Was Shakespeare's Cassius Truly Meant to be A Villain?

[Rachel.Adler]

I find Cassius to be an extremely captivating character, and I would love to discuss any alternative interpretations of him that you might have. After all, as an Epicurean, he would probably fit in pretty well here on JREF! I think it is possible to view him as a very sympathetic and complex character, and I am not convinced that he is truly more villainous than the "noblest roman of them all." As a starting point, I would like to share one theory that several scholars hold (Johnson, Capell, Furness and Hunter) that I came across and which I find crucial in assessing Cassius. His soliloquy at the end of act one, scene two is often believed to reveal Cassius as a heartless Machiavellian, aware of his own corrupting influence but fully committed to killing Caesar at any price, even the honor of his friend. The words, at first glance, certainly suggest this:

Well, Brutus, thou art noble; yet, I see,
Thy honourable metal may be wrought
From that it is disposed: therefore it is meet
That noble minds keep ever with their likes;
For who so firm that cannot be seduced?
Caesar doth bear me hard; but he loves Brutus:
If I were Brutus now and he were Cassius,
He should not humour me. I will this night,
In several hands, in at his windows throw,
As if they came from several citizens,
Writings all tending to the great opinion
That Rome holds of his name; wherein obscurely
Caesar's ambition shall be glanced at:
And after this let Caesar seat him sure;
For we will shake him, or worse days endure.

When he says "Therefore it is meet, that noble minds keep ever with their likes," it seems that Cassius is admitting to lacking nobility and acknowledging that he is "seducing" Brutus. It is possible, however, to read Cassius' comments regarding Brutus' ability to be seduced as an expression of concern that Caesar is seducing Brutus. There is a passage in Plutarch, one of Shakespeare's main sources for this play, that suggests that the conspirators did in fact believe that Caesar was attempting to corrupt Brutus.

"Howbeit, Cassius's friends did dissuade him [i.e. Brutus] from it ... and prayed him to beware of Caesar's sweet enticements, and to fly his tyrannical favours: the which they said Caesar gave him, not to honour his virtue, but to weaken his constant mind, framing it to the bent of his bow." (Brutus, pp. 110-11)

Therefore, Cassius would still be showing a willingness to manipulate Brutus, but it would be because he truly cared for Brutus and did not desire him to be corrupted. I find this very compelling, but wondered what you thought. Is it too revisionist?

Thanks for your replies!

[Rachel.Adler]

It looks like a lot of people have viewed this, but no one has replied. Is this question too obscure? I'm very new to JREF, and I'm not aware of all of the conventions regarding this sort of thing. I think that critical literary analysis and skepticism go well together, though, and I would really like to discuss this play in particular. If any of you have any more general thoughts on Cassius or Julius Caesar , I'd love to hear them.

Thanks,

Rachel

[bruto]

Well, I viewed it, but I haven't read JC for a while, and don't really have anything much to add, except that it would hardly be the first time Shakespeare treated us to a complex character and a situation that goes beyond black and white, or one which could be played more than one way. Can anybody do a better villain than Shakespeare?

It's interesting, and I hope a discussion follows, but I'm not sure what else to add to your observation.

[Wildy]

I haven't read Julius Caesar so I can't really comment on what I think Shakespeare was trying to depict Cassius.

From what I understand about Plutarch there is a problem in Lives where he fabricated facts so he could parallel the Greek person and the Roman person.

So what we would find is that some of the actions of Brutus may actually belong to Dion of Syracuse (the man Plutarch paired Brutus with), this would then have an effect on how Shakespeare viewed Cassius' relationship with Brutus.

From what I can gather from what you have posted I would say that Cassius probably sees Brutus as a useful tool in dealing with Caesar, since he is someone very close to Caesar and having him as one of your agents would be very helpful.

Since most people nowadays know how the play ends (so it becomes something similar to an Ancient Greek play) I would say that we may see that Cassius understands that he will need the support of Brutus if he would be able to successfully assassinate Caesar and not have to face such high consequences.

[Rachel.Adler]

Thanks, Bruto . Wildly, I am very impressed. I was not aware of Plutarch's comparison of Brutus and Dion of Syracuse, but it has given me quite a bit to think about. I have found Plutarch's almost worshipful portrayal of Brutus and his dismissal of Cassius as a far less honorable man puzzling, given the fact that other writers, such as Cicero, observed many of the same qualities in both men. Your information about Dion of Syracuse suggests to me that because Dion did not have a "coconspirator" such as Cassius, Plutarch desired to denigrate the role of Cassius in order to make Brutus appear more like Dion. I found a passage in Plutarch's "Comparison of Brutus and Dion of Syracuse" that seems to support this

For he [Dion] had no partner to contest his glory,
as Brutus had in Cassius, who was not, indeed, his equal in proved
virtue and honour, yet contributed quite as much to the service of
the war by his boldness, skill, and activity; and some there be who
impute to him the rise and beginning of the whole enterprise, saying
that it was he who roused Brutus, till then indisposed to stir, into
action against Caesar.

