The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome (New Press People's History)

The Assassination of Julius Caesar blows away the so called truth proffered to us by the gentlemen historians who peddle a genre biased towards an upper-class ideological perspective. Parenti is an eloquent Caesarian historian who displays an astonishing amount of research finely organized and presented in this Pulitzer Prize nominated work; which will no doubt have the Ciceronians scrambling to put together a rebuttal.

The Assassination of Julius Caesar points out how numerous popularis fell victim to the optimates death squads, Tiberius Gracchus, Gaius Gracchus, Drusus, Clodius and Rufus all sealed their fates by taking up the populist cause. Along with Caesar each of them lobbied and passed such policies as land reform, debt forgiveness, expansion of the franchise, giving the craft guilds more power, and greater food allotments.

Parenti makes for especially fascinating reading when he documents the reign of Sulla; the fascist autocrat whose policies weren't rolled back until Caesar's First Triumvirate was able to abolish some his more regressive laws. Also Dr. Parenti's sections on Cicero, the Machiavellian statesman who served autocratic interests, are sensational. He exposes Cicero's fomenting of the witch-hunt like Cataline Conspiracy. Egalitarian reforms and attempts to democratize decision making were treated as outright subversion by the optimates. Cicero upheld these values by constantly propagandizing against Cataline and his tepid reforms. We discover that Cicero was an odious creature who sold-out to power at every opportunity by often being quite an effective mouthpiece for the priveleged of ancient Rome.

The Assassination of Julius Caesar shows how Caesar was not a revolutionary but rather a reformer who worked to break the stranglehold of the senatorial autocrats. While not being perfect, Caesar dedicated himself to the popular cause and was well liked by the masses. Unlike Cicero, Sulla, Brutus, Cassius and Cato of whom none have flowers left at their graves like Caesar's tomb does to the present day. Parenti documents how Caesar was committed to rolling back the worst class abuses perpetrated by the wealthy and was fondly remembered for it.

One prevarication Parenti studiously attacks is Caesar's supposed burning of the Serapeum library in Alexandria. It was the Christ worshippers in the fourth century who carried out the deed, Caesar and his forces burned not a single page.

The assassination itself is portrayed in vivid detail, including a surprising and accurate quote from Major General Fuller's biography that sums up the entire affair: "the plotters were well aware that under Caesar their opportunities for financial gain and political power would vanish." Perhaps not vanish but greatly diminish would have been totally accurate.

A consistent theme runs throughout the book and that is Parenti's analysis and evidence of the bias many latter day gentlemen historians have against the "mob" or "rabble" and Caesar. He notes that these historians pay little attention to how the optimates swindled land from small farmers, plundered the provinces like pirates, over taxed colonized people, rent gouged, and lifted not a finger towards debt relief. It should be remembered that the common people had scant opportunity to leave a written record of their views and struggles. In fact these people derisively referred to as the "criminal mob" and "rabble" by Cicero and some other present day historians were in actuality masons, carpenters, shopkeepers, scribes, butchers and other working class people.

The Assassination of Julius Caesar is a major scholarly work and will surely be read and discussed for generations. It is history and historical analysis of the highest order and should not be missed by anyone with an inkling of historical curiosity.

This book is excellent. I started reading about Julius Caesar 50

years ago. I have been constantly amazed at the praise that major historians have given to Cicero (who lies to everyone but Atticus), Brutus (whose exhorbitant interest rates were talked about by even HIS peers), for Cato (whose hyprocrisy allowed him

to denounce Caesar at all points while manipulating Roman laws

to defeat Caesar at every turn) and others in the oligarchy as

"noble" protectors of the constitution.

These "protectors" of the Roman constitution allowed Pompey to

become consul before he was legally of age, appointted him sole

consul (a unique position) at one point, allowed him to govern

Spain and maintain an army without going to Spain, and gave him

control of the Roman state BEFORE Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

Mr. Parenti was able to take these inherent contradictions of the wealthy Senators AND many hisotrians and recognize their

class blindness. Almost by instinct many historians seemingly

identified themselves with the oligarchy ("the best") and condemned Caesar for excessive arrogance and ambition in a Rome

where all of the Senatorial class were equally ambitious and

desirous of getting & keeping private wealth.

