The Ides of March: good or bad?

[cmpavey]

Tomorrow marks the anniversary of the death of Julius Caesar. In honor of this momentous occasion, let us discuss the merits of the tyrannicide and what it accomplished (or did not accomplish) for the rest of society.

I think Caesar’s assassination was a good thing, even if it did not accomplish its goal of restoring the res publica. A few months after the deed, Cicero defended tyrannicide in De Off. Although it is wrong to kill any innocent man, he writes, it is a high honor to kill a tyrant. His argument is valid: “Nulla est enim societas nobis cum tyrannis et potius summa distractio est, neque est contra naturam spoliare eum, si possis, quem est honestum necare” (De Off. III.32; Indeed, to us, society is non-existent with tyrants and there is the greatest discord, and it is not against nature to rob someone, if you are able, or to kill any honest man). That is, tyranny destroys the state and causes chaos. Thus, to protect the state, the tyrant must be ‘amputated’ (as Cicero says) from the ‘body’ of the republic. Caesar was a tyrant, and he destroyed Roman law (by crossing the Rubicon, making himself dictator, etc). And he was assassinated, I believe, rightly.

Aquinas also praised Caesar’s assassination (Scripta Super Libros Sententiarum II.44.2.2). According to him, Caesar had seized power against the will of the people and by violence (instead of by law), so his murder was to be commended. His murderers, according to Aquinas, were honorably seeking to free their country from a sort of slavery.

[klplockmeyer]

Personally, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, Caesar was pretty ruthless when it came to the military aspect. Granted, so is most of Roman culture, but still.
On the other hand, Caesar (whether it was real or just a ploy to gain the support of the people) was one of the most popular and capable social reformers of all time. After all, it was mostly his social and land reform policies that got him killed, not just the tyrranical nature of his rule.
Perhaps all of Caesar's policies were merely pandering to the mobs, but perhaps they were not. In a society which prided itself for being a "civilized" republic, it's too bad that every major character who tried to make it more truly a republic (the Gracchi, Caesar, etc.) died at the hands of the aristocracy.

[cmpavey]

I think it’s interesting how you put Caesar as one who tried to make Rome more a republic. He seemed to have no problem with appointing himself dictator, which doesn’t help his reputation for republicanism much. Or, do you think, he made himself dictator so he could help the republic in some way (such as, for increasing the power of the people), rather than simply for power? I tend toward the latter. With Caesar as dictator, Rome lost most of the ways formerly used to check corruption and the abuse of power. Certainly the Senate’s power, which used to play a huge role in the republic, dropped immensely. And, if I am correct, the Comitia Centuriata and Tributa were also disbanded. Thus, while the people may have gotten some benefits (land and such), they were still under a dictator.

[litteratus]

cmpavey, what would your response be to cincinnatus, then? dictators were not uncommon in republican rome, and not all of them were necessarily like sulla. sometimes what the state needed was a powerful figure to step in, suspend a few rights, and get the job done. that's why the senate allowed for the dictatorship. granted- caesar, in appointing himself dictator-for-life, perhaps made an overly bold move- but that does not mean that he would have been a bad dictator. i think that all is not simply black and white with this question. surely you would not have argued for cincinnatus to have been stabbed to death in the forum for suspending a few liberties?