which came first, Lupercalia or tribune incident?

[frankq]

Curious to know what people think and which came first, the Lupercalia or the tribune incident where Caesar stripped Maullus and Flavius of their posts. Only Plutarch has the Lupercalia happening first. Appian and Dio Cassius have the reverse, so too does Suetonius.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Source Material:

Dion Cass. xliv. 9, 10 ; Appian, B. C. ii. 108, 122 ; Plut. Caes. 61 ; Vell. Pat. ii. 68 ; Suet. Caes. 79, 80 ; Cic. Philipp. xiii. 15

[frankq]

Source Material:

Dion Cass. xliv. 9, 10 ; Appian, B. C. ii. 108, 122 ; Plut. Caes. 61 ; Vell. Pat. ii. 68 ; Suet. Caes. 79, 80 ; Cic. Philipp. xiii. 15

 

These I had naturally read, save for Paterculus and Cicero. Paterculus puts the score now 5 to 1, and I can't access Cicero save in Latin and my Latin is sub-nominal at best.

[Primus Pilus]

Source Material:

Dion Cass. xliv. 9, 10 ; Appian, B. C. ii. 108, 122 ; Plut. Caes. 61 ; Vell. Pat. ii. 68 ; Suet. Caes. 79, 80 ; Cic. Philipp. xiii. 15

I can't access Cicero save in Latin and my Latin is sub-nominal at best.

 

For contextual purposes... Cic. Phil 13.15

 

[Publius Nonius Severus]

EDIT: PP beat me to it, again!!!! I need to check if he is online before I try replying to a post from now on...good show PP!

 

Source Material:

Dion Cass. xliv. 9, 10 ; Appian, B. C. ii. 108, 122 ; Plut. Caes. 61 ; Vell. Pat. ii. 68 ; Suet. Caes. 79, 80 ; Cic. Philipp. xiii. 15

 

These I had naturally read, save for Paterculus and Cicero. Paterculus puts the score now 5 to 1, and I can't access Cicero save in Latin and my Latin is sub-nominal at best.

 

There are a couple of English sources for a good number of Cicero's works. Here is what I believe to be the relevant pasages from Cic. Philipp. xiii. 15 from Online Library of Liberty (also available from the Perseus Project):

 

...What then? Were we to remove a man, as if he had been Marullus, or C

Edited September 18, 2007 by Publius Nonius Severus

[Primus Pilus]

My apologies PNS

 

In any case, I am more inclined to agree with Cicero (a contemporary of the events at hand), Paterculus who was 1 generation removed, Appian, Suetonius and Cassius Dio who concur, than Plutarch, who stands alone and doesn't list his reasoning for the alternative chronology. As always though, Plutarch's version has a certain flow to it that makes it seem believable.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

My apologies PNS

 

In any case, I am more inclined to agree with Cicero (a contemporary of the events at hand), Paterculus who was 1 generation removed, Appian, Suetonius and Cassius Dio who concur, than Plutarch, who stands alone and doesn't list his reasoning for the alternative chronology. As always though, Plutarch's version has a certain flow to it that makes it seem believable.

 

No problem PP, great minds think alike, no?

 

I also agree with you and the majority that the incident with the tribunes occured first. It could really go anyway really...The Lupercalia incident was a precurosr to putting diadems on Caesar's statue as Plutarch lays it out, or, my theory is the incident with Marullus and Flavius occurred first and as an attempt at damage control of how he dealt with the tribunes, Caesar rejected the diadem at the Lupericalia festival.

[frankq]

my theory is the incident with Marullus and Flavius occurred first and as an attempt at damage control of how he dealt with the tribunes, Caesar rejected the diadem at the Lupericalia festival.

 

 

EUREKA!!!!!!!!

 

I have always been convinced that Caesar and Antony set this up, but following the tribune incident had my theory on shaky ground.

 

This answers it entirely. Puts it in place. Thanks to you both for your input.

[M. Porcius Cato]

my theory is the incident with Marullus and Flavius occurred first and as an attempt at damage control of how he dealt with the tribunes, Caesar rejected the diadem at the Lupericalia festival.

This answers it entirely. Puts it in place.

 

Not really.

 

There are three firm dates surrounding the event in which Caesar violated the sanctity of tribunes Murullus and Flavius. The first occurred on 26 Jan 44, when Caesar entered Rome from the ritual of the Feriae Latinae, whereupon someone hailed him rex and Caesar haughtily replied, "I am Caesar, not king". The second occurred on 15 Feb 44, which was the date of the Lupercalia. The third was 15 March 44.

 

Somewhere in this period must be an additional three events relating to Caesar's regal ambitions (or eagerness to disdain them): the Murullus and Flavius incident; the event in which Caesar disdained to rise for the senate when granting him some new honor; and the event in which it is 'discovered' in the Sibylline books--shortly before Caesar's expedition to Parthia-- that only a king can conquer Parthia.

 

Thus, it's entirely possible that the Lupercalia was meant to more ostentatiously repeat the events of 26 Jan 44, and having found that the crowd was in fact divided, Caesar was emboldened to foster the monarchical cult by suppressing the tribunes who discouraged it. Plutarch's chronology makes perfect sense from this standpoint, and even more sense if we assume that the suppression of the tribunes was meant to clear the way for the Sibylline prophesies.

 

Ultimately, almost any independent interpretation of the sources requires some sense of what really happened at the Lupercalia. For example, the account by Nicolaus of Damascus, who had eyewitness testimony to Caesar's assassination, differs greatly from that of Plutarch, with Nicolaus essentially depicting the event as an attempt by the Liberators to trap Caesar into taking the crown. If this view is correct (and it is entirely consistent with what little Cicero says of it), then the Lupercalia incident can't have been an attempt to salvage Caesar's handling of the tribunes.

