by Andrea Stowell (Circle 2)
Yesterday in class we all had the opportunity to discuss in our small groups whether we think the type of government in Julius Caesar is a monarchy or republic. I know that my group in particular had a hard time agreeing on an answer as we all had different opinions. Although both sides could be easily argued and I am still not 100% confident with my answer, I would say that it is a monarchy rather than republic solely based on the rhetoric used throughout the play. Within my blog I will clearly side with the idea of the government being a monarchy, but if necessary, will counter my notion and make sure to recognize both sides. The purpose of this blog is to further the discussion of the question asked in class yesterday and to provide reasoning as to why I am convinced it is more so a monarchy rather than republic. Feel free to agree or disagree, as I am interested to see what others have to say!
From the beginning of the play certain characters demonstrate powerful authority. Antony makes Caesar’s authority clear by saying, “I shall remember: When Caesar says ‘Do this’, it is performed” (1.2. 11-12). The reason people had such negative opinions about him was because he was so controlling and gaining too much power. If this was not a problem he would not have been such a threat and maybe not even killed. A republic is form of government in which supreme power is held by the people and has an elected president or leader. Why would the people choose Caesar if they were afraid of him? To counter this idea one could easily argue that he became greedy and changed over time, but I still believe something could have been done to prevent this from happening. Regardless of what happened before his death, Caesar was still feared based on his fast rise of unpopular power.
After watching Antony perform his oration it confirmed my personal opinion of the government being a monarchy over republic and is perfect evidence to support this idea. Before Antony gave his speech Brutus spoke to the crowd of people and convinced them that Caesar’s death was a good thing and that they should all happy it is over with. It does not take much to persuade them, which backfires on him once Antony is given the chance to speak. Antony knows exactly what he is saying and what needs to be said to get the crowd to be on his side. When reading the play it did not occur to me that he was being tricky, but after watching it, it could not have been more obvious. He was also sneaky by flaunting Caesar’s will knowing it would reel everyone in. I view this part of the play to be Antony’s way of controlling the people of Rome without them thinking anything of it. They might think they have their own opinions and are in control of everything when in reality Antony is.
Andrea,
I appreciate your analysis of whether the Greek government during the time of Julius Caesar was truly a monarchy or republic, but I do not know if I necessarily agree to the conclusion you came to or how you got to that conclusion. You wrote about how the people were upset that Caesar was gaining too much control and power and hence the reason why he was killed. It was only the conspirators, though, that were upset about Caesar’s rise above them because they are all equally men, the rest of the Greek state was completely in support of Caesar as their ruler. Yes, Caesar held power the way which a monarch would, but if he had the popular support of the Greeks, then wouldn’t the government really be a republic, choosing to instead confide in a single being rather than a group of people?
In response to your conclusion about Antony’s speech, I do not think he was necessarily being sneaky, instead, I think the people immediately agreed with him, as they did with Brutus before, and Caesar before that, which displays what I understand is the true essence of a republic–basing the leader on the popular opinion. Maybe though, Shakespeare’s representation of how quickly the republic’s opinion can change is a critique of that type of government; no matter what, even within a republic, the people still turn to a single, monarchal ruler.
Andrea,
I think you make some excellent points that lead towards Shakespeare favoring the monarchy in this play. I think it is difficult as modern readers to fully agree with this notion, seeing as we live in a relatively stable democratic government. We wish to applaud the Greeks and Romans for their revolutionary government structures, but Shakespeare manages to point out some fundamental flaws in giving the people power. What happens when mob mentality becomes too strong? What if the people are uneducated and easily swayed, as they are by Mark Antony? I would agree that Shakespeare seems to support the monarchy in these points but I still struggle with the idea that he is completely sold on this mode of government either, but rather he acknowledges that people usually end up falling under one ruler in the end.
