8 Caesar Rex: By the People, For the People ANDREW BALDAZZI Julius Caesar is arguably the most triumphant figure in Roman history and has since been immortalized through literature and theatre. Naturally, a man of his stature attracted many enemies during his lifetime. It can be argued that Caesar was assassinated in the name of liberty, due to conservative politicians fearing he would abolish the Roman Senate to establish a totalitarian state. However, several of Julius Caesar’s actions lead many today to assert that he never abused his power nor made any attempt towards abolishing the Senate. From the beginning of his rule, Caesar’s intentions are clearly focused on the greater good of Rome. From his first address as dictator, Caesar demonstrates his love for the Roman people by extending clementia to all his optimate resistors, allowing for potential dissent within the sphere of national politics. Secondly, upon taking power, Caesar bolsters the power of the Senate by increasing the number of senators from 600 to 900 and allows non-Romans to hold seats in the Senate. Moreover, Caesar’s position as dictator in perpetuo was not a radical introduction to Roman politics; the importance of the cursus honorum had been declining for years and his election follows a theme of disregard for tradition. Therefore, the motivations presented by the conspirators for which Caesar was murdered are rooted in personal motivations and provide insufficient evidence of the crimes of which he is accused. In sum, due to these reasons in this paper it will be argued that Julius Caesar’s actions demonstrate his intentions of being an exceptional leader, thereby disapproving the notion that he was seeking unconsolidated power over the Roman Empire. When Caesar first arrived in Rome after securing the Italian Peninsula, he was met with no opposition, considering Pompey and his optimate resistance had fled to the colonies. Upon receiving numerous honours, Caesar makes his intentions clear to the citizens of Rome. He addresses them, stating, It is true that Marius and Cinna and Sulla and practically all the others who ever triumphed over the factions opposed to them said and did many benevolent things in the beginning […] then, after conquering […] adopted a course diametrically opposed to their former stand both in word and in deed. Let no one, however, assume that I shall act in this same way, nor have I [..desired] also to play the tyrant over you […] For in general it is neither noble nor just for a man to be convicted of doing the things which he has rebuked in those who have differed from him in opinion […] These statements that I have made are no mere sophistries, but are intended to convince you that what I think and say is not […] 9 thoughts that have just chanced to occur to me on the spur of the moment, but rather are convictions.1 This passage from Caesar demonstrates his intentions of being a fair and just leader. From the moment he arrived in Rome as dictator, he makes a clear distinction between his autocratic leadership and the tyrants of the past. Furthermore, Caesar makes it very clear that he intends to hold himself to a higher moral standard than his political opponents. He then goes on to track down the optimates and gives them two options, they can either accept political amnesty and return to Rome, or they can take up arms against an undefeated opponent. The majority chose the former, but a select few wished to die with their pride. Alongside his verbal decree, the amnesties granted by Caesar reveals that his intentions are focused on the greater good of the Republic. Had he intended to abolish the Senate and establish himself as a tyrant, he would not have granted amnesty to the optimates. By allowing his enemies to return to their duties in the Senate, he risks losing power in the realm of politics. Due to Caesar’s political prowess 2, he would likely have recognized the potential danger of showing clementia to the optimates. Therefore, Caesar’s decision to grant amnesty to his opposition proves that he did not wish to abolish the senate to consolidate his own power. Furthermore, the clementia demonstrated by Caesar ultimately proves to be his downfall. In his book Julius Caesar: The Colossus of Rome, Billows maintains that the sixty-plus conspirators who assassinated Caesar on the Ides of March of 44 BCE included many men who had initially sided with Pompey in the civil war. These politicians then surrendered to Caesar and were granted clemency. Subsequently, Caesar rewarded their loyalty with political advancement. Most notable of these men were C. Cassius and M. Brutus, both praetors that same year through Caesar’s grace.3 Caesar was a man of great intelligence, this being evident by his accomplishments described by historians of his time. Therefore, if Caesar intended to abolish the Senate to gain tyrannical power, he would not have granted clemency to his opponents. As a man of strategy, Caesar would have understood the risks posed by allowing the optimates back into the Senate. For that reason, the decision to extend clementia to his enemies in the civil war proves that Caesar had no intentions of establishing a tyranny. Along with his address to the citizens of Rome, Caesar’s strategy of amnesty demonstrates his benevolent intentions and disproves the idea that he was seeking unconsolidated power. Caesar spent many years as a member of the Senate before he came to be ruler of his modern world. As a result of his years of service, Caesar recognized the importance of the Senate and subsequently modified the laws regarding matters of the Senate. However, contrary to the claims made by his conspirators, Caesar’s legislations only served to bolster the Senate’s influence. Upon his rise to power, Caesar extended positions in the senate to ethnic groups such as Gauls and Jews, and even admitted the sons of Senators who had been proscribed.4 This overhaul of the 1 Cassius Dio, Historia Romana 43. 15-16. In Earnest Cary, Roman History: Volume IV. London: Forgotten Books: 2 E. T. Salmon. 1935. “Catiline, Crassus, and Caesar.” The American Journal of Philology, vol. 56, no. 4: 196. 3 Richard A. Billows. 2009. Julius Caesar: The Colossus of Rome. New York: Routledge: 236. 4 Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Ronald Mellor, 2013. The Ancient Historians of Rome. New York: Routledge: 1. 41. 10 senatorial system thusly increased the number of seats in the Senate from 600 to 900. 5 By consolidating power to the Senate and extending membership to the Italian provinces, Caesar consequently diminished his own influence. If Caesar intended to disband the Senate and establish himself as Rome’s sole authority, he would have had no reason to expand the number of seats in the Senate, let alone include non-Romans. Therefore, the decision to increase the influence of the Senate reveals Caesar’s true goals as dictator as being to increase the glory of Rome. Similarly, Elmer Louis Kayser discusses the difference between statesman and politician in an issue of The Classical Weekly. Kayser states that a politician seeks power for the sake of having it, while a statesman uses their place to achieve constructive goals that will benefit their country.6 He writes that, A statesman has the mental endowment as well as the desire to set up and strive for worthy, even monumental, objectives […] Gaul gave Caesar […] large scale experience in administration. […] It gave him the point of vantage, the resources and the military power which enabled him to work on a different level, […] to real statesmanship. 7 Using this view of Caesar as a statesman rather than a politician can be argued to be far closer to the truth than the view of the optimates. Had Caesar been pursuing tyrannical power, he would not have extended the powers and influence of the Senate. Therefore, Kayser’s notion of Caesar as a “real statesman” 8 provides scholars with an accurate depiction of Caesar’s character as opposed to the tyrant he was made out to be. In summary, Caesar’s reformation of the Senate proves his status as a statesman and disproves the claims that accused him of seeking total power. Caesar was by no means the first dictator Rome had seen. The Senate traditionally granted undisputed powers to a single leader in emergencies that required singular, authoritative leadership. Caesar’s case is unique, however. Not only was he elected dictator four separate times, his final term was initially extended for ten years. Shortly after it was extended to the rest of his life due to his relatively old age.9 Unfortunately for Caesar, this defied the Roman tradition of cursus honorum (roughly translates to ‘course of offices’). The cursus honorum bears similarities to the modern constitution and enforced laws regarding age limits, successive terms in office and other factors that could potentially give too much authority to one person. In regard to the appointment of a dictator, Sextus Pomponius took the matter quite seriously. In his Digest of Laws, he writes “as the population grew and wars became more frequent […] it was decided to establish a magistrate with power greater than any other […] since this magistrate had absolute power, it was unconstitutional for him to be kept in office for more than six months.” 10 These regulations enforced by the cursus honorum went largely unchallenged for several generations. However, in the decades leading up to Caesar’s rule, the traditions of the cursus honorum were ignored by several prolific senators such as Gaius Marius, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.