Caesar and the Corruption of Power - Assignment Example

Senators who plotted Caesar assassination did not act in the best interests of Rome 5.Caesar: Do you think that the senators who plotted to assassinate Caesar were acting in the best interests of Rome? Why or why not? Caesar’s assassination is one of the most widely discussed historical and literary events. There have for centuries been wide-ranging debates on the motives of the killers as well as the justification of their action and whether they were for good or evil. According to some commentators, the killers of Ceaser were; jealous, malicious and nefarious individuals, motivated by nothing but their own personal gain and blinded by their hatred for him. On the other hand, there are those who describe the killers as noble idealists, willing to risk their lives and even sacrifice their morality for the sake of a sovereign Rome, free from the tyranny they thought Ceaser would bring to the republic. However like most such debacles, the explanation is not that simple or even straightforward. While all the 12 blades struck Ceaser with the same ferocity, they were driven by different motivations and beliefs. For the likes of Cassias and Casca, it is true that they may have been driven by envy and jealousy. However, for Brutus, it was much more complex, he probably believed that he was saving the Roman people and Ceaser from himself. This is why after the deed was done he ended up depressed often haunted by images of Ceaser. This paper will attempt to examine the assassination of Ceaser, what motivated it and the outcomes as well as the sentiments and action of the killers to determine if they had the interest of the Roman people at heart on their own. Ceaser, who was the emperor of Rome was killed by his own senators in a meeting hall next to Pompey’s theatre. His death was a culmination of a plot that had encompassed many of his noblemen and friends including his beloved Marcus Brutus1. He was supposed to depart for Rome to lead a war in March and had already appointed some of his loyal soldiers to rule in his steed. Understandably, some of the senators were unhappy about the prospect of having to take orders from Caesar’s underlings and this might have made it much easier for them to agree to take part in the plot against him. Other like, Cassius felt wronged by Ceaser who had declined to give him a position of power which forced him to remain in Rome in semi-retirement with hardly any authority save for his influence among the senators. Ironically, Ceaser had received many warnings which some subtle and others more overt which he had chosen to ignore. Even as he entered the senate, it is said that a note had been handed him warning him about the plot against him but he had not read it. In the hall, he was surrounded by the conspirators who attacked him stabbing and with their blades until he fell on the floor of the Senate2. The only man who could have saved him, Mark Antony had been lead away from the floor on false pretenses, and when he returned he was “convinced” his friend had been killed for Rome’s betterment, he even pledged loyalty with the killers for an opportunity to mark them3. Given Caesar’s popularity with the people, one would have expected that there would have been an immediate public response, perhaps rioting or even some sort of mass action. However, Brutus convinced the people that he had acted in their best interest saying, that he loved Ceaser without doubt, but he loved Rome more. “If then that friend demands why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more” .4 He is convincing manages to win over the people who see him as brave and noble person even though he had killed their beloved Ceaser. At a point it does indeed appear that the killers were acting in the best interest of Rome otherwise they would not have managed to vindicate themselves in the eyes of the people. This was however short lived, after Mark Antony took the podium; through clever manipulative language he whipped them into a angry frenzy and sparked of a civil war as the republic revolted against the conspirators subsequently plunging Rome into anarchy. 5 Judging from the results of their handiwork, one is forced to question whether they indeed had the best interest of Rome at heart since the outcome was undoubtedly not beneficial to the republic in any way. The question provides an interesting contradiction, since it can be viewed as the engenderment of the adage; “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. To effectively judge his killers, it is important that one examine what drove them to their actions. The fact that Ceaser had been declared dictator for life was one of the main reasons used to justify their actions6. He had been named, ironically by the same senate, as permanent dictator and coins with his image were minted and distributed. This did not go well with the conspirators who imagined that he would use this new power to dominate over and even oppress the Roman people. In addition, the public love for Ceaser resulted in their attempting to bestow on him numerous titles, even kingship, which the senate feared would cause him to become a despot7. However, in my opinion Ceaser did not give any indication of intending to use the power as feared. During his funeral, Mark Antony recounted three episode in which he had attempted to crown Ceaser, each of the times he had rejected the honors. Antony uses this to prove to the people that Ceaser was not the ambitious person Brutus made him out to be8. Furthermore, after the reading of Caesar’s will, it was clear beyond any doubt that Ceaser had no intention of taking anything away from the Roman people but rather had their best interest at heart. His lands were to be given to the people and his funds distributed amongst them. Given that he was dead when this was read and had nothing to gain from