Draft (without Conclusion)

So this is my draft. Its lacking a conclusion and maybe a small paragraph summing up Parenti's view.

How does Michael Parenti explain the pre-believed theories for the reason of the Assassination of Julius Caesar, and what alternate theory does he present us?

For nearly 2000 years the belief of why Caesar was assassinated had come from Ancient Scholars writing in the recent years after the assassination itself, Plutarch and Suetonius. These Historians writing with a bias towards the rich and powerful men, tell of how Caesar was a tyrannical leader who was only intent on becoming the king of Rome, and was assassinated by the Optimates of the Senate of Rome as a last effort to save the Republic. However, the modern Historian Michael Parenti presents us with a different explanation. He attempts to disprove the pre-believed reasons for the assassination and gives us his own theory, he believes that Caesar was assassinated because he was but one of a group of men in the Senate known as the 'Populares' that were threatening the privileged lives of the wealthy of Rome.

Julius Caesar the great Roman General and Censor for Life, was Assassinated in a meeting hall adjacent to Pompeys theatre on the 15^th of March 44BC. The Assassination itself is not disputed in History and we have numerous records of the event.

“As soon as Caesar took his seat the conspirators crowded around him as if to pay their respects. Tillius Cimber, who had taken the lead, came up close, pretending to ask a question. Caesar made a gesture of postponement, but Cimber caught hold of his shoulders. 'This is violence!' Caesar cried, and at that moment one of the Casca brothers slipped behind him and with a sweep of his dagger stabbed him just below the throat...Twenty-three dagger thrusts went home as he stood there”¹

This single act of violence, led to a series of civil wars between Marcus Antony and Gaius Octavius which eventually led to the fall of the Roman Republic.

The Pre believed reasons as stated by ancient and modern scholars alike, including Ancient Scholars Plutarch and Suetonius was that the conspirators and assassins were idealists that still truly believed in the power of the Roman republic. “this was a political Statement, the restoration of power to the senate and people of Rome”²

The Optimates of the senate had a strong dedication to the to the ancient Roman tradition of shared power. These men could never see their beloved Rome ruled by a single man, it was something that they could not bear. Many of the Assassins were men who's Ancestors had fought and died for the Republic and to preserve their constitutional freedom. But now, they were serving the unofficial 'King' of Rome. So these men, many friends of Caesar took action in their own hands.

We have two main sources on Caesars Assassination; Suetonius and Plutarch.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus is an ancient Roman Historian, was born in the Roman province of Africa at around 70 AD . He was of the Equestrian order in the early Roman Imperial era. Being of Equestrian rank Suetonius was one of Aristocratic class in Rome. Pliny the younger described him as “quiet and studious, a man dedicated to writing”³. Suetonius was well educated, dedicated to writing and was a part of the higher society of Rome.

His view on Julius Caesars Assassination comes from his book The Twelve Caesars, that Caesar was becoming increasingly unpopular. Even with the common people of Rome, but does not specify why.

“Even the commons has come to disapprove of how things were going, and no longer hid their disgust at Caesars Tyrannical rule but openly demanded champions to protect their ancient liberties”

Suetonius believed that he was assassinated so that the Ancient liberties of Rome could be Protected.

Suetonius also states other deeds of Caesar, justified his Assassination.

“Not only did he accept unconstitutional honours, such as life-consulship,a life dictatorship, a perpetual censorship, the title 'emperor' put before his name, and the title 'father of his country' appended to it, also statue standing among those of ancient kings”⁴

He goes on to say that there was “few, in fact, were the honours which he was not pleased to accept or assume”⁵.

Suetonius holds the belief that Caesar even though there were still two Consuls yearly, was Dictator of Rome. That Caesar was Assassinated because he posed a huge risk to ending the Republic by crowning himself the king of Rome.

Our other major source on the assassination of Caesar is Plutarch of Chaeronea. Plutarch is believed to be born between 45-47 AD. He came from what we believe to from a family which “was wealthy enough to support his studies and travels”⁶. His description and view on Caesars assassination is found in his book Fall of the Roman Republic. His account is similar to that of Suetonius, stating that the assassination was again because he believed that Caesar was wanting to end the republic and crown himself king.

“what made Caesar most openly and mortally hated was his passion to be king”⁷ His desire to be King, Plutarch believes is one of the reasons that the men of the Senate killed Caesar, his desire to be king angered them. “He was approached by the consuls and the praetors with the whole senate following behind... he behaved to them as though they were only merely private individuals... This conduct of his offended not only the senate but the people as well... the treatment of the senate was an insult to the whole state”

Caesars attitude towards the Senate and his apparent feelings of his own greatness above the senate caused many men of the Republic to turn to men like Brutus to end his self entitled Dictatorship.

Suetonius and Plutarch's records of the reasons of Caesars assassination are very similar with the major reason for the Assassination being that Caesar wanted to become king, he wanted to abolish the Republic, an almost five hundred year old governing system that had been hugely successful and very popular. The Optimates or 'best men' of the Senate did not want to live under a King. They saw Caesar as nothing but a tyrant whose only intent was to abolish the Senate and replace it with himself as the single leader of Rome.

These reasons for Caesars Assassination are not believed by the Modern day Historian Michael Parenti who attempts to explain why the Ancient Scholars such as Plutarch and Suetonius present the Assassination in the way that they do and also offers his own alternate explanation for the Assassination.

Micheal Parenti is a modern day political writer from the united states, he has many works but is not well known for his historical works. Parenti has written only two historical works The Assassination of Julius Caesar and History is mystery. In his works of History Parenti has the belief that History in written by winners, by great men for great men about great men. He refers to the Historians who write in this way as 'Gentlemen Historians'.

“gentlemen ,was one who sported an uncommonly polished manner and affluent lifestyle , and who presented himself as prosperous, politically conservative, and properly classed in the art of ethno-class supremacism”⁸

Parenti's Gentlemen's history theory attempts to explain the trend in how history has been written throughout the ages. He believes that History was written by well off men, who could afford to write instead of work. “Gentlemens History, a genre heavily indebted to an upper class ideological perspective”⁹

This theory can be applied to the ancient Historians Plutarch and Suetonius to discern whether these men were Gentlemen Historian and pro-aristocratic views, promote a bias against Caesar.

Parenti uses his gentlemen's historian theory to discredit the pre conceived theories for why Caesar was Assassinated. This theory is one invented by Parenti in which he notes that most History is biased towards powerful people and interests. This being because no working man had the time or money to be able to write history. Only very well off men had the free time to engage in the researching or writing of History.¹⁰ So he believes that when only the wealthy men of society are writing or funding men to write history, the issues being written about are the concerns of the elite in Society and no one else.

The Roman senate and the Roman Republic was very much controlled by around 20 of the richest most influential men of Rome. Of these men there was two sides, the majority were the Optimates or 'best men' , these men were all for expanding the power of the rich, they despised the Proletariat society of Rome, one of the greatest Optimates at the time of Caesars Assassination, Cicero referred to them as”masses and worst elements... many of them simply out for revolution”. A great number of the men who Assassinated Caesar were Optimates. The lesser, were the Populares, were the reforming group of the Senate, with democratic tendencies. This group of men occasionally sided with the lesser people, and used the Plebian Assembly to their advantage to pass decisions in the Roman senate. “Contemporary American and British ancient Historians are divided between Cicerorians (95 percent) and Caesarians (a mere handful), and the division reflects there current political attitudes”¹¹ So according to Parenti many of the men who have written about Caesar and his Assassination have written about him with a Gentlemens Perspective of the events, they believed him to be a tyrant that was rightly slain by men defending the beloved republic.

But were Plutarch and Suetonius Gentlemen Historians and did they write from a Gentlemens perspective?

Plutarch was a man who was educated in Athens, lived there long enough to attain a Citizenship, and had a family that was wealthy enough to support his travels.¹² This shows that Plutarch was indeed a Gentlemen Historian by way of living, but what about his works? Did he write about the elite?

Plutarch is famous for his works known as the 'lives' which are Biographies of distinguished Greek and Roman men examined in pairs. Plutarch did write about great men, his view on Caesars assassination is written from a Gentlemens Perspective.

Suetonius. A man from the Equestrian order. Suetonius was well educated and was close friends with a Praetor and Consul of Rome, Pliny the younger. Being of Equestrian order he must have considerable wealth, as well as the fact that he was educated in Rome to be an Orator.¹³

His written works include 8 books on The lives of the 12 Caesars. A biography of Caesar and the Emperors of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty.¹⁴ Similar to Plutarch Suetonius writes on important men, and being close at hand to many great men of the Roman Empire, he also writes with a suttle Gentlemens bias.

Parenti believes because Plutarch and Suetonius are 'Gentlemen' their works on Caesar are biased towards the Optimates or 'best men' of the late Roman Republic, so they're writings are tended to make judgements and statements that are of an upper class view. So with this is mind Parenti attempts to give us an alternate theory to why Caesar was Assassinated.

“In the second century B.C., the senatorial nobles began to divide into two groups, the larger being the self-designated as the optimates ("best men"), who were devoted to upholding the prerogatives of the well-born. ... The smaller faction within the nobility, styled the populares or "demagogues" by their opponents, were reformers who sided with the common people on various issues. Julius Caesar is considered the leading populares and the last in a line extending from 133 BC to 44 BC”¹⁵

Many past Historians make very little mention of the proletariat society of the Roman Republic, and when they do Gentlemen Scholars almost always have a very low opinion on the common people.

“many historians, both ancient and modern, have portrayed the common people of Rome as being little better than a noisome rabble and riotous mob. In word and action, wealthy Romans made no secret of their fear and hatred of the common people and of anyone else who infringed upon their class prerogatives”¹⁶

Many of Caesars legal reforms were intended to help the common people of Rome, the proletarians, these included. Founding new settlements for 80, 000 Proletarians, giving choice land to 20, 000 families with 3 or more children. Gave work to unemployed Proletarians by sending them to repair and rebuild ancient cities, or slated them to work on public places in Rome itself. In relief for poor tenants Caesar cancelled a year of rent obligations for low to moderate dwellings. He increased duties on luxury imports, to encourage domestic trade.¹⁷

So when Caesar ignored the desires of the Optimates in the senate of rome and instead benefited the Proletarians with his reforms, he was understandably shunned and hated by the wealthier men of the Roman republic who cared for nothing but their issues that concerned the rich and powerful.

Parenti believes this to be why Caesar was Assassinated. The Optimates could not stand for his power while he was supporting a cause that they deemed worthless and unnecessary, that is helping the common people of Rome.