Commentary on “Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare
“Julius Caesar” is a historical tragedy written by history’s most famous playwright, William Shakespeare. The play has become so influential that most people associate the real Roman statesman and general Gaius Julius Caesar with his persona in the play, and only later learn about his historical significance. I however, am the exact opposite.
There are a few books I read before this once which I have yet to review. This one however, is of tantamount importance. Not that I loved the others less, but that I loved Caesar more.
I’d like to clarify that this isn’t exactly my first time reading “Julius Caesar”, because I did learn a few scenes in high school – the ones involving Calpurnia’s dream, Caesar’s assassination and Marc Antony’s funeral oration. But that’s hardly one third of the play. And after reading the entire work in one sitting, I realized how much more profound it is.
This play had a much larger emotional impact on me compared to other works I’ve read, primarily because Ancient Rome is much closer to my heart. I think of the characters as living people, and I know about their actual lives as well. I went into this play already knowing everyone’s fate, equipped with my own personal biases towards certain figures. Despite essentially knowing every historical detail of the play, I was left astonished nonetheless.
More than the plot, it’s the characters who made me love this play. In fact, a thorough discussion of the characters inevitably leads to the unfolding of the plot, since it revolves around them and their motives.
Julius Caesar
“But when I tell him he hates flatterers,
-Trebonius
He says he does, being then most flattered”
Naturally we should commence with the Imperator, the Dictator, the Pater Patriae himself. As you might have noticed, I’m profoundly interested in Julius Caesar as a historical figure – from his personal life to his campaigns, his charisma to his ambition. Though he was not flawless, I think he possessed several of the qualities of an ideal leader. In the play, Shakespeare reduces him to a one dimensional character – simply an arrogant, hypocritical megalomaniac. Most of his lines are either him declaring himself superior to every other Roman, or simply refusing to listen to anyone’s advice, even when his life is threatened. While Shakespeare’s Caesar definitely has the boldness which I admire in the real man, I found it very hard to like him, solely as a character. The only reason why I found the assassination scene so poignant was because I thought about it historically. This does not imply that the real Julius Caesar wasn’t hubristic; it is only that there were many other facets to his personality which Shakespeare didn’t shed light upon.
At the same time, I understand why Caesar isn’t depicted in his full depth and glory. Despite being so misleadingly titled “Julius Caesar”, it is really about Brutus and Cassius, how the conspiracy unfolds and how they deal with the aftermath.
Caius Cassius
We were taught in school that Cassius was envious of Caesar’s might and influence; coveting it for himself. After a complete reading of the play, I still think that Cassius was resentful, but I feel like he did somewhere value the principles of democracy. He never speaks of himself alone wanting to rule Rome. It is only at Sardis and Philippi we see that he has strayed away from his morals.
“Ye gods! It doth amaze me
– Caius Cassius
A man of such feeble temper should
So get the start of the majestic world,
And bear the palm alone”
I found it interesting how Cassius mentions scenes of Caesar’s vulnerability – when he had to rescue him at a river, his ‘fainting sickness’. He claims that these infirmities prove that Caesar is a mere mortal, not ruler of the known world. Personally, I don’t see why such ailments should make Caesar ‘weak’, they make more human, which makes him more likeable. Cassius’ idea of weakness insinuate his own diffidence, rather than Caesar’s impotence.
Marcus Brutus
I did not expect that one my favorite characters from a play about my favorite historical figure would be none other than the man whose betrayal struck him the hardest.
Let’s kill him boldly, not wrathfully
-Marcus Brutus
Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the Gods
It is well known how Brutus‘ love for Caesar was overcome by his obligation to democracy and the Republic. When I was younger, I just wasn’t convinced by his morals, finding them superficial. Now his inner conflict occupies my mind completely. When Cassius tries to persuade him to partake in the conspiracy against Caesar, he takes time to evaluate his own morals, and then arrives at a decision. Even after deciding to join the conspirators, he wants to execute things with dignity.
“Did not great Julius bleed for justice’s sake?”
