As we spoke about in class, this tragedy is much less about the character of Julius Caeser, and much more about the idea of Caeser, or the idea of what Caeser could have become if not for his betrayers. Even those who betray Caeser are not so concerned with what Caeser has become, but rather with what Caeser could become. In this way, even long after Caeser has been killed, Shakespeare begs us to wonder what Rome would have looked like if Caeser had lived. Calling the play ‘The Tragedy of Julius Caeser’ forces us to assume that it is a tragedy that he was killed (rather than it being a tragedy that he came into power). However, it could also be said that it is a tragedy that Caeser had to be killed, which is to make the claim that it definitely would have been worse if he had lived, but it is also tragic that he had to be killed in order to make a particular political statement. Perhaps Shakespeare wanted us to understand that it is a tragedy that death must be involved in the change, or preservation, of political ideals.
I think a huge part of the necessity of this murder, at least to the conspirators, is explained very clearly in Caeser’s speech before his death. It is made clear that Rome is on the verge of a drastic change in political decision making. We see all the conspirators begging Caeser to change his mind on something that is on the whole trivial, the pardon of one man. Particularly Cassius, with the line:.
As low as to thy foot doth Cassius fall, To beg enfranchisement…
,showing that the conspirators want to be sure that Caeser is acting irrationally, completely ignoring the opinion of everybody who surrounds and supports him. Caeser is totally baited by this tactic, and it proves to the conspirators that if they left him in power, much more important decisions would be met in the same way, with an absolute decision by Caeser and no debate at all about the consequences of that call. I think from the way the conspirators speak of Caeser, it is not so much that they think he would make the wrong decisions. In fact, I think most of the Roman public would say that Caeser would be a relatively benevolent dictator, and the conspirators might agree, especially Brutus who after the murder states:
So are we Caesar’s friends
Instead, the tragedy comes that standing for a political ideal requires the conspirators to murder a friend in order to maintain that ideal. The tragedy comes because the power is made available to Caeser, and not because he seizes it himself. The tragedy is in the minds of the people, because they do not realize that raising a man to such heights can be the downfall of them all. Ultimately, the tragedy grows from the fault of men, and not of course from “the stars”. Shakespeare is trying to tell us that all of man is to blame for its own downfall, that no one man can take over the world and thusly destroy it, because it takes the “plebians” to raise a man to that height in the first place. The tragedy is that Caeser is able to be viewed as a God amongst man because men will allow him to do so.
Understanding the founding philosophies of the Roman Republic are really important for contextualizing the extreme paranoia the conspirators have about Caesar. The Romans liked to think of themselves as being ruled by laws rather than men. That is why up until Caesar, the consuls of the republic would only serve a term of one year, and there would be two at a time serving alongside each other. The Romans did not want to find themselves in a cult of personality where national pride started and ended with the position of one individual. The conspirators watched that begin to happen with the rise of Caesar, and so readers who are more sympathetic to their role in his death. There is ambiguity about the motivations of the main conspirators; different readers will see jealous power seekers and righteous freedom fighters. Understanding the existential threat that Caesar’s leadership posed to the heart of the republic can help us see more clearly why his death may have been necessary according to the extreme precaution of the Romans to maintain their democracy.
I think that as Shaun said, understanding the political scape of Rome is pretty key in informing the motivations of the conspirators. Caesar was the first leader of his kind in this republic, so it’s conceivable that the senators of Rome at the time might think this is a step away from republicanism, making them ore like the lesser nations of the world. It is unfortunate that the people of Rome gave Caesar more power than he was to be allowed to handle, as you pointed out in your quotes there is debate on whether or not he would have been a fine leader after all. I think what the conspiracy shows is that when changes of power happen, there are always those who seek to disrupt the process for personal gain, and they will make others believe whatever they must in order to get their way.