Read Online Julius Caesar by Ernle Bradford - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Ernle Bradford
Ads: Link
lives of the accused, he made the point that life imprisonment was far worse for a man than death, for death could only mean a release from the burdens and miseries of life itself. In these words spoke the Pontifex maximus, the high priest of the Roman state religion. Had he forgotten his demand of the death sentence for the old man Rabirius, or his insistence on the crucifixion of the pirates in his youth?
The ominous suggestion that really influenced the senate was Caesar’s statement that the people in general did not recall the deeds that had led to a punishment, but only the punishment itself. “The crime would be forgotten, but the end remembered.” Second only to Cicero, Caesar was the greatest orator in the Roman world and his speech had a profound effect. The senators understood the implication that the people of Rome might one day avenge themselves for the death of the conspirators (because their aims coincided more nearly with those of the people themselves). The response of the consul-elect Silanus was to prevaricate and to maintain that by “the ultimate penalty” he had meant no more than imprisonment for life. Cicero’s riposte was to suggest that “such a wise and merciful man” as Caesar had contrived, by his own statement, to suggest a penalty for the accused that was far worse than death. If such was the case, then Caesar was proposing a torture far worse than he, Cicero, had suggested. Nevertheless, Caesar had won, and the “conversion” of the respected consul-elect Silanus (whose wife Servilia was one of Caesar’s mistresses) seemed to sway the senate in favor of imprisonment rather than death. Only Catulus could be found among the consulars ready to approve the death sentence. But there did remain one Roman of the antique breed to stand up and vehemently disagree with the acquiescence of his seniors. This was the redoubtable Marcus Porcius Cato, a descendant of the famous Cato the Censor who had distinguished himself in the third war against Carthage and had largely been responsible, in the last and final war against Rome’s major rival in the Mediterranean, for the destruction of that city. This young Cato was of the same opinion as Cicero. Traitors to the Republic must die.
An unusual character, the direct antithesis to Caesar in almost every way, he has been portrayed by Sir Ronald Syme in The Roman Revolution:
Aged thirty-three and only quaestorian in rank, this man prevailed by force of character. Cato extolled the virtues that won empire for Rome in ancient days, denouncing the undeserving rich, and strove to recall the aristocracy to the duties of their station. This was not convention, pretense or delusion. Upright and austere, a ferocious defender of his own class, a hard drinker and an astute politician, the authentic Cato, so far from being a visionary, claimed to be a realist of traditional Roman temper and tenacity.
He hated Caesar and everything he stood for, and he also had personal reasons for this hatred. Servilia, Silanus’ wife, was his sister, and Caesar to him was therefore the corrupter not only of public but of private morals. He lashed out at Caesar in a way that Cicero would not have dared, accusing him of wishing to destroy the state and of attempting to frighten the senate with a vision of what might happen if they did what they should. Caesar, he maintained, was lucky to have got clear of implication in the whole matter himself, and that was the reason why he was trying to prevent the malefactors from paying the just penalty. Not only should these criminals be condemned to death but their properties should also be confiscated for the benefit of the very state against which they had conspired.
This passion and directness, reflecting no doubt what many senators felt but dared not say, swept away the assembly.
Caesar spoke yet again against the imposition of the death sentence, but by now the mood had radically altered and there was a growing animosity
The ominous suggestion that really influenced the senate was Caesar’s statement that the people in general did not recall the deeds that had led to a punishment, but only the punishment itself. “The crime would be forgotten, but the end remembered.” Second only to Cicero, Caesar was the greatest orator in the Roman world and his speech had a profound effect. The senators understood the implication that the people of Rome might one day avenge themselves for the death of the conspirators (because their aims coincided more nearly with those of the people themselves). The response of the consul-elect Silanus was to prevaricate and to maintain that by “the ultimate penalty” he had meant no more than imprisonment for life. Cicero’s riposte was to suggest that “such a wise and merciful man” as Caesar had contrived, by his own statement, to suggest a penalty for the accused that was far worse than death. If such was the case, then Caesar was proposing a torture far worse than he, Cicero, had suggested. Nevertheless, Caesar had won, and the “conversion” of the respected consul-elect Silanus (whose wife Servilia was one of Caesar’s mistresses) seemed to sway the senate in favor of imprisonment rather than death. Only Catulus could be found among the consulars ready to approve the death sentence. But there did remain one Roman of the antique breed to stand up and vehemently disagree with the acquiescence of his seniors. This was the redoubtable Marcus Porcius Cato, a descendant of the famous Cato the Censor who had distinguished himself in the third war against Carthage and had largely been responsible, in the last and final war against Rome’s major rival in the Mediterranean, for the destruction of that city. This young Cato was of the same opinion as Cicero. Traitors to the Republic must die.
An unusual character, the direct antithesis to Caesar in almost every way, he has been portrayed by Sir Ronald Syme in The Roman Revolution:
Aged thirty-three and only quaestorian in rank, this man prevailed by force of character. Cato extolled the virtues that won empire for Rome in ancient days, denouncing the undeserving rich, and strove to recall the aristocracy to the duties of their station. This was not convention, pretense or delusion. Upright and austere, a ferocious defender of his own class, a hard drinker and an astute politician, the authentic Cato, so far from being a visionary, claimed to be a realist of traditional Roman temper and tenacity.
He hated Caesar and everything he stood for, and he also had personal reasons for this hatred. Servilia, Silanus’ wife, was his sister, and Caesar to him was therefore the corrupter not only of public but of private morals. He lashed out at Caesar in a way that Cicero would not have dared, accusing him of wishing to destroy the state and of attempting to frighten the senate with a vision of what might happen if they did what they should. Caesar, he maintained, was lucky to have got clear of implication in the whole matter himself, and that was the reason why he was trying to prevent the malefactors from paying the just penalty. Not only should these criminals be condemned to death but their properties should also be confiscated for the benefit of the very state against which they had conspired.
This passion and directness, reflecting no doubt what many senators felt but dared not say, swept away the assembly.
Caesar spoke yet again against the imposition of the death sentence, but by now the mood had radically altered and there was a growing animosity
Similar Books
