Upload
ngodien
View
227
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
– B R U T U S –
“ ET TU, CAESARE”
Submitted to
Dr. William Halstead
In partial fulfillment of theRequirements for English 608
by
George P. Khouri, A.B., LL.B.
University of Miami
January 28, 1960.
1.
In organizing any paper on Shakespeare, many unique
difficulties immediately arise. The first and most difficult to
overcome is the sheer physical mass of material which confronts
one, combined with an almost uncontrollable desire in the reader to
pursue every new and novel turn of scholarship as it arises. It
does appear that everyone who ever aspired to be an English major
has at some time delivered himself of paper on Shakespeare at
varying levels of intelligence, profundity and academic merit. It
becomes a weighty task in itself to sift the chaff from the grain.
Thus, this paper started out in the grandiloquent design
of A Study of Corruption in Shakespeare’s Noble Characters – with
particular reference to Brutus, Macbeth, and Othello. As time and
research progressed, it was deemed more judicious to narrow the paper
to a study of the perversion of Brutus and Macbeth, contrasting Brutus
as a totally good man led astray with Macbeth as a good man, albeit
possessing an innate spark of evil, who is also led astray. As the
material for this paper also grew to unwieldy proportions, it became
evident that the scope an aim should be trimmed still further. Thus,
abjuring all pretensions to increasing the number of papers written on
Shakespeare, but aspiring to a modicum of scholarship and academic
merit, this paper is offered as a study of Brutus in Shakespeare’s
Julius Caesar.
The purpose here is to trace Brutus’ character as we find
him – noble, honorable, patriotic, virtuous, rigid. This rigid virtue
will be shown as his fatal flaw, leading to a typical Aristotelian
2.
Peripatie1 where Brutus suffers a complete change of fortune which
ensues as a natural consequence of his temper and conduct. Where
The comparison is strong and clear, reference will be made to the same
process of corruption and perversion in Shakespeare’s other great
tragic hero, Macbeth.
Some historical and critical background is useful to set
Brutus and the play Julius Caesar in perspective and to suggest
something of Shakespeare’s dramatic maturity and theatrical aims in
this play.
There is some dispute about the date of the play Julius
Caesar – some authorities putting it as early as 1598, while others
put it as late as 1607, notably Malone, Drake, Skottowe, Fleay and
Knight. In fact, Professor Wilson argues that the date of any
Shakespearean play could be of secondary importance to the question of
how Shakespeare wrote each of his plays because of the fact that
Shakespeare was so versatile in his compositions and also that his art
did not progress or develop chronologically2. From an examination of
the internal and external evidence available, however, the date 1600
appears as the most authentic: -
1. Julius Caesar does not appear in the Quarto editions of
the 15 plays which were printed in Shakespeare’s
lifetime. But it does appear among the 21 plays which
were printed posthumously in Folio form – the most
1Aristotle, on the Poetics, Criticism, edited by W. J. Bate,
Harcourt, Brace and Co, (New York, 1952)2Harold S. Wilson, On the Design of Shakespearean Tragedy ,
University of Toronto Press, 1957) p.4.
3.
notable folio appearing in 1623 in the style known as
Early Bedford and measuring 12-7/8 in. by 8-3/8 in.3
2. Julius Caesar does not appear in Mere’s List of
Shakespeare’s Plays published in 1598.3
3. Hamlet, which Shakespeare wrote in 1601-2 does contain
speeches by Polonius (Act. III, Scene 2) and by Horatio
(Act. I, Sc. 2) in which Shakespeare seems to allude to
his own play of Julius Caesar.
4. In tone of thought, in style and versification, Julius
Caesar closely resembles the other plays of the period
1601-1603 viz. Twelfth Night (1601), All’s Well That
End’s Well (1601-2), Hamlet (1602-3), and Measure for
Measure (1603).3
Actually, Julius Caesar is most closely related to
Hamlet in both plot and character:
a) Both are tragedies of thought and
character, rather than action.
b) both Brutus and Hamlet felt they faced a
great duty, discordant with their natures,
in which they fail because of excessive
idealism, in Brutus, and excessive
introspection, in Hamlet
3
Stanley Wood and A. Syms-Wood, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar,George Gill & Sons Ltd. (London, 1901) p.VI.
4.
c) in both plays there is a regicide where the
spirit of the murdered man determines the
theme of Revenge and Destiny.
Thus, Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar when he was at the advanced
stage of his career, assured of a favorable audience for his works and
conscious of his responsibility as a leading playwright to produce
works not only of merit but also of significance. It has been
suggested that at the time Shakespeare wrote his Julius Caesar there
was growing concern in England regarding the political question of the
General Succession on the death of the Virgin Queen Elizabeth, who had
no apparently acceptable heir, and that Shakespeare in his play sought
to forewarn the English people of the chaos and anarchy which can rush
in to fill the vacuum of a vacant throne, with the threat of the
inconclusive inter-necine strife inherent in such a situation.34
While
this is possible, it seems much more remarkable that this play of
Shakespeare’s almost provides the blue-print for a truly lurid period
in English history beginning with the regicide of King Charles I and
continuing with the civil war and the struggle for power during the
Cromwellian Protectorate until the restoration of King Charles II in
1660. Both in the play and in the history, there is a regicide. The
civil war in Rome between the Imperialist party and the Republican
party had its counterpart in England in the civil war between the
Republican Parliamentary Party of Cromwell’s Roundheads and the
Imperialist Royalist Party of King Charles’ Cavaliers.
4O. J. Stevenson, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Copp Clark Publishers
Co. Ltd. (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, 1916 p. XXVII.
5.
