power domination in albert camus’ - … · caligula is one of drama of ideas, the writer tries to...
TRANSCRIPT
POWER DOMINATION IN ALBERT CAMUS’
CALIGULA
A THESIS
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Sarjana Degree Majoring Literature in English Department
Faculty of Humanities Diponegoro University
Submitted by:
M. Luthfan Hanifi
NIM: A2B009072
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY
SEMARANG
2013
ii
PRONOUNCEMENT
The writer honestly confirms that he compiles this thesis by himself and
without taking any result from other researchers in S-1, S-2, S-3 and in diploma
degree of any university. The writer ascertains also that he does not quote any
material from other publications or someone‟s paper except from the references
mentioned.
Semarang, 18th
November 2013
M. Luthfan Hanifi
iii
MOTTO AND DEDICATION
They who put their name in History
Have chances to surrender easily
But they never take it, really!
Those what made them a History
- M. Luthfan Hanifi
This paper is dedicated to:
The world of science and literature.
iv
APPROVAL
Approved by,
Thesis Advisor
Dra. R. AJ. Atrinawati, M.Hum.
NIP. 19610101 199001 2 001
v
VALIDATION
Approved by
Strata 1 Thesis Examination Committee
Faculty of Humanities Diponegoro University
On 24th
December 2013
Chair Person
Drs. Siswo Harsono, M.Hum.
NIP. 19640418 199001 1 001
First Member Second Member
Dra. R. AJ. Atrinawati, M.Hum.
NIP. 19610101 199001 2 001
Eta Farmacelia N, S.S, M.Hum., M.A.
NIP. 19720529 200312 2 001
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Praise always be to God Almighty, who has given chances and times so
this thesis on “Power Domination on Albert Camus‟ Caligula” came to a
completion. On this occasion, the writer would like to thank all those people who
have contributed to the completion of the thesis.
The deepest gratitude and appreciation are extended to Dra. R. AJ.
Atrinawati, M.Hum. as his thesis advisor who has given her continuous guidance,
helpful correction, moral support, advice, and suggestion, without which it is
doubtful that this thesis came into completion.
The writer‟s deepest thank also goes to the following:
1. Dr. Agus Maladi Irianto, M.A., as the Dean of Faculty of Humanities
Diponegoro University
2. Sukarni Suryaningsih, S.S., M.Hum., as the Head of the English
Department, Faculty of Humanities Diponegoro University
3. Dra. Wiwiek Sundari M.Hum as his academic supervisor
4. Drs. Siswo Harsono, M.Hum as the chief of Literature section of English
Department, Diponegoro University.
5. I.M. Hendrati Ph.D as one of his lecturer.
6. Eta Farmacelia N, S.S, M.Hum., M.A. as one of his lecturer.
7. Furqon Abdi who has been his best advisor, senior, and precedent in his
study.
8. Faisal Fajar Nugroho who has been his senior and advisor.
vii
9. Rizqi Khalalia, Fahrudin Afendy, and Verawati Triastuti who support him
the whole time.
10. The people who always support the writer to complete this thesis.
The writer realizes that this thesis is far from perfect. The writer will be
glad to receive any constructive criticism and recommendation to make this thesis
better.
Finally, the writer expects that this thesis will be useful to the reader who
wishes to learn something about will to power especially in the case of the
practice in the society.
Semarang, 20th
November 2013
M. Luthfan Hanifi
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE ........................................................................................................ i
PRONOUNCEMENT ................................................................................... ii
MOTTO AND DEDICATION ..................................................................... iii
APPROVAL .................................................................................................. iv
VALIDATION ............................................................................................. v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................ vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................. viii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1
1.1 Background of the Study ................................................. 1
1.2. Scope of the Study .......................................................... 3
1.3. Research Problems ......................................................... 3
1.4. Objectives of the Study ................................................... 4
1.5. Method of the Study .......................................................
1.6. Writing Organization ......................................................
4
5
CHAPTER II AUTHOR AND HIS WORKS .............................................. 7
2.1. Albert Camus .................................................................... 7
2.2. Synopsis of Albert Camus‟ Caligula ............................... 9
CHAPTER III THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................ 11
3.1. Intrinsic Theory .............................................................. 11
3.1.1. Plot ............................................................................... 11
3.1.2. Character ...................................................................... 12
3.1.3. Symbol .......................................................................... 14
3.2. Friedrich Nietzsche‟s Will to Power ............................... 15
3.2.1. Decadence .................................................................... 15
3.2.2. Nihilism ....................................................................... 16
3.2.3. Value-Positer ................................................................ 18
3.2.4. The Will to Power ......................................................... 19
ix
CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 21
4.1. Analysis of Intrinsic Elements .......................................... 21
4.1.1. Plot ................................................................................ 21
4.1.2. Character ........................................................................ 29
4.1.3. Symbol ........................................................................... 39
4.2. Analysis of Will to Power ................................................ 42
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 50
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................
x
ABSTRACT
The thesis “Power Domination in Albert Camus‟ Caligula”
explores the concept of Nietzsche‟s “Will to Power” reflected in
Albert Camus‟ Caligula using the English version translated by
Block and Shedd from the French version. The purpose is to
analyze the domination of power by the characters in the play.
For the theory the writer uses plot, character, and symbol for the
intrinsic theory. For the methodology the writer uses library
research methodology and philosophical approach by using
Nietzsche‟s “Will to Power”. The characters analyzed in this
study are Caligula, Scipio, and Cherea. The study shows
Caligula‟s will to power is the most powerful as he succeeds to
pass the phases to will to power which are decadence, nihilism,
value-positer, and will to power. It can be concluded that
Caligula is the most dominant character and also the symbol of
power, and the play is a symbol of revolution.
Keywords: Character, Drama, Power, Symbol
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study
The play Caligula was written by Albert Camus in 1938. This play was
regarded as one of Camus‟ drama of ideas. It constituted the greatest work of
Albert Camus. There were many translations and changes of the play, as it was
expanded in 1945 and 1958. Eventhough the changes were minor and incidental,
according to Camus, the 1945 version seemed to be the best (Block, 1969: 817).
In 1938, the first version of Caligula had not been developed well. Camus
revised the text into the second version in 1945, at which the play was first
performed. Besides transforming the character of Caligula into a less admirable
person, the 1945 version focused on delineating the artistic superiority of the play.
The artistic change appeared again in 1958 as the third version, followed by the
diminution of the play‟s dramatic impact. From all of the three versions, Camus
regarded that the real Caligula was the 1945 version.
Similar with other literary works, Caligula was influenced by social
conflicts happening at the time this play was created. The author, Albert Camus,
was an activist against injustice. Many of his plays were voicing discontent to
government‟s injustice. This is why most of his plays were heavily voicing
violation and revolution. Caligula as the greatest work of Camus contains so
much ideas and truths of revolutionary act. Surprisingly, even the play is serious
2
and rich of ideas, the happy ending makes the play comical and can be categorized
as a comedy play.
Through his plays, Albert Camus put his ideas to echo his philosophy. He
saw revolutionary act as the way of gaining power. The using of power in
inappropriate way is the cause of revolution. Revolutionists, most of them are the
oppressed, think that they must gain the power to rule in appropriate way. The
effort is to dominate the power of the oppressors.
In Caligula, Albert Camus tried to show the truth of power between the
oppressor and the oppressed. The will to freedom or to escape from opression is
the will to power. When the knowledge leads to the truth, they who can not accept
the reality will try to change the future: to prevent the recent inacceptable
experiences from happening. This idea leads to the understanding that one who
wants to have the ability to rule or change things must previously have the
capability of taking control over the power.
The experience of being oppressed encourages the oppressed in taking
power over the oppressor. The oppressed which are previously being an object of
power, try to change the case to be the subject of power. The switch of being
controlled to be the controller allows the recent oppressed (which are now the
oppressor) to govern the upcoming things that are going to happen to them.
The moving of power from the oppressor to the oppressed will lead to the
other revolution. The recent oppressor (which is now the oppressed) will do the
same thing as the recent oppressed. This domination of power is just a cycle that
will be going on and on. The problem is not who is the oppressor or the
3
oppressed, but whoever gains the power has the ability to rule the upcoming
things with the consideration that things are going right.
The domination of power then becomes the conflict of Caligula. This comes
as the reason of the writer in compiling this study. Besides the consideration that
Caligula is one of drama of ideas, the writer tries to present the analysis of power
in Caligula using Nietzsche‟s “The Will to Power” in a study entitled “Power
Domination in Albert Camus‟ Caligula.”
1.2. Scope of the Study
In focusing the analysis of the study, the writer limits the discussion to come
to a specific explanation. By narrowing the study, the writer tries not to make the
discussion too general. The study itself will analyze Albert Camus‟ Caligula by
its intrinsic and extrinsic elements.
For the intrinsic elements, the writer will analyze through plot, character, and
symbol. For the extrinsic element, the writer uses Nietzsche‟s “The Will to Power”
concept. This is the only concept used by the writer in discussing the play. This
means the writer focuses the analysis only on how the will to power is represented
in Caligula and its characters.
1.3. Research Problems
The problems that will be discussed in this thesis are:
1. How the domination of power is shown in the play?
2. Who is the most dominant character in dominating the power and what are
his motives?
4
1.4. Objectives of the Study
The specific aims of this research are:
1. To explores the domination of power between characters in the play.
2. To find out the most dominant character and his motives in gaining the
power.
1.5. Method of the Study
The writer will use library research and philosphical approach. Library
research focuses on analyzing the object using written materials and sources.
philosophical approach concerns to the ideas of the object in the study. George in
her book, The Elements of Library Research says that library research is “an
investigation involving accepted facts, speculation, logical procedures rigorously
applied, verification, evaluation, repetition, and ultimately an interpretation of
finding that extends understanding” (2008: 22-23). Still in her book, she added
that library research “involves identifying and locating sources that provide
factual information or personal/expert opinion on a research question” (2008: 6).
