The Murder of Cleopatra (13 page)

The republic did quite well, and along with that achievement, Rome had defeated the Greek kingdoms following the demise of Alexander the Great, and by 146 BCE, Rome was the major power in the region. Then something went amiss. Many wonder, if Rome was so successful in its governing method and it had conquered vast territory ruled by many nations and, in so doing, could easily supply its citizens with a high quality of life, why did dictatorship raise its ugly head again, and why did the empire devolve into civil war?

A rather flippant answer would be that nothing lasts forever. For example, if a church is running well, into the calm someone introduces tension, dissatisfaction with the status quo, or a viewpoint that doesn't jibe with the majority; factions develop, and over time the church splits, with the dissenting group forming a new church with the word
reformed
added to it. There is also an innate desire many people have to be led, to believe that there is a greater future in front of them, and if a charismatic leader happens to appear in their midst, his ability to change the course of events can be astounding. We have seen this often in history with figures such as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, and Nelson Mandela. Leaders usually vault to prominence when there is either a feeling of inferiority, desperation, or malaise within the population. I believe that the rise of Julius Caesar and what followed was due to a time in Roman history where there was not enough positive leadership and the citizens wanted something more, something exciting, something new.

Gaius Julius Caesar was a striking figure. As a man from the ruling class, he had royal bearing and, interestingly, a claim to be descended
from the gods, much like the claims of Philip and Alexander and the Egyptian pharaohs. It would be easy for the populace to be in awe of him, to look up to him as quite a superior man. Of course, it was to his advantage that the reign of a man named Sulla, a military leader who had stormed Rome, crushed his political opponents, and established himself as a dictator who terrorized everyone, had been in power just before Caesar's appearance on the scene. Not long before his death, Sulla resigned. Compared to his brutal dictatorship, Julius Caesar was viewed as a much more pleasant option. Sulla not only failed in his duty to be a good “king,” he was cruel and vicious. Caesar, on the other hand, was a much more magnanimous ruler, and he aimed to please his people in a variety of ways. He was even kind to his slaves and to gladiators, who won him a lot of points with the masses. He had more problems with the Senate and his peers because they viewed him as a bit of a dandy with his elaborate clothing, his love for the ladies, and his extravagance.

Pompey, the other Roman general whose army Caesar would defeat in Egypt during Rome's civil strife (and whom Ptolemy XIII killed in his mistaken attempt to please Caesar), was one of his foes. Not one to let bad feelings stand in the way of a good political move, Caesar married his only daughter, Julia, to Pompey. Then Caesar surprised everyone by turning out to be an extremely good military leader as well as a great political strategist. Caesar simply was very intelligent in the political sphere and on the battlefield—a genius of his generation. One more military leader, Crassus, made up the third man of the triumvirate, the three men who were supposed to be managing Rome but instead ended up fighting each other for it, causing the civil wars that tore the country apart for years. Crassus fell first, killed in battle, leaving just Caesar and Pompey to determine the fate of the empire.

After Julia's death and Pompey's demise in Egypt, Caesar gained virtual control of Rome, and he managed to do a fine job of eventually suppressing the rest of the civil uprisings and came back to Rome the conquering hero. Then, over time, he made the same mistake as
King Philip. He began to believe his own inflated public image and allowed himself to be honored with the title “Dictator for Life,” which annoyed and aggravated the ruling class. They saw their power being diminished; they were made to feel small in Caesar's presence and forced to remain too much in his shadow to feel kindly toward him. Julius Caesar forgot one of his required duties. When you crush the egos of those who think they are entitled to share the spotlight (unlike the populace who is just thrilled not to be mistreated and to get a few more crumbs than they expect), you create enemies. It is always important to remember that those closest to you and who have some power can be a dangerous lot. This Caesar found out when he was murdered on the Ides of March in 44 BCE.

Caesar's biggest problem was that once he obtained nearly complete political authority, he became increasingly autocratic, as is common when a ruler possesses too much power. He used this power to overrule, control, and eliminate those he found to be troublesome or threatening. Narcissism, which is pretty much a common trait among all great leaders, can render a head of state oblivious to how others view their ruler and thereby breed a great deal of enmity and discontent. Caesar's enemies quite clearly understood that he was already a dictator and, if he managed to crush Parthia, the only major threat left against Rome, he would become emperor.

How much damage control Caesar attempted to do is a bit unclear. He brought Mark Antony back to be his consul, possibly to appear as though he was still sharing some power and was in tune with his military. During one public ceremony, it is reported that Antony attempted to crown him with a laurel wreath to signify his position as king but Caesar twice declined the honor.

Plutarch writes about this peculiar event:

And it was Antony who also unwittingly supplied the conspirators with their most specious pretext. For at the festival of the Lycaea, which the Romans call Lupercalia, Caesar, arrayed in a triumphal robe and seated in the forum upon the rostra, was viewing the
runners to and fro. Now, the runners to and fro are many noble youths and many of the magistrates, anointed with oil, and with leathern thongs they strike in sport those whom they meet. Antony was one of these runners, but he gave the ancient usages the go-by, and twining a wreath of laurel round a diadem, he ran with it to the rostra, where he was lifted on high by his fellow runners and put it on the head of Caesar, thus intimating that he ought to be king. When Caesar with affected modesty declined the diadem, the people were delighted and clapped their hands. Again Antony tried to put the diadem on Caesar's head, and again Caesar pushed it away. This contest went on for some time, a few of Antony's friends applauding his efforts to force the diadem upon Caesar, but all the people applauding with loud cries when Caesar refused it. And this was strange, too, that while the people were willing to conduct themselves like the subjects of a king, they shunned the name of king as though it meant the abolition of their freedom. At last Caesar rose from the rostra in displeasure, and pulling back the toga from his throat cried out that anyone who pleased might smite him there. The wreath, which had been hung upon one of his statues, certain tribunes of the people tore down. These men the people greeted with favouring cries and clapping of hands; but Caesar deprived them of their office.
1

As my readers are now well aware, I do not take Plutarch's stories as necessarily facts of history. It is difficult to know from his words what exactly happened and what is just his way of telling a good tale. My analysis of this account is that Plutarch details some behavior on the part of Caesar that doesn't quite make sense. I think Plutarch is embellishing in an attempt to explain why future events unfolded, why rising anger of those around Caesar erupted after this celebration, and led to the decision to murder him. I think Plutarch is also attempting to show Antony as an unwitting participant, that he just did things without thinking that allowed others to use his foolish behavior to justify their own violent actions.

In analyzing this particular story, I find the event itself to be believable. Why? Caesar had brought Antony back to be his mouthpiece
in what I believe to be an attempt to downplay publicly what he and the Senate already knew, that his position as head of state was virtually unassailable. This was a rather poor attempt to show he was not hogging all the power for himself. Antony had not been in his good graces since Caesar returned from his sojourn with Cleopatra only to discover that Antony had completely mismanaged the finances of the “republic” while he was gone. He summarily dismissed Antony from his position, but now, with the Parthian campaign about to go forth, he needed to express some goodwill toward his general and other “leaders.” He may have felt Antony would be grateful to him for being brought back to Rome and honored in such a way and, therefore, would be a relatively safe choice as one of his inner circle. Caesar may even have thought Antony would bring him a level of protection from those who wished to unseat their dictator from his pedestal. And he no doubt wanted to keep an eye on Mark Antony.

This ceremonial gesture of having Antony come up from the crowd and attempt to crown Caesar king would serve two purposes. First, it would show Antony's support for him and, second, it would show the people and his detractors that he did not consider himself to be so grandiose a figure as to think himself a king at all. It would be a staged piece of propaganda, not unlike other such shows put on in the past. But that Caesar stood up and bared his throat, challenging his enemies to kill him, makes no sense whatsoever. Such a gesture would only serve to anger his enemies and it would gain him nothing to have the citizens of Rome view such a challenge, especially at that time, since it is diametrically opposed to his earlier humble refusal of the crown. I believe the first event most likely occurred, but Plutarch tossed in Caesar's brazen action to give an excuse for Caesar's future murderers to take great offense and reach a tipping point where they must then act on their resentments.

Before we discuss that crime scene in which Caesar was brutally eliminated from the Roman tableau, let's stop to review why Cleopatra smartly tied her future to him. He was a great general who had proved he could provide military support and safety for Egypt.
He provided an heir and coregent for Cleopatra (at least he didn't dispute the paternity), which allowed her to rule without keeping her dangerous brothers around to constantly threaten her life and position. He was willing to leave Egypt in the hands of Cleopatra, which was her fervent wish—to continue as pharaoh for life. He was her best opportunity and the perfect distant partner she could have hoped for.

Sadly, her perfect situation would come to a quick and unpleasant end.

The next two important players in the game of power would end up being Mark Antony, Caesar's consul and top general, and Octavian, Caesar's nephew. At the time of Caesar's assassination on March 15, 44 BCE, Mark Antony was thirty-nine years old and the long-time protégé of Caesar. He had been a popular general, a fine orator, and a consul to Caesar for a short time prior to the assassination. But Caesar was not always enamored with Antony. He wasn't too pleased with a number of Antony's traits. Plutarch writes this of Antony:

[He] was completely ignorant of much that was done in his name, not merely because he was of an easygoing disposition, but because he was simple enough to trust his subordinates. His character was, in fact, essentially simple and he was slow to perceive the truth. Once he recognized that he was at fault, he was full of repentance and ready to admit his errors to those he had wronged. Whenever he had to punish an offence or right an injustice, he acted on the grand scale, and it was generally considered that he overstepped the bounds far more often in the rewards he bestowed than in the punishments he inflicted. As for the kind of course and insolent banter which he liked to exchange, this carried its own remedy with it, for anyone could return his ribaldry with interest, and he enjoyed being laughed at quite as much as laughing at others. And in fact it was this quality which often did him harm, for he found it impossible to
believe that the real purpose of those who took liberties and cracked jokes with him was to flatter him. He never understood that some men go out of their way to adopt a frank and outspoken manner and use it like a piquant sauce to disguise the cloying taste of flattery. Such men deliberately indulge in bold repartee and an aggressive flow of talk when they are in their cups, so that the obsequious compliance which they show in matters of business does not suggest that they associate with a man merely to please him, but seems to spring from a genuine conviction of his superior wisdom.
1

Basically, Plutarch was calling Antony a fool. But he also points out some good qualities:

But, indeed the traits that seemed vulgar to some—his boastfulness and his jesting, his open indulgence in drink, his habit of sitting with his soldiers when they ate or eating standing at the common table—gave the troops an amazing amount of goodwill and even love for him. He was lustful but charming as well: he captivated many people, as he often helped those in love and could make light of his own love life. Also the liberal generosity and unthrifty indulgence he showed his soldiers and friends afforded him an auspicious beginning to his quest for power and, once he became prominent, these tendencies increased his power manifold despite the hindrances posed by his many flaws.
2