Regarding Caesar's Acta

Conscript fathers, the issue at hand seems quite simple to me. The question has been phrased in terms of supporting or denying the late, great Gaius Julius Caesar, but to me, this choice of words merely contributes to the problem. To set out the question itself as a battle between two sides does little more than create even more strife and disharmony than possibly necessary. I propose, gentlemen, that we disregard the fact that Caesar has chosen these men and simple judge each issue based on merit. Why must we approve or disapprove of the entire body of work as a whole, deciding such a vast number of decisions in one fell swoop? As painful and time-consuming as it may be, I think that the best possible solution is to judge each and every candidate based on merit, not on allegiance with or against Caesar.
While I’m well aware that Caesar appointed several outstanding Senators to future positions, many of whom deserve such opportunities and would more than likely serve the Republic respectably, a handful of Caesar’s benefactors have obviously turned out to be a painful and detrimental danger to our society. These men, so closely associated with Caesar during his life, obviously never should have been in charge of the Senate or given any power or responsibility whatsoever. The same may not necessarily be said for every single one of Caesar’s other appointments or mandates. While I’m all for caution and even a fair amount of skepticism regarding Caesar’s political leaders, we cannot allow the horrendous events of the last several weeks to force us into any rash, unnecessarily paranoid decisions on who should lead our Republic in the future. We cannot allow a handful of poor leaders – Lepidus, Octavianus, Dollabella, Antony – to spoil the chances for the handful of great leaders that may be on our horizon, regardless of whether or not Caesar approved of them or not.
Take, for instance, one of our current interim consuls, Aulus Hirtius, who has spent the last several weeks meticulously and painstakingly attempting everything he could to maintain a moderate stance and to direct the course of action of the Senate towards a livable compromise, even as so many here in the Senate made sure everyone knew they disapproved of his common sense and level-headedness. Now, this individual was appointed by Caesar and has since won over your approval to serve as temporary co-leader; in the interest of moderation, he has even opted to step down for the next election. My point is this, Senators, that Caesar appointed good politicians and crooked ones. We can’t assume anything, especially not that just being approved of by Caesar makes you a corrupt political, a repulsive traitor, or a threat to our future.
So, gentlemen, I repeat my proposal: for each individual, let us take into account, not their allegiances or relations to Gaius Julius Caesar, but instead their merit, their past actions, their loyalty to the Republic, their military glory, their words here in the Senate. For each specific foreign policy and each particular legislative initiative, let us consider not the source or the author, but instead the advantages and disadvantages of each measure within our current state of affairs. Caesar’s entire acta is unnecessary and dangerous to take up all at once; we must go on carefully, cautiously bearing mind the steps we have taken to get to where we are and where we would like for the Republic to be. Keep in mind, sirs, that after all that we have been through in the last several weeks – indeed for the last few generations – we still have several years of recovery ahead of us; marches on Rome and internal strife have not buried us entirely, and so we have reason to keep going, reason to be sure that Rome as we know it will live on, under the protection of our own appointees and our own legislative measures. We control our future now, gentlemen. Let’s not screw it up.

Compromise for the sake of the Republic

Fellow senators, I come before you a senator burdened. It is no secret that I have nothing but the deepest loathing for Caesar's tyranny. Were this the only fact weighing on my decision concerning the acta, my answer would be simple: burn the words of the filthy tyrant. However, as you all know, I do have great respect for Caesar and his victories as a military commander throughout his career. Unfortunately, he ceased to have my respect when he crossed the Rubicon. So, dear senators, I think you can see my dilemma.

To enact Caesar's acta in their entirety is out of the question, nay impossible. They call for already two appointments that cannot be filled. This would also effectively send the message to the people that we, the senate, condone Caesar's behavior in its entirety, which is not true of all of us. So thus blanket enacting the acta is not an option.

As of late, we have become a unified senate (with the exception of the fleeing coward and perhaps those who were close to that pathetic excuse for a triumvirate) and I do not wish to see that end. There are those among us who, for whatever reason, fully supported Caesar in all his actions. There are many senators wiser than I, yet they too disagree on this subject. Wise Hirtius, whom I clearly support and respect, as was shown by my recent actions, is still a faithful supporter of Caesar. Also wise beyond his fellows, my dear friend Cicero, who shares my distaste for Caesar's actions as dictator. Who, I ask you, is right? Even better, who can determine who is correct?

