Historically, it was Julius Caesar who by the might of his resolve and determination, took over the Republic of Rome against the order of the senators, as he thought he would make a better ruler than the senators and Rome’s own people and he was right. Under Casear Rome expanded to dominate most of Europe in the 1st century. It was his ambition to conquer even more of the world that made him a target of the assassins who called themselves “Liberators.” In my opinion, the death of Julius Caesar was undoubtedly a tragedy as Caesar, judging by the evidence of his reign at the time, was a man of people of Rome and sought to only make Rome bigger, and where is the fault in that. Sure Caesar had ambition, but if ambition is a crime then we should all be thrown in prison! The event of the assassination of Julius Caesar was one that prompted our good friend Shakespeare to write a play about the death of a great leader, who went against the power of the senate to a conquest of his rivals that proved that Rome was not a power to be defiant to. Shakespeare presents us with the question of whether of not monarchy is a correct form of government or a republic in which the people are represented and the people in power need consent from the governed. I think that through the entire play, Shakespeare is not making a case for either, but he is simply displaying the ramafications of taking the law into one’s own hand and being a traitor. Shakespeare seems to say, through the murder of Julius Caesar that Brutus and his gang of conspirators, didn’t have the right to take another life and when should they. Under Caesars rule, the people of Rome were safe, protected and were genuinely happy under Caesar. Historically, the senators feared Caesar precisely because he was a man of the people, especially popular among the poor. I think this is portrayed somewhat well in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar in Antony’s speech in act III when Antony tries to insight the people to rebel against the traitorous dogs Brutus and his Liberators:
Deadly Ambition The Tragedy of Julius Caesar
ANTONY: Moreover, he hath left you all his walks,
His private arbors and new-planted orchards,
On this side Tiber. He hath left them you
And to your heirs forever—common pleasures,
To walk abroad and recreate yourselves.
Here was a Caesar! When comes such another? (act III Lines 237-242)
Here, even though it would seem as if Antony is trying to turn the people against Brutus, what he says here is true, based on the historical context it would seem as though Caesar was very popular among the plebian class and had a lot of support from them and thus it would seem likely that Caesar would leave a great deal to the poor of Rome. Caesar only rose to power, because he saw how distraught and dysfunctional the republic of Rome was, he was a strong ruler and a man of the people that could have conquered all of the western world had his life not been cut short by conspirators like Brutus. While on the topic of Brutus, he was Caesars best friend and it really does seem as though he were caught in the middle of this political turmoil and had to make a decision. Antony even praises Brutus for being the only Roman and the only conspirator who killed Caesar out of a love of Rome:
ANTONY: This was the noblest Roman of them all.
All the conspirators save only he
Did that they did in envy of great Caesar.
He only in a general honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.
His life was gentle, and the elements
So mixed in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world, “This was a man.”
Clearly, Brutus was somewhat trapped in the middle of this event and was remorseful of kiling one of his greatest friends, which adds to the fact that I believe Shakespeare is not arguing for one form of government over another, but rather, for a ruler or government that cares for its people.