Julius
Caesar is a play about political power and how it may be legitimately
and illegitimately wielded. It also shows the role of what we now call
public opinion, which in this play is embodied in the gut responses of
the common folk. The play also raises many questions. Who is the
play's central character? Is it Caesar, the great leader; Brutus, the
idealist and man of honor who faces an ethical dilemma; Cassius, the
arch-conspirator; or Antony, the loyal henchman and brilliant
manipulator of the mob? Were the conspirators justified in their
assassination of Caesar? How, in the end, should Rome-or any other
society-be governed?
There
may be no simple answers to any of these questions. Shakespeare
presents a many-sided picture in which all the characters'
strengths and weaknesses are clearly shown. Caesar is the
authoritarian, arrogant leader, who rules with a firm although not
unjust hand; Brutus is the man of conscience, concerned about his
public duty and willing to take action that he feels is for the common
good. But he is not suited to running a government; he is too concerned
with upholding his sense of his own nobility and honor, and he makes
many tactical errors. Cassius is the intellectual who is aware of the
dangers presented by an authoritarian leader who concentrates power in
his own hands, yet Cassius is also tainted by the ignoble sentiment of
envy. As for Antony, he is loyal to his friend Caesar, but he is also
ruthless and cunning. Today we might call him a demagogue, willing and
able to use his oratorical powers to fire up the mob and get them to do
what he wants.
If
the major characters are all flawed in one way or another, Shakespeare
also shows the fickleness of public opinion. One moment the crowd is
cheering Caesar, but it does not take long for Brutus to persuade them
that Caesar was too hungry for power and deserved his fate. But then
Antony soon manipulates the crowd into the opposite belief, and the mob
goes on a rampage against the conspirators. This shows how politicians
may shape and use the sentiments of ordinary people in service of their
own goals. No one in the play shows any respect for the common people
(see for example Casca's speech in Act 1 Scene 2, or the attitudes of
Flavius and Murellus in Act 1 Scene 1).
So
what are we to conclude? One way of judging an action is to look at the
results it produces. Cassius and Brutus commit an act of violence to
keep Rome free; they end up with chaos and civil war. In effect,
they go to war (by killing Caesar) to keep the peace, which when used
by politicians is usually a specious argument. Although Caesar is
presented as arrogant, and he shows no mercy or flexibility when
petitioned by responsible Romans to end a banishment, he is also a man
who knows how to wield power. He is a formidable military commander,
and most people, except for Cassius, respect him. Brutus himself can
think of no accusation to charge Caesar with, except an imagined fear
of what Caesar might do if his power continued to grow. This is surely
a weak argument. And Brutus, for all his nobility, does not seem to
realize that he continually allows himself to be manipulated by
stronger or more ruthless personalities, first Cassius and then Antony.
As
so often in such situations, the conspirators fall victim to what is
called the law of unintended consequences. No one can predict with
certainty the consequences of such a momentous act as the assassination
of a powerful political and military leader. Certainly, history has
judged Brutus and Cassius harshly as traitors. But then, as someone
once remarked, history is written by the winners. No one knows, of
course, how Caesar would have behaved had he lived. And Shakespeare
leaves us with such a full sense of the humanity of all the characters
that definitive judgments about who is right and who is wrong may not
do justice to the complexities of life, politics, and human motivation.
|