What do you think of this theory? Any more thoughts?

Thanks,

Rachel

[Wildy]

See, it's that denigration of the role of Cassius that allows you to question whether he is a villain or not.

[Rachel.Adler]

Interesting idea. Could you elaborate a bit more? I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

[Wildy]

(I'll have to buy a hard copy of the play tomorrow so I could discuss this better)

Well still making assumptions Plutarch's denigration of Cassius would have followed through into Shakespeare's play. In the section that you quoted it makes Cassius look more like a follower, and not one of the leaders of the plot.

It turns him from a clear villain to someone who you could consider is just confused. You think that he might have more redeeming qualities then he actually had.

[Wildy]

Where are the English Literature people when you need them?

[RedIbis]

JC is not one of the plays that I've studied too closely. I will go back and try to contribute to the OP's discussion.

I did watch and very much enjoyed Brando as Marc Antony in JC.

As for villains, I think Polonius is underrated and written off as a bumbling idiot, which I don't think he is at all.

[Foolmewunz]

I'm not an English Lit major nor an expert on Rome, but I think it's clear that Shakespeare (and that's really the discussion) is far from putting Cassius in the position of follower. He's clearly the leader of the plot and, in fact, it's Brutus' continued refusal to follow Cassius' baser suggestions and directions that is at the heart of the tragedy of Brutus.

First, he won't take the advice to also slay Marcus Antonius, thus leaving a fiercely devoted and powerful enemy alive. His insistance on allowing Antony to speak at the funeral turned the populace against the conspirators - again against Cassius' advice. And finally, he concedes the high ground in the battle, thus playing into his opponents' desire to have the battle waged on the plain. Yet again, against Cassius' advice. By enobling Brutus' motives, e.g. that he did these things because of his nobility, Shakespeare has created the traditional 'tragic flaw'. Brutus had to do what was "right" in the terms of a Roman nobleman of high honor, but in doing what was right, he led to his own downfall.

Cassius is portrayed as an elitist, but his noble position was no less that of Brutus or Antony. His concern was living under King Julius and losing the privileges that he felt had become his rights.

I had the advantage of knowing the history of the period when I first read Shakespeare's version, and I was thus not going to assume automatically that the chief protagonist was the evil one. If you know your Roman history (I'm not that adept - but I had just finished a history course that covered Rome in great detail), which most of the Elizabethan audience likely did, the dialogue in Act I pretty much directs a lot of criticism towards Caesar, essentially to lay out the conspirators' side of the argument. Shakespeare clearly sided with the histories of the time that promoted Caesar as having Imperial designs. I recall, on my first reading, thinking that Caesar was clearly a baddy.

I think it could be argued that Cassius was equally a tragic hero as a villain, although "hero" might be a stretch. If you're sympathetic to Caesar (and I'm not sure a contemporary audience would have been from my reading of the opening scenes which pretty much cast him as what the conspirators claim he is), Cassius, as the ringleader, is the clear villain. But if you're anti-Caesar, he's not such a heavy.

I remember seeing an article or essay once that said that of all the conspirators, as Marc Antony agreed, only Brutus did it for noble reasons. From Shakespeare's text (other than out of the mouths of his foes like Caesar or Antony), I think Cassius was following the same instincts, but was just far more pragmatic than Brutus. Had Brutus followed his advice, the entire history of the era might have been different. (Again, I am not certain as to how much of this reflects historical accuracy and how much is Shakespeare. I'm discussing it from the contents of the play, not the real events.)

[Rachel.Adler]

Foolmewunz, thanks for joining our discussion! Your interpretation of Cassius is very thought provoking and insightful. I am inclined to agree with you that Cassius was not meant to be a villain, and could even be considered a tragic hero. I am not convinced, however, that Shakespeare provides conclusive evidence that killing Caesar was justified. I think that Shakespeare's treatment of Caesar is still very much up for debate.

I agree that there is a great deal of material in the play that leads the audience to mistrust Caesar. Caesar does have the tribunes "put to silence" for protesting against him, and he does seem to desire to become king. Antony offers him the crown at the beginning of act one (because he knows this is what Caesar desires?), and he seems to struggle to refuse it. Additionally, we are led to believe that one of Caesar's principle reasons for going to the Senate House on the Ides of March is because he believes that the Senate plans to crown him on this day.

That being said, the question remains whether Caesar's desire to become king is as dangerous as Brutus and Cassius seem to believe it to be. It seems that Brutus can find no evidence that Caesar desires to be a tyrant. Brutus' "It must be by his death" soliloquy seems deeply flawed in it's logic, as he is essentially arguing that Caesar should be killed for a crime that history suggests he will commit in the future. Brutus says of Caesar "And to speak truth of Caesar, I have not known when his affections swayed more than his reason...And since the quarrel will bear no color for the thing he his...therefore think him as a serpent's egg." It seems that he is saying that Caesar has never shown any reason for Brutus to fear that he will rule unjustly or tyrannically

The people clearly love Caesar, which makes Brutus’ argument that he is killing Caesar for the good of Rome even more troubling. What is Rome, if not its people? Can Brutus justify a claim that he understands “the general good” better than nearly all of Rome? Caesar was already dictator for life. Why should we suppose that anything would truly change if he were to become king? Shakespeare seems to suggest that his audience should question whether it would be inherently damaging for Caesar to become king, and whether Brutus is somehow failing to analyze the political situation in a logical manner.

This seems very relevant to an analysis of Cassius since, as you said, one’s view of Caesar is directly related to one’s view of Cassius. This goes back to my original post. It seems unclear, given the complexity Shakespeare’s treatment of Caesar, whether Cassius believes that there is not a true reason to kill Caesar and wants organize the conspiracy out of personal jealousy, or whether his obvious feelings of jealousy are mixed with a conviction that Caesar truly is a tyrant and a corrupter. It seems to me that his soliloquy at the end of act one holds the key to this question. If you interpret this passage to mean “Brutus shouldn’t associate with people like me, because I’ve just started to corrupt him, and I’m about to finish the job with these letters,” this casts his actions in a very negative light. He would essentially be admitting that the conspiracy is based on foul motives and that in convincing Brutus to join him in killing Caesar he is “seducing” him. If you take his soliloquy to mean that he fears that Brutus has become too close to Caesar and is therefore in danger of being corrupted and blinded to Caesar’s faults, however, these words actually makes Cassius appear nobler. He then seems to truly believe that he has intellectual, as well as personal reasons for hating Caesar, and he is not simply using Brutus as a tool to further his own ambitions.

I feel that there is evidence for both readings. When Brutus and Cassius fight in act four, it seems that Cassius values the friendship of Brutus extremely highly. In fact, your point about Cassius’ submission to Brutus would suggest that Cassius might value their friendship so highly that he is willing to risk the realization of his ambitions and even his life to keep Brutus’ good opinion. It therefore seems unlikely that he would so readily decide to lead him into corruption. On the other hand, Cassius’ “evidence” against Caesar is rather ridiculous. Caesar should be killed because Cassius was able to out swim him when they were boys? Really? And, if Caesar is so obviously bad, shouldn’t Cassius be able to convince Brutus without forging the letters?

Whew. Sorry for making this such a long post, and thanks again for your thoughts. I’d really love to hear more of your interpretations.

P. S.

RedIbis, thanks for posting, and I agree with you about Polonius

[Rachel.Adler]

Wildly, Thanks for being so stalwart! You should get some kind of award . I'm not convinced that Plutarch or Shakespeare were implying that Cassius did not have a prominent role in the conspiracy. When I said that Plutarch was "denigrating his role" I meant that he was characterizing him as petty man who was secondary to Brutus in terms of character and vision. Your insights into Plutarch have been really fascinating, though! I just read an article that discussed the fact that Plutarch's aim in writing the Lives was to prove that the Greeks, such as Dion of Syracuse, were able to equal the Romans in terms of military and political greatness. This author also talks about the idea that Plutarch missed the "romanness" in Brutus, but Shakespeare was able to restore it. Bias in historical writing is just so fascinating, don't you think?

I hope you keep posting

[Foolmewunz]

A note on researching the era:

I went back to see what I could find in contemporary accounts (translated or scholarly interpretations), and it seems that after Livy, the two most famous historians are both rather tainted. Plutarch brought his own bias to many of his "Lives", and Gibbon took much of his own material from Plutarch, and then tinged it with his own bias, too. (Just look at the fiction that Gibbon created on the burning of the Library of Alexandria....)

Anyhow, I don't want this to devolve into a literal (rather than literary) history of the time. The point I'm addressing is as I stated in my previous post. How is William Shakespeare portraying the character?

If you want to even further cloud the issue, take a look at the Hollywood film version of the play. (I mention that version because it's the only one readily available, that I know of.) Gielgud* as Cassius... You add another layer of confusion because now you have to play your knowledge of history against the poetry/dialogue of the bard, and then rub those up against the nuances and interpretations of the director and the actor.
*You might want to try to block out several of the other actors. Mason's Brutus is good, but I can't abide Brando's scenery-chewing as Marc Antony.

No wonder Shakespeare is so damned fascinating, even 400 years later. Interesting that you note that in Cassius' defining monologue, there are still clearly two separate interpretations available. I lean toward the latter, but I think it's really a combination of the two. Yet, I've read people who insisted that Cassius was flat out shooting for Caesar's job, as though that was greater desire than Caesar's. Why? Caesar's job had been First Counsel. Cassius in no place indicates a desire to be Dictator For Life or Emperor.

Fascinating play about a fascinating time. It's rather under-rated in the great tragedies because, IMHO, the second half of the play just plain stinks. If you could judge it up to the post-assasination speeches and dialogue, it's absolutely great. After that, you're just waiting around for the suicides and "noblest roman of them all" bit.

[Rachel.Adler]

I agree completely that there is almost no evidence in Shakespeare's work that Cassius wanted to be king or dictator! In my opinion, one of Cassius' most moving and powerful lines is:

Age, thou art shamed!
Rome, thou hast lost the breed of noble bloods!
When went there by an age, since the great flood,
But it was famed with more than with one man?
When could they say till now, that talk'd of Rome,
That her wide walls encompass'd but one man?

This sounds to me like an expression of passionate love for the Roman Republic. His patriotism may be less philosophic and less concerned with the "common good" than that of Brutus, but I believe that it is no less sincere. It may be that he loves Rome because of what it can do for him, but I think it would be possible to argue that Cassius loves the republic more than Brutus does, as Brutus seems to love his own honor above all else. I would be interested to hear your take on this. Perhaps that is why Brutus refers to Cassius as "the last of all the Romans" and why Titinius says, after Cassius has committed suicide, that "the sun of Rome has set." More evidence for our tragic hero hypothesis, I think .

Also, I just recently saw the film of Julius Caesar, and I absolutely love Mason and Gielgud as Brutus and Cassius. I think that struggling with all of those layers of bias and interpretation can be very interesting and rewarding. I personally feel that a really skillful interpretation like this is better than any critical essay. Do you have any thoughts on how this production "adds another layer" to the play? My own feeling is that Gielgud brings out a very subtle homoerotic undercurrent, especially during the quarrel scene.

Thanks so much for the great discussion. I'm so glad I've found someone else who enjoys discussing this play. You are really wonderful

-Rachel

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

JC is not one of the plays that I've studied too closely. I will go back and try to contribute to the OP's discussion.

I did watch and very much enjoyed Brando as Marc Antony in JC.

As for villains, I think Polonius is underrated and written off as a bumbling idiot, which I don't think he is at all.

I like Henry VI. It's the only play where the Victorian Insults actually made sense to me on the first try.

Quote:

Anyhow, I don't want this to devolve into a literal (rather than literary) history of the time. The point I'm addressing is as I stated in my previous post. How is William Shakespeare portraying the character?

I don't think we'll ever know for sure. Like Henry VI the context is long long long gone. At best it's only a guess and open to interpretation.

[imjohn]

Quote:

I like Henry VI. It's the only play where the Victorian Insults actually made sense to me on the first try.

Elizabethan. Victorian insults are pretty simple.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Rachel.Adler

Wildly, Thanks for being so stalwart! You should get some kind of award . I'm not convinced that Plutarch or Shakespeare were implying that Cassius did not have a prominent role in the conspiracy. When I said that Plutarch was "denigrating his role" I meant that he was characterizing him as petty man who was secondary to Brutus in terms of character and vision. Your insights into Plutarch have been really fascinating, though! I just read an article that discussed the fact that Plutarch's aim in writing the Lives was to prove that the Greeks, such as Dion of Syracuse, were able to equal the Romans in terms of military and political greatness. This author also talks about the idea that Plutarch missed the "romanness" in Brutus, but Shakespeare was able to restore it. Bias in historical writing is just so fascinating, don't you think?

I hope you keep posting

My impression of Shakespeare's version of Cassius is , whether villain or not, he was a user, manipulative and had a sense of being owed. As to whether Caesar should have been assassinated, not really, the Senate was disfunctional under the alternatives, would have been almost certainly disfunctional under Caesar so......Beyond that would be more research than I am really interested in (no offense, but I am more a Comedies guy on the big S.)

[Rachel.Adler]

Originally Posted by technoextreme

I like Henry VI. It's the only play where the Victorian Insults actually made sense to me on the first try.
I don't think we'll ever know for sure. Like Henry VI the context is long long long gone. At best it's only a guess and open to interpretation.

If you are right that we probably won't ever know for sure, this is one of those things that really makes me think. As you can most likely see, I live for this kind literary/historical analysis. Sometimes I wonder why I do it, though. I have read numerous pieces of literary criticism on a variety of works, and I find it simply fascinating to consider the ambiguities of the text and to suggest interpretations. If we won't ever know the answers, though, why bother? If it is impossible for me to truly understand Cassius, why should I spend so much time considering and debating the relative merit of various interpretations? It seems to me that for a given individual, literature can lead him or her to question and evaluate his or her worldview, and it can be a valuable tool to focus analysis and examination the conundrums and dilemmas that are most relevant in daily life. Rereading a book can allow an individual to see how subjective and connected to life experience their interpretations are, as his or her reaction to the same plot and the same characters will usually shift. It is common to find questions raised in a text that seem to directly relate to the problems that the reader is considering at that time. I have taken a class in which I used pieces of literature as case studies for problems of political theory, and through examining the characters and their struggles, I believe I gained a deeper undertanding of many problems inherent in politics. I feel troubled, however, when I consider the purpose of academic scholarship regarding literature, since it seems to be attempting to answer questions to which there are no answers. I would love to hear any thoughts you all might have on this. I guess now I can check "have minor existential crisis" off my to do list for today.

[fuelair]

Nothing wrong with that. Analysing humanity through it's writings /art/music makes perfectly good sense. Not so sure about that for analysing an individual through other's treatment of him in the same areas. To do that, you have to assume they were really good at seeing someone else with their eyes. Not a common trait. I suspect that unless we develop transtemporal travel, that will remain beyond our scope.

[Foolmewunz]

Rachel,
You do like to worry, don't you? (good-natured smiley of your choice to be inserted here)

It's an interesting discussion, but ultimately is there any one person's life that you could use as a model for solving your own distinct and separate problems. We apply the sum of our experiences and knowledge in solving any quandry. I probably apply as much wit and wisdom of "Our Gang" to problem-solving as I do political machinations of Machiavelli. Does it hurt that I don't really know if Darla was so cute as she's pictured, or that Spanky probably wasn't as Solomon-like as Mac Sennett wanted us to think? Or do I apply the lessons learned?

(I'm not being facetious.... I loved Our Gang as a kid and learned loads from it. And don't be saying anything bad about Darla!)

Maybe the real life Cassius was a minor player, a boring nudge, and smelled like yesterday's left over Chianti. The guy in Shakespeare, though, is a fascinating set of contradictions (much like Brutus and Caesar) and I think I'm content learning and applying knowledge gleaned from the Bard.... What better student of human character operating in crisis situations could you get?

As I said, Livy was a better source of info than Plutarch, but Livy doesn't get up to the assassination and post-assassination, IIRC. Plutarch brought his own prejudices, and then the great Gibbon brought his own. With two out of the three best historians of the time not delivering a conclusion, I'm afraid we're going to be stuck with conjecture.

Ah, but..... isn't that what art is all about. Leave as many possible outcomes and interpretations as fit the model, and then play them against each other.

I kinda like not being able to reach a definition of the guy. That's why I said I was purposely not speaking of Cassius Real Guy, I was speaking of Cassius Shakespearean Character.

[bruto]

I think foolmewunz has a good point. It could be very frustrating to try to pin down a character like Cassius if Shakespeare's intention was to make him impossible to pin down. Shakespeare is pretty good at that, and one of the things I like about him is that his characters are so often too complicated to categorize as anything but themselves. Hamlet isn't a this or a that: he's a Hamlet. And of course, it's hardly an accident that the villains so often get the best lines, is it?

[Rachel.Adler]

Foolmewunz, I read your post while I was up late working, and it made me laugh out loud. You're right, I do worry too much. And I've thought about it more, and I agree that it's kind of fun not being able to pin Cassius down. Whether Shakespeare intentionally inserted all of the ambiguities or not, it's certainly given me a lot of enjoyment. And isn't that what it's all about? I thought I'd share another puzzle associated with the soliloquy, since the consensus seems to be that it isn't totally pointless.

The lines, "Caesar doth bear me hard, but he loves Brutus. If I were Brutus now and he were Cassius, he should not humor me" are extremely hard to pin down. As I see it, there are at least four choices.

1. Cassius is admitting that he is wrong to come between Caesar and Brutus. In stating that he would not act this way if their situations were reversed, he is acknowledging that his argument is specious and further admitting his guilt.
2. "He should not humor me" actually means "Caesar should not humor me." This only works if you buy the theory that Caesar is the seducer in this passage. If this is true, maybe "humor" means "seduce," and Cassius is saying that he can see through Caesar's tricks, but Brutus cannot. This one seems like quite a stretch to me, but I read this somewhere, so I thought I'd put it out there.
3. This is a meditation on the power of friendship. This comment has nothing to do with whether Caesar or Cassius is correct, and everything to do with the fact that Cassius values friendship above all else, even reason. We can see that this is true for Cassius, given the fact that he tragically ignores his own better judgment in order to maintain the good opinion of Brutus. Therefore, Cassius is pondering the fact that if he possessed such a friendship, nothing could convince him to give it up. This is my own pet theory
4. Essentially, Cassius is gloating about his superiority to Brutus. This could mesh with 1, 2, or 3, depending on how you look at it. He is reveling in his success and fantasizing about a reversal of positions in which he would show himself to be nobler than Brutus. This could be because he would recognize the cause (his own or Caesar's, though?) to be unjust, or because he would choose friendship over politics no matter what.

Thanks,

Rachel

[gnome]

I've always supposed that Shakespeare left the question of villainy in JC ambiguous deliberately. I don't think he intended that people should assume either.

[Soapy Sam]

"He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous."

Nice description of a sceptic.

[Rachel.Adler]

I agree, and I think he would fit in very well here on JREF. At the end, he does get to be a bit superstitious, but I probably would too if I noticed that carrion birds had replaced the eagles following my troops. Being a skeptic in Shakespeare's universe might lead to some different conclusions than being a skeptic in our world .

[gumboot]

I think the point of the tragedies is that the protagonists cause their own downfall, hence the tragic flaw. A tragedy doesn't work if you have clear heroes and villains, because the decisions of the hero then become fully justified, and their death becomes a noble death rather than a tragedy.

The truly villainous characters in Shakespeare's tragedies seem to me to function purely as plot devices to trigger the hero's flaw. Someone needed to kill Mercutio, someone needed to give Tamara legal power over Titus Andronicus...

So when I see a speech in a Shakespearean tragedy like the one in the OP that has two potential interpretations that are direct contradictions, I suspect that may be absolutely intentional.

Consider.

If Brutus' slaying of Caesar was entirely justified there would be no tragedy in Brutus' death, because ultimately he died for a worthy cause. Likewise if Brutus' slaying of Caesar was totally unjustified there's no tragedy in his death because he deserves to die. The ambiguity of the slaying of Caesar, I think, is vital to the tragedy. The two roles of Mark Antony and Cassius, then, are not that of villains, but the two opposing voices that ensure that the slaying is kept in moral stasis.

Any private remarks made by the characters would of course reveal their true intents and therefore establish whose position was morally right, so in order to prevent this their private musings are worded in a form that can be interpreted either way, thus maintaining ambiguity.

[Rachel.Adler]

Gumboot, I think this is a fascinating interpretation. I am not convinced, though, that “moral stasis” is conducive to the development of a tragic hero. It actually seems to me that the moral balance must shift in favor of Caesar and Antony in order for Brutus to play this role.

In my opinion, just as there could be no tragedy if Brutus was completely justified in his decisions, there could be no tragedy if it were completely ambiguous. Brutus would not, then, truly experience a “downfall” at all. He would have made a fatal error, but that is not in any way equivalent to making a “tragic” error. In a way, this moral parity would result in Brutus appearing wholly justified, since no one could fault someone for either decision when a choice is completely unclear.

If there is absolutely no indication that Brutus was more wrong that right in killing Caesar, where is the poignancy in the line “Caesar, now be still. I killed not thee with half so good a will.”? There is no sense of fault, blame, guilt or self development.

It might be helpful to consider Macbeth. I think that few believe that in order for story to be a tragedy, the slaying of King Duncan must remain morally ambiguous. Macbeth is “unjustified” in killing Duncan, yet because he appears to be an essentially good man who is wracked by guilt, confusion and despair, his ambition and his misreading of his own fate appears very tragic. Perhaps, though, you would not consider Macbeth to be a tragic hero. I can see how this would be debatable. Similarly, I have my doubts about Brutus as a tragic hero.

Also, although I obviously agree that Cassius is a complex character, I am simply not sure that he would need to be in order for Brutus to be a tragic hero. Brutus can be viewed to have done the wrong thing despite the fact that he is an essentially good person, while Cassius can be viewed to have done the wrong thing because he is a jealous, morally corrupt individual.

The important thing is that Brutus is sympathetic enough to remain a hero despite making a tragic error, not necessarily that the act itself was justified. It is Brutus' idealism and commitment to honor that redeems him, not his justifications for killing Caesar. In fact, you could argue that Brutus provides one of the weakest justifications for killing Caesar of anyone in the play (see the third and fourth paragraphs of post # 12).

It seems that since Brutus' appeal comes not from his actions but from his personality, Cassius being a villain would not make Brutus one as well. As you said, “The truly villainous characters in Shakespeare's tragedies seem to me to function purely as plot devices to trigger the hero's flaw.” I see no reason that Brutus' status as a tragic hero would prevent Cassius from being such a plot device.

If you want to argue that Cassius is actually the tragic hero, however, I certainly won't stop you .

Thanks again for a wonderfully thought provoking post. I would love to hear more of your opinions.

-Rachel

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Rachel.Adler

Gumboot, I think this is a fascinating interpretation. I am not convinced, though, that “moral stasis” is conducive to the development of a tragic hero. It actually seems to me that the moral balance must shift in favor of Caesar and Antony in order for Brutus to play this role.

I think ultimately it does. I was thinking more of earlier in the play.

Originally Posted by Rachel.Adler

In my opinion, just as there could be no tragedy if Brutus was completely justified in his decisions, there could be no tragedy if it were completely ambiguous. Brutus would not, then, truly experience a “downfall” at all. He would have made a fatal error, but that is not in any way equivalent to making a “tragic” error. In a way, this moral parity would result in Brutus appearing wholly justified, since no one could fault someone for either decision when a choice is completely unclear.

Just to be clear I'm referring to the audience's perception of what is right - not Brutus'. Ultimately the conclusion is that Brutus was wrong. But I think it's not only important but vital to the tragedy that Brutus' perception is that he is right. To establish this I think initially the audience cannot know that what he is doing is wrong.

The audience, then, sees ambiguity, but not Brutus. If that makes sense?

Originally Posted by Rachel.Adler

If there is absolutely no indication that Brutus was more wrong that right in killing Caesar, where is the poignancy in the line “Caesar, now be still. I killed not thee with half so good a will.”? There is no sense of fault, blame, guilt or self development.

As you say, I think it's important for the tragedy that ultimately the audience feels Brutus was wrong. Or perhaps not, what part could "the victor writes history" have in this tragedy? Brutus clearly feels that ultimately he will be vindicated for retaining his honour: "I shall have glory by this losing day / More than Octavius and Mark Antony / By this vile conquest shall attain unto". The tragedy is that despite his honourable actions he is remembered primarily as a traitor to his friend.

Originally Posted by Rachel.Adler

It might be helpful to consider Macbeth. I think that few believe that in order for story to be a tragedy, the slaying of King Duncan must remain morally ambiguous. Macbeth is “unjustified” in killing Duncan, yet because he appears to be an essentially good man who is wracked by guilt, confusion and despair, his ambition and his misreading of his own fate appears very tragic. Perhaps, though, you would not consider Macbeth to be a tragic hero. I can see how this would be debatable. Similarly, I have my doubts about Brutus as a tragic hero.

I consider both to be tragic heroes. I think the ambiguity of Macbeth comes, not from his actions (his killings are clearly wrong) but in questioning how he is being manipulated both by the supernatural and by his wife. (There's also an argument that the script we have for Macbeth is incomplete, with a notable missing step in the narrative being a conversation between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth regarding the assassination).

Originally Posted by Rachel.Adler

Also, although I obviously agree that Cassius is a complex character, I am simply not sure that he would need to be in order for Brutus to be a tragic hero. Brutus can be viewed to have done the wrong thing despite the fact that he is an essentially good person, while Cassius can be viewed to have done the wrong thing because he is a jealous, morally corrupt individual.

The problem is if Cassius were obviously morally corrupt, and if Brutus was truly a noble Roman of honour, and were the killing of Caesar clearly wrong, Brutus would not have killed him.

Originally Posted by Rachel.Adler

The important thing is that Brutus is sympathetic enough to remain a hero despite making a tragic error, not necessarily that the act itself was justified. It is Brutus' idealism and commitment to honor that redeems him, not his justifications for killing Caesar.

I think though, because of Brutus' commitment to honour the act must be justified for him to perform it (in his own eyes). If Brutus did not perceive the act as justified, in performing the act it would reveal his commitment to honour as a lie.

Originally Posted by Rachel.Adler

In fact, you could argue that Brutus provides one of the weakest justifications for killing Caesar of anyone in the play (see the third and fourth paragraphs of post # 12).

I think Brutus' justification is the only legitimate justification. And, speaking historically, was quite possibly correct.

Originally Posted by Rachel.Adler

It seems that since Brutus' appeal comes not from his actions but from his personality, Cassius being a villain would not make Brutus one as well. As you said, “The truly villainous characters in Shakespeare's tragedies seem to me to function purely as plot devices to trigger the hero's flaw.” I see no reason that Brutus' status as a tragic hero would prevent Cassius from being such a plot device.

That's quite possibly true. I'm just thinking if Cassius were clearly a villain it would bring into doubt the sincerity of Brutus' commitment to honour.

Both Lady Macbeth and the Witches/Hecate hold power over Macbeth, and thus are able to compel him to act against his will. I think Macbeth knows from the outset that what he is doing is wrong, but feels he has no choice. He thus acts against his honour.

I don't see Cassius having the same power over Brutus. It is Brutus' sense of honour that has power over him, and thus in order for him to feel he has no choice but to act, he must clearly feel that killing Caesar is the right thing to do. Cassius' ambiguity serves that purpose. Of course in turns out that Cassius' ambiguity is a result of deception.

Originally Posted by Rachel.Adler

If you want to argue that Cassius is actually the tragic hero, however, I certainly won't stop you .

Personally I think Brutus is definitely the protagonist.

Originally Posted by Rachel.Adler

Thanks again for a wonderfully thought provoking post. I would love to hear more of your opinions.

I'm hoping to learn more from others' posts. It has been a long time since I took a serious look at Julius Caesar. Also of Shakespeare's tragedies I am only really familiar With Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Titus Andronicus, Antony and Cleopatra, and Hamlet. I am not well versed on Coriolanus, King Lear, Othello, or Timon of Athens.

These other plays may very likely cause all of my theories about his tragedies to come tumbling apart at the seams!

I'm also curious about how people feel Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra fit in together. The end of Julius Caesar establishes the rift between Octavius and Antony. In Julius Caesar the tragic flaw of Brutus' commitment to honour is contrasted with Antony's commitment to his emotions - a trait that becomes his own tragic flaw in Antony and Cleopatra, and which is contrasted with Octavius' commitment to honour.

[Rachel.Adler]

Thanks for the great response. I love this type of debate and discussion, and I have some questions about your theories.

Originally Posted by gumboot

The problem is if Cassius were obviously morally corrupt, and if Brutus was truly a noble Roman of honour, and were the killing of Caesar clearly wrong, Brutus would not have killed him.

I am not convinced that it would have been impossible for Brutus to kill Caesar given this scenario. I think my main objection stems from a problem you raised earlier, which is that there are two ways that the killing of Caesar can be “clearly wrong.” It can be clearly wrong to the audience, or it can be clearly wrong to Brutus. I agree completely that Brutus, unlike Macbeth, would not have committed an act that he believed would compromise his honor.

Whether he would have committed an act that seemed clearly wrong to the audience, however, seems to me to be a different matter. I disagree with your statement that Brutus being remembered as a traitor despite his honorable nature would be sufficiently tragic without the audience considering him to be guilty. I think that his suffering must be because of some great error on his part in order for it to be “tragic” in the classical sense.
I am also not sure that I completely understand your argument about the audience’s initial perception of Brutus.

Originally Posted by gumboot

But I think it's not only important but vital to the tragedy that Brutus' perception is that he is right.To establish this I think initially the audience cannot know that what he is doing is wrong.

Are you saying that if the audience initially perceives Brutus to be wrong, they will not accept that he believes he is right? I think that there is definitely evidence in the play that has the potential to justify Brutus’ decision, but I don’t exactly understand why this is necessary for the audience to view Brutus as a tragic hero.

It seems to me that due to Cassius’ manipulation and Brutus’ illogical thinking, the audience and Brutus have dramatically different perceptions of the events of the play. I think that this disparity would allow Brutus, theoretically, to be entirely wrong in the mind of the audience but entirely vindicated in his own view.

Cassius shows himself to be quite capable of altering Brutus’ perception of events to suit his purposes. No matter how one interprets his soliloquy, Cassius clearly seems to believe that his persuasive words combined with the political realities that both he and Brutus perceive will not be sufficient to sway Brutus. He therefore resorts to forging letters in order to persuade Brutus that the people of Rome greatly desire Brutus to rise up against Caesar. Therefore, Brutus believes that many citizens have been imploring him to kill Caesar, when this is actually not the case. Brutus, when he decides to kill Caesar, does not posses the same facts as Cassius or the audience. Therefore, the fact that Cassius is able to persuade Brutus does little to convince me that Cassius is justified in his arguments, or that Brutus is making a moral choice. I conclude from this only that Cassius is clever enough to be able to persuade Brutus that he is justified.

I think our difference of opinion also comes from the fact that I disagree that Brutus’ justification is a legitimate justification for killing Caesar. Although there is evidence in the play that Caesar is a threat to Rome, such as Flavius and Marullus being “put to silence,” Brutus does not seem to take this into account as he reasons. Brutus, as he is pondering his decision, states "and to speak truth of Caesar, I have not known when his affections swayed more than his reason...And since the quarrel will bear no color for the thing he his...therefore think him as a serpent's egg." This is an extremely troubling statement, as he has explicitly stated that he sees no evidence that Caesar will become a tyrant. I have examined this passage very carefully, and I simply cannot understand this logic. He is advocating killing Caesar on the basis that he may commit a crime at a future date, despite the fact that he has shown no sign (in Brutus’ mind) of desiring to commit such a crime. It seems, at times, that Brutus’ desire for honor is part of a confused and muddled vision of politics and human relationships. Perhaps he is too much the idealist to be able to reason with total clarity.

Oddly enough, it seems to me that even though Shakespeare provides enough evidence to make the killing of Caesar seem morally ambiguous, he actually seems to indicate that Brutus’ path to his decision is more illogical than it needs to be. This truly is a puzzle to me, and I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Originally Posted by gumboot

I'm also curious about how people feel Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra fit in together. The end of Julius Caesar establishes the rift between Octavius and Antony. In Julius Caesar the tragic flaw of Brutus' commitment to honour is contrasted with Antony's commitment to his emotions - a trait that becomes his own tragic flaw in Antony and Cleopatra, and which is contrasted with Octavius' commitment to honour.

I would love to discuss this with you. I think Antony and Cleopatra is a fascinating play, and you raise some very interesting questions. It seems to me that one of the central questions of this play is what it truly means to be honorable. Antony seems to me to be attempting to act nobly despite the fact that the traditional way of life under the Roman Republic has collapsed. He can no longer follow the “Cursus Honorum” that structured Roman political life, and so he tries to understand honor in an entirely new context. I would love to hear your own thoughts and your ideas about how this relates to Brutus.

Thanks,

Rachel