Much Ado About the Acta

The senate has had to face many hard choices since the death of the tyrant Gaius Julius Caesar. With the exception of Brutus’ death and the delay of action against Lepidus, the senate has made great advances in getting Rome back to her republican roots. Gaius Julius Caesar’s death was a blessing. The event helped the power hungry see that personal power is temporary, but the republican ideals which this city was founded on are perpetual.

If Caesar was assassinated as the leader of a barbarian tribe, he would be forgotten and his body probably desecrated. Rome is not a city of barbarians and Caesar’s final requests cannot be ignored. Caesar’s acta must at least be considered if for no other reason than because the extreme power he held before his death. A tyrant’s will is a will nonetheless; and as a civil society we should consider whether to allow these requests to be burned, honored in full, or considered in part.
If we honor Caesar’s will in full, Caesar’s authority will be confirmed even after death, which will negate all of our accomplishments since his death. Ambition is a vice that can easily consume the minds of the weak. Ambition can corrupt any person, no matter how little their political clout may seem to be. If the senate allows Caesar’s acta to be ratified in full, the people of Rome will have to live in fear of another tyrant rising to power. Often is it through the powerful that newcomers gain their own influence. Surely Caesar had this in mind while making some of his appointments. The other thing he had in mind was to appoint people into offices who he knew would never oppose his whims and radical policies. Since Caesar’s life was not entirely free from corruption, what guarantee do we have that he did not intend to harm the republic even after his death with his will?

Caesar’s acta do contain orders concerning the financial matters of the people as well as of the city, though, which cannot be ignored. Debts need to be settled and the city needs to have a firm grasp on its own financial situation; but a dead man has no concern in these matters. A dead man, even one whose influence exceeded all others during his life, necessarily forfeits this influence upon death. Consider for a moment, how Rome would be viewed by the outside world if the senate allowed it to be ruled by not just by a dead man, but a dead tyrant! How preposterous it is to even consider ratifying the acta in full when the senate has clearly been in favor of returning to republican, not monarchical ideals.

Supporters of Caesar, and there are many among the senate, will argue that Caesar’s will is mostly responsible for all of our positions in the senate. This is partially true, but we must always remember that he is the one that brought the republic to the brink of destruction. Caesar did not devote his entire life to destroying the republic, so we will not spend the rest of ours denying that he did the state some degree of good in the beginning. For this reason his acta must be considered in discreet parts. Parts concerning military appointments must be discussed in the senate first, for obvious reasons. Parts concerning financial matters must be second, since financial chaos can destroy a city as easily as a tyrant. There is no logic in admitting or denying the will as a whole. As Caesar’s life attests, perhaps not all parts of the acta are misguided. It is up to the senate to decide which parts of the acta are folly and which parts may actually benefit the republic.