Jody Walshe
Overthrow of Power in Julius Caesar and King Richard II
Both Julius Caesar and King Richard II are concerned with the debate over the
legitimacy of overthrowing a ruler. By posing questions such as the degree of power
which should be concentrated in an individual leader, or if are there times when direct
action is required against someone in power instead of relying on the political process,
these plays render themselves fascinating to both a contemporary and modern
audience. During the course of King Richard II, the monarch of the title is seen to fall
from a position of high status and power (highlighted by the scale and grandeur of the
opening scene) to a broken man forced to hand over his crown and eventually a
murder victim. Similarly, Caesar goes from a ruler adored by his citizens and
colleagues, to suffering a brutal and humiliating death at the hands of his supposed
friends. In addition to the poignancy of what Aristotle terms ‘Tragedy of Reversal,’
these terrible fates are interesting because they leave the audience wondering if the
action taken against these men was justified.
To assess whether the murder of Caesar was a moral action done for the good of
Rome or a brutal act of jealousy, Caesar’s culpability must first be ascertained.
Daniell1 observes that the “plotted murder of Julius Caesar had divided the minds of
men and women even before he died” and Shakespeare certainly brings this out in
Julius Caesar by giving him both tyrannical and humane qualities. The conspirators
charge Caesar with dangerous ambition and pride and Brutus claims that “ambition’s
debt is paid” (III.i.83) in the murder of Caesar. Caesar’s actions do bear out this
accusation; an example of this can be found in his shockingly hubristic statement: “for
1
‘Introduction’ Julius Caesar (1998) David Daniell
1
Jody Walshe
always I am Caesar” (I.ii.211) which is unmistakably loaded with arrogance and self
importance. This is also acknowledged by the other characters within the play and
early in the drama Cassius and Brutus agree on the threat posed by Caesar who:
“doth bestride the narrow world
Like a colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves” (I.ii.134-137).
Brutus’ accusation of “high-sighted tyranny” (II.i.117) is served out in the sinister
suggestion that Caesar has put “to silence” (I.ii.285) those who were “pulling scarves”
(I.ii.284) from his images. This is made all the more ruthless and disturbing since
Shakespeare has deviated from Plutarch’s source in which diadems are removed from
the images: by selecting a more trivial item Shakespeare makes Caesar a more
threatening figure. Even in his dying moments Caesar shows that he has an
appallingly conceited conception of himself as an almost divine figure who will live
on eternally in men’s minds:
“But I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fixed and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.” (III.i.60-3)
This was considered by the Romans as the closest form of immortality (that gained
through reputation) that man was able to achieve. In addition, Miloa2 argues that
since a sudden and violent death was considered the only suitable end for such a ruler,
“the assassination of Caesar in Act III … testifies strongly, if circumstantially, to his
tyrannical character.” This claim, that even the method of his demise hints at him
2
‘Julius Caesar and the tyrannicide debate’ (1985) Robert S. Miola
2
Jody Walshe
being a tyrant, is also supported by his near last words which clearly suggest that he
considers himself to have a divine status by making a reference to the home of the
classical gods which he then links to himself:
“Hence! Wilt thou lift up Olympus?” (III.i.74)
Where Caesar’s vice is ambition, the weakness that leads to Richard II’s downfall is
having poor judgement which results in him being easily persuaded and manipulated.
This is noted by Northumberland: “The King is not himself, but basely led / By
flatterers” (II.i.241-2). This most obvious example of this can be found in the way in
which he is misled into poor governing by his cousin Aumerle and Bagot and Green,
who encourage the disastrous war in Ireland:
“Well, he is gone, and with him go these thoughts.
Now for the rebels which stand out in Ireland,
Expedient manage must be made, my liege,
Ere further leisure yield them further means
For their advantage and your highness’ loss” (I.iv.37-42)
This has resulted in Richard’s people becoming disaffected with his reign which then
provides ample opportunity for Bolingbroke’s rebellion:
“The commons hath he pilled with grievous taxes,
And quite lost their hearts. The nobles hath he fined
For ancient quarrels, and quite lost their hearts” (II.i.246-8)
Interestingly, Caesar is similarly susceptible to flattery and the most glaring instance
of this is on 15th March when he is urged not to go to the Senate by his wife,
Calpurnia, who has had nightmares graphically depicting his murder. Despite being
3
Jody Walshe
superstitious he ignores the fateful nightmare of his wife, the warning of the
soothsayer and the piece of paper warning him to “beware” the conspirators and
listing their names. This is all because he allows his ambition and vanity to get the
better of him, as he agrees to go to the Senate after he hears the words of Decius and
is so intoxicated with the notion of being crowned king he does not heed the
numerous warnings:
“And know it now: the Senate have concluded
To give this day a crown to mighty Caesar” (II.ii.93-4)
Despite his tyrannical traits, Cinna’s cry of: “Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!”
(III.i.78) after Caesar’s murder does not seem wholly fair or justified. Perhaps the
most obvious example of Caesar as a good and considerate ruler can be found in his
will, read by Antony in Act III scene ii, which clearly shows a love and respect for the
Roman people. In this instance he shows himself to be wholly unlike a tyrant by
bequeathing his personal possessions to the Roman people on his death. Similarly, he
is passionately loved by his wife and some friends, which implies that he possesses
deserving qualities beyond those witnessed by the audience to inspire such affection.
