Download Historical Background of Julius Caesar

Historical Background of Julius Caesar
 503 BC Rome ends the rule of the Tarquins, a series of harsh,
cruel rulers.

Rome decides to never again be under the rule of such an
oppressive government. They refuse all forms of government
that consist of kings or emperors (rulers who achieve their
power based on inheritance not election).

503 BCE Rome sets up a Republic – a government in which
officials are elected. (1. Election does not = democracy
necessarily. People can elect dictators. 2. Only certain people in
Rome allowed to vote.)

The new government was made of two parts: two Consuls
(leaders) and a Senate. The Consuls were elected officials.
They appointed the Senate members. The governing bodies
could be made of people from any walk of life, noble, or
common.

Julius Caesar got into politics during a time in which the
Consuls and the Senate were having problems. In this time of
instability, he became an outspoken leader.
Becomes Consul and forms the Triumvirate:

In 60 BCE, the first triumvirate (three-person governing body)
was formed of Caesar, a famous general named Pompey, and
a wealthy man named Crassus.

Crassus killed in 53 BCE, and Pompey began to fear that
Julius Caesar was growing too powerful and popular.

49 BCE Crosses the Rubicon - Civil War begins

48 BCE Caesar and his army were far away from Rome,
conquering many lands for the Roman Empire. Pompey
ordered him back so that he would not have to fear Caesar and
his powerful army. Instead, Caesar attacked Pompey, defeating
his forces and killing him in the midst.




