Justice in Antigone and Julius Caesar N. Margo Hicks INTRODUCTIOIN This unit will develop ways to discuss the concept of justice through the study of the plays Antigone by Sophocles and Julius Caesar by Shakespeare. These two classics in the drama canon are often taught at the tenth grade level of high school. Relating the experiences of the modern adolescent to ancient Greece and Rome with their unfamiliar customs is a challenge. I believe that the teacher must find ways to connect any literature to the individual experiences of the students. Teenagers are concerned about justice; however, they may not use the word to describe their concerns. They want adults to treat them fairly, and they want to know why they should obey the rules of others who are more powerful than they and who do not usually ask their opinions when making these rules. This questioning and rebellion is a natural bridge to the discussion of the concept to justice in the historical and philosophical sense. The unit intends to teach that civilizations back to the fifth century B.C. were also questioning what is just and who should make the rules. Students will first be guided through a discussion of the word ―justice‖ by looking briefly at the concept outside of a specific culture. They will be encouraged to step outside their own world to try to find a comprehensive definition of justice that can travel over time and place. Various discussions from other writers, such as Socrates and John Stuart Mill, will be introduced in a very brief format to allow students to see examples of how justice has been perceived at various times. From this discussion, the class can move to culture-specific discussions. Through the study of the literature of a culture, the reader can discover what was of real concern to the citizens. The story of Antigone is a story of a young woman‘s search for meaning to her life within the rules laid down by the adult, the government, in the person of King Creon. The story of Julius Caesar, as interpreted in the English Renaissance by Shakespeare, is the story of a group of citizens who question the grab for power by one man. Both plays deal with the concept of individual freedom and action versus laws to protect the welfare of the group in the city or state. Comments on the Text The teacher should be thoroughly familiar with the text of both plays. A careful analysis of the text and the teacher‘s response to the text is a first step before beginning to teach the plays. If the plays are read with a search for comments on justice, preparation for teaching this unit will be easier. The following is a guide to reading the text in this manner. 1 First, let us turn to Antigone, that rebellious young woman of the ancient Greek stage. Sophocles‘ play was first produced around 441 B.C. We cannot know exactly how to interpret the comments in the text as a Greek theatergoer would have over two thousand years ago. We must consider that some things are lost in the translation from the Greek. As our students are not Greek scholars, we should be comfortable with doing a minimal amount of historic research and then proceed with our interpretation of the plays. Let us consider the relationship of Antigone and the king of Thebes, Creon. We are not told the full story of their relationship in this play. Greek audiences would be familiar with the story of Oedipus, so background knowledge of the Oedipus myth is helpful. Antigone‘s father Oedipus was both nephew and brother-in-law to Creon. Her mother Jocasta, a sister to Creon, was both wife and mother to Oedipus. What is Creon‘s opinion of Oedipus? From the text of the play, we learn that Creon thinks that Oedipus was stubborn. ―Like father, like daughter; both headstrong, deaf to reason‖ (1.2.74). In Creon‘s speech to the people to establish his right to rule, he makes no comment about his feelings toward Oedipus (Act One). So the reader must infer what Creon‘s feelings must be. His sister Jocasta has killed herself because of Oedipus‘ actions. After Oedipus blinds himself upon learning of the truth about his marriage, Creon acts as regent in the kingdom and later exiles Oedipus. Later, the two sons of Oedipus and Jocasta agree to divide the throne of Thebes; Etoecles will reign for a year, and then Polyneices will take his turn. So Creon steps back from the throne in order that Oedipus‘ sons can be king. At this point, this dysfunctional family seems to be performing their public duties in a rational way. When the year of Etoecles‘ reign is over and it is Polyneices‘ turn to be king, Eteocles refuses to give up the throne and a civil war begins. Polyneices attacks Thebes with his armies. In the battle, Polyneices and Eteocles kill each other. The