to
Cicero. Morabin says that there is no proof of this, and alleges that
Brutus did it for stage effect. But he cannot have seen the letter above
quoted, or seeing it, must have misunderstood it.[177]

It soon became evident to the conspirators that they had scotched the
snake, and not killed it. Cassius and others had desired that Antony
also should be killed, and with him Lepidus. That Antony would be
dangerous they were sure. But Marcus Brutus and Decimus overruled their
counsels. Marcus had declared that the "blood of the tyrant was all that
the people required."[178] The people required nothing of the kind. They
were desirous only of ease and quiet, and were anxious to follow either
side which might be able to lead them and had something to give away.
But Antony had been spared; and though cowed at the moment by the death
of Caesar, and by the assumption of a certain dignified forbearance on
the part of the conspirators, was soon ready again to fight the battle
for the Caesareans. It is singular to see how completely he was cowed,
and how quickly he recovered himself.

Mommsen finishes his history with a loud paean in praise of Caesar, but
does not tell us of his death. His readers, had they nothing else to
inform them, might be led to suppose that he had gone direct to heaven,
or at any rate had vanished from the world, as soon as he had made the
Empire perfect. He seems to have thought that had he described the work
of the daggers in the Senate-house he would have acknowledged the
mortality of his godlike hero. We have no right to complain of his
omissions. For research, for labor, and for accuracy he has produced a
work almost without parallel. That he should have seen how great was
Caesar because he accomplished so much, and that he should have thought
Cicero to be small because, burdened with scruples of justice, he did so
little, is in the idiosyncrasy of the man. A Caesar was wanted,
impervious to clemency, to justice, to moderation--a man who could work
with any tools. "Men had forgotten what honesty was. A person who
refused a bribe was regarded not as an upright man but as a personal
foe."[179] Caesar took money, and gave bribes, when he had the money to
pay them, without a scruple. It would be absurd to talk about him as
dishonest. He was above honesty. He was "supra grammaticam." It is well
that some one should have arisen to sing the praises of such a man--some
two or three in these latter days. To m