What do Historians think of Michael Parenti's "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome"? I have read this book for my paper about Caesar because this author has a positive view of him . I suspect that it isn't really good. It was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize though (EDIT: This doesn't necessarily mean anything as /u/white_light-king pointed out). They don't give those away for free.
Of course I'm not an expert on the late Roman Republic or a historian so that's why I'm here. If it turns out that I'm wrong, so be it.
Things that I think might be wrong:
He seems to consider the Roman society to be a capitalistic society. I thought that capitalism was only applied to 18th century industrialised societies. I did some googling and found out that the term proto capitalist is sometimes used to describe the mercantilist societies in the 16th - 18th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocapitalism). But that would still put a good 1500 years between Late Republican Rome and the first mercantilist societies.
The author flat out denies the Catilinarian conspiracy. I have never actually seen anyone do that before. The author seems to think that Cicero tried to frame Catilina in order to gain popularity and fame and because he was against Catilina's populist agenda.
Third, Parenti buys into the Optimates and Populares dualism. I have heard from others that this view is way too simplistic: There were no political parties like we know them today. IIRC, Adrian Goldsworthy mentions this multiple times in his book about Caesar. Often you would have two or more Populares or Optimates competing against each other. Though I don't know how accepted this theory is among hisotrians. At one point Parenti starts to sum up all the revolutionaries that were murdered by the Optimates. He mentions mentions Drusus, while forgetting/totally ignoring that the same Drusus was an Optimate and participated in the death of Saturninus.
I think that Parenti also takes some liberties when he interprets Roman Law. According to him it would have been illegal for a tribune to veto a proposal that would benefit the people since tribunes have to protect the rights of the people. As far as I know the law didn't prevent Tribunes from doing that.
Sorry if I appear to be answering my own questions, I'm not trying to. They are just my own (mostly) uninformed suspicions. I'm not sure that my own answers are right or wrong.
So, people of AskHistorians? What do you think?
I flipped through a bit and thought it was awful. Parenti clearly came into the work with an agenda and had no concern with even entertaining ideas other than whatever flavor of dime store communism he applies with all the nuance of a jackhammer. He also does that thing that a lot of political popular historians do when he says "historians portray event/personality as x, when in reality it is y" despite having little to know grasp of the scholarly debate of the last century. In particular, when he talks about what historians say about Caesar and the mob he doesn't really show much familiarity with the past five centuries of scholarship. In specific reference to your points:
He seems to consider the Roman society to be a capitalistic society.
There are definitely capitalistic elements in Roman society but in general this is a pretty facile characterization. I somewhat suspect Parenti isn't even really familiar with the social theories of capitalism.
The author flat out denies the Catilinarian conspiracy.
This is absolutely tin-foil level theory. It is certainly possible that Cicero exaggerated the threat, but actually denying the conspirators in Rome, the delegation of the Allobroges, and Cataline's army is just silly.
IIRC, Adrian Goldsworthy mentions this multiple times in his book about Caesar.
I generally really like Goldsworthy's interpretations.
According to him it would have been illegal for a tribune to veto a proposal that would benefit the people since tribunes have to protect the rights of the people.
I think he may have just made this up. Probably he is conflating the power to veto (which is based on the tribune's sacrosanctness) and the power to save a plebeian from patrician oppression.
The author sees Caesar as a reformer who got killed because his reforms were endangering and enraging the Roman aristocracy. Not because Caesar took power away from them but because his policies would lead to them losing wealth.
This is certainly a supportable if somewhat trite argument, but the way he goes about it is just silly.
I haven't read this book so won't give an opinion on it. But I notice that "nominated for a Pulitzer Prize" and find it to be a red flag because that doesn't mean anything. [A 'nominated finalist' means something, but 'nominated' can mean the publisher entered the book.] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize#The_difference_between_entrants_and_nominated_finalists)
Haven't read the book, but i'm curious: Is this the interpretation that puts Caesar forward as this sort of people's hero who was assassinated by his fellow senators for attempting to empower or otherwise ennoble common soldiers, gaulians and other members of lower society (Which were most of his followers, apparently?) at the cost of roman society's elite?
I've read the book. Would love to see if any historians can weigh in on it.
I believe Parenti described it as a slave society as opposed to some sort of capitalist one, however. He is a Marxist, so he's going to see the Greco-Roman ancient slavery as being confined to a specific historical epoch with a specific mode of production.