[111] Four days before his intended departure he was slain by his enemies in the senate-house, either from jealousy of his fortune and power, now grown to enormous proportions, or, as they themselves alleged, from a desire to restore the republic of their fathers; for they well knew that if he should conquer those nations he would be a king without a doubt.1 But I think that they took, as a pretext for their own design, this plan for an additional title, which really made no difference to them except in name, for in fact a dictator is exactly the same as a king.2 Chief among the conspirators were two men, Marcus Brutus, surnamed Cæpio (son of the Brutus who was put to death during the Sullan revolution), who had sided with Cæsar after the disaster of Pharsalus, and Gaius Cassius, the one who had surrendered his triremes to Cæsar in the Hellespont, both having been of Pompey's party. Among the conspirators also was Decimus Brutus Albinus, one of Cæsar's dearest friends. All of them had been held in honor and trust by Cæsar at all times. He had employed them in the largest affairs. When he went to the war in Africa he gave them the command of armies, putting Decimus Brutus in charge of Transalpine, and Marcus Brutus of Cisalpine, Gaul.
1 I have followed Schweighäuser's Latin rendering of this passage, although it is not free from objection. The Didot version is: "or, as they alleged, from a desire to restore the republic (for they knew Cæsar well), lest, if he should conquer those nations also, he should presently become king of the Romans without a doubt." Geslen considered the passage corrupt and substituted ἔδεισαν (they feared) for ᾔδεσαν (they knew) in the text. Tollius curiously adopted Geslen's Latin version, but adhered to the original text.
2 This is another troublesome sentence. Schweighäuser says that the older translators dodged the difficulty by ignoring the words σκοπὸν and προσθήκης, for which he gives the Latin equivalent propositum illius accessionis. The latter interpretation is followed in the Didot edition, although Schweighäuser himself preferred the participle σκοπῶν (contemplating) instead of the noun σκοπὸν (a plan). The Augsburg codex reads σκοπῶν and this would make Appian say: " I think upon reflection," etc.
The Civil Wars. Appian. Horace White. London. MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD. 1899.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.