When considering Caesar's acta

I hear much mention currently about papers left behind by Gaius Julius Caesar after his death, and I hear people discussing whether or not we should follow the courses of action referred to in these papers. My personal feelings towards Caesar aside, I think it is necessary to examine the nature of these documents before any discussion of what to do with them, and this kind of examination has been lacking among the discussions on what must be done.
First, let us examine the nature of these papers. These are unofficial documents that have been “found among Caesar’s belongings,” as is said by M. Antonius. This is a point worth repeating: although Caesar enacted a great body of legislation during his tenure as dictator, these are not official resolutions of his nor were they ratified by the senate. There is not a precedent in our legal tradition for fulfilling actions referred to in documents such as these. It is not a legally binding will (though the legality and sanctity of even such a document as that has been trampled into the mud with the recent invalidation of Gaius Julius Octavianus’ will). Although the senate, while he was alive, had given him unlimited governmental authority in each area these papers discuss, these papers nevertheless leave two glaring questions in my mind: Does that authority extend beyond death? Are these papers legitimate even if it does?
Even those senators who see Caesar as a tyrant have not made any motions to rescind the entirety of his legislation as invalid because of that opinion. Such a move would be extremely foolish and would destroy any and all progress we have made over the last few years. It would throw all of our political appointments, legislative initiatives, and foreign/domestic policies into chaos. We can say that we “were coerced,” but we always had the option of speaking out against him, whatever the consequences may have been. We have therefore lost all rights to objections on those grounds. Therefore, we cannot write off these documents as invalid just because they “were written by a tryrant.”
That does not, however, mean that we cannot still write off these documents, just that it must be argued differently. Like it or not, the senate cannot deny that it gave all of Caesar’s power to him legally. We can, however, object to the legality of these documents based on the idea that the legal authority given to Caesar by this senate body ended at the same time as his life. Never before has this body enacted legislation brought forward posthumously by any of its members, whatever their position in life may have been at their time of death. Why should we do so now, even if these papers are officially sealed, formulaically written, legal proposals written by the most powerful man in the world at his death? What authority do his ashes now hold?
This brings me to my other point of dispute with these acta. Are these informal letters which oft-handedly mention some idea for future action, or are they officially sealed, formulaically written, legal proposals? If they can be reasonably objected to even if they are officially sealed, formulaically written, legal proposals, should we even consider them if they are not? Unofficial, informal letters would have had no legal bearing for Caesar even when he was alive, but were they even written by Caesar, or by M. Antonius or some other devotee of his who hoped to use some of their master’s ex-authority? Caesar often dictated much of his writing. Could his scribes not have written these in the same hand all his correspondences appear? If close examination shows that they come from an unknown hand, why should we press further? Even if they appear in the standard form, the absence of evidence for their falsification is not evidence for the absence of falsification. Therefore, we must proceed very carefully in these matters. We need not bring these documents before the senate for discussion, because they have no bearing on the senate’s course of action. No such documents ever have. But if they are brought before the senate, their history and authorship should be examined closely before their content is even considered. Let us investigate the matter (in the usual manner) among his slaves and scribes to see if any incriminating evidence comes forth. If there is evidence for falsification, then we need pursue the matter no further. If not, we still do not need to. Even if they are from the hand (or mouth) of Caesar, they hold no legal bearing for us now.
Caesar is dead. Let us consider alive what he did while he was alive and dead what appears after his death. There is no question that we must continue with our magistrates as they have been appointed. To do otherwise would be foolish and would invite chaos upon us all. Let us not, however, continue to live and direct our lives and our state under the words and ideas of a dead man, however great he may have been. I have seen all too well in the case of my brother how this can lead someone. Caesar was a great man, and he drew men of all natures towards him, captivating them with his charm and the force of his conviction. I held Caesar in the highest regard for his character and actions (not just for his assistance in funding the construction of the Basilica Paula) during his life, and I will continue to hold him in such regard in death; therefore, let me be the first to say, “Let Caesar rest. He was a god among men, and he drew us all towards him, his ideas, and his plans. Let them rest with him. His time is over. Let us remember him, but let us move on without him. We are capable enough.”
Whether we love or hate him, we can get too caught up with men such as Caesar. Even our strongest and wisest can become consumed with it, letting it fester in their minds like a disease. We need look no further than my recently departed brother for an example. Therefore, let no more of our men waste their lives following or fighting his cause. Let us pursue our own. Caesar is just one man in a long line of mankind. There have been other men like him, and there will be more like him, and cowards and sycophants will bend similarly to their wishes, following their every word. Let us not be such. We have our own destinies to achieve.

