Julius Caesar, a Subject for Play

A. Who was Julius Caesar?

Gaius Julius Caesar was a Roman military and political leader and one of the most influential men in world history. He played a critical role in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Caesar was widely considered to be one of the foremost military geniuses of his time, as well as a brilliant politician and one of the ancient world's strongest leaders. (Wikipedia 2006)

He was born in Rome on July 12 or 13, in the year 100 B.C.. His family was part of Rome's original aristocracy, called patricians, although they were not rich or particularly influential. To obtain distinction for himself and his family, a Roman nobleman sought election to public office. The position was one of an archaic priesthood and held no power. Nevertheless, it identified Caesar with extremist politics. (Strandberg n.d.)

When he married Cornelia, daughter of Lucius Cornelius Cinna in 84 B.C., he committed himself further to the radical side. In 82 B.C., Lucius Cornelius Sulla, an enemy of the radicals, ordered him to divorce his wife. Caesar refused and left Rome for military service in Asia and Cilicia. He returned in 78 B.C. when Sulla died and began his political career as a prosecuting advocate. (Strandberg n.d.)

Caesar then traveled to Rhodes to study rhetoric and did not return to Rome until 73 B.C. He was captured by pirates during this journey. While in captivity, Caesar persuaded his captors to raise his ransom, which increased his prestige. He then raised a naval force, overcame his captors, and had them crucified. (Strandberg n.d.)

In 69 or 68 B.C., Caesar was elected quaestor. His wife died shortly thereafter. In a purely political maneuver, Caesar seized the opportunity to praise his uncle, Cinna and father-in-law, Marius during the funeral orations for his deceased wife. He then married Pompeia, a relative of Pompey. (Strandberg n.d.)

In 65 B.C., he was elected curule aedile, pontifex maximus in 63 B.C., and a praetor in 62 B.C. Caesar was making a name for himself as a political figure by this time. He divorced Pompeia after a scandal. Caesar was made governor of Farther Spain in 61 B.C.. He joined forces with Crassus and Pompey and formed the first triumvirate when he returned to Rome the next year. When Pompey married Julia, Caesar's only child, the alliance between Pompey and Caesar was further solidified. Caesar's next step up the political ladder was to be elected consul in 59 B.C. During that year he also married Calpurnia. (Strandberg n.d.)

Caesar was appointed governor of Roman Gaul the following year. He successfully conquered Gallic Gaul to the north during the next 8 years. In 49 B.C., Caesar was instructed by the Senate to lay down his command. Roman politics had changed following the death of Crassus in 53 B.C.. Pompey, on the other hand was appointed sole consul in 52 B.C.. In addition, Pompey's wife Julia died in 54 B.C., breaking the family ties between Pompey and Caesar. (Strandberg n.d.)

On January 10-11, 49 B.C., Caesar crossed the Rubicon, a small river separating Gaul from Italy, signifying the start of the Roman Civil War. Pompey fled and within three months, Caesar ruled of all Italy. He then took Spain and continued to pursue Pompey all the way to Egypt. Pompey was murdered by an officer of King Ptolemy in 48 B.C.. Caesar remained in Egypt throughout the winter and dallied with Queen Cleopatra. (Strandberg n.d.)

In 48 B.C., the title of dictator was assumed by Caesar. In 47 B.C., he returned to Rome but then left for Africa to crush his opponents. Caesar departed for Farther Spain in 46 B.C. to put down resistance there. In 45 B.C., Caesar returned to Rome to put his empire in order. (Strandberg n.d.)

On March 15, 44 B.C., a day known as the Ides of March, Caesar entered the Senate House. An assassination plot had been hatched by a group of 60 senators, including Gaius Cassius and Marcus Junius Brutus. He was stabbed 23 times when he entered the Senate. After his assassination, Rome experienced another 13 years of civil war. (Strandberg n.d.)

