¶ Brutus operated from higher motives, for he slayed his friend
when he perceived that the public good demanded it, while
Dion freed the Syracusans only after their tyrant had offended
him personally.
|
The greatest thing charged on Brutus is, that he, being saved by
Caesar's kindness, having saved all the friends whom he chose to
ask for, he moreover accounted a friend, and preferred above
many, did yet lay violent hands upon his preserver. Nothing
like this could be objected against Dion; quite the contrary,
whilst he was of Dionysius's family and his friend, he did good
service, and was useful to him; but driven from his country,
wronged in his wife, and his estate lost, he openly entered upon
a war just and lawful. Does not, however, the matter turn the
other way? For the chief glory of both was their hatred of
tyranny, and abhorrence of wickedness. This was unmixed and
sincere in Brutus; for he had no private quarrel with Caesar,
but went into the risk singly for the liberty of his country /1/.
The other, had he not been privately injured, had not fought.
This is plain from Plato's epistles, where it is shown that he
was turned out, and did not forsake the court to wage war upon
Dionysius. Moreover, the public good made Brutus Pompey's
friend (instead of his enemy as he had been) and Caesar's enemy;
since he proposed for his hatred and his friendship no other end
and standard but justice. Dion was very serviceable to
Dionysius whilst in favor; when no longer trusted, he grew angry
and fell to arms. And, for this reason, not even were his own
friends all of them satisfied with his undertaking, or quite
assured that, having overcome Dionysius, he might not settle the
government on himself, deceiving his fellow-citizens by some
less obnoxious name than tyranny. But the very enemies of
Brutus would say that he had no other end or aim, from first to
last, save only to restore to the Roman people their ancient
government.
|