His book is readable and well reasoned. Thanks to Mr. Parenti!

"The Assassination of Julius Caesar" is definitely one of
the best one-volume surveys of that event and its times
that I have read to date. It provides summary treatment of
many important areas, but not in a way that impacts or
lessens its arguments. Parenti's thesis, that the
Senatorial oligarchs were unwilling to share any of their
nearly complete economic domination of the Roman world
with the masses, and destroyed anyone who tried to help
improve the imbalance, is simply what any reading of that
era makes an inescapable conclusion regardless of one's
political or philosophical bent.
As a case in point, Parenti notes that the "Republican"
heroes of the Ides of March claimed to detest Caesar's
monarchical rule and Caesar's complete disregard for
constitutional forms. Yet such a careful avoidance of
one-man rule and such a close preservation of the
constitution was nowhere evident when the Senate appointed
Pompey sole consul in 52 BC. As seems to hold for all
peoples in all times, the Romans were fiercely loyal to the
law when it served their interest, and bent it or tossed it
out all together when it did not.
I could not disagree with any of Parenti's major theses,
though I am no Marxist (and I think that Parenti is likely
to consider himself a Marxian historian, not merely a "progressive",
though I am not sure.) I fall short of considering
Caesar's rule as "a dictatorship of the proletarii." It
most assuredly was not (and I do not think Parenti truly
believes that it was.) I see Caesar (and I think that
Parenti could agree with this) as being more akin to FDR:
an enlightened oligarch who knew what it would take to
stabilize his unsteady world. By bettering the lot of the
masses -- even when it noticibly impinged upon the
oligarchs' traditional advantages -- he made it possible
for the oligarchy to persist. Caesar was no popular
revolutionary, though a reformer (nor was FDR a
revolutionary, though many today call him such.)
Parenti does not use original sources, preferring to rely
on standard works in English translation, and standard
authors such as Syme, Scullard, and Grant, as well as
Gibbon and Mommsen, but he clearly has read a wide range
and great depth from these resources.
This was an extremely readable, well researched, and
though-provoking book. I do not buy into every single part
of Parenti's theses, but I find it overall convincing and
persuasive.

In response to Robinson, Erkko, and Doran, let me begin by saying I am someone who finds Parenti's present-day writings a bit tedious and predictable along the class-warfare front. Thus, I approached his "Assassination" with some trepidation.

Fact is, however, I was deeply troubled by the widespread love of Cicero and Cato among both scholars of ancient Rome and many modern historians, since I independently came to the conclusion that these two "best men" of Rome were despicable characters who sought to excuse mass murders in the Sulla era. Parenti doesn't try to constantly wage class warfare on behalf of the plebs; he doesn't say that everyone is wrong except himself (in fact, singling out some writers like Jane Gardner for praise); rather, he says that Cicero and his ilk are often defended because historians share the belief that brutal aristocracies often have to defend false forms of democracy to prevent the riff-raff from gaining power. When you read many of the direct quotes of both members of the Senate and the later classic writers who defended them, you see the same shallow defense that promoted the British empire in the 19th century, and continues to promote the U.S. empire today.

Parenti by no means sees Ceasar as free from blame; he merely wants to point a well-deserved and long-overdue finger of blame at Caesar's accusers. And thank God that finger of blame is there.

This is a short and by no means exhaustive book, but it is not tied down by the type of Marxist analysis we might expect from Parenti. It is fresh, insightful, and willing to poke fun of centuries of historians who don't make their biases obvious. Mr. Robinson, the issue is not that "everyone is wrong but Parenti." And the issue is not, as some critics of the politically correct might suggest, that the minority writers want to hold that all "dead white guys" are wrong. Rather, the important point Parenti makes is that the vast majority of historians, from ancient cultures to our own, structure their alliances and prejudices to favor class interests that they do not make clear to readers. Parenti's is only a partial correction in this regard.

