In honor of William Shakespeare we are celebrating the 400th anniversary of his death on April 23, 2016. What better way to do this, than by highlighting the writing done by first-year students in Associate Professor of English John Wesley’s first-year seminar, A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare? This first-year seminar in scholarly inquiry studies four remarkable plays Shakespeare wrote or saw into production in 1599, the same year he opened the Globe Theatre. In the first half of the course, students were introduced to the myriad ways in which Shakespeare’s 1599 plays are shaped by and give shape to the political and cultural intrigues of that year. In the second half of the course, students turned to a play (and year) of their own choosing, the historicist analysis of which is the basis of an independent research project. As part of this project, students were asked to prepare a blog post that reflected on aspects of Shakespeare’s life, a specific work, or a resource or organization associated with Shakespeare, or to provide a personal interpretation of a play. During the month of April, we’ll feature the posts from students that celebrate all things Shakespeare!
Congratulations to our wonderful first-year writers. For additional online resources about Shakespeare, check out these sites:
- British Library: http://www.bl.uk/
- Folger Shakespeare Library: http://www.folger.edu/
- Globe Theatre: http://www.shakespearesglobe.com
- Internet Shakespeare Editions: http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca
- Shakespeare 400: http://www.shakespeare400.org/
Fact vs. Fiction in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar
By Nate Jacobi
While reading Julius Caesar I found myself thoroughly frustrated by author William Shakespeare’s political neutrality. Considering the play revolves around a philosophical debate about whether an assassination is justified, little, if anything is philosophically determined by the play’s end. Were the conspirators justified in killing of Julius Caesar? Were they wrong to cut short the life of one of Rome’s greatest men? Shakespeare certainly provides no overwhelming evidence to tip the scales in any favor. In order to gain a better understanding of what motivated Shakespeare’s political ambiguity in Julius Caesar I want to compare the historical perception of Caesar with Shakespeare’s portrayal of Roman perspectives. This will reveal whether Caesar was truly such a divisive figure or whether Shakespeare turned him into one for alternate reasons.
According to Shakespeare the primary reason why many Romans were fearful of Caesar is summed up in two lines spoken by Brutus during the first act of Julius Caesar: “I do fear the people / Choose Caesar for their king” (1.2.78-79). Rome at the time was a republic and feared that Caesar was becoming so popular and powerful that he would seize ultimate power over the state. In reality, these fears were justified as Caesar incurred enormous amounts of popularity among the Roman people and also his soldiers due in part to his military successes in Gaul. However, there is evidence to suggest that Shakespeare downplayed the sheer amount of power and popularity that Caesar enjoyed. According to Plutarch, one of Rome’s most prominent Roman historians, Caesar had a personal army that was extremely loyal to him. Plutarch says: “He was so much master of the good-will and hearty service of his soldiers that those who in other expeditions were but ordinary men displayed a courage past defeating or withstanding when they went upon any danger where Caesar’s glory was concerned” (Plutarch). In fact just years earlier Caesar had led his forces across the Rubicon river into Rome which had never before been done by any Roman military leader in history. While Shakespeare mentions Caesar’s military successes in the first act of the play, his decision to leave out Caesar’s military power heavily downplays Caesar’s threat to the republic.
Why then might Shakespeare have chosen a more neutral portrayal of Caesar in his play? Some critics note that Shakespeare’s neutrality may have been the result of simple logistics, as any outright negative portrayal of Caesar could be viewed as an attack on Queen Elizabeth’s right to rule and therefore would have attracted the eye of censors (Shapiro 129). While practicality is a plausible explanation, it would be disingenuous and unfair to Shakespeare’s skill as a playwright to say that the spectre of censorship was the only reason he remained ambiguous on Caesar. As James Shapiro notes in his book A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: “One of the lessons Shakespeare had confirmed by reading Hayward was the dramatic advantage of juxtaposing competing political arguments, balancing them so neatly that it was impossible to tell in favor of which the scales tipped” (Shapiro 129). Shakespeare wanted his audience to feel conflicted just like Brutus who had to decide whether to betray his friend or not. If Shakespeare had boldly portrayed Caesar as either a hero or a villain, the audience would not have identified with Brutus’ struggle. By staying politically ambiguous Shakespeare is able to build tension and deliver a more thought provoking piece.