throne again belongs to Creon. One other family death happens in this battle: Megareus, the older son of Eurydice and Creon, dies in the battle. From a point of justice, who has the just right to the throne of Thebes? The sons of the former King Oedipus should inherit the throne upon the death of their father. In a reasonable decision, they agree to take turns being king. In the second year Polyneices has the just right to the throne per this agreement. Yet when he tries to take what is rightfully his, Creon names him a traitor. Why does Creon overlook the fact that it is Eteocles, not Polyneices, who has ignored the agreement? Polyneices only tries to take what is his by the agreement. Creon makes no statement in the play concerning the rights of Polyneices; he is only concerned that Polyneices has attached the city and therefore his corpse should rot as a stray animal unburied. During the first part of the play, Creon expresses no personal feelings of sadness for the death of his son Magareus. Creon‘s words show little emotion. He comes to the throne and to the people speaking only for reason as he makes his ―Ship of State‖ speech. In this speech he is not a father, a husband, a brother nor an uncle. He is a ruler seeking loyalty from his people. He logically outlines his principles. He will not be afraid to follow the best course for the state, and he will put the welfare of the state above his own 2 private relationships (1.23-34). Creon describes Polyneices as a traitor in exile who attacks Thebes and is willing to sell his own people into slavery (1.41-45). What proof Creon has for these statements, we do not know. How can Polyneices be in exile if it is his turn to be king? Is Creon seeking justice or power for himself? He appears to be carefully reeling in the people to be loyal to him. He speaks of his concern for the state, yet he carefully chooses emotional words like ―spill the blood,‖ ―slavery,‖ ―traitor,‖ and ―scavenging dogs.‖ Creon may indeed believe what he is seeking is what is best for the state, but he certainly is an opportunist. Are the concepts of seeking justice and taking an opportunity mutually exclusive? Not necessarily. A politician who does not have the ear of the people cannot bring justice, as he understands it. Creon changes very quickly in his approach to the power of the throne. As soon as he hears that someone has dared to bury Polyneices, he begins to rant, looking for ―stiff- necked anarchists, putting their heads together, scheming against me in alleys (1.124-55). If at first he conceives of the best justice as an efficiently run state, he begins to obsess by seeing anarchists behind every bush. He must have obedience from the people. If he makes a law, it must be obeyed. To show himself weak before the people would make him unfit to rule. He says ―whoever is chosen to govern should be obeyed—must be obeyed, in all things great and small, just and unjust!‖ [emphasis added]. He cries out against ―Anarchy, anarchy! Show me a greater evil!‖ (3.42). Creon‘s son Haemon attempts to reason with his father. When Creon chides Haemon for ―a public brawl with your father!‖ (3.110), Haemon replies, ―How about you, in a public brawl with justice‖ (3.111). But Creon will not discuss justice as he says ―With justice, when all that I do is within my rights‖ (3.112). Creon begins with an attempt to put back civil law after civil war. He wants to be a strong ruler with loyal subjects. Threats to his law quickly become personal. His big fear is anarchy. But anarchy can be found in his personal life also. Perhaps Creon is projecting the turmoil in his family onto the turmoil in the state. He tells Haemon that what a man wants is ―sons attentive and dutiful in his house…if his sons fail him…what has he fathered but trouble for himself…‖ (3.11-18). Creon tries to live by civil law, but in the end he changes and realizes that ―the laws of the gods are mighty, and a man must serve them to the last day of his life!‖ (5.107-108). But his metamorphosis is too late as Antigone, Haemon, and his wife are now dead. He is weakened by personal loss and no longer fit to rule as the king of Thebes. Let us turn now to try to discover Antigone‘s idea of justice. Her first words in the play are a reference to the suffering of her family from the curse on her father. At first she seems kind and loving toward her sister Ismene. She calls her ―dear sister‖ and asks for her help. What evidence do we have of her feelings toward Creon in the beginning? She refers to him as ―our King Creon‖ and ―our good Creon.