 

In general, my approach to chronology is to take Cicero's letters and speeches as virtual gospel (actually, better than that if you're following that thread!) on the grounds that his descriptions were at least contemporaneous with events, and thus it was highly unlikely that he altered the sequence of events described in his earlier letters to accord with his later outlook. In fact, if Cicero ever edited his letters at all, I'd be shocked. It's for this reason that even the most slavish of Caesar's cheerleaders and the most inveterate haters of Cicero nevertheless rely on Cicero's letters for chronology. I'd suggest that Cicero holds the key to understanding the events of early 44.

[frankq]

Thus, it's entirely possible that the Lupercalia was meant to more ostentatiously repeat the events of 26 Jan 44, and having found that the crowd was in fact divided, Caesar was emboldened to foster the monarchical cult by suppressing the tribunes who discouraged it. Plutarch's chronology makes perfect sense from this standpoint, and even more sense if we assume that the suppression of the tribunes was meant to clear the way for the Sibylline prophesies.

 

Interesting counter argument. But why would Caesar, having found a divided audience, then take the risk of stripping the tribunes of their powers? He would only be placing himself on shakier ground and undermining Helvius Cinna's move to introduce the Sibylline business. That's speaking from a diplomatic and not an authoritative stance, of course.

Edited September 18, 2007 by frankq

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Excellent analysis as usual, Cato! What I wrote above was not a theory based on evidence, just supposition so I would like to explore the matter further. Regarding this para:

 

... Ultimately, almost any independent interpretation of the sources requires some sense of what really happened at the Lupercalia. For example, the account by Nicolaus of Damascus, who had eyewitness testimony to Caesar's assassination, differs greatly from that of Plutarch, with Nicolaus essentially depicting the event as an attempt by the Liberators to trap Caesar into taking the crown. If this view is correct (and it is entirely consistent with what little Cicero says of it), then the Lupercalia incident can't have been an attempt to salvage Caesar's handling of the tribunes.

 

You make reference to other statements by Cicero that mention the Lupercalia incident. If I recall correctly, Cicero's take on Lupercalia (which he referenced several times in the Phillipics) was that it was part of Anthony's scheme to seize power after Caesar. Is this a correct summary? If it is, I see some potential conflicts between Nicolaus's interpretation and Cicero's (unless at the time of the incident, Anthony was conspiring with the Liberators). If not, could you expand further. I plan on reading more of what Cicero has to say but will not be able to until tonight.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Nice analysis on this thread

 

Plutarch repeats his chronology on Antonius XII.

 

Suetonius' Divus Caesar LXXIX mentions a "Latin festival" (sacrificio Latinarum) as the moment for the tribunes

Edited September 18, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Nice analysis on this thread

 

Plutarch repeats his chronology on Antonius XII.

 

Suetonius' Divus Caesar LXXIX mentions a "Latin festival" (sacrificio Latinarum) as the moment for the tribunes

Edited September 18, 2007 by Publius Nonius Severus

[M. Porcius Cato]

But why would Caesar, having found a divided audience, then take the risk of stripping the tribunes of their powers?

 

From a public relations standpoint, the tribune incident was a fiasco for Caesar regardless of whether it occurred prior to or following the Lupercalia.

 

BTW, I don't really take my counter-argument to be persuasive, but my reasons come from a different way of looking at the chronology.

 

Let's look at all of the events from a slightly different point of view--not Caesar's , but Brutus'. When exactly did Brutus decide to kill Caesar? What was the point at which Brutus' private doubts about Pompey became a private animus against Caesar? When was Brutus' private animus against Caesar turned into a patriotic crusade? When did Brutus' crusade catch fire among the other Liberators? When did the Liberators decide that they had to act NOW and not later?

 

I think the clue from Nicolaus of Damascus shows all the signs of an already extant conspiracy at the Lupercalia, and sources also hint that the real turning point to this public event was the violation of the tribunes. I'm guessing that for families that had supported Marius (like Brutus' family), this must have been the point at which private disgust with Caesar acquired the flame of patriotism. In fact, it would be interesting to count up the number of conspirators who had been tribunes themselves.

 

I'm also guessing that the rumor of the Sibylline prophesy precipitated an apparent imperative for immediate action--the Sibylline prophesy would have to be announced prior to Caesar leaving for Rome, when the Senate would presumably decree him king, as directed by the Sibylline books. It's entirely possible that the Liberators felt (rightly or wrongly) they had to prevent this decree by killing Caesar prior to the Parthian expedition, and the last meeting prior to this would be 15 March. If they weren't acting on this assumption, it's difficult to imagine why they wouldn't welcome Caesar's leaving Italy, which would normally cause him to lose his status as dictator and which could have resulted in his death anyway.

 

Granted that this is all (evidence-based) conjecture, but even if you don't agree with this chronology, I still think it's productive to try looking at the events from Caesar's perspective, from Brutus', from Antony's, from Cicero's, and so forth. Otherwise, there is a tendency to see one person as the agent of all events, and that's obviously absurd.

[ASCLEPIADES]

In fact, it would be interesting to count up the number of conspirators who had been tribunes themselves.

 

Four, as far as I can tell:

 

C. Trebonius (699 AUC / 55 BC)

 

C. Cassius Longinus (705 AUC / 49 BC)

 

Pontius Aquila (709 AUC / 45 BC)

 

P. Servilius Casca (710 AUC / 44 BC)

 

We may add P. Cornelius Dolabella (adopted Lentulus; 708 AUC / 48 BC), but it appears that he was only a late accomplice and not a true conspirator.