Organización, presentación e interpretación de los datos obtenidos Tabla 1.

As the assassins of the dictator, the conspirators’ understanding of the constitution was naturally formulated and expressed in reaction to Caesar. Their words and deeds did not express an understanding of the constitution as something that needed to be re-established; rather they seem to have seen it as something concrete that had been suppressed for a while but which would return to life once the suppressing force was removed.18 _{The cautious} behaviour of the conspirators and their reluctance to impose their will upon subsequent events has been seen as a mark of their lack of preparation and a failure to anticipate the problems that would follow Caesar’s removal.19 This may have been true, but it also reflects an understanding of the constitution. Their understanding of the constitution allowed free competition between members of the Roman elite and placed the Senate at the core of the decision-making process, expecting them to guide the populus and the populus to follow the Senate’s lead. In their perception of the situation at Rome, Caesar’s dominance was unconstitutional and had suppressed Rome’s proper constitution, but once he was removed it would be able to function as it should. Nonetheless, their behaviour does reveal a lack of recognition that theirs was not the only understanding of the res publica that had currency at Rome, and that they would need to engage in further discourse in order to restore the constitution as they wished it to be. They failed to realise fully the necessity of arguing for their vision before their fellow citizens, a failure that handed the initiative in subsequent events to others.

The understanding of the constitution expressed by the conspirators in the immediate aftermath of Caesar’s death seems to have been guided by the voice of M. Brutus.20 As the alleged descendant of L. Junius Brutus, the Expeller of Kings, he was the inheritor of what may be called a discourse of liberation, in which the claim of saving the res publica was tied to the call for libertas and freedom from tyranny. Cicero implied as much in the Brutus, a text that begins with L. Brutus as the first Roman orator and establisher of the res publica and ends with Cicero’s grief over the early termination of Brutus’ career as an orator due to the death of the res publica, and which offers a definition of virtus that includes the imitation of the example of

18 _{As Syme (1939) p.97 said: “They had no further plans – the tyrant was slain, therefore liberty was}

restored.”

19 _{Ibid. p.97ff. See Rawson (1992b); Osgood (2006); Manuwald (2007) pp.9-31 for full narrative accounts}

of events at Rome in 44-43 B.C, the key sources for which are Cicero’s letters and speeches, Appian’s

Bellum Civile, Dio books 44-46 and Plutarch’s lives of Cicero, Antonius and Brutus.

20

30 | P a g e

one’s ancestors, something which for Brutus, his interlocutor and dedicatee, requires direct action.21 _{Appian’s report that Brutus had rejected the suggestion that Antonius should also be} killed by saying that it would be the act of partisans of Pompeius suggests he understood the res publica as a polity in which it was only acceptable to set aside the legal prohibition upon murder in the case of a tyrant in order to liberate the res publica.22 Such an understanding of their action in relation to the constitution may explain the conspirators’ eschewal of violence and their reluctance to ensure the res publica was reordered according to their understanding of the constitution; they did not want to dominate the res publica or be thought to be establishing another oppressive regime.23

That Brutus had to (or was said to have had to) reject the assassination of Antonius shows that there were differences of opinion between the conspirators about the action it was legitimate to take in defence of the constitution. Whatever any other member of the group considered the safest and most effective course of action, Brutus’ argument that their action must be justifiable as an act of liberation from a tyrant seems to have been accepted. However, as the constitutional understandings and ambitions of Antonius and Octavian started to threaten the initial settlement of March 44, the conspirators had to respond in order to defend themselves and the res publica, as they held it to be. In the different courses of action that they took, their different understandings of the constitution become plain to see, and each had its own impact on events at Rome and on the ongoing political discourse.24

Decimus Brutus was the first to take direct action in defence of his res publica, his refusal to surrender Cisalpine Gaul proclaiming his rejection of Antonius’ alteration of the provincial allotments.25 His stand against Antonius was encouraged by Cicero, who pleaded with

21 _{Cic., Brut., 53, 331ff. Dugan (2005) pp.173-243 explores the relation between Cicero and Caesar in the} Brutus, noting that in the text the evolution of oratory, and thus the survival of Rome (for oratory is the lifeblood of the res publica), depends upon successful imitation of exemplary predecessors. A similar call is made to Brutus in the Tusculan Disputations (see Gildenhard (2007) pp.93-4 on Cicero’s use of literature to bring Brutus round to his political viewpoint).

22

App., B Civ., 2.115; Cf., Plut., Vit. Ant., 13.

23

While the account of events provided by Dio cannot be taken as accurate his comment (44.19.2) that the conspirators feared being accused of slaying Caesar to gain supreme power suggests that such a concern would not be considered surprising or irrational.

24 _{With M. Brutus and Cassius having left Rome for safety reasons soon after Caesar’s funeral, and D.}

Brutus taking up his proconsulship in Cisalpine Gaul, the three most prominent conspirators were unable to speak in Rome and thus affect events through verbal discourse. In this situation, their different understandings of the res publica were revealed through their actions more than their words, and their actions revealed slightly different understandings of the res publica.