it, it is unequivocal that he was neither greedy nor ambitious. Most leaders ensure they amass as much wealth as possible not necessarily for their own fulfilment, but to only leave it to their families. However, Ceaser generosity even in death proved that he was not a threat to the people of Rome and could easily have been the best leader they had ever had. Cassius, as aforementioned was probably the most malicious of the assassins since he had a personal vendetta with him because he felt himself more of a man than Ceaser. In his “seduction” speech, he tells Brutus that Caesar was a physically weak man and this may be deemed as weakness of the republic by his enemies so by cutting him out they would be doing Rome a PR favor. However, a close reading of the text reveals that Cassius simply felt bitter that a weaker man than he would be the leader. In any case, Ceaser was more of a solder than politician was and one of his biggest successes was that he had protected Rome and conquered territory all over Europe and Africa9. In reality, Ceaser did not need to be physically strong since his strategic planning and mighty armies did all the work for him. Cassius is therefore the representation of those who only killed Ceaser out of malice and spite rather than their concern for the people of Rome. On the other hand, the fact that the senators had managed to win the people over to their side even after they had murdered Ceaser implies that what they said must have had some basis. The argument for his killers can be explored through Brutus who albeit having lead the killings had diametrically opposed intentions from others. Brutus was presented with the argument that Ceaser had contributed to the corruption in the republic and he was not stopped he would destroy the republic and crown himself king10. This argument may or may not have been true but there must have been pretty of evidence for Brutus who would have preferred not to commit murder anyway. The evidences involved the fact that Ceaser despite not being a king had severally acted like, one; despite the fact he had been told not to go past the Rubicon in his campaign, he had flagrantly disregarded them11. He also went ahead to conquer Egypt and make alliances with Cleopatra against advice. Furthermore, he was accused of filling the senate with his friends and relatives, which promoted corruption and nepotism in the republic. Brutus, who was probably one of those friends must contemplated this and decided that between betraying Ceaser and “saving” Rome the latter was the more noble action. It is only through Brutus that one can reasonably explore the possibility that Ceaser was indeed a threat to the republic. Brutus took part in the conspiracy because of his commitment to the principles of the republic and he believed that it was more important than any single man even the Ceaser. It must have pained Brutus a great deal, because his betrayal was the greatest, after he joined the killing Ceaser stopped fighting for his life and covered his face saying his iconic last words. “En tu brutus?” In the light of his background, one may also appreciate his viewpoint since he came from a very long and venerable line of men who stood up against tyranny12. In fact, one of his great ancestors had been among those who expelled kings from Rome to create a republic. After the republic degenerated in chaos and anarchy, Brutus realized that whatever he had hoped had not materialized and he had been the cause of great evil. Judging himself by the same code, he had judged Ceaser he found himself unworthy and run himself through with his sword. Antony declared that Brutus should get an honorary funeral because he was the…“noblest Roman of them all: All the conspirators save only he, Did that they did in envy of great Caesar; He only, in a general honest thought” 13. This implies that even after all he had done, even his enemies could tell that he was not the same as his co-conspirators since he had wanted the best for Rome. In conclusion, the killers of Ceaser, with the exemption of Brutus appear to have acted in their own best interest and personal dislike for Ceaser rather than that of Rome. However, even Brutus despite his noble intentions should have understood that the Romans were not just going to let him get away with Caesar’s death. Therefore, when he acted against the man that held the Roman nation together he was striking a blow into the harmony and cohesion of the republic and by so doing kindling the fire that lead to years of anarchy and violence. Consequently, despite his nobility, like all the others, he acted contrary to the interest of Romans, which is why his action had such injurious effect to them. References Modern Sources Buszard, B. 2008. Caesars ambition: a combined reading of plutarchs alexander- caesar and pyrrhus-marius TAPhA 185-215.  Collins, J.H., 1955. Caesar and the corruption of power, Historia 4 , 445-65 Goldsworthy, A. K. 2002. Caesars civil war, 49-44 BC (Vol. 42). Oxford: Osprey Publishing. Miola, R. S. 1985. Julius Caesar and the tyrannicide debate. Renaissance Quarterly, , 38(2), 271-289. Rebhorn, W. A. 1990. The crisis of the aristocracy in julius Caesar.Renaissance Quarterly, XLIII, no. 1, 75-111. Woolf, G. 2006. Et tu, Brute?: the murder of Caesar and political assassination. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Chilver G.E.F., 1957. The Aftermath of Caesar. In:Greece and Rome Vol. 4, No. 1 (1957), p. 71 Yavetz, Z., 1983. Julius Caesar and his Public Image, London: Thames and Hudson. Ancient Sources Shakespeare, W. and Dorsch, TS. 1965. Julius Caesar. London : Methuen Plutarch. 75 A.C.E. Caesar. Trns, John Dryden [online] Available at http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/caesar.html Dillon, M.P.J. & Garland, L. 2006. Ancient Rome: from the Early Republic to the Assassination of Julius Caesar, London : Routledge. Read More