Finally, there is the dramatic element of order restored when Caesar’s
son, Octavius, becomes Emperor in Rome and Charles’ son, Charles II,
becomes King of England. Indeed, a study of Julius Caesar compared
with the political events in England between 1603, when Elizabeth
died, and 1660 might open an entirely new field of scholarship under
the heading of Shakespeare’s Prescience. This point however arose at
too late a stage in this research to give it the thorough study it
deserves. Thus, no further discussion of Shakespeare’s politics will
be introduced beyond the remark here that in his treatment of politics
in Julius Caesar, Shakespeare showed himself unbiased and free from
prejudice, maintaining his independence of view in all questions of a
social, political, and religious nature.
The maturity of Shakespeare’s genius is also evidenced in
two more critical appraisals of his play. The structure of Julius
Caesar is precisely balanced and clearly divided into five prinicipal
movements:45
1. the opening, which takes is in medias res, into the heart
of the conflict between rising imperialism (Caesar) and
restless Republicanism (Cassius),
2. the growth, of the conspiracy to Caesar’s death,
3. the climax in Caesaar’s death,
4. the fall, which covers the events between the Ides of
March and the Battle of Philippi,
5. the catastrophe which befalls Brutus and Cassius as a
direct, natural and probable consequence of their crime.
5Wood and Wood, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, op. Cit. P.XV-XVIII.
6.
Shakespeare’s adherence to the fundamental rules of
characterization also marks Julius Caesar as a product of his supreme
genius, particularly in these four categories:5
1. Distinctiveness: the distinctive features of characters
who will influence the whole of the action must be drawn
early and clearly, e.g. Brutus’ patriotism, Caesar’s
ambition, Cassius’ envy.
2. Contrast: e.g. the character of Cassius is developed as a
foil to Brutus, of Antony as a foil to Octavius.
3. Consistency: the characters must be self consistent and
natural.
4. Effectiveness: the prinicipal characters should control
the action of the drama which itself should seem to
spring spontaneously from the natures of the chief
characters.
Thus, in these crucial aspects, it is seen that Shakespeare
has in fact produced in Julius Caesar one of his most important plays
and in Brutus one of his most impressive tragic characters.
As further background to the understanding of Brutus, it
must be noted that Julius Caesar belongs to the group of Historical
Tragedies by Shakespeare. Professor Wilson6places four of these plays,
Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Othello, and Macbeth in the Christian Order,
where a Divine influence over the action is directly acknowledged.
The other six tragedies, Julius Caesar, Coriolanus, Trolius and
Cressida, Timon of Athens, Antony and Cleopatra, and King Lear,
5 6Harold S. Wilson, op. Cit. p.9.
7.
Professor Wilson places in the Natural Order, where the mood is
definitely fatalistic and the pagan concept of Destiny controls the
deeds and the fate of men. This concept of Destiny, according to the
ancient Greeks, comprised three qualities:
1. ate, the mad folly that comes upon proud men,
2. hybris, (arrogance), and
3. nemesis, the inescapable consequence of ate and hybris.7
In making this distinction between the Christian and Natural Orders,
Wilson agreed the Professor Bradley8who pointed out that Elizabethean
drama was almost wholly secular and this is how Shakespeare wrote,
without the wish to enforce and opinion of his own, though it must be
assumed that if he personally had religious faith, it did not
contradict his concepts of the tragic view. The interesting reason
for this position, as Bradley indicates, is that Drama had to be
secular: at that time the theater was regarded as the work-shop of the
devil and it would have been sacreligious, and dangerous, for anyone
in the theater to presume to preach or teach morality.
For the historical facts in his play, Shakespeare drew on the
English translation by Sir Thomas North of Plutarch’s Lives whose
title page appears as follows:9
T H E L I V E SOF THE NOBLE GRE-
CIANS AND ROMANES COMPAREDTOGETHER BY THAT GRAVE LEARNED
PHILOSOPHER AND HISTORIOGRAHERPLUTARKE OF CHAERONEA
translated out of the Greeke into French by IamesAmiot, Abbot of Bellozane, Bishop of Auxerre,one of the King’s privie counsell, and great Am-ner of France, and out of French into English, by
THOMAS NORTH
Imprinted at London by Richard Field forBonham Norton
1595
7Harold S. Wilson, op. Cit. p.88
8A.C. Bradley , Shakespearean Tragedy, MacMillan Co. (London
1905) p. 1349
Wood and Wood, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, op. cit. p. X
8.
To this historical account, Shakespeare adhered with remarkable
fidelity as to events and characters. In fact, in many instances,
Shakespeare literally cast the prose of North into metrical verse and
thus fashioned his dialogue. Where Shakespeare did adapt the histori-
cal record, he did so with complete justification for the sake of
dramatic cohesion and intensity, and to conform more closely to the
unities of Aristotle.
Through the ages, critics have found matter worthy of praise and
of reproof in this play. The earliest known review of Julius Caesar is
in the Library of Literary Criticism (V.I. 680 — 1638 ed. by Charles
Wells Moulton, N.Y., Peter Smith, 1935) as follows:
The many—headed multitude were drawneBy Brutus’ speech, that Caesar was ambitious;When eloquent Mark Antonie had showneHis vertues, who but Brutus then was vicious!Man’s memorie, with new, forgets the old,
One tale is good, untill another’s told.10
In 1693, Thomas Rymer11
expressed his judgement that
“Shakespeare’s genius lay for comedy and humour. In tragedy he appears
quite out of his element.”
Samuel Johnson, in 1768, held mixed opinions about the play:
Of this tragedy, many particular passages deserve regard, and theQuarrel Scene is universally celebrated, but I have never beenstrongly agitated in perusing it and think it somewhat cold and
unaffecting...12
As time progressed, the critics clearly advanced in their
understanding and appreciation of the play. Coleridge in 1818 wrote:
_______________
10 John Weever, The Mirror of Martyrs (1601) S.4
11 Thomas Rymer, A Short View of the Tragedy of the Last Age, inLibrary of Literary Criticism, op. cit.
12 Samuel Johnson, General Observations on Shakespeare’s Plays,(1768) in Library of Literary Criticism, op. cit.
9.
