A Literary Analysis of "Julius Caesar"

3.4.15

      Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar portrays the historic time period during which Rome transitioned from a republic to an empire. As the Republic crumbles around him, Brutus struggles to do what he thinks is right for his country. Several soliloquies and speeches reveal his inner conflict throughout the play. However, he ultimately goes against the people’s will by killing their beloved Caesar, which creates a chaotic power vacuum in Rome. Brutus’ love for his country translates into actions that eventually come to harm it. Through this irony, Shakespeare explores the line between a democracy and an autocracy, and how easy it is to cross.    

      Brutus fears the consequences of one person having unlimited power, even if that person is Caesar, who has proven himself reliable and reasonable. He convinces himself that this fear is rational, because crowning Caesar king would “put a sting in him/ That at his will he may do danger with” (Act 2, Scene 1, 16-17). On principle, he is against autocratic rule, because of how much he loves his people.

     However, according to Harold Bloom, “Brutus’s patriotism is itself a kind of flaw, since he overidentifies himself with Rome” (Bloom, 1998). Brutus’s mistake is that he doesn’t pause to consider whether his own beliefs are representative of the majority of Roman citizens. He simply takes this as indubitable. This can be seen in his speech at Caesar’s funeral, during which he asks rhetorical questions of the crowd and makes it seem as though anyone who disagrees is amongst those “so vile that will not love [their] country” (Act 2, Scene 2, 28). In stark contrast to his supposed championing of democratic values and the will of the people,   his suppression of dissenting voices certainly does not represent a democratic approach to governing, but rather a system in which a select few speak for everybody.

     Ironically, his hectoring manner and intimidation of anyone who would dare speak up reeks of the bully, not the patriot. If he was truly for the people, he wouldn’t have killed Caesar, whose power they accepted and respected. He believed he knew better than the people, so when he decided to lead the conspirators in this paternalistic approach to the situation, he essentially participated in an oligarchy. This paved the way for autocratic rule in the future.

But after all, they say Brutus is an honorable man. As Marc Antony ultimately did, one could give him the benefit of the doubt and examine his actions in the light he himself would want them seen. It could be argued that despite the outcome of his actions and their misguided nature, he acted in complete sincerity. Therefore while history may judge him harshly, one might admire the zeal and determination of a man who, to quote another Shakespearean tragedy, “loved not wisely, but too well”  (Othello, Act 5, Scene 2, 399).

     In the final analysis though, one must hold Brutus to the standards he himself upheld: that of a patriot and a preserver of the democratic spirit of Rome. When judged on these values, he falls short, for his actions ultimately led to chaos and ruin, and did nothing to prevent the death of the Republic. Shakespeare makes Brutus’s tragedy a warning of the perils of a lack of self-awareness.

     Shakespeare’s true genius lies in the way we see the very same themes outlined in his plays come up again and again. There are many parallels between this play and the crises of our times. Whether it is Putin’s Russia, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, or the Koch brothers, we continue to see the disastrous consequences of a group of men resolute in their belief that they know what is best for the country, and persisting in their course of action even when it is plain to see that they are damaging the fabric of the very nation they vowed to serve. The lesson we are left with is that every oligarchy, no matter how noble its original aim, eventually gets corrupted and diverts its energies towards self-preservation.