Using this research method, the writer aims to collect all possible sources.
The sources are taken from the library and internet and they can be books, articles,
journals, essays, and all kinds of written materials supporting the writer‟s study.
From these sources, the writer can take any information, opinions, theories, and
concepts to support the study.
Philosophical approach used by the writer focuses on the idea contained in
the work of literature. Wellek and Warren noted in their Theory of Literature:
“THE relation between literature and ideas can be conceived in very diverse ways.
5
Frequently literature is thought of as a form philosophy, as „ideas‟ wrapped in
form; and it is analysed to yield „leading ideas‟ ” (1973: 110). This means that
literature as art contains ideas. Using this approach, the writer will analyze the
play by philosophy ideas contained in the object. The library research will help
the writer to understand more so the writer can analyze the „leading ideas‟ of the
play. However, literature is not only a work of art, but also a work of ideas.
1.6. Writing Organization
The followings are how the organization of the research:
1. Chapter I: Introduction
In this chapter, the writer will tell the background of studying Caligula as
the greatest work of Camus containing ideas. This chapter also tells the research
problems discussed in this study is the power domination in the play based on
Nietzsche‟ “The Will to Power” concept. The method of approach used in this
study is objective approach because the analysis of the theory will be drawn from
the play itself.
2. Chapter II: The Author and His Work
In this chapter, the writer discusses the biography of Albert Camus as the
author of many plays full of ideas. It also presents the summary of Albert Camus‟
Caligula as the object in this study.
6
3. Chapter III: Theoretical Framework
This chapter will contain the intrinsic and extrinsic theory used by the
writer. For the intrinsic theory, the writer uses plot, character, and symbol. The
writer uses “The Will to Power” by Friedrich Nietzsche for the extrinsic theory.
4. Chapter IV: Analysis
This chapter contains the analysis of the intrinsic and extrinsic analysis of
Caligula. It is also the main part of this thesis discussing the power domination
shown in Caligula. How the characters are motivated in gaining and dominating
the power in the play will be discussed in this part. The theory used in this
discussion is Friedrich Nietzsche‟s “The Will to Power”
5. Chapter V: Conclusion
The last chapter of the paper is the conclusion of the writer after analyzing
Caligula. It concludes the result of the analysis about how the power domination
is shown and who is the most dominant character of the play.
7
CHAPTER II
AUTHOR AND HIS WORKS
2.1. Albert Camus
Albert Camus (1913-1960) is a writer, novelist, and dramatist. He has been
considered as one of the greatest contributors of modern theatre. His love in the
world of theatre starts from the beginning of his literary career. His works are well
known as intellectual vigor and stylistic brilliant. Many of his play interpreters say
that his works along with his plays are lively demonstrating philosophical thought
(Block, 1969: 817).
Camus looks toward the art of writing as a philosophical quest to determine
the meaning of life. He stands with other French writers responding to a challenge
of existential thought. Converting thoughts to concrete expressions on his plays,
Camus‟ play are well known as the drama of ideas (Block, 1969: 817).
Young 21 old years Camus was a participant of intellectual and artistic life
of Algiers before he joined the Communist party in 1934. His moving to
Communist party was led by his passionate hatred of injustice. Not long in the
Communist party, Camus founded the Theatre du Travail and joined them with
similar revolutionary persuasion (Block, 1969: 817).
Theatre du Travail or Workers‟ Theatre was directed to a proletarian
audience in the need of social and political importance. Young Camus participated
in a number of plays. He participated as well as the playwright, the actor, the
scene designer, the director, and the manager (Block, 1969: 817).
8
Revolt in the Asturias (1936) was the first play of Camus. The play was
drawn from the rebellion of Spanish miners in 1934. The play was about the set
up of a socialist state in Oviedo after the succession of the rebels which crushed
two weeks later by the government troops. The tragedy in Oviedo prefigures
things Camus was to write. This also led Camus into a theatre experiment by
setting up the place around the audience, arranging the stage in two levels, and
changing the scene design through the manipulation of lights. The experiment was
considered as a failure by Camus (Block, 1969: 817).
Caligula (1938), a drama rich in ideological textures, was consented to be
the best of Camus‟ plays. The drama was related to The Myth of Sisyphus which
presented the analysis of the absurdity of life. Caligula is not a cold abstract
intellectual play, but an animated play of concrete and visual conception of drama.
The text of 1938 then expanded in 1945 and 1958, which Camus considered the
1945 version to be the best (Block, 1969: 817).
Caligula stated as the greatest achievement of Camus, but his other plays
and adaptations are also remarkable dramatizations of violence and death. They
are The Misunderstanding (1944), State of Siege (1948), The Just Assassins
(1949) (Block, 1969: 818).
Camus spent his last decade of his life to continue his work in theatre as an
adapter, translator, and director. He was on his work on Don Juan at the time of
his death at the age of 46. Camus‟ drama is not only a play but also his vehicle to
his philosophy; furthermore it is a vivid and impassioned expression of the agony
and grandeur of human life (Block, 1969: 818).
9
2.2. Synopsis of Albert Camus’ Caligula
The play opens with some gathering patricians in the state room of the
imperial palace. The patricians are worried of their emperor since the emperor has
been missing in the last three days. Some of them even think that the emperor will
not come back to the palace and they have to find the successor. The emperor is
known leaving the palace after the death of Drussila, both his lover and his sister.
The conclusion made by the patricians is that the emperor was too much on
mourning Drussila‟s death. After a moment of argumentation, the guardsman
enters the room and says that the emperor was seen in the palace gardens. All
patricians leave the room, except Helicon. A second later, Caligula enters the
room and silences for a moment of seeing Helicon. After they greet each other,
they have a little conversation of Caligula‟s leaving. Caligula tells Helicon that he
was searching for the moon in the days of his absence.
The conversation is over as Caligula hears footsteps and voices and then
leaves the room and orders Helicon to say nothing of his presence. Enters Scipio
and Caesonia to the room asking Helicon whether he met Caligula or not. Not
long after that, Caligula enters the stage again, now he takes some backward steps
with some hesitation by seeing Scipio and Caesonia. Patricians followed by the
intendant enter the room from the opposite side where Caligula enters. After a few
moment of some argumentation with the intendant, Caligula gathers all men in the
room before him and Caesonia beside him. He orders all the people to look at him
and the mirror behind his standing, making the people in the room horrified.
10
Three years later, after some change of Caligula‟s way of thinking and even
his attitude, there happens a secret meeting in a room of Cherea‟s house. They are
arguing each other whether they have to fight back or not and making up a plot
against Caligula, the mad emperor. In three years, he becomes a crazy tyrant;
killing people as he wants, taking people‟s wives, and even confiscated people‟s
property. Caligula did all of this without certain reasons. In fact, Caligula made up
a plot in changing the world.
One day, Caligula gathers the patricians and judges them of having a plot
against him. On the other day, he gathers the public and come out as Venus, one
of their gods. Scipio, the young man whose father was killed by Caligula, feels
unbearable of seeing Caligula‟s violence actions. He makes up with Cherea and
the patricians. Their motives is clear; to kill the crazy emperor. Scipio is chosen to
be the dagger‟s bearer, the front man of revolution. In the day everything is set up,
the revolution begins. The revolution ended with the death of Caesonia in the
hand of Caligula, and the death of Caligula in Scipio‟s hand, screaming out loud
that he still alive.
11
CHAPTER III
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1. Intrinsic Theory
3.1.1. Plot
One of drama elements to analyze in this paper is plot. A play, as prose and
novel, also has a plot. The plot leads the characters and the story to a certain
situation. Through the plot, the author decides how he wants to introduce the
characters and the conflicts, then how the climax of the problem is represented
until a resolution is shown.
The definition of plot itself was explained by Hamilton in A Manual of The
Art of Fiction:
The word plot signifies a weaving together; and a weaving together
presupposes the coexistence of more than one strand. The simplest form of
plot, properly so called, is a weaving together of two distinct series of
events; and the simplest way of weaving them together is by so devising
them... a single momentous event which stands therefore at the apex of each
series (1918: 67).
In other words, the word “plot” is a series of events which are bound by
continuance of the same character. These events stand by themselves, and the
order can be rearranged. It is no matter how the events are arranged as the events
stand independently. The plot on plays as well as novels is constructed this way.
Still in his A Manual of The Art of Fiction, Hamilton adds: “If the actors, in
performing either of these plays, should omit one or two units of the sausage-
string of incidents, the audience would not become aware of any gap in structure”
(1918: 66-67).
12
The string continuity of the plot structure leads to the variety of arranging
the events as long as the string is not broken. Many authors construct their plot in
chronological succession or in other words forward plot. This plot is constructed
from causes to effects. The opposite of this kind of plot, a backward plot, is
constructed from effects to causes while pointing on the logical sequence instead
of chronological succession. According to Hamilton in his A Manual of The Art of
Fiction, there are two kinds of author: “Author with synthetic minds will more
naturally reason from causes to effects; and author with analytic minds will more
naturally reason from effects to causes. The former will construct forward through
time, the latter backward” (1918: 62-63).
There is no certain construction to the plot structure whether it is arranged in
forward or backward plot. The only matter of plot construction is how the events
can synchronize each other in a certain string and weave together.
3.1.2. Character
As well as in novels, characters also used in plays. The difference is in
novel, the characters are described through texts and various points of view while
in plays the characters are performed by the actors or actresses on the stage. Also,
in plays, the characters are described through actions, dialogue, or even the
narrator. The duty of actors or actresses in performing the play is: to bring the
characters to a live demonstration of the play, acting as it is happened on the
actual moment. In The Elements of Drama, Styan defines character in the play as:
In drama „character‟ is not an author‟s raw material: it is his product. It
emerges from the play; it is not put into it. It has an infinity of subtle uses,
but they all serve in the orchestration of the play as a whole; and so
13
character finds this place in the scheme. ... We talk about what we are more
sure of: human qualities and attributes (1963: 163).
