Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 25

Appian and Cassius' Speech before Philippi ("Bella Civilia" 4.

Author(s): Alain M. Gowing
Source: Phoenix, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Summer, 1990), pp. 158-181
Published by: Classical Association of Canada
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1088329
Accessed: 08-11-2015 02:11 UTC

Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phoenix.


This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(BELLA CIVILIA 4.90-100)


IN THE CONCLUSIONto his seminal study of Appian, Emilio Gabba judged

the Bella civilia to be a "fedeleriassunto,che si avvicina spesso ad una
traduzione,e questa e in alcuni casi volutamenteletterale"(Appiano 219;
cf.213). Thoughreactionto Gabba's centralthesis,thatAsiniusPollio was
Appian's sourceforvirtuallyall ofthe Bella civilia,was readilyforthcoming
and generallyskeptical,' this appraisal of Appian's workingmethodshas
rarelybeen challenged.2If,of course,Appian did littlemorethan translate
a singlesource,then any artistrynoted in his workmust indeedlead back
to the question of source,forwe will have to concede that the artistryis
not likelyto be Appian's. But ifit can be shownthat Appian does intrude
himselfinto the text in moresubtle ways than have been observedbefore,
thenAppian's historiographical techniqueand authorialintegrity will need
to be reassessed. To be sure, assertionsof some ingenuityon the part of
Appian are not whollylacking. Nevertheless, just as fewcan agree on the
preciseidentification of Appian's sourceor sources,fewwill readilyadmit
withoutsome proofthat Appian was, as he has been describedrecently,a

The texts of Appian followedhere are the Teubners of P. Viereck,A. G. Roos, E. Gabba
(eds.), Appiani Historia Romana I (Leipzig 1962) and L. Mendelssohn and P. Viereck
(eds.), Appiani Historia Romana II (Leipzig 1905, reprint1986). Unless otherwisespec-
ified,all referencesto Appian are to the Bella civilia. The followingsecondary sources
will be referredto by author's name alone or with abbreviated title: I. A. Wijnne,
De fide et auctoritate Appiani in bellis Romanorum civilibus enarrandis (Groningen
1855); E. Gabba, Appiano e la storia delle guerre civili (Florence 1956); T. J. Luce,
Jr.,Appian's Exposition of the Roman Republican Constitution(diss., Princeton Univ.,
1958); S. Mazzarino, 11pensiero storico classico, 3 vols. (Bari 1966); B. Goldmann, Ein-
heitlichkeitund Eigenst indigkeit der Historia Romana des Appian (Hildesheim 1988);
D. Magnino (ed. and tr.), Appiani Bellorum civilium liber tertius (Florence 1984). An
earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1987 meeting of the American Philo-
logical Association. I would like to thank the two anonymous readers for Phoenix for
theirmany valuable suggestions.
1See M. Gelzer, Gnomon 30 (1958) 216-218 and Gnomon 31 (1959) 179-181; E. Ba-
dian, "Appian and Asinius Pollio," CR Ns 8 (1958) 159-162; A. H. McDonald, JRS
52 (1962) 186-187. A. B. Bosworth's reassessmentof Pollio's politics raised additional
doubt ("Asinius Pollio and Augustus," Historia 21 [1972] 441-473).
2See, however, I. Hahn, "Appien et le cercle de S6nbque," ActaHung 12 (1964)
169-206, esp. 204, 206; Mazzarino 3.191-193.
3J. Moles, "The Attacks on L. Cornelius Cinna, Praetor in 44 B.C.," RhM 130
(1987) 124-128, at 127. Particularly relevant to the present argument, however, is

PHOENIX, VOL. 44 (1990) 2.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
In this paper I attempt to locate such proofin the last speech of the
tyrannicideC. Cassius Longinus(4.90-100). Delivered at the Republican
encampmenton the Gulfof Melas just priorto the finalwestwardpush to
the plain of Philippiin early Septemberof 42 B.c., this orationoffersone
particularinstancewhereit can be demonstrated, withas muchcertaintyas
is obtainablein cases likethis,that Appian has transformed a speechfound
in his sourceto suit his own particularpurposes. Far frombeinga virtual
translationof the source,Cassius' speechwill be seen as Appian's attempt
to summarizethe conflictthat has led to thisclimacticbattleas well as the
swan song of a characterin whomhe was particularlyinterested.In order
to place the discussionof the speech in a broadercontext,I begin with a
briefconsiderationofsome ofthe traditionalviewson Appian's sourcesand
methodsin lightof a fewrecentanalyses as well as an explanationof the
premisesfromwhichmy argumentproceeds.

Thoughmanyhave longconsideredsourcecriticismtheonlyusefulexer-
cise as faras Appian is concerned,4and thesinglesourcetheoryhas in large
measureprevailedwithregardto theBella civilia,thereis a troublinglack of
agreementamongthosewhohave studiedthequestion. Gabba revivedand
expandedthe argumentthat Appian used AsiniusPollio directly.Appian
does, afterall, in a departurefromhis usual practice,cite Pollio by name
(2.82.346). Those who doubted Gabba's thesis have generallypreferred
an intermediary source,perhapsGreek,that synthesizedseveralaccounts,
AsiniusPollio's among them.5 For Philippi,though,Messalla Corvinusis
also a possibility.Having served underCassius duringthe campaign,he
subsequentlywroteCommentariithat began most probablywithPhilippi.
By commonconsent,Messalla was the sourcebehindmuchof the material
in Book 5 of the Bella civilia.6But the numerouscorrespondences between
Appian's account of Philippi and that of Plutarch in the Brutus, where
Moles's article "Fate, Apollo, and M. Junius Brutus," AJP 104 (1983) 249-256, where
he contends that Appian relocated an episode in the life of Brutus to his account of
Philippi fordramatic effect.
4E.g., E. Schwartz, "Appianus," RE 2 (1896) 216-237, at 217: "Was von ihm
als Historikerzu halten ist, lisst sich nur entscheiden, wenn die Frage nach seinem
Gewiihrsmannmit leidlicherSicherheitbeantwortetist .. "
5See H. Homeyer, Die antiken Berichte diber den Tod Ciceros und ihre Quellen,
(Baden-Baden 1964, Deutsche Beitriigezur Altertumswiss.18) 26, with n. 56 (reprinted
withsome minorcorrectionsin Helikon 17 [1977] 56-96). So too R. Syme, The Augustan
Aristocracy (Oxford 1986) 358.
6See E. Gabba (ed. and tr.), Appiani Bellorum civilium liber quintus (Florence
1970) xv, and on 100.419; and esp. M. Sordi, who has recentlyproposed that Messalla's
Commentariicould be Appian's source for the siege of Perugia ("La guerra di Perugia
e la fonte del 1. V dei Bella civilia di Appiano," Latomus 44 [1985] 301-316, esp. 316,

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Messalla is named as a sourceon morethan one occasion,confirmthat he

was indeedconsultedby Appian--or,alternatively, by Appian's source-for
that campaignas well.7Indeed,sincehe wouldhave been presentat theoc-
casion and apparentlyadmiredCassius' militaryability(Tac. Ann. 4.34.4),
he seems a likelysourceforthe speechto be examinedhere.
He cannot, however,be the only source any more than Asinius Pol-
lio. In fact,the single-sourcetheoryhas been challenged,most recentlyby
DomenicoMagninoin his studyof Book 3. Basing his argumentin part on
thoseinstanceswhereAppian citesvariantsources,Magninoconcludedthat
Appian himself,not his source,synthesizedseveralsources." The account
of Philippiclearlyconstitutessuch a synthesis,as shownby the significant
numberofreferences to variantsourcesofthesortMagninoand evenGabba
(in a study of the Syriaca) took to be indicationsthat Appian could work
with morethan one source.9
There are stillfurtherreasonsforbelievingAppian has drawnfromand
revised a pluralityof sources. His inclusionof topographicalexcursuses,
forinstance,seems more likelyto be forthe benefitof Appian's readers
than forthose of Asinius Pollio or Messalla Corvinusand probablyderive
froma subsidiarysource.10And in discussingmattersof militarystrategy,
Appian commitssome topographicalerrorsthat must resultfromhis mis-
understanding and manipulationof his sources." Confusionof this sortis

thoughshe shows greaterhesitancyin "L'assedio di Perugia e l'assedio di Alesia: finzione

letteraria o propaganda politica?," Misc. greca e romana 36 [1986] 173-183, at 179-180).
7E.g., Plutarch cites Messalla as his source forthe numberskilled at the firstbattle
at Philippi (Brutus 45.1), with an odd detail about Brutus' camp-followers.Identical
informationappears at App. 4.112.471, thoughno source is named. For other correspon-
dences see Peter, HRRel 2.lxxxi-lxxxiii. Momigliano believed Messalla to be the source
forAppian's remarksabout Cassius at 4.133.561 (JRS 31 [1941] 156); cf.E. Kornemann,
"Die historischeSchriftstellereides C. Asinius Pollio zugleich ein Beitrag zur Quellen-
forschungfiber Appian und Plutarch," Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. Supp. 22 (1896) 555-692, at
8D. Magnino, "La composizione del terzo libro delle Guerre civili di Appiano," in
Saggi di letteratura e storiografiaantiche (Como 1983, Bibliotheca di Athenaeum 2)
99-132, at 103. Cf. W. Steidle, "Beobachtungen zu Appians Emphylia," Hermes 111
(1983) 402-430, esp. 402-405.
94.101.425 (&; kpot; Boxdi), 112.471 (e{idcovat), 113.473 (talv ... oied ... repot...
118.498(oxeTd 'orat),
otovcrat), thesimilar
130.547(paawv,his). Gabbaconcluded expres-
sions in Appian's Syr. 56-57 to be proof of "un lavoro di ricerca, o almeno di confronto
fra pidifonti... dello stesso Appiano" ("Sul libro siriaco di Appiano," RendLinc ser. 8
12 [1957] 337-351, at 348; cf. G. Marasco, Appiano e la storia dei Seleucidi finoall'ascesa
al trono di Antioco III [Florence 1982] 84, 164-165).
10E.g., 4.102.427-428, 105.439-106.443. Strabo has been adduced as a possible source
for the geographical details in App. 4.57-138 (P. Otto, Strabonis HistorikonHypomne-
maton fragmenta[Leipzig 1889, Leipziger Stud. 11 Supp.] 268 ff.),but comparison of
App. 4.102.426 and Strabo 7, fr. 48 shows that Appian had other informationbesides.
11E.g., the assertion that a marsh extended south fromPhilippi to the sea (4.105.440,
107.451, 109.460, 121.511): Appian was apparently unaware that a stretchof low-lying

