Gay Julius Caesar who faked his death?

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Regarding his opinions, one that Caesar was gay and, two that he faked his death. I do not know about the second, but the first is a misnomer. Caesar was not gay, as such. What we call today 'gay' was differently regarded in the times we call antiquity. From my fairly inaccurate general knowledge , because it is difficult to know with certainty, regular and refined features in a man that might apply to the notion of a woman's beauty of were highly appreciated in a man's appearance. Sexual relations were not equated to marriage between a man and a woman and marriage itself was more a transactional affair rather than a moral social institution.
With this understanding of the aesthetic preferences and habitual sexual practices roman society in antiquity, today, many people would have an instantaneous 'Eww' reaction. For me Julius Caesar was an important historical figure for many different reasons. So, what if he was what we call today 'gay', I say good for him, if that made him happy. Certainly, the revelation makes no difference for me today.
Even thought the conversation seems to have been closed, I just wanted to address the above real quick.

Even if you're correct Ina, then why bring it up? if, for argument's sake, it was an accepted behavioral pattern, then it bears no mention. It's like if I titled an article "Abraham Lincoln rode a horse whilst wearing a ridiculously outdated (by today's standard) hat!" I think that's one of the first red flags that I saw with his writing, not only would he be placing today's standard on historical events, which is a mistake, but he's doing so knowing it'll cause shock and controversy.

And controversy is looking for clicks, which might be his primary goal, which then creates a motive for his declaration to be true, which then reduces the likability of him pursuing the truth. I am reminded of Sherlock Holme's quote about twisting facts to suit the theory instead of its opposite.

I agree that dismissing someone outright isn't a good idea as there might be a bit of information that is useful, but to echo Laura's point, one has to at least be aware of the writer's intention and in his case, if one is to read him, one has to be aware of his tendency to write historical gossip as tabloids and celeb magazines would, "Caesar confirmed Gay, read all about it!! and is he really dead? Shocking anonymous sources say otherwise! (pg. 35)"

Does that make sense?
 

Jones

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
When a gold ore is excavated from the ground and taken to a processing plant, there could be 6 or 10 grams of gold in 1 ton of ore.
The workers will crush and wash and sift and do all sorts of operations to extract that miniscule amount and they succeed in the end.
Why this approach can't be applied to the extraction of nuggets of truth in anyone's statements and articles?
I think the answer is evident: gold has physical properties that can be used to pinpoint the material with 100% accuracy.
Unfortunately, the truth can not be washed out of the lies it usually comes with.

So, what you are saying is: that article doesn't pass my smell test and hereby I will ignore everything that it contains. I prefer to read the articles only from refutable sources that were checked out by fact checkers. Then, I know that it is mostly truth and I can accept the article's content at its face value.

I have not said that it is a wrong approach.

Do not judge the book by its cover. I am not pre-judging Miles Mathis in order to accept or reject his conclusions. He is a unique artist and uses the approach that no one else is using. He was not caught as mis-information agent, AFAIK. I do not know the %% of his accuracy, though. Could be low.

@Ant22 , can you point out the parts of http://mileswmathis.com/caesar.pdf that you found questionable/false, please?

Well, as has been noted, sometimes 20% is worth digging for. But after awhile, you get a feeling for a researcher/author that helps you determine whether they will have anything new to put on the table or not.

At the risk of repeating a point, and to expand on the analogy of digging for gold, mining isn't just about taking a digger to any random old patch of ground and sifting it for gold or otherwise processing it. It's more about studying the geology, topology and flora of a landscape. Then drilling for core samples to check the underlying rock and soil to see if it is consistent with the signs on the surface or whether the surface has been dumped there by water movement or other earth changes at some point in the past. There are specific rocks that if found on the surface may be a predictor of underlying gold, but not a guarantee of it. Then there are other rocks and minerals that mimic the appearance of gold which are not. Sometimes surface or shallow gold is found by a current river/creek or an ancient dry bed and the real payload is found by tracking that back to it's origins. Only after these studies is it calculated whether it is worthwhile to move 60 tonnes of earth to extract and process a bar the size of a mars bar - the average that was taken from the major mine in the mining town where I lived for a period of time unless a rich seam is found by chance.

