Editing Marcus Junius Brutus (section)

=== Modern views ===

Views of Brutus as a symbol of republicanism have remained through the modern period. For example, the [[Anti-Federalist Papers]] in 1787 were written under the pseudonym "Brutus". Similar anti-federalist letters and pamphlets were written by other Roman republican names such as Cato and Poplicola.<ref>{{Cite book |editor-last=Dry |editor-first=Murray |editor2-last=Storing |editor2-first=Herbert J |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/698669562 |title=The anti-Federalist: an abridgement |date=1985 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-77562-3 |location=Chicago |oclc=698669562}}</ref>

[[Conyers Middleton]] and [[Edward Gibbon]], writing in the late 18th century, had negative views. Middleton believed Brutus' vacillations in correspondence with Cicero betrayed his claims to philosophical consistency. Gibbon conceived of Brutus' actions in terms of their results: the destruction of the republic, civil war, death, and future tyranny.{{sfn|Tempest|2017|p=10}} More teleological views of Brutus' actions are viewed sceptically by historians today: [[Ronald Syme]], for example, pointed out "to judge Brutus because he failed is simply to judge from the results".{{sfn|Tempest|2017|p=219}}

The influential ''History of Rome'' by [[Theodor Mommsen]] in the late 19th century "cast a damning verdict on Brutus" by ending with Caesar's reforms in 46&nbsp;BC, along with advancing a view that Caesar "had some sort of solution to the problem of how to deal with Rome's growing empire" (of which there is no surviving description).{{sfn|Tempest|2017|p=220}} Similarly, views of Brutus are also bound up with assessment of the republic: those who believe the republic was not worth saving or in an inevitable decline, views perhaps coloured by hindsight, view him more negatively.{{sfn|Tempest|2017|p=220}}

There remains little consensus on Brutus' actions as a whole.{{sfn|Tempest|2017|p=231}}