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.