Did Mark Antony Contemplate an Alliance with His Political Enemies in July 44 B. C. E.?
T HIS PAPER SEEKS TO DISPEL the prevailing view that Mark Antony signaled a willingness to draw closer to his political enemies in the Senate in late July 44 B.C.E. Cicero informs us that rumors of a possible reconciliation between Antony and the "Liberators" Brutus and Cassius were brought to him on 7 August when he was waiting not far from Rhegium (on the "toe" of Italy) to continue his voyage to Greece (Att. 16.7.1; Phil. 1.7-8). The story has also made its way into Plutarch (Cic. 43.4). Scholars lay particular stress on Cicero's remark that he first began to think of returning to Rome after he read a transcript of a speech (contio) by Antony that was brought to him by some townsmen of Rhegium. Unfortunately Cicero tells us nothing specific about the contents of that speech, but modern accounts characterize it as having an "unexpectedly moderate tone,'" one that was "friendly and favourable to the Liberators."2 This interpretation rests on the assumption that in his speech Antony extended an olive branch to Brutus and Cassius. According to the standard reconstruction of events in late July, Antony was forced to adopt a radical shift in policy in the direction of drawing closer to the Senate. He did so, it is argued, out of a need to form a new political alliance as a counterweight to the threat posed by the surging popularity of Julius Caesar's chief heir Octavian, the future emperor Augustus. The precipitating factor that supposedly influenced Antony to change political course is said to be the success of Octavian's games in honor of Caesar and Venus Genetrix (20-c. 28 July),3 during which the appearance of a daylight comet (the sidus Iulium) was interpreted as a sign of Caesar's apotheosis.4
Plutarch's method of work in the Roman Lives
This paper is concerned with the eight Lives in which Plutarch describes the final years of the Roman Republic: Lucullus, Pompey, Crassus, Cicero, Caesar, Cato, Brutus, and Antony. It is not my main concern to identify particular sources, though some problems of provenance will inevitably arise; it is rather to investigate the methods which Plutarch adopted in gathering his information, whatever his sources may have been. Did he, for instance, compose each biography independently? Or did he prepare several Lives simultaneously, combining in one project his reading for a number of different works? Did he always have his source-material before him as he composed? Or can we detect an extensive use of memory? Can one conjecture what use, if any, he made of notes? And can we tell whether he usually drew his material from just one source, or wove together his narrative from his knowledge of several different versions? I start from an important assumption: that, in one way or another, Plutarch needed to gather information before writing these Lives; that, whatever may be the case with some of the Greek Lives, he would not be able to write these Roman biographies simply from his general knowledge. The full basis for this assumption will only become clear as the discussion progresses: for example, we shall find traces of increasing knowledge within these Lives, with early biographies showing only a slight knowledge of some important events, and later ones gradually filling the gaps. It will become probable that Plutarch knew comparatively little of the detail of Roman history before he began work on the Lives, and that considerable ‘research’—directed and methodical reading—would be necessary for their composition.
Plutarch's Methods in the Lives
The locus classicus for Plutarch's own views on his methods is in the Alexander He has begun by asking for the indulgence of his readers if they do not find all the exploits of Alexander and Caesar recounted by the biographer or if they discover him not reporting some famous incident in detail (); and he goes on to compare his own search for evidence which will indicate the kind of soul, with the activity of the painter, who, in order to create a likeness, concentrates on the eyes and pays little attention to the other parts. Commentators and critics have been right to take this as a key text for the purpose of understanding Plutarch's attitude towards his biographical work; nevertheless there are other passages in the Lives where we can at least glimpse his attitude to his subject, and we can only see the Alexander-remarks in correct perspective if we take these other passages into account. I propose therefore, starting with the Alexander, to see how far these critical remarks apply to Plutarch's theory and practice elsewhere in the Lives