"I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke ": The Volatility of the Consequences of War and Regime Change in William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

Abstract

Julius Caesar is perhaps Shakespeare's most political tragedy. It follows its eponymous hero as his triumph in wars made him too popular amongst the common people. Therefore, the patricians begin to fear him becoming a tyrant, which would shift the paradigm of how the Roman politics operated at that time. Dreading the potential change, a group of senators, including Brutus, devise a plan to assassinate Caesar. They execute this plan in the Senate. Arguing that they acted to prevent regime change rather than to expedite their own advancement, it seems the crowd would support them in restoring the old order. Alas, Mark Antony delivers a powerful oration and manipulates the crowd against the conspirators, inciting a civil war which would eventually continue through Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra and result in Octavius becoming the first Roman Emperor.

In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare examines the volatile nature of war and regime change. In my paper, I argue that the reason for this unpredictability is that any war or regime change distorts the balance of power and invites populism, which bases itself on emotions rather than reason. The moment in which political decisions become based on emotions, the best rhetorician wins, no matter his/her agenda or moral compass. In Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare demonstrates this danger as it causes the downfall of Caesar and Brutus in Julius Caesar. Antony, who masterfully utilises populism, is destroyed by the same cause in Antony and Cleopatra as the tide turns.

The paper is divided into two parts, focusing on Julius Caesar and Brutus and Mark Antony. Via Caesar, the consequences of war on destabilising the winning country are discussed. Shakespeare demonstrates the danger of a capable military leader becoming a politician, as he/she has the unwavering loyalty of the army and gratitude of the people who might be willing to grant him/her such powers which might lead to the diminishment of democracy and rise of a dictatorship. We might observe such cases in Europe today, e.g., in the Czech presidential elections and the use of the war in Ukraine to propagate the candidature of a former general.