– Marcus Brutus
During the proceedings of Sardis and Philippi, Brutus is still trying to ensure that he embodies the principles of democracy, those which Caesar was murdered for. He never acts impulsively, he always has an underlying philosophy. He isn’t putting up his ideals as a veneer, he genuinely believes that he is fighting for the good of Rome. This is what sets him apart from the other conspirators, who were solely fueled by the lust for power Despite my condemnation of Caesar’s assassination, I was persuaded to reflect on whether it was potentially justified, because Brutus’ moral compass was so steady.
“When though did’st hate him (Caesar) worst, thou lov’dst him better
– Caius Cassius to Marcus Brutus
Than ever thou lov’dst Cassius”
More than Brutus and Cassius as individuals, I loved the dynamic of brotherhood between them. Cassius assures Brutus that together they can end the rule of tyranny, that he can help him see with clarity where his eyes deceive him. Cassius’ vigor is balanced by Brutus’ patience and judgment. At Sardis the two arrive at an impasse. Cassius allows his officers to indulge in bribery, which according to Brutus, goes against the very principles of democracy they were fighting for. Cassius even begins to question Brutus’ loyalties to him. I think it’s this insecurity of Cassius’ which led to his downfall. He was always envious of Caesar, to the extent that Caesar himself was suspicious. When he is finally put in a position of power, he feels that Brutus will betray him as he himself once betrayed Caesar. It is at this point Brutus realizes that not everyone holds ideals to as high a regard as him. Their relationship speaks volumes of the eternal conflict between ideals, desire and loyalty.
Portia
“Oh ye gods, render me worthy of this noble wife”
Marcus Brutus
Brutus’ wife is a hidden gem amidst the sea of lusty young Senators. She urges Brutus to confide in her, because she isn’t just a consort, but rather his is his wife, who is capable of understanding, more than any man. Unlike Calpurnia’s supplications to Caesar not to meet with the Senate, Portia‘s words comes off as more independent than servile . She is a voice of reason, and a clever jab at how Roman politics was patriarchal, even when there were many capable women. Despite her minor role, she stood out to me as a very strong character.
“I have a man’s mind, but a woman’s might”
– Portia
Gaius Octavius
“A peevish schoolboy, worthless of such honour”
– Caius Cassius
Gaius Octavius Thurinus, Caesar’s posthumously adopted son and heir, and member of the Second Triumvirate has a minor role in this play. Akin to the historical cliché, Shakespeare portrays the young man as cold and calculating. He’s a slightly more likeable than Caesar, being less arrogant, but overall I found his depiction superficial. Octavius in reality was incredibly intelligent and competent, despite his youth and is very interesting to learn about. All the same, it’s only really in a few years we see him shine as a statesman and general, so this portrayal may be excused.
Marc Antony
“Yet I fear him;
– Caius Cassius
For in the engrafted love he bears to Caesar”
Popularly, Antony’s legacy is established as that of Caesar’s only true friend, one who remained loyal to him even after his death. The opening words to his speech – “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” still send a shiver down my spine. When we read it in school, I already knew of his loyalty, and the speech only solidified his claim to being my favorite character. To me, he was the embodiment of the ideal Roman, ready to defend Caesar even with the entire Senate against him. To me, it was him, not Brutus, worthy of Caesar’s adulation. I generously exceeded the word limit in my English tests, just to speak of his virtues (and never lost even half a mark).
Looking back now, it’s ludicrous to assume that Antony didn’t partake in the conspiracy and tacitly accuse the conspirators in his speech, just because Caesar was his friend. It was only when I grasped the historical perspective that I realized, not only did Antony want to turn the Romans against the conspirators, also wanted them to side with him, ensuring his claim to occupy the power vacuum left by Caesar. He persuades the Romans to insurrection in the name of Caesar’s legacy, but who exactly benefits from it? As far as I know, Caesar is sadly long gone.
The execution of his plans is nothing short of clever strategy. After the assassination he approaches the Senators as an ally, balancing his emotion with rationality, not to seem as a flatterer or coward. During the eulogy he uses his grief as a catalyst to kindle a fire within the Romans. He never open poses allegations against the conspirators, he implies it ever so subtly, so that the Romans feel that they thought of it themselves, though it was him who planted the seeds of rebellion in their minds.
During the course of discussions with Octavius, he subtly asserts his dominance, and radiates the confidence, not hubris that he knows what he’s doing. Even during the battle at Philippi, he is sure of his own tactics.
Brutus – “Good words are better than bad strokes, Octavius”
Antony – “In your bad strokes Brutus, you give good words”
His humor is also in line with his character – witty, not vulgar or brash .
“There is no fear in him. Let him not die.
– Trebonius
For he will live, and laugh at this hereafter”
Earlier I thought that Antony was either reduced to Caesar’s “party friend” in popular culture, or by Shakespeare, to the naïve general, too nobly loyal to the Imperator to be real. Cassius even contemplated killing him along with Caesar, in fear of what he may do. Yet the others decided against it, considering him to be no veritable threat to their scheme. In fact, when I learnt of Antony’s victory at Philippi, I was incredulously delighted how my favorite character rose to such prominence, I couldn’t believe that he made a real man out of himself, being more than just a Caesar loyalist. A closer inspection of his charisma and cunningness reveals it wasn’t just the work of Fortuna, he earned that power. He is severely underestimated by everyone, from the conspirators to 21st century teenagers .
A good part of the play is spent describing the civil war between the conspirators (Brutus and Cassius) and the Second Triumvirate (Antony, Octavian and Lepidus). Whilst learning about the historical event, I always supported Octavian and Antony, because they were avenging Caesar. And perhaps because history is written by the victors.
I was aware about the amount of bloodshed that had taken place during the course of Octavian’s and Antony’s proscriptions. Indubitably, I condemned it. At the same time, it’s not that the conspirators had a clean ledger either. Shakespeare even dedicates an entire scene to describe the political turmoil the Second Triumvirate put Rome through. Even Brutus and Cassius were appalled by it.
When you remove the rose colored glasses of “Antony’s loyalty” from your eyes, you realize that ultimately the conspirators and Second Triumvirate had the same motives. They both wanted to seize power. Their outward motives were only different. It seems like Brutus is the only ‘honorable man’ here, who still believed that what he was doing was right. After reading the play, my perspective was changed so much that I was wondering if there was any reason at all to support Antony and Octavian. It’s strange, how I already knew the history, yet never questioned both sides so much until the play captured the moral conflict at heart. Though with more skepticism now, I still am happy about Antony’s and Octavian’s victory.
Brutus was so lost in his ideals that he could not see what harm they would lead to. The means don’t justify the ends if you can’t even approach the end. Antony, on the other hand, though swayed by power, also acts on sentiment. This juxtaposition between Brutus and Antony is also visible in the formers more idealistic speech in contrast to the latter’s emotional appeal to the Romans. I think I am a pretty emotionally driven person, more similar to Antony, which is partially why I was more compelled by him.
Just as we learnt in school, I agree that Shakespeare portrays the Roman citizens as fickle minded, not exercising their own judgment, becoming victims of crowd mentality. They cheer for Brutus, agree that Caesar was a tyrant, and proceed to “let him be Caesar”. Shortly after Antony’s speech they feel that Caesar was wronged, and go on a rampage, attacking people who had no involvement in the conspiracy. Which made me turn back to the ideas of Plato’s ‘ Republic’. If the common people are so foolish, a democracy, a government of the people should fail miserably. The late Roman Republic was an oligarchy, with the rich trying to hold on to the last vestiges of power, oblivious to public interest. Caesar’s dictatorship was marked by a brief period of rare stability. Therefore, I ask you now – was Caesar’s rule so tyrannical that the ensuing terror after his death was a viable solution?
After finishing this play, I had to reflect upon my feelings for an hour after, because of the complexity of it all. Especially the dichotomy between Brutus’ ideals and reality. Whenever I think about whether it is against Caesar to sympathize with Brutus, I remember that even the real Caesar loved him, even bequeathing his assets upon to Brutus, in the event that Octavius wasn’t alive.
Unlike other literary works, I can’t dismiss “Julius Caesar” as ‘just a story’. Though dramatized, the essence of the play was and continues to be real. The ideas of power, legacy, ideals, and loyalty still occupy a central place in our world; it is only our perspectives which have changed. The questions I ponder upon today were perhaps the same ones that permeated the minds of my favorite historical figures over two millennia ago.