An example of the high esteem in which Caesar is held by his fellow Romans can be
found in Antony’s very moving speech following Caesar’s death in which he is
described as “the noblest man / That ever lived in the tide of times.” (III.i.356-7)
Shakespeare also portrays Richard II with redeeming qualities which create pathos at
his murder, and also encourage the audience to question the justification of
Bolingbroke’s rebellion. The pity in Richard’s humility once he has abdicated is
powerful and affecting:
4
Jody Walshe
“Did scowl on gentle Richard. No man cried God save him!
No joyful tongue gave him his welcome home,
But dust was thrown upon his sacred head.
Which with such gentle sorrow he shook off,
His face still combating with tears and smiles,
The badges of his grief and patience” (V.ii.28-34)
Richard is endearing because of the nobility with which he suffers. This is also
impressive since the speech is made by the Duke of York, who is still supporting
Richard even once he has given up the crown, implying that he is worthy of this
devotion.
Julius Caesar and Richard II are both given noble and negative qualities. Therefore, it
is conceivable that in Shakespeare’s portrayal of his two titular heroes he deliberately
creates complex, diverse and interesting characters that are neither saints nor blackdye villains in an attempt, not only to make them more plausible characters, but also
to encourage the audience to consider whether the overthrow of power is justified. A
possible explanation for part of why Shakespeare does this could be linked to the
monarch reigning at the time both of these plays were originally performed; Queen
Elizabeth I.
Forker3 notes that as Elizabeth I aged, it became “increasingly common to identify her
with Richard II” and she even remarked to William Lambarde in 1601 “I am Richard
II. Know ye not that?” One of the most obvious reasons that this parallel was made
was linked to weakness for flattery (which has already been outlined in relation to
3
‘Introduction’ King Richard II (2002) C.R. Forker
5
Jody Walshe
Richard II) since it was public knowledge that favourites such as Leicester and
Burghly were able to exert considerable power over her political decisions on
important subjects such as Catholicism, tax and monopolies. Arguable the most
obvious link between Elizabeth I and Richard II was made by supporters of the Earl
of Essex and his attempted rebellion, who, in 1601 paid Shakespeare’s company forty
shillings to revive King Richard II. In doing this they believed that the play would be
serving as “effective propaganda”4 for their treasonable enterprise the following day.
The concept of the divine right of kings also connects Elizabeth I and Richard II; a
concept that monarchs were appointed by God and therefore to overthrow them was
to go against God’s will, which helped to keep monarchs in power:
“The figure of God’s majesty
His captain, steward, deputy elect,
Anointed, crowned, planted many years.” (IV.i.126-8)
Links have also been made between Elizabeth I and Julius Caesar. The most apparent
parallel to draw between these two appears to be a link with some form of divine
status:
“Elementary knowledge of Queen Elizabeth’s policies in the years up to her
death allows parallels between herself and a tyrannical Caesar. Queen
Elizabeth, as age advanced, put herself out as immortal, not only as the
eternally enduring Faerie Queene or Glioriana.”5
Hurstfield wrote of Elizabeth that through her political control she became “a
monarch transmuted into a god”6 and inaccording to the Senecan tradition the
shooting star seen at Caesar’s funeral was his soul and resulted in his deification.
‘Introduction’ King Richard II (2002) C.R. Forker
‘Introduction’ Julius Caesar (1998) David Daniell
6
Elizabeth I and the Unity of England (1971) Joel Hurstfield
4
5
6
Jody Walshe
Shakespeare even uses this image in one of his earlier plays where the Duke of
Bedford laments the Henry V’s death:
“A far more glorious star thy soul will make
Than Julius Caesar” (1H6 I.i.55-6)
Caesar and Elizabeth, in their attempts to make themselves divine were attempting to
place them among the gods and therefore beyond attack.
In portraying the overthrow of power and the debate surrounding it Shakespeare has
three-dimensional characters, with flaws and good qualities, being deposed and killed.
In selecting such characters, instead of a cruel tyrant or just ruler, he encourages
debate and argument on the subject their destruction. Daniell7 notes (in relation to
Julius Caesar):
“As the inheritor of over sixteen hundred years of ambiguity, Shakespeare
makes the unrolling web of his drama more ambivalent still. He does not
endorse anyone.”
It is clear that if Shakespeare had intended for Julius Caesar or Richard II to be
entirely lovable or loathsome characters he could have achieved this with ease. Yet in
having men who make mistakes but also love their citizens, he provides them with an
ambiguity that makes them more human. Shakespeare creates plausible human beings
and in making his characters realistic he makes the debate as to their guilt more vivid
and relevant.
By not having an obvious right and wrong answer Shakespeare also transforms the
audience into the citizens in each play; the disaffected subjects of Richard II and the
7
‘Introduction’ Julius Caesar (1998) David Daniell
7
Jody Walshe
vicious mob of Julius Caesar. This illustrates the ease with which public opinion can
be swayed by rhetoric and implies that true power lies in the skill of the orator. The
clearest example of this can be located in the Forum following Caesar’s murder where
Brutus pacifies the crowd and appeals to its love of liberty to justify the killing of its
great ruler. They are then driven into a blood-thirsty fury by the persuasive rhetoric
of Antony’s funeral speech. This epitomizes the power that words have to incite
actions and alter opinions. In depicting the overthrow of power in Julius Caesar and
King Richard II, Shakespeare shows the force which words can have. Implying that
in a complicated world where there is no clear right and wrong answer, no obvious
good and evil, those with the power are those who can manipulate words.
8