Regardless of this matter, we must also face the fact that we have been abiding by the acta in choosing Dolabella and now Aulus Hirtius as consuls. I will not lie to you senators, it was the knowledge that Hirtius was consul designate that led to initial consideration of him. That being said, his position of consul designate was by no means the deciding factor. I have not forgotten Caesar's support of Dolabella as consul suffectus, of Lepidus as Magister Equitum, and of Octavius as his heir and future Magister Equitum. Counting Hirtius's worthy actions, this makes Caesar's record 1-3. He's chosen one good man out of four. Fortunately for him, his military record was better. But this cannot be ignored. Surely had Caesar been alive, he would not have continued to support these men if he were in our positions. Caesar is dead and therefore can no longer give an accurate judgment of character.

For these reasons, I feel that we must compromise for the sake of the Republic. Let the acta be read out of respect for Caesar the general and his supporters. However, let them serve only as a suggestion. This gives Caesar no more power than that of an ordinary senator yet does not disgrace his name either. The acta should not become official legislation unless the senate feels the need to enact one specific aspect at a time. Under no circumstances should we have one blanket vote to enact all the acta. If we wish to move onto public works, we can consult the acta. Those who support Caesar's recommendation can vote in favor of what he stated in the acta. Those who disagree can propose something else. Caesar has been wrong too many times already in the judgment of men. I fear that he might be wrong in other areas as well. Despite the legacy he tried to leave, Caesar was only a man. He can not be afforded in death the same power he forcefully took in life. He should be allowed no more than a recommendation. Even this is perhaps far too generous. Is noble Brutus allowed to make a recommendation? No, he is not. But I feel that we should not create rifts in our recovering Republic. This is all my conscience will allow me to concede.

Caesar's acta; honorably put to rest

Fellow senators, it has come to our notice that we must decide once and for all what to do with Caesar's acta. Many of us in this senate loved Caesar and indeed, many of us owe him our careers and our lives. Caesar was a great man who saw the potential in people and was able to place them in the best possible position for the betterment of Rome itself. He had the keen ability to see past personal opinion into a man's very being.

Many people would argue that because of his great wisdom we should continue to follow the wishes of Caesar. They might say that those of us in power in the senate are in fact there mainly due to the foresight of Caesar. Should we not continue down the line that he has set us on? I do not believe so. I believe that now that great Caesar is no longer among us we should once again return to the true republic that we are and should have positions filled as they have been in the past through vote as opposed to appointment.

Much has changed since the death of Caesar. We have seen treachery, war, and trying times. Who is to say that even Caesar would not find it necessary to take these things into account when deciding the future of Rome. Perhaps he would choose differently due to these tumultuous times. We cannot say for certain and that adds to why I believe that we should not follow Caesar's acta. Things in Rome have changed and the people have changed as well. We should give them the chance to choose their new leaders as they see fit. Also, how can the consul who is serving now then serve again after he has sworn it shall not be so? Let the people make their own choices and trust in them to choose wisely.

I understand that abolishing the acta may cause problems for certain citizens and certain senators. However, I believe that as Romans they will be able to see beyond their own personal agendas and be able to picture the better action for the whole of the state. We have accomplished much in the past few days, least of which a mild truce amongst the senate and a unity almost unheard of in its senators. Any problems that arise from the abolition of the acta can be dealt with as long as we continue to put aside our differences and focus on the matters at hand. Let us end these petty men and their dishonorable actions against Rome in the name of great Caesar. Let us put a stop to their political schemings all while hiding behind the legacy of a man who would be shamed to his core for being associated with men of such disgrace. Any senators who have issue with a decision not to follow the acta should consider if they are outraged out of deviotion to Caesar and a trust in his decisions, or if they have more personal reasons behind their thoughts.

Caesar helped to shape the Rome in which we live. As I have said and as we all know, many of us are in positions of power and esteem in thanks to him. He trusted us with his most beloved country, trusted in us to make wise and just decisions for the people of Rome. Would he not also now trust in us to make the best decision for the future of Rome? I believe that Caesar himself would want us to follow our own wisdom and honor in this matter and not let our judgement be clouded by blind devotion, political pride, or dishonorable intentions.

We should not be completly blind to the wise wishes of Caesar and yet we should leave the present to the living while respectfully honoring the past and the dead.

Acta Caesaris

Distinguished senators, at last we bring to the Senate floor the issue of the belated Caesar’s acta. I respected Caesar as an honorable character and trusted him with the hand of my daughter in marriage. I am deeply regretful that he is no longer with us; however, the Republic must unite to conquer the many plagues that have arisen by those who wished to further their own personal agenda and career.

