update, about 1500 words lacking in real detail in some parts. Missing plutarch

Assess the main theories of Micheal Parenti that have contributed to the pre-believed causations for the assassination of Julius Caesar.

Intro needed...

Michael Parenti's 2003 novel The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A peoples history of Rome, the history of how and why the great Roman General of the late Republic was Assassinated by his peers in Society, his friends. The Causation for this Assassination as given by the Assassins themselves was that “the senatorial assassins where intent in restoring republican liberties by doing away with a despotic usurper”.¹ This is also how Historians Ancient and modern alike record events, However Parenti strangely does not accept this causation he believes that,

“The Senate aristocrats killed Caesar because they perceived him to be a popular leader who threatened there privileged interest”² I plan to explore the differing opinions of the past historians to that of the modern Historian and writer Michael Parenti. Evaluating what is different, why it is different and give my oppinion on the reliability of the accounts.

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”³

-Somethings needed-

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”⁴

Their dedication to the to the ancient Roman tradition of shared power was genuine. 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.

Caesar was hated by the rich men of Rome because many of his reforms benefited not them, but the poor, the proletarians of Rome, these included. Founding new settlements for 80, 000 Proletarians, giving choice land to 20, 000 familes 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. He put a cap on taxes in provinces.

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 '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”⁵

This 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”⁶

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. 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. He calls two ancient scholars who wrote on the Assassination of Caesar, Suetonius and Plutarch as Gentlemen Chroniclers and uses this to attempt to reason his new theory for Caesars Assassination. He 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 works are tended to make judgements and statements that are of a upper class view.

Many past Historians make very little mention of the plebian 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”⁷

So when Caesar used the Plebian society to his advantage and benefited them with his reforms, he was understandably shunned and hated by the men of the Roman republic who were against all but the rich of Roman Society.

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”⁸ So according to Parenti many men who have written about Caesar and his Assassination, believed him to be a tyrant that was rightly slain by men defending the beloved republic.

So what do Ancient scholars say of Caesars Assassination, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, he was born in Rome to the Equestrian order, in the early Roman Imperial era, at what we assume to be around 69AD. 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”⁹. Suetonius was well educated, dedicated to writing, was a part of the higher society of Rome. Suetonius fits the mold of Parenti's Gentlemen Historians perfectly. But what is his view on Julius Caesars Assassination?

“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”¹⁰

Hid their disgust at Caesar, these commons are the same people that are reported to have burnt the buildings of the conspirators and Assassins after Caesar's death. So is this a bias from a man who wanted to justify the assassination of Caesar, or was Caesar hated by most of the population in Rome? It's doubtful that Caesar was hated by all the commoners of Rome, as he was one of the very few men of power that responded to their pleas.