Part 871

"Was Cæsar, upon the whole, the greatest of men? Dr. Beattie once observed, that if that question were left to be collected from the suffrages already expressed in books, and scattered throughout the literature of all nations, the scale would be found to have turned prodigiously in Cæsar's favor, as against any single competitor; and there is no doubt whatsoever, that even amongst his own countrymen, and his own contemporaries, the same verdict would have been returned, had it been collected upon the famous principle of Themistocles, that he should be reputed the first, whom the greatest number of rival voices had pronounced the second."

_T. De Quincey, The Cæsars, chapter 1._

"The founder of the Roman Empire was a very great man. With such genius and such fortune it is not surprising that he should be made an idol. In intellectual stature he was at least an inch higher than his fellows, which is in itself enough to confound all our notions of right and wrong. He had the advantage of being a statesman before he was a soldier, whereas Napoleon was a soldier before he was a statesman. His ambition coincided with the necessity of the world, which required to be held together by force; and, therefore, his Empire endured for four hundred, or, if we include its Eastern offset, for fourteen hundred years, while that of Napoleon crumbled to pieces in four. But unscrupulous ambition was the root of his character. It was necessary, in fact, to enable him to trample down the respect for legality which still hampered other men. To connect him with any principle seems to me impossible. He came forward, it is true, as the leader of what is styled the democratic party, and in that sense the empire which he founded may be called democratic. But to the gamblers who brought their fortunes to that vast hazard table, the democratic and aristocratic parties were merely rouge and noir. The social and political equity, the reign of which we desire to see, was, in truth, unknown to the men of Cæsar's time. It is impossible to believe that there was an essential difference of principle between one member of the triumvirate and another. The great adventurer had begun by getting deeply into debt, and had thus in fact bound himself to overthrow the republic. He fomented anarchy to prepare the way for his dictatorship. He shrank from no accomplice however tainted, not even from Catiline; from no act however profligate or even cruel. … The noblest feature in Cæsar's character was his clemency. But we are reminded that it was ancient, not modern clemency, when we find numbered among the signal instances of it his having cut the throats of the pirates before he hanged them, and his having put to death without torture (simplici morte punivit) a slave suspected of conspiring against his life. Some have gone so far as to speak of him as the incarnation of humanity. But in the whole history of Roman conquest will you find a more ruthless conqueror? A million of Gauls we are told perished by the sword. Multitudes were sold into slavery. The extermination of the Eburones went to the verge even of ancient licence. The gallant Vercingetorix, who had fallen into Cæsar's hands under circumstances which would have touched any but a depraved heart, was kept by him a captive for six years, and butchered in cold blood on the day of the triumph. The sentiment of humanity was then undeveloped. Be it so, but then we must not call Cæsar the incarnation of humanity. Vast plans are ascribed to Cæsar at the time of his death, and it seems to be thought that a world of hopes for humanity perished when he fell. But if he had lived and acted for another century, what could he have done with those moral and political materials but found, what he did found, a military and sensualist empire. A multitude of projects are attributed to him by writers, who, we must remember, are late, and who make him ride a fairy charger with feet like the hands of a man. Some of these projects are really great, such as the codification of the law, and measures for the encouragement of intellect and science; others are questionable, such as the restoration of commercial cities from which commerce had departed; others, great works to be accomplished by an unlimited command of men and money, are the common dreams of every Nebuchadnezzar. … Still Cæsar was a very great man, and he played a dazzling part, as all men do who come just at the fall of an old system, when society is as clay in the hands of the potter, and found a new system in its place; while the less dazzling task of making the new system work, by probity and industry, and of restoring the shattered allegiance of a people to its institutions, descends upon unlaurelled heads. But that the men of his time were bound to recognise in him a Messiah, to use the phrase of the Emperor of the French, and that those who opposed him were Jews crucifying their Messiah is an impression which I venture to think will in time subside."

_Goldwin Smith, The Last Republicans of Rome (Macmillan's Magazine, April, 1868)._

ALSO IN: _T. Arnold, History of the Later Roman Commonwealth, chapter 9 (volume 2)._

_A. Trollope, Life of Cicero, volume 2, chapter 8._

{2698}

ROME: B. C. 44. After Cæsar's death. Flight of "the Liberators." Mark Antony in power.- Arrival and wise conduct of Cæsar's heir, the young Octavius.