So whether it's gold in the form of knowledge and understanding or in the form of a precious metal, there's still lots of heavy lifting even if eventually one can get to the point where they get a feel for it! One of the mines in the area employed an elderly aboriginal to study areas before they sent in drilling rigs to collect core samples and one of the tests he used was to feel the leaves on a particular type of tree before he advised on the likelihood of gold in the area.
 

Ina

Dagobah Resident
Even thought the conversation seems to have been closed, I just wanted to address the above real quick.

Even if you're correct Ina, then why bring it up? if, for argument's sake, it was an accepted behavioral pattern, then it bears no mention. It's like if I titled an article "Abraham Lincoln rode a horse whilst wearing a ridiculously outdated (by today's standard) hat!" I think that's one of the first red flags that I saw with his writing, not only would he be placing today's standard on historical events, which is a mistake, but he's doing so knowing it'll cause shock and controversy.

And controversy is looking for clicks, which might be his primary goal, which then creates a motive for his declaration to be true, which then reduces the likability of him pursuing the truth. I am reminded of Sherlock Holme's quote about twisting facts to suit the theory instead of its opposite.

I agree that dismissing someone outright isn't a good idea as there might be a bit of information that is useful, but to echo Laura's point, one has to at least be aware of the writer's intention and in his case, if one is to read him, one has to be aware of his tendency to write historical gossip as tabloids and celeb magazines would, "Caesar confirmed Gay, read all about it!! and is he really dead? Shocking anonymous sources say otherwise! (pg. 35)"

Does that make sense?
It does not make any sense. The only sense in bringing up the topics is in what Slava mentioned, too much ’mental’ energy, and in Miles Mathis obsession with phoenicians.
However, the buttons are pushed somwhere else. There is total menu of informational dishes that come mixed all together these days. Talk about complete lack of taste and mental indigestion. I do not want to name these ‘info-dishes’ we are being served because in my cognitive navigation map they should be temporary. To deal with each and every random lucubration of every epiphany driven overnight researcher, would mean an enormous waste of energy. I agree with Laura, but looking for all pearls in all oyster shells, should not include the ones that are remaining as food consumption residue.
I am using a lot of metaphors here, I apologise, but my cigarette break is lmost over and I need to go back pairing socks.
Thank you for your concern. I think I understand where you are coming from.
 

Aeneas

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Have you ever come across any other source, that said or hinted, that Julius Caesar may have faked his death?
Perhaps it is not so much any other source that is needed as a source. Miles Mathis is not source material. He is speculating. Does he have sources then bring them to the table and we can look at the veracity of what is said in the sources.

Which bring me back to:
@SlavaOn What did you find convincing about the hypothesis since you posted about it and do you think he might be right?
I understand your answer that you find him an interesting controversial figure, but it does not answer the above question as to why you posted about it. Or did you just want to bring the attention to the Forum of Miles Mathis and therefore just chose a random hypothesis of his?
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The very idea that Gaius Julius Caesar was "gay" actually was a rumor started by one of his political enemies. The slander was begun well after the time of the alleged incident on which it was based.

In 80 BC, when he was just 20 years old, Caesar was sent to Bithynia as ambassador for Rome with the intention of negotiating for military assistance from its king, Nicomedes. He served his first military campaign in Asia on the personal staff of Marcus Thermus, governor of the province who is the person who sent him to Bithynia.

Only later in his life, when he was becoming politically powerful, was it claimed that he took far longer than was necessary, perhaps enjoying his time there a little too much, leading to the suggestion that he had become very "close" to King Nicomedes. I believe it was his implacable foe, Dolabella, who began the slander which was taken up by other of Caesar's enemies.

Caesar was well known as a 'ladies man', and had a famous affair with the sister of his political foe, Cato. There is a famous story about that, too that is likely to be true.

In any event, Caesar was said to be handsome, well-dressed, careful in his grooming, and much loved by women, so it is only natural that many men who actually may have been homophobes, would accuse him of such in order to distract attention away from their own shortcomings. Plus, the really big factor that it WAS a political maneuver intended to defame him.