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

scarcelyconfinedto the Philippinarrativeor even to the Bella civilia,an

additionalindicationthat Appian is responsible. Most probably,Appian
routinelycompressedor revisedhis source material,whichin this instance
is quite detailed and beyonddoubt contemporary; it is less likelythat his
sources consistently erredin mattersof topographyand strategy.
In otherwords,Appian would appear to have done what Hahn, aftera
comprehensivestudy of how he selected and used his sources, concluded
to be his practice on occasion: ".. . wo Appian mehrerezeitgenSssiche
Quellen vor Augen hatte, er dieselben miteinanderverbundenund ihren
Inhaltmehroderwenigerkontaminiert hat."12 Now,Hahn was thinking on
a rathergrandscale; he stillsubscribedto the singlesourcetheoryforlarge,
self-containedsectionsof Appian's work,and accepted Asinius Pollio as
Appian's sourceforBooks 2-5 ofthe Bella civilia. But by failingto address
and explain passages like those cited above (note 9), he leaves open the
possibilitythat his theorymay apply to still smallersections-the account
of a major campaign,forinstance,forwhichseveralgood, contemporary
sources were available. On this view, Appian may well have personally
consultedboth Messalla and Pollio and othersources besides. There are
some indications,discussedbelow (Section Iv), that the speechof Cassius
reflectsthat process.

If Appian does draw upon more than one source-even if this must be
concededto be morea possibilitythan a demonstrable fact-then it seems
a fairsuppositionthat in composinghis account of Philippihe aimed at
somethingotherthan the mere translationof another'swork. But if the
argumentthat he occasionallyreworkedhis source or sources is to be at
all compelling,we mustfirstestablishsome proceduresby whichit can be
determinedwhere,how and, perhapsmost importantly, whyAppian might
have alteredmaterialfromhis source. Gabba formulatedthreeapproaches
(Appiano 220): 1) isolate those instancesthat do not reflecta distinctly
pro-Republicanor anti-Augustanbias; 2) considertheircompatibilitywith
Appian's own avowed intent,i.e., to trace the revolutionsthat led to the
establishmentof the Principate;and 3) determinewhetheror not such in-
stances coincide with Appian's moralisticpurpose, i.e., to illustratethe
prosperityof AntonineRome throughcomparisonwiththe darkerpast.
The finaltwo considerations,if admittedlyvague, are viable and I will
returnto themto showthatwhattheyyieldis consistentwiththefunctions

mountains separates the sea from the plain (cf. Cass. Dio 47.35.3). See P. Collart,
Philippes: Ville de Mac&doine (Paris 1937) 1.206, with n. 2.
121. Hahn, "Appian und seine Quellen," in G. Wirth (ed.), Romanitas-Christianitas:
Untersuchungenzur Geschichte und Literatur der rrimischenKaiserzeit (Berlin 1982)
251-276, at 276.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

fulfilledby Cassius' speech. But the assumptionunderlying the firststage

(which Gabba allowed should be used with caution) poses certaindifficul-
ties, particularlywhenthe text in questionis a speech,and cannotstand as
valid. There is, ofcourse,no questionthata historianmayconcocta speech
in whichideas are propoundedthat are at odds withhis own. Yet because
Gabba discernedin Cassius' speechthe anti-Augustanand pro-Republican
tendencythat he sees pervadingmuch of Appian's narrative,a tendency
bettersuited to a source close to the eventthan to an historianof the An-
tonineera, and that he believes to be so very contraryto Appian's own
monarchism,he disallowedthe notionthat in this instanceAppian might
have revisedan orationfoundin his source;in brief,thespeechdid notfulfil
the criterionforthe firststage. Rather,Gabba judged the speechto be the
concoctionof "lo storico."13 "Lo storico,"needless to say, is not Appian
but the source,namely(in Gabba's view), AsiniusPollio.
This seems to me an over-subtlereading. Cassius' speech is nothing
morethan a defenseof his actions and of the Republicancause. We would
of course be surprisedif the orationwere not pro-Republican;that it (or
any part of Books 2-5) conceals "intenzioniantiaugustee"is by no means
self-evident, and in any case, as Bosworthhas shown (above, note 1), it
is not certain that Pollio's hostilitytoward Octavian was as virulentas
Gabba contends. To be sure-and on this point Gabba agrees-much of
what Cassius says seems oddlysuperfluousand inapplicableto the specific
situation, but this merelyconfirmsthat the speech is at least partly a
Most important, however,is thefactthatAppianconveysgenuinerespect
forCassius. It has beenremarked,mostrecentlyby ElizabethRawson,that
Appian's Cassius is a far moresubstantialfigurethan that foundin other
sources.14 I shall returnto thisin greaterdepthin the finalsection,but for
the momentsufficeit to note that the favorshownCassius cannotsimply
be a functionof Appian's source. Though Cassius was the slayerof Caesar
(whom Appian generallyadmired),Appian's eulogyof the tyrannicides at
4.132-134 and the concludingremarkat 4.138.581-which only the most
intractableof source criticswould denyare his own compositions-in fact
indicatethat he had formulatedan opinion of the tyrannicidesbased on
respectforthe men themselvesand the cause of libertas,yet contemptfor
what they had perpetratedon the Ides of March.15 It simplydoes not

13Appiano 180-182, 209. Gabba believed that the author of the speeches in the Bella
civilia in general followed the Thucydidean line (Thuc. 1.22.1), though of course that
author was not Appian (Appiano 158, n. 3).
14E. Rawson, "Cassius and Brutus: The Memory of the Liberators," in I. S. Moxon,
J. D. Smart, A. J. Woodman (eds.), Past Perspectives (Cambridge 1986) 101-119, at
110-112. Cf. Wijnne 111.
15Note Appian's reverencefor the Athenian struggle for at Praef. 8.30. It
cannot be an accident that Pompey begins his speech before Pharsalus with an allusion

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

seem feasiblethat Appian was so blind to the nature of his source that
he failed to realize that what his source providedhim with-in this case
the speech of Cassius-was contraryto his purposes,especiallywhen the
speech is put into the mouth of one of the most importantcharactersat
the most dramaticjuncture in the entire Bella civilia.16 "Il n'6tait ...
pas un imb6cile,"to quote one of Appian's defenders, a judgementperhaps
deservingofmoreconsiderationthanhas been accordedit.17Thus, to reject
thespeechmerelyon thebasis ofits pro-Republicanstanceas owingnothing
to Appian's imaginationis untenable. This is not at all meant to suggest
that Appian was himselfa Republicanat heart; it merelyrestoresto him
a degreeof intelligencein the readingof his sources and latitudein his use
of them.
Gabba's criteriaaside, thereare certainlyotherways in whichAppian
introduceshis own ideas and interestsinto his text. I. Hahn, T. J. Luce,
P. J. Cuff,W. Steidle, and now B. Goldmann, workingessentiallywith
ideas propoundedby Appian in his Praefatio and in the prefaceto the
Bella civilia,have shownthat Appian consistentlystressescertainthemes
throughoutthe wholeof his History.Thus Hahn focusedon, among other
things,Appian's penchantformilitaryfigures;'8Cuffobserveda persistent
interestin Roman finance;19Luce examinedAppian's preoccupationwith
the institutionsof the Roman Republic; Steidle (above, note 8), and most
recentlyGoldmann,collectedand studiedan arrayofthemes,rangingfrom
his conceptof Oeophisetato schematicdescriptionsof battles. As will be-
come apparent,severalof these themessurfacein Cassius' speech.
These studies are valuable because they considerablyexpand the in-
stances whereAppian may be supposed to be embellishinga source (or
at least suggestwhyhe should favorone source over another) as well as
indicatethat Appian was not the "misercompilator"he was once judged
to be (Otto, above,note 10, 253). It mustbe all the morecompelling,then,
whenwe discovernot only repeatedthemesbut repeatedphrases and ver-
bal echoes as well. The repetitionof materialfromone sectionto the next
has in fact been observedto be typicalof Appian's own narrativemethod.
Wheneverhe returnsto a previouslytreatedsubject,he will frequentlydi-
gress to reacquaintus with that subject's earliercircumstances;and most

to this (2.50.205), repeating verbatim a (Greek) locus communis from the previous
narrative (2.37.147; see Gabba, Appiano 123-125). The occasional sympathyshown for
the Roman version,in, e.g., passages like those at 3.82.334 or 3.90.372, must also have
some foundation in Appian's own thinking.Cf. Appian on Numantia at Hisp. 97.419.
16This, however,is precisely the conclusion of Gabba (Appiano 211; cf. 112).
17N. I. Barbu, Les sources et l'originalitdd'Appien dans le deuxieme livre des Guerres
civiles (Paris 1934) 42.
18I. Hahn, "Appianus Tacticus," ActaHung 18 (1970) 293-306, esp. 301-305. See
now Goldmann 6-23, and esp. 51-56.
19P. J. Cuff,"Appian's Romaica: A Note," Athenaeum Ns 61 (1983) 148-164.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

oftenthat digressionincorporatesverbal echoes.20The speech of Cassius,

as I shall discuss at lengthbelow,showsa numberofsuch echoes,thoughit
is essentialto recognizethat thisis not theonlyspeechwheresuch a device
is in evidence.21In sum, then, this is yet anothercriterionby whichwe
may reasonablyassume a revisionof the source by Appian.22 Given what
is knownabout the practiceof ancienthistoriansin this area,23speeches
would seem the most likelyplace to look forsignsof such revision.


