The significance of the opening scene of Julius Caesar?

Answer 1

The opening scene is always very significant. Act I Scene I of Julius Caesar is important, as it sets the mood of the play. It opens with a sense of opposition from the tribunes. We get to know that the Plebians are fickle and are ruled by emotions rather than reason. Their opinion can easily be changed and hence cannot be trusted. Although Caesar isn't physically there, his presence is strong.

Answer 2

Although the play opens with Flavius and Murellus noting the fickle nature of the public's devotion-the crowd now celebrates Caesar's defeat of Pompey when once it celebrated Pompey's victories-loyalty to Caesar nonetheless appears to be growing with exceptional force. Caesar's power and influence are likewise strong: Flavius and Murellus are later punished for removing the decorations from Caesar's statues.

It is interesting to note the difference between the manner in which Flavius and Murellus conceive of the cobbler and that in which Shakespeare has created him. The cobbler is a typically Shakespearean character-a host of puns and bawdy references reveal his dexterity with language ("all that I live by is with the awl. I meddle / with no tradesman's matters, nor women's matters" [I.i.21-22]). The tribunes, however, preoccupied with class distinctions, view the cobbler as nothing more than a plebeian ruffian. Flavius's reproach of the cobbler for not having his tools about him on a workday reveals his belief that a laborer can be good for one thing and one thing only: laboring. Murellus similarly assumes the cobbler is stupid, although, ironically, it is Murellus himself who misunderstands the cobbler's answers to his questions. Murellus is unwilling to interpret the cobbler's shift in allegiance from Pompey to Caesar as anything but a manifestation of dim-witted forgetfulness.

Flavius and Murellus's concern about Caesar's meteoric rise to power reflects English sentiment during the Elizabethan age about the consolidation of power in other parts of Europe. The strengthening of the absolutist monarchies in such sovereignties as France and Spain during the sixteenth century threatened the stability of the somewhat more balanced English political system, which, though it was hardly democratic in the modern sense of the word, at least provided nobles and elected representatives with some means of checking royal authority. Caesar's ascendance helped to effect Rome's transition from republic to empire, and Shakespeare's depiction of the prospect of Caesar's assumption of dictatorial power can be seen as a comment upon the gradual shift toward centralization of power that was taking place in Europe.

In addition, Shakespeare's illustration of the fickleness of the Roman public proves particularly relevant to the English political scene of the time. Queen Elizabeth I was nearing the end of her life but had neither produced nor named an heir. Anxiety mounted concerning who her successor would be. People feared that without resort to the established, accepted means of transferring power-passing it down the family line-England might plunge into the sort of chaotic power struggle that had plagued it in the fifteenth century, during the Wars of the Roses. Flavius and Murellus's interest in controlling the populace lays the groundwork for Brutus's and Antony's manipulations of public opinion after Caesar's death. Shakespeare thus makes it clear that the struggle for power will involve a battle among the leaders to win public favor with displays of bravery and convincing rhetoric. Considering political history in the centuries after Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar, especially in the twentieth century, when Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler consolidated their respective regimes by whipping up in the masses the overzealous nationalism that had pervaded nineteenth-century Italy and Germany, the play is remarkably prescient.

Answer 3

Although the play opens with Flavius and Murellus noting the fickle nature of the public's devotion-the crowd now celebrates Caesar's defeat of Pompey when once it celebrated Pompey's victories-loyalty to Caesar nonetheless appears to be growing with exceptional force. Caesar's power and influence are likewise strong: Flavius and Murellus are later punished for removing the decorations from Caesar's statues.

It is interesting to note the difference between the manner in which Flavius and Murellus conceive of the cobbler and that in which Shakespeare has created him. The cobbler is a typically Shakespearean character-a host of puns and bawdy references reveal his dexterity with language ("all that I live by is with the awl. I meddle / with no tradesman's matters, nor women's matters" [I.i.21-22]). The tribunes, however, preoccupied with class distinctions, view the cobbler as nothing more than a plebeian ruffian. Flavius's reproach of the cobbler for not having his tools about him on a workday reveals his belief that a laborer can be good for one thing and one thing only: laboring. Murellus similarly assumes the cobbler is stupid, although, ironically, it is Murellus himself who misunderstands the cobbler's answers to his questions. Murellus is unwilling to interpret the cobbler's shift in allegiance from Pompey to Caesar as anything but a manifestation of dim-witted forgetfulness.

Flavius and Murellus's concern about Caesar's meteoric rise to power reflects English sentiment during the Elizabethan age about the consolidation of power in other parts of Europe. The strengthening of the absolutist monarchies in such sovereignties as France and Spain during the sixteenth century threatened the stability of the somewhat more balanced English political system, which, though it was hardly democratic in the modern sense of the word, at least provided nobles and elected representatives with some means of checking royal authority. Caesar's ascendance helped to effect Rome's transition from republic to empire, and Shakespeare's depiction of the prospect of Caesar's assumption of dictatorial power can be seen as a comment upon the gradual shift toward centralization of power that was taking place in Europe.

In addition, Shakespeare's illustration of the fickleness of the Roman public proves particularly relevant to the English political scene of the time. Queen Elizabeth I was nearing the end of her life but had neither produced nor named an heir. Anxiety mounted concerning who her successor would be. People feared that without resort to the established, accepted means of transferring power-passing it down the family line-England might plunge into the sort of chaotic power struggle that had plagued it in the fifteenth century, during the Wars of the Roses. Flavius and Murellus's interest in controlling the populace lays the groundwork for Brutus's and Antony's manipulations of public opinion after Caesar's death. Shakespeare thus makes it clear that the struggle for power will involve a battle among the leaders to win public favor with displays of bravery and convincing rhetoric. Considering political history in the centuries after Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar, especially in the twentieth century, when Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler consolidated their respective regimes by whipping up in the masses the overzealous nationalism that had pervaded nineteenth-century Italy and Germany, the play is remarkably prescient.