The Way Forward

Noble Senators, we come here today to discuss the acta of the late Julius Caesar. This issue has many sides, and indeed, we ought to ask ourselves several questions before we proceed:
1) Can Caesar’s acta be interpreted independent of the illegitimacy of his rule?
2) What are the costs associated with enforcing the acta?
3) What are the costs of ignoring the acta?
4) What course of action will both ensure stability and hold true to the principles of the republic?

As regards our first question, I answer that we must recognize that not all laws passed by a tyrant are tyrannical in nature. Indeed, as we see in Plato’s Gorgias, the tyrant does what he sees fit, not what he wants. If his actions are directed by right reason, then they do have the force of just law. For as we know law must be in accordance with right reason for it to obtain any binding force. Therefore, I think that it is plaint that we may hold some of Caesar’s acta to be legitimate. However, we ought to make a distinction here. Recognizing the legitimacy of a law and recognizing the legitimacy of the sovereign who enacted it are two separate things. By recognizing the legitimacy of some of Caesar’s acta, we are not offering an acceptance of the legitimacy of Caesar’s rule.

However, as we have seen from recent historic example, not all of Caesars appointments were wise. I hardly think any among us would steadfastly maintain that appointing Dolabella or the young Octavian was in the best interest of the Republic. For this reason, I believe it is clear that the cost of having a blanket endorsement of the acta by the Senate would be very high indeed. It would be rash, conscript fathers, to not give the advice and consent of the Senate to confirm each of these appointments individually. We must ensure that we do not install into power men who seek private gain over the good of the Republic. By examining each of the acta on its own merit, we shall be able to ensure the safety of the Republic, both now and in the future.

But you may say “Panaetius, do we not risk alienating those who were expecting political office if we choose to deny it them?” Yes, conscript fathers, we run that risk, but would we rather have those men with the positions of power and influence? I think not, good Senators. Indeed many noble men appointed by Caesar are good, true Romans, and they are deserving of their appointments. Doubtless the Senate will be happy to maintain these assignments. Nevertheless, there are many of Caesar’s acta that are inimical to the interests of the Republic, and to enforce these blindly would be to hand our beloved country over to slavers. Therefore I say to you, oh conscript fathers, that the cost of alienating a few undeserving aristocrats is worth it, if only to avoid a far more terrible fate.

This being said, I find that the most prudent course of action currently lies in taking each of the acta in turn and approving or disapproving of them as the Senate sees fit. I feel that by this measure, we shall be able to avoid plunging our country into chaos, and also avoid handing our beloved Republic over to criminals.

Caesar's Acta

We, the conscript fathers of the Senate and the leaders of Rome, have to confront a serious issue: the assassination of Gaius Julius Caesar, for whatever intentions good or bad, has left us in a state of bureaucratic paralysis from which we've barely recovered from. Caesar's specter continues to haunt us after his death: the specter of his leadership and procedure in the Senate. Regardless of how you felt about the man, we must all acknowledge that while he was alive, he maintained a tight control over appointments and process. Before he died, Caesar enacted a huge amount of legislation, unrivaled by any Roman in recent history, and appointed a large number of government magistrates for the following years. And now, we must confront how we are to address Caesar's Acta after his death, at a time when the Senate is lacking for leadership and its magistrates quarreling violently with each other.

