You must log in or # to comment.
Explanation: In the Late Roman Republic, after Julius Caesar, of the Populare reformist faction, and the Optimates, the conservative faction, fought a civil war over whether or not to execute Caesar (Caesar was against it), Caesar pardoned most of his former foes without preconditions, in order to prove he was not a despot and did not intend to overthrow the Republic!
However, one suspicion of Caesar’s enemies was true - he was certainly an ambitious man, and some ~20 years of being robbed of formal recognition by conservative maneuvering doubtlessly rankled in addition. So while the processes of the Roman Republic continued nominally as normal after he took the title of dictator (itself not unprecedented even in the recent history of the Republic), Caesar made it very clear that he was top dog - taking the right to wear his civic crown (which he earned in combat in his youth for saving a fellow Roman citizen) to cover his balding hairline, and the right to use a curule chair - a kind of fancy folding seat normally used by high-ranking government officials of the Republic when attending to business.
However, Caesar’s privilege went a step further - his curule chair was gilded, instead of made out of ‘just’ ivory, like the other high-ranking officials!
Does this tyrant sit upon a throne!? Or is his privilege decidedly chair-like!?
after he took the title of dictator (itself not unprecedented even in the recent history of the Republic),
I don’t know much about classical antiquity, but wasn’t part of the issue that he declared himself dictator for life?
Dictator in perpetuo, it’s a matter of constant debate whether he meant to keep the title forever. The implication of the title in Latin is that his term as dictator is open-ended, but not necessarily that he would keep it for life. The ultraconservative dictator Sulla, who was idolized by the Senate, took the title dictator legis scribundis et rei publicae constituendae, which was similarly open-ended in that it did not acknowledge a specific term limitation; Sulla, famously, resigned said dictatorship (after some butchering of filthy reformists, of course).
Caesar had also given up the title of dictator early several previous times once he had accomplished what he had set out to do with the power.
The question is, then, whether he meant Dictator in perpetuo to be his permanent title, or if he took the title because he was literally about to set off on a war in Persia, and wanted to be certain that the officials back in Rome didn’t try to strip him of his command while he was unable to politik in the city to defend himself (like they had tried previously, kicking off the civil war to begin with). In perpetuo, in this context, CAN BE read more as “I don’t know how long this Persian campaign is going to take” than “This is the new state of affairs, get used to it.”
I think it’s pretty unambiguous that Caesar regarded himself as the strongman in the Republic, and probably would not give up that position going forward, had he not been assassinated. The question, essentially, is how much attachment one feels Caesar had to the processes of the Republic, and how much attachment he had to traditional Roman anti-monarchism?
I’m a bit of a Caesar sympathizer, but I believe that Caesar probably would have given up the dictatorship upon his return from Persia (assuming it was successful - if it was unsuccessful, gods know all bets would be off), but remained in such a position that he could pressure the Republic to give him the open-ended dictatorship any time he needed it - as he already had (and willingly given up before he had to) several times before. I think he probably saw little reason to adopt the title of a monarch if he could be “First in Rome”, so to speak, and likely had some attachment to the processes of the Republic which he attempted to reform after ~100 years of dysfunction perpetuated by the wealthy.
If he’d lived, the Republic would have been damaged further (and perhaps that was inevitable considering how ill-functioning it was by the time), but I don’t know that it would have morphed into the same Imperial beast that Augustus managed to turn it into after winning a second, and then a third, more purge-happy civil war after the Optimates pissed all their influence down the latrine.
HBO’s “Rome” did this scene perfectly, but I can’t seem to find the clip…
lmao, I was hoping someone would catch the reference! I can’t find the clip either, but I grabbed the exact quote:
Cassius: Look now. Look at that.
Marcus Junius Brutus: It is a chair. What of it?
Cassius: A chair? It’s a throne!
Marcus Junius Brutus: I believe thrones are generally more decorative. That is decidedly plain, and chair-like.
Tobias Menzies. He and Cassius have such great chemistry in Rome.
Poor guy, takes it on the chin in Rome, then comes back for a second dose in Game of Thrones.
