The question that informs this book is, why did a coterie of Roman senators assassinate their fellow aristocrat and celebrated ruler, Julius Caesar? An inquiry into this incident reveals something important about the nature of political rule, class power, and a people's struggle for democracy and social justice—issues that are still very much with us.
The assassination also marked a turning point in the history of Rome. It set in motion a civil war, and put an end to whatever democracy there had been, ushering in an absolutist rule that would prevail over Western Europe for centuries to come.
In this book I present an alternative explanation: The Senate aristocrats killed Caesar because they perceived him to be a popular leader who threatened their privileged interests. By this view, the deed was more an act of treason than tyrannicide,
This book is not only about the history of the Late Republic
but about how that history has been distorted by those writers who regularly downplay the importance of material interests, those whose ideological taboos about class realities dim their perception of the past.
History is full of examples of politico-economic elites who equate any challenge to their privileged social order as a challenge to *all* social order, an invitation to chaos and perdition.
As a gentleman scholar, he produced what elsewhere I have called "gentlemen's history," a genre heavily indebted to an upper-class ideological perspective.
Except for a few high-placed and notably lethal females, Roman women are virtually invisible in the works of most gentlemen historians. Even when noticed, they are not likely to be seen as of any consequence.19 That there were no female historians to speak of in antiquity, nor for many centuries thereafter, only compounded the deficiency. In the last few decades, thanks mostly to the emergence of feminist scholarship, the research on Roman women has improved, despite the paucity of surviving data. Ordinary Roman women, we know, tended to die younger than their male counterparts because of malnourishment, mistreatment, exhaustion, and childbirth. Almost half of all Roman brides were under the age of fourteen, many as young as twelve, with consummation coming at the time of marriage even if before menarche. Women of all ages almost invariably lived under the rule of some male, be it husband, guardian, or *paterfamilias* (head of the extended family or clan).20
Except for a few high-placed and notably lethal females, Roman women are virtually invisible in the works of most gentlemen historians. Even when noticed, they are not likely to be seen as of any consequence.19 That there were no female historians to speak of in antiquity, nor for many centuries thereafter, only compounded the deficiency. In the last few decades, thanks mostly to the emergence of feminist scholarship, the research on Roman women has improved, despite the paucity of surviving data. Ordinary Roman women, we know, tended to die younger than their male counterparts because of malnourishment, mistreatment, exhaustion, and childbirth. Almost half of all Roman brides were under the age of fourteen, many as young as twelve, with consummation coming at the time of marriage even if before menarche. Women of all ages almost invariably lived under the rule of some male, be it husband, guardian, or *paterfamilias* (head of the extended family or clan).20
Except for a few high-placed and notably lethal females, Roman women are virtually invisible in the works of most gentlemen historians. Even when noticed, they are not likely to be seen as of any consequence.19 That there were no female historians to speak of in antiquity, nor for many centuries thereafter, only compounded the deficiency. In the last few decades, thanks mostly to the emergence of feminist scholarship, the research on Roman women has improved, despite the paucity of surviving data. Ordinary Roman women, we know, tended to die younger than their male counterparts because of malnourishment, mistreatment, exhaustion, and childbirth. Almost half of all Roman brides were under the age of fourteen, many as young as twelve, with consummation coming at the time of marriage even if before menarche. Women of all ages almost invariably lived under the rule of some male, be it husband, guardian, or *paterfamilias* (head of the extended family or clan).20
Except for a few high-placed and notably lethal females, Roman women are virtually invisible in the works of most gentlemen historians. Even when noticed, they are not likely to be seen as of any consequence.19 That there were no female historians to speak of in antiquity, nor for many centuries thereafter, only compounded the deficiency. In the last few decades, thanks mostly to the emergence of feminist scholarship, the research on Roman women has improved, despite the paucity of surviving data. Ordinary Roman women, we know, tended to die younger than their male counterparts because of malnourishment, mistreatment, exhaustion, and childbirth. Almost half of all Roman brides were under the age of fourteen, many as young as twelve, with consummation coming at the time of marriage even if before menarche. Women of all ages almost invariably lived under the rule of some male, be it husband, guardian, or *paterfamilias* (head of the extended family or clan).20
Writing early in the second century a.d., Juvenal seems to anticipate the venomous misogyny that would soon pour from the pens of the Christian church fathers. Roman matrons, he tells us, are wanton hussies, engaged in their illicit pursuits at the expense of the hapless cuckolds who are their husbands.
Note: wanton hussies goes so hard. That's me dawg
like fashion, a historian from our own era registers his disapproval of the growing sway exercised by high-placed improvident women in the Late Republic whose "unwholesome influence" engendered a "growing license" and "did much to debase the moral and social standards of the day."31
In ancient Rome, as in societies before and since, class oppression was supported by class bias. The lowly were considered low because of deficiencies within themselves. Class bias, in turn, was often buttressed by ethnic prejudice. Many of the poor, both slaves and free, were from "barbarian" stock, and this further fueled the tendency to loathe them as wastrels and brigands, troublesome contaminants of respectable society.
Class supremacism permeated republican Roman society right down to its domestic codes. There was a strict prohibition against marriage between a member of the aristocratic class and a citizen who had risen from the class of freedmen. Aristocrats also were forbidden to marry actresses and women of other such dubious professions.17
The practical good sense of the Romans, no less than the fundamental humanity instinctive in their peasant hearts, had always kept them from showing cruelty toward the *servi* . They had always treated their slaves with consideration.... With few exceptions, slavery in Rome was neither eternal nor, while it lasted, intolerable."20 No slaveholder could have said it better.
"It is not until recent times," notes K.R. Bradley, "that the realization has begun to set in among scholars that there is something distinctly unpalatable about slavery in antiquity. Indeed in some quarters apologetic influences are still at work."
The practical good sense of the Romans, no less than the fundamental humanity instinctive in their peasant hearts, had always kept them from showing cruelty toward the *servi* . They had always treated their slaves with consideration.... With few exceptions, slavery in Rome was neither eternal nor, while it lasted, intolerable."20 No slaveholder could have said it better.
"It is not until recent times," notes K.R. Bradley, "that the realization has begun to set in among scholars that there is something distinctly unpalatable about slavery in antiquity. Indeed in some quarters apologetic influences are still at work."
The impression one gets is that Roman slavery was a kind of affirmative action program, and Rome was a land of opportunity *ouvert aux talents* . In fact, such impressive instances of upward mobility were the rare exception.
All slavocracies develop a racist ideology to justify their dehumanized social relationships. In Rome, male slaves of any age were habitually addressed as *puer* or "boy." A similar degrading appellation was applied to slaves in ancient Greece and in the slavocracy of the United States, persisting into the postbellum segregationist South of the twentieth century. The slave as a low-grade being or subhuman is a theme found in the writings of Plato and Aristotle.
The uncertain promise of eventual emancipation sometimes made manumission an effective control mechanism. The slave was encouraged to observe long-term compliance in the hope of eventual freedom. Servile family attachments were another useful restraint. Married slaves with children were less likely to abscond and more ready to cooperate. And their offspring added to the owner's wealth. But the slave family existed only as long as it served the interests of the master. It was constantly in danger of disruption since the slave was a disposable form of property. Slave owners readily broke up servile families "when economic considerations made sale of their slaves attractive or necessary."31
As with other imperial powers before and since, the Roman empire brought immense wealth to its ruling class and imposed heavy burdens on its common citizenry. The aristocracy pursued a policy of almost continuous warfare. War offered opportunities to plunder the treasure of other countries and take advantage of depressed land markets in Italy itself. Many small landholders, the mainstay of the Roman infantry, fell in battle. Many more had to serve long enlistments that left them unable to tend their farms. Wealthy investors bought up these holdings for a pittance. War also brought a replenished supply of captive slaves to till the newly acquired tracts.
gems and certain tiny stones; we drag out her entrails in search of a jewel merely to be worn upon a finger! How many hands are worn away with toil that a single knuckle may shine resplendent! . . . All these avenues from which wealth issues lead but to crime and slaughter and warfare. . . ."8
The Republic's political structure was not fashioned whole in accordance with some rational design. It emerged from prolonged conflict between the citizenry and the aristocracy, a jerry-built mixture of popular protections and elite entrenchments. Less than two decades after the kings were expelled, the people began a struggle, lasting over 200 years, to win the right to popular elections and legislative assemblage. The commoners demonstrated and rioted, embarking on highly organized strike actions or "se-
Still, as a democracy Rome left much to be desired. In the Forum, the central marketplace and open plaza of the city, candidates and commoners could mill about in informal groups, dilating on sundry issues. But full-dress debates before the entire assemblage were limited to those invited to speak by the summoning magistrate. Ordinary citizens could not directly participate, except occasionally to applaud, cheer, shout, or groan. And citizens could vote only "yea" or "nay" on proposals submitted by one of the magistrates, without the right to amend any clause.
As Max Weber notes, patronage created relationships of personal dependence that gave Roman political life its private armies and lasting semi-feudal character.19
In the second century b.c., the senatorial nobles began to divide into two groups, the larger being self-designated as the *optimates* ("best men"), who were devoted to upholding the politicoeconomic prerogatives of the well-born. Cicero describes the op-
timates as "the foremost men and saviors of the state."20 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 *popularis* and the last in a line extending from 133 to 44 b.c.
timates as "the foremost men and saviors of the state."20 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 *popularis* and the last in a line extending from 133 to 44 b.c.
Tiberius proposed other reforms. He wanted to reduce the period of military service (at the time it went from age seventeen to forty-six), give people the right to appeal jury verdicts, and allow equestrians to sit on juries hitherto composed exclusively of senators.
wise sympathetic view of Gracchus and concludes: "In short, Tiberius's program was designed to cripple the power of the Senate in every possible way, and it was inspired by motives of anger and party politics rather than by considerations of justice and the common good."11
"In short, Tiberius's program was designed to cripple the power of the Senate in every possible way, and it was inspired by motives of anger and party politics rather than by considerations of justice and the common good."11
lex agraria
Note: lex agraria (noun phrase)
Land-reform law, especially one redistributing public land among citizens.
Tiberius Gracchus's *lex agraria* would have given thousands of uprooted families a chance to work the land, thereby easing the congestion within Rome. It would have reversed the depopulation of the Italian countryside, and replenished the yeomen stock. Facing a popular upsurge against their
Sulla also employed his dictatorial power to accumulate a huge personal fortune.47 Declaring himself *dictator* not for the usual six months but indefinitely
Looking back on Sulla's reign, Cicero wrote, "All was basically admirable, though temper and moderation were somewhat lacking."
Of special note is Publius Clodius Pulcher, a tribune allied with Julius Caesar. Clodius affected an older spelling of his patrician family name, Claudius, as being more in keeping with commonstyle pronunciation. He even renounced his patrician rank and had himself adopted into a noted plebeian family so that he might serve as a tribune in 58. From that office he sponsored a law to curb the partisan use of censors. He outlawed executions of citizens without trial, a measure aimed at the death-squad killings. And he got a law passed that reestablished the right to organize the *collegia* , the popular craft guilds and unions. Many guilds had been abolished by senatorial decree six years earlier. Clodius's law put these people's organizations on a legal footing and on a paramilitary basis, readying them for armed defensive action against the optimates' private armies. Their ranks consisted of freedmen, the poorer citizenry, and even slaves. He proposed a law to give full political rights to all freedmen and many slaves.55 The Senate oligarchs constantly tried to drive a wedge between Clodius and the citizenry by alleging that his followers were made up exclusively of slaves and criminals.
Latter-day historians are almost unanimous in denouncing Clodius as "loose and dissolute," a "rogue," "scoundrel," "unscrupulous adventurer," "reckless demagogue," and "gang leader" who "organized street-rowdyism" and "recruit[ed] men for violence," "an anarchic tribune of the people."
To be sure, Clodius was capable of raffish ventures. In 61 he
was accused of dressing as a woman and stealing into the inner sanctum of the Vestal Virgins in order to tryst with Caesar's second wife, Pompeia. The authorities pronounced the incident a sacrilege. Caesar did not react too harshly against his political ally Clodius, but he did divorce Pompeia. He insisted that she had not slept with Clodius, nevertheless "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."
Four years after killing Clodius, Milo returned from exile to join forces with others in Italy in an attempt to stir a rebellion against Julius Caesar. He was swiftly captured and executed by the praetor Pedius, Caesar's nephew.
when expediency dictated. They treated egalitarian reforms and attempts to democratize the Republic's decision-making process as subversive of republican rule. What should not go unnoted is how readily some past and present historians embrace this same position.
It was Macer who helped create a democratic mode of public speaking (utilized by Caesar himself), arming his listeners with factual evidence and precise argument rather than rolling over them with the orotund periods and histrionic locution of classical oratory.
Macer called upon the plebs to withdraw their empowering responses by resisting military conscription and refraining from serving the rich: "I do not recommend armed violence or a secession but only that you should refuse to shed your blood in their behalf.... [L]et those of us who have no share in the profits be free also from dangers and toil."6
A century before Cicero, Polybius commented on the political
uses of religion: "[S]uperstition is actually the element that holds the Roman state together. . . . As the masses are always fickle, filled with lawless desires, unreasoning anger, and violent passions, they can only be restrained by mysterious terrors or other dramatizations. . . ."19
1.** A relation between states in which a subservient nation has its own government, but is unable to take international action independent of the superior state.
 Example: "under suzerainty to"
2.** A similar relationship between other entities.
 Example: "She was tired of living under suzerainty to her parents."
3.** The status or power of a suzerain.
Synonyms: suzerainship
The Parthians knew something about Crassus. As Florus reports, they cut off his head, and poured molten gold into his mouth that he "whose mind had burned with desire of gold might when dead and inanimate be burned with gold itself."24
Note: Damn… Cold
"The burning of books," Luciano Canfora notes, "was part of the advent and imposition of Christianity."24
Once Christianity gained ascendancy as the official religion under Emperor Constantine, Rome's twenty-eight public libraries "like tombs, were closed forever," laments the noted fourth-century pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus.27 In pagan times, the Romans boasted libraries of up to 500,000 volumes. But under Christian hegemony, laypersons were regularly forbidden access to books, the profession of copyist disappeared, and so did most secular writings.
Jane Gardner remains refreshingly out of step on this point, arguing that during the period of his dictatorship at Rome, "the myth that he wanted to make himself a king, or even a Hellenistic-type king worshipped with divine honors," was first propagated by his enemies.
Mommsen concludes that Caesar was a "democratic king" whose goal was the gradual equalization of the classes. Actually, Caesar never intended to level rich and poor, but he certainly did seek to roll back some of the worst class abuses perpetrated by the wealthy.