The author begins his discussion of the problems associated with Marcus Antonius’s exercise
of the office of a tribune of the plebs in 49 BC by indicating the peculiar features of his tribunate.
For it turned out that Antonius had to hold his plebeian office in a time when the Roman Republic
saw events which would determine its future fate. Antonius actively participated in these events and
played a decisive role in them due to his political associations. The consequence of his engagement
was a delay of many months in his activity associated with this tenure and active participation in the
civil war. Antonius resumed his duties as the tribune of the plebs as late as at the end of his term i.e.
shortly before 9 December, 49.
Then the author describes the problems associated with Antonius’s appointment to the college of
tribunes of the plebs for the year 49, especially the support that was expressed to him at that time by
C. Scribonius Curio, a former‑
year tribune of the plebs who was his friend, and by a protector and at
the same time the principal of both men — C. Iulius Caesar. Due to this fact a great deal of attention
was devoted to the analysis of source information associated with these issues, especially the ones
contained in the Eighth Book of the Bellum Gallicum by Aulus Hirtius.
The author begins his discussion of the activities initiated by Antonius after he assumed the office
on 10 December, 50 by presenting his expression of support for the defence of Caesar and the activities
directed against Pompeius that were realised until the end of this month. Then the author concentrates
his attention on the presentation of the most important and best known manoeuvres of Antonius that
he realised in the senate forum during 1—7 January, 49, during the sessions devoted to Pompeius’s
conflict with Caesar. The author devoted due attention to the events that happened in the senate room
on the first and last day of the sessions. The activity of Antonius away from Rome during the Italic
campaign was mentioned only briefly as it is not directly associated with the problem stated in the title
of the article. The author’s considerations are concluded by a discussion of Antonius’s resumption of
the duty of a tribune of the plebs in the final period of his tenure and an evaluation of his tribunate.