day that his ancestors had rid Rome of tyrants. Having
emphasized this background in his own political career, he can’t very well
ignore it now. Having accepted favors from Caesar (such as governorship of
Cisalpine Gaul), his reputation appears to have been compromised.
Peer pressure: cries of libertas may mean freedom for the people, it also
meant the ability (right?) for the leading classes to participate in the spoils
of governing. There is also the “Porcia legend” that grew about his wife,
goading Brutus for retribution (father Cato, husband Bibuius).
Cassius: leader? Co-conspirator? Follower? His involvement
seems to go against his Epicurean background, although jeopardizing his own
happiness to help others in need would be consistent. Did he feel left out in
seeing others’ political rise (people like Brutus)? Cassius did show some
pushback against the honors given to Caesar at the end of 45 BC. Regardless of
which one first approached the other, it seems likely that a plot against
Caesar would have been very different without the cooperation of these two.
For Brutus personally, he had achieved office, but not
honorably…it had been gifts from Caesar. How long would he be dependent on the whims of
Caesar? Brutus was dependent on Caesar and was participating in his regime. He
had sworn an oath to protect Caesar’s life. If Caesar was a tyrant, Brutus was
aiding and abetting a tyranny. Was murder, especially of a friend and
benefactor, the best solution? Apparently Brutus seemed to think so.
If you can access a copy of “The Ethics of Brutus and Cassius”
by David Sedley, please do so since it provides a more detailed look at the
philosophy used to justify the assassination.
As Tempest points out, such philosophical bases may not have
been the impetus behind Brutus’ participation in the conspiracy, but it would
help seal his commitment to do so. [97]
Once the conspiracy begins, who should be killed? It seems
Brutus was insistent on only murdering Caesar so their actions could be viewed
as just. Thus Antony was to be spared.
[109-110] Conspirators conflated the concern of Caesar
seeking to be monarch with that of tyranny as criticized by the Greeks, and so
misreading what the populace wanted. They didn’t want the killing of Caesar,
simply the return to the rule of law they had enjoyed beforehand…a major reason
there was not popular support for the assassination.
Hindsight clouds our judgment. Because of the great number
of extant letters of Cicero Tempest concentrates on what is in the letters as
well as what is between the lines in order to understand how the assassination
was received by Brutus’ contemporaries (while also providing an appendix
comparing the major early historians’ accounts).
The conspirators seem not to have thought too far ahead,
about what would happen after (and if) their plot succeeded. Antony remained
aloof from them, then began his opposition to them. The senate was split on
whether to avenge Caesar’s death or honor the “liberators.”
A compromise was reached…the assassins were pardoned,
Caesar’s appointments for the next two years would go as planned, and his acts
would be carried out (including grants of land to army veterans). There are
many ironies here. Caesar’s actions, in ignoring the law and precedents, was a
major reason the conspirators had acted. Yet they would benefit from his
appointments being carried out, as several of them would have influential
posts. They would have to wait for free elections.
Cicero repeatedly harps on the conspirators’ lack of
proactive intervention in the first 48 hours after the assassination. Even if
the conspirators had followed Cicero’s request to have immediately called a
meeting of the Senate, they could have only done so much. As it was, within a
month of Caesar’s death, most, if not all, of the assassins had left Rome. By
failing to seize the initiative immediately after the assassination, they were
more at the mercy of what followed from the Caesarians.
Atticus had held that a funeral should not be held for
Caesar. Because there was one, Antony helped shape the opinion of Caesar and
his assassins, a turning point against the conspirators.
Antony appears to have pushed through measures that benefitted
him and the Caesarians on the pretext that they had been intended by Caesar,
and thus covered by the compromise that allowed the dictator’s mandates to be
carried out.
Antony leaves Rome to shore up support with troops loyal to
Caesar. Octavian returns to Rome in the meantime and stakes his claim to
Caesar’s inheritance and plans events to honor Caesar. This pushes Antony to
have to decide…abide by the amnesty, working with Caesar’s assassins, or work
with Octavian and honor Caesar.
