 |
 |
| Killing Julius Caesar
For centuries there has been a dispute within the literary world regarding one of Shakespeare�s most widely known plays, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Brutus and Cassius�s conspiracy against the Roman ruler is common knowledge, but judgment on whether or not they were justified in his assassination is difficult. If Caesar was in fact a tyrant, did he deserve death? And even if he did, were the conspirators justified in his assassination? The evidence appears to point toward the assassins� justification in the ordeal. The word tyrant is often applied to Caesar, the famed Roman emperor who Shakespeare based one of his most famous dramas around. But what is a tyrant? Robert S. Miola comments that �in antiquity the term referred to a ruler who came to power by usurpation, without constitutional warrant� (327). This type of tyranny is called ex defectu tituli (a tyrant in entrance) and is characterized by the way the ruler comes into power. However, the term �tyrant� later came to have a second definition, which according to Miola was �anyone who governed by whim for personal gain instead of by law for the general welfare� (327). This form is called exparte exercitii (a tyrant in execution) and is characterized by the way a ruler wields power. If Caesar was in fact a tyrant, he theoretically must fit at least one of these definitions. There are a number of reasons as to why Caesar may be called a tyrant in entrance. Miola points out that there are two specific references to Junius Brutus, a founder of the Roman Republic. This allusion to an earlier period of representative government supports Shakespeare�s depiction of Caesar as a tyrant, because it depicts Caesar as specifically ruling in a manner against the constitution of Rome. Another reference to the period of Roman history when the government had been representative is the mere presence of Cicero, who �reminded an audience who had parsed their Latin on his orations� (Miola, 328). Caesar also became the sole ruler of Rome when he usurped power from Pompey the Great, therefore is likewise a usurper. Thus, Caesar fits both accepted definitions of the word �tyrant�: being a usurper and going against the constitution of usurped country. Since the government of Rome was changing so often, could the fact that at some point it had been representative possibly not matter when Caesar came in as a sole ruler? The definition of ex defectu tituli includes the fact that one must go against the constitution of a country. But Rome�s government and constitution was changing very often at that point. It seems as though, under the circumstances, the tyrannical aspect of Caesar�s governing did not hold much weight in Rome. Although it is apparent that Caesar is a tyrant by ex defectu tituli, is he likewise a tyrant in execution, or exparte exercitii tyrant? One might believe that one count of tyranny is enough to condemn a ruler. However, a ruler in entrance may change his ways. It�s not hard to conceive of a leader who came in as a conqueror, but eventually became mild in his ways. That type of man may have been called a tyrant once, but is ultimately reformed. If Caesar does not prove to be a tyrant in execution, then he may as well not be called �tyrant� at all. Is Caesar a tyrant in execution? Miola seems to believe that Caesar �shows superbia, arrogant pride�[which is a]�distinguishing characteristic of the tyrant� (329). This type of person tends to think himself superior to other humans, almost as though he is a �special creation.� We are told that Caesar �puts the tribunes Murellus and Flavius �to silence� for pulling scarves off his images� (Miola, 329). What the two tribunes have done seems a minor and personal offense, for which Shakespeare depicts Caesar as overreacting to. It seems tyrannical for Caesar to personally deal with their discipline, instead of having the two tried for the offense. Another point at which we can see his tyrannical tendencies is when he decides that he is going to go to Senate, even after Calpurnia has nearly convinced him not to. This shows his desire to have full control over the Senate and his fear of losing control by not appearing and risking rumors which may weaken his character. Shakespeare seemed to favor Brutus throughout his drama. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that Shakespeare �believed in Brutus and did not cast one speck of suspicion on� [his]�virtue.� On the other hand, the playwright�s opinion of Caesar at a superficial level seems somewhat more negative. However, Shakespeare certainly did not depict his tragic ruler as a one-dimensional character. Instead, he painted the noble Roman as a god-like man who was a good man, yet ruled tyrannically. Nietzsche compares Caesar to an �evil angel.� This is true, especially in Brutus� mind. Caesar, as a man, is decent, caring, and a friend of Brutus; yet, as a ruler he is too powerful and threatens the freedom of the people. He says that what Brutus is striving for is independence of the soul, for which �no sacrifice can be too great�one must be capable of sacrificing one�s dearest friend for it, even if he should also be the most glorious human being� (Nietzsche). Shakespeare allows for the audience�s interpretation of his tyrant�s virtue through complexity of character. Before Shakespeare�s version of the death of Caesar, it was often dipicted that the two tribunes, Murellus and Flavius, removed diadems or crowns from Caesar�s images. Shakespeare reduces them to scarves, possibly to �stress the triviality of the offense and thus to underline the severity of the punishment� (Miola, 330). Ultimately, it is said that Caesar has the tribunes �put to silence� which is suggestive of their death for the crime. Initially, he casts the ruler as a tyrant, but in later scenes we see Caesar as a somewhat better man. While on his way to the Senate, the sentry, Artemidorus, stops him to give him the letter entailing the plans