BeforeI examine Cassius' speech itself,a fewprefatory remarksabout

Appian's speeches general are required. For despite the fact that it
is unique in many ways, this orationdoes show some affinity with other
speeches in the Bella civilia and in other portionsof the Historyas well.
These connectionswill be discussed as theybecome relevant,but it is im-
portantto understandthat Appian neverseemsto have concocteda speech
forwhichhe foundno precedentin his sources. Hahn came to this conclu-
sion by pointingto the erraticpatternof speechesthroughoutthe History
(above, note 12, 253-254). It is peculiar,forinstance,that Book 1 of the
Bella civilia containsno speechesin oratio recta and only a fewin oratio
obliqua. Beginningwith Book 2, however,speechesare liberallyincluded,
and this mustsurelyreflectthe natureof Appian's source. Yet it shouldbe
noted as well that on those fewoccasions whereAppian's speechesmay be
comparedwith versionsof the same in parallel sources (most oftenPoly-
bius or Livy), thereare no instanceswhereAppian can be shownsimplyto
have translateda speech.24

20An aspect of Appian's art noted long ago by Wijnne (77, 113, withn. 9). Cf. Gabba,
Appiano 177-178. Consider, e.g., Appian's commentsat 4.57.243, 75.316.
21For example: In Pompey's speech at 2.50-51: 2.51.209 ; 2.86.363; see also above,
n. 15. In Pompey's speech at 2.72: 2.72.299 ; 2.69.286; cf. 2.74.307, 2.69.286, 4.124.520.
On the basis of these specificrepetitions,Otto judged Appian's speeches to be his own
compositions, although he neither noted nor discussed other similar instances (above,
n. 10, 266). In Caesar's speech at 2.73-74: 2.74.307 ; 2.67.278 (see Goldmann 39
with n. 76); 2.74.308 ; 2.69.286 (reiterated by Brutus at 4.124.520). In Brutus' speech
at 2.137-141: 2.138.576 ; 4.93.389 (inviolability of tribunes). In Antony's speech at
3.33-38: 3.33.129 ; 4.91.381 (Magnino 150); 3.34.132 ; 2.127.530 (see ibid. on 3.34.132;
cf. also 4.94.391); 3.35.138 ; 2.143.598 ff. (ibid. 152); 3.36.143 ; 2.7.23-27 (ibid. on
3.36.143); 3.37.148 P 2.25.94-95.
22In his useful discussion of Arrian's speeches, A. B. Bosworth similarly suggests
that the presence in speeches of verbal echoes and material repeated fromthe previous
narrative is an indication of Arrian's hand (From Arrian to Alexander [Oxford 1988]
23E.g., (to cite a contemporaryof Appian) Lucian Hist. conscr. 58. See H. Homeyer
(ed. and tr.), Lukian: Wie man Geschichte schreibensoll (Munich 1965) ad loc.
24Cf.,e.g., Hannibal's speech beforeAntiochus at Syr. 14.54-58 with Livy 36.7.2-21.
Appian has evidently revised the Polybian version, dividing the emphasis equally be-
tweenHannibal's recommendationswithregard to Philip (Syr. 14.54-55) and his strategy

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Appian's account of Scipio Africanus'surpriseattack on the camp of

Hasdrubal and Syphax in 204 B.c. furnishesone particularlyrelevantex-
ampleofhowhe seems to approachspeeches. Accordingto Polybius,Scipio
began the nightoperationtowardthe end ofthe thirdwatch(Polyb. 14.4.2;
cf.App. Pun. 21.86). Polybiusreports,in oratioobliqua, Scipio's advice to
his troopsimmediatelypriorto the attack: he urgedthem&iv8pa;d&ya0ob
yEv&oat ja icc i yv EicX IrparEtv,oaaqGpEi&Y8a;0it1, =a0'90aov iLlro&ietIcal
Tbar,6'ro, Iar&
hcoEtr'&tri 0ipdha&o( 'roaovrov
&eiaveaxxhrpobv rl tavoia cal
'r t'6oxl ab;toMd (Polyb. 14.4.3). By contrast,Appian pro-
'r vvcrEpiv&;
vides a long versionin oratiorectain whichScipio discloseshis plans (Pun.
19.76-20.84). As in thePolybianversion,Scipio in Appian appeals to z6ojLa
(19.76, 20.83) and pointsout the advantagesofa nightattack (20.79), both
itemssuggestingthateitherAppianor hissourcedrewupon Polybius.25But
followingthe standardexhortation(19.76-78), whichis merelya rhetorical
expansionof what Polybius conveysin one sentence,Scipio launchesinto
a ratherdetailed descriptionof his strategy(20.79-84). Like Cassius in
the corresponding sectionof his speech(4.99-100), Scipio firstindicatesin
what respectstheyare superior(r6XL k8 E~alEroyigqpol)Xogev [Pun. 19.78]
ix b t & c a~ vaxol irox,xpoixogev[4.99.414]). Next, and most inter-
estingly,Scipio predictspreciselywhat will occur (20.84; cf. 21.86-90, and
FrontinusStr. 2.5.29), just as Cassius will be seen to do in much more
This speech,then,operatessimilarlyto at least part of Cassius' speech.
It gathersinto one location some essential strategicinformation, thereby
fulfilling a narrativepurposeas well as permittingthe compressionof ma-
terial. In addition,it both operates as a dramaticdevice and strengthens
our impressionof the speakeras a successfulgeneral,still otherfunctions
observablein Cassius' oration.
It should be remarked,too, that while both Polybius and Livy report
the deliveryofthisexhortation,neitherofthemquote it. Moreover,Livyis
not workingsolelyfromPolybiushere; actually,his reportedspeechcomes
somewhatcloser to Appian's than to Polybius' in that Livy,like Appian,
does have Scipio explain his strategyat this point (Livy 30.5.5-6). Ac-
cordingto Polybius, however,Scipio had done this at a meetingearlier
for the invasion of Italy (14.56-57), whereas Livy accords the formerfar more atten-
tion (Livy 36.7.3-15, 16-20). See J. Briscoe, A Commentaryon Livy Books XXXIV-
XXXVII (Oxford 1981) 229-231; P. Pedech, La methode historique de Polybe (Paris
1964) 270. H. Nissen cites this as a speech composed by Appian "dem Geschmack
seiner Zeit gemiiss" (Kritische Untersuchungengiberdie Quellen der viertenund ffinften
Dekaden des Livius [Berlin 1863] 117).
25Appian's use of Polybius is a vexed question, but he does cite Polybius as a source
at Pun. 132.630 and it seems inescapable that Appian had read Polybius' account of
this event. Whether or not he used him directlyhere is uncertain, though if he did not
then his source certainlydid. See Schwartz (above, n. 4) 218-219; Hahn posits Fabius
Pictor as Appian's source (above, n. 12, 269-270).

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in the day, thoughPolybius nowheregives details (Polyb. 14.3.5; cf. Livy

30.5.1). Since the non-Polybiansource Appian shares with Livy was prob-
ably annalistic(see note 25) and containedno speechesin oratiorecta,the
most likelyconclusionis that Appian has workedup the speech himself.26
The similaritiesin functionbetweenthis and corresponding sectionsof the
speech of Cassius to
appear support that notion.
Pure battle exhortationsof this sort,in oratiorecta,are actually rather
scarce in Appian.27In his entireextantHistory,therereallyare onlyseven
(of roughly65 or so speeches) that could properlybe called parakeleuseis,
that of Scipio just discussed and threepaired parakeleuseisin the Bella
civilia, one by Antonyand Brutus beforethe second and finalbattle at
Philippi (4.117-119), and two by Caesar and Pompey at Brundisiumand
again at Pharsalus (2.50-52; 2.72-74). This circumstancemust reflectnot
only the sourcesused but Appian's own predilectionsas well. Deliberative
speeches,that is, speeches that presentedsomethingof substance to the
reader, appear to have held greaterinterestforhim. This is rathersur-
prisingin a historydevotedlargelyto Rome's foreignand domesticwars,
but perhapsexplainswhythe speechof Cassius is farmorecomplexthan a
routinebattle exhortation,though(as I will suggest) that may have been
its originalform.
One finalindicationthat Appian's speechesare typicallynot mechanical
reproductions of his source materialis theiroveralluniformity.2"They are
of a generallyconsistentlength,usuallyone or twochapters,and style. The
absence of the overblownrhetoricthat one mightexpectfroman historian
of his era has on occasion led some to believethat theycannotbe Appian's
creations,29 but Appian is not givento excessivelyrhetoricalcompositionin
narrativesectionsand thereis no good reasonto supposethathis practicein
speechesshouldbe any different. Rather,his orationstendto be functional
ratherthan ornamental;theyforman integralpart of the narrativerather
than interruptit, as, forinstance,the speechesof Cassius Dio oftendo.30
As we shall see, Cassius' speech is verymuchgermaneto the surrounding

26See furtheron this speech Goldmann 8.

27For these he generally prefers oratio obliqua. For example, he summarizes the
battle exhortationsbeforeZama (Pun. 42.178-179), whereas theyare quoted by Polybius
(15.10, 11.6-12; cf. Livy 30.32.6-7). See P&dech (above, n. 24) 275, with n. 108.
28Schwartz remarks their uniformity(above, n. 4, 234-235), but takes this as an
indication that Appian workedfroma single source, a post-Livian annalist, i.e., Appian
cannot be responsible. For a contraryview see Luce 22.
29E.g., G. Kennedy, "Antony's Speech at Caesar's Funeral," Quarterly Journal of
Speech 54 (1968) 99-106, at 106.
30Cf., e.g., the debate between Cicero and Calenus in Dio (45.18-47, 46.1-28), and
that between Cicero and Piso in Appian (3.52-53, 54.222-60.248).