B. The Play

'Julius Caesar' is one of the timeless creations of Shakespeare, the great master artist. This historical play is a great tragedy that ends in a huge waste of human lives. The play abounds in admirable and affecting passages, and is remarkable for the profound knowledge of character, in which Shakespeare could scarcely fail. (AllJuliusCaesar Home 2004-2006)

It is as if he had been actually present, had known the different characters and what they think of one another, and had taken down what he hear and saw, their looks, words, and gestures as they happened. The truth of history in Julius Caesar is very ably worked up with dramatic effect. The councils of generals, the doubtful turns of battles are represented to life. With his superb language, Shakespeare has breathed life into a glorious chapter torn from the history of Rome dealing with the struggle of Monarchy and Republicanism and has given it a befitting place in the galaxy of his great plays. (AllJuliusCaesar Home 2004-2006)

The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare was probably written in 1599. It portrayed the conspiracy against the Roman dictator, Julius Caesar, his assassination and its aftermath. It was one of several Shakespeare plays that are based on true events from history. (Wikipedia 2006)

Unlike the other titular characters in Shakespeare's plays like the Hamlet and Henry V, Caesar was not the central character in the action of the play, appearing in only three scenes and dying at the beginning of the third Act. The central protagonist of the play was Brutus and the central psychological drama was his struggle between the conflicting demands of honour, patriotism, and friendship. The play is notable for being the first of Shakespeare's five great tragedies. (Wikipedia 2006)

Most Shakespeare critics and historians agreed that the play reflected the general anxiety of England due to worries over succession of leadership. At the time of its creation and first performance, Queen Elizabeth, a strong ruler, was elderly and had refused to name a successor, leading to worries that a civil war similar to that of Rome's might break out after her death. (Wikipedia 2006)

C. Plot Summary

Marcus Brutus was Caesar's close friend whose ancestors were famed for driving the tyrannical Tarquin kings from Rome. Brutus allowed himself to be cajoled into joining a group of conspiring senators because of a growing suspicion—implanted by Gaius Cassius—that Caesar intends to turn republican Rome into a monarchy under his own rule. (Wikipedia 2006)

Traditional readings of the play maintained that Cassius and the other conspirators were motivated largely by envy and ambition; whereas Brutus was motivated by the demands of honour and patriotism; other commentators, such as Isaac Asimov, suggested that the text showed Brutus was no less moved by envy and flattery. One of the central strengths of the play was that it resisted categorizing its characters as either simple heroes or villains. (Wikipedia 2006)

The early scenes dealt mainly with Brutus's arguments with Cassius and his struggled with his own conscience. The growing tide of public support soon turned Brutus against Caesar. A soothsayer warned Caesar to "beware the Ides of March", which he ignored, culminating in his assassination at the Capitol by the conspirators on that very day. (Wikipedia 2006)

Caesar's assassination was perhaps the most famous part of the play. After ignoring the soothsayer as well as his wife's own premonitions, Caesar was caught at the senate at the mercy of the conspirators. After a few words exchanged, Casca stabbed Caesar in the back of his neck, and the others follow ed in stabbing him; Brutus last. At this point, Caesar uttered the famous line "Et tu, Brute?" ("And you, Brutus?", i.e. "You too, Brutus?"). Shakespeare had him add "Then fall, Caesar", suggesting that Caesar did not want to survive such treachery. The conspirators made clear that they did this act for Rome, not for their own purposes. (Wikipedia 2006)

After Caesar's death, however, another character appeared on the foreground, in the form of Caesar's devotee, Mark Anthony, who, by a rousing speech over the corpse—the much-quoted Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears...—deftly turned public opinion against the assassins by speaking to the more personal side of his position, rather than the public and rational tactic Brutus used in his speeches. Anthony roused the mob to drive them from Rome. (Wikipedia 2006)

The beginning of Act Four was marked by the quarrel scene, where Brutus attacked Cassius for soiling the noble act of regicide by accepting bribes. The two reconciled, but as they prepared for war with Mark Anthony and Caesar's great-nephew, Octavian, Caesar's ghost appeared to Brutus with a warning of defeat. Events went badly for the conspirators during the battle; both Brutus and Cassius choosed to commit suicide rather than to be captured. The play ended with a tribute to Brutus, who had remained "the noblest Roman of them all" and hints at the friction between Mark Anthony and Octavian which will characterize another of Shakespeare's Roman plays, Anthony and Cleopatra. (Wikipedia 2006)

D. Summary of the Play

Act 1

Shakespeare's famous Roman play opened to the scene of two Tribunes, Marullus and Flavius scolding Roman citizens for blindly worshipping Caesar. Their conversation revealed deep-seated fears that Caesar was growing too powerful, too arrogant and must be stopped. Hoping to reduce the blind hero worship of Caesar, the two men removed ceremonial decorations off Caesar's "images" (statues) despite the obvious dangers of doing so. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