‖ Whether this is sarcasm or not, we cannot tell. But she quickly states her position in relation to the king. ―Creon is not strong enough to stand in my way‖ (Prologue, 35). By these words she has already chosen her position. Ismene argues that ―the law is strong, we must give in to the law in 3 this thing, and in worse‖ (48-49) and that ―laws were made for public good‖ (63). Antigone has no concern for civil law of the state as she responds to ―the laws of the gods‖ (61). When Antigone is confronted by Creon after she has dared to bury her brother, Creon charges ―you dared defy the law‖ (56). Antigone replies ―I dared. It was not God‘s proclamations. That final Justice [emphasis added] that rules the world below makes no such laws‖ (57-58). As she is being sentenced to death, she says, ―I would not transgress the laws of heaven‖ (80). What opinion do we have from the Chorus, who often comment on the foolish ways of men? These comments seem contradictory. One comment is ―Reverence is a virtue, but strength lives in established law: that must prevail…‖ (4.45). Yet at the end of the play the Choragos sums up with ―there is no happiness where there is no wisdom; No wisdom but in submission to the gods‖ (4.139-140). Sophocles does not make the decision for or against civil laws versus higher (god‘s) law. Antigone chooses the laws of heaven (as she understands or interprets them), yet she dies. Creon chooses civil law (admittedly of his own making), yet he looses his family and leaves the stage a broken man. Who wins? Which set of laws prevails? What is justice in the setting of this play? It is easy to side with Antigone, the young girl, killed because of her devotion to her dead brother. It is more difficult to cheer for Creon; he appears to be a bully set on getting his own way and having complete power. Creon learns from his mistakes; Antigone is not allowed the time to learn from her mistakes. If Antigone had lived, at what point could the two of them sit down to a logical discussion in order to reach a compromise? Patricia Lines, writing for the National Humanities Institute, insists that success in politics (Antigone and Creon‘s dilemma is a political one) depends on compromise that comes from listening and persuading. Both parties must yield at times. The greatest obstacle to this process is hubris (excessive pride, arrogance) (1). Creon understands the needs of the polis (city) while Antigone ―recognizes the demands of true justice and champions it‖ (4). She is self-righteousness and fully self-centered (5). Antigone believes that she alone understands the highest meaning of justice. This is a personality trait usually shared by martyrs. Lines summarizes Antigone‘s position by reminding us ―it is a weakness of human beings to believe that, once they have access to one of God‘s truths, they know the full mind of God. From here it becomes ever so easy to mistake one‘s own will for the will of God‖ (8). The play about ancient Rome by William Shakespeare takes place about 400 years later (44 B.C.) after the time of the Antigone play. In Julius Caesar Shakespeare does not give us a history lesson as his first objective. Shakespeare is foremost an entertainer, a storyteller, a mixer of dramatic scenes filled with blood and the supernatural. An obvious discussion of justice is not to be found in the play. The readers/audiences will move with the emotions of the story, and, only later, they may sit back and wonder if the actions taken by the conspirators to murder Caesar were just. In contrast to the discussion of 4 justice in Antigone, where justice is debated between the civil and the moral laws, justice in Julius Caesar is defined as whoever has the power (or the sword or dagger) is on the side of justice. There is must talk of nobility and honor and the good of Rome, but where can we find a definition of justice outside of personal interpretation and personal power? The play opens with a discussion of loyalty. Should the crowds remain loyal to the former hero of the day Pompey, defeated by Caesar, or change their loyalty to Caesar? The answer seems to lie in the question of what is in this for me. Marullus scolds the commoners for cheering Caesar and asks what Caesar had done for Rome. He asks, ―What conquest brings he home? / What tributaries follow him to Rome/ To grace in captive bonds his chariot wheels?