History is long dead, so who really cares what happened in ancient Rome? Surely there is some reason that it remains a staple of our educational curriculum. Perhaps it is because the more one learns about Rome, the more one understands about our own society and government. The lens of history permits us to take a less biased view of events. We gain an understanding of patterns and processes that, we suddenly realize, are applicable to our own situation in the present. This value of history, of course, depends on the impartiality of the history itself. Otherwise, history can be a powerful tool in warping our perceptions--both of the past and the present.

Michael Parenti addresses these issues with a fine mix of political science and history in "The Assassination of Julius Ceasar". The subtitle is perhaps more descriptive of the book itself--"A People's History of Ancient Rome". Parenti does a brilliant job providing the background to the assassination itself. He paints Rome as a world much different than that normally portrayed in history textbooks. He takes us beyond a mere alternative interpretation of the events, however, into a historiological diatribe against the aristocratic historians who have, until now, portrayed Rome in a very warm light.

From the primary sources--Cicero, Cato and Virgil--to the more recent giants of history such as Gibbon, Robinson and Tillemont, the accepted history of Rome has been passed down to us through an unbroken chain of wealthy aristocrats. Parenti points out their clear bias in interpreting issues of enlightened aristocracy, land reform and the plight of the commoner. He provides compelling evidence that this accepted, "gentleman's" history is strongly biased. He illustrates that this bias goes well beyond a few unkind words about "the ignorant masses" to outright reversal of the facts. Ultimately returning to the title, he demonstrates this egregious misrepresentation of history in the interpretations of the assassination of Julius Ceasar himself.

Ask most any student of history about ancient Rome and you will hear about the strong democratic institution of the Senate, and about how Julius Ceasar made himself the first emperor of Rome by destroying the power of this institution, leading to the downfall of the Republic and the rise of Empire. Brutus and his fellow patriots killed Ceasar in an act of tyranicide, a last-ditch attempt to rescue the republic for the people of Rome. Or so the story goes...

Never mind, for the moment, that Ceasar wasn't the first emperor (it was either Sulla or Octavian, depending on how you define Emperor). Never mind that the senate was never a democratic institution (but the tribal assembly of Rome was). Those commonly held beliefs are surely just simplifications to help us understand the big picture. At least we can remain confident in what we were taught about Ceasar himself?

As Parenti points out, Gaius Julius Ceasar was actually the last in a long line of populares, men who fought to prevent the exploitation of the populace by the aristocratic oligarchs in the senate. Like Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus before him, Ceasar attempted to pass a series of lex agraria, or land reform laws. There were actually very few private property owners in the Republic, with most land being leased to citizens to use as farm land. The oligarchs in the senate used their influence to ensure that nearly all leases to the small farmers were terminated, and the land was instead leased to themselves, virtually for free. Ceasar, and the other populares, attempted to break this stranglehold on arable land by passing land-reform laws that would return this public land to the general public. On 15 March, 44 B.C.E., the senators did what they had historically done when their priviledge and wealth was threatened: they assassinated those pushing for reform. Marcus Brutus, one of the ringleaders, was an aristocrat and wealthy landowner. He was acting in the interest of himself and of his class...not in the interest of what most would consider patriotism.

Parenti skillfully combines an alternative history and a lesson in historiography all while providing excellent food-for-thought for our current political situation. He writes in a lively style that is accessible and enjoyable to read. For those with a modest background and interest in either ancient Rome or modern politics, Parenti's "People's History of Ancient Rome" is highly recommended.