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


We may now turnto the speechin question. While thisorationshowsa

fewnoteworthy similaritiesto otherspeechesin Appian, it is nevertheless
unique in severalimportantrespects. One of the most remarkableaspects
is its length; this is by far the longest orationin the extant Historyof
Appian.3' In addition,the speechservesto isolate and magnifya character
in a way that fewotherspeechesin Appian may be said to do, a circum-
stance forwhichAppian may be partlyresponsible.Finally,the speechis
of a farmorecomplexnaturethan othercomparablespeeches.While these
distinctivefeaturesmightargue against Appian authorship,thereare com-
pellingreasonsto thinkotherwise.
The speechfalls roughlyinto threesections. In the first(4.90), a brief
exordium,Cassius remindsthe soldiersthat theyare strugglingtowarda
commongoal and that theyhave cause foroptimism.Admittingthat they
knowall too well the reasonsforthe comingconflict,Cassius nevertheless
deemsit usefulto reviewthose reasons. The secondsection(4.91-97) con-
sequentlyconstitutesa lengthynarratioof theeventsofthe past two and a
halfyears. Havingreviewedthepast and onceagain remindedhis menofthe
bondbetweentroopsand theirleaders(4.98), Cassius terminateshis speech
only to resumeonce he perceivesthe enthusiasticreception(4.99.318). In
thisthirdsection(4.99-100) thetyrannicide contraststheircurrentstrategic
advantages with the enemy'sdisadvantagesand looks forwardconfidently
to the impendingbattle. The orationtherefore servestwo functions:1) to
justify the Republican cause through a review of the situationthat has led
to Philippi,and 2) to conveyand explainto thesoldiersthestrategyoftheir

The firstofthesepurposesreceivesthemostattention,and in themiddle
sectionofthespeechAppian's handis themostapparent.Indeed,a compar-
ison of Cassius' reviewwith the historian'spreviousaccountsrevealsclose
linksbetweenspeechand narrative.The connectionsare achievedthrough
a series of substantiveand verbal echoes wherebyAppian bringsCassius'
emphasesintolinewithhis own. The obviousobjectionwillbe thatAppian
is simplymirroring the interestsofhis source,but I believeit maybe shown
that theseemphasesare to a significant degreeAppian's own.
Predictably,Cassius beginswiththe assassinationof Caesar. He recalls
the friendship betweenCaesar and the tyrannicidesin orderto refutethe

31The only other speeches of even slightlycomparable length are those by Brutus
(2.137-141) and Antony (3.33-38). Outside of the Bella civilia, the longest speech is
that by one of Scipio's supportersat Pun. 57.248-61.271.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

chargethat theymurderedhim out of enmity(4.90.381; cf. 4.132.553), an

issue that seems to hold particularinterestforAppian. The notionthat
privateinterestsmust be subordinatedto public concernsis of course en-
tirelyconventionaland was part ofthe debateoverthejustifiability of Cae-
sar's murder.32It constitutes,however,a persistentthemein Appian's ac-
count of the assassinationand distinguishesit fromthat of Cassius Dio,
who is far more interestedin politicalmotivationsand consequences(cf.,
e.g., Cass. Dio 44.1-3). Indeed, the fact that theykilled a friendis made
thefocusofthecriticismslevelledat thetyrannicides in Appian's aforemen-
tionedeulogyat 4.132 and again at 4.134.562. Significantly, the bonds of
friendship and the relationshipbetweenone's privateaffairsand the affairs
of the state formthe subjectof an exchangebetweenAppian and his friend
Fronto.33In his letterAppian insists,,16;kii',(o0a roiq coivoiq; t i&co1tlca
(2); and adds, t ydp i
Kca papL$epov,ONv o?i~ ioo0 y'&petov
ot <ptkix{aneed not be to mirror unthink-
o?66v&ttv; (3). Appian, then, supposed
inglythesentimentsofhis sourcewhenhe criticizesCassius and Brutusfor
betrayinga friend.Rather,such a perspectivemay have made one source
moreattractivethan another,and Appian himselfwouldhave been inclined
to elaboratethe theme.
Cassius thenrevivesthe old argumentthat theyweremerelyfollowing
the example of their ancestorswho swore long ago to oppose monarchy
(4.91.382), a subject that has been broachedin two previousspeeches.34
Caesar, he asserts,robbedthemof theirrightto self-government and vio-
lated the sacrednessof the tribunate(4.93.389), all of whichwe have heard
fromAppian before.35To refreshtheirmemories,he recapitulatesthe pro-
cedures on whichthe Roman democracywas foundedand whichCaesar
subverted(4.92-93), a pointto whichI shall shortlyreturn.Then, in order
to justifythe legalityoftheirpositionand affirm senatorialsupportfortheir
cause, he remindsthe soldiersthat the Senate had in fact voted honorsto
the tyrannicides(4.94.391; cf. 2.127.530) and recalledthe democratically-
mindedSextus Pompey,a characteron whomAppian lavishes particular
attention(4.94.394; cf.4.83).36 A summaryofthe proscription followsthat
concursin almost everydetail withAppian's own vivid,extensiveaccount

32Cf., e.g., Cic. Fam. 11.27.8 (SB 348), Plut. Comp. Dion et Brut. 3.3. See also App.
33C. R. Haines (ed.), The Correspondenceof Marcus Cornelius Fronto 1 (Cambridge,
Mass. 1929, Loeb Classical Library) 265 ff.
34At 2.138.576 in the speech of Brutus and again at 3.18.67 in the speech of Antony.
352.108.453, 111.463, 138.576. The formercriticismoccurs in Pompey's speech before
Pharsalus as well (2.50.206-208), a speech which in tone, intent,and substance parallels
certain parts of Cassius' oration.
36Cassius omits a minor detail: although he and Brutus had originallymoved for
Pompey's recall (2.122.514), in fact Antonyhad effectedit (3.4.11; cf. 3.36.142). Cassius
merelysays the Senate had recalled him (4.94.394). Cassius' attentionto Sextus Pompey

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of this event in the firsthalf of Book 4,37 an account concededeven by

Gabba to be the most originalpart of the Bella civilia.38
The notionthat Appian has purposefully orchestratedtheseconnections
is confirmedby the frequent verbal echoes of the historian'snarrativeand
occasionally to other speeches.39 The following are the most striking:
Cassius' Speech Narrativeor Other Speeches
4.91.382: ... oi. iraripeg hgv ijpgoaav, Praef. 6.20: ... roiS paatX; aIxpa06v-
,re omoi;
PacTia; caz6vre; iz'oaavy re; ical
Klio'6aavre; oic d&v aeol0atpamt-
cipoaavro pa ataiv
o6icd&veea0 ov rtX.
'~k etpaw. 3.18.67: "'Po~utot... [roro
cxpaz6vre;igoajx v gi8' &a paaat,1a;]
v t &v-
Seaeat ..." (Antony,in conversation
with Octavian).
4.94.391: neitrkyvero, a&rixa h 03o-oXl 2.127.530: [The senate] roiS &v8pa;
TilviOwtlVVyvglyVk&ilve, oawp<G ayv Cdl6~ov T pavvox6voUS icK yepalpetV
xre yacy'pa K
etvat. upavvo"tovic& prlrqiovro ix:XFeuov.
3.34.132: '" pouhd
o'0v ieivot [the
jv,j allviv 'rt
avepov,ypa reroiS;&veXobwtv & cvep-
(speech ofAntony).
voi6vot; lpero"
seems due to Appian's interestin him (Sextus and the Bellum Siculum are the subject
of Book 5) and his effortsat foreshadowing;see below, 172 ff.
37E.g., the injuries sufferedby de&poU'xa;cce"ou (4.95.399; cf. 4.5.20, d&epo{ reccxa
GeIoi); the taxes imposed on women (4.96.405; cf. 4.32.135).
38Appiano 222-226. In light of Appian's remarksat 4.16, Gabba concluded that the
account fulfilledhis third criterion.
391. Hahn, the only scholar to my knowledge to have examined the speeches in Ap-
pian's Bella civilia as a whole,noted only the most obvious of these, 4.95.401 and 4.16.61,
and took this as evidence for Appian's hand ("GeschichtsphilosophischeMotive in den
Reden der Emphylia," in J. Harmatta [ed.], Studien zur Geschichteund Philosophie des
Altertums [Amsterdam 1968] 197-203, at 200). Goldmann also compares 2.71.299 to
4.95.401 and 4.16.61 (30, with nn. 36-37). I would add, if only to refute,W. Soltau's
brief observation on Cassius' speech in Appian ("Appians Biirgerkriege,"Philologus
Supp. 7 [1899] 597-634, at 617). Althoughhe noted in verycursoryfashionthat Cassius
repeats details whichoccur in the narrative,he concluded that this was simply because
Appian here followed two sources, one historical and one rhetorical. He justifies this
theory by pointing to what he perceives as Cassius' exaggerations. But Soltau failed
1) to perceive, much less explain, the frequent verbal echoes; 2) to take into account
the circumstancesof the speech and the nature of such speeches; and 3) to allow that
Appian might be capable of reworkinghis material. One final possibility needs to be
acknowledged, that the speech was not informedby Appian's narrative, but just the
opposite, that the narrative was informedby the speech. This raises questions about
Appian's methods of composition, but the principal objection to the latter possibility
is that the speech contains scattered reminiscencesto other books and not to any one
portion (e.g., the proscriptions); hence it seems more likely that the verbal echoes are
fromnarrative to speech, not vice versa.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4.94.393: ... N
Iou icat&pax;
p OvcDv 4.8.35: "oi [of the senators]
tv przytaovaiccyyegovia;SSoav ijLiv Se tt ,o-moi roi';vayei; &v?
zi ) aoet rq8e
evayei; lco~d~ovre; .... xodoEov i iAtpXaqScalflyeovvan (i-
xegC~yav..." (in proscription edict).
4.94.394: ... HIopgfitovrov veov, o?8ev 4.83.348: vedvrepo;~v iSe wSvM&yvou
pgyvz taea aovetpyaopavov, at 8e go- Hogniiovgaipov bCPwxpqij pi t&aipo>-
vov M&'vo'yvro- epitti ra W?%n fldov Kaioapog ept 'I tpiav,
HopI'{iov ,Np-oov
; iai; icai.itt ;go68lv peya St& ve6irTa ical d&zetplav
8rLgoxpazriad &yvt.aagavou
%pi~v 'epaWi6a hiv"keXtXavOdv"OV ipyaao6pvo;, icali&,roREp1iO'vdKEzvbv
nept 'Ipipi.av... (cf. 4.96.404). alozrievav 6 ?yot
;icalt av0avov, 6st
2.122.514: zIoaov re
IHogriov M&yvou,ro" Kaioapt iep-t -ij
xakeiv iti-
8uloxpata; %exohegijxc6'oS,
ovv, zoego6vgevov nt ipbo t&v Kaiaapog
aopairt~yv Av'I~piza ....
X p ic a'rcaSit'q;
4.95.396: ... icreivovra-t 1.95.443: ... .tepOeipovro, v0a
v &vlepoi;.... i lepoi;
iv oixia-qArevicois
13avovro, o