Andrea,
I appreciate your breakdown of the Monarchy vs. Republic argument along with your structured reasoning and conclusion. I cannot say that I entirely agree, in fact I cannot say that there is a conclusion at all. It is my belief that Shakespeare chooses to present his readers with questionable human interaction in order for us to question it for ourselves. Therefore, I believe it is up to the individual reader to decide for themselves whether they believe Julius Caesar represents a monarchy or republic. But if I had to choose, I would go with a republic. After reading your post along with the comments above, I particularly liked Jordana’s point: it was not the public that wanted Caesar dead, it was only the men who believed themselves to be of equal ranking. I viewed the killing of Caesar as a jealous form a bullying that clearly went too far, and the public’s actions after Mark Antony’s speach are in agreement with this. Of course, the public nor the “leaders” seem too reliable in this case, but maybe this was exactly why Rome needed a strong “dictator” such as Caesar.
Andrea,
You certainly have great textual support in your choice of the play being supportive of the monarchy based on rhetoric alone. However, straying from rhetoric and factoring in other evidence from the text, I am still reluctant to chose one side over the other. Caesar doesn’t quite feel like an honest monarch to me if we consider the contents of his will – he chose to give his private dwellings to the people upon death, which is quite a tremendous gift. Furthermore, Caesar, instead of placing conquered wealth in his personal or royal coffers, chose to give money to the people. These gestures, at least in my opinion, don’t translate to the behaviors of a monarch.
Brutus and Cassius are dubbed the representations of the republic, but I feel that this is an incongruent association as well. While the two senators bash Caesar for his ambition, they – especially Cassius – are hypocritical in the way they view the people. The people are supposedly the heart of the republic, but Cassius criticizes Caesar for giving money back to the people instead of keeping it for the high government officials. The murder of Caesar does not seem to be honestly motivated by a love for the people, but by a motive more likely akin to that of jealousy or envy.
No other literary scholars would benefit from an interview with the author more than that of Shakespeare academics. Unfortunately, all we have is there in the text, and in the case of Julius Caesar, I do not believe it is enough. Not halfway through the story is the titular character (and soon to be monarch) murdered in fear of his “inevitable” corruption in power—so perhaps Shakespeare desires a democracy. But those who take action against absolute power are swiftly destroyed and an emperor is crowned—so perhaps Shakespeare is in favor of a monarchy. My point is, I do not think it is clear. What is clear to me is the fact that the people want a monarchy. Shakespeare’s critique on the fickleness of the plebeians is absolute; in just one scene (at Caesar’s funeral) the Romans mind’s change three times: first they want judicial retribution, then to crown Brutus, and finally to murder the conspirators themselves. They favor Polonius then Caesar, then Brutus, then Caesar, then Caesar’s son. Overall, they just want to be ruled.
I agree with you–I’m not sure whether or not I agree or disagree with it being in favor of a monarchy, or in favor of a republic. I’m still up in arms, despite all of the discussions we’ve had and the blog posts that have gone in depth trying to argue for one side or the other. I’m glad I’m not the only one still questioning which is right, y’know? I also agree that, unfortunately, it’s one of those things where you’d have to ask the author for the real answer (although, I’m even unsure about this anymore, after discussing something similar in a theory class i’m taking–asking the author sort of changes it, and puts a bias on the answer, so in truth I suppose the real answer is relevant to whoever is reading the text).
Andrea,
I had a similar problem during this part of our discussion in class. For me, it seemed that Shakespeare was making a statement about the issues of having a singular ruler. In particular, the fickleness of the citizens and how they seemed to just sway in favor of basically anyone was a dangerous aspect of the system. In a republic there’s more order and more options for people to look at to make a more informed decision. With a monarchy, the decision is made for them. Maybe that’s what people ultimately want, but it’s still dangerous giving one person all the power…this idea is shown through Caesar, Brutus, and Antony respectively throughout the play. In the end, it’s next to impossible to know for sure what Shakespeare wanted to prove and we’re left scratching our heads.