An apology to Octavius

Fellow countrymen:

I know that many of you, in addition to being angered at my actions towards Caesar, are angered at my general decorum in the Senate. May I remind you all that no true Roman is to ever apologize for slaying a tyrant, but is to instead be praised as a hero. I leave the Senate to debate this issue tomorrow, as the state decides what is best for its own. As for my interruptions during our meetings, what honorable Roman would allow the subtler forms of tyranny to slip through the lips of the few who lie, claiming to profess the good of the Republic, when it is their ambition that drives them, not their patriotism. However, you have my pledge that I will honor my fellow Senators and attempt to let everyone speak within reason, no matter how much my blood is boiling. For the order of the populace depends on the example of order the Senate sets for them.

And as for my mistake regarding Octavian, I have to apologize. He has not proven himself hostile to the Republic. My messengers provided me with a false rumor. What is more, the inevitable nature of what I had to perform in order to save the Republic has caused my wife and I great greif.

It is not the fault of Octavian that Caesar appointed him magister equitum designate, just as it was not my fault that Caesar sought after my council after Pharsalus, both in matters of the sword and state. As his advisor and friend I warned him of the hazardous state of dependence to which he subjected the Republic; in the latter years of his reign as "king," as "Divus Julius," Caesar began to understand the irreversible situation into which he had plunged the Republic and therefore further absorbed himself in his military campaigns. For this is what was familiar to him. Internal administration, as we all know, was not.

But back to the subject of Octavian: while it is true that I insulted his honor due to misinformation, and for that must profusely apologize, the truth of the matter remains that he is rallying his legions in the East from Rome in Caesar's name. Thus he has proven his army to be a potential threat. I ask you, Senators: while it is true that the image of Caesar unified our army because they were largely his army, they must know that he is alive no longer and that Rome is greater than any man. To continue to call upon the image of a ghost, as if to allow our armies to forget for whose cause they fight, is highly unwise. This is the sort of thing you would expect from a youth like Octavian: it is impetuous, ambitious, and irrational, and furthermore, it is simply too easy. While Octavian no doubt is to be honored as wise beyond his years, the fact remains that he does not have seasoned military experience on his side. Therefore, I propose that we divide his legions amongst the 3 frontier borders. The reasonings for this are twofold: firstly, the nations surrounding us are agitated by Caesar's constant warring and therefore constantly harassing our provinces. Secondly, this would allow Octavian to gain more military experience under the watch of the Senate.

I also propose that, in return for official Senator status, that Octavian, along with the other commanders of his army, be required to sign an oath of loyalty to the Senate to only act in the best interests of the Republic. I think that we are all in agreement when we say that we can afford no private citizen an army of his own. But we do need the ability to focus on the internal administrative issues at hand, Senators, without being distracted by either Parthia, Gaul, or Egypt and her scheming queen.

And as for my trial, I do not condone it. Frankly, I am surprised that you, supporters of Caesar and lovers of convenient justice, suggest to use our court system. But I am not surprised that you favor to use it inappropriately and for your own personal gain, for these are the "virtues" which the late Caesar favored. I know that those who model themselves on Caesar's form of governance--that is, favoring personal friends as opposed to appointing those who would best serve the Republic--will not listen to my reasoning. But I must speak my mind on my own trial in hopes that rational men will hear, if this spurious "trial" is to take place. For it rather feels like a petty act of revenge, attempted by those who are angered that they can no longer live in the glorious shadow of the giant that was Caesar. If a trial is held, think of the factionalism that will arise in the Republic. You, Caesarians, will drive the knife deeper. You not only punish me, but the 22 other nobiles who aided in this plot. Are these conscriptions, Senators, or a fair and balanced trial? To me this smacks of Maruis and Sulla. It is one thing to have proper room to protest within a Republic, but Caesar, with his absolute control of all Rome, all of the rest of us being his puppets, left us no room for protest. There were either the nobiles who bought into his flattery, or the nobiles who eventually found their way out of such confusing tyranny of the soul. There was no room for dialogue in Caesar's Rome! The rule of one man always stifles virtue! No one could but praise him, not out of their will, but out of fear or lust for power. Even Cicero, the father of our country, was rendered a slave to his "clemency" when invited back from his exile, and was forced to utter these prophetic words, both complement and entreaty:

"For it has often come to my ears that you are in the habit of using that expression much too frequently--that you have lived long enough for yourself. I dare say you have; but I could only be willing to hear you say so if you lived long enough for yourself alone, or if you had been born for yourself alone. But as it is, as your exploits have brought the safety of all the citizens and the entire Republic to a dependence on you, you are so far from having completed your greatest labors, that you have not even laid out the foundations which you design to lay."

I must agree with Cicero that Caesar never delivered this glorious Republic into our hands. But why must we wait for Caesar to deliver, why did we ever wait for him, when we are men perfectly capable of together achieving ten times the glory of Caesar, if we would only work together? I am not overthrowing anything but tyranny, and not restoring anything that was not here in the first place. I am not a revolutionary, but a patriot. For the rest of you who are still not convinced of my innocence, I leave you with a quote from the speech of the honorable Scribo:

"In order for the proper actions to take place, the decision on what the act truly was needs to be decided. If it was a murder, it should be dealt with as a murder. If the killing was a noble act of tyrant-slaying, exalt the liberators and erect statues in the forum."

I beg of you to consider the terms for a trial before one is convened. We must first decide whether or not Caesar was, by definition of our constitution, considered a tyrant before any lengthy trial is to take place.