I know of no part of Shakespeare that more impresses on me thebelief of his genius being superhuman than this scene between
Brutus and Cassius.13
In 1875, Edward Dowden wrote:
In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare makes a complete imaginativestudy of the case of a man predestined to failure. Brutusis an idealist.........moral ideas and principles are moreto him than concrete realities, he is studious of self—
perfection.14
A contemporary of Dowden, a German scholar, rendered thisjudgement:
Of all Shakespeare’s works, none has greater purity ofverse or transparent fluency..... Nothing perhaps in thewhole roll of dramatic poetry equals the tenderness givenby Shakespeare to Brutus, that tenderness of a strongnature which the force of contrast renders so touching and
so beautiful.15
In the 20th Century, these criticisms are in point. Mabie in 1900
wrote thus:
Brutus is one of the noblest and most consistent ofShakespeare’s creations, a man far above all self—seekingand capable of the loftiest patriotism, in whose wholebearing, as in his deepest nature, virtue wears his noblestaspect. But Brutus is an idealist, with a touch of thedoctrinaire; his purposes are of the highest, but the meanshe employs to give those purposes effect are utterlyinadequate; in a lofty spirit, he embarks on an enterprisedoomed to failure by the very pressure and temper of theage. Julius Caesar is the tragedy of the conflict between agreat nature denied the sense of reality, and the world—spirit. Brutus is not only crushed, but recognizes that
there was no other issue of his untimely endeavour.16
_______________________
13 Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Lectures and Notes onShakespeare, ed. Ashe, p. 315, in Library of Literary Criticism,op. cit.
14 Edward Dowden, Shakespeare: A Critical Study of His Mind andArt, 1875 —1880, p.249, in Library of Literary Criticism, op. cit.
15 Paul Stapfer, Shakespeare and Classical Antiquity, 1880,trans. Carey, p.317, 342, in Library of Literary Criticism, op. cit.
16 Hamilton Wright Mabie, William Shakespeare, Poet, Dramatistand Man, 1900, p. 298, in Library of Literary Criticism, op. cit.
10.
And in 1949, Professor George Wilson Knight discusses Julius
Caesar in terms of “crystal lucidity......even flow ...... brilliant
imagery of style.....keen spiritual faith and vision. "17
In another
work, Professor Knight writes:
The style of Julius Caesar is extraordinarily simple andnaive (in point of metaphor) yet.......the wholeimaginative vision is extremely rich, ablaze with a
vitality not found in previous plays.18
Modern critics view the play from two aspects.19a
The first view
regards Julius Caesar as a political play whose central idea is the
decay of republicanism in Rome and the rise of Caesarism. Thus
Professor H. B. Charlton writes, "Brutus is no more significant in the
play than is Hotspur in Henry IV” which is an unequivocal history
drama.19b
The second view regards it as a tragedy of character whose
central theme is that good cannot come out of evil. “Brutus is noble,
wise, valiant and honest,” but he ruined his life by one great error.
He committed a crime to prevent, as he thought, a greater crime and by
so doing he brought upon himself and his country greater evils than
those he had sought to avert. Thus, Professor L. C. Knights defines
the main issue as purely moral, not political; it consists in “the
conflicting claims of the world of personal relations and that of
politics” and the tragedy lies in that “personal loyalties are always
sacrificed to political ideals.”19c
This paper will in fact be con-
cerned primarily with the tragedy of Brutus’ character.
______________________
17 George Wilson Knight, The Wheel of Fire, Methuen & Co.Ltd.,(London, 1949): Brutus and Macbeth, p. 124.
18 George Wilson Knight, The Imperial Theme; Methuen & Co. Ltd.(London, 1951) p.35
l9a Wood and Wood, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, op. cit. p. XIV
19b H. B. Charlton, Shakespeare, Politics and Politicians,English Asscn. Pamphlets, No. 72, p. 19
19c L. C. Knights, Shakespeare and Political Wisdom, SewaneeReview 61: 43 - 55 1953)
11.
Historically, Brutus was the son of a noble Roman by the name,
and of Servilia, sister of Cato of Utica. His grand—father, M. Janius,
in whose honor the Romans had erected a statue in the Capitol,
belonged to the legendary age of the Tarquin kings. It was he who
roused the Romans to expel the Tarquins and abolish the Kingship, and
later became the first Consul in Rome.
My ancestors did from the streets of RomeThe Tarquin drive, when he was called a king.
(Act. II, Sc. 1, L.53—4)
Brutus must have inherited his stern patriotism from this ancestor who
executed two of his own sons for attempting to restore the Tarquins.20
As a youth, Brutus was a scholar and philosopher but unfortunately
none of his correspondence with Cicero survived. His earliest
instincts were republican and he had espoused the cause of Pompey
against Caesar. After his victory over Pompey at Pharsalia in 48 B.C.,
Caesar forgave Brutus because, it is said, Caesar loved Servilia,
Brutus’ mother, and Brutus was actually the illegitimate son of
Caesar. In his history of the assassination, the Roman Suetonius
states that Caesar addressed Brutus in Greek: “Kai Tu Teknon” - “And
thou, my sonne?21
Caesar in fact made Brutus Governor of Cisalpine
Gaul and he filled this and other posts with honor until he was
recalled to Rome in 44 B.C. as City Praetor on the promise that Caesar
would next appoint him Governor of Macedonia. Plutarch wrote of him as
follows:
______________________
20 Wood and Wood, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. op. cit. p. 143
21 Suetonius, ibid P. 103 and P. XXXIV. Also II Henry VI, act.IV, Sc. 2, 1. l36-7.
12.
......he was a marvellous lowly and gentle person,nobleminded, and would never be in any rage, nor carriedaway with pleasure and covetousness...., and would neveryield to any wrong or injustice: ······ for they were all
persuaded that his intent was good.22
For dramatic effect, Shakespeare altered two major historical
facts about Brutus. Cicero noted that Brutus was “slow in decision,
amazingly obstinate, and in his financial dealings with the
provincials both extortionate and cruel.”23
Nor was Brutus as close to
Caesar as Shakespeare pictures him. But obviously in these two
adaptations Shakespeare was seeking to emphasize the idealistic side
of Brutus’ character so that the audience may be impressed with his
internal struggle and with the triumph of idealism and abstract right
over the feelings that sway ordinary men.
