INTRODUCTION
When most people think of Ancient Rome, they imagine great marble statues, sky-soaring columns, and men and women dressed in draped togas. However, there is one name that is eternally synonymous with this Ancient era, Julius Caesar, the great and incredibly powerful ruler, whose reign would end with his assassination, by his friend and peers. Most people’s interpretation of Julius Caesar comes not from history, but from the imagination of the William Shakespeare, in 1599, within the pages of his play titled, “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” (Layson and Zurcher 1). Many people see this play as a pointedly political piece that established Shakespeare’s perspective on government and how that affects the people. Shakespeare’s Caesar is a highly clever and determined individual. There are four reasons that identify the heightened presence of politics within the play. The rise of Caesar would mark the end of Republicanism and the rise of Caesarism, which would ultimately result in Rome becoming an Imperialist nation (Purvell, and Somers 1). Examples are found in the presentation of the other Roman Senators in their plot to eliminate Caesar. Additionally, it is the portrayal of the public as unreliable and easily misled group. Finally, it is the portrayal of Caesar as “reluctant” ruler, which proves him a skilled politician. That said “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” is most certainly a political play with tragedy at its heart.
HISTORY
Modern society is more politically educated today than ever before, but the political games that are played, both domestically and internationally, continue. Every cycle of elections begins a plethora of sponsored ads, tabloid gossip, and media developed impressions of the different politicians, from their own supporters and their challengers. For anyone who hopes to vote and make the “right” choice, politicians make that very difficult. However, in the time of Julius Caesar, there was no internet or televised news programs, the only source of information were from the politicians themselves and those who may oppose them. That said if Caesar hoped to secure his position then he had to provide the public with what they seem to want most (Houser 1-2). Someone to rule and tell them what to do, but carry themselves as if it is a burdensome duty that he would accept on a humanitarian platform. He is seen as wanting to do “good” for Rome, not rule it exclusively. The people want a leader not an obvious power-hungry tyrant. Today we generally do not see members of the Senate plot a public assassination attempt of their fellow politicians, yet that is the course of action that these men are willing to embrace. Of course, once again, their actions were not motivated by goodly concern for the betterment of Rome, but on the jealousies and envy that they felt that they were not the ones being offered the chance to rule, as Caesar was. This sets of a rather grim perspective of the world of politics as a whole; ignorant masses, a vain leader eager for power, and self serving and corrupt politicians, the betrayal of trusted friends focused on their own interests (Mcguire 1). Perhaps this is what makes the story of Julius Caesar and this era of Roman history so tragic in the eyes of Shakespeare. Sadly, in many ways it has not really changed much as we look at society today.
DISCUSSION
Shakespeare was and remains known for his romantic tales and his well-versed comedy, however, he was not a fool and he used his gift to open up a literary discussion on the nature of politics, the darker side, and the way that the public is often misled and misdirected far too easily for their own good. In order to understand the four major political aspects in the play it is best to discuss them individually.
Changing Face of Rome: Roman politics were rather complex even in the earliest incarnation. It had existed as Republic for many years, however, with the rise of a powerful military leaders like, Julius Caesar, that all began to change. In truth, if one looks at the play critically, Caesar did not really need to be crowned as an Emperor or as anything else. He had already amassed more than enough control and influence over the military, the Senate, and the public, that a crown would be little more than a formality. However, it is fair to point out that Shakespeare flavored the plot with political concerns that were relevant to his 16th century England more so than many of the historical specifics of Rome in Caesar’s era (Layson and Zurcher 1). Regardless, there are many aspects that strongly identify this Shakespearean play as one with a political point to make and agenda to fulfill.
The Assassination Plot: Each and every one of the conspirators was essentially “two-faced.” They would behave one way in to the public, another among their peers, and, of course, differently with Caesar himself. Cassius, in particular, personifies the image we have today of a crooked politician. He worked hard to manipulate Brutus into turning fully against Caesar, more so, however, it was his jealousy and envy that guided him. (Isherwood 1). It can be seen when Cassius says:
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about
It is clear that his motivations are not pure. He is not fearful of Caesar’s power because it will be a poor outcome for Rome or because it negatively effects the people that he represents, but because he is envious of that power and would be quite content if it were he in Caesar’s position. That said Cassius is the prime example of the traditional crooked politician, an impression the remains common today.
The Roman People: The people of Rome are indecisive. They are easily misled and are quick to change their allegiances. Shakespeare presents a public that is naïve, ignorant, and eager to be herded, like sheep. It is not a very becoming image. But we see the same sort of manipulation of the public opinion even today. We are inundated with messages favoring one political view, politicians, or social issue over another. However, each and every one is layered with guided messages and intentional biases. At first the people are practically begging Caesar to become their one, great ruler, then they are turned against him, then he was vindicated in their eyes. They are an easily guided and misled by the grand speeches of these politicians. We see in Marc Antony’s speech, a prime example of this manipulation of the crowds, as he paints Caesar like a benevolent father-figure of Rome (3.2 68-143).
Caesar Himself: The true political elements are evident in the title character himself. In the early parts of the play he seems uninspired to take up the mantle of Emperor. He refuses the crown three times, giving the impression of a reluctant leader (1.2 235-251). This is clearly a divisive and decisive maneuver on his part. He clearly knew that he had enough power and control to assume control of Rome, but by refusing the honor gave the semblance that he was not eager to accept such responsibility. To snatch up the crown may have been seen as a power hungry gesture on his part. That said the populace only encouraged him to take the place as ruler even more. However, we see rather quickly that Caesar had a much more inflated self-image than his humble public actions may belie. He clearly presents an overconfident Caesar, one that has a large ego and sense of self-importance. (3.1 58-65). In Greek literature, this is often referred to as “hubris,” or an overweening sense of pride in one’s self and accomplishments. One of Caesars most famous quotes is recorded as “Veni, Vidi, Vici,” which translates to “I came, I saw, I conquered” (Houser 3).This should give a rather clear impression of who Julius Caesar was. He believed his own existence to be superior. He had a plot and a plan all along. His rise to political power would be no different from any other military campaign. He had a goal; he mapped the course of action, and then accomplished his goal. He conquered his way to throne with misinformation and misrepresentation and tactically placed himself in the most advantageous position.
Caesar’s approach to politics and wooing the masses into favoring their positions is no different from many of the tactics used in politics today. We see the evasive and self serving aspects that entice representatives to further their own goals and interests over the good the people they are representing. In the last presidential election Barrack Obama made a controversial decision to forcibly pass his DREAM ACT policy as an executive order. He bypassed Congress and the political parties and simply made this choice. The DREAM ACT offers children of undocumented immigrants an opportunity to avoid deportation, attend school or military service, and obtain citizenship. Whether or not one agrees with the policy or not, it is the intentions of Obama that are under scrutiny. Many people, within politics and without, feel that he misused and abused his power as President in making this move. However, that is neither here nor there. While much of the public felt his decision was a humanitarian one, unfortunately, when seen as a political tool it could be construed as a calculated move to improve his chances for reelection. The most impacted group under the umbrella of the DREAM ACT is Hispanic/Latin individuals. The votes of that demographic would be helpful in securing his reelection. It is this two-faced actions and the potential for ulterior motivations of the political players. This remains an aspect of modern political behavior, as well (Isherwood 1). Caesar was no different he portrayed himself as one reluctant to rule, when, in fact, he considered himself the only person suited to do so.
CONCLUSION
So the question that so often pervades all of the discussions of the Tragedy of Julius Caesar is whether it is more a political metaphor or a tragedy. It is clearly a political play, however, the course of events are layered with tragedy. The ignorance of the people, the arrogance of Caesar, and the self-serving ambitions of other politicians all could be seen as entirely tragic. Perhaps it was the sorrowful fact that political goals and ambitions for power can even taint and lead to the betrayal of friendships and camaraderie, as is seen in Brutus’s actions? However, perhaps, the truest tragedy that Shakespeare identified is the legacy of politics in and of itself. Whether in Ancient Rome, Shakespeare’s England, or modern America, the faces and issues may change, but the manipulations, hidden agendas, and ulterior motives that spurred the action in seen in “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” are still alive and kicking within political circles all over the globe today.
WORK CITED
Houser, Stephanie. "Julius Caesar: Veni, Vidi, Vici." Parkland College: AN Honors Program. (2010): 1-8. Print.
Isherwood, Charles. "A Timeless Thirst for Power: The Political Lessons of ‘Julius Caesar’." New York Times 10 October 2013, 1. Web. 29 Dec. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/theater/the-political-lessons-of-julius-caesar.html?_r=0 >.
Layson, Hana, and Amelia Zurcher. "Shakespeare's Romans: Politics and Ethics in Julius Caesar and Coriolanus." Newberry Digital Collections. (2014): 1. Web. 29 Dec. 2014. <http://dcc.newberry.org/collections/shakespeare-rome>.
Mcguire, Kristi. "Martha Nussbaum on Julius Caesar and political love." The University of Chicago Blog. (2013): 1. Print. <http://pressblog.uchicago.edu/2013/03/28/martha-nussbaum-on-julius-caesar-and-political-love.html>.
Purvell, Francis Andrew, and Lucius Michael Somers. "Julius Caesar: Two Views of the Play." Shakespeare Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Dec 2014. <http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/juliuscaesar/juliuscaesartwothemes.html>.
Shakespeare , William. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. 1599. 1-186. eBook. <https://ia601406.us.archive.org/35/items/strag00shakhakespearesrich/strag00shakhakespearesrich.pdf>.