I am aware of the former speculation that the marriage of Caesar to Calpurnia helped lead to my being elected consul in 58. While I am sure that all of you find this accusation blasphemous, I capped my political career as censor and now I am of senior rank in the Senate. The acta therefore cannot benefit me personally. Most unfortunately, several cherished friends of Caesar have recently used the acta to justify their own self-interest. They foolishly marched on Rome in an effort to advance the legacy of Caesar. Senators, I am sure you are all in agreement that dead men cannot effectively control the future of our beloved Rome. Caesar may have written an agenda for the years to come, but would likely alter plans in the event of changes in the characters of selected men.

Thus far, the Senate has obliged the acta by allowing Dolabella to become consul rather than submitting to re-elections. Obviously this was not a wise choice. Some of you may point out that I recommended the noble Aulus Hirtius since he is consul designate for 43. I was not simply following the acta, Senators, but rather recommending a moderate and epicure who, like me, wants reconciliation. I believe that similar men are the best remedy for the Republic. His willingness to sacrifice his consulship in 43 for the immediate concerns of the Republic displays a true Roman and alludes to the potential dispositions of other chosen men of Caesar.

The acta has several holes which cannot be carried out. The consul designate for 43 has already filled the position. Marcus Junius Brutus is consul designate for 41, but has recently been assassinated. Remember that Caesar ruled as a consul himself, only allowing a replacement if he was away from Rome, such as in the case of Dolabella. The Senate must keep its tradition of having two consuls.

I know many Caesarians will argue that Rome may fall into disarray with the abolition of the acta. I myself would hate to see further chaos, social unrest, and potential economic ruin. Therefore, I propose that the acta be maintained for the remainder of 44 so that the Senate can effectively control the situation with Marcus Antonius without the distraction of other internal affairs. After 44, elections for two consuls and the remaining magistrate positions should be reinstated. Any particular problems concerning economic and social problems should be brought before and voted on in the Senate. Let us continue the glory of Rome in the Senate, and privately support the memory of Caesar.

I leave you, conscript fathers, with words of advice to my fellow colleague and senior Senator Marcus Tullius Cicero, who recently surprised us all with the adoption of the bastard child of Cleopatra and, supposedly, Caesar: with all respect to the memory of my son-in-law, perhaps it would be wise to teach Marcus Ptolemy to avoid flaunting the obvious adultery in which Caesar so often engaged.

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.

Caesar's Acta

The acta of Caesar should not be read in this senate or in any other part of the Roman Empire. Caesar is now gone and he has been so for quite some time, so we must move on without his help. If we are to truly take control and run Rome as it should be run, we must take responsibility for ourselves. We must not rely on Caesar to keep running things from his grave. We are supposedly wise men (some men wiser than others), so we must use our own wisdom to run this government. The acta is the will of Caesar, and although I was a friend of Caesar, I believe that his time has gone and that we must get on with life without Caesar. I am a man of action, so I do not believe that we should stand by idly without putting effort into running things. This means that even if we must get down into the dirt with the plebs to make sure that our actions are just and right, then that is what we must do. We must take it upon our own shoulders now and pave our own path to the future, for if we rely on others to do our work for us, we will accomplish nothing. By using the acta of Caesar to decide our appointments to office and the running of our foreign policy, we are handcuffing ourselves to the past. I believe that the past has many uses, it is useful to learn from past mistakes, to learn strategy and wisdom from the past helps us to make the future, however I do not believe that we should allow the past to run the present. We must take present matters into our own hands and guide the present into the future that we desire. These matters may sometimes be a heavy burden, but we must prevail and carry on no matter how heavy the burden becomes. I once said that I would give my life for Rome, and I still stand by that assertion. I bear the burden of office gladly because I believe that my wisdom may help better Rome. I fear the day when I am no longer useful and am only a burden upon the Roman people, on that day I will step aside and hope that a better man will receive my position. However, until that day I will not back down from any of my responsibilities and I would hope all of you would feel the same. This is why I believe we must not read the acta of Caesar. I hope that my fellow senators take pride in their duty and are more than willing to stand up for what they believe in no matter who it means opposing. It is often hardest to oppose one’s friends, and that is the only difficulty for me in opposing Caesar’s acta. However, to oppose the will of one who has passed on is not the same as opposition in life. There is no way for Caesar to present his argument on why he has appointed these men or why he believes certain policies should be enacted now. If he were still alive today, perhaps he would not make the same choices. These were Caesar’s beliefs as of a month ago, and if we allow the acta to be enforced, we may be making choices that are post dated. Thus, I believe that the senate should help shape the future and decide all of the matters that now present themselves to us. We can keep moving toward a better tomorrow if we all join together and try to make it so. Who could fault us if we give our best for the sake of Rome? However, if we think only of ourselves and what we have to gain from Caesar’s appointments, then I am sorry to call myself a senator. I have the courage to stand against the acta and all who support it. Now the question is, do you?

