Justifying Caesar's Assassination Under a Three-Source Limit
Lincoln High's debating team has reached the regional final. The motion is 'The assassins of Julius Caesar were justified.' Each team may cite only three ancient sources in a four-minute constructive speech, and the opposition has signalled that it will quote Cicero's letters to Atticus and the Philippics. The team's research file contains Plutarch's Brutus and Caesar, Suetonius' Divus Julius, and Dio Cassius 44. The coach notes that these writers lived between roughly 40 and 200 years after the event; that Cicero is a contemporary but a hostile witness to Antony rather than a neutral one; and that Caesar had been appointed dictator perpetuo and was preparing a Parthian campaign. The draft speech uses the phrase 'all the sources agree' four times. Cross-examination will ask: 'If Caesar was a tyrant, why did Cicero, who hated tyranny, refuse to join the conspiracy?'
1. Which three ancient sources should the team cite, and how should they justify the choice in terms of date, bias, and genre?
Read the worked answer
The strongest trio is Plutarch's Brutus, Suetonius' Divus Julius, and Cicero's letters, with Dio held in reserve. Plutarch is late but writes a focused biography of Brutus and preserves the conspirators' stated motives, including the claim that Caesar aimed at kingship; that is directly relevant even if filtered through Plutarch's own moralising. Suetonius supplies the evidence the proposition needs: the perpetual dictatorship, the golden crown episode, and the honours that looked monarchical, though his anecdotal method means individual details need corroboration. Cicero is the only near-contemporary voice and therefore the most valuable check, precisely because he is not a conspirator: his letters show that Caesar's death was welcomed by men who nevertheless doubted the deed's political wisdom. Citing Dio instead of one of these would add 200 more years of distance without adding a contemporary perspective. The team should say explicitly that all three are later or partisan and that 'agreement' between them is not independent corroboration when two are drawing on the same earlier accounts.
2. How should the team answer the cross-examination question about Cicero refusing to join the conspiracy?
Read the worked answer
The question is an opportunity, not a trap. Cicero's refusal does not show that Caesar was not a tyrant; it shows that opposition to tyranny and support for assassination are different propositions. Cicero had praised Caesar's clemency, feared civil war, and distrusted the conspirators' capacity to restore the republic. He welcomed the killing after the fact but regretted its consequences. The team should concede this and use it: it demonstrates that even contemporaries who disliked one-man rule judged the assassination by its likely outcome, not only by the ruler's status. That supports a defensible version of the motion, namely that the conspirators had grounds to believe Caesar's power was becoming monarchical. It does not support the stronger claim that the killing was wise. Conceding the distinction protects the team from an overclaim the opposition can easily expose.
3. Evaluate the draft's repeated claim that 'all the sources agree' and propose a replacement sentence.
Read the worked answer
The claim is misleading because the sources are neither independent nor evenly distributed. Plutarch, Suetonius, and Dio all draw, directly or indirectly, on earlier writers and on imperial-era assumptions about monarchy; their agreement may reflect a shared tradition rather than separate testimony. They also disagree on specifics: the number and timing of the crown offers, Caesar's intentions regarding the kingship, and how far the conspirators were motivated by personal grievance. A better sentence would be: 'The literary tradition is unanimous that Caesar's honours became monarchical in appearance, but it is not unanimous about his intentions, and its unanimity is weakened by the fact that the surviving accounts were written under emperors.' That formulation gives the team credibility under cross-examination and shows the judges that they understand what counts as corroboration.