Dio
Cassius
IN DEFENSE OF CAESAR AND MONARCHY
Written some 250 years after Caesar’s assassination, the Roman historian
and politician Dio Cassius (c. 150-235) acknowledged
that Caesar was not blameless in bringing about the tragedy that led to his
death and renewal of civil war between Ceasar’s
friends and enemies. He argues, however,
that monarchy is superior to republicanism and saw the assassination as a tragedy
in Roman history.
[A] baleful frenzy which fell
upon certain men through jealousy of [Caesar’s] his advancement and hatred of
his preferment to themselves caused his death unlawfully, while it added a new
name to the annals of infamy; it scattered [Caesar’s] decrees to the winds and brought upon the Romans
seditions and civil wars once more after a state of harmony. His slayers, to be
sure, declared that they had shown themselves at once destroyers of Caesar and
liberators of the people: but in reality they impiously plotted against him,
and they threw the city into disorder when at last it possessed
a stable government. Democracy, indeed, has a fair-appearing name and conveys
the impression of bringing equal rights to all through equal laws, but its
results are seen not to agree at all with its title. Monarchy, on the contrary,
has an unpleasant sound, but is a most practical form of government to live
under. For it is easier to find a single excellent man than many of them, and if even this seems to some a
difficult feat, it is quite inevitable that the other alternative should be
acknowledged to be impossible; for it does not belong to the majority of men to
acquire virtue. And again, even though a base man should obtain supreme power,
yet he is preferable to the masses of like character, as the history of the
Greeks and barbarians and of the Romans themselves proves. For successes have always been
greater and more frequent in the case both of cities and of individuals under
kings than under popular rule, and disasters do not happen so frequently under
monarchies as under mob-rule. Indeed, if ever there has been a prosperous democracy,
it has in any case been at its best for only a brief period, so long, that is,
as the people had neither the numbers nor the strength sufficient to cause
insolence to spring up among them as the result of good fortune or jealousy as
the result of ambition. But for a city, not only so
large in itself, but also ruling the finest and the greatest part of the known
world, holding sway over men of many and diverse natures, possessing many men
of great wealth, occupied with every imaginable pursuit, enjoying every
imaginable fortune, both individually and collectively,— for such a city, I say, to practice moderation under a
democracy is impossible, and still more is it impossible for the people, unless
moderation prevails, to be harmonious. Therefore, if Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius had only reflected upon these things, they
would never have killed the city's head and protector nor have made themselves
the cause of countless ills both to themselves and to all the rest of mankind
then living.
It happened as follows, and his death
was due to the cause now to be given. He had aroused dislike that was not
altogether unjustified, except in so far as it was the senators themselves who
had by their novel and excessive honors encouraged him and puffed him up, only
to find fault with him on this very account and to spread slanderous reports
how glad he was to accept them and how he behaved more haughtily as a result of
them. It is true that Caesar did now
and then err by accepting some of the honors voted him and believing that he
really deserved them; yet those were most blameworthy who, after beginning to
honor him as he deserved, led him on and brought blame upon him for the
measures they had passed. He neither dared, of course, to
thrust them all aside, for fear of being thought contemptuous, nor, again,
could he be safe in accepting them; for excessive honor and praise render even
the most modest men conceited, especially if they seem to be bestowed with
sincerity.
[From: Dio
Cassius, “Roman History,” Book XLIV]
For the text of the entire work, click here.