“[O]pinions in how Caesar’s rule was to be remembered
represented a new battlefield…” [128]
Antony returns to Rome with army veterans, which causes
enough concern with Brutus and Cassius write to him about their concerns with
what is going on, and why they don’t feel safe returning to Rome. Antony is
also seeking control of both Gaul provinces, a direct affront to Decimus. While
Brutus and Cassius did not immediately seek to profit individually from
Caesar’s death, with the level of fear in Rome and the changing political landscape
it would be hard to convince everyone of that. Since they were still away from
Rome, it was difficult to gauge their intentions.
Lots of political jockeying over routine events and annual
spectacles, each side trying to outmaneuver the other and present their
politically correct version.
However, with Antony in Rome, he had access to politics and
the public that the conspirators did not have.
Things weren’t smooth for Antony, though, as his struggle
with Octavian escalated through many political and public fronts. While Antony
seemed to have sizable military backing, Octavian was winning the hearts of the
Roman people. Despite the enmity between the two (Octavian and Antony), they
made a public display of reconciliation. The big losers would be the
conspirators.
[136] Friction between Octavian and Antony. Oct. may have
public sympathy, but Ant. Had soldiers and direct access to people of Rome…and
the Senate. Oct. held games for Caesar, following Brutus’ successful fames of
Apollo.
After competing edicts to the people, they eventually had a
public reconciliation.
Brutus’ and Cassius’ public edict annoyed Antony, and
impacted the courtesy he had been extending toward them. Campaign on all sides
to influence public opinion. Brutus and Cassius painted themselves as
Liberators, not assassins. On the opposing side they asked see what Julius
Caesar’s clemency got him? Now we’re in chaos and fear because of it.
Cicero: did not condemn the assassination, but did criticize
Brutus’ handling of it afterwards (armchair QB)
{141] “Yet, given the
intensity with which Cicero later attacked Antony, it is easy to forget just
how inactive he had been in the Liberators’ cause up until now. When Brutus
raised his bloody dagger and called upon Cicero by name, he did not respond; at
least, there is no response that we hear of. He had made his support of their
deed publicly known, and he had negotiated and addressed the people on the
matter of the amnesy agreement. But he had for the most part criticised Brutus’
handling of the affair: he blamed the poor planning and believed that Antony
should have been killed too. He regretted that Brutus and Cassius had not
summoned the Senate immediately and complained that they had allowed Caesar a
public burial. He thought that Brutus’ oratory was lacklustre and inefficient
in winning over the people. At the same time, he pinned the future of the res publica on their shoulders
alone. ‘The deed was carried out with
the courage of men and the policy of children’, is one of his more damning
verdicts.
On nearly
all these points, Atticus disagreed with him; a reminder that, however
compelling and clear Cicero’s voice can be, we should always seek to engage in
the debate with him. So what could and should Brutus have done? Caesar’s assassination
had seemingly failed to restore freedom. Does that mean the dictator should
have been left to live out his days and conduct the Parthian campaign on which
he was set to embark? Even Cicero blushed to admit it: ‘The Ides of March do
not please me. He would never have come back; fear would not have compelled us
to confirm all his measures…he was
not a master to run away from.’
Yet, here and elsewhere, Cicero has
underestimated the extent of the problem; as had Brutus, Cassius, Decimus and
the rest of the Liberators. For, as we have seen repeatedly throughout this
chapter, Caesar was more than a man and, dominant though he was, there were far
more players batting on his side than we sometimes remember, all with far too
many vested interests. In other words, his celebrity, popularity with the
veterans and plebs, and the movement Caesar spurred in Roman political life
were far greater than the force of the assassins’ daggers. As the disagreements
between Cicero and Atticus reveal, from the differing perspectives of two
friends and contemporaries, each with his own view of Brutus, there is no
simple answer to the question of why the conspiracy failed. Fear, anger,
jealousy and pride have all played their part in this narrative, as indeed they
did for a large part of republican history. But one thing appears certain: the
real enemy was not Caesar, but Caesarism—and that was proving far more
difficult to stamp out.”