The assassins of Cæsar were not long in discovering that Rome gave no applause to their bloody deed. Its first effect was a simply stupefying consternation. The Senators fled,—the forum and the streets were nearly emptied. When Brutus attempted an harangue his hearers were few and silent. In gloomy alarm, he made haste, with his associates, to take refuge on the heights of the capitol. During the night which followed, a few senators, who approved the assassination—Cicero among the number—climbed the hill and held council with them in their place of retreat. The result was a second attempt made, on the following day, to rouse public feeling in their favor by speeches in the forum. The demonstration was again a failure, and the "liberators," as they wished to be deemed, returned with disappointment to the capitol. Meantime, the surviving consul, who had been Cæsar's colleague for the year, M. Antonius—known more commonly as Mark Antony—had acted with vigor to secure power in his own hands. He had taken possession of the great treasure which Cæsar left, and had acquired his papers. He had come to a secure understanding, moreover, with Lepidus, Cæsar's Master of Horse, who controlled a legion quartered near by, and who really commanded the situation, if his energy and his abilities had been equal to it. Lepidus marched his legion into the city, and its presence preserved order. Yet, with all the advantage in their favor, neither Antony nor Lepidus took any bold attitude against Cæsar's murderers. On the contrary, Antony listened to propositions from them and consented, as consul, to call a meeting of the Senate for deliberation on their act. At that meeting he even advocated what might be called a decree of oblivion, so far as concerned the striking down of Cæsar, and a confirmation of all the acts executed and unexecuted, of the late Imperator. These had included the recent appointment of Brutus, Cassius and other leaders among the assassins to high proconsular commands in the provinces. Of course the proposed measure was acceptable to them and their friends, while Antony, having Cæsar's papers in his possession, expected to gain everything from it. Under cover of the blank confirmation of Cæsar's acts, he found in Cæsar's papers a ground of authority for whatever he willed to do, and was accused of forging without limit where the genuine documents failed him. At the same time, taking advantage of the opportunity that was given to him by a public funeral decreed to Cæsar, he delivered an artful oration, which infuriated the people and drove the bloodstained "liberators" in terror from the city. But in many ways Antonius weakened the strong position which his skilful combinations had won for him. In his undisguised selfishness he secured no friends of his own; he alienated the friends of Cæsar by his calm indifference to the crime of the assassins of Cæsar, while he harvested for himself the fruits of it; above all, he offended and insulted the people by his impudent appropriation of Cæsar's vast hoard of wealth. The will of the slain Imperator had been read, and it was known that he had bequeathed three hundred sesterces—nearly £3 sterling, or $15—to every citizen of Rome. The heir named to the greater part of the estate was Cæsar's favorite grand-nephew (grandson of his younger sister, Julia) Caius Octavius, who became, by the terms of the will, his adopted son, and who was henceforth to bear the name Caius Julius Cæsar Octavianus. The young heir, then but eighteen years of age, was at Apollonia, in Illyria, at the quarters of a considerable force which Cæsar had assembled there. With wonderful coolness and prudence for his age, he declined proposals to lead the army to Rome, for the assertion of his rights, but went quietly thither with a few friends, feeling the public pulse as he journeyed. At Rome he demanded from Antony the moneys which Cæsar had left, but the profligate and reckless consul had spent them and would give no account. By great exertions Octavius raised sufficient means on his own account to pay Cæsar's legacy to the Roman citizens, and thereby he consolidated a popular feeling in his own favor, against Antony, which placed him, at once, in important rivalry with the latter. It enabled him presently to share the possession of power with Antony and Lepidus, in the Second Triumvirate, and, finally, to seize the whole sovereignty which Cæsar intended to bequeath to him.

_C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapters 23-24._

ALSO IN: _G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 34._

ROME: B. C. 44-42. Destruction of the Liberators. Combination of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus. The Second Triumvirate.

Mark Antony's arrangement of peace with the murderers of Cæsar, on the basis of a confirmation in the Senate of all Cæsar's acts, gave to Marcus Brutus the government of Macedonia, to Decimus Brutus that of Cisalpine Gaul, and to Cassius that of Syria, since Cæsar had already named them to those several commands before they slew him. But Antony succeeded ere long in procuring decrees from the Senate, transferring Macedonia to his brother, and Syria to Dolabella. A little later he obtained a vote of the people giving Cisalpine Gaul to himself, and cancelling the commission of Decimus Brutus. His consular term was now near its expiration and he had no intention to surrender the power he had enjoyed. An army in northern Italy would afford the support which his plans required. But, before those plans were ripe, his position had grown exceedingly precarious. The Senate and the people were alike unfriendly to him, and alike disposed to advance Octavius in opposition. The latter, without office or commission, had already, in the lawless manner of the time, by virtue of the encouragement given to him, collected an army of several legions under his personal banner. Decimus Brutus refused to surrender the government of Gaul, and was supported by the best wishes of the Senate in defying Antony to wrest it from him. The latter now faced the situation boldly, and, although two legions brought from Epirus went over to Octavius, he collected a strong force at Ariminum, marched into Cisalpine Gaul and blockaded Decimus Brutus in Mutina (modern Modena). Meantime, new consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, had taken office at Rome, and the Senate, led by Cicero, had declared its hostility to Antony. {2699} Octavius was called upon to join the new consuls with his army, in proceeding against the late consul—now treated as a public enemy, though not so pronounced. He did so, and two battles were fought, on the 15th of April, B. C. 43, at Forum Gallorum, and on the 27th of the same month under the walls of Mutina, which forced Antony to retreat, but which cost Rome the lives of both her consuls. Antony retired across the Alps and joined his old friend Lepidus in Transalpine Gaul. Octavius declined to follow. Instead of doing so, he sent a military deputation to Rome to demand the consulship, and quickly followed it with his army when the demand had been refused. The demonstration proved persuasive, and he was elected consul, with his half-brother for colleague. His next business was to come to terms with Antony and Lepidus, as against the Liberators and their friends. A conference was arranged, and the three new masters of Rome met in October, B. C. 43, on an island near Bononia (modern Bologna), constituting themselves a commission of three—a triumvirate —to settle the affairs of the commonwealth. They framed a formal contract of five years' duration; divided the powers of government between themselves; named officials for the subordinate places; and—most serious proceeding of all—prepared a proscription list, as Sulla had done, of enemies to be put out of the way. It was an appalling list of 300 senators (the immortal Cicero at their head) and 2,000 knights. When the work of massacre in Rome and Italy had been done, and when the terrified Senate had legalized the self-assumed title and authority of the triumvirs, these turned their attention to the East, where M. Brutus and Cassius had established and maintained themselves in power. Decimus Brutus was already slain, after desertion by his army and capture in attempted flight. In the summer of the year 42 B. C., Antony led a division of the joint army of the triumvirate across the sea and through Macedonia, followed soon after by Octavius with additional forces. They were met at Philippi, and there, in two great battles, fought with an interval of twenty days between, the republic of Rome was finally done to death. "The battle of Philippi, in the estimation of the Roman writers, was the most memorable conflict in their military annals. The numbers engaged on either side far exceed all former experience. Eighty thousand legionaries alone were counted on the one side, and perhaps 120,000 on the other—at least three times as many as fought at Pharsalia." Both Cassius and Brutus died by their own hands. There was no more opposition to the triumvirs, except from Sextus Pompeius, last survivor of the family of the great Pompeius, who had created for himself at sea a little half-piratical realm, and who forced the three to recognize him for a time as a fourth power in the Roman world. But he, too, perished, B. C. 35. For seven years, from B. C. 42 to B. C. 36, Antony ruled the East, Octavius the West, and Lepidus reigned in Africa.

_C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapters 24-28._

ALSO IN: _C. Merivale, The Fall of the Roman Republic, chapter 15._

ROME: B. C. 31. The victory of Octavius at Actium. The rise of the Empire.

