Friday, March 29, AD 2024 1:00am

Ides of March: The Noblest Roman of Them All

This was the noblest Roman of them all:
All the conspirators, save only he,
Did that they did in envy of great Caesar;
He, only in a general honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.

Mark Antony on Brutus

Julius Caesar, Act 5, Scene 5

I think it would have amused the Romans of Caesar’s generation if they could have learned that the assassination of Julius Caesar would eventually receive immortality through a play written more than 16 centuries after the event by a barbarian playwright in the Tin Islands that Caesar had briefly invaded.  It would have tickled their well developed concept of the ludicrous, judging from Roman comedy.

The Roman Republic had been visibly dying for generations before Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger was born into this vale of tears in 85 BC, amidst one of the Roman Civil wars that were becoming the new norm, with the Republic awaiting with trepidation the eventual return of Sulla from Greece after he defeated Mithridates, and the slaughters that he would doubtless inflict on his enemies.  This was the world Brutus was born into:  a world in which he was taught the glories of the Republic as a boy, but as he grew into manhood he could see old Roman morality being forgotten, a growth of decadence fueled by ever more wealth from foreign conquests, endless amounts of slaves flooding into Italy from the same foreign conquests, factions in the Senate engaging in what amounted to a cold civil war between bouts of hot civil war, the Roman Republican government teetering on the brink of permanent military dictatorship.

Ironically the man who would establish the permanent military dictatorship, Julius Caesar, was ever his friend and mentor, Caesar being the long time lover of his mother Servilia.  Nevertheless, from his first entry into the Senate, Brutus aligned with the Optimates ” the best”, against the Populares, “the people” .  The names are really beside the point between these two factions.  By the late Republic, political and military power had become one and the same, and pretty wrappers of claims to loyalty to the Republic or to the People usually were merely masks to hide naked ambition.  However, that was not the case with Brutus, who, like his uncle Cato the Younger, was a true idealist who wished to preserve the Republic.

After Caesar crossed the Rubicon, Brutus took up arms against him and was pardoned by Caesar after the defeat of the Senate army under Pompey at Pharsalus, Caesar prior to the battle having ordered his officers that no harm must fall to Brutus.  Caesar made him governor of Gaul.  That was the essential tragedy to the life of Brutus:  he loved the Republic with all of his heart, and the man who was killing the Republic was ever his friend and protector.  He resisted attempts to join in conspiracies against Caesar until he became convinced that Caesar intended to make himself a king, consigning the Republic forever to the past.  Brutus slew his friend and died himself  by suicide after losing the battle of Philippi.  Brutus did not wish to outlive his beloved Republic.  Victorious Mark Antony had the body of Brutus wrapped in his most expensive purple mantle, his remains cremated and his ashes sent to his mother.

The life of Brutus might be regarded as one long act of futility, his devotion to a Republic manifestly in its death throes doing nothing to stop the inevitable death of the Republic.  However, his example would inspire men and women across the centuries who lived under despotisms, and whenever liberty arose again, the name of Brutus was usually on the lips of those who contended for it.

“Caesar,” said he, “had his Brutus, Charles his Cromwell, and (pausing) George the                       third (here a cry of treason, treason was heard, supposed to issue from the chair, but with admirable presence of mind he proceeded) may profit by their examples. Sir, if this be treason,” continued he, “make the most of it.”

John Burk,  History of Virginia (1805), describing Patrick Henry’s speech to the House of Burgesses, May 29, 1765.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Saturday, March 15, AD 2014 9:43am

How much, one wonders, was Brutus influenced by the story of his famous ancestor, L Junius Brutus, who had played a leading rôle in the expulsion of the kings and the founding of the republic and whose bronze statue on the Capitol he must have seen so often.
Did the words of Brutus’s famous oath echo in his ears: never to suffer any man to rule over Rome?

Paul W Primavera
Saturday, March 15, AD 2014 6:32pm

If Brutus was willing to kill his friend and mentor to preserve his Republic, then what should you and I be willing to do to preserve ours? I do not want to kill.

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Saturday, March 15, AD 2014 8:40pm

from his first entry into the Senate, Brutus aligned with the Optimates ” the best”, against the Populares, “the people” . The names are really beside the point between these two factions. By the late Republic, political and military power had become one and the same, and pretty wrappers of claims to loyalty to the Republic or to the People usually were merely masks to hide naked ambition.