To bring a lively character in plays is not an easy task. Actors or actresses
should give qualities and attributes to the characters they performed. The total
comprehension of actors and actresses decides whether the characters are well
performed or not. The staging direction which differ plays to other literary works
helps actors and actresses to conceive the characters‟ qualities. This comes as an
author duty since actors and actresses are the author‟s product.
However, a well performed character must be convincing to the audience. It
is not only how a character is performed, but also how far the character leads the
audience through the story. Styan added more as he quoted Professor L.C.
Knights in his The Elements of Drama: “character was „merely an abstraction
from the total response in the mind of the reader or spectator‟.” (1963: 164).
For the characters, there are two sorts of characters based on how they are
performed throughout the play. The round or in other word dynamic or kinetic
character, and the flat or static character are two sorts we can find in a novel or a
play. Hamilton had explained this in his book A Manual of The Art of Fiction: “...
Characters which may be called static, and which may be called kinetic. The first
remain unchanged throughout the course of the story: the second grow up or
down, as the case may be, through the influences of circumstances, of their wills,
or of the wills of other people” (1918: 82).
The determination of these two sorts of characters can be considered
through the delineation of the characters throughout the story. There are two kinds
of delineation according to A Manual of The Art of Fiction; direct and indirect.
14
For further, it is explained that the direct delineation can be determined by:
Exposition, Description, Psychological Analysis, and Reports From Other
Characters. While the indirect delineation can be determined by: Speech, Action,
Effect on Other Characters, and Environment (Hamilton, 1918: 83-98).
3.1.3. Symbol
Drama as literature sometimes contains symbols as in other literary works.
The use of language in drama, dialogue or monologue, is more than ordinary
conversation. The dialogue or monologue contains something deeper than in its
meaning. On the stage, this kind of conversation assumes general and typical.
According to Brown and Olmsted in Language and Literature, language itself is a
symbol, as they say: “that language occupies a special place among modes of
symbolism is fairly obvious” (1962: 34).
The symbols on drama itself, not only can be found on dialogue or
monologue, but other elements also such as actions, settings, situations, and so on,
as said by Roberts and Jacobs in Literature: An Introduction to Reading and
Writing: “In drama, as in fiction and poetry, the meaning of a symbol extends
beyond its surface meaning ... Dramatic symbols, which can be characters,
settings, objects, actions, situations, or statements, can be both cultural or
contextual” (2007: 1271-1272).
Those elements on drama may contain symbolic meaning as it is performed
on the stage. The symbolic meaning can be interpreted by the unusual role of the
elements.
15
3.2. Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Will to Power
The will to power is a concept of mastery posited by Friedrich Nietzsche.
The will to having power appears after knowledge. There is a link between
yearning for power and yearning for knowledge. The search of truth or the will to
truth then becomes the aim of knowledge.
When we come to an understanding of the world by having knowledge, we
try to signify the world by fixing the meanings in things or the so called values.
We always seek the truth of things and regard all things through values. This leads
to the determination of meaningful or meaningless things: which thing is
meaningful and which is not.
Toward an understanding of will to power, there are phases before it comes
to will to power. The first phase is decadence. The second phase is nihilism.
Value-positer stands as the third phase and the last phase is will to power itself.
The explanation of each phase can be seen below:
3.2.1. Decadence
Decadence as the first phase is a state of demoralisation. Every society tries
to avoid decadence. The society or the herd determines the value judgment – to
avoid social distress and decadence. Decadence is not to be avoided as it is
necessary and belongs to every age and every people. Nietzsche described it in his
Der Wille zur Macht which has been translated by Kaufmann and Hollingdale
entitled The Will to Power:
Decadence itself is nothing to be fought: it is absolutely necessary and
belongs to every age and every people. What should be fought vigorously is
the contagion of the healthy parts of the organism. Is this being done? The
16
opposite is done. Precisely that is attempted in the name of humanity
(Nietazsche, 1968: 25-26).
The attempts of the herd is to predominance the weak, so the decadence could be
avoided instead of letting it happen as it is necessary; again in the name of
humanity. They seek for the social relief in which means “absolute obedience,
machinelike activity, avoidance of people and things that would demand instant
decisions and actions” (Niestzsche, 1968: 28).
There is something that was missed by the herd. They had mistaken the
weak for the strong. This is caused by the fear excited by the weak or the
exhausted when they come up in highest energy. Nietzsche explained this case:
“They [the exhausted] excited fear, – The cult of the fool is always the cult of
those rich in life, the powerful” (Niestzsche, 1968: 30).
Nietzsche then added:
“This kind of strength that excites fear was considered pre-eminently
divine: here was the origin of authority; here one interpreted, heard, sought
wisdom. – This led to the development. Almost everywhere, of a will to
“deify”... an attempt to find the way to this higher level of being‟
(Niestzsche, 1968: 30).
This will to deify leads the weak to gain power. To approach a higher level
of being, a powerful one, nihilism appears.
3.2.2. Nihilism
In the second phase, nihilism appears. What is nihilism and the definition of
nihilism itself is explained by Nietzsche: “That the highest values devaluate
themselves” (Niestzsche, 1968: 9). In other words it can be said the degeneration
or the loss of values in things, from the meaningful one to the meaningless one.
17
The degeneration or even the loss of values is caused by “social distress” or
“physiological degeneration”, skepticism, Christianity, science, way of thinking in
politics and economics, historiography, and even art (Niestzsche, 1968: 7-8). All
of these lead to nihilism as moral valuation or value judgment appears in these
aspects.
When one tried to valuate moral interpretation of the world and ended up in
a conclusion that everything is lack of meaning, he was led to nihilism. As said by
Nietzsche: “ “Everything lacks meaning” (the untenability of one interpretation of
the world, upon which a tremendous amount of energy has been lavished,
awakens the suspicion that all interpretations of the world are false)” (Niestzsche,
1968: 7).
The belief that all interpretations are false is the case of nihilism. Upon this
case, there is radical nihilism. Radical nihilism includes realization in the addition
of nihilism. Nietzsche explained radical nihilism as:
The conviction of an absolute untenability of existence when it comes to the
highest values one recognizes; plus the realization that we lack the least
right to posit a beyond or an in-itself of things that might be “divine” or
morally incarnate. This realization is a consequence of the cultivation of
“truthfulness” – thus itself a consequence of the faith in morality
(Niestzsche, 1968: 9).
The realization that we lack of right to posit a beyond or in-itself of things
points to meaninglessness or „valuelessness‟, in which caused by moral value
judgment, preserves one to the will to existence. Nietzsche pointed this out:
“Moral value judgements are ways of passing sentence, negations; morality is a
way of turning one’s back on the will to existence” (Niestzsche, 1968: 11).
18
In addition, Nietzsche claims that meaninglessness or „valuelessness‟ – in
which one realizes that the attempts to render the world estimable is inapplicable
and devaluate the world – is the result of perspective utility. This perspective is
designed to maintain and increase human constructs of domination (Niestzsche,
1968: 14).
3.2.3. Value-Positer
The will to existence later becomes the will to dominate. How it comes to
the will to dominate begins with the phrase „value-positer‟ as Nietzsche explained
the extreme nihilism:
That there is no truth, that there is no absolute nature of things nor a “thing-
in-itself”. This, too, is merely a nihilism–even the most extreme nihilism. It
places the value of things precisely in the lack of any reality corresponding
to these values and in their being merely a symptom of strength on the part
of the value-positers (Niestzsche, 1968: 14)
Still in the matter of „value-positer‟, Nietzsche added: “Values and their
changes are related to increases in the power of those positing the value
(Niestzsche, 1968: 14). This means, the changes and interpretations of values
obviously depend on those positing the value. The increase of power of the
„value-positer‟ gets along with the increase of one‟s ability to positing the values.
It is important to know who the „value-positers‟ are. They are the herd – the
society. The society values or so called moral values are values posited by the
society. Which one is good and which one is bad. The religion, science, art, etc.
are kinds of society positing the values.
19
3.2.4. The Will to Power
The will to power appears as the last phase. The exhausted encouraged by
morality will try to gain power. This morality protects the exhausted from despair
and nothingness. It generates the most desperate embitterment against existence.
The experience of being powerless encouraged and strengthened their will to
power. In this case the oppressed realized that they were in the same position as
the oppressors, but without prerogative and higher rank.
According to Nietzsche, the will to power of the exhausted will lead to
freedom. As Nietzsche explained: “For those who lack freedom. On the first stage
one demands justice from those who are in power. On the second stage, one
speaks of “freedom” – that is, one wants to get away from those in power”
(Niestzsche, 1968: 53-54). These are what the oppressed or the exhausted after.
They seek for justice in order to be free – freedom. This freedom will release them
from those who are in power. Those who have the freedom have the possibility to
reach their ideals.
The one who will have this opportunity is the strongest – the most moderate.
As explained by Nietzsche:
The most moderate; those who do not require any extreme articles of faith;
those who not only concede but love a fair amount of accidents and
nonsense; those who can think of man with considerable reduction of his
value without becoming small and weak on that account: those richest in
health who are equal to most misfortunes and therefore not so afraid of
misfortunes – human beings who are sure of their power and represent the
attained strength of humanity with conscious pride (Niestzsche, 1968: 38-
39).
20
The strongest represents the most powerful, the fittest. It means the consciousness
of the will to power. As it is said, the changes of values lie on the increasing
power in a hand of „value-positer‟. Rivkin and Ryan added in their Literary
Theory, An Anthology: “It is a measure of the degree of strength of will to what
extent one can do without meaning in things, to what extent one can endure to live
in a meaningless world because one organizes a small portion of it oneself . . .”