It's not really a book about Caesar's assassination. The description of that event is a small part of the book. Author, Michael Parenti is more interested in Caesar the reformer and how that got him killed.
What impressed me about the book is the amount of praise that Parenti finds from the people toward Caesar and the amount of negative information that the author digs up about Cicero, Cato, Brutus and the other usual heroes of the saga. It's interesting because historians traditionally give Caesar's assassins credit for trying to save the Republic while Caesar is usually cast as the power hungry despot. Parenti reverses these roles. He asserts that Caesar's concern over average citizens put him at odds with the landed class and they killed him because he was bad for business.
The hard part about the book is that Parenti seems to find no fault in the kinds of leaders that stir up the masses. Sure some of those leaders have good intentions, but just as many of them are using the needs of people to build a power base. It's the nature of politics and politicians. Parenti seems to take any social reformer as unselfish hero. This error is common among a certain world view and in extreme cases it's been used to explain the merits of butchers like Castro or Stalin.
Parenti also uses phrases like class prerogatives and social justice, as if there were a form of justice unrelated to human beings. Those terms seem out of date in 2004 when it's been shown all over the world that statist economies cannot keep up with the free market. Countries that use more central planning have higher inflation and unemployment rates and the cost of living is always higher there. "Class prerogatives" and "social justice" may have been handy terms when the question of economies was up in the air. But in today's world they come off as jealousies rather than plans to make people's lives better.
Parenti did convince me that Caesar probably had more positives than the average historian is willing to give him. Maybe his willingness to redistribute wealth had more to do with his death than popularly recognized. Still, I don't think Parenti makes a good case that Caesar the dictator was a better scenario than a free republic. I'd rather live in a free country where some people have more than I have, especially when I have more than the average person in the world. It's true for Americans today and for ancient Romans.
The fact that I disagree with the conclusions doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy the case that Parenti makes. This is a well researched book and it made me think analytically about things that I hadn't considered before. It also gave me an interest to read more about the classical world.

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.

(...)

In all my 30-something years of life, including my doctoral studies, I scarcely heard a critical word about Rome. I myself have traveled to Europe, where I witnessed the empire's architectural marvels. I have lightly studied Roman politics, economics, and militarism, and yet never have I come across a work such as this. In one fell swoop, Parenti shatters the spell of Roman perfection. He illustrates a society deeply divided by class; one in which an oligarchy consistently fended off land reform, egalitarianism, and social welfare.
Strangely, Parenti gives little attention to the subjects of Rome's far flung empire, save to say that they were taxed to supply riches for Roman aristocracy. Instead, Parenti focuses on the political struggles of Rome and bears witness to brutal and bloody battles which helped to guarantee the privileges of the few at the expense of the many. Along the way, Parenti shows that many scholars gullibly or willfully swallowed Roman propaganda--the biased history manufactured by Roman oligarchs and their flattering, well-paid scribes. A snapshot emerges here of classicists who have traditionally (if not currently) celebrated Rome's savage aristocracy, hallucinated about its democracy, belittled its reformers, and rejoiced in its bloodthirsty imperialism.
Parenti might have added this: the usual critique of Rome is that it was, at times, debauched; that its elites were excessively fond of sex, including--gasp--homosexuality; that its elites engaged in orgies, drinking, binging and purging. In other words, it is a critique that focuses on parties, rather than politics, empire, slavery, the subjugation of women, or the war on the poor.
Parenti is surely not the first to undermine Roman mythology, and he is surely not the most authoritative writer on the subject. But Parenti is a good, clear writer who has written a book for the general audience. One need not know Latin, Augustus, or Plutarch to read and enjoy this study. I hope that students, scholars, and readers of all kinds will seize upon the provacative and enlightening ideas of this book.

One of the few authors who can separate the wheat from the chaff. Unlike the mainstream press that keeps the chaff, he gets it to the quick and keeps the wheat. Essential reading for understanding history, not the mainstream bs history. I relished his scholarship, especially as it relates to our republic.

Parenti effectively references historical facts and sources to present a thought-provoking and compelling argument against any student learner's immediate acceptance of the aristocratic and bourgeois historians (ancient AND modern)-- save for probably the likes of those such as Herodotus and Josephus.