Who controls Caesar's Legacy?

It has become a dire need, conscript fathers, for us to speak about Caesar’s legacy.  The Senate must determine how history will remember Caesar, and how his actions shall be defended or denigrated.  It is my hope that we can come to an Ultimate and Unanimous resolution to this question.

            In the past month, Marcus Lepidus and Gaius Octavianus both attempted to use their connections with Caesar’s Legacy for personal gain.  I worry that Marcus Antonius sought to do the same with Caesar’s Acta.  If we do not provide the people guidance in this matter, fathers, then we will be allowing other legacy-hunters the use of Caesar’s name to stir dissension among our ranks.  We must, as a united group, state firmly and finally how Caesar’s life shall be remembered by all true Romans.

            (As I write this, word has been brought to me that Antony too, not having learned from the criminal, the brat and the traitor, claims Caesar’s legacy as his own.  In this letter he has contradicted everything read on Wednesday, and shows just how deeply he venerates the Republic and its laws, by seeking to destroy them.)

            The question of Caesar’s legacy takes on added weight for me personally, as I prepare to teach young Marcus Ptolemy about his father.  What actions of Caesar’s shall he be taught to emulate, and which to avoid?  For, as in every man’s life, some of Caesar’s actions can be judged right and appropriate, while other actions must be censored as destructive and harmful.

            Lepidus, Octavianus, Dolabella and M. Antonius were heirs to Caesar’s legacy, as am I and the rest of the Senate who has remained loyal to the Republic.  Consider whose actions have been judged traitorous to the State, and whose actions have helped preserve it.  That both the legacy of saving, and that of threatening the Republic have come from one man indicate that contradictions existed within Caesar’s life.   We, Conscript Fathers, must disparage those actions which we have prosecuted in others, and praise those actions which we extol when found in ourselves.  Likewise we must prosecute those actions of Caesar’s which lead to the treason of Lepidus, Octavianus, Dolabella and Antonius, and yet commend those actions of his which lead to the expansion of Roman power and prestige. 

            How does civil war advance Roman might, when Roman seizes Roman property, and Roman slaughters Roman life?  How can ANY MAN who chooses to march on Rome argue that he holds the Republic foremost in his heart?  How can any true Roman seek the death of another Roman, simply for his own profit?  Likewise, how can any True Roman allow an enemy of Rome to live, when the State will be more secure with that man’s death?   Such were Caesar’s actions when he left Gaul, under the advice of Antony, and it is such a legacy that Antony follows now.   We cannot praise the actions of a man who disparages the authority and power of the Senate, trusting rather in his own deceptions and lies.

            We can only commend those actions of Caesar, or indeed of any Roman, that increase Rome’s majesty without loss of honor, property, or life of another Roman.  No majesty is gained when a Roman suffers involuntary harm; Roman honor only increases when ALL Romans are able to profit from the actions taken.  Unfortunately, recent men have sought profit for themselves at the expense of their fellow Roman.  Under such conditions, it is necessary for the safety of the greatest number to be protected from the machinations of thieves and murderers.  The Senate cannot approve any action that does not hold the Republic’s safety at it’s core.

            This same guideline must govern our actions concerning Caesar’s Acta.  If we fully deny the power of Caesar’s Acta, then we will also invalidate the right of many of our own members to hold the magistracies which allow them to guide the Republic toward safety and prosperity.  Such an action invites chaos, as the senate must question by what right anyone may hold power.  If, on the other hand, we recognize that Caesar’s Acta should be fully enacted, all our actions since the last Ides must be questioned.  What if the Acta speak positively of M.Lepidus, C. Octavianus, or P. Dolabella?  What if the Acta recommend that M. Antonius be invested with additional honors beyond those of the Consulship, whose powers he has manipulated to be advantageous to himself?  The Republic has suffered too much during the time between the Acta’s dictation and the current day.  Caesar could not have spoken thoughtfully of the situations which we have faced since his death.  The Acta speak of a Republic that Caesar envisioned, not the one which exists.

The Senate must be allowed to judge the Acta not as a single set of suggestions, but as individual actum from a man with an incomplete understanding of Rome’s current political situation.  We must be given the power to oversee which Actum will increase the glory of our State, which will incur harm, and which no longer have any bearing.