Many of those magistrates still occupy the positions Caesar appointed to them—others have resigned or met a variety of unfortunate fates. Some would blame Caesar for this: it is tempting, I can assure you, to cast the blame on the ghost of a man I so vehemently opposed. But our mistakes are not Caesar's fault, and as we have followed the man's judgment even after declaring him a tyrant, I see no point to broadly reject his Acta at this point, nor do I believe it feasible in this time of crisis. Instead, I agree with my good friend Marcus Tullius, in that of Caesar's legislation that is already in effect, individual Acta must be reviewed and considered carefully before they are rejected. We have already seen some Senators, Caesar's most vehement critics and enemies, try and reject Acta across the board, only to realize a sobering truth: to the man, they owe their positions and authority to Caesar's judgment. In the end, you cannot have it both ways: indeed, Caesar has never effectively been declared a tyrant outside the Senate's own mind, simply because we cannot effectively bar his legislation's effects. What kind of Senate has no magistrates, no civil officials to run elections, indeed no Senators? Having previously served as a military commander, as many of my fellow Senators have done with distinction, does not translate automatically into a consulship or praetorship: it was the decision of a Dictator that resulted in those appointments, which are the cornerstone of Caesar's Acta.

It is a very bitter truth, and I am as frustrated as the rest of you. I myself did not owe to Gaius Julius Caesar my most crucial appointment, my year as Consul (in 50 BC). Indeed, during my Consulship, I called for him to return from Gaul, ending his governorship two years early, as all of you will remember. However, I still understand that afterwards, I served at Caesar's discretion—when he marched on Rome, Caesar knew that I'd attempted to force him to step down from command and bitterly opposed him back in Rome. I chose not to take up arms against him, unlike my brother and my nephew, and was pardoned thusly, and allowed to remain in the Senate. At any time, Caesar could have stripped me of any political power I might have had, and chose not to. While I do not regret my opposition to him, and believe it was absolutely necessary and just, I do not delude myself into thinking that I had some sort of absolute inviolable right to serve in the Senate just because of my time Consul, as though I were appointed by the Gods themselves. Politics is a dangerous game, my fellow Senators, made only more unpredictable by military might and the daggers of assassins. We need whatever stability we can get, and if Caesar's Acta can keep Rome from descending into chaos, we are in position to reject them.

Do Not Act Rashly; Act Sensibly

Senators,
Many of you label the late Julius Caesar; some of you call him a great, honored, and legitimate leader of Rome, and others, a tyrant. No matter your stance, you must admit that he was at least in some ways trying to rebuild and restore Rome after the civil war. No matter what his goals might have been (merely taking the dictatorship to really give him a chance to restore the Republic or to take advantage of the situation for complete personal gain and sole rule) he never wished Rome any harm.
Though I think it is too late to consider the acta in their entirety, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to at least look at some of them as ideas for future action in Rome. I know for one, that Caesar wanted to make Egypt a friend and ally of Rome. Though Caesar and I had an intimate relationship and this could have been his way to protect me, I think it has been made clear that such an action would be most beneficial to both Egypt and Rome. An act of selfish intentions for one may be the virtuous act of another with right ambition.
I think if the Senate cares enough about the restoration and glory of the Republic, you should all at least know what Caesar had planned. If you are wise men, you will be able to discern which of his acta were in place purely for self-gain and which will best serve the goals of the Republic.
On the topic of political appointments, it would be silly to retract every position filled under the living Caesar as it would probably send the running of the state into total chaos. Even if you wanted to hold another election, there would be no one there to run it. Since the time of his murder, the Senate has continued to recognize Caesar’s “consul designates” with out any hisses from either side. There is another example of those details of the acta which fall more on the side of helping the Republic (or at least in the eyes of the Senate).
I say don’t destroy the acta just yet. At least give them a glance even for the sake of making some good-for-the-Republic decisions more quickly.

A Poet's Thoughts on the Acta

Senators, we finally have gotten to an issue that should have been addressed weeks ago.  However, the malevolent yearning for personal power has prevented us thus far from dealing with the most important issues at hand.  Now that Dolabella, Octavius and Lepidus have met a deserving demise, and Antony awaits his, we can finally broach the subject of Julius Caesar’s acta.

