Contemplating Crime and Caesar

                                                                                                            

            Is it right to commit a crime for what one believes to be a higher good? In 44

B.C., the Roman Senate named Julius Caesar, former dictator and present political master of Rome, as “dictator perpetuo”, effectively making him emperor for life. His friend Brutus, along with about forty other senators, saw in this act the death of the Roman Republic. They therefore conspired together and, on March 15^th, in Pompey’s Theatre at a Senate session, they attacked Caesar, stabbing him twenty-three times. After his death, rioting and chaos broke out in Rome and five civil wars ensued. Caesar’s nephew Octavian emerged the victor and became emperor of Rome on January 13th, 27 B.C.

           Everyone agrees upon these facts – however, some believe that Brutus should have assassinated Caesar and some do not. But Brutus should not have assassinated Caesar for three reasons – Rome would have benefited from his leadership, it is wrong to murder and the results of the assassination were disastrous for everyone involved

           First of all, Rome would have benefited from Caesar’s leadership. Indeed, it had already done so during the short time he controlled Rome. He was a skilled politician, as illustrated by his visionary policies, the order he established in the city, the tax laws he effectively revised and the citizenship he granted to communities. He was also a skilled military leader, having risen to prowess through his military achievements. He was in no way unread or uneducated.

           Secondly, Brutus should not have assassinated Caesar because it was wrong to do so. Caesar was defenseless. He trusted Brutus as a friend – during Caesar’s battle with Pompey, Brutus and Cassius were on Pompey’s side. Yet when Caesar had defeated Pompey he forgave both Brutus and Cassius and gave them prominent government positions. Moreover, the Torah commands us not to murder, as do most ethical codes of man.

           Lastly, the results were disastrous for Rome. The assassination created chaos – Rome was like a tossing turbulent tempest as her citizens rioted, as her citizens plundered and her citizens murdered. Brutus and Cassius committed suicide and five civil wars followed. The outcome was the very opposite of what the assassins had intended.

Some people claim that Brutus should have assassinated Caesar because he was a threat to the Roman Empire – if he became king, Rome would become a monarchy. However, the outcome was even worse than what the Senate had feared from Caesar – Octavian became complete dictator of Rome after he defeated Antony and Cleopatra. Moreover, assassination is certainly not the answer. The Senate still held enough power to prevent a tyranny and the Roman people, whom the Republic was supposed to represent, were in favor of Caesar’s leadership.

           Those in favor of Caesar’s assassination also argue that Caesar was corrupt. Some claim that he was gay, while others claim that he was corrupt. Again, assassination is not the answer. If he was corrupt in his private life, it had nothing to do with the way he ruled Rome. Historians also cannot prove anything -there is no evidence to support this charge of corruption.

           Thus the arguments that Caesar was a threat to the Republic and that he was corrupt are inadequate. There were other ways to prevent Caesar’s tyranny if the Senators saw it as a threat. Also, there is no proof for the charge that Caesar was corrupt. In either case, murder was the wrong way to deal with the problem, if there even was one.

           Brutus should not have assassinated Caesar because Rome would have benefited from Caesar’s leadership,  it is wrong to murder and the outcome was disastrous. In 44 B.C., it would have mattered to everyone in the city of Rome, citizens and politicians alike. But murder mattered most to Brutus and Caesar, who were affected more than anyone else by their decisions.