(2004: 270).
All of these lead to one will then: the will to power. Even Nietzsche had
made it clear as he said: “There is nothing to life that has value, except the degree
of power – assuming that life itself is the will to power” (Niestzsche, 1968: 37).
21
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS
4.1. Analysis of Intrinsic Elements
4.1.1. Plot
As other literary works such as short story and novel, a drama has a plot for
its structure. The plot itself contains five elements. These five elements are:
introduction (or exposition), conflict (or rising action), climax, falling action, and
resolution. A forward plot is arranged straight from introduction to resolution
meanwhile a backward plot is arranged straight from resolution back to
introduction.
In this case, Caligula is arranged by a forward plot. The play is opened by
the gathering of the patricians in the state room of the palace. They signed the
expressions of nervousness. This scene constituted the introduction of the play.
This introduction came as a stage direction and invited the audience to understand
the current condition: “A number of patricians, one a very old man, are gathered
in a state room of the imperial palace. They are showing signs of nervousness”
(Camus, 1969: 819).
The introduction was meant to give audience information about the
background of the play. From the stage direction above, the setting of the
introduction is in a palace. This means that the story of the play will be more or
less about the royal court. Further in the play, the problem that was bothering the
22
patricians was explained in their conversation. They were worrying the emperor,
Caligula, who had been missing for three days. Below is the conversation among
the patricians about the missing Caligula:
SECOND PATRICIAN Three days without news. Strange indeed!
... THE OLD PATRICIAN When I saw him leaving the palace, I
noticed a queer look in his eyes.
FIRST PATRICIAN Oh, come now! All young fellows are like
that.
... THE OLD PATRICIAN You‟re right there. They take things hard.
But time smooths everything out. ... For one girl died, a dozen living ones.
(Camus, 1969: 819).
For now, the audience understands that there is a kingdom which its
emperor, Caligula, was missing. As the conversation continued, it eventually led
the audience to another exposition. The latter conversation introduced Cherea. It
also explained the reasons why Caligula was leaving. The conversation can be
seen below:
HELICON Ah? So you think that there‟s a girl behind
it?
FIRST PATRICIAN What else should there be? Anyhow –thank
goodness!- grief never lasts forever. Is any one of us here capable of
mourning loss for more than a year on end?
... THE OLD PATRICIAN Life would be intolerable if one could
... CHEREA I don‟t like the look of things. But all was
going too smoothly. As an emperor, he was perfection‟s self.
SECOND PATRICIAN Yes, exactly the emperor we wanted;
conscientious an inexperienced.
FIRST PATRICIAN But what‟s come over you? There‟s no
reason for all these lamentations. We‟ve no ground for assuming he wil
change. Let‟s say he loved Drussila. Only natural; she was his sister. Or say
his love for her was something more that brotherly; shocking enough, I
23
grant you. But it‟s really going too far, setting all Rome in turmoil because
the girl has died. (Camus, 1969: 819-820).
The conversation provides more understanding for the audience. The
previous stage direction only explained that the setting is in a palace. The current
conversation adds more specific details that it was a Rome palace of Roman
empire. The emperor, Caligula was leaving for three days because of her sister
death, Drussila.
Actually, even the introduction is clear enough for the audience thus far, but
the play tells more. As the patricians were worrying about the missing Caligula,
their anxiousness grows to worry that Caligula does not come back. They finally
think to find a successor if their anxiousness become true. Here is their
conversation:
CHEREA At his age, perhaps; but not in his position.
An artistic emperor is an anomaly. I grant you we‟ve had one or two; misfits
happen in the best of empires. But the others had the good taste to remember
they were public servants.
... THE OLD PATRICIAN One man, one job – that‟s how it should be.
... SECOND PATRICIAN We can only wait. If he doesn‟t
return, a successor will have to be found. Between ourselves – there‟s no
shortage of candidates.
... FIRST PATRICIAN (Laughing) In that case, my friend, don‟t
forget I once wrote a manual of revolutions. You‟ll find all the rules there.
CHEREA I‟ll look it up – if things come to that. But
I‟d rather be left to my books. (Camus, 1969: 820).
The introduction scene was over and turned to the conflict from this point.
Conflict is the part when the main character must deal with the problems. When
Caligula as the main character first appeared to the stage stealthily, the conflict
24
begins. The conflicts of Caligula seem to be a little complicated. He found out
that he wants the moon, something that is impossible to get. This was described
by Caligula when he talked to Helicon right after helicon caught him entering the
room stealthily:
CALIGULA It was hard to find.
... HELICON Meaning?
CALIGULA (In the same matter-of-fact tone) The moon.
HELICON What?
CALIGULA Yes I wanted the moon. (Camus, 1969: 820).
The problem is not that Caligula simply wants the moon, but he wants more
than that. The death of Drussila seems to have led Caligula to a new
understanding. The conversation continued:
... CALIGULA ... Now, listen! I‟m not mad; in fact I‟ve
never feel so lucid. What happened to me is quite simple; I suddenly felt a
desire for the impossible. That‟s all. (Pauses) Things as they are, in my
opinion are far from satisfactory.
HELICON Many people share your opinion.
CALIGULA That is so. But in the past I didn‟t realize it.
Now I know. (Still in the same matter-of-fact tone) Really, this world of
ours, the scheme of things as they call it, is quite intolerable. That‟s why I
want the moon, or happiness, or eternal life – something, in fact, that may
sound crazy, but which isn‟t of this world. (1969: 820-821).
Caligula wanted the moon because he thought things are far from
satisfactory and intolerable. He wanted the moon which he also called it happiness
or eternal life. The way that Caligula thought of to reach his obsession is to follow
his ideas to the end. As said by Caligula in his conversation with Helicon:
25
HELICON That‟s sound enough in theory. Only, in
practice one can‟t carry it through to its conclusion.
CALIGULA (Rising to his feet, but still with perfect
calmness) You‟re wrong there. It‟s just because no one dares to follow up
his ideas to the end that nothing is achieved. All that‟s needed, I should say,
is to be logical right through, at all costs. ... What a fuss over a woman‟s
death. ... I seem to remember that a woman died some days ago; a woman
whom I loved. ... And I swear to you her death is not the point; it‟s no more
than the symbol of a truth that makes the moon essential to me.
... HELICON May I know what it is, this truth that you‟ve
discovered?
CALIGULA (His eyes averted, in a toneless voice) men
die; and they are not happy.
HELICON (After a short pause) Anyhow, Caligula, it‟s
a truth with which one comes to terms, without much trouble. Only look at
the people over there. This truth of yours doesn‟t prevent them from
enjoying their meal.
CALIGULA (With sudden violence) All it proves is that
I‟m surrounded by lies and self-deception. But I‟ve had enough of that; I
wish men to live by the light of truth. And I‟ve the power to make them do
so. For I know what they need and haven‟t got. They‟re without
understanding and they need a teacher; someone who knows what he‟s
talking about (Camus, 1969: 821).
The introduction scene gave an impression that Caligula‟s conflict is the
death of Drussila. He negated that his conflict is Drussila‟s death in the
conversation above. The conflict is what come after that; the truth, the
understanding that men die and they are not happy, so he wants the moon. As
Helicon said that the truth does not bother the people, Caligula called it a proof of
lies and self-deception.
Caligula wished all men to live by light of truth. He thought that someone
had to teach the people realizing the truth, someone who knows what people need
26
and what they have to get. The one that he meant was himself as he believes that
he had the power to do so.
So far, the conflicts of Caligula seemed to be complicated enough, but all of
these things have not been explained yet. Later in the play, Caligula stated more
problems in his conversation with Cæsonia. He felt that he is in a state of
becoming a man. He also added that he wants not only the moon, but a position
higher than the gods. As it is presented in the play:
CALIGULA Men weep because . . . the world‟s all
wrong. (She comes toward him)
... CÆSONIA ... At my age one knows that life‟s a sad
bussiness. But why deliberately set out to make it worse?
CALIGULA No, it‟s no good; you can‟t understand. ...
Only, I feel a curios stirring within me, as if undreamed of things were
forcing their way up into the light – and I‟m helpless against them. (He
moves closer to her) ... I fancied it was a sickness of the mind – no more. ...
I‟ve only to stir my tongue, and the world goes black, and everyone looks . .
. horrible. How hard, how cruel it is, this process of becoming a man!
... CÆSONIA So one always thinks when one is overtired.
A time comes when one‟s hand is firm again.
CALIGULA ... what‟s the use to me of a firm hand, what
use is the amazing power that‟s mine, if I can‟t have the sun set in the east,
if I can‟t reduce the sum of suffering and make an end of death? No,
Cæsonia, it‟s all one whether I sleep or keep awake, if I‟ve no power to
tamper with the scheme of things.
CÆSONIA But that‟s madness, sheer madness. It‟s
wanting to be a god on earth.
CALIGULA ... what is a god that I should wish to be his
equal? No, it‟s something higher, far above the gods, that I‟m aiming at,
longing for with all my heart and soul. I am taking over a kingdom where
the impossible is king.
CÆSONIA You can‟t prevent the sky from being the
sky, or a fresh young face from aging, or man‟s heart from growing cold.
27
CALIGULA (With rising excitement) I want . . . I want to
drown the sky in the sea, to infuse ugliness with beauty, to wring a laugh
from pain.
CÆSONIA (Facing him with an imploring gesture)
There‟s good and bad, high and low, justice and injustice. And I swear to
you these will never change.
CALIGULA (In the same tone) And I‟m resolved to
change them ... when the impossible has come to earth and the moon is in
my hands – then, perhaps, I shall be transfigured and the world renewed;
then men will die no more and at last be happy. (Camus, 1969: 823).