Why does that sound familiar?

The life of Brutus might be regarded as one long act of futility, his devotion to a Republic manifestly in its death throes doing nothing to stop the inevitable death of the Republic. However, his example would inspire men and women across the centuries who lived under despotisms, and whenever liberty arose again, the name of Brutus was usually on the lips of those who contended for it.

That might be the final irony of his life, given that the liberty Brutus and the other conspirators sought to preserve was the freedom of the oligarchs to continue to vie with one another for mastery over all that wealth flowing from the spoils of conquest.

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Sunday, March 16, AD 2014 2:24am

Ernst Schreiber wrote, “[T]he liberty Brutus and the other conspirators sought to preserve was the freedom of the oligarchs to continue to vie with one another for mastery over all that wealth flowing from the spoils of conquest.”

The Romans were a people who hated work, despised commerce and lived by plundering and enslaving their neighbours. To be successful at this (and they were very successful) it was necessary to cultivate certain very real virtues: courage, perseverance, self-control, prudence, discipline, constancy in misfortune, devotion to the community. Patriotism meant hatred of foreigners – indeed, the very word “foreigner” (peregrinus) is a late one, in Latin, as Cato observes; before the end of the Second Punic War (218 – 201 BCE), they simply made do with hostis or servus – enemy or slave.

Liberty meant sharing in the government, that is overseeing the sharing of the spoils and the most honourable as well as the most lucrative professions were those of the soldier, the politician and the jurist.

As Lord Acton says, “The Roman republic laboured to crush the subjugated nations into a homogeneous and obedient mass; but the increase which the proconsular authority obtained in the process subverted the republican government, and the reaction of the provinces against Rome assisted in establishing the empire. The Cæsarean system gave an unprecedented freedom to the dependencies, and raised them to a civil equality which put an end to the dominion of race over race and of class over class. The [Augustan] monarchy was hailed as a refuge from the pride and cupidity of the Roman people and the love of equality, the hatred of nobility, and the tolerance of despotism implanted by Rome became, at least in Gaul, the chief feature of the national character.”

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Sunday, March 16, AD 2014 6:20am

Donald M McClarey wrote, “Many of the Optimates were mere self seekers, but not Brutus nor his uncle Cato.”

I would add Cicero, who deserves to be remembered above all for his 14 Philippicae, delivered between September 44 and April 43. He must have known they could well cost him his life as, in fact, they did. Mark Anthony, one recalls insisted that the hands that wrote the Philippicae should be nailed, along with Cicero’s head, to the rostrum in the Forum.

Paul W Primavera
Sunday, March 16, AD 2014 6:59am
Mary De Voe
Sunday, March 16, AD 2014 9:30am

Brutus committed suicide rather than working to restore the Republic that he loved. Quitter.

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Sunday, March 16, AD 2014 2:41pm

The Romans were a people who hated work, despised commerce and lived by plundering and enslaving their neighbors [at which they were very successful].

In my humble opinion, and with great respect, I believe you have cause and effect backwards. Because of the existence of slavery, the Roman oligarchs hated work and despised commerce. The guy to read is Aldo Schiavone, The End of the Past: Ancient Rome and the Modern West. Sorry I can’t provide a link right now –computer’s acting up.

Mary De Voe
Sunday, March 16, AD 2014 8:22pm

“No Mary he understood that with the Senate armies defeated the wheel of history had turned and the Republic was one with Nineveh and Tyre.”
.
And Socrates became an accomplice to his own death by imbibing the hemlock with his own hand. Jesus did nothing to cause or bring about his death. Christ was as innocent as a lamb.

Pat
Pat
Sunday, March 16, AD 2014 10:08pm

The following words are from what seems to be a tangentially contemporary Brutus. This is copy/pasted from a piece in a comment found on Zero Hedge today which title concerned Turkish news from its Brutus.

“President Museveni of Uganda 24 February 2014-

It seems the topic of homosexuals was provoked by the arrogant and careless Western groups that are fond of coming into our schools and recruiting young children into homosexuality and lesbianism, just as they carelessly handle other issues concerning Africa.