The battles of Philippi, which delivered the whole Roman world to Antony, Octavius and Lepidus (the Triumvirs), were fought in the summer of 42 B. C. The battle of Actium, which made Octavius—soon to be named Augustus—the single master of a now fully founded Empire, was fought on the 2d of September, B. C. 31. In the interval of eleven years, Octavius, governing Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the West, had steadily consolidated and increased his power, gaining the confidence, the favor and the fear of his subject people. Antony, oppressing the East, had consumed his energies and his time in dalliance with Cleopatra, and had made himself the object of hatred and contempt. Lepidus, who had Africa for his dominion to begin with, had measured swords with Octavius and had been summarily deposed, in the year 36 B. C. It was simply a question of time as to when Antony, in his turn, should make room for the coming monarch. Already, in the year after Philippi, the two sovereign-partners had been at the verge of war. Antony's brother and his wife, Fulvia, had raised a revolt in Italy against Octavius, and it had been crushed at Perusia, before Antony could rouse himself to make a movement in support of it. He did make a formidable demonstration at last; but the soldiers of the two rivals compelled them on that occasion to patch up a new peace, which was accomplished by a treaty negotiated at Brundisium and sealed by the marriage of Antony to Octavia, sister of Octavius. This peace was maintained for ten years, while the jealousies and animosities of the two potentates grew steadily more bitter. It came to an end when Octavius felt strong enough to defy the superior resources, in money, men and ships, which Antony held at his command. The preparations then made on both sides for the great struggle were stupendous and consumed a year. It was by the determination of Antony that the war assumed chiefly a naval character; but Octavius, not Antony, forced the sea-fight when it came. His smaller squadrons sought and attacked the swarming fleets of Egypt and Asia, in the Ambracian gulf, where they had been assembled. The great battle was fought at the inlet of the gulf, off the point, or "acte," of a tongue of land, projecting from the shores of Acarnania, on which stood a temple to Apollo, called the Actium. Hence the name of the battle. The cowardly flight of Cleopatra, followed by Antony, ended the conflict quickly, and the Antonian fleet was entirely destroyed. The deserted army, on shore, which had idly watched the sea-fight, threw down its arms, when the flight of Antonius was known. Before Octavius pursued his enemy into Egypt and to a despairing death, he had other work to do, which occupied him for nearly a year. But he was already sure of the sole sovereignty that he claimed. The date of the battle of Actium "has been formally recorded by historians as signalizing the termination of the republic and the commencement of the Roman monarchy."

_C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 28._

{2700}

ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14. The settlement of the Empire by the second Cæsar, Octavius, called Augustus. His organization of government.

"Power and repute had passed away from the old forms of the Republic. The whole world lay at the feet of the master of many legions; it remained only to define the constitutional forms in which the new forces were to work. But to do this was no easy task. The perplexities of his position, the fears and hopes that crossed his mind, are thrown into dramatic form by the historian Dion Cassius, who brings a scene before our fancy in which Octavianus listens to the conflicting counsels of his two great advisers, Agrippa and Mæcenas. … There is little doubt that schemes of resignation were at some time discussed by the Emperor and by his circle of advisers. It is even possible, as the same writer tells us, that he laid before the Senators at this time some proposal to leave the helm of state and let them guide it as of old. … The scene, if ever really acted, was but an idle comedy. … It is more probable that he was content with some faint show of resistance when the Senate heaped their honours on his head, as afterwards when, more than once, after a ten years' interval, they solemnly renewed the tenure of his power. But we cannot doubt his sincerity in one respect—in his wish to avoid the kingly title and all the odious associations of the same. … He shrank also from another title, truly Roman in its character, but odious since the days of Sulla; and though the populace of Rome, when panic-struck by pestilence and famine, clamoured to have him made dictator, … yet nothing would induce him to bear the hateful name. But the name of Cæsar he had taken long ago, after his illustrious uncle's death, and this became the title first of the dynasty and then of the imperial office.

See CÆSAR, THE TITLE.

Besides this he allowed himself to be styled Augustus, a name which roused no jealousy and outraged no Roman sentiment, yet vaguely implied some dignity and reverence from its long association with the objects of religion. …

See AUGUSTUS, THE TITLE.