Sarah P. Brown History 5432 Dr. J.W.

Zophy September 11, 2012

The Ides of March: A Self-Proclaimed Kings Demise Ancient Europe, Rome in particular, fashioned a world similar to that of today. War, wealth, slavery, politics, class distinction, assassinations, and other institutions have been transposed to the new world setting. Outpaced by technology, population growth, industry and agriculture, the aforementioned ancient institutions remain operational today. The purpose of this paper is to critique the book: The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A Peoples History of Ancient Rome. Michael Parenti authors this scholarly work that was published in 2004 by The New Press, New York and London. The critique that follows will discuss: 1) Yhe books purpose; 2) Strengths and weaknesses; and 3) A short summary of the critique. Michael Parenti presents a historical background of ancient Rome during the time it was a republic and continues with development of Rome as it evolves into an empire. This book asks and answers the question: Why did a group of Roman Senators assassinate their fellow aristocrat and celebrated ruler, Julius Caesar (p. 2). Historians generally agree Julius Caesars death was planned and executed to rid the republic of a despotic usurper (p.2). Parenti disagrees. He presents an alternative explanation that Caesars death was more treason than tyrannicide. Parentis knowledge of ancient Rome allows him to evaluate and extrapolate conflicts and crises that provide the basis for this book. Perhaps also, Parenti thinks gentlemen historians writing and discussing Caesar, as they have, present opinions Prenti believes to be biased. This aspect of the book is considered a strong point. In addition, the flow of information, as various chapters are developed, is also powerful. For example, Chapter 1 provided discussion of Rome as perceived by gentlemen historians. As Parenti mentioned Gibbons view, and others as well,

Sarah P. Brown History 5432 Dr. J.W. Zophy September 11, 2012

comes mostly from the perceptions of a group of individuals similarly situated in the upper strata of their societies (p18). Other Chapters, 2, 3, 4, 5 continued to provide information that is easily understood because of the manner in which it is organized. The last strength that I see in this book is the ability of Parenti to provide the reader with comparison to toils and struggles that are happening today as they did in ancient Rome. For example: Demonstrations and riots (p. 49), taxation without representation (p. 50), Slavocracy (p. 35), bankrolled elections (p. 52), deficit spending (p. 53), inability to hold office if convicted of a felony (p. 68), redistribution of wealth (p. 191). For some reason, this comparison of time after time seems to keep one grounded in realizing that time may change but things have not. Further evaluation of this book reveals some weaknesses. The first weakness has to do with who should, or could, read this book. Parentis inclusion of historical facts does infer the reader has a prior knowledge of ancient Roman history. For some, this may not be the case. For example, Parenti refers to Spartacus, Seneca the Younger as though these are commonly known individuals (p.38). Although this information is easily located it prolongs the time it takes to read the book. Another weakness noted was Parentis use of numerous names. For example: Panglossian (p. 42), Appian (p. 48), Cato (p. 51), Cicero (p. 54), and others. Although easily located, these names would require look-up while reading the book to understand who they were and their contributions to society in ancient Rome. That this information would not be considered valuable and informative is not the issue. Time, that would be required for this task added to reading and understanding the book might outweigh the benefits.

Sarah P. Brown History 5432 Dr. J.W. Zophy September 11, 2012

The third weakness identified has to do with vocabulary. There are numerous terms related to ancient Rome and to language in general that required use of a dictionary. For example: Verve (p. 51), praetor (p. 50), aediles (p. 51), probity (p. 57), retinue (p. 31), auriferous (p. 132) and more. Though an expanded vocabulary is not considered to be unusual or unexpected in reading scholarly work, the increase in time in reading the book may outweigh the benefit. Another weakness of this book is its organization which is not to be confused with earlier mention of flow of information as a strength. Perhaps Chapter 3 should be first because it gives an historical perspective of the founding of Rome. Chapter 3 also talks about how Rome evolved into an empire and the effect of war and peace on its citizenry. Chapter 1 would logically follow the current Chapter 2 because Chapter 1 discusses opinions of historians. For example: Gibbon (p. 14), Robinson (p. 19), Mommsen (p. 25). Michael Parenti accomplishes his goal of providing a historical account of ancient Rome as a republic and as an empire. He clearly demonstrates biases of gentleman historians as he discussed the role they believed Caesar played in contributing to his own death. Parentis approach to the contents of this book demonstrates his profound knowledge and understanding of the historical aspects of ancient Rome. In this respect, there is no doubt that this book is informative and would be an asset for any burgeoning historian to own and read. Although reading this book is not difficult, it is time consuming. Not that this is a criticism, it is just simply a fact. Still, reading this book in the time it took, clearly outweighed any pleasure that could have been derived.