[143] [o]ne of the paradoxical elements inherent in the
republican system was that, although in theory it heavily guarded against
monarchical ambitions, its leading men strove to outperform each other in the
accumulation of wealth, glory, and dignitas.
Nice little tidbits, such as Dio’s comment that statues were
erected to Brutus and Cassius in Athens, alongside other tyrannicides. Recent
archeological finds may support his
claim.
Brutus and Cassius leave Rome for lowly (to them)
administrative posts. As Brutus heads to Macedonia (although his designated
province was Crete), Cassius had been assigned the grain commission in Sicily. Cicero
makes Brutus sound compliant, willing to carry out the task. Cassius had
supposedly been defiant, wanting to head to Syria instead, probably to set up a
base there from which to defend/attack as necessary or wanted, seemingly more
set on war. Two different conspirators with two different plans, and had been.
Tempest reminds the reader that though the two had agreed on assassinating
Caesar, they differed on other major points (like whether Antony should be assassinated).
As Brutus heads east, he finds himself feted by
anti-monarchical / anti-tyrannical mood in Athens from a younger generation of
Romans finishing their studies in Greece. In an aside from Plutarch, it appears
Brutus may have immersed himself in literary/philosophical pursuits while in
Athens.
[146] “The role of philosophy as a tool for reviving
republicanism and recruiting for war should not be consequently overlooked in
piecing together an overview of Brutus’ activities in Athens. For, when we
remember the role of philosophical discourse in the fomenting of the plot
against Caesar, it seems arbitrary to separate these two spheres of activity in
the latter part of 44 BC. “
Speculative, but extremely possible since that seems to
coordinate with his activities before the assassination on civil war, etc.
[148-9] Brutus’ masterful play to take control of rich
eastern provinces by controlling Macedonia. Some quaestors returning to Rome
transferred money to Brutus instead.
[149] Brutus usurped control of provinces that had not been
allocated to him and was now the commander of a sizeable force of men.
[150] The Senate voted to grant Brutus the power he already
realized. The Senate’s vote, though, was unconstitutional.
Ebb and flow of power
Cicero’s return coincided with Octavian’s increase in power.
Was Oct. the lesser of two evils? Cicero
clearly hated Antony.
Decimus Brutus, governor of Cisalpine Gaul, refuses to hand
over power of Cisalpine Gaul to Mark Antony.
[156] Cicero advocated war against Antony. “Brutus feared
Octavian and he still hoped that a peace with Antony might be achieved.”
Brutus hoped to make the republican base stronger, which
should (in theory) offset ambitions of people like Octavian and Antony.
[158] Brutus’ letter explaining why he hadn’t killed Gaius
Antony. —The Senate had not declared it OK.— ((How does this carry over to
Caesar’s assassination? Maintaining republic vs. defending it? No order to kill
Caesar. Picking and choosing republic support when convenient?))
[159-60] Antony defeated at Mutina, declared a public enemy.
Decimus saved.
Tempest questions everything, including sequence of letters.
Dolabella, Antony’s co-consul, sets his eye on Syria. Brutus
charged to attack Dolabella in east instead of returning to Italy against
Antony, whom he probably thought was defeated and out of the picture after
Mutina.
[169] Flaw in Brutus’ plan according to Cicero: ‘[H]e had
placed his trust in men who were not to be trusted.”
Cicero’s backing of Octavian was similarly misplaced.
Octavian led his troops toward Rome, had himself and Quintus Pedius (a
relative) made consuls, and promptly sought revenge against Caesar’s assassins.
[170] Octavian and Pedius revoke the hostis decree against Antony and Lepidus.
On 27 November 43BC, Mark Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus were
“granted the ‘impereum’ of a consul for five years.”
Now there was open civil war, with the proscription list of
enemies. Terror. Murder. Cicero murdered.
Recommendation: Flower 2010 Roman Republics
Gaius Antonius finally executed (Mark Antony’s brother)
after several attempts of inciting mutiny in Brutus’ ranks
[179] Three defenders of res
publica: Brutus, Cassius, Sentus Pompeius
[181] Their defense of the Republic, though, was just as
brutal in the Eastern territories as was their opponents’ in Rome. Their
“defense” of the republic was “remembered as a shocking and aggressive assault
on the Greek east.”