‖ (1.1.34-36). The scene is set for the conflict. Some Romans like Caesar; some wish to diminish his power. Marullus ends the scene with the threat to clip Caesar‘s wings and ―make him fly at an ordinary pitch‖ in order that he not ―keep us all in servile fearfulness‖ (1.1.74-77). The triumphant entry of Caesar on the stage is soon interrupted by the supernatural in the form of the Soothsayer who warns Caesar that he is in danger. In contrast to the laws of the gods in Antigone, this mystical warning speaks not of a higher law but only a convenient warning of personal danger. Caesar dismisses the warning as from a dreamer; he places no importance on the supernatural at this point. Cassius soon begins his clever persuasion of Brutus to convince him that Caesar is a danger to Rome. He praises Brutus telling him that Brutus does not know his own worth as Brutus is noble. Is this the political technique of listening, speaking, and compromise mentioned above? Are all political negotiations primarily an attempt to outwit your opponent verbally before his outwits you? Cassius wants Caesar to fall from power. He needs Brutus‘ participation, as Brutus‘ reputation will be good for public relations. Brutus does not need much prompting, as he seems already to be thinking about Caesar‘s lust for more power. As Brutus hears the people shout for Caesar offstage, he reveals, ―I do fear the people/ Choose Caesar for their king‖ (1.2.79-80). This does not seem to be a fear of loosing personal power as he is concerned about ―the general good,‖ yet he is not afraid of any action that may be of personal danger as he says ―For let the gods so speed me as I love/ The name of honor more than I fear death‖ (1.2.88-89). Shakespeare does not answer the question of why it is dishonorable to allow Caesar to be king. Historians will need to be consulted for background, but we will leave this point here for now. Brutus has called upon the gods to assist him. Is this to be taken as a call to a higher law? No, Brutus is the reasonable man making his decision about honor and as a side note requesting that the gods assist in the decision he has already made. Cassius continues his persuasion by saying that any fault in the lives of men lies in their own actions. He says ―Men at some time are masters of their fates./ The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, / But in ourselves, that we are underlings‖ (1.2.139-141). Solutions lie not in higher powers, higher laws, even astrological signs (stars), but in the decisions made by reasonable men. 5 Although Caesar expresses no concern of the Soothsayer‘s warning, he becomes suspicious of certain men around him. He does not want those around him to analyze his actions too much. Of Cassius he says, ―He thinks too much, such men are dangerous‖ (1.2.195). He does not trust Cassius as Cassius does not like to be around anyone greater than himself, but Caesar is not afraid as ―for always I am Caesar‖ (1.2.212). The sides of the conflict have now been decided—the powerful Caesar versus those afraid or jealous of his ambition. This play is full of signs and warnings. Storms threaten Rome in the night; fires and other strange scenes play out on the streets. Casca interprets these happenings as ―Either there is a civil strife in heaven, / Or else the world, too saucy with the gods, / Incenses them to send destruction‖ (1.i2.11-13). Why would the gods be angry? How is the world ―too saucy‖? Do the gods not approve of men taking power into their own hands? Are the gods angry with Caesar or those who would plot against him? Casca continues by saying ―It is the part of men to fear and tremble/ When the most mighty gods by tokens send/ Such dreadful heralds to astonish us‖ (1.3.54-56). Cassius will have nothing to do with such nonsense, as he is not waiting around for signs from the gods. Cassius maintains that men should only fear other men, such as Caesar as king. Such a situation means ―bondage‖ for Cassius (1.3.90). Act II finds Brutus in a personal debate over what to do about Caesar‘s ambition to be king. Brutus offers an explanation about why this ambition may be dangerous: ―The abuse of greatness is when is disjoins/ Remorse from power‖ (2.1.18-19). But he offers no proof that Caesar has no ―remorse,‖ no feeling for the people. In fact he says that Caesar appears to be the reasonable man. As he joins the conspirators, he insists that he does not act for personal gain, but out of necessity. He wishes to be considered a ―purger‖ not a murderer (2.1.178-180). Where is the Roman Senate in this debate? Decius tells Caesar ―the Senate have concluded/ To give this day a crown to mighty Caesar‖ (2.2.93-94). But remember Decius‘ purpose in his visit to Caesar. Through flattery he is to be sure that Caesar shows up at the Senate that day. Caesar does not comment on the crown business, but he hurriedly grabs his robe and heads out of the house. What do the gods think of Caesar as a king? Artemidorus‘ warning to Caesar asks, ―The mighty gods defend thee!