4.95.397: 8e%tiv dayopav ... bnacd v 4.13.52: ... d&Op6a 6're kyyve o xal
aper icactoparqywv icac 8gpXwv icai &4Loagto rogerapokih oPkeurwtv&v8pdv,
ical in~ov icegpa~ai p6"cetv- 1latov Aiopanlyw&v &
fipxov ....

4.95.398: ro-o y&pbcavdoarmaot;

'du; t 4.13.49: 60ib;ov ?v ... &v8pokhiyta
ndvrov, aaaEoS AviVxoAa,,aia&v8po- aipqvi6ta ....
XiAytaaipvi*ta .... ;ypa t xdvrywv,oaa
4.13.52: ~rnavdoraao
'roe xouka Av... (cf. 1.2.6).
4.6.23: riwy&p yv^o0a- pgv&v8poil\yta
4.16.61: xaitrdSeb&Yyvero
4.95.401: ... oja viv o~x8 i8rt; %6 ,t;, o~c v&
ilY(Lovi 6t&1eirstZtspo; O)VaiYirV
he' xk6etou8'
?v d&aO0ve iaxi oatxpwPaot-
aT %owtv&iXeetp-
&pgoaat ati8top0Goat &X Alv8lvaoalrdcqv catToooiTov
,ei?,wai yi' ccd
iOvrv wa yeglovi8a
o-rovjg.vwv. 8t&aetev 6 Se6;.... 0aodij;
4.8.31: "... oi tXepotov0ovreS &po6aat
a' top0&oaatr iotvd ..." (in proscrip-
tion edict).
4.96.403: ... o'i8e oi Xove;, ov; 6
4.25.102: Cd'rto; 8 Za6Evvfr; ... 8&t
' eiav
6p&ae, 8-& iv
koiov 'vo... Xho6toviai yevo; ... &vaxexicgljvo; ...
..poyeypa.C- 8ut io-rov cpoyeypagljvo; ....
gLvot(cf. 4.5.17).
4.99.416: ... o68evb; r&ovaxtetodvdvou- 4.31.133: ... o. b v 6 ra %opia
gCivO X(OpiainxpOova. &vojevo;
4.99.416: ... .epgu*'vl; oTadoteatica 4.5.18: . .. pCdotaar~^ ';Ia iak
icat poypa(pai d'j; 'ITaXia;. re xai doopa ;respugevl; ....

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
It mustbe stressedthat theseechoescannotbe the workofAppian's source.
Several hark back to passages that are not only unique but beyonddoubt
representAppian's own words; that is, to passages whereAppian speaks
sua voce. Thus in Cassius' summaryof the proscriptiona numberof key
wordsor phrases recurthat are foundelsewhereonly in Appian's own re-
marks: Appian, in his programmaticsixteenthchapter(4.16.61), and Cas-
sius at 4.95.401 observethat Rome is a hyEcLov{S and not merelyan i 8wko
6oXt;;4.95.398 contains an almost verbatim repetitionofAppian's wordsat
4.6.23, 13.49, and 13.52, among them severalwordsand phrasesoccurring
exclusively in these sections (navd'oatct, &v8poh/ita,'inovXa).At 4.95.396,
again in reference to the proscriptions,Cassius employsa series of words
plucked from Appian's description of the Sullan proscriptionat 1.95.443.
This is a particularlytellingecho, because Appian's source forthe earlier
eventwas emphaticallynot that consultedforPhilippi (see Gabba, Appi-
ano 89-101, esp. 92-93). Finally,at 4.94.394 and again at 4.96.404 Cassius
summarizesSextus Pompey'sactivitiesin muchthe same termsas Appian
has describedthem.
In thissectionofthespeech,then,Appian composesalmostformulaically,
creatingby means of substantiveand even verbalechoes a patchworksum-
mary of eventsand concernsdetailed in the previoustwo books, muchin
the same way as he will occasionallydo withinthe narrativeproper(see
note 20).
Beforethe finalsectionof thespeechis examined,the somewhatunusual
natureof Cassius' reviewshould be remarked.In the contextof the situa-
tion,it seems rathersuperfluousforCassius to detail as he does the demo-
craticprocessesof the Roman Republic(4.92). Of course,forAppian (and
presumablyforhis source) Philippimarkedthe demiseof that formof gov-
ernment(4.138.580). Cassius mighttherefore be expectedto mentionthose
processes,but certainlythe soldiersdo not need to be schooledin Roman
votingproceduresor the functionof the tribunate.Such detailsseem more
appropriateto a historianconcernedwithdescribingRepublicaninstitutions
forGreekreadersthan to Asinius Pollio or Messalla.40 In fact, the focus
of Cassius' remarks,as well as the phraseology, parallelAppian's summary
of the Sullan constitutionat 1.59. Both passages allude to the npoIouv
(1.59.266 4.92.385), yet anotherpointechoedin a previousspeech,41the
electoralfunctionof the assemblies(ibid.), and the tribunate(1.59.267
4.93.389-390); in short,to the sort of institutionsAppian perceivedto be
the cornerstones ofthe Roman Republic. Moreover,Appianhas Cassius de-
scribetheelectionofconsulsunderthe Republicwiththesame phraseused

40On this as one Appian's foremostconcerns see Luce 143-147.

41At 2.138.574 in Brutus' speech. Cf. the contrary view of Piso at 3.55.229. See
furtherHahn (above, n. 39) 201; Luce 108.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in a rare excursuson how consuls wereselectedunderthe Empire.42Still
otherconcernsof special interestto Appian are in evidence:the sacred and
inviolablenatureofthe tribunate(4.93.389), an interestin the processesby
whichmoneywas acquiredand howit was used (4.96.405-406,99.416-417),
the relationshipbetweenSenate and people (4.91.383, 92.384-387 and pas-
sim), and the Roman aversionto monarchy(4.91.382-383).43 It would ap-
pear, then,that Appian has used this sectionof the speechto rehearsefor
his Greekreaderthe salientcharacteristicsof the Roman democracy,as he
understoodit, and to replaythe finalstages of its ruin.44

Followingthe ostensibleconclusionat 4.98, Cassius is confrontedby
a chorusof cheersfromthe soldiers (4.99.413). This, too, would appear
to be one of Appian's favoreddramaticdevices, used on other occasions
in Antony'sfuneraloration at 2.144-146 (2.145.604), Brutus' speech at
2.137-141 (2.140.581), and Scipio's speechat Punica 19.76-20.84(20.79). In
addition,Appian hereuses a closingformulafoundelsewhere,mostnotably
in a speechin oratioobliqua, the circumstancesof whichare quite similar,
that of Sulla to his troopsbeforeleadingthemto Rome in 88.45
Cassius resumes,and in the last two chapters,whichcomprisethe third
and finalsection(4.99-100), connectionsbetweenspeechand narrativeare
again observable. Here Cassius looks ahead to the comingbattle and, in
a mannerreminiscent of certainThucydideanspeeches,accuratelypredicts
the courseofevents,thus confirming (as it turnsout) his professednp6vota
and <ppovri{(4.99.413, 99.417, 100.420).46 Cassius reassureshis men that
they are well positioned:securelycoveredon all flanksbut one, theyhave

426rouS &inot(aivovrc (1.103.479); cf. Cassius at 4.92.385, indr&ouSce ial

;Ic arpaTyo{S." Appian employs this same phrase to "d&o(paivovc
describe how Augustus,
by way of subvertingthe standard democratic procedures of the Republic, made himself
ruler--avr6v ... &pXovra&nocpivat ?i ... nacpi{&(1.5.22). On Appian's imperfectgrasp of
elections under the Republic and his phraseology,see Luce 113-114, 118-121.
430n Appian's particular interestin the tribunate see Luce 89-92; and in financial
matters ibid. 27-82, and esp. Cuff (above, n. 19). On the ou~vil/MiLoS antithesis see
n. 60.
44This resembles what Antony does in his speech at 3.33-38. Appian had Antony
early on ominouslypredict the consequences of opposing Caesar (2.33.131-132).
45ndvrov... EOib &'yetvdto'6vTov,hoQdeib KoaaioS ... (4.99.413) ; e 'Pcixrlvap w yeftv
Oappova i~xeviov.8SBehcO ( tQ ... (1.57.252-253). Cf. the reaction to Pompey's speech
at 2.52.212 and Caesar's at 2.54.221. According to Appian, in his speech Sulla dwelt on
the iUppiof their opponents, as Cassius in his (4.93.389; cf. Pompey at 2.51.211).
46A general's foresightwas a conventionalmotif(e.g., Xen. Hell. 7.5.8; Polyb. 3.105.9;
Sall. lug. 49.2; Tac. Ann. 2.14.1, Hist. 5.17.2). nIp6vota,though,is a rare wordin Appian,
occurring only here at 4.99.413, in referenceto Cassius' foresight,and at 2.123.515
in a reported message from the tyrannicides. It is, then, a term which sets Cassius
apart (cf. n. 54) and puts him in good company, for according to Thucydides Inp6vota

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

onlyto contendwiththe enemyin front(4.99.415), NorbanusFlaccus and

Decidius Saxa, whomthe Republicanswillsubsequentlydefeat(4.102-105).
He advises thattheyhave as bulwarksSextus Pompeyin Sicily,and Statius
Murcus and DomitiusAhenobarbusin the Adriatic(4.99.415; cf.4.86.367).
Appian will soon narratein two vivid chaptersthe destructionof the tri-
umviralfleetby Murcus and Domitius (4.115-116). Cassius stressesthe
abundanceoftheirprovisions(4.99.417), whilepointingout thattheenemy
will be forcedto transportsupplies overlandthroughthe difficult terrain
of Thrace and Macedonia (4.100.418). Subsequenteventsprovehim right
(4.108.455, 122.512). So too, he correctlyforesees,the enemywill be cut
offfromsupplylinesfromAfricaand Italy (4.100.418).47 The Republicans
havetheadded prospectofa supplylinefromthesea (4.100.419), and in fact
this is soon establishedat Thasos (4.107.448). Finally,Cassius proposesa
possiblestrategy:theywill overcometheirown numericaldisadvantageby
avoidingbattle and wearingthe enemydown throughhunger(4.100.419).
This tactic, of course,nearlycost Antonyand Octavian theirvictory,as
Appian frequently emphasizes(4.108.453, 455; 111.464; 122.512).
Such connectionscannotofcoursebe accidental,and again Appian seems
to be responsible.On theone hand,thisis not theonlyexampleofthiskind
of composition,thoughit is the most extensive.In his speech at 2.73-74,
forinstance,Caesar accuratelypredictsthe performance of the allies in
Pompey's army (2.74.308-309), as confirmedby Appian at 2.75.314-315
and 2.79.333-80.334 (cf. 2.70.289). On the otherhand, thereare speeches
whose contentssimplymirrorAppian's own narrative. Thus Caesar re-
marksupon Pompey'ssluggishnessand lethargy(2.74.307), as Appian does
at 2.67.278-279 (see Goldmann 39, note 76). The most strikinganalog
to the speech of Cassius, however,is that of Antonyto the tribunesat
3.33-38. In tone self-justificatory,
it concurssubstantiallywith Appian's
own narrative.4"But as remarkedabove (SectionIII), whatAppian aims at
in this finalportionof Cassius' speechmost closelyresemblesthe conclud-
ing sectionof Scipio's speech at Punica 19.76-20: Scipio lays his strategy

was a distinguishingcharacteristicof Pericles and Themistocles (Thuc. 1.138.3, 2.65.13,

2.62.5). On speeches as predictiveof events see Pedech (above, n. 24) 258-259.
47Cf. 4.86.366-367, 108.456, 117.494, this last in a speech by Brutus.
483.33.129 ; 2.114.478 (why the conspiratorsspared Antony); 3.34.131 ; 2.118.496
(why Antonyfledafterthe murder); 3.34.132-134 ; 2.128.534 ff.(how Antonyprevented
the votingof honors to the tyrannicides);3.34.135-136 2.132.554 ff.(how Antonysup-
ported the amnesty vote); 3.35.138-139 ; 2.143.598 (Antony's designs and comport-
ment during Caesar's funeral,on which see Magnino on 35.138); 3.35.141 ; 2.122.512
(Antony and Dolabella); 3.36.142 s 3.2-4 (Amatius-affairand recall of Sextus Pompey);
3.36.143 ; 3.23-27 (why Antonysecured Syria forDolabella); 3.37.147-148 ; 3.25 (how
Antony used the Getae as a pretext); 3.37.148 , 3.25 (the Lex Antonia de dictatura
in perpetuum tollenda); 3.37.150 s 3.27 (Antony and D. Brutus). See furtherMagnino
150-154, and esp. Gabba's excellent discussion in Appiano 159-161.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
beforehis men,and the outcomeprovesin accordancewithhis predictions.
In lightof this,and his apparentrespectforCassius' militaryability(dis-
cussed below), Appian may verywell have composed this last section to
enhance his characterizationof Cassius in much the same way as he did
that of Scipio.

Cassius Dio and Plutarch

To judge strictlyby internalevidence,this speech is not likelyto be
Appian's unvarnishedtranslationofhis source. The slightexternalevidence
that may be broughtto bear lendssome additionalsupport.
Cassius Dio furnishesa particularlyinstructivepoint of comparison.
At 47.42.3-4 Dio summarizesthe speechesdeliveredon the battlefieldat
49 The Republicansofferedthe follow-
Philippibeforethe firstengagement.
oi giv sepit?v Bpob5ov'qfvre Reo0epIv icaltit~lv8?qolcpa{av r6 re &jTpdvwev)ov
860ov 'roiaoperepot
icaltb d'X srpoeWdovro, icatrd re&vtaovogiaXpTlarxcaltra v
povapxiqa oaanoo aoloi"e kes6vOeoavaxi ept ripwov spoiepepov,
%apaPeLtxv'vres eicO ' ev eicaorov Cerepa Kaiicereoovrrepaqxc; 'jiv 6pyvilaoaaat
ra ei tcAreivat e
cai 'ev pv &pona r&
XoPEiv & Jil
(piua ol ata ....50
That Dio has given a verypreciseifsomewhatmorerhetoricaldistillation
of the secondsectionof Cassius' speech in Appian is readilyapparent. In
fact,it is possiblethat bothhistoriansare workingfromthe same tradition;
contactsbetweenthe Philippiaccounts of Appian, Dio, and Plutarchhave
led some to believethat all threeultimatelydraweitherdirectlyor (as is
most likelyin the case of Dio) indirectly
on the accountofAsiniusPollio.51
But thereare twoitemsto note: 1) thespeechreportedin Dio is attributed
not to Cassius but to the "officers of Brutus," and 2) in Dio the speech
appears as a genuineparakeleusis,delivereddirectlybeforethefirstbattle,
not some weeks beforeat the Gulf of Melas, and is paired with a speech
fromthe Caesarians (47.42.5). If Dio does accuratelyreflectthe account
of Pollio, then Appian, in this instance anyway,has eithernot followed
Pollio or verymuchrevisedwhat he found. The latterstrikesme as more

49Dio presents the firstbattle as a set piece (47.42.1), whereas in Appian the battle
happens quite unexpectedly (4.109), with little opportunityforthe speeches envisioned
by Dio.
50Note that, in distinction to this generic sort of presentation,Cassius in Appian is
made to establish the contrast between monarchyand democracy at a personal level,
with Cassius representingthe latter and the triumvirsor Caesar the former.The contrast
is reinforcedsyntactically:hAa &6o&v6pe;IOpoi (4.90.380), ~?el;yaxp Kaaoxapa(4.91.381),
.a rFaiov (4.97.408). Cf. Antony in his speech at 3.62.254, establishing a comparison
between Cicero and Caesar: Kxcpaova ... Ka{oapa ... KLCpava ... Katoap ... K=IpOV.
51See C. B. R. Pelling, "Plutarch's Method of Work in the Roman Lives," JHS 99
(1979) 73-96, at 84, n. 73; 87, n. 94. Cf. Kornemann (above, n. 7) 583-585.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

probable,but comparisonwith Plutarchsuggeststhat whenhe composed

Cassius' speechAppian had Messalla's Commentariibeforehim as well.
Althoughhis accountof PhilippiconcurswithAppian's in manydetails,
Plutarchnowherealludes to a speechby Cassius resemblingthat foundin
Appian. Nor does he indicatethatspeechesweredeliveredbeforetheinitial
engagementat Philippi. Rather,just priorto the firstbattle, Plutarch
recountsa privatedialogue betweenBrutus and Cassius (Brutus 40.3-5)
thatostensiblytakesplace in thespace betweentheirarmies(ibid. 40.3) and
thesourceforwhichappearsto be Messalla (ibid. 40.1-2). It seemsa curious
coincidencethat Brutus should here disavow his relianceon Xndieqand
napaaolcvai (ibid. 40.5), preciselythe thingsto whichCassius immediately
appeals in his speechin Appian (4.90.378-379). Still moreinteresting is an
earlierconversationrecordedby PlutarchbetweenCassius and Brutus at
theircamp on the Hellespont.Cassius discourseson the natureof dreams
(Brutus 37), and the source may again have been Messalla (ibid. 40.1-2).
The factthatCassius' passingreference to theapproachingconflictparallels
some remarksfoundin his speechin Appian does not appear to be mere
chance:52 directlysubsequent to Cassius' speechesin both accounts the
omen of the two eagles is detailed in similar terms (Plut. Brutus 37.4,
App. 4.101.425), yet anotherdetail possibly derivedfromMessalla (see
Peter, HRRel 2.lxxxii). In short,Appian seems to use Messalla whilenot
followingor reproducing his account in its entirety.
More specifically, Appian appears to have made use of severalelements
fromMessalla's narrative,and his speechesand conversationsas well, by
incorporating theminto Cassius' speechand elsewhere.EitherMessalla or
Pollio, or both,perhapsprovidedhim with a precedentforthe speech,but
ifDio does preservethe Pollio tradition,thenAppian has movedthespeech
fromimmediatelypriorto thebattleto a pointwellbefore.There is in fact
some evidencethat this is the case.
Like Appian, Plutarch creditsCassius with the plan to debilitatethe
enemythroughdelay (Brutus 39.4). While Appian has Cassius propose
this stratagemin his speech (4.100.419), Plutarchmoreplausiblyhas Cas-
sius formulatethe plan afterarrivingat Philippiand takingstock of the
situation(loc. cit.). Althoughit is difficult to knowhow well-informed the
Republicanswere about the opposition'scircumstanceswhentheycrossed
the Hellespont,Cassius' strategyin Appian seems prematurelyconceived.
The problemdisappears,however,once we grantthepossibilitythatAppian
could have movedthe speech. For once revised,what had perhapsstood in
his source as a stirringbut simplebattle exhortationdeliveredin camp on
1 'i
S2 c ycr'
ay v 'iva p6vov n ical vauOI ?oaau6at;, d&XX
3ouM6v, , ,i;cat nn,,oi; ,cal
OE&v d&payaiS ine0appou^Aev,boa1xdrov epycovical icaX{oaiov ye vr ..." (Plut. Bru-
tus 37.3) ;":ri~ noXX& 6ve in
bkct&v aMaaiboit d&vrndyoCv, &"O
L&v XPE&v a noXaXo
cvacxaLnoXbi poixo'Av xT." (App. 4.99.414).