So many people assume that just because there was such a rumor that there must have been some truth to it. I've read dozens of articles with that assumption at the outset. However, when you consider the circumstances: 1) when the alleged event took place (80 BC) and 2) when the slander began (much later in his political career by at least a couple of decades), then you can only logically conclude that Caesar's enemies searched long and hard for a possible event with which to slander him and had to make do with a very weak possibility and lie a lot to get it to fly.

Another thing to consider: a lot is written about how 'common' it was to be bisexual in Rome, etc, yet that is contradicted by the very fact that Caesar's enemies had to make something like that up to slander him, and that it was, in fact, intended to be damaging.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
This is probably the best and most thorough treatment of the topic I've read.
See here:


I have a printed copy of this paper that I will scan later and post unless someone else has access to this journal. It's not long and should put the whole matter to rest.
 

Vinícius

The Force is Strong With This One

Attachments

  • adsd.pdf
    220.8 KB · Views: 68

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I notice that this thread more or less lost steam upon presentation of the known facts. Funny how that happens. But usually, before it does, there are plenty who are willing to continue to spread the rumors, lies and slander without a shred of real evidence.

Miles Mathis is apparently a small-minded, emotionally stunted, lazy and incompetent researcher, writer, thinker. That he would propagate such nonsense based on literally nothing makes him a person of non-interest, all of whose work must be held to be of an equally low quality and therefore, not worth anything at all. He's not even good enough to deserve a place in the Historian's Hall of Shame.
 

SlavaOn

Jedi Master
It boggles my mind how many details are known about the moments of death of the person, that took place in 44 BCE.
Who was the first to pull the clothes, who was the first and last to strike, etcetera. This could have only be told by direct witnesses and written down and preserved. Then re-written multiple times. In investigative/legal jargon, it is called a hearsay. It can also be characterized as a myth. Sorry, I can't buy this story as "known facts".

Then, we have a list of participants. The total number <of senators> ranges between 40 to 60. Several individual were named and their roles in the killing were described. So far, I compiled a list of 9 people:
Marcus Junius Brutus
Gaius Cassius Longinus
Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus
Gaius Trebonius
Tillus Cimber
Cassius Parmanesis
Publius Servilius Casca
Gaius Servilius Casca
Licus Tillus Cimber

All proctors and consuls, tribunes, governors and commanders. The elite of Rome. Cream of the crop. All wealthy, some super-wealthy.
And we, probably know these names only because they allegedly participated in the killing of a famous man. In the proper investigations of a crime an accused in the murder is always trying to establish his or her alibi. So, if it would be possible to prove that one of these people could not have been present at the place of killing, would it collapse the whole story?

I read "Caesar and Nicomedes" with great interest. It reads as a detective story with a lot of details. What caught my attention is the years of publication of the works that are cited in footnotes:
2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1989, 1985, 1977, 1968, 1967, 1958, 1957, 1949, 1938
Basically, the bulk of the research papers was written in the last 100 years. Then a gap of some 15+ centuries and Cicero, Plutarch are mentioned as the earlier sources. Could most of the details come out of Shakespeare Julius Caesar (play) - Wikipedia
Who allegedly used Thomas North - Wikipedia as his source; Who translated Jacques Amyot - Wikipedia from French; Who translated Plutarch sometime in 1570s...

Maybe Caesar was killed that day or maybe not...
To be a step closer to the day is to read Plutarch works in original Greek language! Caesar: Chapter I
 
Last edited:

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
It boggles my mind how many details are known about the moments of death of the person, that took place in 44 BCE.
Who was the first to pull the clothes, who was the first and last to strike, etcetera. This could have only be told by direct witnesses and written down and preserved. Then re-written multiple times. In investigative/legal jargon, it is called a hearsay. It can also be characterized as a myth. Sorry, I can't call this story as "known facts".