[181-2] Mass suicide at Xanthus (Lycia) reflects badly on
Brutus (you call that liberating?), but may be more of a reflection on Roman
rule
[185] Cassius fares worse in history than Brutus (and that’s
saying something). There is a “good” Brutus and a “bad” Brutus in the
historical records, depending on the author.
Mark Antony’s marketing sought to conflate Brutus and
Cassius’ actions in the East, making both equally bad. Brutus could also be
seen as the noble, while Cassius seen as disreputable. The battle for how
history would remember Brutus began while he was still alive.
[190] Lepidus (Brutus’ brother-in-law and governor of parts
of Hispania and Gaul) backs Antony
[202] Cassius’ suicide after first battle of Phillipi…mixed
results…
Brutus’ men route Octavian, but they stop to plunder instead
of pressing the point. Antony’s men, though, are successful against Cassius’
troops. In the confusion, Cassius kills self (or has Pindarus do it)
[203-4] Brutus, in order to please soldiers, makes promises
Plutarch finds abhorrent (loot Sparta and Thessalonica, which had supplied
Octavian/Antony’s side)
Despite wanting to outlast Oct/A’s troops (and not hearing
of their supply ships being destroyed), defections of Brutus’ troops caused him
to initiate 2nd battle
[206] Casualties of 2nd battle not recorded, but
the scale was huge in “current and late reflections”
Virgil’s Georgics—bewildered
that such a thing could happen with the god’s blessing
[207] Brutus escapes, flees
[208-9] Differences in Brutus’ body’s in treatment in death
as varied as his later reputation. Antony showed respect … Octavian wanted
“Brutus’ severed head to be sent back to Rome and there cast at the feet of
Caesar’s statue.”
Bad Brutus: conspired and killed a man “constitutionally
elected,” plundered provinces in the east, fought battles against succeeding
leaders of the res publica..
[210] “As we have repeatedly seen throughout this chapter,
the wrangle over Brutus’ reputation generated competing sides to the man, as
his friends and enemies alike tried to shape the memory he was to leave behind;
already at his death, different ‘endings’ were being written for Brutus’ life.
But these competing narratives in the historical material are a blessing rather
than a curse. The legend of Brutus, the complexities of his character, and the
questions that surround his legacy are all significantly enriched when we trace
them back to the beginning, as we shall attempt to do in the next chapter, to
the life of Brutus and how he was received by his contemporaries.”
[213] “Even though we do not have full access to these works
today, what is clear is that in the years both before and after the
assassination Brutus had singled himself out as a man who acted upon an ideal
code of conduct, one which he had partly inherited, parted shaped for himself.
Hence his reputation as a man of virtue first and foremost stemmed from the
works in which he engaged in the philosophical and political debates of his
times. But Brutus had also engaged in other literary activities, which give a
further insight into his character.” Poetry, summaries of history, debates
(came across as exceptional)
Early questions focus on Brutus’ lack of gratitude—Caesar
spared his life. Good of country vs. personal…what wins out? What should he
have done?
Dilemmas faced when a ruler is bad, or perceived to want to
do bad things…how are they to be handled? Is tyrannicide justified? Addressed
by Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Shakespeare, and many others.
[219] Ronald Syme in 1939’s The Roman Revolution: “to judge Brutus because he failed is simply
to judge from the results.”
[232] Quote: The more
we look at the evidence for Brutus’ life and how it shaped his later legend,
the less sure we may feel at making definitive statements about the historical
man: a detailed study only demonstrates that there were many sides to Brutus,
and that he drew a wide variety of responses from those who knew him.
Undoubtedly an eminent man
Politician
and orator: made a name for himself
Philosopher:
only fragments survive, but established a reputation for being moral
Words and
deeds after the assassination: was he different? Or was that a return to being
a champion of freedom?
Questions that cannot be fully answered today. Final
judgment: to us today, like those of his time, an enigma.
No comments:
Post a Comment