‖ and hopes that Caesar will live, ―If not, the Fates with traitors do contrive‖ (2.3.9, 16). Does Artemidorus have a special relationship with the gods? No, he just wants his man to survive. If Caesar falls, the Fates (i.e. supernatural powers, gods, higher powers) are on the side of traitors. This all seems to be but the personal opinion of one man. Shakespeare only uses this character as a dramatic device to heighten the suspense of the plot. So why must Caesar be killed? He is ambitious, but so is Cassius. Does Caesar care for the people? Is he a just ruler, or will his death serve justice in Rome? Brutus has said that remorse removed from power is a danger. Look to Caesar‘s words to find where his heart lies. When he is petitioned to end the exile of Publius Cimber, he states that ―I 6 could be well moved, if I were as you [Cassius];/ If I could pray to move, prayers would move me;/ But I am constant as the Northern Star…‖ (3.1.58-59). So he is now removed from remorse; he will not be moved from his position regardless. He will not negotiate. He will not discuss. He has taken the same position as Creon. A successful ruler will command and his subjects will obey. Caesar is killed with cries of ―Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!‖ (3.1.78). This slogan of the Renaissance play of Shakespeare‘s will be heard again in the American and French Revolutions later in the eighteenth century. Would King Julius be any better than King Louis XVII or King George III, both of whom abused the power of a monarch? After Caesar‘s death, Brutus attempts to ―show the reason of our Caesar‘s death‖ (3.1.237). He does not wish to make the event one of emotion. But Antony will have none of this; he calls on Caesar‘s spirit to range for revenge and for a crying of ―Havoc‖ in Rome (3.1.270-74). Creon considered anarchy the worst of evils; Anthony now seeks to create anarchy to get revenge and also power for himself. The two famous speeches of Brutus and Antony over Caesar‘s body are great examples of political rhetoric. Each man tries to sway the crowds to his own position with use of both reason and emotion. Brutus uses the buzzwords of honor, ambitious, bondman, vile, and love of country. Antony speaks of ―noble Brutus,‖ as and ―honorable man.‖ Although Antony uses his words to fan the emotions of the crowd, he says of Caesar that ―He was my friend, faithful and just to me;‖ (3.2.87) and he says that in killing Caesar ―men have lost their reason!‖ (3.2.106). Antony offers no other reasons as to why Caesar is ―just‖; perhaps the emphasis is that Caesar was a friend to him (―just to me‖). Antony later reveals to the people that in Caesar‘s will they are left money and use of his private property as a park. Perhaps Caesar was generous; perhaps this was a political ploy. Act IV is the battle scene for political control of Rome. Antony and Octavius Caesar (Caesar‘s designated heir) side against Brutus and Cassius. Antony appears to share power in a triumvirate with Octavius and Lepidus. But Antony has no respect for Lepidus and uses Octavius for his name. Antony is following the same path of ambition as Caesar. He consolidates his power by putting to death one hundred senators. Brutus and Cassius fight among themselves over how to fight the battle. Brutus still believes his cause is noble and ―armed so strong in honesty‖ (4.3.66-67). The ghost of Caesar appears to Brutus to say that he is ―Thy evil spirit, Brutus‖ (4.3.284). The use of the word ―evil‖ is a condemnation of Brutus‘ actions. Where are political negotiations? Must all differences of opinions of the running of a state be settled with death of the opposition? Antony and Octavius do attempt to negotiate when they ―would parley.‖ Brutus asks for ―Words before blows‖ and says, ―Good words are better than bad stokes‖ (4.3.27, 4.3.29). But the negotiations do not succeed. Anthony wants blood to revenge Caesar‘s death. As the battle ensues, both Cassius and Brutus die by their own swords, as they fear their cause is lost. Speaking over Brutus‘ body, Antony 7 says, ―This was the noblest Roman of them all. / All the conspirators save only he/ did that they did in envy of great Caesar…‖ (5.5.68-70). We could hope Antony has fought Brutus in a search for justice. Brutus is a worthy adversary. Yet Antony reveals himself to be as ruthless as Caesar. He uses the triumvirate as a show of shared power. He kills senators whom he suspects as being disloyal to his cause. Perhaps he regrets that he is not as Brutus, for he knows his own motive to be personal and ambitious. Other Sources for Additional Background We sometimes hear the term ―character education‖ loosely thrown out as if this were a separate unit of study. A teacher of literature knows differently. Young people in a democratic society have a special need to understand the role of the character of justice in their world. A discussion of justice can begin with a brief introduction