Then, we have a list of participants. The total number <of senators> ranges between 40 to 60. Several individual were named and their roles in the killing were described. So far, I compiled a list of 9 people:
Marcus Junius Brutus
Gaius Cassius Longinus
Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus
Gaius Trebonius
Tillus Cimber
Cassius Parmanesis
Publius Servilius Casca
Gaius Servilius Casca
Licus Tillus Cimber

All proctors and consuls, tribunes, governors and commanders. The elite of Rome. Cream of the crop. All wealthy, some super-wealthy.
And we, probably know these names only because they allegedly participated in the killing of a famous man. In the proper investigations of a crime an accused in the murder is always trying to establish his or her alibi. So, if it would be possible to prove that one of these people could not have been present at the place of killing, would it collapse the whole story?

I read "Caesar and Nicomedes" with great interest. It reads as a detective story with a lot of details. What caught my attention is the years of publication of the works that are cited in footnotes:
2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1989, 1985, 1977, 1968, 1967, 1958, 1957, 1949, 1938
Basically, the bulk of the research papers was written in the last 100 years. Then a gap of some 15+ centuries and Cicero, Plutarch are mentioned as the earlier sources. Could most of the details come out of Shakespeare Julius Caesar (play) - Wikipedia
Who allegedly used Thomas North - Wikipedia as his source; Who translated Jacques Amyot - Wikipedia from French; Who translated Plutarch sometime in 1570s...

Maybe Caesar was killed that day or maybe not...
To be a step closer to the day is to read Plutarch works in original Greek language! Caesar: Chapter I

Pathetic.

Please do deeper research. You can start here and then go to each of the references and from them, further still.
 
Last edited:

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Here is Suetonius' nearly contemporary account of Caesar's final days:

Caesar had warning given him of his fate by indubitable omens. A few months before, when the colonists settled at Capua, by virtue of the Julian law, were demolishing some old sepulchres, in building country-houses, and were the more eager at the work, because they discovered certain vessels of antique workmanship, a tablet of brass was found in a tomb, in which Capys, the founder of Capua, was said to have been buried, with an inscription in the Greek language to this effect "Whenever the bones of Capys come to be discovered, a descendant of Iulus will be slain by the hands of his kinsmen, and his death revenged by fearful disasters throughout Italy." Lest any person should regard this anecdote as a fabulous or silly invention, it was circulated upon the authority of Caius Balbus, an intimate friend of Caesar's.

A few days likewise before his death, he was informed that the horses, which, upon his crossing the Rubicon, he had consecrated, and turned loose to graze without a keeper, abstained entirely from eating, and shed floods of tears. The soothsayer Spurinna, observing certain ominous appearances in a sacrifice which he was offering, advised him to beware of some danger, which threatened to befall him before the ides of March were past. The day before the ides, birds of various kinds from a neighbouring grove, pursuing a wren which flew into Pompey's senate-house, with a sprig of laurel in its beak, tore it in pieces. Also, in the night on which the day of his murder dawned, he dreamt at one time that he was soaring above the clouds, and, at another, that he had joined hands with Jupiter. His wife Calpurnia fancied in her sleep that the pediment of the house was falling down, and her husband stabbed on her bosom; immediately upon which the chamber doors flew open.

On account of these omens, as well as his infirm health, he was in some doubt whether he should not remain at home, and defer to some other opportunity the business which he intended to propose to the senate; but Decimus Brutus advising him not to disappoint the senators, who were numerously assembled, and waited his coming, he was prevailed upon to go, and accordingly set forward about the fifth hour. In his way, some person having thrust into his hand a paper, warning him against the plot, he mixed it with some other documents which he held in his left hand, intending to read it at leisure. Victim after victim was slain, without any favourable appearances in the entrails; but still, disregarding all omens, he entered the senate-house, laughing at Spurinna as a false prophet, because the ides of March were come, without any mischief having befallen him. To which the soothsayer replied, "They are come, indeed, but not past."