A little later, we will see Caesar leading a procession through the streets of Rome. A Soothsayer or fortune teller told Caesar to beware the "ides of March”, a warning that Caesar will die on this day. It was ignored. Cassius, who feared Caesar's ever growing power, begun to recruit Brutus, a close friend of Caesar's, towards his conspiracy by implying that Caesar was becoming too powerful. Marullus and Flavius, the two tribunes who pulled the decorations off Caesar's statues have been put to silence for "pulling scarfs off Caesar's images". Brutus was suspicious of Cassius' motives but told Cassius that he will think it over. Casca, another conspirator, revealed information to Brutus that Caesar was getting more ambitious. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Cassius' conspiracy gained momentum when he recruited a suspicious Casca to their cause against Caesar by pointing out that several recent strange occurrences were omens warning them against Caesar. To ensure Brutus joined his conspiracy, Cassius had Cinna place some forged letters where Brutus will find them convincing Brutus to join their cause. Cinna revealed that Brutus' good name will be an asset to their conspiracy. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Act 2

Brutus cannot sleep, revealing for the first time his own true fears that Caesar might be growing too powerful. A letter was discovered, which Brutus read, convincing him to join the conspiracy. The complete group of conspirators met at Brutus' house, discussing Caesar's assassination. Brutus argued against Caesar's right hand man, Mark Anthony being assassinated as well. Cassius and Trebonius had their doubts but go along with Brutus. Brutus' troubled wife Portia tried to find out what her husband was planning. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Calphurnia, Caesar's wife, woke Caesar up after herself awakening from a terrible nightmare. She told Caesar, that her dream foretells doom and succeeded in convincing Caesar not go to the Senate on the "ides of March" which will be tomorrow. Decius Brutus arrived and hearing that Caesar will not be at the Senate tomorrow, flatters Caesar into going so as not to show fear. Artemidorus waited in a street with a letter warning Caesar of the conspiracy, hoping to avert Caesar's assassination. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Portia worried for her husband, hope that his "enterprise" today will succeed. The Soothsayer, who warned Caesar about the "ides of March" in Act 1, waited in a narrow street hoping to warn Caesar of his imminent danger. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Act 3

Caesar arrogantly told the Soothsayer that today was the "ides of March", but the Soothsayer told him the day was not over yet. Artemidorus nearly warned Caesar but Decius Brutus prevented this. Popilius wished the conspirators good luck, scaring them that Caesar may already know their plans. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Metellus Cimber petitioned Caesar to lift his brother's banishment order. Caesar refused and the conspirators kill Caesar. Mark Anthony fled. He pretended to treat Caesar's murderers as friends. He asked to speak at Caesar's funeral. Cassius thought that this was dangerous, Brutus, disagreeing, let Mark Anthony spoke at the funeral. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Mark Anthony revealed his true hatred for the conspirators. Octavius, Mark Anthony’s ally remained safely outside of Rome a little longer. Brutus and Cassius explained to the citizens of Rome why they killed Caesar, gaining their support. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Using the immortal words, "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;" Mark Anthony turned the citizens of Rome against Brutus and Cassius by making the citizens feel remorse for Caesar's cruel death and by bribing then with the news that Caesar's will gift each citizen money from his will. Mark Anthony used this fact to suggest Caesar was a great man who should not have been murdered. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

The crowd, now an angry, crazed mob, went after the conspirators including Brutus and Cassius who fled in fear. A poet called Cinna who beard the same name as one of the conspirators was killed by the angry mob which showed Shakespeare's insight into the senselessness of the mob mentality. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Act 4

The Triumvirs (Octavius, Mark Anthony and Lepidus) decided which of the conspirators shall live and which shall die. Mark Anthony assured Octavius that Lepidus did not and will not ever have any serious power. The two men started planning their attack on Brutus' and Cassius' forces. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Brutus learned that Cassius had finally arrived. Brutus was angry with Cassius, Cassius saying he had done his friend no wrong. Brutus wanting privacy from his troops, told Cassius to step into his tent where he will discuss the issue further. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Brutus angrily attacked Cassius first for contradicting his order to remove Lucius Pella for taking bribes and then Cassius himself for his own dishonesty. Cassius was upset by this but eventually Brutus chose to forgive his friend. Over one hundred senators have been put to death by the Triumvirs and a large army led by Mark Anthony and Octavius was approaching their position. Brutus, on the other hand, was greeted by Caesar's Ghost and Brutus that he will see Caesar again at Philippi. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Act 5

