When browsing through the other reviews of "The Assassination of Julius Cesar," I noticed that virtually all praise or criticism of the book was based on the book's worthiness as a history of Rome. Although I do think that Parenti does an admirable job of challenging the public perception of the nature of the Roman republic, I'd also like to highlight what I thought was Parenti's real goal. By walking the reader through the brutal living conditions slaves and plebeians endured, the hateful attitude Roman aristocrats had towards the masses, and the true complexities that were behind Julius Cesar's assassination, Parenti demonstrates that intellectual ossification and class bias are real phenomena in academia, and are capable of hampering the pursuit of the truth.
Parenti focuses his critique around laying out a social history of Rome, along with the long struggle between aristocratic reformers and aristocratic conservatives. Most extant Roman sources demonize the reformers, who although imperfect, almost certainly had Rome's best interests at heart, while exalting the brutal conservatives who slaughtered anyone who questioned the Roman social order. This bias was perpetuated in the modern era by the early-modern classical historians who saw the aristocracy-led Roman republic as an ideal for the modern secular elite in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s to venerate. This mode of Rome scholarship became institutionalized in academia, and continues to thrive to this day. One only has to look at the neo-conservative movement's obsession with comparing the United States to Rome in order to see the lasting effects of this academic tendency.
In truth, the Roman aristocracy cared little for the well-being of its citizenry, and even less so for its slaves. As Parenti conclusively proves, one of the most odious myths about the Roman republic was that it treated its slaves well in comparison to other slave-holding societies. The truth is, the Romans constantly worked their slaves to death, were free to abuse and rape their bodies, and hardly ever allowed any of them to receive an education (as is often claimed by classicist historians), not to mention that southern U.S.-style racist ideas were present in the letters of the Roman aristocracy. The mythical well-educated professional slave represented a very rare phenomenon in Roman society, and did not reflect any sort of inherent respect for human universality.
Common people didn't have it much better either. Most were continually (and intentionally) subjected to the threat of starvation, and most plebeians had nearly all their wages nicked by the Roman state to be used for pleasure and conquest by the elite, while never seeing any dignified benefits in exchange besides meager food rations. Small landholders in other parts of Italy were usually being constantly dispossessed by the elite Romans. These trends not only are readily found in historical documents from the period, but were openly celebrated by many Roman aristocrats.
Parenti argues that the obliviousness of mainstream scholarship on Rome derives from two sources. First, historians have often openly identified with the worldview of Cicero and his brethren, and thus looked past the brutal socio-economic reality they promoted in order to vindicate the so-called "virtues" of the republican order. Since Julius Cesar naturally represented a moderate threat to the unhindered dominance of the conservative elites (who invented new interpretations of the Roman constitution on a whim to suit their needs whenever threatened), he naturally must have been an immoral tyrant in the eyes of classicists. Parenti notes that Cesar was a bloody ruler in his own way, but it is important to note that this has nothing to do with why the classicists have historically demonized him. Second, post-modern scholarship places an inordinate level of importance on "texts," thus privileging the perspectives of the well-educated elite who generally were the most literate members of society, or at least the ones whose opinions were preserved through the middle ages. In truth, there are many hints found in the historical record that indicate modest resistance towards the Roman elite's more brutal practices, and the social history of Rome tells its own story that runs in the face of the traditional classicist (and classist) narrative. In a way, Parenti is also defending the Marxist approach to historiography, in that he demonstrates that class divisions are essential, and that myths about the organic wholeness of ancient societies are just that- myths. Texts are capable of misrepresenting reality, and elites are perfectly capable of spinning webs of political mythology in order to obscure social realities.
Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together
$14.66
Get it as soon as Sunday, May 19
In Stock
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Similar items that may deliver to you quickly
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Top reviews from other countries
James Cook
Every read a class analysis of Roman society?
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on November 4, 2017Jerónimo Rosales
Ameno, interesantísimo y mlitante
Reviewed in Mexico on August 2, 2015