25 _{Decimus, who was praetor in 45 (MRR 2.307, 328) had been appointed to Cisalpine Gaul by Caesar}

(App., B Civ., 2.214). Antonius called an assembly on 2 June 44 B.C., which Rawson (1992b) p.474 describes as, “Trebly irregular,” and at this meeting effected legislation to exchange his province of

31 | P a g e

Decimus to, “Liberate the res publica for ever from despotic rule.”26 Whether Decimus’ stand against Antonius stemmed primarily from an understanding of the constitution which held Antonius’ manipulation of the Senate and the provincial allotment to be illegal or from self- interest must remain speculation, but it does show that he believed his stance was justifiable as a defence of the constitution. His behaviour shaped Roman discourse about the constitution and the future of the res publica as it provoked Antonius to further action and to the expression of statements about the nature of the res publica (as quoted by Cicero in the Thirteenth Philippic), and helped shape Cicero’s expression of his conception of the legitimate action of the citizen within the res publica – arguments that also helped give Octavian a legal position of power.

M. Brutus and Cassius left Italy in the summer of 44; Brutus heading to Greece whilst Cassius temporarily disappeared off the map, eventually reappearing in Syria where he had served as quaestor, holding the province after Crassus’ death at Carrhae.27 As Octavian and Antonius raised armies in Italy and began to threaten the conspirators with reprisals Brutus and Cassius also began to raise support. However, they proceeded in different ways, reflecting different understandings of the constitution. Brutus took control of Macedonia from Q. Hortensius peacefully and though he went on to capture C. Antonius, he treated him with careful propriety until after the formation of the second triumvirate, when he ordered his execution.28 His position as proconsul in Macedonia was swiftly legitimised by the Senate, on Cicero’s motion.29 Brutus seems to have held an idealistic understanding of the res publica: efficacy, even in defence of the constitution, was not enough justification for action. He wrote to Cicero from Greece, declaring that, “What the Senate has not yet decreed, nor the Roman

Macedonia for Cisalpine Gaul. Cic., Phil., 1.6 describes this meeting, emphasising the use of violence and the popular assembly over the Senate. For Cicero’s account of D. Brutus’ actions see Fam., 11.5- 11.6 and the Third to Sixth Philippics. Cf., App., B Civ., 3.49, 51 and Dio 45.14.

26

Cic., Fam., 11.5. Cf., Fam., 11.7.2.

27

Cic., Fam., 12.4.2; 5.1; 11.1 reveal the uncertainty of Cassius’ location. Broughton calls Appian’s claim that Caesar had assigned Syria to Cassius and Macedonia to Brutus, “A mistaken assertion” (MRR 2.321). Rawson (1992b) p.475 says that Appian’s statement (B Civ., 3.8) was probably a justification of their later seizure of these areas.

28 _{Ibid. p.481. Cicero and Brutus discussed the fate of C. Antonius in a series of letters (Cic., Ad Brut.,}

1.4.2; 2.3.2; 2.4.3; 2.5.5), with Cicero initially advocating custody and then comparing all three Antonii to Dolabella, who had been declared a hostis by the Senate. Brutus disagrees with Cicero over his classification of the Antonii as hostes, arguing that only the Senate or people can pass such judgement. See Plut., Vit. Brut., 26.3-5; Vit. Ant., 22.4; App., B Civ., 3.79 and Dio 47.25.1 for the later execution of C. Antonius.

29

32 | P a g e

People ordered, I do not take it upon myself to prejudge, I do not make myself the arbiter.”30 In a free res publica (such as he believed Rome was, after Caesar’s death), the individual could not act as he saw fit with impunity, but must wait for the Senate and people of Rome to direct him. Cassius’ understanding of the constitution, on the other hand, was more pragmatic. Although his position in Syria was not legalised until after Mutina, despite Cicero’s proposal in the Eleventh Philippic,31 he did not wait to move against those he saw as the enemies of Rome, proceeding to raise an army and pursue Dolabella without being authorised to do so by the Senate or people.32 As with Decimus Brutus we cannot distinguish the self-interest of the individual from his understanding of the constitution in their deeds – it is possible that Cassius saw his actions as the best way of securing the conspirators’ safety from Antonius and Octavian and also as a legitimate defence of the best interests of the res publica.33

Despite the differences between the conspirators’ understandings of the constitution with regard to constitutional action, their statements regarding their activities continued to express a consistent theme: the service of Rome, and the liberation and securing of the res publica from tyranny in order to uphold the constitution – a constitution under which no one citizen could dominate the res publica. Their behaviour changed over time in response to the words and deeds of others, forced into further action in order to protect themselves and, as they saw it, to defend the res publica against the potential tyranny of Antonius. This revealed their different understandings of what this constitution should be contributed to the ongoing discourse about the constitution as it provoked responses from the other political actors about the nature and future of the res publica, both in support and in opposition to them. It is indicative of the fracturing of Roman knowledge about the nature of constitution that, even amongst men with a shared ambition to free the res publica from the domination of an individual, there was no uniform vision of what that polity should be.