            I agree with Aulus Hirtius in that I, too, am very torn about what to do about Caesar’s acta.  However, my hesitance and indecision arise not out of respect for the dead man, but out of fear of consequences.  I think that all of us can agree that complete abolition of the acta would wreak havoc on our Republic and cause absolute chaos.  Many of us owe our positions to Caesar, and would be out of power if the acta were destroyed.  Mass elections would have to be held to fill these numerous positions, and in our present state of uproar with Antony roving about, such a period of transition would leave the Republic vulnerable to attack. 

            Though abolishing the acta would put us in a most dangerous position, validating them would also have negative consequences.  It makes me shudder to think that a dead man, one known for his overindulgent vices and his obsession with power, should continue to control the workings of our noble Republic.  How foolish will we look to the people and the provinces, assassinating our tyrant in vain?  For in vain it will be, if we confirm all of his future plans for our state. 

            At this point, we have operated somewhat according to the acta by allowing many of Caesar’s political appointments.  However, we have also witnessed the errors inherent in his plan for Rome.  Caesar selected Dolabella to become consul in his stead when he departed for the Parthian Campaign later this year.  In an attempt to avoid unnecessary squabbling and untimely elections, we confirmed this designation.  We soon learned that Caesar was not the best judge of character.  I for one, was not surprised, when I heard the rumors that Dolabella was allowing Antony to bribe him.  And I was even less surprised when the Senate learned that Dolabella had betrayed the Republic and joined the reckless rogues Octavius and Lepidus in pursuit of power.  For how could a man who destroyed the Republic beyond recognition and indulged himself in contemptible luxury of all kinds be able to recognize decency in others?  Lepidus and Octavius themselves, both heirs to Caesar’s legacy, also demonstrated their depravities when they violated the Constitution and left Rome and amassed troops to undermine the power of this Senate and become the next tyrants. 

            However, due to our good luck, and the fact that some upstanding and honorable citizens do still exist in Romulus’ cesspool, some of Caesar’s designates have risen above his deplorable example.  Brutus, Caesar’s protégé and consul designate for 41, though Caesar’s continued tyranny would have assured him unending power and wealth, decided that the Republic was more important than the life of one man and liberated us from a tyrant.  Aulus Hirtius, Caesar’s consul designate for 43, has revealed his true loyalty to the Republic by forgoing his consulship for next year in order to serve us nobly in our present time of need. 

            It is evident that Caesar’s acta have thus far been neither wholly negative nor wholly successful.  We cannot destroy them, causing chaos and denying some of the honorable Senators’ their appointments, but we cannot publicly and completely confirm them, submitting still to the tyrannical yoke of the dead Caesar and ignoring his acta’s recent failures.  I propose that we continue on the same path we have begun and finish out 44 with Caesar’s appointments still standing.  However at the end of the year, as wise Piso has suggested, we should hold elections as normal and let the Romans decide their leaders for themselves.  Regarding Caesar’s plans for Rome, as much as I detest the name of that vile cinaedus, none of us can deny that some of his intentions were surprisingly wise and much-needed.  Thus, I believe these plans should be brought before the Senate for discussion, and that we proceed accordingly—judging which proposals should be carried out and which should be tossed aside.  

Acting Against the Acta

Senators, let us not pretend that there is any good in these papers of Caesar. By this point, there is little doubt in my mind that when Caesar was scribbling these papers he was touched in the head. Look at the vile monsters he dared suggest were capable of holding any position: Dolabella, that traitorous and spineless consul, Lepidus, that slippery and arrogant warmonger- his own Magister Equitum, Octavian, that upstart brat with delusions of grandeur- his heir, and finally cowardly Marc Antony, whom he left the acta with in the first place. Why have we been following this guidance? Why have we put our ears to the ground, listening to hear if a shade of a tyrant would give his approval? This is not republicanism! Every deed we follow in Caesar’s name is a deed not carried out in the name of the Senate and the People of Rome!

