90
CONDUCT OF ANTONY.
imagined. If we compare Antony with Octavian, we must
admit that Antony was open-hearted; whereas Octavian was
made up of hypocrisy: his whole life was a farce. It is well
known that on his death-bed at Nola, he asked his friends,
whether he had not played the comedy of his life well? He
was an actor throughout ; everything he did was a farce, well
devised and skilfully executed. The most profound hypocrisy
was his greatest talent. In the vicious and profligate life of
Antony, on the other hand, there occur some actions which
shew good nature, generosity, and even greatness; and if
Cicero had appeared in the senate, a reconciliation would cer-
tainly have been possible. This, however, Cicero did not do ;
and he may even have offended Antony by his wit and satire,
for it was his wit that in most cases gave rise to the enmity of
others against him. As Cicero did not go to the senate, Antony
attacked him in the most improper and outrageous manner.
This gave rise to Cicero’s second Philippic, which was not
spoken, but only written. It was, however, published, and
immediately produced the greatest effect; it was devoured by
the friends of Cicero, who was himself staying in the country
for the sake of safety.
Towards the end of the year, Antony went to Lombardy, or
Cisalpine Gaul, the inhabitants of which were indebted to
Caesar for their franchise. As the senate had recognised the
validity of the acts of Caesar, Antony had acted during the
summer after the dictator’s death in the most outrageous man-
ner; for under the pretence of proceeding according to the
regulations laid down in Caesar’s papers, he did anything he
pleased: he sold to some they'ws Latιi, and to others the fran-
chise; he conferred immunities upon colonics, and called a
number of his creatures into the senate. After such proceed-
ings, it was difficult indeed for a man like Cicero to become
reconciled to him. The administration of Spain was at the
time in the hands of Asinius Pollio, and M. Lepidus and
L. Munatius Plancus had that of Gaul. On arriving in his
province, Antony endeavoured to induce the legions to revolt
against Decimus Brutus, but with little success. The towns
north of the Alps and in Illyricum seemed at first inclined to
embrace his cause ; but his mad conduct and his extortions soon
deterred them from doing so.
On the first of January, 709, Hirtius and Pansa, who had
LAST YEAK OF CICERO’S LIFE. 91
been appointed consuls by Caesar, entered upon their office :
so great was his power even after Iiis death ! Antony was
declared a public enemy, and the senate gave the provinces of
Gaul and Italy to the consuls, to carry on the war, in common
with Decimus Brutus, against Antony. Octavian had prevailed
upon Cicero to induce the senate to grant him the power and
ensigns of a pιaetor. Antony recalled the legions which
Caesar had sent to Macedonia, with the view of employing
them on his expedition against the Paithians and Getae; but
on their arrival in Italy, two of them deserted to Octavian, and
formed the nucleus of an army with which he was enabled to
oppose Antony. So long as the hostility between Octavian
and Antony lasted, these legions were really prepared to pro-
tect Cicero and other patriots, although the soldiers hated no
one more than him and whatever there remained of the
Pompeian party. Brutus and Cassius had in the mean time
gone to Greece.
LECTURE CL
Tiie last Philippics, which extend to the month of April, as
well as several of the letters Ad Diverses, which are extremely
important for contemporary history, belong to the year 709,
the last of Cicero’s life. The letters to Brutus refer to the
same period. They consist of two parts : an earlier one, which
is found in the same manuscripts as the letters of Cicero to his
brother Quintus; and a later one, which was first published in
the edιtιo Cratandrina, and was, I believe, discovered in Ger-
many. Whether the letters contained in the second part
were forged in the sixteenth century, or are ancient and
genuine, is a question which I cannot answer. If they aie a
forgery, it is a mastcιly one. The genuineness even of the
first part, which has come down to us in very ancient manu-
scripts, is likewise very doubtful. They are of great interest
to those who have Cicero’s history at heart. They were
unquestionably written at a very early period, and belong pιo-
bably to the fn>t century of our era. I am almost inclined to
consider them as a production of the fust centuιy, perhaps of