When he had taken his seat, the conspirators stood round him, under colour of paying their compliments; and immediately Tullius Cimber, who had engaged to commence the assault, advancing nearer than the rest, as if he had some favour to request, Caesar made signs that he should defer his petition to some other time. Tullius immediately seized him by the toga, on both shoulders; at which Caesar crying out, "Violence is meant!" one of the Cassii wounded him a little below the throat. Caesar seized him by the arm, and ran it through with his stylo; and endeavouring to rush forward was stopped by another wound. Finding himself now attacked on all hands with naked poniards [small daggers], he wrapped the toga about his head, and at the same moment drew the skirt round his legs with his left hand, that he might fall more decently with the lower part of his body covered. He was stabbed with three and twenty wounds, uttering a groan only, but no cry, at the first wound; although some authors relate, that when Marcus Brutus fell upon him, he exclaimed, "What! art thou, too, one of them? Thou, my son!" The whole assembly instantly dispersing, he lay for some time after he expired, until three of his slaves laid the body on a litter, and carried it home, with one arm hanging down over the side. Among so many wounds, there was none that was mortal, in the opinion of the surgeon Antistius, except the second, which he received in the breast.

Nicolaus of Damascus, a major source for Josephus, wrote a Life of Augustus which includes an almost contemporary account of the events surrounding the assassination of Caesar. His account, which includes some interpretations that are most interesting in view of his activity as a diplomat and having an insider’s view of state affairs.

At first a few men started the conspiracy, but afterwards many took part, more than are remembered to have taken part in any earlier plot against a commander. They say that there were more than eighty who had a share in it. Among those who had the most influence were: Decimus Brutus, a particular friend of Caesar, Gaius Cassius, and Marcus Brutus, second to none in the estimation of the Romans at that time. All these were formerly members of the opposite faction, and had tried to further Pompeius' interests, but when he was defeated, they came under Caesar's jurisdiction and lived quietly for the time being; but although Caesar tried to win them over individually by kindly treatment, they never abandoned their hope of doing him harm. He on his part was naturally without grudge against the beaten party, because of a certain leniency of disposition, but they, using to their own advantage his lack of suspicion, by seductive words and pretence of deeds treated him in such a way as to more readily escape detection in their plot. There were various reasons which affected each and all of them and impelled them to lay hands on the man. Some of them had hopes of becoming leaders themselves in his place if he were put out of the way; others were angered over what had happened to them in the war, embittered over the loss of their relatives, property, or offices of state. They concealed the fact that they were angry, and made the pretence of something more seemly, saying that they were displeased at the rule of a single man and that they were striving for a republican form of government. Different people had different reasons, all brought together by whatever pretext they happened upon.

At first the ringleaders conspired; then many more joined, some of their own accord because of personal grievances, some because they had been associated with the others and wished to show plainly the good faith in their long standing friendship, and accordingly became their associates. There were some who were of neither of these types, but who had agreed because of the worth of the others, and who resented the power of one man after the long-standing republican constitution. They were very glad not to start the affair themselves, but were willing to join such company when someone else had initiated proceedings, not even hesitating to pay the penalty if need be. The reputation which had long been attached to the Brutus family was very influential in causing the uprising, for Brutus' ancestors had overthrown the kings who ruled from the time of Romulus, and they had first established republican government in Rome. Moreover, men who had been friends of Caesar were no longer similarly well disposed toward him when they saw people who were previously his enemies saved by him and given honours equal to their own. In fact, even these others were not particularly well disposed toward him, for their ancient grudges took precedence over gratitude and made them forgetful of their good fortune in being saved, while, when they remembered the good things they had lost in being defeated, they were provoked. Many also hated him because they had been saved by him although he had been irreproachable in his behaviour toward them in every respect; but nevertheless, the very thought of receiving as a favour the benefits which as victors they would readily have enjoyed, annoyed them very much.

Then there was another class of men, namely those who had served with him, whether as officers or privates, and who did not get a share of glory. They asserted that prisoners of war were enrolled among the veteran forces and that they received identical pay. Accordingly, his friends were incensed at being rated as equal to those whom they themselves had taken prisoners, and indeed they were even outranked by some of them. To many, also, the fact that they benefitted at his hands, both by gifts of property and by appointments to offices, was a special source of grievance, since he alone was able to bestow such benefits, and everyone else was ignored as of no importance. When he became exalted through many notable victories (which was fair enough) and began to think himself superhuman the common people worshipped him, but he began to be obnoxious to the optimates and to those who were trying to obtain a share in the government. And so, every kind of man combined against him: great and small, friend and foe, military and political, every one of whom put forward his own particular pretext for the matter in hand, and as a result of his own complaints each lent a ready ear to the accusations of the others. They all confirmed each other in their conspiracy and they furnished as surety to one another the grievances which they held severally in private against him. Hence, though the number of conspirators became so great, no one dared to give information of the fact. Some say, however, that a little before his death, Caesar received a note in which warning of the plot was given, and that he was murdered with it in his hands before he had a chance to read it, and that it was found among other notes after his death.