for his death. Caesar merely brushes him off and says �what touches us ourself shall be last serv�d� (III.i, line 8). This shows Caesar doing one of two things. He is either putting his country before himself, or being so enthralled with governing that a personal letter is second rate to the job he needs to do. In I.ii, offstage, it is explained that Caesar is being offered the crown by Antony, but refuses it three times. Unlike previous depictions of this drama, Shakespeare �places the action offstage�[which]�leaves the entire matter in some question� (Miola, 328). Similarly, in his death Caesar leaves most of his wealth, including arbors and orchards, to the people of Rome. This brings us to another important matter. Caesar as a ruler was very powerful, due to a keen sense of persuasion. Take for instance, the scene in which he denies the crown: one must wonder whether or not it is a political ploy to seem humble, so as to goad on the already anxious crowd. The fact that he left the citizens of Rome as his heirs is likewise questionable. Assuming that Caesar is a tyrant, his seemingly generous will becomes still another political ploy. In his death Caesar keeps his supporters by appeasing them with wealth and takes away those arbors and orchards from the sole usage of the next ruler. What competitive tyrant would choose to leave his riches to his successors, especially if he is followed by someone other than of his own choosing? Tyrants are forever on rocky ground, constantly recalling their own overthrow of the government and probably fearing the ease with which someone else may do the same. If the conspirators are to be justified in their assassination�for the audience, anyway�they must follow Renaissance ideals on the �right to resist or slay the tyrant� (Miola, 331). Apparently in Shakespeare�s time one of the major ideological bases for a just tyrannicide was obtaining �authority delegated�from fellow citizens� (Miola, 331). The conspirators, in order to be just, would have needed authority given to them by the people of Rome. However, the offstage scene of Caesar�s denial of a crown, and the public�s insistence for his leadership shows that they would not have approved of the conspirator�s plan. Beyond all of the technical jargon of �tyrant�, the ultimate decisive tool in the question of whether or not a tyrant is to be rid of is purely practical: what is the concensus of the people? When everything else is stripped away, society simply becomes the people. Therefore the people have the power to decide, regardless of whether or not Caesar is a tyrant, if they want him to stay in power. It seems certain that by definition Caesar is indeed a tyrant; however, tyrants are not generally given crowns. The crowd seems to believe that he is not a tyrant, at least not in the sense that he does not have their best interests in mind. The question really is: is the mob-like group of citizens capable of deciding their own political fate? Their gullibility in III.ii proves their inability to competently decide their leadership on their own. They seem to exact the reasons for which they are best suited with a representative government, rather than allowing themselves to be headed by a potentially dangerously persuasive leader. So it seems that Caesar was a tyrant, in fact by both definitions of the word. But there are a few questions to be asked about tyrants that Brutus and Cassius seem to overlook. Should a tyrant be ousted even though he is a good man? Caesar does appear to be a good man, so that must weigh into an assassin�s decision somehow. After all, one is not simply destroying a leader, they are killing a person. But which is more important in a man�s identity: the fact that he is a tyrant, or the fact that he is a man? It might seem more naturally important that he is a man. However, societies need leaders, and that role makes a man more important than any other person. Therefore, it appears that leadership overrules manhood. So it seems that if someone is a good man, but a tyrannical leader, (considering that whatever they do in their leadership is more important than what they do as a man), they must be dealt with as a tyrant, instead of as a good man. Still, to have those two extremes within one body makes assassination seem a drastic approach. If one could only punish the leader but not the man. If the conspirators would have had the authority to rid the country of Caesar, he could have been exiled, but we know that they did not have the society�s consent. The ultimate question then becomes: Does tyranny corrupt a good man? It seems, at least, that Brutus and Cassius decided that it does. Was Caesar then, justly slain? Miola said that he �evoked the full spectrum of Renaissance opinion and so did his assassination� (326). The conspirators seemed to believe that as a tyrant in entrance, Caesar �had to be slain as soon as possible, before his tyranny could gain rooting or, worse yet, legitimacy through oath or pact� (Miola, 328). They were working against the clock, as Caesar had already refused a kingly crown three times, and it was rumored that he was to be presented the crown once again on the Ides of March. Once he had complete and undeniable control of Rome, the conspirators could only suffer under his reign. In this way Miola says that �the conspirators do not kill Caesar prematurely�but at the last morally defensible moment� (328). Although the ultimate decision on whether Caesar should have been assassinated seems difficult to make, the conspirators in Shakespeare�s play�as well as in history� decided that it needed to be done. Obviously, no amount of arguing on Caesar�s behalf could alter the fact that he was slain. Fortunately, all parties came to justice in the end. The danger of Caesar�s potential tyranny was abated, while the conspirators, at least the lead conspirators, came to justice by dying for their unfaithfulness to their leader and their blatant disregard for Rome�s general opinion. |
 |