of what philosophy and history say about the subject. Teachers of the classics remind us ―that studying the Greek philosophers we are making contact with a culture other than our own and being forced to ask what we share with them and wherein we differ‖ (Nussbaum 5). The student who first studies Antigone can respond in many ways. The adolescent easily relates to a girl who stands up to authority and a boy who questions his father‘s reasoning. This is as good a place as any to enter the discussion. The teacher can then guide the discussion to a wider discussion of universal values. Men such as Plato and Socrates performed the job of public philosophers trying to ―clarify thinking on matters of public urgency (Nussbaum 6). The question of who receives the best justice in modern American society, both inside and outside the courtroom, is a relevant question. Highly televised cases such as the murder trial of O.J. Simpson or the impeachment trial of President Clinton are easy discussions. Almost everyone old enough to turn on a television set has an opinion on these cases. Courtroom justice is a familiar, though often uneven and unfair, process. But what sort of justice is being sought? Outside of the courtroom, justice can be economic or educational or any of several other areas were fairness is questioned. What then is a definition of justice? Plato recorded a discussion with Socrates in Book I of The Republic. Using his usual methods of discourse of asking questions and not giving answers, Socrates does not provide a final answer, but he does bring up some interested aspects of the question. Certain short excerpts from this book can be used as a handout for students to read and discuss to lay a foundation for this wider discussion. This handout can be found in Appendix A at the end of this paper. Justice is first defined as the repayment of debts; to do good is the debt the just man owes to friends and to do evil is the debt owed to enemies. One character in the story Thrasymahus says that justice is the interest of the strong (14). Creon and Caesar would agree with this definition. Different forms of government (tyrannies, democracies and aristocracies) are the ruling power of the States, and laws are made according to the interest of these States. A definition of justice might be what is the interest of the government. It may be just for the people to obey these laws, but can a ruler make a mistake with unfair laws? If a law is unjust and the people must obey the law anyway, then justice is the interest of the 8 stronger (Plato 15-16). In the end Socrates suggests that ―the relative nature of justice and injustice‖ leaves the concept open for further discussion (30). If the strong ruler allows no dissent from his laws, just or unjust, the people have no freedom to seek justice. How much personal freedom can a society allow before one agrees with Creon‘s cry against anarchy? One of the big questions of our modern world, per Isaiah Berlin in his essay on liberty, is still of obedience and coercion. A man who is coerced has lost freedom, but too much ― ‗natural‘ freedom would lead to chaos and the basic needs of the society might not be satisfied‖ (121-123). No one is completely free who lives in an organized society as there must be practical compromises (126). Neither Creon nor Antigone realizes this until it is too late. Antigone goes to her death allowing no practical compromise. In one sense she is the stoic as she withdraws from society. She denies herself the love of Haemon and of a future life when she chooses the death Creon offers. She seeks justice for Polyneices and in the process looses all personal liberty herself, unless death should be considered total freedom. Who should determine where the individual must compromise individual freedom for group security and functionality? Plato suggests that the strong will determine when and where this compromise will be made. If the individual does not realize the stated value in the compromise, coercion is required. What sort of man or woman would want to be the leader of coercion? Is coercion every rational? A theory is that reasonable people can come together to work out practical compromise. Haemon begs his father Creon to be a reasonable man; Creon argues that he is the stronger (the king), so he is not required to be reasonable. Antigone will not consider any justice by her own interpretation of higher laws. Ismene attempts to reason with her sister, but Antigone will not listen to her reasons. Cassius reasons with Brutus that Caesar is only a man such as they are. Cassius questions the reasoning that Caesar be allowed to become king, as Caesar will probably then take some power from Cassius. Yet after