After reading Julius Caesar I have been wondering if it is actually possible for a government to be uncorrupt and work seamlessly in a system of checks and balances. The play reveals how there will always be people who seek power, and there will always be impressionable masses who will glorify and praise those who seek power. Caesar even notes at the beginning of the play, “Let me have men about me that are fat/ Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep a-nights./ Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look./ He thinks too much; such men are dangerous” (1.2.192-195). Caesar acknowledges that in order for him to continue to maintain power he needs people around him that are not smart enough to question his everyday actions. I also think it is interesting that he uses the word “dangerous,” and I think he uses this word to suggest that a man like Cassius could be capable of taking power from him. I think the way the Roman government works, and the way that our government works today, is a male-centric system of men continuously needing to assert and prove their power. Cassius even attempts to assert his masculinity over Caesar at the beginning of the play by telling a story about how Caesar could not swim across the river. Cassius states that Caesar cried how to him “Dar’st thou, Cassius, now/ Leap in with me into this angry flood/ And swim to yonder point?” (1.2.103-105). All of these assertions of masculinity and power make me question whether or not any of these men are concerned about Rome, or if they are just concerned about asserting their own masculine power over one another. It is horrifying to see how men will put the assertion of their own egos above what is best for the people in their society.
Additionally, I think it easy to assume that the emergence of technology within our generation has caused the masses to view political figures as celebrities. However, Julius Caesar reveals to us that people have always treated political figures this way. The people of Rome treat Caesar as if he is a celebrity, and they absent-mindedly praise him without really considering the kind of leader he might be. At the beginning of the play we see common people praising him, the Cobbler even states, “we make holiday to see Caesar and to rejoice in his triumph” (1.1.29-30) The people have a different perception of Caesar than the Senate does, and this may be because Caesar does a careful job of controlling the people’s perception of him. For example, Casca notes Caesar’s behavior when he is around the people, stating, “And then he offered it the third time; he put it the third time by, and still as he refused it the rabblement hooted and clapped their chopped hands” (1.2.240-243). Caesar behaves humbly around the people and is aware of how to please them. If Caesar is able to control how the people think of him, then it is possible that the people are incapable of ever truly knowing Caesar. The people are clearly incapable of truly assessing the type of person their leader is, so the Senate decides to take matters into their own hands. However, it is undemocratic for political figures to take away power from the people by trying to change how their government works. So, how can a population truly decide who their leader should be? The play reveals to us how all of the participating members of this society are only interested in their own best interest. The people absorb themselves into Caesar because they admire the power he possesses, and the people that work for Caesar wish to attain the power that he has. It seems to be a harmful cycle that ultimately benefits nobody, which forces us to consider whether or not it would be better to embrace a different form of government.
I think you’ve gotten at the heart of what I personally see as Shakespeare’s “agenda,” for lack of a better word. When we were discussing whether Shakespeare must have been for or against monarchy, for or against democracy (or oligarchy), etc., I couldn’t help but think that it’s not that simple. And it’s also not as simple as saying that he’s so deliberately ambiguous that we just can’t tell how he felt. I think his politics come through loud and clear in a lot of his plays, often in scenes that ostensibly have nothing at all to do with politics. But what I mean is that I think the questions you’re asking about corruption and power are exactly the ones Shakespeare would want us to ask ourselves. I don’t think that he’s intending to be a spokesperson for any form of government, but rather encouraging us to look at power itself–who has it, who can take it, what to do with it, what it does to you. It’s about politics in the sense that politics is about human nature. Especially in “Julius Caesar,” I think Shakespeare’s interested in holding a mirror up to humanity and showing us exactly what we can (or will) do to manage to screw up whatever political ideology we choose for ourselves–where the best and worst parts of ourselves will take root or die. That’s depressing. In any case, great post, Rosemary!
Your points about the assertion of masculine power in the play are incredibly interesting and make me wonder how female characters–as opposed to simply Cassius’s implications of Caesar’s “weakness,” in his mind–come into play. Portia basically stabs herself in the leg in what seems like a very strange and misguided (to us) attempt to try to prove her worth and trustworthiness to Brutus, because if she can keep that kind of pain to herself, she can keep his secrets. On one hand, she had the grit to do it and to withstand the pain. On the other hand, what she did was completely crazy and all for the sake of proving herself to a man. Even the feminine aspect of Roman society in this play seems to be about asserting “masculinity” and power at the expense of well-being.