However, all this became known subsequently. At that time some wished to gratify him by voting him one honour after another, while others treacherously included extravagant honours, and published them, so that he might become an object of envy and suspicion to all. Caesar was of guileless disposition and was unskilled in political practices by reason of his foreign campaigns, so that he was easily taken in by these people, supposing, naturally enough, that their commendations came rather from men who admired him than from men who were plotting against him.

To those who were in authority this measure was especially displeasing: that the people were now rendered powerless to make appointments to office, and that Caesar was given the right of bestowing [offices] upon whomsoever he pleased. An ordinance voted not long before provided this. Furthermore, all sorts of rumours were being bandied about in the crowd, some telling one story, others another. Some said that he had decided to establish a capital of the whole empire in Egypt, and that Queen Cleopatra had lain with him and borne him a son, named Cyrus [(?) Caesarion], there. This he himself refuted in his will as false. Others said that he was going to do the same thing at Troy, on account of his ancient connection with the Trojan race.

Something else, such as it was, took place which especially stirred the conspirators against him. There was a golden statue of him which had been erected on the Rostra by vote of the people. A diadem appeared on it, encircling the head, whereupon the Romans became very suspicious, supposing that it was a symbol of servitude. Two of the tribunes, Lucius and Gaius, came up and ordered one of their subordinates to climb up, take it down, and throw it away. When Caesar discovered what had happened, he convened the Senate in the temple of Concordia and arraigned the tribunes, asserting that they themselves had secretly placed the diadem on the statue, so that they might have a chance to insult him openly and thus get credit for doing a brave deed by dishonouring the statue, caring nothing either for him or for the Senate. He continued that their action was one which indicated a more serious resolution and plot: if somehow they might slander him to the people as a seeker after unconstitutional power, and thus (themselves stirring up an insurrection) to slay him. After this address, with the concurrence of the Senate he banished them. Accordingly, they went off into exile and other tribunes were appointed in their place. Then the people clamoured that he become king and they shouted that there should be no longer any delay in crowning him as such, for Fortune had already crowned him. But Caesar declared that although he would grant the people everything because of their good will toward him, he would never allow this step; and he asked their indulgence for contradicting their wishes in preserving the old form of government, saying that he preferred to hold the office of consul in accordance with the law to being king illegally.

Such was the people's talk at that time. Later, in the course of the winter, a festival was held in Rome, called Lupercalia, in which old and young men together take part in a procession, naked except for a girdle, and anointed, railing at those whom they meet and striking them with pieces of goat hide. When this festival came on Marcus Antonius was chosen director [hegemon]. He proceeded through the forum, as was the custom, and the rest of the throng followed him. Caesar was sitting in a golden chair on the Rostra, wearing a purple toga. At first Licinius advanced toward him carrying a laurel wreath, though inside it a diadem was plainly visible. He mounted up, pushed up by his colleagues (for the place from which Caesar was accustomed to address the assembly was high), and set the diadem down before Caesar's feet. Thereupon Caesar called Lepidus, the magister equitum, to ward him off, but Lepidus hesitated. In the meanwhile Cassius Longinus, one of the conspirators, pretending to be really well disposed toward Caesar so that he might the more readily escape suspicion, hurriedly removed the diadem and placed it in Caesar's lap. Publius Casca was also with him. While Caesar kept rejecting it, and among the shouts of the people, Antonius suddenly rushed up, naked and anointed, just as he was in the procession, and placed it on his head. But Caesar snatched it off, and threw it into the crowd. Those who were standing at some distance applauded this action, but those who were near at hand clamoured that he should accept it and not repel the people's favour. Various individuals held different views of the matter. Some were angry, thinking it an indication of power out of place in a democracy; others, thinking to court favour, approved; still others spread the report that Antonius had acted as he did not without Caesar's connivance. There were many who were quite willing that Caesar be made king openly. All sorts of talk began to go through the crowd. When Antonius crowned Caesar a second time, the people shouted in chorus, "Hail, King"; but Caesar still refusing the crown, ordered it to be taken to the temple of Capitoline Jupiter, saying that it was more appropriate there. Again the same people applauded as before. There is told another story, that Antonius acted thus wishing to ingratiate himself with Caesar, and at the same time was cherishing the hope of being adopted as his son. Finally, he embraced Caesar and gave the crown to some of the men standing near to place it on the head of the statue of Caesar which was near by. This they did. Of all the occurrences of that time this was not the least influential in hastening the action of the conspirators, for it proved to their very eyes the truth of the suspicions they entertained.

