The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome

Rating:
Summary: Everybody is wrong but me
Review: This is the first book of Mr. Parenti's I have read and at times I thought I was reading an obscure work of Karl Marx.

The author takes exception with just about every historian ancient and contemporary (including Edward Gibbon, Michael Grant & Christian Meyer) that has written about ancient Rome and the assassination of Julius Caesar. Essentially his argument is that historians come from the "privileged class" thus their views are colored resulting in a twisted treatment of the time reflecting not a search for the truth but rather opinions that support their intellectual and economically elite status. This is a constant refrain throughout the entire book.

According to Mr. Parenti the reason for Caesars demise was his support for the have-nots of ancient Rome and the political struggle of the time was a class struggle between the privileged class (the nobilitas) and the working class (the plebs). He could have labeled the two groups, bourgeois and proletariat just as easily. I told you the book read like Marx had written it. Not that the author does not make a good case for his point of view but I found it somewhat troubling the Mr. Parenti believes all historians are wrong with one exception, Mr. Parenti.

(...)


Rating:
Summary: An Invaluable Addition to the Historical Debate
Review: To any student of ancient Rome, Gaius Julius Caesar Dictator still "bestrides the world like a colossus". Perhaps no other historical figure has given rise to so much debate in so many areas. The traditional view has been to see Caesar as brilliant, but also power-hungry, then power-mad, this view backed by many ancient sources from Cicero to Cato the Younger. In recent decades, however, a different view of him has begun to emerge, that of Caesar as a reformer, dedicated to Rome, and always operating within Rome's laws until such a time when the Senate attempted to destroy him, unconstitutionally.

Parenti presents with eloquence and conciseness this latter view. The primary sources turned to by historians throughout the centuries have almost all been written by people closely associated with Caesar's political enemies, the ultra-conservative oligarchs known as the boni, or "Good Men". Certainly both Cicero and Cato fall within this group. Parenti tends to favor the view that Caesar was a true reformer, and while this may be true, it is also possible that Caesar attached himself to the populist cause through sheer political shrewdness. Probably some of both.

As Parenti details, Caesar's actions, while generally popular, never reached the level of such demagogues as Saturnius, Catilina, etc. His laws were conceded by all to be well thought-out, and all served to strengthen Rome, from land reform to expansion of the Senate. It is also, in my opinion, telling that historically, in most societies, reform comes about from the top down, through the efforts of aristocrats and oligarchs, people like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, and even LBJ, to give some recent, American examples. Parenti's book is well documented, well researched, well thought-out and very well presented. It is an invaluable addition to the historical debate concerning Caesar, and should not be ignored.