This is the whole theme of the characterization of Brutus as
conceived by Shakespeare. The battle—ground is Brutus’ heart, mind and
soul. The conflict is searing. The issues, over—simplified perhaps,
are between what Brutus wants to do and what he thinks he should do;
between reason and emotion; between intellect and passion. How can he
save Rome from the dread fate of tyranny under an absolute monarch —
yet accomplish this with a minimum of internal upheaval, of rending
and tearing? And above all, with Honour!
0, that we then could come by Caesar’s spirit,And not dismember Caesar!
(Act. II, Sc. 1, L. 169)
__________________
22 Plutarch, Plutarch’s Lives, ed. Skeat p. 129
23 Cicero and Att. VI, 1, 7 in Enclopedia Brittanica V. 4.
13.
This inner turmoil, this deep—rooted anarchy within Brutus the
audience watches in fascinated, mesmerized horror, sympathizing fully
with the universality of the struggle, because Brutus here is showing
what every person endures in comparable contests between the ‘I must’
and the ‘I want’ in man. Professor Knight described this soul torment
vividly as:24
an inner state of disintegration, disharmony and fear, fromwhich is born an act of crime and destruction............Its signs are 1oneliness, a sense of unreality, a sicklyvision of nightmare forms. It contemplates murder andanarchy to symbolize outwardly its own inner anarchy.
A former Attorney—General of Denmark discussed this quirk of
Brutus which seeks to express an inner sense of subjective order by
outward crime.25
Dr. August Goll decides that the political criminals
in Shakespeare are of a special type — and that Brutus is typical of
those who strike only for an unselfish Ideal, for the general good Dr.
Goll determined that Brutus was truly altruistic in deciding between
his genuine love for Caesar and his high sense of duty to Rome. To
resolve this division, Brutus resorts to mis—directed logic and
reason, which he vainly hopes will convince others too but which in
fact serves mainly to develop a strong guilt complex in him. This
guilt is satisfied only when Caesar’s ghost condemns him for the
murder of Caesar and sentences him to death at Philippi, with all his
ideals shattered.
The fundamental tragedy of Brutus however is best discussed by
Professor G. Wilson Knight, particularly in his comparison with the
same problem which confronts Macbeth. Both characters are shown to
________________
24 George Wilson Knight, The Wheel of Fire, Methuen & Co. Ltd.
(London 1949), Brutus and Macbeth p. 121
25 August Goll, “Criminal Types in Shakespeare”, Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 28, p. 503 (1933)
14.
be destructive, not creative, in opposing the established ordered for
basically selfish ends.
Both Brutus and Macbeth study their dilemma in almost identical
words. Brutus says:
Since Cassius first did whet me against Caesar, I have notslept. Between the acting of a dreadful thing And the firstmotion...................the state of man..........................suffers then The nature of an
insurrection.26
And Macbeth deliberates in these words:
This supernatural solicitingCannot be ill, cannot be good......My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical,Shakes so my single state of man that functionIs smothered in surmise and nothing is
But what is not.27
Both characters here strike a note of repugnant horror at the
crimes they contemplate and it is remarkable how they seek resolution
in the universal concept of their manhood — their state of man.
Macbeth’s speech here may be more vivid, powerful and tense because he
is more emotional than Brutus, but the issue is the same. The three
realities of their problem are intertwined; the chaos in their state
of man; the act of murder itself; and the resulting chaos which they
know must ensue in the state.
When the crime is first broached to them, both plead for time to
consider: Brutus:
.........for this present,I would not, so with love I might entreat you,
Be any further moved.......28
___________________
26 Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act. II, Sc. 1, L. 61-69.
27 Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act. I. Sc. 3, L. 131 — 143.
28 Shakespeare. Julius Caesar Act. I, Sc. 2, L. 164 f.
15.
And Macbeth: “We will speak further.”29
And both meditate in soliloquy:
Brutus:
It must be by his death: and, for my part,I know no personal cause to spurn at him,But for the general. He would be crowned.How that might change his nature, there’sthe question...............................................So Caesar may.Then lest he may, prevent. (Act. II, Sc. 1, L.l0-30)
And Macbeth:
If it were done when tis done, then ‘twere wellIt were done quickly..............................................that but this blowMight be the be-all and the end-all here.........................Besides this DuncanHath borne his faculties so meek, hath beenSo clear in his great office, that his virtuesWill plead like angels trumpet—tongued againstThe deep damnation of his taking off. (Act.I, Sc.7, L.l-20)
Here appears in stark horror the fatal flaw in the character of
both; the self—delusion, deliberate and willful, that leads both to go
against their instinctive horror of the crime they contemplate and to
perform their “appalling duty.” 30
Brutus does see a possible danger to Rome if Caesar becomes King
but immediately has to recall that he himself has no real grievances
against Caesar. Macbeth tries to convince himself that he is a cold-
blooded villain who only fears actual and personal punishment - but
immediately has to confess that on at least three scores of kinship,
fealty and hospitality Duncan deserves better than death at his hands.
Professor Knight concludes that neither in fact seems quite convinced
although Brutus does seem calmer, more firmly resolved than Macbeth.
_____________________
29 Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act. I, Sc. 5, L. 72.
30 A. C. Bradley. Shakespearean Tragedy. op. cit. p. 214.
16.
The reason for this seems to balance the scales slightly in Brutus’
favour because his motive comes through as primarily patriotic (to
save Rome)- and secondarily selfish (to preserve the family honor.) On
the other hand, Macbeth’s motive seems primarily selfish (to become
King) and secondarily patriotic (Scotland needs a strong King to
protect her from internal divisions and foreign invaders.)
Pride is the next flaw in their characters which commits them
irrevocably to murder. Brutus’ pride is stirred by the forged missives
Cassius has been laying about for him. Lady Macbeth does the same for
Macbeth. And the assent of both comes with dramatic intensity and
sudden finality.
Brutus:
................O Rome, I make thee promise;If the redress will follow, thou receiv’stThy full petition at the hand of Brutus! (Act.II, Sc.l, L.56—58.)
Macbeth:
I am settled, and bend upEach corporal agent to this terrible feat. (Act.I, Sc.7, L.79—80)
Both know that their crimes are against everything in their
natures, in their social orders and in their universe — and this
tremendous shattering of order is reflected vividly and almost
literally in the vast upheavals of nature consequent on both murders
which “emphasize the essentially chaotic and destructive nature of the
murders.”31
This division between purpose and instinct, between heart and
mind, continues in both even after the murders.
It is, in fact, a powerful psychological study...here (Shakespeare) unveils the process by whichthe thought of crime penetrates a virtuous soul,
the destruction it causes.....32
______________________
31 G. Wilson Knight, Wheel of Fire, op. cit. p. 128
32 A. Mézieres, Shakespeare, Ses Oeuvres et Ses Critiques, 1860.
in Library of Literary Criticism, op. cit.
17.
Macbeth does not progress from the murder of Duncan to
consolidate his throne. He remains on the defensive. He vacillates,
suspects, probes, investigates (he still sees the witches) and finally
embarks on a course of several unnecessary murders. In the same way,
Brutus refuses to kill Antony, allows Antony’s oration, rushes
precipitately into battle - in every way giving the impression of
wishing to undo what he has done. Thus, while they vacillate between
murderous resolution and nagging conscience, both approach their
disillusionment and doom. Before the end, both lose those near and
dear, to them. Brutus loses Portia and Cassius; Macbeth loses Lady
Macbeth. Professor Knight feels both receive these losses callously33
but it may be that this apparent callousness is no more than an
indication of their growing despair and awareness of impending doom
for themselves also.
There is one more striking point of similarity between Brutus and
Macbeth in the way in which numbing, killing, disillusionment comes to
them both. At his meeting with the witches, who show him Banquo’s line
of heirs to the throne he occupies, Macbeth realizes that despite
every human intervention he can devise — including murder — to thwart
the prophesy, he is doomed to hold a barren sceptre. To him, this
proves that "the future takes its natural course irrespective of human
acts.....(that the other prophesy of the witches would have come true
and) that he would in truth have been King of Scotland ‘without my
stir’.”34
(Act. i. Sc.3, L.144) Thus, he need never have murdered
Duncan! He need never have brought down this unearthly ‘disjoint’ on
himself , on his country, on nature itself! And now the Witches
_____________________
33 G. Wilson Knight, Wheel of Fire, op. cit. p. 129
34 G. Wilson Knight, Macbeth and the Metaphysics of Evil,Methuen & Co. Ltd. (London,1949) p. 155.
18.
who, in the beginning had been his three Parcae, foretelling his
future, have now become his Erinyes “avengers of murder, symbols of
his tormented soul.”34
A very similar experience comes to Brutus in the Quarrel Scene,
Act. IV, Sc. 3. Professor Bradley has criticized this scene as
“episodic and dramatically dispensable.”35
Professor Elias Schwartz
prefers Coleridge’s view, however, that this scene does provide one of
the highlights of English dramatic literature.36
His reasons are:
1. this scene graphically depicts Brutus’ disillusion and 2. it
defines the moral issue at the root of the tragedy between the private
claims of friendship and the public claims of res publica. Brutus
would rather die than dishonor Rome or himself — “I love the name of
honour more than I fear death.” (Act. I, Sc.2, L.89), while Cassius
would rather die without Brutus’ love — “For Cassius is aweary of the
world, hated by one he loves.” (Act. IV, Sc. 3, L.94). These passages
externalize the divided loyalties in Brutus to the res publica (which
he thinks requires Caesar’s death) and to private good (his friendship
with Caesar.)
Professor Schwartz sees Brutus as an “anomalous combination in a
single soul of rigid, moral idealism and intellectual mediocrity,
great nobility and dullness of wit.” And the Quarrel Scene he sees as
one of poignant, pathetic irony. When Cassius said, “I did not know
you could be so angry,” he expressed the amazement of all who read or
see the play performed — even of Brutus himself. The reason for this
unwonted anger was in itself a new experience for Brutus because it
was stirred up not by Cassius’ fecklessness, not by the pressing need
_________________
34 G. Wilson Knight, Macbeth and the Metaphysics of Evil, Methuen& Co. Ltd.,(London, 1949) p. 155
35 A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, op. cit. p. 119.
36 Elias Schwartz, “Quarrel Scene in Julius Caesar”, English 19(1957—1958) p. 168
19.
of money, not even by death. But deep down, unconsciously gnawing at
his very soul, Brutus was beginning to sense that all was futile. His
noble-minded fellow-patriots were turning out to be crass, mercenary
opportunists. His exalted ideals of preserving Rome’s liberty were
devolving into a campaign of pillage and plunder among his armies. In
Rome itself there was now such a cynical, pragmatic tyranny imposed by
the Triumvirate of Octavius, Antony and Lepidus as the worst of Caesar
never could have contrived. Brutus has killed his best friend and —
horror of horrors — Rome’s best friend; he has disordered his beloved
Rome, destroyed his family and his friends in the holocaust of
proscription then enveloping Rome — all for NOTHING! Brutus is
tortured with the ghost, symbolically and literally, of an irrevoc-
able, irremediable wrong done on all he loved and treasured in life.
Subconsciously, the words of the quarrel rub on the raw nerve endings
of this disillusionment:
Remember March, the ides of March, remember.Did not great Julius bleed for justice sake?What villain touched his body, that did stab,And not for justice? (Act. IV, Sc. 3, L. 18—21).
There is the acknowledgement of the greatness of Caesar. Amidst
talk of bribery and corruption, there is the recollection of the
nobility of the original cause, justice. There is the self—
recrimination, the confession of guilt in the word villain.
Cassius tells Brutus, “a friend should bear his friend’s
infirmities” — and Brutus must recall with searing agony how Cassius
seduced him precisely by harping on the infirmities of his friend — he
did not bear Caesar’s infirmities! The parallel is explicitly stated
at last: “Strike as thou dids’t at Caesar!” and Brutus replies,
“Sheathe your dagger”, and the quarrel ends. Brutus cannot bear it, he
is drained and empty as the assassination is relived in his mind:-
20.
the motive — “If that thou be’est a Roman” (L. 102)
the manner — “.... and here my naked breast....” (L. 100)
the contrast— “...........for, I know,
When thou didst hate him worst, thoulovedst him betterThan ever thou lovedst Cassius” (L.l08—109)
Thus, to Brutus, as to Macbeth, came the damming realization of
failure, of betrayal of his highest ideals of patriotism, of honor and
of friendship. Now there remained for Brutus nothing but foreboding
expectation of damnation. For the audience, it is heart—rending to see
a strong man suddenly lose the inner fire that made him strong. But
there is a compensation: the inner, inarticulate suffering has
softened his hard, egotistical core, made him realize his own scanted
humanity. To Lucius, when the commanders depart, he is soft, tender,
solicitous as he never has been before to anyone — he feels “the
claims of the heart whose neglect has cost him so dearly.” All is
lost. Brutus’ longing for peace, for death, is expressed in the Ghost
who promises him just that, ‘At Philippi.’ Never, after this scene, is
Brutus so self-righteous, so haughty, so intolerant, so inviolate.
Professor Hudson, in his study of Shakespeare’s Art, Life and Char-
acter, has an excellent comment on this scene:
And what a rare significance attaches to the brief scene ofBrutus and his drowsy boy Lucius in camp a little beforethe catastrophe There, in the deep of the night, long afterall the rest have lost themselves in sleep, and when theanxieties of the issue are crowding upon him — there wehave the earnest, thoughtful Brutus hungering intensely forthe repasts of treasured thought:
“Look, Lucius, here’s the book I sought for so,I put it in the pocket of my gown.”
What the man is, and where he ought to be, is allsignified in these two lines. And do we not taste a dash ofbenignant irony in the implied repugnancebetween the spirit of the man and the stuff of his
21.
present undertaking? The idea of a book—worm riding the
whirl—wind of war!37
On the night before the crucial battle, Brutus was
working on an abridgement of the Roman poet, Pausanias!37
Part of the fixation on abstract, philosophical honor which
is the guiding star of Brutus’ life is the ritualistic
order with which he approaches every project. In fact
Professor Brents Stirling38
has made a very interesting
enumeration of the theme of incantation and ritual which
runs through the whole play, a few of which are
1. the ceremonial procession for the Feast o.f the Lupercal —
“Set on, and leave no ceremony out.” (Act. I, Sc.2, L.ll)
2. the ritual procession of Caesar to the Senate —“Go, bid the
priests do present sacrifice” (Act.II, Sc.2, L.11)
3. the ritual of touching the barren Calpurnia in the chariotraces, so that she may bear Caesar an heir
“The barren, touched in this holy chase, shake off theirsterile curse.” (Act. I, Sc. 2, L.8)
Brutus avidly seized upon this theme of ritual and ceremony as
the context for his conspiracy. No doubt this was necessary for him to
elevate and sublimate his crime for this was the only basis on which
he would join the conspiracy. Thus, in restraining the conspirators
from killing Antony with Caesar he insists:
Let us be sacrificers, but not butchers, Caius Let’s carvehim as a dish fit for the gods, Not hew him as a carcassfit for hounds. (Act.II, Sc.l, L.165,173—4)
____________________
37 Wood and Wood, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, op. cit. p. 113.
38 Brents Stirling, “Or Else This Were a Savage Spectacle”,PMLA 66: 765—774 (1951)
22.
And this is how Brutus conducts the assassination itself, as a
ritual offering of Caesar to the gods for Rome’s protection, with all
the conspirators kneeling around Caesar in prayer, and afterwards
washing their hands in his blood.
But it is this very addiction to ceremonial that keeps Brutus
“ever out of touch with practical affairs, which is natural in a man
so devoted to an ethical abstraction, ‘honour’.”39
And this exaggerated
sense of honour leads to the two major errors which wreck the
conspiracy, the sparing of Antony and granting Antony leave to speak
in the ceremonies of Caesar’s funeral.
As to Brutus’ own part in the funeral ceremonies, there seems to
be a conflict of opinion among the critics. Professor Knight40
feels
that Brutus bases his oration on cold reason, and stark logic, just as
he bases his quarrel with the emotional Cassius. Brutus commands the
mob’s respect for his ‘honour’, which it does not understand, and
appeals to its reason, of which it has none. This makes his arguments
remote and aloof from the emotions of the mob, which Antony by
contrast knows well how to inflame. Professor Knight goes further and
says that Brutus’ sense of honour sets him apart from everybody. This
precisely is what made his participation in the plot essential because
Cassius shrewdly understood that only Brutus’ leadership could
possibly hope to justify the assassination to the mob and rally
support to his plot. Cassius’ estimate of Brutus’ appeal was correct
because at the time of the assassination, the membership of the
‘faction’ numbered 60, perhaps 80, and included such leaders as
Decimus Brutus, Publius Casca, Tillius, Cimber and Caius Trebonius —
____________________
39 G. Wilson Knight, “The Eroticism of Julius Caesar”, TheImperial Theme, op. cit. p. 72
40 G. Wilson Knight, “The Eroticism of Julius Caesar”, TheImperial Theme, Methuen & Co. Ltd. (London 1951) p. 74
23.
all of whom had received honours and promotion from Caesar himself.41
But this sense of honour also isolates Brutus from “contact with the
rich, warm reality of life,” and stops up his normal human emotions.
For example, Knight says, Brutus desecrates love when he unbends to
enjoy the solace of love with Lucius and his music, his ‘Evil Spirit’
(Caesar’s Ghost) prevents him, just as Banquo’s Ghost interrupts
Macbeth when Macbeth desecrates hospitality. Thus, Knight concludes:42
His ethic is no ethic; rather, a projection of himself. Itis a selfishness. Like Macbeth, he projects his mental pain(guilty conscience) on his country.
And at the end, Brutus finds honour not enough: At last he
recognizes the worth of friendship, of loyalty, of friends:
My heart doth joy that yet in all my life I found no manbut he was true to me. (Act. V, Sc.5, L.33—34)
When all else is lost, Brutus has finally learned the meaning of
warm, intimate, human love and from this he “would take what crumbs he
can to solace him in the darkness.”
This exposition by Knight presents the traditional critique of
Brutus’ sense of honour, as supported by his funeral oration.
Professor Ernest Schanzer43
claims however that far from showing
himself a bumbling,inept, unimaginative, idealistic dreamer, Brutus in
fact demonstrates political shrewdness and practical wisdom of the
highest order. Schanzer documents this claim by pointing to the strict
conditions Brutus lays down for the funeral orations:
________________
41 Wood and Wood, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, op. cit. p.59.
42 ibid, p. 81
43 Ernest Schanzer, “The Tragedy of Shakespeare’s Brutus”,Journal of English Literary History 22: p. 1—15 (1955)
24.
Mark Antony, ................You shall not in your funeral speech blame us,But speak......................of Caesar.And say you do’t by our permission;................and you shall speakIn the same pulpit whereto I am going,After my speech is ended. (Act. III, Sc.l, L. 245—251)
To a person of Brutus’ sincerity and conviction in the justice of
his cause nothing but good could come from this arrangement.
Our reasons are so full of good regard,That were you, Antony, the son of CaesarYou should be satisfied. (Act. III, Sc. 1, L.224—227)
Professor Schanzer insists that here Brutus shows himself shrewd
and realistic. The very idea of having Antony, the well-beloved of
Caesar, speak at the funeral, so obviously under the aegis of Brutus
himself, was a master—stroke, well calculated to appease the most
skeptical among the citizenry.
Brutus’ oration itself, Schanzer sees as ‘shrewd, highly ef—
fective oratory” which would have been complete adequate against
anybody else but Antony. Brutus speaks calmly, matter-of-factly, in
complete charge of the situation with everything in a new order, as
Shakespeare shows by putting Brutus’ oration in prose. Brutus flatters
his hearers:
Censure me in your wisdom; and awake yoursenses that you may the better judge. (Act. III, Sc.2, L.16-18)
He brings a vague, general charge of ambition against Caesar, on
which he does not dwell lest the atmosphere of a ‘fait-accompli’ be
dispelled; and in his series of rhetorical questions he subtly imparts
the suggestion of ‘better days ahead’. In all, Brutus does give an
impression of nobility, fairness and patriotism — with just enough
emotional tinge in the pledge of his own life ‘for the good of Rome.’
Brutus here is no book—worm, no ivory—tower dreamer, but a shrewd,
practical, realistic politician. His fault here was not excessive
idealism but merely the ordinary human error of underestimating an
25.
adversary. Likewise, his reasons for abandoning the 'high grounds’ of
Sardis and ‘marching on Philippi’ for the final battle made sound
military sense and might have succeeded but for his human impatience
to put the issue to the test, which led him to “give the word (for
battle) too early.”(Act.V, Sc.3, L.6). As Professor Stirling44
points
out, it is incidents like these, like Brutus’ scene with Portia alive
and like the scene in which he desperately hopes Messala ‘has later
news contradicting the earlier report of her death (Act. IV, Sc.3,
L.181-192) — these incidents afford the humanistic glimpses of Brutus
the man, which soften the marble image of the cold, unmoveable Stoic.
These opposing views of Brutus held by Knight and Schanzer, are.
sufficiently crystallized to merit the label of Schools of Thought.45
Knight seems to lean to the Medieval View that Caesar was good and
noble; the conspirators committed a dastardly crime and got exactly
what they deserved . Or, as Professor Dewer concludes, "Caesar’s death
is murder most foul — not only futile, but criminal”.46
The spokesmen
for this school are Sir Mark Hunter47
and W. W. Fowler. Schanzer, on
the other hand, seems to lean to the Renaissance View, whose cry seems
to be, “Down with Caesar, the Tyrant; Up, the Noble Conspirators!”
Between these two extremes, Shakespeare seems to have adopted the
XVI Century English view that Caesar was less than a tyrant, Brutus
___________________
44 Brents Stirling, “Brutus and Death of Portia”, ShakespeareQuarterly X :211(1959)
45 Ernest Schanzer, “The Problem of Julius Caesar”, ShakespeareQuarterly 6 : P. 297 (1955)
46 D. S. Dewer, “Brutus’ Crime”, Review of English Studies N.S.351 (1952)
47 Mark Hunter, "Politics and Character of Shakespeare’s JuliusCaesar”, trans. Royal Society Lit. Vol X., (1931)
26.
less than an angel. This view conforms better with the Roman
historians Plutarch, Appian and Suetonius who recognize that Caesar
had weaknesses but acknowledge also great strengths and good in him,
as also in Brutus and Cassius. Thus Shakespeare presents Caesar as
strong in spirit and daring, actively participating in his own
deification48, even to erecting a statue to himself, wearing a crown,
in the Capitol; and with all this, Shakesspeare recognized the
physical infirmities in Caesar which in fact accentuate the valor of
his spirit, not negate it as Cassius thinks.
This double vision, Brutus could not accept because it was the
source of his own internal division, the disorder in his own mind.
Brutus, the man, loved Caesar, the man; but his honour and patriotism
made him hate Caesar, the Imperial Ruler who aspired to be King and
thus may destroy Rome. If Brutus had been single—minded, as Antony was
in his love for Caesar, or as Cassius was in his contempt for Caesar,
there would have been either no plot at all or a plot wholly
successful. But the divisions in Brutus’ nature vis—a—vis ‘Caesar’s
Spirit’ and Caesar himself prevented him from committing himself
whole—heartedly and unequivocally to anything. For this reason, he
failed and doomed his fellow conspirators to fail with him as the
ruins of his ideals shattered on his proud head.
What is Shakespeare trying to say in Brutus? Can the message be
that the heart is a truer guide than the mind? Is the meaning of
Brutus that it is better to love, as Antony loved Caesar, than to
judge, as Brutus judged Caesar? That human emotions of the heart are
truer motives than idealized abstractions of philosophy? It does
appear so. And thus it is fitting that the final eulogies are not to
______________
48 John Palmer, Shakespeare’s Political Characters, MacmillanCo.. (London) p. 37.
27.
Caesar, or to Rome or to any philosophic concepts vindicated. Rather,
the final eulogy by Antony is to Brutus the Man, pure and simple; not
to Brutus the Stoic, the philosopher, the would—be liberator, the
judge of righteousness or its avenger, as he thought.
And Brutus, from the Eternal shades, with the ruins of his broken
ideals around him and stripped of all the pretensions which he assumed
in life to make him more than a man, will greet his nemesis, his first
divided Ideal, “Et Tu, Caesare!".
28.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bradley, Andrew Cecil. Shakespearean Tragedy. London, MacMillan Company, 1905. Bush, Geoffrey Douglas. Shakespeare and The Natural Condition. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1956. Harvard University Press. Campbell, Lily B. Shakespeare�s Histories. Huntington Library, San Marino,
California, 1947. Draper, John William. Humors & Shakespeare�s Characters. Durham, North Carolina,
Duke University Press, 1945. Fluchere, Henri. Shakespeare and Elizabetheans. Hill and Wang, New York. Granville�Barker, Harley. Prefaces to Shakespeare. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton
University Press: 1946-7. Knight, George Wilson. The Imperial Theme. Methuen & Company Limited,
London,1951 Knight, George Wilson. The Wheel of Fire. Methuen & Company Limited, London,1949 Palmer, John. Political Characters in Shakespeare. MacMillan Company, London. Paul, Henry Neil. The Royal Play of Macbeth, New York, 1950. MacMillan Company. Shakespeare William. Julius Caesar Edited by J. Dover Wilson Cambridge University
Press, 1949. Stoll, Elmer Edgar. Shakespeare Studies . G.E. Strechert & Company,New York 1942
The Criminals Wilson, Harold S. On the Design of Shakespearian Tragedy University of Toronto Press,
1957/.
29.
PERIODICALS Barnet, Sylvan. �Co1eridge on Shakespeare�s Villains�. Shakespeare QuarterlyVII: 9-20.
Brewer, D. �Brutus� Crime�. Review of English Studies 3:51-54 January 1952.
Ellehange, M. �Sources in Julius Caesar� English Studies 65:197�210.
Firkins, 0. �Character of Macbeth� Sewanee Review 18:414-430. Foakes, R. �An Approach to Julius Caesar� Shakespeare Quarterly V: 259-270. Frye, Roland Mushat. �Rhetoric & Poetry in Julius Caesar� Quarterly Journal of Speech XXXVII: 41-8. Gray, H. �Chronology of Shakespeare�s Plays�. Modern Language Notes 46:147-150. Hendrickson, G. �Ciceros Correspondence with Brutus and Calvus on Oratorical Style� . American Journal of Philogy 47:254-258. James, J. �Religion in Shakespeare� London Quarterly Review 155: 239�249. Kirschbaum, L. �Shakespeare�s Good and Bad�. Review of English Studies 21:136-142 April 1945. Knight, George Wilson. �Brutus: An Essay in Poetic Interpretation� Church Quarterly Review 110: 40-71. Knights, L.C. �Shakespeare & Political Wisdom� Sewanee Review 61:43�55 January 1953 Maxwell, J. �Montaigne & Macbeth� Modern Language Review 45:77 January 1948. Moritzen, J. �Criminal Types in Shakespeare� Brutus & Cassius Journal of Criminal Law 29: 505-516. Macbeth Journal of Criminal Law 29: 645�667. Ribner, Irvin. �Political Issues in Julius Caesar�. Journal English & German Philol. LVI: 10-22. Schanzer, E. �Four Notes on Macbeth� Modern Language Review 52:223-227 April Schanzer, Ernest. �The Problem of Julius Caesar� Shakespeare Quarterly VI:297-308. Schanzer, E. �Tragedy of Shakespeare�s Brutus� English Literary History 22:1-15 March 1955. Schwartz, Elias �Quarrel Scene in Julius Caesar� College English XIX:168�170. Stewart, J. �Julius Caesar and Macbeth� Shakespearian Technique Modern Language Review. 40: 166-173 July 1945. Stirling, B. �Brutus and The Death of Portia� Shakespeare Quarterly 10:211-217 September 1959. Stirling, Brents. �Or Else This Were a Savage Spectacle� PMLA LXVI: 765-774. Stirling, B. �Motives of Brutus� PMLA 66:765�774 September 1951.
30.
PERIODICALS � CONT�D Stoll, E. �Source & Motive in Macbeth & Othello� Review of English Studies 19: 25-32 January 1943.
Storr, E. �Shakespeare�s Brutus� London Quarterly Review 160: 322�330. Waith, E. �Manhood & Valor in Two Shakespeare Tragedies� English Literary History 17: 262-273 December 1950. Walker, R. �Look Upon Caesar� 20th Century 154:469-474 December 1953. Way, A. �Quarrel Scene in Julius Caesar� London Quarterly Review 151: 50-58.