Marxist Literary Criticism of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare - Essay Example

Marxist Literary Criticism of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare The Marxist concept of literacy criticism is not as popular as other methods of criticism. However, the method has found wide application in interpretation and understanding of Shakespeare’s work. The term Marxism was derived from Karl Marx who war was the first author to write a literacy criticism of Shakespeare’s work. Karl Marx was interested in the unique use of language and political satire that characterized Shakespeare’s work. Julius Caesar was a play written by William Shakespeare depicting the fall and assassination of the Roman dictator, Julius Caesar. This essay will therefore present a Marxist criticism of the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare. The main aspect of contradiction that comes out in the play is the political divide. The play depicts the struggle between socialism and capitalism. Although capitalism had been considered more fashionable than socialism, most scholars including Shakespeare declared their support for socialism. However, in the play Shakespeare does not declare a firm stand against capitalism. According to the play, Shakespeare seems to have divided view concerning capitalism. In addition, Shakespeare does not make a firm stand on whether he is a proletarian or a capital owner. Capitalism was heading to a self-destruction due to the struggles that existed between different classes of people in a capitalist regime (Halliday, 1964). For instance, within a capitalistic regime, there was struggle between the middle class and industrial workers. Moreover, a capitalist regime was the source of conflict between middle class citizens and capital owners. Although Shakespeare considered these struggles as the source of destruction for capitalism, he was unable to prove the phenomenon through the play. His play illustrates the collaboration of capital owners and middle class citizens to launch a rebellion against the governing regime. In the play, Caesar compares himself as the northern star or the immortal person. However, the character does not play this role effectively since he dies before the play is completed. His self-declaration as an immortal being makes the audience believe that he plays an axial role in the play. Similarly, Brutus does not play his role effectively as an immortal character as earlier depicted. This depicts the struggles that have existed between capitalism and socialism and the human desire of creating a utopian sate (Halliday, 1964). Shakespeare is an activist of the utopian state where people will coexist in peace. In addition, utopian states will not have struggles that are inspired by social class and power. The death of the two characters indicates that the proposed utopian state is just an illusion. This also indicates that Shakespeare contradicts his own vision through his own works. Julius Caesar is a historic irony. This is because the work compares philosophy and logic. Although the two bodies of knowledge are responsible for interpreting human ingenuity, they are immiscible. Thus, it is difficult or unnecessary to compare philosophy and logic. Shakespeare was a firm believer of philosophy and, therefore, he should have written the play from a philosophical perspective (Walsh, 2009). However, he contradicts his work by interweaving logic and philosophy. In the play, Caesar is depicted as an intuitive philosopher who always makes the right decisions. On the other hand, Brutus was an alchemist and hence a believer of logic. The two individuals have different views towards human knowledge, origin and the nature of the universe. However, Shakespeare does not create a difference of the two individuals based on their thoughts and attitude towards life and human knowledge (Walsh, 2009). In the play, Shakespeare does not seem to declare his stand concerning philosophy and logic. According to the play, philosophy and logic are two closely related bodies of knowledge. This is untrue since philosophy and logic do not have a common ground. Throughout the play Shakespeare, compare Brutus to Caesar in terms of their reasoning and attitude towards governance. As a philosopher, Shakespeare had a different perspective on governance. Through the two major characters of the play, Shakespeare demonstrates his views concerning governance. The first aspect of leadership is the one where leaders are driven by envy and ambition. In the second approach, leaders are driven by patriotism and the welfare of every member of the society. Although Shakespeare had preference for the second form of governance, the plays seems to betray his views concerning leadership. Shakespeare was also a believer of the utopian state whereby leaders were responsible for the welfare of the people. In addition, Shakespeare advocated for a form of governance where leaders are accountable to the people for their action (Wells & Michael, 2001). However, Shakespeare does not demonstrate his political views through the play correctly. For instance, Shakespeare seems to praise the style of leadership applied by Caesar. It is evident that Caesar was a dictator and his leadership motives were established around his personal success. However, Shakespeare considered Caesar as a hero who meets a tragic death before he delivers his wish for his people. Caesar was motivated by envy and ambition while Brutus was motivated by honour and patriotism from his people. Although Shakespeare had the two characters to build his political philosophy, his preference for Caesar seems to contradict his views (Wells & Michael, 2001). The play gives more attention to Caesar than Brutus does. In addition, the play is keen on noticing the weaknesses and mistakes committed by Brutus than those committed by Caesar. Finally, Marxists critics are concerned with the degree of honesty in Julius Caesar. Although Shakespeare has the objective of presenting a factual account concerning the life of Julius Caesar, his literature does not demonstrate a high degree of honesty. Thus, the work is subject to misinterpretations. Conclusion A Marxist’s criticism on Shakespeare work focus on how the work contradicts his own beliefs and attitude. The play Julius Caesar is a historic satire and contradiction. Shakespeare is a believer of philosophy. However, the play shows his preference for logic. On the other hand, his plays support dictatorship and political leaders who are driven by self-interests. Finally, the play has a low degree of accuracy concerning the life of Julius Caesar and, it is vulnerable to misinterpretation. References Halliday, F. (1964). A Shakespeare Companion 1564–1964. Shakespeare Library ser. Baltimore, Penguin. Walsh, J. (2009). Critics of Shakespeare: The Marxist Approach. Bookstove. Retrieved from: http://bookstove.com/classics/critics-of-shakespeare-the-marxist-approach/ Wells, S. & Michael D. (2001). The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. London: Oxford University Press. Read More