12 (?) November 44 BCE: To Atticus (at Rome) from Cicero (at Arpinum)
'If Octavian were to have much power [...] this will be trouble for Brutus.'
I really have nothing I can write to you about. While I was at Puteoli, I had something new from Octavian every day, and much (even if some of it was untrue) about Antony. But to reply to what you have written (for I received three letters from you on the 11th), I very much agree with you that if Octavian were to have much power, then the acts of the tyrant will be approved much more securely than than they were in the Temple of Tellus—and this will be trouble for Brutus.1 But if he2 is defeated, you can see that Antony will be intolerable; so one can’t decide which outcome is preferable.
What a worthless man Sestius’ letter-carrier is! He said he would be in Rome a day after leaving Puteoli. You warn me to take things one step at a time, and I agree; although I did think otherwise. The examples of Philippus and Marcellus don’t influence me. Their position is different; and if it isn’t, it at least seems to be.3 But that young man, although he has enough spirit, lacks authority.4 Still, think whether it would possibly be better for me to be at Tusculum, if I could be there safely. I’ll be happier there; for I won’t miss out on any news. Or should we decide this when Antony comes?
But, one thing leading to another, I have no doubt that what the Greeks call καθῆκον, we call ‘duty.’ But why do you doubt that it is also a perfectly applicable term in the context of public life? Do we not talk about the duty of the consuls, the duty of the Senate, the duty of a general? It is perfectly appropriate—or you give me something better.
Your news about Nepos’ son is terrible. Truly, by Hercules, I am very affected and upset by it. I hadn’t even known that the boy existed.
I have lost Caninius, who was not ungrateful to me, at least. There is no need for you to prompt Athenodorus; he sent me some notes that were nice enough. Please, do everything you can for your cold.
Your grandfather’s great-grandson writes to my father’s grandson5 that after the 5th on which I did my great deeds,6 he will sort out the business of the Temple of Ops, and that he will do this before the people.7 Please look into this, and write back. I am waiting for Sextus’ opinion.8
Read Ad Atticum 16.14 in Latin here | Check the glossary here | Watch an overview of events from the Ides of March onwards here
A vote initiated by Antony at a meeting in the Temple of Tellus on March 17th had given Caesar’s unpublished acts (and later, Antony’s forgeries) the force of law.
Octavian.
Philippus was Octavian’s step-father, and Marcellus was Octavian’s brother-in-law. Footnote borrowed from Shackleton Bailey: ‘Like Vulcatius and Sulpicius in 50-49 these seem to have been proposed by Atticus as models for Cicero’s imitation. Apparently both were taking a characteristically cautious line with regard to their kinsman by marriage Octavian (cf. 390 (XV. 12). 2 n.; 416 (XV. 13). 3 n.). In saying that their position differed from his own Cicero was not thinking of their family connections, which gave them less, not more, excuse for holding back, but of what people expected from them and from himself: cf. 160 (VIII 9a). I sed me illorum sententiae minus movebant; minus multa dederant illi rei publicae pignora.’
Octavian.
i.e. Quintus Jr had written to Cicero’s son.
December 5th, which was the anniversary of Cicero’s arrest and execution of five members of the alleged Catilinarian Conspiracy during his consulship in 63 BCE.
Footnote borrowed from Shackleton Bailey: ‘Quintus can hardly have envisaged taking such action in a private capacity (explicaturum clearly means ‘sort out’, ‘put straight’, not ‘disclose’), and his mention of the Nones [5th] of December, when the Quaestors took office, as good as proves that he was now Quaestor-Designate. If he had been appointed Quaestor Urbanus he might appropriately, as custodian of the public treasure, take up the investigation of Antony’s peculations (cf. 368 (XIV. 14). 5). That Quintus was several years short of the legal age for the Quaestorship is not a fatal objection at this period.’
Sextus Peducaeus’ opinion on the unpublished Second Philippic.