by William Mendez, Much Ado about Blogging Circle
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:
ANTONY: This was the noblest Roman of them all.
I think you have some really interesting interpretations of Caesar, and I agree with you that Caesar definitely had the personality to be a monarch. However, I think that the citizens admiration of Caesar does not necessarily indicate that he was going to be an effective leader. I think we can see, even in our society, how easily people can be influenced and manipulated by powerful leaders who make a lot of promises. The citizens in the play seem to be very impressionable, and they tend to support just about anyone who is declaring themselves their leader. I think the senators were able to see the type of person Caesar really was, but as you said, that still does not give them the right to take the life of another individual.
I agree with Rosemary’s point here. Look how many people admire our current President, but that by no means reflects upon his success or effectiveness as our leader. The people of Rome would have more likely than not been smitten with any leader they had, regardless of their actions. Now, that’s not to necessarily say that Caesar would not have been the great leader they were expecting him to be, but we never really got to see that happen thanks to Brutus. In my opinion, I don’t think Brutus would have been a better leader due to how easily influenced he was by lies which led to his killing Caesar.
You make some interesting observations regarding Caesar and what his death was supposed to mean. Your argument that Shakespeare doesn’t favor one form of government over the other (monarchy and republic), but is instead is meditating on the consequence of seizing power is fascinating. However, I wonder how this plays into the roles of the citizens. They are a huge part of this play and together do have a lot of power. Or do they? They are so easily to manipulate which in my opinion makes them weak. But at the same time in order to rule, at least according to Caesar, Brutus, and Antony, their support is required. What is their actual power then? And how does this play into the different forms of government?
Caesar was a man of the people, and wished the best for his citizens. This really made it tragic that he died in such a terrible fashion. It’s also interesting how Brutus, the “Liberator” that killed him, acted that way because he was also looking out for his fellow Roman citizens. In a way you could think of this as a double tragedy, because both characters died because they believed they did noble deeds. believing that they were “good” people.
I agree with your point about the play not necessarily being written to support either Monarchy or Democracy. I appreciate your insight on the history of the Roman Empire/Julius Caesar, and I feel like it brings a lot more light as to why Shakespeare named the play ‘The Tragedy of Julius Caesar’. The plebeians are portrayed as easily-persuaded and assumably simple minded people in this play, and I wonder if the truthfulness of this portrayal effects how much we should take into account the amount of support Julius Caesar received form the public. While your argument regarding ambition not being a crime is intriguing and hard to disagree with, I wonder where the line between all-powerful ruler and tyrant is. Conceptually, it is great to hear of a leader who is effective, powerful, and ultimately undefinable. However, if we support that mentality wholeheartedly, at what point does the public get to fight back if they decide the powers at be are doing things they disagree with?
I definitely agree with you that Shakespeare leaves this argument about Monarchy vs. Democracy up to interpretation. It is quite difficult to find evidence in favor of one system without also finding equal evidence in favor of the other. However, I am not sure if I would say the people were all necessarily happy under Caesar. They seem to be easily swayed towards whoever is in power at the moment. In the first scene of the play, Murellus complains that everyone is so quick to forget about Pompey and celebrate Caesar’s victory, then they are obsessed with Brutus and wish to build a statue in his honor right after he kills Caesar, and then Antony speaks for a minute and they suddenly begin to detest Brutus and worship Antony. I also think that Caesar had quite a few unlikable qualities (particularly his arrogance) that may have affected his strength as a leader. After all, we hardly see him lead at all, as Brutus kills him in the third act.
You’ve presented an interesting argument about the concept of ambition, especially because it goes back to Antony’s speech to the people at Caesar’s funeral. He says, as a means of drawing up support from the masses, that Caesar’s ambitions supposedly were the cause of his downfall, which he says is impossible considering Caesar was handed the crown three times and refused it. He basically questions the crowd, “Is this a sign of an ambitious man?” However, ironically, we see more ambition in the characterizations of Cassius and Brutus. With Cassius, he perceived Caesar to be a tyrant and wanted Brutus to become their new leader (according to Caesar, though, Cassius is a character that doesn’t enjoy being ruled by a monarch unless he’s the one in charge, so it can be interpreted that if Brutus were to become the new King, Cassius would have the same problems). While Cassius schemes both Caesar’s overthrow and death, he also manipulates the honorable Brutus, who had intentions of his own. Unlike the other conspirators, Brutus really was for the people and his fight was for the common good; however, despite the honorable goal, Brutus demonstrated some ambition in his efforts that eventually led to his guilt and suicide.
Will, I really like your post as it was also similar to what I wrote. The play IS a tragedy of Julius Caesar in that he was only seeking to expand the Roman empire and leave a legacy behind. But this was ended as a result of others’ jealously and resentment towards him. Shakespeare’s evidence and depiction of Julius Caesar shows that the government of a monarchy is not a bad thing, rather the people who choose to cause its’ demise is what makes it wrong. The people who did cause the demise of such ruler did show remorse and resentment, for the most part. This shows that it is a tragedy of Julius, as it should not have occurred to begin with. It was done for all of the wrong reasons.
There are some great points in the post, for I too agree that Caesar showed that he only wanted the best for the Roman empire and its people, for as you state he expanded all throughout Europe. This is why I have trouble in understanding how Brutus and the others came to the conclusion that he is “unfit”, for I had not seen any particular signs that indicated evil or misuse of power. However, I do feel Brutus and the others misused their power in taking Caesar’s life. In reading, I never really considered that Shakespeare was having his audience think about what it means to be a traitor, for I felt it was more commentary on monarchy v. democracy. However, after reading your post I’m surprised I missed how clear his lesson on being a traitor is. It is clear Brutus betrays Caesar, but I also feel Brutus betrays his own-self.
The ambiguity and theme of interpretation is the driving force behind this play. It is what allows Shakespeare to present these various ideologies and characterizations of people and government. Because we do not know everything about Caesar, or the plain facts of these events, Shakespeare is able to critique both monarchy and a republic (and principles and philosophies) without worrying about some ultimate truth of the events or ideas. Ultimately, I think, we are left with fate, and particularly the interpretative nature of ordinance. And, yes, I think you are right. There is a strong sense of shaking off tyranny at pleasure and not waiting in “servitude and patience.” Like all of Shakespeare’s great plays, he leaves us a powerful, provoking, and intricate text that has room for interpretation.