the death of Caesar, Rome has exchanged one strong man for another in Antony. Will Antony be a better strong man than Caesar? Will he be more just? Shakespeare does not answer these questions, but he continues to refer to Brutus as the noble and honorable man until the end of the play. There is irony in the play that Brutus, the good man, must be sacrificed for his noble motivation in order to rid Rome of the bad man Caesar. Who are the strong in both plays? Creon‘s coercion of Antigone for the good of the State ends with Creon‘s defeat. The conspirators against Caesar coerce him to their wills by killing him. Yet the conspirators do not win, and they are in turn coerced by a stronger man in Antony. Antigone and Brutus both win in a certain sense in their defiant response to higher laws (burial of the dead or honor to Rome). Even though their virtue brings their death, Sophocles and Shakespeare cause us to mourn their unnecessary deaths. Might does not always make right, but might often wins, at least temporally, over right. Although he does not use the word ―justice‖ as such, John Stuart Mill begins his famous essay On Liberty by posing the question of civil liberty or ―the nature and limits 9 of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual‖ (3). A paragraph from Chapter One of this essay is a good related reading for students and is included as Appendix B. In this excerpt Mills talks of liberty as ―protection against the tyranny of the political rulers‖ (3). He says that in old Greece and Rome, the contest between the ruler and subjects was antagonistic. In Shakespeare‘s play Brutus and Cassius are not happy with this contest; they see Caesar as winning the contest by becoming king of Rome with too much power. Shakespeare does not offer proof that Caesar as king would severely limit the individual freedom of the citizens of Rome. Cassius‘ arguments have more jealousy than reason behind them. The historic Caesar had performed well for the Roman Empire on the battlefield. He also was talented at political intrigue. In the play the senate is weak, as they seem to be ready to give more power to Caesar. There are no strong leaders ready to maintain Rome as a republic. The alternative offered by Mark Antony‘s triumvirate after Caesar‘s death is interested in the consolidation of its own power; it does not debate what is best for the people. Creon‘s son Haemon, on the other hand, does plead with his father to listen to reason and to the opinions of the people. Reason is offered as an alternative to tyranny. Mill says that there must be established constitutional checks to protect the people from the rulers. Antigone finds no check on Creon‘s powers. Although Rome had a senate, the senators seem to offer no check on Caesar‘s ambition either. HOW DOES THE UNIT RELATE TO THE STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES? As stated earlier, adolescents will respond best to literature when they can connect to their own experiences. As these students mature intellectually and emotionally, they will hopefully begin to ―connect the dots‖ of what they are taught in their various subjects with their own lives. At the tenth grade level, many high schools require students to study world history, which is a good background for these plays. In the lives of students outside of school at this time, fifteen year olds often take driver‘s education. Some get their driver‘s licenses during this year. When learning to drive, the young person runs straight into the basic rules of the state in the form of speed limits, traffic laws, and the awesome legal responsibility of what happens when one is involved in an automobile accident. Some begin to date and begin to question the norms of the culture toward sex. Some take part-time jobs only to find on their first paycheck that the government has the right to keep some of their hard-earned money. As more and more time is spent away from the rules of the family, the teenager discovers that these family rules are often reflections of the rules of the state. The psychological movement away from the family, as teenagers begin to form their own concept of self, is a natural part of development; however, they are still dependent economically and legally upon their parents. As they first experience the rules of the state, they can easily be led to a discussion of what right has the state to make rules, what are just rules, and when can or should the individual ignore the rules. As the students begin to discover their sense of personal justice, they can then discuss the broader concept of justice in a democracy in which they will be an active part in just two or three years when they can cast their vote for the first time. 1 0