On the Plains of Philippi, Mark Anthony’s and Octavius' forces faced Brutus' and Cassius' forces. The two sides insulted each other. in battle with Mark Antony and Octavius, Brutus sent orders via messenger Messala to Cassius' forces on the other side of the battlefield. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Cassius' forces were losing ground to Mark Anthony’s forces. Brutus had defeated Octavius' forces but instead of reinforcing Cassius' forces, he sought out spoils or bounty from the field. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Needing information, Cassius sent Titinius to a nearby hill to report if it was friendly or not. Cassius instructed Pindarus to go atop a hill to report Titinius' progress to him. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Pindarus saw Titinius pulled off his horse and feared Titinius had been captured. This would mean Brutus' forces had been beaten so Cassius killed himself on Pindarus' sword. Titinius now returned realizing that Titinius was not captured but was greeted by Brutus' victorious forces. Brutus learned of Cassius' death. Titinius, mourning Cassius, committed suicide. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Brutus inspired his men to keep fighting. Lucilius who was mistaken for Brutus was captured. Eventually Mark Anthony realized this. The battle rage on and Anthony issued orders for Brutus to be captured, dead or alive. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Tired, weary, but still alive, Brutus found a place to catch his breath with his few remaining followers. One by one, Brutus asked Clitius, Dardanius and Volumnius to kill him but each refused. Finally Brutus got his wish by falling on his sword, killing himself. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

Octavius, Mark Antony, Messala and Lucilius now arrived. Strato explained how Brutus died. Mark Anthony offered tribute to Brutus' noble spirit by famously saying, "This was the noblest Roman of them all". Octavius, then, told his soldiers to stand down. And the battle was over. (absoluteshakespeare 2000-2005)

E. Issues Raised on Julius Caesar

Much of the recent critical debate regarding Julius Caesar has focused on the political parallels between Elizabethan England and ancient Rome as Shakespeare depicted it. While most critics hesitate to presume knowing Shakespeare's intentions in this matter, many maintain that Shakespeare's use of various themes and concepts supports a comparison of the political climate of ancient Rome and England in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. (cited in Enotes 2006)

John Jump (1974) argues that Julius Caesar, like Shakespeare's English history plays, supports the "Tudor myth" (the justification of Queen Elizabeth I's right to the throne). Shakespeare, Jump maintains, demonstrates this through the play's examination of the conflict between Republicanism and Caesarism, which Jump compares to a monarchist political system, and the strength gained by Caesarism by the end of the play. (cited in Enotes 2006)

Mark Rose (1989) suggests an analogy between the tribunes in the play and the Puritan preachers of Shakespeare's time. Rose argues that one of the primary concerns of the play is the controversy over the absolute authority of a ruler and that this same concern was an important issue in Elizabethan England, especially given the close interweaving of religion and politics in that society. Puritan reformers, like the Roman tribunes, Rose demonstrates, felt that power should reside with the people, not with the crown, while religious conservatives up-held the belief that the monarchy is the reservoir of power. (cited in Enotes 2006)

In another comparison between Shakespeare's Rome and Elizabethan society, Wayne A. Rebhorn (1990) sees Julius Caesar as a struggle among aristocrats, that is, the senators, to prevent one of their own (Caesar) from transcending his position and thereby destroying the political system which allows aristocrats to wield their power as a class. Rebhorn likens Caesar to the Earl of Essex, who, by leading a revolt against Queen Elizabeth, challenged the absolute authority of the crown, and at the same time threatened the power of the aristocracy by creating turmoil in that class. Rebhorn further supports his argument by comparing the factionalism of Queen Elizabeth's court to that of the Roman senators. (cited in Enotes 2006)

Another issue that has been a topic of scholarly commentary since the eighteenth century is Shakespeare's portrayal of Brutus. Twentieth-century criticism on the character of Brutus has challenged his status as a hero, a characterization established by many earlier critics. (cited in Enotes 2006)