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the eve of the firstbattle, was now somethingquite different,a situation

Appian resolved the
by relocating speech to an earliertime and place.
The precedingprovidesadditionalindicationsthat Appian has not sim-
ply translateda speechfoundin his source; nowherein the corresponding
sectionsof Dio and Plutarchdo we findanythingpreciselyidenticalto Cas-
sius' oration. The comparisonsuggestsin additionthat Appian has uti-
lized and revisedMessalla and perhapsPollio. In otherwords,ratherthan
baldlytranslatea singleaccount,Appian mayhave gatheredmaterialfrom
a varietyof sources,perhapsin the formof notes (cf. Lucian Hist. conscr.
47-48), and fromthereworkedup his own versionof eventstogetherwith
a dramaticspeechby one of his most prominentcharacters.

Cassius' speech,then,fulfilsa numberofthecriteriapositedat theoutset

fordeterminingways in whichAppian may have transformed his source.
To begin with, the speech clearly marks the climax of the Bella civilia;
Philippiwas in essence the historicalpoint towardwhichthe Bella civilia
as a whole was headed, the point at whichthe Republic was irretrievably
lost. It meets,therefore, the criterionunderlying Gabba's secondstage,the
compatibility with Appian's intent to trace the revolutionsthat led to the
establishmentof the Principate.How the passage fulfilshis thirdcriterion,
theextentto whichit reflectsAppian's desireto set AntonineRome against
the Republic, is perhaps less easy to assess. Appian's excursus on the
proscriptions, however,was admittedlypromptedby such a consideration
(cf. 4.16.64), and, as we have seen, theproscriptions figurein thisspeechto
a significant extent. Furthermore, it mighthave struckhis readeras ironic
that Cassius should assertthat underRepublicanrule Rome had achieved
the heightof prosperity---iicpa EV8atiLov(a (4.92.387)-a termAppian uses
elsewherealmost exclusivelyof his own era, and once earlierin this same
book, at 4.16.64 (as whose contentshe has been shownto
echo deliberately.53ejsat~6ovtaa),
Even morecompelling,apart fromtheechoesfromthepreviousnarrative
that reverberate throughoutthisspeech,is the degreeto whichit focuseson
themesseen to be ofparticularinterestto Appian. The speechseemsin part
contrivedin orderto reviewthe institutionsthatso intriguedhimas wellas
theeventsthatled to theestablishmentofthePrincipate.This is consistent
with his aim of explainingRepublicaninstitutionsforhis Greek audience
(see above, 171,withnote 40) and providingmaterialforcomparisonof the
Republic with his own era. Philippiwas an entirelyappropriatepoint at
whichto carryout such a review.

53Cf. Praef. 7.24. The term is found elsewhereonly twice: in a speech by Syphax at
Pun. 27.114 and at BCiv. 2.14.50, both in referenceto personal happiness.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The appropriatespokespersonwas C. Cassius Longinus,Appian's inter-

est in whomnowneedssome additionaldiscussion.On one level,thisspeech
is completelyin line with Appian's characterizationof him as a military
man. As the studies of Hahn and now Goldmannindicate(see above, note
18), a source that stressedthis aspect of Cassius' characterwould appar-
entlyhave been quite attractiveto Appian. Nonetheless,the natureof Ap-
pian's portrait,which,as Rawson has shown (above, note 14), stands in
contrastto that foundin the othersurvivingsources,impliesthat he has
again imposed his own interpretation on his source. There are, in fact,
clear signsthatAppian is responsibleforthe distinctemphasisplaced upon
Cassius, who, apart fromemergingas the dynamicforcebehindthe con-
spiracyto murderCaesar, is portrayedas a far morecapable generalthan
Brutus; it cannot be an accidentthat Cassius exhibitsmanyof the same
qualities as otherprominentmilitaryfiguresin Appian.54
Proofthat the distinctiondrawnbetweenthe two tyrannicides is a con-
scious efforton Appian's part is foundin the eulogyofferedtowardthe end
of his account of Philippi (4.132-134), where Cassius' militaryabilityis
contrastedwithBrutus' penchantforphilosophy(4.133.561; cf.4.123.518).
The conclusionseems inescapablethat Appian deliberatelyconstructedthe
Philippinarrativeto amplifya previouslyimplicitcontrast,now made ex-
plicit here. How much Cassius' expertisewill be missed,forexample,be-
comesquite apparentfollowing his suicideafterthefirstbattle,whenBrutus
musttakefullcommand.55Unlikehis partner,Brutusprovesineffective and
powerlessin theface ofthe morerecklesselementamonghis soldiers.After
54Appian singles out Cassius in several ways. Cassius firstentersAppian's narrative
at 2.88 in a notorious error,where he is confused with the Lucius Cassius who surren-
dered to Julius Caesar in the Hellespont after Pharsalus. Appian here describes Cas-
sius as an adjective used by the historian on only two other occasions,
once to describe Caesar (and Alexander) at 2.149.621 and once to describe Pompey's
AeyaXouiYa (1.4.15). Appian stresses Caesar's remarkable raXuepyia(2.34.136, 53.216,
55.227), doubtless a translation of celeritas, a quality often remarked in the dictator
(e.g., Suet. lul. 57, Cic. Att. 7.22.1 (SB 146). But raxuepyiais infrequentin Appian.
Apart from the passages on Caesar, it is used, with regard to individuals, of Scipio
at Hisp. 38.155, Hannibal at BCiv. 1.112.522-both militaryparagons in Appian-and
twice of Cassius at 4.74.313, 114.476. (Lucius Antonius, speaking with Octavian, de-
scribes the assassins collectivelyas i&vpac
raX4epye~i [3.19.69].) Also, like Viriathus, an-
otherfavorite,Cassius is described as being &pxLxc6 (4.123.518; on the meaning see n. 56;
cf. Hisp. 75.318 with Mazzarino 3.190); and like Viriathus at Hisp. 75.319, Cassius com-
manded the respect of the soldiers (4.123.518, quoted below, 178). Cf. Cato at Hisp.
39.160, described like Cassius as aworYqp6S (4.123.518). In short, Appian has chosen his
words carefully.It is perhaps purposefulthat in his speech Cassius adduces, as an exam-
ple of a Republican hero, the younger Scipio Africanus,whom Appian clearly admired
(4.92.387; cf. Pun. 112. See Goldmann 7-8, 18-19).
55Note the various ways of describingPhilippi: Josephusconceives it as a war against
Antony (? InpS'AvrCDvLov nolcl', BJ 1.232); to him the death of Cassius was the most
significantevent of the battle (BJ 1.242; cf. AJ 13.311, 14.301). But Lactantius writes

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

makingBrutushimselfdefendhis apparentlethargy(ppa8vtnia,4.118.496),
Appian comparesthe two:
aluovS86' woi)kwv avr6abr'
Bpotrovbnteixi'calx6 9ppova iqaavw elvatical
Av6oLtovKaaaiw,aimoyp icai &px'xfce56
ept 60ev E iv
tavr=yyevoivw. eCxceo086
;i icovov, ou6 apaOapaqryouvre; 0o6& 'rc; ainti av614&vovre;
e%)%vovreS, &e ai g&jOotev,Bpovikw8 oB8tv&X
c ' i auorpaqnyeiv i (iouv&dsipavnvra.

This emphasis on Brutus' ineffectiveness is heightenedby the tyranni-

cide's own comparisonbetweenhimselfand Pompeythe Great,whichcon-
tains a specificverbal echo: "toicatc'v b&q o
oIo'ittoS Mdyvoqoito~telOtv,
ozpatyoveS; tE~t&I v fiazpa'nyoqLtevot"(4.124.520).s Appianextendsthe
parallelsfurther.LikePompey,Brutusfallsvictimto bad advice (4.125.522,
134.566; cf. 2.69, 71.298); and, as in the case of Pompey,Brutus' men
(thoughhere not Brutus) are deluded by 0eophdXita(4.131.550).53 These
last few chapterssubstantiateAppian's beliefthat Cassius was the more
competentgeneralof the two.
For these reasons, Cassius appealed to Appian morethan Brutus, and
was the morefittingcandidateto delivera speech of this sort.59 Yet his

