Posts
Among the most poignant objects that survive from the era of the Ides of March — March 15, 44 B.C., the day GIULIO CESARE fell to the knives of Bruto, Cassio and perhaps 21 other senators — is a dime-size silver denarius, minted by Bruto a year after the murder.
One side of this rare coin shows military-style daggers flanking a felt pileus cap, a symbol of freedom from slavery, and the abbreviation EID MAR.
On the other side, remarkably, Bruto had his own portrait stamped.
Before this, GIULIO CESARE was the only Roman who had dared put himself on a coin, for to do so was to assume the stature of a monarch — or a god.
One side of this rare coin shows military-style daggers flanking a felt pileus cap, a symbol of freedom from slavery, and the abbreviation EID MAR.
On the other side, remarkably, Bruto had his own portrait stamped.
Before this, GIULIO CESARE was the only Roman who had dared put himself on a coin, for to do so was to assume the stature of a monarch — or a god.
How can we understand Bruto, a man who, so soon after stabbing GIULIO CESARE in the name of stopping tyranny, had so reconciled himself to the ways of tyrants?
Shakespeare, in the closing lines of “Julius Caesar,” eulogized Bruto (through the words of his foe, Marcantonio) as “the noblest Roman of them all” — the only conspirator moved by love of the Republic rather than envy of Giulio Cesare’s power.
Alighieri, by contrast, in the final canto of “Inferno,” condemned Bruto to be forever chewed by Satan in the lowest circle of hell, alongside Cassio, his accomplice in the sin of betrayal, and Judas Iscariot.
Shakespeare, in the closing lines of “Julius Caesar,” eulogized Bruto (through the words of his foe, Marcantonio) as “the noblest Roman of them all” — the only conspirator moved by love of the Republic rather than envy of Giulio Cesare’s power.
Alighieri, by contrast, in the final canto of “Inferno,” condemned Bruto to be forever chewed by Satan in the lowest circle of hell, alongside Cassio, his accomplice in the sin of betrayal, and Judas Iscariot.
Dramatists and poets have done better than historians in portraying Bruto and his fellow conspirators.
With the freedom to invent speeches, dialogue or even (as in the case of HBO’s series “Roma”) whole plot lines, they can give access to the minds of these men where our surviving ancient sources, with rare exceptions, cannot.
The opacity of Caesar’s killers has bedeviled scholars, and it poses challenges.
Covering a time span of only three years — from the year before the Ides to the Battle of Philippi two years after, where Bruto, defeated by pro-Caesar forces, took his own life — this period captures the tension of an unfolding crisis but also runs into strong headwinds when it comes to questions of character and motive.
With the freedom to invent speeches, dialogue or even (as in the case of HBO’s series “Roma”) whole plot lines, they can give access to the minds of these men where our surviving ancient sources, with rare exceptions, cannot.
The opacity of Caesar’s killers has bedeviled scholars, and it poses challenges.
Covering a time span of only three years — from the year before the Ides to the Battle of Philippi two years after, where Bruto, defeated by pro-Caesar forces, took his own life — this period captures the tension of an unfolding crisis but also runs into strong headwinds when it comes to questions of character and motive.
Bruto, in particular, emerges as a blur.
He has a long list of reasons for wanting Caesar dead, some admirable, others selfish.
This can be explained well but gives no sense of the relative weight of those two types of reasons.
One is uncertain how, in the end, to assess this crucial figure.
Brutus believed in ideals that were bigger than himself — in philosophy, in the Republic, and in his family.
But one can turn Dantesque rather than Shakespearean.
Bruto betrayed a man who trusted him, just as he had earlier betrayed first Pompey and then Catone.
He has a long list of reasons for wanting Caesar dead, some admirable, others selfish.
This can be explained well but gives no sense of the relative weight of those two types of reasons.
One is uncertain how, in the end, to assess this crucial figure.
Brutus believed in ideals that were bigger than himself — in philosophy, in the Republic, and in his family.
But one can turn Dantesque rather than Shakespearean.
Bruto betrayed a man who trusted him, just as he had earlier betrayed first Pompey and then Catone.
To some degree this blurriness is inevitable.
Our sources for this era have many gaps and blind spots, and these difficulties grow as a historian’s time scale shrinks.
But many too often fills these gaps with multiple, even conflicting, possibilities.
One wants the historian to take a stronger interpretive hand.
It’s hard to draw out the moral meaning of Caesar’s murder from among a welter of mights and perhapses.
Our sources for this era have many gaps and blind spots, and these difficulties grow as a historian’s time scale shrinks.
But many too often fills these gaps with multiple, even conflicting, possibilities.
One wants the historian to take a stronger interpretive hand.
It’s hard to draw out the moral meaning of Caesar’s murder from among a welter of mights and perhapses.
“No Brutus, no assassination” is how one formulates Bruto's central role in the murder plot.
Caesar’s political network is said to be so vast that to record it “would take all the papyrus in Rome.”
Folksiness in moderation is refreshing, but some carry it too far, and it sometimes lead them into mixed metaphors or jarring anachronisms.
Romans are described as having “an ace up their sleeve,” when in fact they knew nothing of either playing cards or sleeves.
Some made his mark as a military historian in books like “The Battle of Salamis” and “The Spartacus War,” and some are strongest here when tracking Caesar’s army units in the days after the assassination.
In contrast to the ancient sources, which tend to ignore nameless legionaries in favour of great leaders, some foreground the role played by Caesar’s hardened veterans.
Their opposition blocked the conspirators from restoring the supremacy of the Senate, their principal goal.
Those who had marched under Caesar’s banners wanted an imperator, a conquering general, to guide the state.
OTTAVIANO ultimately became the first in a long line of autocrats who ruled by grace of army support.
In contrast to the ancient sources, which tend to ignore nameless legionaries in favour of great leaders, some foreground the role played by Caesar’s hardened veterans.
Their opposition blocked the conspirators from restoring the supremacy of the Senate, their principal goal.
Those who had marched under Caesar’s banners wanted an imperator, a conquering general, to guide the state.
OTTAVIANO ultimately became the first in a long line of autocrats who ruled by grace of army support.
Some also take special interest in the most soldierly of the conspirators, a top army officer named Decimo.
Slighted by Greco-Roman historians and all but ignored by Shakespeare (who also misspelled his name), Decimo actually played a leading role in the Ides conspiracy.
The decision of Decimo to join the murder plot is in its way more shocking than the similar choice made by Bruto.
But Decimo is little more than a cipher in the ancient record.
His prominence here thus leaves one with yet more blank spaces and unanswerable questions.
Slighted by Greco-Roman historians and all but ignored by Shakespeare (who also misspelled his name), Decimo actually played a leading role in the Ides conspiracy.
The decision of Decimo to join the murder plot is in its way more shocking than the similar choice made by Bruto.
But Decimo is little more than a cipher in the ancient record.
His prominence here thus leaves one with yet more blank spaces and unanswerable questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment