This study examines the creative essence of *Julius Caesar* from a political science perspective, noting that traditional research has focused on the literary projection of political ideas and the influence of political events in its premiere year while overlooking the play's deconstructive expression of "certainty." Hartsock argues that the play's theme lies in revealing the difficulty of knowing historical and human truths. Recent scholarship has begun to explore issues such as character fragmentation and narrative deviations from historical facts, yet the anomalies and ambiguities at the level of dramatic form remain underexplored. By distorting and obscuring the truth of events, Shakespeare shifts the creative focus to presenting the symptoms of behavior itself, demonstrating profound media consciousness. The perspectival biases of characters, playwrights, actors, and audiences participate in multi-layered narration, highlighting the theater's function as an interactive platform. The play employs metatheatrical techniques, leveraging the ecology of public opinion and theatrical structure to create illusions of reality while simultaneously underscoring the virtuality of the stage space, thereby blocking emotional catharsis. On this foundation, the play reflects on the relationship between rhetoric and violence, expanding the framework of rhetoric's role and calling for "rhetorical citizens" who embody both rational judgment and political virtue.

Textual Features of "Degraded Representation"

This section explores the textual features of "degraded representation" in Shakespeare's *Julius Caesar*, analyzing how Shakespeare constructs new structures through rhetorical and spatial elements to disrupt the stable narrative mechanisms of historical truth and cultural tradition. This narrative strategy intensifies ambiguity and obscures the truth of events. Specific manifestations include: 1. Physical concealment blurs identities and weakens the legitimacy of motives, such as rebellious nobles covering their faces with cloaks, forcing Brutus to rely on Cassius to identify them; 2. Characters frequently use whispers to hide conversations or miscommunication triggers crises, such as Brutus joining the conspirators after whispering with Cassius, with his reasoning remaining unknown; 3. Events are relayed or described indirectly, such as Brutus and Cassius questioning Casca about the Lupercal festival; 4. Actors construct false "facts" by distorting fragmented information or relying on hearsay, establishing them as justifications for actions, such as Cassius forging anonymous letters to influence Brutus. These "degraded representations" consist of fallacies, concealment, distortion, and conjecture, reducing truth to a rarity in Rome, reflecting Shakespeare's profound philosophy of language. Rhetoric not only determines the fates of characters but also internalizes as a key mechanism shaping individuals, constructing cultural contexts, and forming core political epistemologies.

The Political Ecology of "Negative Dissemination" in Early Modern England

This section examines how the "chaotic" discourse in *Julius Caesar* intervenes in and constructs political reality, reflecting the political ecology of "negative dissemination" in early modern England. Negative dissemination refers to political discourse generated and spread through scandal, satire, and slander, influencing theatrical cultural exchange and reshaping Renaissance understandings of language, identity, and political authority. Shakespeare's works often exhibit polyphony and ambiguity, particularly in the uncontrollable spread of slander and the futility of language in revealing truth. The political reality and public opinion in late Elizabethan England dictated the state of information flow, emphasizing the state over the nation, the Commonwealth over material needs, political authority over personal conscience, and monarchy over religious rites. The Queen frequently ignored the Privy Council and Parliament's constructive advice, leading writers and historians to depict corrupt advisors as "flatterers," paralleling Caesar's situation in the play. Information flow constructed latent power dynamics, with those controlling information directing power. The monarchy's reliance on reputation was evident—performing a public self to reinforce authority while controlling the reshaping of personal image in public reception. Elizabeth I likened monarchy to a performance on a public stage, and James I acknowledged that all eyes were on the ruler. Sociopolitical order depended on personal authority and collective loyalty, yet the educated class and the masses remained wary of rulers' morality, competence, and motives, making authority and order perpetually vulnerable to challenge—a key reason for the dominance of negative sentiment and subversive discourse in public opinion. The article further outlines three manifestations of "negative dissemination": seditious political tracts and literature, private letters and news transcripts, and oral rumors. Renaissance debates on the legitimacy of regicide swept Europe, prompting Elizabeth's government to enact the *Act Against Seditious Speech and Rumors* to curb Catholic propaganda and malicious slander in literature. From the 16th to 17th centuries, letters, news, and political pamphlets formed a private yet cross-class dissemination network, integrating elite decision-makers, itinerant booksellers, and grassroots observers. While political news spread through tracts and private booksellers, most slanderous gossip about royalty and high society circulated orally. Shakespeare recognized the deconstructive power of language itself, embodying "negative dissemination" in his plays. The collapse of political order in Shakespeare's works often stems not from military conspiracy but from moral absence and indifference to truth. By situating Caesar's assassination in Elizabethan political discourse, Shakespeare suggests that the spread of slander or disinformation may ultimately erode individual judgment.

The Use of "Metatheatre" and the Reimagining of the "Rhetorical Citizen"

This section explores how Shakespeare employs "metatheatre" in *Julius Caesar* to redefine the "rhetorical citizen." By restaging the assassination of Caesar, mimicking textual compilation and real-world public discourse, and leveraging theater's impact on audiences, the play demonstrates drama's artistic consciousness as an interactive literary form engaged in cultural construction. Theatrical performance possesses independent signification, distinct from objective history. Three metatheatrical techniques are employed: self-referential dramatic elements, embedded rituals, and interplay between literature and reality, blurring and transforming the boundaries between drama and life. Centering on rhetorical mechanisms, Shakespeare guides audiences through mimesis and subversion, focusing on human conditions to reshape the "rhetorical citizen."

Self-referentiality appears in textual details invoking theatrical concepts or architecture, such as Cassius and Brutus post-assassination dialogue framing the act as political performance. Embedded rituals like the Lupercalia and Caesar's funeral provide cultural symbols, manifesting civilizational forms. The crowd, as a metatheatrical code, bridges text and reality. Both rituals end in failure or disruption, foreshadowing the collapse of heterogenous order.

The play opens with a carnivalesque ritual, the harvest festival co-opted by Caesar, integrating folk revelry into official politics, reflecting Caesar's defiance of natural order. Around the funeral, the stage showcases violent spectacles—conspirators stabbing Caesar and the mob killing Cinna the poet. London audiences immerse in the political arena of a foreign civilization, with ritualistic drama shaping emotional engagement.

Shakespeare highlights collective "loss of control," guiding audiences through an emotional transition from "premodern" to "modern," fulfilling drama's cathartic and didactic functions. This shift begins when "premodern" rituals are shattered by actual violence. The Roman public, absent during the conspiracy's formation, relies on rival politicians' rhetoric, their judgment passive and swayed by persuasive fervor rather than reason.

Shakespeare introduces metatheatrical mirrors for reflection—audiences scrutinize the "mob" onstage yet risk becoming one. Dynamic plot developments gradually awaken critical judgment. Shakespeare urges independent thinking, fostering critique and introspection in aesthetics, resisting ideological coercion and collective unconsciousness.

*Julius Caesar* epitomizes metatheatrical structure, showcasing Shakespeare's genius as an adaptive artist. Its textual and performative "symptoms" disrupt cultural inertia, reminding audiences not to ignore narrative gaps, obscured "truth," or rampant violence. Shakespeare's originality lies in resonating reality with dramatic themes and cultural traditions, immersing London audiences while prompting introspection on their own lifestyles and values.