of the bello civili Brutiano (Div. Inst. 2.8). So too Plutarch asserts that Brutus was
the "only man" who stood in Octavian's way at Philippi (Brutus 47.4). These simply
confirmthe pro-Cassius slant of Appian's version.
56H. White, the Loeb translatorof Appian, renders&pXM0cb as "imperious," but this
strains the sense and puts an unnecessarilynegative constructionon the word. Similarly,
Wijnne's contentionthat in these lines "Cassii mores ab Appiano vituperantur"is too
strong (126). &pxX-txS here means simply "fitfor command," as the 8~Ovclause makes
clear: see LSJ s.v. 2, and the discussion of Appian's use of the word by J. Hering,
Lateinisches bei Appian (diss., Leipzig 1935) 14.
57Cf. 2.69.286, repeated by Caesar in a speech at 2.74.307 (cf. 2.72.299, 3.44.182,
with Goldmann 10, with n. 14). Such a comparison was not, however,an originalidea:
cf. Luc. 9.15-30, where Brutus is viewed as Pompey's successor (see M. L. Clarke, The
Noblest Roman [London 1981] 82). Plutarch reports a conversation between Cassius
and Messalla (identifiedas the source) in which Cassius compares himselfto Pompey
(Brutus 40.1-2). See Pelling (above, n. 51) 87.
58The characters to whom Appian applies this or a similar expression (e.g., 0eoI
reflecthis view that the fall of the Republic was in some way divinely or-
dained. Aside fromthis passage, it is used of Sertorius (1.113.526), Labienus (2.62.259),
Pompey (2.67.278, 71.298, 81.339, 87.366), Antony(3.72.396), Decimus Brutus (3.73.298,
in a paraphrase of his words to Octavian), Sextus Pompey (5.140.583, 143.597) and of
Brutus and Cassius themselves (4.134.566). But the use is not limited to the Bella
civilia: cf. Scipio to Syphax at Pun. 27.113 ("Ti'; ae aix{ovEPl3ayXE;"),
50.220; Syr. 28.141.
A definitionis provided at Syr. 28.139: 0Aopf3XkiEta destroys ~ oytaooi;,kSEp &nxat
npoao6v'rcv dr&u'7t\rcov ityverat. On the significanceof Appian's use of the expression
see G. Kramer, Theologumena Appiani (diss., Bratislava 1889) 50 ff.; Hahn (above,
n. 18) 293-294; Luce 18; Gabba, Appiano 125-140; and now esp. Goldmann 33-44.
59Appian does state that Cassius gave the speech because he was older than Brutus
(npo)XEy~ p ihucrig,4.89.376). In a chapter comparing the two (Brutus 29.1), Plutarch
too notes Cassius' seniorityin similar terms ([Kdotaaov]Xuitx'.... npo{tovra).

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

speech, with its strongemphasis on Cassius' political abilities, suggests

that Appian was interestedanotherdimensionto his characteras well. For
instance,althoughCassius stressestheircommoncause (4.90.377-379) and
repeatedlyaddressesthe men as (4.90.377, 98.412, 100.420;
cf.91.381, 98.410,99.413), he subtlymaintainsthedistinctionbetweensol-
dier and senator(cf. 4.90.378). This is significant, forpart of his speech
is a carefullycontrivedattemptto convincethe troopsthat this is indeed
a strugglefordemocracyand hencefortheirown rightto self-government.
Thus he also addresses them as "noitrtat" (4.92.387, 96.403, 97.407; cf.
92.385, 6 fiCltoStci) and, in the best traditionof persuasiveoratory,at-
temptsto make themsee that theyare the ones who have been wronged,
and that he and his fellowsenatorshave struggledand are strugglingon
theirbehalf(4.93.390).6o But Cassius is quick to remindthat in war they
mustobey the leaderswhilein peacetimeall issues mustfirstbe discussed
by the Senate beforebeingremandedto the people (4.92.385). This aspect
of the speech,the mannerin whichit establishesCassius as a politicalas
wellas a militaryfigure,distinguishesit fromtheroutinebattleexhortation
(which,as we have seen, interestedAppian little) and elevatesits effect.
It is, of course,somewhatironicthat forall of his prowessCassius will
ultimatelyperish,and all themoreso in lightofthefactthat,as Appiantells
60Cassius interestinglypresents the conspiracy as undertaken by the entire Senate
(4.93.390; cf. 94.391), a notion repeated by Appian at 4.132. Note too that Cassius takes
care to point out that theyare strugglingto restorer^ & - r"
-... iv oxlrd{avxar& & &apta
(4.97.408). To this compare the terms used by L. Antonius in Appian: in addressing
the soldiers, he is strugglingto restore iv xdarptov ... RoXt{dav (5.39.159; cf. Pompey
at 2.51.210) and ~qgoKxpariav (39.161), but at 5.43.179, speaking privately with Octa-
vian, he avers that he will restore7iv dpto-ropariav.Like Cassius, he addresses the sol-
diers as ovrupa-rtSat(5.39.159; cf. Pompey at 2.72.299, Antonyat 3.38.155) and soV'rat
(5.39.166). (The former, translates commilitones and was conventional:
see Suet. Iul. 67, Aug. 25, ovrpar^tat,
and Livy 2.55.7 with cives and commilitones together,as
in Cassius' speech. See furtherJ. B. Campbell, The Emperor and the Roman Army
[Oxford 1984] 32-59, esp. 33, with n. 6.) At 2.138.576, in an address to the popu-
lace, Brutus uses but in passages repeating the same phrases it is omit-
ted (Praef. 6.20, 3.18.67, 4.91.382). &pworoxpa~pa is the term initially used by Appian
to denote the Republic (Praef. 6.20) although later we find tCgoKparia(e.g., Ill. 30.86;
cf. Cass. Dio 53.17.3). See discussion by G. E. M. de Ste Croix, The Class Struggle
in the Ancient Greek World (London 1983) 322-323; 614, n. 51. This distinction is
more important than may at firstbe apparent. Appian's condemnation of
at 4.133.560 is well known,but therehe describes what the soldiers were fighting8Tgocpar"a
point missed by Gabba, Appiano 184-with serious implications forhis reading of the
speech-but not by Ste Croix, ibid. 614, n. 49). In his speech, Cassius quite properly
emergesas a member of the "Senats-Aristokratie,"as Hahn observed (above, n. 39, 201).
What Cassius is really defendingis the Republican governmentas described by Polyb.
6.11-18, 43-58 and not, as Gabba concluded, "governopopolare" (Appiano 209). This
/iLos antithesis, adduced by Appian in the opening sentence of the Bella civilia
(1.1.1), was common to Greek historians (see C. B. R. Pelling, "Plutarch and Roman
Politics," in Past Perspectives [above, n. 14] 159-187, at 167-169). I suspect, therefore,
that this is additional evidence of Appian's hand in the speech.

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

it, the Republicansreallywon the firstbattle. This shouldnot,however,be

regardedas inconsistency but ratheras Appian's attemptto presentthelife
of Cassius as proofof the instabilityof Fortune,muchas he had done that
of Caesar (cf. 2.88.371-372, 4.134.563). To be sure, Cassius' unnecessary
suicide is regardedas divineretribution forthe murderof Caesar, but we
should not let Appian's opinionof the assassinationovershadowwhat he
obviously approvedof in Cassius. This is, afterall, an historianoften
notedforhis objectivity.61 In Appian's view,Cassius embodiedall thatwas
right-and wrong-with the Roman Republic,and in this speech Cassius
and the Republicare indissolublylinked. Cassius herestandsat the height
of his career as a generaland a Republican. The speechshould not then
be viewedmerelyas a banal, predictableattemptto renderCassius' death
all the moretragicand to demonstratethe instabilityof Fortune.We must
also concedethat it accomplishessomethingmoreprofoundthan that,the
dramatizationof the death of not merelyan individualbut of the Roman
Republicas well.
The thesis argued here has implicationsforthe judgmentof Appian's
worthas a historiographer, particularlyin lightofthe admissionby various
scholarsthat Appian's speechesare quite good.62 For it now seems that
whateverskill and intelligencelies behindsthis particularorationcannot
be entirelyattributedto the source. Appian has in fact used the speech
to accomplishthe rathersophisticatedfunctionthat Polybiusdemandedof
orations:theyshould "sumup eventsand hold the wholehistorytogether,"
c avExet TJv
a oaxybevo Kxe<pdata cvovpaedv EartKal iatopiav (12.25a.3).
Cassius' speech may well be said to fulfilprecisely that function.But the
"wholehistory"it holds together-or at least bringstogether-is not that
of AsiniusPollio, Messalla, or an ignotus,but the Bella civilia of Appian.
Admittedly, thiswas not a speechdrawnout ofthinair; his sourceprovided
himwith a precedentor perhapswithsimplythe gist of the speech. What
Appian ultimatelyincludedwas in factneitherthe gist nora translationof
that speech,as he admitsto havingdone on previousoccasions.63Philippi

61See Gabba, Appiano 165; Magnino 17; Mazzarino 2.400.

62E.g., E. L. Bowie, "Appian," in P. E. Easterling and B. M. W. Knox (eds.),
The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, 1: Greek Literature (Cambridge 1985),
707-709, 888-889, at 709; cf.H. White, tr., The Roman Historyof Appian of Alexandria,
Vol. 1: The Foreign Wars (London 1899) xix (he terms Cassius' the "best speech" in
Appian). Even Photius was impressed: "Whether to arouse by speech the spirits of the
dejected soldier, or to calm the fieryone, or to portrayemotion, or to express anything
else by words, [Appian] stands in the firstrank" (tr. White, op. cit. x).
63Cf. his commentfollowingthe conversationbetween Lucius Antonius and Octavian
followingPerugia: -Tara v reav &Xiljoit, ; bc 6xopgpviq&rov v ;b suvarbvrijabe
Tn 9pomvijq vfi; 6r',&v vs
Appian is not, pace
Iwra3avXcLiv posievq yv&g?;Ty&v ~ (5.45.191).
Gabba ("Appiano traduttorein B.C. V 191," in ~-rtivOv
Studi di storiografiaantica in memoria
di Leonardo Ferrero [Torino 1971] 185-189), saying that he has translated two speeches,

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
was worthyof somethingmore refined. It presentedan opportunityto
personalizehis account of the fall of the Roman Republic,and Appian, if
not a "skilledliteraryartist," was at least not so dull a historianthat he
let the opportunitypass.

but rather that he has worked up speeches in Greek based on the gist (yvc~nt) of the
things said as gathered fromthe Latin commentarii(ibolivicLara)-in my opinion, most
probably Augustus', identifiedas a source shortlybefore at 4.110.463. The bnogyviaLTra
presumably did not provide him with the text of the actual speeches (see Hahn [above,
n. 39] 198-199). At 4.12.45, however,Appian does explicitlystate that what followsis
a translation of the proscriptionedict: ie gv elxevi xpoypaipq
'&v rpIWv ~aov
'EXd&a 9aooaav &7b ;eraplaXeiv. &;

This content downloaded from on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:11:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions