Two letters by Brutus and Cassius to Mark Antony: different people, different times, different styles

IF 0.2 0 CLASSICS
Gualtiero Calboli
{"title":"Two letters by Brutus and Cassius to Mark Antony: different people, different times, different styles","authors":"Gualtiero Calboli","doi":"10.1515/joll-2015-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Between end of May and beginning of August 44 M. Junius Brutus, praetor urbanus, and C. Cassius Longinus, praetor peregrinus, sent two letters to M. Antony who was consul. These letters were different in content and style but also the two senders were different. If we take into account the facts of this time we see that the situation in Rome changed and M. Antony gave up his previous position (assumed 17 March 44), which was oriented towards the concordia, for a new position directed towards the vengeance for Caesar’s murder. This depended upon the intervention of Octavian who took the hereditary name of C. Iulius Caesar and gave himself as aim Caesar’s vengeance, an aim M. Antony had to assume in order to remain head of the Caesarian party. Brutus’ and Cassius’ attitudes were different: Brutus tried to save the concordia, Cassius to defend with weapons the Liberators’ position; Brutus was formed in Stoic culture, Cassius was rather inspired by old Roman tradition. Such a different position appears in the first part of this paper. Therefore the first letter, where Brutus and Cassius invite M. Antony to save the concordia, seems to be inspired by Brutus and the second letter, a kind of ultimatum to M. Antony, rather inspired by Cassius. More interesting is that also the style of the first letter is closer to Brutus’ than Cassius’ style, while the second letter is more connected with Cassius’ language as it appears from Brutus’ and Cassius’ letters we read in Cicero’s correspondence. It seems therefore that the first letter, where the Liberators tried to save the Concordia, was written mostly by Brutus, the second one, the ultimatum letter, by Cassius. The style confirms this hypothesis.","PeriodicalId":29862,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Latin Linguistics","volume":"14 1","pages":"241 - 267"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/joll-2015-0010","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Latin Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2015-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Between end of May and beginning of August 44 M. Junius Brutus, praetor urbanus, and C. Cassius Longinus, praetor peregrinus, sent two letters to M. Antony who was consul. These letters were different in content and style but also the two senders were different. If we take into account the facts of this time we see that the situation in Rome changed and M. Antony gave up his previous position (assumed 17 March 44), which was oriented towards the concordia, for a new position directed towards the vengeance for Caesar’s murder. This depended upon the intervention of Octavian who took the hereditary name of C. Iulius Caesar and gave himself as aim Caesar’s vengeance, an aim M. Antony had to assume in order to remain head of the Caesarian party. Brutus’ and Cassius’ attitudes were different: Brutus tried to save the concordia, Cassius to defend with weapons the Liberators’ position; Brutus was formed in Stoic culture, Cassius was rather inspired by old Roman tradition. Such a different position appears in the first part of this paper. Therefore the first letter, where Brutus and Cassius invite M. Antony to save the concordia, seems to be inspired by Brutus and the second letter, a kind of ultimatum to M. Antony, rather inspired by Cassius. More interesting is that also the style of the first letter is closer to Brutus’ than Cassius’ style, while the second letter is more connected with Cassius’ language as it appears from Brutus’ and Cassius’ letters we read in Cicero’s correspondence. It seems therefore that the first letter, where the Liberators tried to save the Concordia, was written mostly by Brutus, the second one, the ultimatum letter, by Cassius. The style confirms this hypothesis.
布鲁图和卡西乌斯写给马克·安东尼的两封信:不同的人,不同的时间,不同的风格
五月底至八月初,乌尔班总督布鲁图斯先生和佩雷格里努斯总督隆吉纳斯先生给执政官安东尼先生写了两封信。这些信的内容和风格不同,而且两位寄信人也不同。如果我们考虑到这个时候的事实,我们就会看到罗马的局势发生了变化,安东尼先生放弃了他以前的职位(在44年3月17日担任),他的职位是面向康科迪亚的,他的新职位是为了报复凯撒的谋杀。这取决于屋大维的介入,屋大维取了恺撒的世袭姓氏C.尤利乌斯·恺撒,并把自己作为恺撒复仇的目标,这是安东尼先生为了继续担任恺撒党的领袖而必须承担的目标。布鲁图斯和卡修斯的态度不同:布鲁图斯试图拯救康科迪亚,卡修斯用武器保卫解放者的阵地;布鲁图是在斯多葛派文化中形成的,卡修斯则是受到古罗马传统的启发。这种不同的立场出现在本文的第一部分。因此,第一封信中布鲁图斯和卡西乌斯邀请安东尼先生拯救康考迪亚号的内容似乎是受布鲁图斯的启发,而第二封信中给安东尼先生的最后通牒,则是受卡西乌斯的启发。更有趣的是,第一封信的风格更接近布鲁图而不是卡西乌斯的风格,而第二封信则更接近卡西乌斯的语言从我们在西塞罗的通信中读到的布鲁图和卡西乌斯的信件中可以看出。因此,第一封信,解放者试图拯救协和号,主要是布鲁图写的,第二封信,最后通牒,是卡修斯写的。风格证实了这一假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
50.00%
发文量
5
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信