45 BCE-- Caesar returned to Rome, was accepted by the
people for his military abilities, was loved for all the goods he
brought back from his conquests, and was elected Dictator for
Life. (This meant that he would rule Rome until his death, and
the next leader would have to be elected.)
Many believed that Caesar wanted to be Emperor instead of
just Dictator for Life. If Emperor, Julius Caesar’s son would
inherit the throne, instead of being elected.
Many feared that Caesar would bring back a style of life similar
to when the Tarquins ruled. To prevent this, some members of
the legislature carried out a deceitful plan...
Caesar assassinated on March 15, 44 BCE– Ides of March.
SOCIAL CLASS AND PUBLIC DISPLAY
Bill Long, M. Div., Ph. D., J. D.
Julius Caesar was probably written and performed in 1599,
being the first Shakespeare play performed in the new Globe
theater on the South Bank of the Thames. Four background points
are important to understand.
1) Historical Background
Elizabeth I had been monarch over England since 1559 but was in her
mid-60s in 1599, and speculation was rife regarding a successor. She
had no heir, and there was considerable worry that her death
might lead to warfare such as had consumed the houses of
Lancaster and York in the 15th century. Julius Caesar is a play
exploring the chaos that results when a monarch dies without obvious
successors. When she died in 1603, the Scottish House of Stuart took
the throne with James I (James VI of Scotland) ruling.
Julius Caesar is the one of Shakespeare's earliest tragedies,
with only Titus Andronicus (early 1590s) and Romeo and Juliet
(mid 1590s) being earlier, and he wrote it mid-way through his
career. Following quickly on its heels will be Hamlet, and some
scholars see Brutus in Julius Caesar as a prototype or "first
draft" of Hamlet. In addition, Julius Caesar is the first of
Shakespeares' three Roman plays, the others being Coriolanus and
Antony and Cleopatra. Plutarch, the 1st-2nd century A.D. biographer,
in a 1579 translation by North, is his major source for these plays.
Thus, Shakespeare is feeling his way both in a new genre of
playwriting as well as a new subject matter. The play that
results, Julius Caesar, is of uneven quality: the first three Acts
are among Shakespeare's most accomplished, but the literary
power of Acts IV and V is less compelling.
2) Collapsing Time
One of the literary devices employed by Shakespeare to make the
action more vivid is to collapse the actual historical time between
scenes and acts. For example, the historical event contemplated
by 1.1 is the defeat by Caesar of Pompey's sons at Munda in
Spain in September 45 B.C. The celebration of Caesar's triumph
is in February 44 B.C., and his assassination is in March 44. Yet,
all these things happen in the first three Acts without any time
apparently having passed. That is, the scenes go right from one to
the next, with only a night passing between them. In addition, there
was more than a year between the funeral of Caesar and the
formation of the 2nd triumvirate (Mark Antony, Lepidus and
Octavian), and then there was another year before the battle at
Philippi (42 B.C.). Nevertheless, Acts IV and V of Julius Caesar
follow directly on the heels of the assassination. All happens
rapidly and intensely. We are caught up in the rapid pace of it all by
Shakespeare's method.
3) Literary Style
The style of Julius Caesar has always made it popular. The language is
sturdy and straightforward, like the Romans it describes. There is
little word-play beyond the banter between the plebians and
the Tribunes in 1.1. In addition, the play has been popular for
secondary schools because there is no sex in it. Therefore,
teachers can talk about the "greatness" of Shakespeare and have
students read every line of the play without worrying about which
parts of the male and female anatomy are being described. Finally,
the language is vivid and memorable. Antony's vicious
description of Lepidus, Cassius' resentful characterization of
Caesar, Brutus's reference to tides in the affairs of men to spur
action, Caesar's insufferable self-descriptions, Antony's
masterful speech at Caesar's funeral, all of these make Julius
Caesar not just a play of "one-liners," but a play of sustained
eloquence. Many passages are worth memorizing, reciting and
incorporating into educated conversation on subjects quite distinct
from this play.
4) Themes
Many of the standard treatments talk about a "clash" of great themes
in Julius Caesar, such as predestination vs. free will or the public vs.
the private life, but I choose to see the themes not as presenting
tensions between virtues or philosophical positions but as
single words that are fraught with significant meaning. In this
regard, the notions of betrayal or loyalty or ambition or the the
penalties for ignorance of the self seem to have a greater
resonance with me than supposed "tensions" between values. I
think it is far more useful to talk about the nature and psychology of
betrayal (with respect to Caesar) or the costs of lack of self-knowledge
(with respect to Brutus). I think the portrait of Caesar's authority as
"Christlike" or the vulnerability as well as resentment of Cassius call
for comment. As with so much of Shakespeare's tragic works,
the most fruitful issues to explore are in the area of the
emotions or character growth. Finally, I think that Portia,
Brutus's wife, is often overlooked but in fact is a crucial person
in the play. By not having words shared with her by her husband at
the right time, she cannot help him. By having those words shared
with her at the wrong time, she cannot speak. Ultimately she dies in a
manner that demonstrates her inability to speak: by swallowing hot
coals.
Julius Caesar is a richly textured work whose complexity belies
the apparently straightforward presentation of assassination
and civil war.
Social Classes in the Late Republic
Rome was a highly hierarchial and class-conscious society, but there was the possibility
of mobility between most classes (indicated in the diagram above by dotted lines)
because by the second century BCE class was no longer determined solely by birth. The
classes described below superseded the old patrician/plebeian distinction, though certain
elements of dress and religious positions and rituals were still reserved for patricians.
There was a large gulf between the wealthy upper classes (the senatorial and equestrian
classes, shown on the pediment of the temple above), and the poorer lower classes,
though it was still possible—although quite difficult—to move upwards by acquiring
sufficient wealth.
Upper Classes

Senatorial class (senatores): The basis for this class was political. It included all
men who served in the Senate, and by extension their families. This class was
dominated by the nobles (nobiles), families whose ancestors included at least one

consul (earlier the qualification had been a curule magistracy, i.e. curule aedile
and up). The first man in his family to be elected consul, thus qualifying his
family for noble status, was called a “new man” (novus homo), although this term
was used in varying senses—it could refer to an equesterian who was the first in
his family to be elected to political office and thus join the senatorial class, or to a
man from the senatorial class who was the first in his family to be elected consul
and thus join the nobles, or most dramatically to an equestrian like Cicero who
was elected consul. Senators had to prove that they had property worth at least
1,000,000 sesterces; there was no salary attached to service in the Senate, and
senators were prohibited from engaging personally in nonagricultural business,
trade or public contracts. Men of the senatorial class wore the tunic with broad
stripes (laticlavi).
Equestrian class (equites): The basis for this class was economic. A man could
be formally enrolled in the equestrian order if he could prove that he possessed a
stable minimum amount of wealth (property worth at least 400,000 sesterces); by
extension his family members were also considered equestrians. However, if an
equestrian was elected to a magistracy and entered the Senate, he moved up to the
senatorial class; this was not particularly easy or frequent. Equestrians were
primarily involved in the types of business prohibited to senators. Equestrians
wore the tunic with narrow stripes (angusti clavi).
Women: Although membership in these classes was dominated by the same families
over many generations, the classes themselves were defined according to male activities
rather than birth. Women's place in these classes was therefore somewhat problematic.
However, there came to be a customary acceptance that women belonged to the social
class of their fathers and then of their husbands, although the women had no special dress
that distinguished their status. This female participation in social status began to
crystallize and formalize under Augustus, who explicitly included the daughters,
granddaughters, and great-granddaughters of senators in his law prohibiting members of
the senatorial class from contracting legal marriages with freedpeople.
Belonging to one of these upper classes had many significant consequences for Romans
besides prestige, for social class determined one's economic and political opportunities,
as well as legal rights, benefits and penalties. Rome had nothing comparable to our
middle class; the gulf between these two upper classes and the much larger lower classes
was immense. However, as long as one was a freeborn Roman citizen there was at least a
slight possibility of moving into the equestrian class through the acquisition of wealth.
Entry into the senatorial class, even for wealthy equestrians, was extremely difficult,
since for centuries a small number of elite families had monopolized this class.
Lower Classes

Commons (plebs or vulgus): all other freeborn Roman citizens. The special
mark of dress for citizen males was the toga. All Roman citizens had




conubium, the right to contract a legal marriage with another Roman citizen
and beget legitimate children who were themselves Roman citizens.
Latins (Latini): freeborn residents of Italy (until 89 BCE, when they were all
granted full citizenship) and of certain other Roman municipalities who had
some legal rights but were not full Roman citizens. Former slaves who had
been informally freed by Roman citizens were a special category, “Junian
Latins.”
Foreigners (peregrini): all other freeborn men and women who lived in
Roman territories. In 212 CE most freeborn people living within the Roman
empire were granted Roman citizenship.
Freedpeople (liberti or libertini): men and women who had been slaves but
had bought their freedom or been manumitted. They were not fully free
because they had various restrictions on their rights and owed certain duties
to their former masters, who now became their patrons, but they could
become citizens if their former masters were citizens and they had been
formally manumitted; they were not, however, eligible for public office. This
was the one class it was not possible to leave, though the class encompassed
only one generation. The next generation, their freeborn children, became
full citizens (i.e., members of the commons, though there was a social stigma
attached to being a freedman's son) and could even become equestrians if
rich enough. Freedpeople had low social status, and most were probably
fairly poor, but it was possible for them to achieve some success in a trade,
and a few might even become wealthy. They had no special distinction of
dress, though their names indicated their status as freedpeople.
Slaves (servi): system of chattel slavery where human beings were born into
slavery or sold into slavery through war or piracy. Slaves were the property
of their owners by law, but by custom some slaves (especially urban,
domestic slaves) might be allowed their own savings (peculium) with which
they might later buy their freedom, or their masters could manumit them, so
some mobility into the previous class was possible. Roman slavery was not
racially based, and slaves had no special distinction of dress, though slaves
who had run away were sometimes made to wear metal collars with
inscriptions such as the following: “I have run away. Capture me. When you
have returned me to my master, Zoninus, you will receive a reward.”
Women: Since the lower classes were not defined by male activities, there was no
problem with including women; female and male children were automatically members
of the social class of their parents (except for freedpeople, since only one generation
could be “freed”). If the parents were Roman citizens and had contracted a legal Roman
marriage, the children followed the social status of their father (i.e., they were Roman
citizens). However, in the case of Latins, foreigners, and slaves, children took the social
status of their mother, even if their father was a freeborn Roman citizen.
Social Classes in the Empire
During the Empire, most of these social classes continued, although after the grants of
full citizenship in 212 CE the foreigner and Latin classes (except for Junian Latins)
virtually disappeared. There was a new and tiny class at the very top of the social
pyramid, comprising the emperors and their families, indicated at the very top of the
above diagram. From the time of Augustus, the state was identified with the imperial
household (domus), and the women belonging to that household naturally became
associated with imperial status, imperial titles such as Augusta and mater castrorum
(“mother of the military camps”), and even some forms of power, although these women
(like all Roman women) were formally excluded from political offices and the emperors
consistently stressed their domestic roles. There was also a new category in the class of
freedpeople, since freedmen of the emperor were frequently given important bureaucratic
posts, garnered a great deal of wealth, and exercised considerable influence. Even
imperial slaves had a certain status. Thus the imperial household created status anomalies
in several of the social classes.
The nature of the senatorial class also changed during the Empire. Although the Senate
and magistrates continued to exist, they no longer had any real political power, and their
membership in this class depended ultimately on the favor of the emperor. Nevertheless
rank retained its importance and became even more clearly marked and formalized. In
fact, elite women during the Empire also openly laid claim to the social status associated
with rank. By the end of the second century CE, the word clarissimi and the feminine
clarissimae (“most distinguished”) became a kind of title denoting male and female
members of the senatorial class. In the third century CE, the law
explicitly divided Romans into two groups, the honestiores (“more
honorable people,” including senators, equestrians, municipal
officials, and soldiers) and the humiliores (“more insignificant
people,” including all other groups). Legal penalties were
significantly more harsh for the latter group, and women as well as
men were included in this division.
Public Display: Patronage
Public display of status was a very important feature of Roman
society. It was not enough to belong to one of the upper classes—
status and rank had to be seen, to be publicly recognized, in order to
be meaningful. Hence the clothing of upper-class Roman males had
distinctive features which made their rank immediately visible to all
around them (for more information, see Roman Clothing).
The patron-client relationship was also a major instrument for the
public display of status. The Romans called mutual support between
upper-class men of relative—though competitive—equality amicitia,
“friendship.” However, nearly every aspect of Roman life was affected by the widespread
system of patronage, based on publicly acknowledged inequality between patron
(patronus) and client (cliens); the prevalence of patronage in Roman society was both a
result and a cause of its hierarchical, status-conscious nature, as well as of the wide gulf
between the upper and lower classes.
There were two types of patronage:


public—in which a patron became the protector and benefactor of a group (e.g., a
craftsman's guild, a religious association, even an entire city); such patronage
usually involved large gifts of money for public buildings, alimentary schemes,
public entertainment, etc., but could also involve various forms of protection and
advocacy.
personal—in which a patron aided an individual of lower status through money,
gifts, dinner invitations, help with lawsuits or business affairs, and other forms of
advice and protection. Patronage relationships might be maintained through
several generations of the same families.
Personal patronage extended to a man's or woman's freedpeople as well as to freeborn
individuals of a lower status, but the former involved legally binding duties and services
that the freedperson owed his or her patron in exchange for manumission. Public patrons
expected to receive public acknowledgment from their client groups in the form of
statues and inscriptions; personal patrons expected various forms of public displays of
deference such as the morning greeting (see below), accompanying the patron to the
Forum, etc. During the Republic, both types of patrons demanded political support from
their clients; this type of support became much less significant in the Empire, though
social support and deference remained very important. The patronage system made
possible the rich legacy of Roman literature, since wealthy patrons provided authors with
a livelihood and expected in return commemoration in the literature or at least enhanced
status as intellectuals. For example, Maecenas, a wealthy and influential equestrian
associated with the court of Augustus, was the patron of the poets Horace and Vergil.
An important daily public ritual associated with patronage was the salutatio, or morning
greeting, when clients flocked to the homes of their wealthy patrons. This was a formal
occasion, requiring both patron and client to wear togas; thus the difference in their
clothing would be another visual reminder of their difference in status. Clients clustered
in the atrium, the vestibule, and even the streets outside the patron's house, waiting to be
summoned individually to greet the patron in his tablinum; after the greeting they might
be required to accompany the patron to the Forum or lawcourts if he needed a public
entourage. Certainly there could be a paternalistic benevolence on the part of the patron
and loyalty on the part of the client, but nevertheless public display was at the heart of the
system. Patronage was the grease that kept the wheels of the Roman economy, society,
and politics turning.
Like other public aspects of Roman society, the rituals of patronage derived from the
male lifestyle. However, because upper-class women participated in the Roman status
structure and could manage their own wealth (including freeing
slaves), they could serve as both public and personal patrons.
Inscriptions throughout Italy and the provinces commemorate women
as public patrons; another page details the impressive buildings erected
by three major civic donors in the Roman east, Plancia Magna, Aurelia
Paulina, and Regilla. The image at right, for example, shows a statue
of Eumachia, a priestess and wealthy woman who put up a large public
building in the Forum of Pompeii and was a public patron of the guild
of the fullers, who erected this statue in her building. The inscription
reads, “The fullers [dedicated this statue] to Eumachia, daughter of
Lucius, public priestess.” In fact, participation in public patronage
seems to have been considered an honorable activity for a woman
throughout Roman history. Personal patronage was more problematic,
however, especially if a woman's clients were men, since it seemed to
undermine the concept of natural male superiority and created
opportunities for sexual innuendo. Nevertheless, elite Roman women
certainly did serve as patrons for men, especially during the Empire,
when connections to the imperial family gave women access and
influence in the court.
Public Display: Imagines
An imago (plural, imagines) was a wax portrait mask of a man who had held high
political office (curule aedile and up). A funerary relief dating from the end of the first
century BCE (shown in this detail) is flanked by imagines in order to document the social
rank of the family. Families of senatorial status prominently displayed the imagines of
their distinguished ancestors in the public part of their houses (the atrium and the
tablinum), where they could be seen and admired by all clients and visitors. The imagines
played an even more dramatic role in these families' major public events, such as
funerals, when appropriately costumed actors wore the masks and impersonated these
distinguished ancestors during the funeral procession through the city and the public
eulogy in the Forum (the Greek historian Polybius, writing in the second century BCE,
provides a detailed description of such a funeral which underlines the significance of the
imagines). The more imagines a family could display, the more status it had. Thus the
denial of the right to make an imago of a particular man and to display it publicly was a
severe punishment that could be imposed if he was convicted of a crime or proscribed;
during the Empire, this was part of a strategy called damnatio memoriae, the official
“erasure of memory.”
In sculptures like the statue on the left, imagines are often portrayed as portrait busts. In
this statue a senator, clad in an elegantly draped toga, proudly carries the busts of his
grandfather (50-40 BCE) and his father (20-15 BCE); note that the head of the statue,
while ancient, does not belong to the body (another view of the statue). Originally
imagines could only be displayed at the funerals of male relatives, but by the end of the
Republic they were on display at the funerals of distinguished women as well. The lid of
this sarcophagus of an aristocratic woman during the Flavian period (c. 80 CE) shows the
deceased woman holding the bust of a distinguished ancestor.
Sources
Barbara F. McManus, The College of New Rochelle
[email protected]
January, 2009