As it can be seen in the conversation, Caligula seems to have a perspective
that the world is improper. There are intolerable things that he wanted to change.
He planned to change the scheme of things as he felt that there is no use of his
power if he can not intervene to the scheme of things.
At this point, the audience was given some knowledge about Caligula‟s
conflicts. He wanted the moon. He wanted to open his people eyes to the truth of
the world. He was in a process of becoming a man, in which he called it a
sickness of mind. Last, he wanted to be higher than the gods.
The conflicts grow in three years before it comes to a climax. In these three
years, many changes have been made by Caligula. His obsession has made him a
tyrant king. This triggers Cherea and the others to make a plot against Caligula,
adding more conflicts for Caligula.
However, what presented in act two and act three were just samples of
Caligula‟s madness. The climax itself can be found in act four. The climax is the
point where the main character faces the conflicts directly. In Caligula, the climax
28
is the part when Caligula is slaughtered by Cherea and Scipio after he choked
Cæsonia to death. As it is presented in the play:
CALIGULA (Gradually tightening his grip on
CÆSONIA’s throat) Happiness it is, Cæsonia; I know what I‟m saying. But
for this freedom I‟d have been a concented man. Thanks to it, I have won
the godlike enlightenment of the solitary. (His exaltation grows as little by
little he strangles CÆSONIA, who puts up no resistance, but hold her hands
half opened, like a suppliant’s, before her. Bending his head, he goes on
speaking, into her ear) I live, I kill, I exercise the rapturous power of a
destroyer, compared with which the power of a creator is merest child‟s
play. And this, this is happiness; this and nothing else
... CALIGULA (More and more excitedly) ... I must have
done with it, for the time is short. My time is very short, dear Cæsonia.
(CÆSONIA is gasping, dying. CALIGULA drags her to the bed and lets her
fall on it. He stares wildly at her; his voice grows harsh and grating) You,
too, were guilty. ... (He spins round and gazes crazily at the mirror)
Caligula! You, too; you, too, are guilty. ... Yet who can condemn me in this
world where there is no judge, where nobody is innocent? (He brings his
eyes close to his reflected face. He sounds genuinely distressed) ... I won‟t
have the moon. ... Listen! That was a sound of weapon. Innocence arming
for the fray – and innocence will triumph. ... Still, no matter. Fear, too, has
an end. Soon I shall attain that emptiness beyond all understanding, in
which the heart has rest. (He steps back a few paces, then return to the
mirror. He seems calmer. When he speaks again his voice is steadier, less
shrill)
... What human heart, what god, would have for me the depth of a great
lake? (Kneeling, weeping) There‟s nothing in this world, or in the other,
made to my stature. And yet I know, and you, too, know (Still weeping, he
stretches out his arms toward the mirror) that all I need is for the impossible
to be. The impossible! ... Oh, how oppressive is this darkness! ... we shall be
forever guilty. ... (A clash of arms and whispering are heard in the wings.
CALIGULA rises, picks up a stool, and return to the mirrors, breathing
heavily. He contemplates himself, makes a slight leap forward, and,
watching the symmetrical movement of his reflected self, hurls the stool at
it, screaming) To history Caligula! Go down to history! (The mirror breaks
and at the same moment armed conspirators rush in. CALIGULA swings
round to face them with a mad laugh. SCIPIO and CHEREA, who are in
front, fling themselves at him and stab his face with their daggers.
CALIGULA’s laughter turns to gasps. All strike him, hurriedly, confusedly.
In a last gasp, laughing and choking, CALIGULA shrieks) I‟m still alive!
(Camus, 1969: 839-840).
29
The climax seemed to be ironic. Caligula finally knows that he will never
get the moon in his hands or being higher than gods. He can not find the
impossible. He was wrong all the time. His efforts were useless as he can not
reach what he wants. This reality led him to choke Cæsonia to death.
Right after Cæsonia died, he heard sounds of the weapon and army of
revolution. He knew his time is short as the revolutionary approaching. This is a
judgment for him. Cherea and Scipio as the frontline were ready to assassinate
him. They slaughtered and stabbed Caligula‟s face. It is surprising that Caligula
seemed to be ready to accept his end. It is more like Caligula knew what will
happen. He even screamed that he is still alive while he is gasping to death.
After Caligula died, the scene was over. The tragic death of Caligula ends
the play. There is no falling action found after the scene above. It seemed that the
climax is the resolution of the play at the same time. So, it can be said that the plot
of Caligula is a forward plot without falling action.
4.1.2. Character
Characters, or usually called as actors or actresses, are the agents of the
stage in a performed play. They have to be well performed in the stage to bring a
lively view for the audience. As other literary works, there are two types of
character in drama. The first one is round (also called dynamic, kinetic, or
developing) character and the second is flat (or static) character. Round character
have some changes throughout the story, while the flat character does not change
30
at all. These characters also have attributes (also called qualities) which
distinguish one character to the others.
For Caligula, there are three characters that will be discussed. They are
Caligula, Scipio, and Cherea. The limiting of these characters is based on their
role and their will to power in the play. Caligula is the main character who brings
the play from the beginning to its end. Scipio and Cherea are the supporting
characters who will end the madness of Caligula in the end.
Caligula
Caligula is categorized as round character since he has some changes
throughout the play. These changes are described through the dialogues or actions
of Caligula and other character. In order to decide Caligula as a round character,
to know the attributes of Caligula before and after he changed is necessary.
In the beginning of the play, the patricians claimed Caligula as the perfect
emperor they wanted. As it was explained by the Old Patrician: “... As an
emperor, he was perfection‟s self” (Camus, 1969: 819). Then the Second Patrician
added: “Yes, exactly the emperor we wanted; conscientious and inexperienced”
(Camus, 1969: 819).
Three years later, the patricians were gathered in Cherea‟s house making a
plot. The attribute „perfection‟, „wanted‟, „conscientious‟, and „inexperienced‟ of
Caligula changed in this three years. This is the three years when Caligula begins
experiencing his madness.
The attribute „perfection‟ changed to „impotent‟ and „vain‟. The Old
Patrician stated the attribute „impotent‟: “He [Caligula] „s impotent – that‟s his
31
trouble, I should say” (Camus, 1969: 824). The attribute „vain‟ itself is said by
Cherea as he talked to Caligula: “... I regard you as noxious and cruel, vain and
selfish” (Camus, 1969: 833).
How the attribute „wanted‟ changed to „unwanted‟ is said by First Patrician:
“... who of us can be deaf to the appeal of our ancestral piety in its hour of
danger? Fellow conspirators, will you tolerate a state of things in which patricians
are forced to run, like slaves, beside the Emperor‟s litter?” (Camus, 1969: 825).
This means that the patricians want Caligula no more as their emperor. Even there
is no word „unwanted‟ in the dialogue above, but the dialogue tells the audience
about the patricians‟ rejection to Caligula, or it can be said that Caligula is
„unwanted‟.
The attribute „conscientious‟ itself changed to „cruel‟ and „noxious‟. The
feature „cruel‟ is said by Cæsonia in her conversation with Caligula: “... what‟s
changed in your life? ... this cruel look on your face?” (Camus, 1969: 823).
Cherea also noted „cruel‟ and „noxious‟ in his conversation with Caligula, as he
said: “... I regard you as noxious and cruel, vain and selfish” (Camus, 1969: 833).
The attribute „inexperienced‟ then changed to „experienced‟ as Cherea
described: “We‟ve had ecperience of mad emperors. But this one isn‟t mad
enough. And what I loathe in him [Caligula] is this: that he knows what he wants”
(Camus, 1969: 824). Cherea described that Caligula „knows what he wants‟. This
impressed the audience that Caligula had known what he was doing, or it can be
said that Caligula is „experienced‟.
32
Still in the beginning of the play, there is another attribute of Caligula
explained by Cherea. He said that Caligula is too fond of literature: “That young
man [Caligula] was too fond of literature” (Camus, 1969: 820). This attribute
changed as Caligula talked to Cherea: “... I don‟t like literary men, and I can‟t
bear lies” (Camus, 1969: 821).
Another picture of Caligula changed his attributes can be seen in his
dialogue with Helicon. His sudden wish to get the moon (or the impossible) is an
explanation that he did not want it before and also his realization of intolerable
things as he did not realize it in the past. The conversation is below:
CALIGULA ... I suddenly felt a desire for the impossible.
That‟s all. (Pauses) Things as they are, in my opinion, are far from
satisfactory.
HELICON Many people share your opinion.
CALIGULA That is so. But in the past I didn‟t realize it
(Camus, 1969: 820).
Even the previous attributes of Caligula was not explained, but the conversation
above shows the audience a sudden change in Caligula‟s will and way of thinking.
It looks like Caligula has another change. Scipio noted in his conversation
with Cæsonia: “He [Caligula] tried to be a just man” (Camus, 1969: 821).
However, in the conversation between Cherea and the Patricians the attribute
„just‟ changed to „crazy tyrant‟ as uttered by a Voice: “We see him [Caligula] as
he is – a crazy tyrant” (Camus, 1969: 824). Then Caligula added that the attribute
„just‟ also changed to „evil‟ in his dialogue with Scipio: “... and I am single-
minded for – evil” (Camus, 1969: 829).
The last change later described by Caligula. He declared that he is a „free‟
man in his dialogue with Cherea. Caligula also noted that one can win freedom
33
after realizing that the world has no importance. This declaration indirectly shows
that Caligula had realized the world is unimportant. In other words, the audience
is given an impression that Caligula had experienced it before. As Caligula
described: “... This world has no importance; once a man realizes that, he wins his
freedom. ... that is why I hate you, you and your kind; because you are not free.
You see in me the one free man in the whole Roman Empire” (Camus, 1969:
822).