Initially, I did not pay much attention to it because I was busy with the immediate issues of defense, security, electricity, the roads, the railways, factories, modernization of agriculture, etc.

When, eventually, I concentrated my mind on it, I distilled three problems:

1. those who were promoting homo-sexuality and recruiting normal people into it;

2. as a consequence of No. 1 above, many of those recruited were doing so for mercenary reasons – to get money – in effect homosexual prostitutes; these mercenary homosexual prostitutes had to be punished;

3. Homosexuals exhibiting themselves; Africans are flabbergasted by exhibitionism of sexual acts – whether heterosexual or otherwise and for good reason. Why do you exhibit your sexual conduct? Are you short of opportunity for privacy – where you can kiss, fondle (kukirigiita, kwagaaga) etc.?

Are we interested in seeing your sexual acts – we the Public? I am not able to understand the logic of the Western Culture. However, we Africans always keep our opinions to ourselves and never seek to impose our point of view on the others. If only they could let us alone.

It was my view that the above three should be punished harshly in order to defend our society from disorientation. Therefore, on these three I was in total accord with the MPs and other Ugandans. I had, however, a problem with Category 4 or what I thought was category 4 – those “born” homosexual.

I thought there were such people – those who are either genetic or congenital homosexuals. The reason I thought so was because I could not understand why a man could fail to be attracted to the beauties of a woman and, instead, be attracted to a fellow man. It meant, according to me, that there was something wrong with that man – he was born a homosexual – abnormal.

I, therefore, thought that it would be wrong to punish somebody because of how he was created, disgusting though it may be to us. That is why I refused to sign the Bill. In order to get to the truth, we involved Uganda Scientists as well as consulting Scientists from outside Uganda.

My question to them was: “Are there people that are homosexual right from birth?”. After exhaustive studies, it has been found that homosexuality is in two categories: there are those who engage in homosexuality for mercenary reasons on account of the under – developed sectors of our economy that cause people to remain in poverty, the great opportunities that abound not withstanding; and then there are those that become homosexual by both nature (genetic) and nurture (up-bringing).

The studies that were done on identical twins in Sweden showed that 34% – 39% were homosexual on account of nature and 66% were homosexual on account of nurture.

Therefore, even in those studies, nurture was more significant than nature. Can somebody be homosexual purely by nature without nurture? The answer is: “No”. No study has shown that. Since nurture is the main cause of homosexuality, then society can do something about it to discourage the trends. That is why I have agreed to sign the Bill.

Since Western societies do not appreciate politeness, let me take this opportunity to warn our people publicly about the wrong practices indulged in and promoted by some of the outsiders.

One of them is “oral sex”. Our youth should reject this because God designed the human being most appropriately for pleasurable, sustainable and healthy sex. Some of the traditional styles are very pleasurable and healthy. The mouth is not engineered for that purpose except kissing. Besides, it is very unhealthy. People can even contract gonorrhea of the mouth and throat on account of so-called “oral sex”, not to mention worms, hepatitis E, etc.

The Ministry of Gender and Youth should de-campaign this buyayism imported from outside and sensitize the youth about the healthy life style that is abundant in our cultures.

We reject the notion that somebody can be homosexual by choice; that a man can choose to love a fellow man; that sexual orientation is a matter of choice. Since my original thesis that there may be people who are born homosexual has been disproved by science, then the homosexuals have lost the argument in Uganda.

They should rehabilitate themselves and society should assist them to do so.”

Pat
Pat
Sunday, March 16, AD 2014 10:21pm

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-16/sunday-humor-turkish-pm-erdogans-top-15-insults-world-leaders

… better late than never with basic maneuvering on the info highway.

TomD
TomD
Tuesday, March 18, AD 2014 11:23am

Perhaps Socrates didn’t mean it at all.

Mary De Voe
Tuesday, March 18, AD 2014 8:12pm

“he (Socrates) believed that when one is a citizen of a polity one must obey the laws of the polity. I disagree with Socrates on this point, but that was his reason for drinking the hemlock.”
.
So, Socrates believed that it was honorable to commit suicide to uphold the laws of Athens because of his citizenship, and Socrates committed suicide to prove it. Suicide being an intrinsic evil, a greater evil than any polity

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top