Some might criticize my harshness here, citing that Aulus Hirtius is certainly no Antony or Dolabella and that not every choice Caesar made was a bad one. Well, to be fair to poor departed Caesar’s memory, he had to get something right eventually. But whether one good idea outweighs four horrible appointments should not be a question! Even I doffed my insignia as praetor because it was granted to me by a tyrant, and only resumed the position at the behest of my fellow senators who wisely pointed out that to loose a praetor at such a turbulent time would be an egregious error. I do not mean to sound as though I am asking Hirtius to step down- far from it! I laud the Senate in recommending his name for election, just as I laud their recommendation of Lucius Julius Caesar. I do not praise the will of Caesar, but the will of the Senate! This august body has finally begun making its own decisions. May it continue to follow in this glorious way!

Apparently the acta also include some financial matters which have not yet been resolved as well as public works. Tell me, Senators, was Caesar the only man who proposed public works or accrued debt? Surely every man in this room has some idea as to what to do in regards to these issues, why in the name of Jupiter must we consult Caesar’s acta in order to make a decision? I have no doubt that many Senators may consult the acta for guidance, and with that I have no complaint. It is the duty of the Senate to consider many means to reach an end and advice the magistrates accordingly. It is not, however, the duty of the Senate to further glorify a tyrant by acting only as he would direct. He should have been thrown into the Tiber- then we could have called him a tyrant formally from the beginning and disregarded simpering Dolabella and put in his place a more worthy candidate for the consulship; we could have dealt more readily with brazen Lepidus and his overgrown hubris; we could have denied Octavian the right to his adoptive father’s funds and kept him under our control; and we could have kept Antony in check. Instead we were awed by his lingering specter and bent over backwards according to the will of a dead man. No more, Senators! I say this Senate needs to start thinking for itself!

On the Acta
My fellow senators, we have been through many a trying issue lately. First with Lepidus, Dolabella, and young Caesar marching on Rome, and now with Marcus Antonius trying to convince me to lead troops against Rome before he was exposed as an enemy to the Republic and fled the city. Despite their horrible actions do not let the deeds of these men cloud your judgment about what needs to be done with Caesar’s acta. It is regrettable that these men decided to claim they were acting in Caesar’s interests when Caesar’s first love and duty was always to the Republic and the Roman people, while those men were obviously only out to strengthen their own power. Perhaps at first they meant well, but power had corrupted them beyond sense when they decided to march on Rome. Any man who truly believed as Caesar did would have never started events that could have torn Rome asunder.
The facts are that many Senators hold the positions they do now because they were appointed by Caesar. If we deny the entirety of the acta then all of his appointments will be called into question which would simply cause more chaos. Even Brutus was given his position by Caesar, which was arguably a mistake, but that is now in the past. In fact some senators would not be alive or in Rome if it was not for Caesar’s clemency. Denying Caesar’s acta because you did not agree with all of his actions in the field, or the actions of his minions such as Marcus Antonius is no reason to declare his actions null and void. One of his actions was to give Aulus Hirtius as consul designate, as we have seen by his fair actions since we ratified him as consul this was not a bad choice. Some of his other intentions for Rome were the building of public works that would benefit the people that he cared for so much.
Should we not restore temples, build and repair aqueducts and roads across the city and improve life for the people? Most importantly we now have the money to being these projects with the property confiscated from the traitors. If see no more fitting revenge than to use their property to build up the Republic which they would have seen torn down. If the fact that Octavianus intended his property to be distributed amongst the people of Rome is found out then the people will not react well. If we preemptively use the money for the people they are less likely to be angry with the senate. I do not suggest this out of fear, but wish only to present the facts as they have occurred in the past. After so recently making moves to protect and unify the city I do not wish to see the people angry with this wise body.
It is undeniable that there are now holes in the acta with the death of Brutus and Hirtius relinquishing his appointment for next year. Still there are many valid points in the acta. We are finally making progress as a senate in unifying our actions and moving back to the Republic that Caesar held so dear and those of us who would truly honor his memory wish to return to.