Even some of the attributes of Caligula had changed to the new ones, but
there are another attributes that did not change. These unchanged attributes is
needed for a further understanding of Caligula‟s characterization.
One of Caligula‟s unchanged attribute is „idealist‟. This was said by Helicon
to Cæsonia: “My dear Cæsonia, Caius is an idealist as we all know. He follows
his bent, and no one can foresee where it will take him” (Camus, 1969: 821).
Cæsonia then supported Helicon: “And Caligula, of course, sees nothing but his
own idea” (Camus, 1969: 821). The idealist Caligula can be seen through the play.
How Caligula followed his idea to the end of the play is a proof that this attribute
is unchanged.
Another example of unchanged attribute of Caligula is „sarcastic‟. The way
Caligula talked to the other characters sometimes in a sarcastic tone. One of the
example can be seen in his conversation with Lepidus: “(Beaming at him
[Lepidus]) “Quite the contrary!” It‟s always nice to see a face that hides the
secrets of the heart. Your face is sad. But what about your heart? Quite the
contrary – isn‟t that so, Lepidus?” (Camus, 1969:825). The conversation shows
34
how Caligula repeated the phrase “quite the contrary”. This was meant to mock
Lepidus who always says “quite the contrary”.
Caligula also described one of his unchanged attribute in his dialogue with
his reflection in the mirror. In his dialogue, he said to his reflection that he had to
keep following his logic. This gave Caligula a „logical‟ attribute, as Caligula said:
“... Logic, Caligula; follow where logic leads” (Camus, 1969: 833). His logical
thinking can be seen in the way he sees things.
The attribute „brave‟ is the last unchanged attribute of Caligula. Caligula
previously regarded as a coward by The Old Patrician: “He [Caligula] ‟s a
coward” (Camus, 1969: 824). However, there are no sign or proof that Caligula is
a coward in the play. Even Cherea admitted Caligula‟s braveness in his
conversation with Caligula: “... I cannot scorn you [Caligula], because I know you
are no coward” (Camus, 1969: 833).
Even not all of Caligula‟s attributes changed, but some changes are enough
to say that Caligula is a round character.
Scipio
Unlike Caligula, Scipio is categorized as a flat character because none of his
attributes change through the story. Even there is no change in Scipio‟s attributes
but his intimate relation with Caligula makes him an important character. He
shared some ideas with Caligula, even Caligula‟s pain. Sometimes he also
confronted some ideas of Caligula.
35
Since Scipio does not have any changes through the play, his fixed attributes
are still needed to know. What attributes that are fixed to Scipio can be seen
through his dialogues, actions or other reports.
The audience first impression of Scipio was that he is a „curious‟ boy. This
impression was contained in young Scipio‟s dialogue with the patricians in the
beginning of the play: “... I was there, following him [Caligula] as I usually do”
(Camus, 1969: 820). To keep following Caligula shows Scipio‟s curiosity.
The second unchanged attribute of Scipio is „sensitive‟. This was described
when the patricians resolved to find Caligula‟s successor and Scipio got offended.
It can be seen below:
SCIPIO If you‟ll excuse me. . . .
(Goes out)
CHEREA He‟s offended
THE OLD PATRICIAN Scipio is young, and young people always
hang together (Camus, 1969: 820).
The stage direction shows the audience what Scipio feels. As Scipio was
offended, he went out the stage.
Later, the feature „helpful‟ comes as one of Scipio‟s unchanged attributes.
This was stated by Scipio in his conversation with Cæsonia: “Cæsonia, we must
save him [Caligula]” (Camus, 1969: 821). This shows how Scipio worried
Caligula.
Just like Caligula, Scipio also shared the attribute „brave‟. In his dialogue
with Cæsonia, he declared his braveness: “... I fear nobody. Killing him [Caligula]
or being killed – either way out will do” (Camus, 1969: 828). In this dialogue,
36
Scipio noted that he got an intention to kill Caligula. This is a contrary of his
anxious to Caligula before.
Even it looks like Scipio had changed his attitude toward Caligula, but he
did not. The killing intention is just for a moment. Later, Scipio negated the
impression of his change toward Caligula. This can be seen in his conversation
with Caligula: “... All I know is that everything I feel or think of turns to love”
(Camus, 1969: 829).
Caligula also stated one of Scipio attributes in his dialogue with Scipio. He
said that Scipio is a „good‟ single-minded, the opposite of his attribute. Not only
that, he also noted Scipio‟s pure heart. As it is said by Caligula to Scipio: “... I
wish I could share your . . . your limpidity! ... You are single-minded for good;
and I am single-minded for – evil!” (Camus, 1969: 829).
Another attribute that can be seen in Scipio is „innocence‟. This can be
interpreted from his dialogue with Caligula. As Scipio said to Caligula: “...
You‟ve fooled me again” (Camus, 1969: 829). This dialogue gave the impression
to the audience that Scipio had been fooled before. His „innocence‟ led him to
simply believe what others saying.
Later, the play also presented the other attribute of Scipio. In his dialogue
with Caligula, Scipio noted the principle of his „endurance‟ attribute: “All men
have a secret solace. It helps them to endure, and they turn to it when life has
wearied them beyond enduring” (Camus, 1969: 829). The evidence of his
„endurance‟ was shown on how he faced his father‟s death.
37
In the conversation between Cherea and Scipio, it was shown how Scipio
shared Caligula‟s suffer and how he endured his father‟s death. The conversation
is below:
SCIPIO ... But I cannot be against him. ... Even if I
killed him, my heart would still be with him.
CHEREA ... he killed your father!
SCIPIO Yes – and that‟s how it all began. But that,
too, is how it ends.
CHEREA He denies what you believe in. He tramples
on all that you hold sacred.
SCIPIO I know, Cherea. And yet something inside
me is akin to him. The same fire burns in both our hearts.
CHEREA There are times when a man must make his
choice. ...
... SCIPIO But – I – I cannot make a choice. I have my
own sorrow, but I suffer with him, too; I share his pain. I understand all –
that is my trouble (Camus, 1969: 834-835).
As it can be seen above, Scipio endured his pain of his father‟s death and he had a
commiseration to Caligula, the one who killed his father. Not only that, the
conversation also showed Scipio‟s „neutrality‟ as he denied taking side. Scipio
stated this, still in the same conversation: “I can never, never again take
anybody‟s side” (Camus, 1969: 835).
Thus, all of Scipio‟s unchanged attributes give him qualities as a flat
character.
Cherea
There is not much to tell about Cherea. He stands as a flat character as
Scipio. What differ Cherea from Scipio is his firm heart. He also stands against
Caligula‟s ideas. His wisdom can be said as the wisest among all characters in the
play. The word „wise‟ then comes as one of his attributes. One example of his
wisdom can be seen in his conversation with the patricians:
38
CHEREA ... He [Caligula] „s putting his power at the
service of a loftier, deadlier passion; and it imperils everything we hold
most sacred. True, it‟s not the first time Rome has seen a man wielding
unlimited power; but it‟s the first time he sets no limit to his use of it, and
counts mankind, and the world we know; for nothing. That‟s what appalls
me in caligula; that‟s what I want to fight. To lose one‟s life is no great
matter; when the time comes I‟ll have the courage to lose mine. But what‟s
intolerable is to see one‟s life being drained of meaning, to be told there‟s
no reason for existing. A man can‟t live without some reason for living
(Camus, 1969: 824).
The dialogue above shows how wise Cherea understand life. Beside, showing his
wisdom, the dialogue also shows his intelligence and courage, even toward death.
In other words, „intelligent‟ and „courageous‟ are Cherea‟s attributes.
Another attributes that modifies Cherea is „strategic‟. This can be seen in his
dialogue, still with the patricians who were arranging a plot against Caligula.
Cherea proposed his way to fight Caligula and it can be seen below:
CHEREA ... if I join forces with you, it‟s to combat a
big idea – an ideal, if you like – whose triumph would mean the end of
everything. I can endure you being made a mock of, but I cannot endure
Caligula‟s carrying out his theories to the end. He is converting his
philosophy into corpses and – unfortunately for us – it‟s a philosophy that‟s
logical from start to finish. And where one can‟t refute, one strikes (Camus,
1969: 825).
Not only arranging a strategy for the patricians, Cherea also noted that it
was an ideal fight. What he proposed is to fight an idea using another idea. This
has not been thought by the patricians.
CHEREA We must take action, I agree. But a frontal
attack‟s quite useless when one is fighting an imperial madman in the full
flush of his power. You can take arms against a vulgar tyrant, but cunning is
needed to fight down disinterested malice. You can only urge it on to follow
its bent, and bide your time until its logic founders in sheer lunacy. As you
see, I prefer to be quite frank, and I warn you I‟ll be with you only for a
39
time. Afterward, I shall do nothing to advance your interests (Camus, 1969:
825).
The dialogue even shows more than Cherea‟s „strategic‟ attribute. It also shows
his „tricky‟ and „frank‟ attributes. Cherea himself noted his frankness in other
dialogue: “Because others will take my place, and because I don‟t like lying”
(1969: 834).
Later in the end of the play, in a conversation between Cherea and Caligula,
Cherea claimed himself as an „ordinary‟ man. Cherea said to Caligula: “... what I
want is to live, and to be happy. Neither, to my mind, is possible if one pushes the
absurd to its logical conclusions. As you see, I‟m quite an ordinary sort of man”
(Camus, 1969: 833).
As a flat character, Cherea can be regarded as the wisest character among
characters in the play, even Caligula and Scipio. Still, Cherea claimed himself as
an ordinary man.
4.1.3. Symbol
Drama itself contains symbols like other literary works. These symbols can
be seen as characters, actions, settings, or statements. Caligula also contains some
symbols that can be found. The symbols in Caligula extend beyond their surface
meaning. They mean more than ordinary elements.
The first symbol of the play is the word „moon‟. This was found on
Caligula‟s dialogue with Helicon. He said that he wanted the moon. The word
„moon‟ means happiness or eternal life. Caligula described: “... That‟s why I want
the moon, or happiness, or eternal life” (Camus, 1969: 821). Actually, the word
„moon‟ itself means not only happiness or eternal life, but also the light.
40
The word „moon‟ symbolizes happiness as it can be regarded that both of
them are wonderful. It symbolizes eternal life as the moon itself gives its light
eternally. Last, it symbolizes the light as the moon is the only light at night.
Caligula does not simply wanting the moon in his hands, but he also wants to be
the moon. He wants to give his people the light and the happiness eternally, just
like the moon gives its beauty and light at night.
The second symbol is the action of Caligula which is positioning himself in
front of a mirror. This can be found in the beginning and the end of the play and
can be seen below:
... (He [Caligula] plants himself in front of a mirror in a grotesque attitude)
CÆSONIA (Staring, horrified, at the mirror) Caligula!
(CALIGULA lays a finger on the glass. His gaze steadies abruptly and when
he speaks his voice has a new, proud ardor)
CALIGULA Yes . . . Caligula (Camus, 1969: 824).
While the action in the end of the play is below:
CALIGULA ... (He spins round and gazes crazily at the
mirror) Caligula! You, too; you, too, are guilty. Then what of it – a little
more, a little less? Yet who can condemn me in this world where there is no
judge, where nobody is innocent? (He brings his eyes close to his reflected
face. He sounds genuinely distressed) You see, my poor friend. Helicon has
failed you. I won‟t have the moon. Never, never, never! But how bitter it is
to know all, and to have to go through to the consummation! Listen! That
was a sound of weapon. Innocence arming for the fray – and innocence will
triumph. Why I am not in their place, among them? And I‟m afraid. That‟s
cruelest of all, after despising others, to find oneself as cowardly as they.
Still, no matter. Fear, too, has an end. Soon I shall attain that emptiness
beyond all understanding, in which the heart has rest. (He steps back a few
paces, then return to the mirror. He seems calmer. When he speaks again
his voice is steadier, less shrill)
Yet, really, it‟s quite simple. If I‟d had the moon, if love were enough,
all might have been different. But where could I quench this thirst? What
human heart, what god, would have for me the depth of a great lake?
(Kneeling, weeping) There‟s nothing in this world, or in the other, made to
my stature. And yet I know, and you, too, know (Still weeping, he stretches
41
out his arms toward the mirror) that all I need is for the impossible to be.
The impossible! I‟ve searched for it all the confines of the world, in the
secret places of my heart. I‟ve stretches out my hands (His voice rises to a
scream); see, I stretch out my hands, but it always you I find, you only,
confronting me, and I‟ve come to hate you. I have chosen a wrong path, a
path that leads to nothing. My freedom isn‟t the right one... . Nothing,
nothing yet. Oh, how oppressive is this darkness! Helicon has not come; we
shall be forever guilty. The air tonight is heavy as the sum of human
sorrows. (A clash of arms and whispering are heard in the wings.
CALIGULA rises, picks up a stool, and return to the mirrors, breathing
heavily. He contemplates himself, makes a slight leap forward, and,
watching the symmetrical movement of his reflected self, hurls the stool at
it, screaming) To history Caligula! Go down to history! (The mirror breaks
and at the same moment armed conspirators rush in ... ) (Camus, 1969: 839-
840).
The two actions above involve the real Caligula and his reflection in the mirror.
They were symbols in those actions. They symbolize the real and fictitious
character in Caligula. The reflection symbolizes the fictitious character and the
real Caligula symbolizes the real character. The reflection represents the fictitious
character as both of them are unreal. So, the real Caligula represents his real
character as both of them are real. The break of the mirror in the end of the play
symbolized the end of Caligula‟s fictitious character.
The third symbol in the play is „cold steel‟. This is found as the title of
Caligula‟s book. The title was uttered by Cæsonia in her conversation with
Cherea: “... I‟m afraid there‟s one thing you won‟t like quite so much about this
book, and that‟s its title. ... Cold Steel” (Camus, 1969: 826-827). The word „cold
steel‟ symbolizes Caligula‟s cruelty. It has no limit and consideration just like a
cold steel. Cold steel itself is a kind of sharp weapon like knife or sword.
Later, the fourth symbol is found in the play as Caligula crowned himself as
Venus. Venus is Roman goddess of beauty and love. She spreads happiness and
42
love. Caligula symbolized himself as Venus in which his obsession was to bring
joy and happiness, and to infuse ugliness with beauty. The dialogue can be seen as
Caligula went out publicly and said: “ ... I‟m Venus today” (Camus, 1969: 830).
The fifth symbol in the play is power. Caligula is symbolized as power.
This can be found in the end of the play in which he screamed that he is still alive
before he died. As it can be seen:
CALIGULA ... To history Caligula! Go down to history!
(The mirror breaks and at the same moment armed conspirators rush in.
CALIGULA swings round to face them with a mad laugh. SCIPIO and
CHEREA, who are in front, fling themselves at him and stab his face with
their daggers. CALIGULA’s laughter turns to gasps. All strike him,
hurriedly, confusedly. In a last gasp, laughing and choking, CALIGULA
shrieks) I‟m still alive! (Camus, 1969: 840).
Caligula could be died already, but he just physically died. His passion, his will to
power continues. This is what he meant by screaming that he is still alive.
The death of Caligula is a proof that his will to power continues. His will to
power is continued by Scipio and Cherea. This means revolution. So, the play
itself is a symbol of revolution. The revolution symbolizes Scipio and Cherea‟s
will to power.
4.2. Analysis of Will to Power
The indication of will to power first appeared in the play when Caligula met
Helicon and said that his people are blind. Actually, Caligula‟s will to power has
not established yet. It was in a form of decadence. Caligula regarded his people in
a kind of decadence. He thought that his people are blind. They are blinded by lies
43
and self-deception so they can not see the truth. This understanding led him to his
will to power. The dialogue is presented below:
CALIGULA (With sudden violence) All it proves is that
I‟m surrounded by lies and self-deception ... I wish men to live by the light
of truth. And I‟ve the power to make them do so. For I know what they need
and haven‟t got. They‟re without understanding and they need a teacher;
someone who knows what he‟s talking about (Camus, 1969: 821).
What Caligula meant to teach his people what they need and what they have
not got is his first motive of his will to power. He wanted to share his knowledge
that the world is quite intolerable and in an unequal footing. He wanted his people
to see and feel what he sees and feels. In other words, he wanted to set values of
the world for them. He intended to change the values of the world to the new
ones, or it can be said he tried to be a value-positer.
Caligula‟s nihilism appeared when he realized that things are intolerable and
far from satisfactory when Drussila died. As he said to Helicon: “Things as they
are, in my opinion are far from satisfactory ... Really, this world of ours, the
scheme of things as they call it, is quite intolerable” (Camus, 1969: 820-821).
The death of Drussila led him to a new understanding even he claimed it as
a symbol of truth. It was the truth that men die while they are not happy. Caligula
described it to Helicon: “... But love, what is it? A side issue, and I swear to you
her death is not the point; it‟s no more than the symbol of a truth that makes the
moon essential to me ... Men die; and they are not happy” (Camus, 1969: 821).
Caligula‟s will to get the moon is an evidence of his will to the impossible,
or happiness and eternal life. What he tried to prove is that the impossible could
become possible. Caligula explained as he talked to Helicon: “... It‟s just because
44
no one dares to follow up his idea to the end that nothing is achieved. All that‟s
needed, I should say, is to be logical right trough, at all costs” (Camus, 1969:
821). Then Caligula added in his latter dialogue with Scipio: “... I‟m exploiting
the impossible. Or, more accurately, it‟s a question of making the impossible
possible” (Camus, 1969: 822). His logic led him to set the impossible in an equal
footing to the possible. He nihilitate the impossibility of the impossible. This is
the second motive of Caligula‟s will to power.
What values he found is that human were bound to the world and the
scheme of things. Then he set a new value that human life has no importance. It
can be seen in Caligula‟s conversation with his intendant: “... If the Treasury has
paramount importance, human life has none ... and since money is the only thing
that counts, should set no value on their lives or anyone else‟s. I have resolved to
be logical, and I have the power to enforce my will” (Camus, 1969: 822).
Later, Caligula also explained that the world has no importance to Cherea:
“... This world has no importance; once a man realizes that, he wins his freedom”
(Camus, 1969: 822). Caligula wanted his people can realize it so they can reach
their freedom. Caligula continued: “... You should be glad to have at last among
you an emperor who points the way to freedom” (Camus, 1969: 822).
It can be said that Caligula resolved to change the truth. He thought that
human as long as they are bound to the world and the scheme of things, they can
not be free. This is what makes human die while they are not happy. They bring
the bound to death.
45
Caligula talked about freedom to his people. A new value that he wanted to
reach. He even set his freedom to an infinite freedom, as he said: “... From this
day on, so long as life is mine, my freedom has no frontier” (Camus, 1969: 822).
To be free is to gain more power, as Caligula said: “... One is always free at
someone else‟s expense” (1969: 827). The freedom that is demanded by Caligula
is not only to be free from the world, but also from the cosmos. This was
mentioned in his conversation with Cæsonia:
CALIGULA ... what is a god that I should wish to be his
equal? No, it‟s something higher, far above the gods, that I‟m aiming at,
longing for with all my heart and soul. I am taking over a kingdom where
the impossible is king ... I want to drown the sky in the sea, to infuse
ugliness with beauty, to wring a laugh from pain.(Camus, 1969: 823).
As presented on the conversation above, Caligula wanted a higher power
than the Gods. This is a will to deify, to be a higher being, the powerful. He
wanted to be free from the cosmos with his power, so he could change the scheme
of things. From all of Caligula‟s will to power, his greatest will to power is to be a
higher than the Gods. This is the last and the biggest motive of his will to power.
Caligula even noted his nihilism toward Gods in his dialogue with Scipio:
CALIGULA ... Really, you know, there‟s only one thing
for which I might be blamed today – and that‟s this small advance I‟ve
made upon freedom. For someone who loves power the rivalry of the gods
is rather irksome. Well, I‟ve proved to these imaginary gods that any man,
without previous training, if he applies his mind to it, can play their absurd
parts to perfection ... All that is needed is to be as cruel as they ... If I use
this power of mine, it‟s to compensate ... For the hatred and the stupidity of
the gods (Camus, 1969: 831).
Caligula actually had claimed himself as Venus, one of Roman Goddess. He
went out publicly and said: “I‟m Venus today” (1969: 830). Caligula also
explained his action playing gods: “There‟s no understanding fate; therefore I
46
choose to play the part of fate. I wear the foolish, unintelligible face of
professional god” (Camus, 1969: 831).
Caligula‟s motives which led him to his will to power had passed the phases
to will to power. From the starting point, the decadence of Caligula‟s peolpe led
him to his nihilism. Then, the nihilism of the world and the Gods led him to be a
value-positer. He set freedom as the new value to escape from the world and the
cosmos. In the end, his will to deify led him to be higher than Gods. These
became his will to power.
Later in the play, Scipio‟s will to power appeared. Not like Caligula,
Scipio‟s will to power did not begin with any phase of will to power. What
motivates Scipio to his will to power is his father‟s death, in the hand of Caligula
of course. Then, this is his first motive of his will to power. Scipio explained this
to Cherea: “Yes – and that [his father‟s death] „s how it all began. But that, too,
how it ends” (Camus, 1969: 834).
Even though Scipio also developed his will to power, his development is
different from Caligula‟s will to power. He sees and feels what Caligula sees and
feels. He understands what led Caligula to his will to power. What differ Scipio to
Caligula is that their mind, their way of thinking, as Caligula said that Scipio is a
single-minded for good while he is a single-minded for evil (Camus, 1969: 829).
It can be said that Caligula and Scipio shared the same pain, same
experience and idea, but Scipio is a good version of Caligula. He inherited
Caligula‟s will to power, in a smoother way. Caligula explained their similarity:
47
“... Perhaps because the same eternal truths appeal to us both” (Camus, 1969:
829).
What makes Scipio‟s will to power smoother is his principle. Scipio
believed that: “One may deny something without feeling called on to besmirch it
or deprive others of the right of believing in it” (Camus, 1969: 831). What Scipio
meant is the right whether believing in the same truth or not.
Scipio saw Caligula forcing his truth to his people by setting values for
them. This is what Scipio confronted to Caligula, including Caligula‟s blasphemy
to Gods. Scipio even realized a way better than having power to counter the
world, even the cosmos, as Scipio said: “Hatred does not compensate for hatred.
Power is no solution ... I only know one way of countering the hostility of the
world we live in ... Poverty” (Camus, 1969: 831).
It seemed like Scipio‟s will to power developed more smoothly. Scipio, just
like Caligula, tried to set new values. The difference is, Scipio tried to set new
values by understanding the meaning of all things happened to him. Scipio
explained this to Caligula:
SCIPIO ... For now I know, I know that you have
made your choice ... I am going to leave you, for I think I‟ve come to
understand you. There‟s no way out left to us, neither to you nor to I – who
am like you in so many ways. I shall go away, far away, and try to discover
the meaning of it all (Camus, 1969: 838).
This came as the second motive of Scipio‟s will to power. Since Scipio knew
what choice Caligula has made, he resolved to end Caligula‟s will to power. This
means that a revolution is needed to be done.
48
Just like Caligula and Scipio, Cherea‟s will to power also shown in the play.
His will to power did not pass the phases to will to power just like Scipio. Same
with Caligula and Scipio, what triggered Cherea‟s will to power is to set new
values. These were values that were set by Caligula as Caligula counts mankind
and the world to nothing. This was described by Cherea:
CHEREA ... True, it‟s not the first time Rome has seen
a man wielding unlimited power; but it‟s the first time he [Caligula] sets no
limit to his use of it, and counts mankind, and the world we know; for
nothing. That‟s what appalls me in caligula; that‟s what I want to fight ...
what‟s intolerable is to see one‟s life being drained of meaning, to be told
there‟s no reason for existing. A man can‟t live without some reason for
living (Camus, 1969: 824).
Cherea wanted to set back the previous values of mankind and the world.
He regarded that Caligula was drained of meaning, so he tried to set the meaning
of living. This was his first motive of his will to power.
The second motive of Cherea‟s will to power is his will to live. Cherea
wanted to regain some peace to live meaningfully. Cherea said: “... all I wish is to
regain some peace of mind in a world that has regained a meaning. What spurs me
on is not ambition but fear, my very reasonable fear of that inhuman vision in
which my life means no more than a speck of dust” (1969: 825).
The will to live is the will to power as life itself is a will to power. Cherea
then assumed what he needed is to live in a secure condition. To live in securely is
to be happy. He explained it to Caligula:
CHEREA ... I like, and need, to feel secure. So do most
men. They resent living in a world where the most preposterous fancy may
at any moment become a reality, and the absurd transfix their lives, like a
dagger in the heart. I feel as they do; I refuse to live in a topsy-turvy world. I
want to know where I stand, and to stand secure ... Because what I want is
49
to live, and to be happy. Neither, to my mind, is possible if one pushes the
absurd to its logical conclusions. As you see, I‟m quite an ordinary sort of
man (Camus, 1969: 833).
From the dialogue above, Cherea represents the herd, and the herd always tries to
avoid instant reaction. They prefer live in a safe line. Cherea, just like the herd,
refused to live under Caligula‟s reign, since Caligula triggered instant reaction.
The denial of Caligula‟s reign means that Cherea wanted a revolution. The
revolution will free Cherea and the herd from Caligula‟s power. This was
Cherea‟s last motive of his will to power. Cherea noted: “That‟s only a matter of
having the power” (Camus, 1969: 837).
50
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
Albert Camus‟ Caligula was regarded one his drama of ideas. It also
constituted the greatest work of Camus. Written in 1938, the play had revised into
1945 and 1958 version. According to Camus, the 1945 version was the best
version of Caligula. The play itself was arranged in an unique plot. It was
arranged without falling action. The climax and the resolution were arranged at
the same time in the end of the play. The climax was also the resolution.
The play opened with the conversation between the patricians in the state
room of the Rome palace. They were worrying their emperor, Caligula, who had
been missing for three days after Caligula‟s sister death, Drussila. When Caligula
returned to the palace, things has changed. Knowing the truth of the world which
has no important, Caligula resoluted to change everything.
Caligula‟s will to power began with his people decadence. His new
understanding of the world which was far from satisfactory of equal footing and
has no importance led him to wanting the moon. For Caligula, the moon
symbolized happiness and eternal life. The truth that men die while they are not
happy and that his people were in a state of decadence triggered Caligula to be the
value-positer of Rome. He set his infinite freedom to teach his people the truth of
the world and the true freedom.
51
Caligula also set his power to challenge the cosmos. He demanded a power
higher than the cosmos. He intended to use his power to intervene the scheme of
things. This even led Caligula to be a higher being than the Gods which has been
his will to deify. What changes happened to Caligula triggered his people against
him.
The changes in Caligula made him to be cruel and noxious as he set the
world and mankind to nothing. Cherea, one of Caligula‟s patrician, appeared to
confront Caligula and fight his ideals. Cherea demanded a peaceful and
meaningful life. His will to life led him to his will to power and represented the
herd. Along with Scipio, Cherea made a plot to end Caligula‟s reign. Scipio
himself understood what was happened to Caligula, but he intended to end the riot
made by Caligula. Scipio can be said a good version of Caligula. His will to
power was triggered by his father‟s death and the intention to understand the
world in a smoother way.
All of these conflicts led the play to its climax and also its resolution. The
revolution then happened and ended Caligula‟s life. Cherea and Scipio were the
dagger bearer of the revolutionary army. It was surprizing that Caligula screamed
he is still alive right before he died. What Caligula meant was that his will to
power survived in Cherea and Scipio even he was physically dead. This means
that Cherea‟s will to power and Scipio‟s will to power were triggered by Caligula.
As the conclusion, the writer decided Caligula as a symbol of power and the
most dominant character in will to power.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Block, Haskell M., and Robert Gordon Shedd. Masters of Modern Drama. New
York: Random House, Inc, 1969.
Block, Haskell M., and Robert Gordon Shedd. Albert Camus. In Masters of
Modern Drama. New York: Random House, Inc, 1969.
Brown, Wentworth K., and Sterling P. Olmsted. Language and Literature. New
York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1962.
Camus, Albert. Caligula. In Masters of Modern Drama. Haskell M. Block and
Robert Gordon Shedd (Trans & Eds). New York: Random House, Inc, 1969.
George, Mary W. The Elements of Library Research: What Every Student Needs
to Know. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Hamilton, Clayton. A Manual of The Art of Fiction. New York: Henry Holt &
Company, 1918.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Will to Power. Trans. Walter Arnold Kaufmann and R.
J. Hollingdale. New York: Random House, Inc., 1968. It was uploaded at no
date and dowloaded from <http://bookfi.org/dl/1255660/b4bc74> (27 June
2013).
Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory, An Anthology. (2nd edition).
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.
Roberts, Edgar V., and Henry E. Jacobs. Literature: An Introduction to Reading
and Writing. (8th edition). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.
Styan, J. L. The Elements of Drama. London: Cambridge University Press, 1963.
Wellek, Rene, and Austin Warren. Theory of Literature. Australia: Penguin
Books, 1973.