Gordon Ross Smith (1954) focuses his attention on Brutus's willfulness, demonstrating that Brutus controls people and situations and is guided by his self-righteous belief in his own virtue. Smith shows that the combination of these factors contributes to Brutus's downfall. (cited in Enotes 2006)

In another assessment, Richard A. Levin (1982) questions Mark Anthony’s praise of Brutus as "the noblest Roman of them all." Levin offers as evidence in his case against Brutus the fact that while the other conspirators killed Caesar primarily out of envy; Brutus murdered someone for whom he had expressed love and friendship. (cited in Enotes 2006)

Scholarly debate also focuses on Shakespeare's treatment of the facts of Roman history that were available to him in Thomas North's translation of Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecianes and Romans (1579). T. J. B. Spencer (1955) chronicles the history of criticism regarding this issue, stating that as early as 1680 Shakespeare's treatment of ancient Rome was praised by British poet and playwright Nahum Tate. Spencer reflects that Shakespeare's portrayal of the civilization continues to influence modern thinking on the subject. (cited in Enotes 2006)

Arthur Humphreys (1984) analyzes Shakespeare's use of Plutarch's work in creating the drama, commenting on details ignored or embellished upon by Shakespeare and suggesting possible reasons for such adaptations. Humphreys also identifies other sources from which Shakespeare may have drawn, including Suetonius's De vita Caesarum and Appian's Chronicle of the Romans' Wars. (cited in Enotes 2006)

F. Julius Caesar and the Roman Republic

Julius Caesar highlights the struggle between differing conceptions of Rome's political nature. Brutus chooses to assassinate Caesar, not because of any specific act or attitude by the dictator, but because his position stands in violation of the political traditions of the Republic. (Grapko n.d.)

To fully understand Brutus’ actions, we must consider the nature of Roman Republic as well as Shakespeare’s conception of “rule by the people” since republicanism was often equated with democracy. (Grapko n.d.)

Rome established a Republic not to grant rights to its entire population, but to prevent tyranny, the rule of one powerful man outside the law. Power was divided between several offices and institutions. The Senate (a body of former officeholders and the leaders of patrician families) elected most offices and passed most laws, but their choices had to be approved by the citizens as a whole or through their representatives, the Tribunes. Several complicated checks demonstrated the great fear Romans had of concentrating power in the hands of too few people. Caesar broke with these traditions by being elected dictator for life while simultaneously holding several other powerful offices. (Grapko n.d.)

Brutus represents Romans who were proud of their system and their various roles in it; for the most part, the Republic thrived with few major political upheavals for several hundred years. The arguments that sway Brutus to act appeal to his rights as a member of one of Rome's leading families, and he believes that his action is a duty to save the state of Rome from degeneration into personal rule. (Grapko n.d.)

Shakespeare lived in a time when democracy was considered a dangerously unstable system of government; the ruling class of England (nobles, large landowners, and great merchants) had very little respect for the opinions or the needs of the lower classes. (Grapko n.d.)

He demonstrates this in his portrayal of the Roman mob. In Act 1, the mob responds with near-ecstasy to Caesar's manipulation of his refusal of the crown. In Act 3, the mob first fully supports Brutus' defense and then turns against him once Anthony enflames their passions. They not only riot and burn the houses of the conspirators; they even kill an innocent man because he shares the name of one of Caesar's assailants. (Grapko n.d.)

Shakespeare paints the Roman people as controllable only by those who rule through terror; the institutions of Rome, nominally responsible to the citizenry, are in fact made easier to manipulate because of that responsibility. (Grapko n.d.)

Brutus falls partly because he trusts the people who re-embraced the system that their ancestors had created. In this way, Julius Caesar demonstrates an Elizabethan concept of the people as uncontrollable, lacking in judgment, and potentially dangerous. (Grapko n.d.)

G. The Social Structure of Julius Caesar

The early modern period sees the rise of a political modernity that assumes the politics of the nation-state as a fundamental framework for social life. Many early modern writers, including Shakespeare, abet this process by celebrating state power or quasi-state projects like early colonialism. (Gil n.d.)

Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is a good illustration of both sides of this argument, for the play diagnoses an emerging political field only to reveal an impulse to break with this political framework. The play points to the deep complicity between Caesar and the conspirators within the framework of an emerging political field that allows for differences of ideology and personnel only against the shared assumption of the nation-state as a fundamental and inevitable filter of social life; and no matter the substantive differences between Caesar and the conspirators, by forcing social questions into a political frame of reference, their conflict consolidates and strengthens the political field which comes to attain something close to a monopoly on the ways social life can be conceptualized. (Gil n.d.)

It is against this backdrop that Marc Anthony’s rebellion must be understood, a rebellion not for Caesar or against Brutus (conceived as rival political positions) but against politics, against a form of political power that penetrates social life and forces agonizing personal sacrifices in the name of public goods. In essence, Marc Anthony aims to bypass political forms altogether by unleashing a radically corporeal grammar of interpersonal bonding that defines connections between bodies (via emotions conceived as fluids) that colonize and replace any functional, politically-mediated public life. Anthony unleashes a rebellion that cuts beneath politics, as it were, to an emotional terrain that provides the terms for connections between bodies that escape from the gravity of the rising nation-state and nation-state-mediated civil society. (Gil n.d.)

From the standpoint of the nascent political field, this oppositional discourse looks irrational, non-pragmatic or anti-social. But from a standpoint outside the political field such radical opposition is not anti-social so much as it is anti-systemic, a real break from the emerging, modern political vision of the nation-state as a fundamental condition of social life. (Gil n.d.)

The early modern political field that Shakespeare sketches in Julius Caesar is organized around the competing discursive poles of absolutism and elite civic republicanism. Caesar is accused of wanting to become a tyrant, but within the terms of early modern political discourse his reliance on a potent blend of charismatic popularity and canny manipulation of aristocratic elites makes him look very much like an absolute monarch. (Gil n.d.)

Caesar sees the state as a complex mechanism over which he seeks to gain complete control; in order to do so he brings into existence an abstract public of more or less formally interchangeable individuals who are not part of the state but who encounter it as a sort of spectacle that they either applaud or hoot. Caesar’s absolutist political program is counterbalanced in the play by the civic republicanism of Brutus and the conspirators who view the state as part of the ethical self-perfection of elite individuals. (Gil n.d.)

For the conspirators, individual subjects provide the essential underpinning for a state that is able to project itself through time and through space; the state, in turn, conditions the individual quest for ethical perfection by providing opportunities for its exercise. For Brutus and the conspirators, a public of patrician elites seeking to maximize their honor constitutes the state, and they use this vision to try to de-legitimize the popular public that Caesar has forced into the political field. (Gil n.d.)

But the fact that Caesar and the conspirators each take rival versions of political publicity into account from the start attests to the fact that their differences are essentially local variations within a single political field; what Caesar and the conspirators share is a deep commitment to the public-making power of political forms that penetrate and structure social life. (Gil n.d.)

Marc Anthony’s rebellion is directed against this entire political field with its vision of a society penetrated and organized by political forms. Immediately after the death of Caesar, Brutus tells Marc Anthony that he, too, loved Caesar, but that this personal tie had to take a back seat to public considerations. Marc Anthony, however, refuses to accept the political logic that demands that what Cassius warily calls the “engrafted love he bears to Caesar” be sacrificed in the name of public goods, and this refusal triggers a rebellion against the very notion of state-mediated public life. (Gil n.d.)

Marc Anthony refuses to see Caesar’s death as a political act or a political problem, and his (irrational) commitment to Caesar produces a kind of crisis (or perhaps a breakthrough) in his experience of himself and others that are expressed in an anarchist wish for Sorelian violence. (Gil n.d.)

Obviously, Anthony outlines no pragmatic, political program here but a program of violence for violence’s sake designed to register the validity of his personal love for Caesar. It is as if Marc Anthony and Caesar define a nuclear bond that is split by an irruption of politics only to release an enormous transformative burst of social energy that negates traditional social ties. Anthony’s cruel soliloquy has the merit of not concealing the naked reality of war in patriotic rhetoric, but in precisely its cruelest aspects Marc Anthony’s speech also points to the wish for a kind of radical transformation in the most basic patterns of social life, emblematized in the structure of family allegiances; when Marc Anthony looks forward to a time when mothers will have become so hardened to violence that they will “but smile when they behold their infants quartered,” he is imagining a radical transformation in social life that flows from his own, somewhat disorienting experience of the body of Caesar. (Gil n.d.)