Cornelius Nepos, ‘‘Atticus,’’ and the Roman Revolution puzzling—wholearmieshadearlierfoughtinthenameofliberty.Equally,
not only members of the Roman upperclass, but large armies of ordinary
men,bothRomansandnon-Romans,foughtunderAntoniusandOctavian.
Whyandhowtheycametodosostillseemsremarkablydifficulttoexplain.
Butpartofthetotalpictureissurelythatmanyothersremainedthroughout
passive,uncommitted,andneutral,preferringprivatedutiesandtheglories
ofthepasttotheurgentissuesofthepresent.AsNeposhimselfwroteelse-
where,theres publicawasnowgovernednotby‘‘right’’(ius)butby‘‘force’’
(potentia)(Cato, ); and elsewhere again he complains that the state was
endangeredbythefactthatarmyveteransclaimedtherighttogiveorders
themselves,ratherthanreceivethem(Eum.,).Butnooneofferedaseri-
ous alternative to force, or presented a programme to solve the problems
oftheveterans.Andthephilosophicquietismandneutrality,whichAtticus
observedandNepospraised,onlyservedtosmooththepathtomonarchy.
Underthatnewmonarchypoliticalneutralitywastobetheenforcedfateof
everybody; and an antiquarian interest in the Roman past could be put to
useinthepropagandaofthenewlyestablisheddynasty,andimmortalizedin
stoneinthemonumentswhichitputupinthecentreofRome.