Not long after this, the praetor Cinna propitiated Caesar to the extent of securing a decree which allowed the exiled tribunes to return; though in accordance with the wish of the people they were not to resume their office, but to remain private citizens, yet not excluded from public affairs. Caesar did not prevent their recall, so they returned.

Caesar called the annual comitia (for he had the authority of a decree to do so) and appointed Vibius Pansa and Aulus Hirtius as consuls for the ensuing year; for the year after that, Decimus Brutus, one of the conspirators, and Munatius Plancus.

Directly after this, another thing happened that greatly aroused the conspirators. Caesar was having a large handsome forum laid out in Rome, and he had called together the artisans and was letting the contracts for its construction. In the meanwhile, up came a procession of Roman nobles, to confer the honours which had just been voted him by common consent. In the lead was the consul (the one who was Caesar's colleague at that time), and he carried the decree with him. In front of him were lictors, keeping the crowd back on either side. With the consul came the praetors, tribunes, quaestors, and all the other officials. Next came the Senate, in orderly formation, and then a multitude of enormous size – never so large. The dignity of the nobles was awe inspiring – they were entrusted with the rule of the whole empire, and yet looked with admiration on another as if he were still greater. Caesar was seated while they advanced and because he was conversing with men standing to one side, he did not turn his head toward the approaching procession or pay any attention to it, but continued to prosecute the business which he had on hand, until one of his friends, nearby, said, 'Look at these people coming up in front of you.' Then Caesar laid down his papers and turned around and listened to what they had come to say. Now among their number were the conspirators, who filled the others with ill-will toward him, though the others were already offended at him because of this incident.

Then those also were excited who wished to lay hands on him not to recover liberty but to destroy the entire extant system; they were looking for an opportunity to overcome one who seemed to be absolutely invincible. For, although he had participated up to this time in three hundred and two battles in both Asia and Europe, it appeared that he had never been worsted. Since, however, he frequently came out by himself and appeared before them, the hope arose that he could be taken by treachery. They tried to bring about, somehow, the dismissal of his bodyguard by flattering him when they addressed him, saying that he ought to be considered sacred in the eyes of all and be called pater patriae [father of the fatherland]; and by proposing decrees to that effect in the hope that he would be thus misled and actually trust to their affection, and that he would dismiss his spearmen in the belief that he was guarded by the good will of everyone. This actually came to pass, and made their task far easier.

The conspirators never met to make their plans in the open, but in secret, a few at a time in each other's houses. As was natural, many plans were proposed and set in motion by them as they considered how and when they should commit the awful deed. Some proposed to attack him while on his way through the 'Via Sacra', for he often walked there; others, at the time of the comitia, when he had to cross a certain bridge to hold the election of magistrates in the field before the city. They would so divide their duties by lot that some should jostle him off the bridge and the others should rush upon him and slay him. Others proposed that he be attacked when the gladiatorial shows were held (they were near at hand), for then, because of these contests no suspicion would be aroused by the sight of men armed for the deed. The majority urged that he be killed during the session of the Senate, for then he was likely to be alone. There was no admittance to non-members, and many of the senators were conspirators, and carried swords under their togas. This plan was adopted.

Fortune [Tyche] had a part in this by causing Caesar himself to set a certain day on which the members of the Senate were to assemble to consider certain motions which he wished to introduce. When the appointed day came the conspirators assembled, prepared in all respects. They met in the portico [stoa] of Pompeius' theatre, where they sometimes gathered. Thus the divinity showed the vanity of man's estate – how very unstable it is, and subject to the vagaries of fortune – for Caesar was brought to the house of his enemy, there to lie, a corpse, before the statue of one whom, now dead, he had defeated when he was alive. And Fate [Moira] becomes a still stronger force if indeed one acknowledges her part in these things: on that day his friends, drawing conclusions from certain auguries, tried to prevent him from going to the Senate Room [bouleuterion], as did also his physicians on account of vertigoes to which he was sometimes subject, and from which he was at that time suffering; and especially his wife Calpurnia, who was terrified by a dream that night. She clung to him and said that she would not let him go out on that day. But Brutus, one of the conspirators, though he was at that time thought to be one of his most intimate friends, came up to him and said, 'What do you say, Caesar? Are you going to pay any attention to a woman's dreams and foolish men's omens, a man such as you? Are you going to insult the Senate which has honoured you and which you yourself convened, by not going out? No; if you take my advice you will dismiss from your mind the dreams of these people and go, for the Senate has been in session since morning, and is awaiting you.' He was persuaded and went out.

Meanwhile the assassins were making ready, some of them stationing themselves beside his chair, others in front of it, others behind it. The augurs brought forward the victims for him to make his final sacrifice before his entry into the Senate Room. It was manifest that the omens were unfavourable. The augurs substituted one animal after another in the attempt to secure a more auspicious forecast. Finally they said that the indications from the gods were unfavourable and that there was plainly some sort of curse hiding in the victims. In disgust, Caesar turned away toward the setting sun, and the augurs interpreted this action still more unfavourably. The assassins were on hand and were pleased at all this. Caesar's friends begged that he postpone the present session on account of what the soothsayers had said; and for his part, he was just giving the order to do this, but suddenly the attendants came to summon him, saying that the Senate had a quorum. Then Caesar cast a look toward his friends. And Brutus approached him again and said, 'Come Sir, turn your back on these people's nonsense and do not postpone the business that deserves the attention of Caesar and of the great empire, but consider your own worth a favourable omen.' Thus persuading him, he at the same time took him by the hand and led him in, for the Senate-chamber was nearby. Caesar followed in silence. When he came in and the Senate saw him, the members rose out of respect to him. Those who intended to lay hands on him were all about him. The first to come to him was Tullius Cimber, whose brother Caesar had exiled, and stepping forward as though to make an urgent appeal on behalf of his brother, he seized Caesar's toga, seeming to act rather boldly for a suppliant, and thus prevented him from standing up and using his hands if he so wished. Caesar was very angry, but the men held to their purpose and all suddenly bared their daggers and rushed upon him. First Servilius Casca stabbed him on the left shoulder a little above the collar bone, at which he had aimed but missed through nervousness. Caesar sprang up to defend himself against him, and Casca called to his brother, speaking in Greek in his excitement. The latter obeyed him and drove his sword into Caesar's side. A moment before Cassius had struck him obliquely across the face. Decimus Brutus struck him through the thigh. Cassius Longinus was eager to give another stroke, but he missed and struck Marcus Brutus on the hand. Minucius, too, made a lunge at Caesar but he struck Rubrius on the thigh. It looked as if they were fighting over Caesar. He fell, under many wounds, before the statue of Pompeius, and there was not one of them but struck him as he lay lifeless, to show that each of them had had a share in the deed, until he had received thirty-five wounds, and breathed his last.

See also: Nicolaus Damascenus, Bios Kaisaros, FGrH, ed. F. Jacoby, 26.97: “as the curtains were drawn back, the dangling arms and the wounds on his face could be seen from both sides.” Cf. also Suet. Jul. 82: “After all had fled he lifelessly lay there for some time until three young slaves placed him in a litter and carried him back home with one arm hanging over the side.”

There are other accounts by various historians, many of which took advantage of actual contemporary accounts as well as witness testimony, most of which has not survived except in these extracts. The study of this matter is wide and deep and for some cheap trickster such as Miles Mathis to come along and make such ridiculous claims without even bothering to do the real research is just insulting both to the subjects of his slanders and any readers of same.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom