Download Julius Caesar - divaparekh

Julius Caesar
by William Shakespeare
Copyright Notice
©2011 eNotes.com Inc.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means
graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, Web distribution or information
storage retrieval systems without the written permission of the publisher.
All or part of the content in these eNotes comes from MAXnotes® for Julius Caesar, and is copyrighted by
Research and Education Association (REA). No part of this content may be reproduced in any form without
the permission of REA.
©1998-2002; ©2002 by Gale Cengage. Gale is a division of Cengage Learning. Gale and Gale Cengage are
trademarks used herein under license.
For complete copyright information on these eNotes please visit:
http://www.enotes.com/julius-caesar/copyright
eNotes: Table of Contents
1. Julius Caesar: Introduction
2. Julius Caesar: William Shakespeare Biography
3. Julius Caesar: Summary
4. Julius Caesar: Reading Shakespeare
5. Julius Caesar: List of Characters
6. Julius Caesar: Historical Background
7. Julius Caesar: Summary and Analysis
♦ Act 1, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
♦ Act I, Scene 2: Summary and Analysis
♦ Act I, Scene 3: Summary and Analysis
♦ Act II, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
♦ Act II, Scene 2: Summary and Analysis
♦ Act II, Scenes 3 and 4: Summary and Analysis
♦ Act III, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
♦ Act III, Scenes 2 and 3: Summary and Analysis
♦ Act IV, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
♦ Act IV, Scenes 2 and 3: Summary and Analysis
♦ Act V, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
♦ Act V, Scenes 2 and 3: Summary and Analysis
♦ Act V, Scenes 4 and 5: Summary and Analysis
8. Julius Caesar: Critical Commentary
♦ Act I Commentary
♦ Act II Commentary
Julius Caesar
1
♦ Act III Commentary
♦ Act IV Commentary
♦ Act V Commentary
9. Julius Caesar: Quizzes
♦ Act I, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
♦ Act I, Scene 2: Questions and Answers
♦ Act I, Scene 3: Questions and Answers
♦ Act II, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
♦ Act II, Scene 2: Questions and Answers
♦ Act II, Scenes 3 and 4: Questions and Answers
♦ Act III, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
♦ Act III, Scenes 2 and 3: Questions and Answers
♦ Act IV, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
♦ Act IV, Scenes 2 and 3: Questions and Answers
♦ Act V, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
♦ Act V, Scenes 2 and 3: Questions and Answers
♦ Act V, Scenes 4 and 5: Questions and Answers
10. Julius Caesar: Essential Passages
♦ Essential Passage by Character: Brutus
♦ Essential Passage by Character: Antony vs. Brutus
11. Julius Caesar: Themes
12. Julius Caesar: Character Analysis
♦ Antony (Character Analysis)
♦ Brutus (Character Analysis)
♦ Julius Caesar (Character Analysis)
♦ Cassius (Character Analysis)
♦ Other Characters (Descriptions)
13. Julius Caesar: Principal Topics
14. Julius Caesar: Essays
♦ The Political Dilemma in Julius Caesar
♦ The Character of Brutus: Is He an Honorable Man?
♦ The Character of Marc Antony
♦ Speechmaking in Act III, Scene ii
♦ The Role of Omens in Julius Caesar
♦ The Protagonists and Antagonists of Julius Caesar
♦ Women in Julius Caesar
15. Julius Caesar: Criticism
♦ Overviews
♦ Roman Politics
♦ Public and Private Values
♦ Ritual
♦ Imagery and Language
♦ Julius Caesar
♦ Brutus
♦ Cassius
♦ Mark Antony
16. Julius Caesar: Selected Quotes
17. Julius Caesar: Suggested Essay Topics
18. Julius Caesar: Sample Essay Outlines
19. Julius Caesar: Modern Connections
20. Julius Caesar: FAQs
eNotes: Table of Contents
2
♦ Why did Shakespeare call this play Julius Caesar?
♦ What motivates the conspirators to assassinate Caesar?
♦ Why does Shakespeare insert the death of the poet Cinna into Julius Caesar?
♦ What are we to make of Antony's funeral oration for Brutus?
21. Julius Caesar: Bibliography and Further Reading
22. Julius Caesar: Pictures
23. Copyright
Julius Caesar: Introduction
Probably written in 1599, Julius Caesar was the earliest of Shakespeare's three Roman history plays. Like
Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus, Julius Caesar is a dramatization of actual events, Shakespeare
drawing upon the ancient Roman historian Plutarch's Lives of Caesar, Brutus, and Mark Antony as the
primary source of the play's plot and characters. The play is tightly structured. It establishes the dramatic
problem of alarm at Julius Caesar's ambition to become "king" (or dictator) in the very first scene and
introduces signs that Caesar must "beware the Ides of March" from the outset. Before its midpoint, Caesar is
assassinated, and shortly after Mark Antony's famous funeral oration ("Friends, Romans, and countrymen …
"), the setting shifts permanently from Rome to the battlefields on which Brutus and Cassius meet their
inevitable defeat. Julius Caesar is also a tragedy; but despite its title, the tragic character of the play is Brutus,
the noble Roman whose decision to take part in the conspiracy for the sake of freedom plunges him into a
personal conflict and his country into civil war.
Literary scholars have debated for centuries about the question of who exactly is the protagonist of this play.
The seemingly simple answer to this question would be Julius Caesar himself—after all, the play is named
after him, and the events of the play all relate to him. However, Caesar only appears in three scenes (four if
the ghost is included), thus apparently making him an unlikely choice for the protagonist who is supposed to
be the main character. Meanwhile, Brutus, who is in the play much more often than Caesar (and actually lasts
until the final scene), is not the title character of the play and is listed in the dramatis personae not only after
Caesar but after the entire triumvirate and some senators who barely appear in the play. Determining the
protagonist is one of the many engaging issues presented in the play.
Julius Caesar: William Shakespeare Biography
The Life and Work of William Shakespeare
William Shakespeare (1564–1616) is perhaps the most widely read English poet and dramatist in the world.
His plays and poems have been translated into every major language, and his popularity, nearly 400 years
after his death, is greater now than it was in his own lifetime. Yet very little is known about his personal and
professional life.
He was born in Stratford-on-Avon, a rural town in War¬wick¬shire, England. The exact date of his birth is
unknown, but he was baptized in Holy Trinity Church on April 26, 1564, and was probably born on April 23.
His father, John Shakespeare, was a leather tanner, glover, alderman, and bailiff in the town. His mother,
Mary, was the daughter of Robert Arden, a well-to-do gentleman farmer.
It is assumed that young William attended the Stratford Grammar School, one of the best in rural England,
where he received a sound classical training. When he was 13, his father’s fortunes took a turn for the worse,
and it is likely that Shakespeare was apprenticed to some local trade as a butcher, killing calves. He may even
have taught school for a time before he married Anne Hathaway, a woman eight years older than he, in 1582.
Shakespeare was 18 years old at the time. Their oldest child, Susanna, was born and baptized six months later
in May 1583. One year and nine months later, twins, Hamnet and Judith, were christened in the same church.
Julius Caesar: Introduction
3
They were named for Shakespeare’s friends, Hamnet and Judith Sadler.
Little more is known about these early years, but in 1587 or 1588, he left Stratford and arrived in London to
become an actor and a writer. By 1592, at the age of 28, he began to emerge as a playwright. He evoked
criticism in a book published by playwright Robert Greene, who referred to Shakespeare as an “upstart crow”
who is “in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in the country.”
Shakespeare’s first published work, the long poem Venus and Adonis, appeared in 1593. Its success was
followed by another poem, The Rape of Lucrece, in 1594. These narrative poems were written in the years
when the London theaters were closed because of the plague, a highly contagious disease that had devastated
most of Europe.
In 1594, when the theaters reopened, records indicate that Shakespeare had become a leading member of the
Lord Chamberlain’s Men, a company of actors for which he wrote for the rest of his 20-year career.
It was in the 1590s that Shakespeare wrote his plays on English history, several comedies, and the tragedies
Titus Andronicus and Romeo and Juliet. In 1599, the year he wrote Julius Caesar, Shakespeare’s company
built a theater across the Thames River from London—the Globe. Between 1600 and 1606, Shakespeare
completed his major tragedies, Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth. His plays were performed at court
for Queen Elizabeth I, and after her death in 1603, for King James I.
He wrote very little after 1612, the year that he completed King Henry VIII. It was during a performance of
this play in 1613 that the Globe caught fire and burned to the ground. Sometime between 1610 and 1613,
Shakespeare returned to Stratford, where he owned a large house and property, to spend his remaining years
with his wife, two daughters and their husbands. Shakespeare’s son, Hamnet, had died in 1596.
In March of 1616, Shakespeare revised his will, leaving his daughter Susanna the bulk of his estate, and his
wife “the second best bed and the furniture.” A month after his will was signed, on April 23, 1616,
Shakespeare died—ironically, on his birthday, like Cassius in Julius Caesar. He was buried in the floor near
the altar of Holy Trinity Church on April 25.
The wry inscription on his tombstone reads:
Good Friend, for Jesus’ sake, forbear
To dig the dust enclosed here;
Blest be the man that spares these stones
And curst be he that moves my bones.
Julius Caesar: Summary
Summary of the Play
The play begins in Rome in 44 B.C. on the Feast of Lupercal, in honor of the god Pan. Caesar has become the
most powerful man in the Roman Republic and is eager to become king. Caesar, however, has many enemies
who are planning his assassination. When Caesar and his entourage appear, a soothsayer warns him to
“Beware the ides of March,” (March 15), but Caesar is unconcerned.
Cassius tries to convince Brutus that Caesar is too ambitious and must be assassinated for the welfare of
Rome. Cassius is determined to win Brutus to his cause by forging letters from citizens and leaving them
where Brutus will find them. The letters attack Caesar’s ambition and convince Brutus that killing Caesar is
for the good of Rome.
Julius Caesar: William Shakespeare Biography
4
For a month, Brutus struggles with the problem; and on the morning of the ides of March, he agrees to join the
others. The conspirators escort Caesar to the Senate and stab him to death.
Brutus addresses the agitated crowd and tells them why Caesar had to be killed. Then Mark Antony delivers
his funeral oration and stirs the crowd to mutiny against Brutus, Cassius, and the others. The mob runs
through the streets looking to avenge Caesar’s death. A civil war breaks out.
Brutus and Cassius escape to Greece where they raise an army and prepare to fight Octavius and Antony in a
decisive battle.
When Cassius believes he has lost the war, he convinces his servant, Pindarus, to stab him. After Brutus is
defeated in a second battle, he commits suicide by running on his own sword rather than being taken prisoner
back to Rome.
The play ends with the restoration of order, as Octavius and Antony become the two most powerful men in
Rome.
Estimated Reading Time
The play should take the reader about five hours to complete. Since it is a five-act play, you should allocate
about an hour for each act, although the time may vary depending on the number of scenes in each act. The
final two acts of the play read more quickly and they may be covered in less than an hour.
(Note: All line number references in his book are based on the 1992 New Folger Library edition. If you are
using a different edition, the line number references may differ slightly.)
Julius Caesar: Reading Shakespeare
In this section:
• Shakespeare’s Language
• Shakespeare’s Sentences
• Shakespeare’s Words
• Shakespeare’s Wordplay
• Shakespeare’s Dramatic Verse
• Implied Stage Action
Shakespeare’s Language
Shakespeare’s language can create a strong pang of intimidation, even fear, in a large number of modern-day
readers. Fortunately, however, this need not be the case. All that is needed to master the art of reading
Shakespeare is to practice the techniques of unraveling uncommonly-structured sentences and to become
familiar with the poetic use of uncommon words. We must realize that during the 400-year span between
Shakespeare’s time and our own, both the way we live and speak has changed. Although most of his
vocabulary is in use today, some of it is obsolete, and what may be most confusing is that some of his words
are used today, but with slightly different or totally different meanings. On the stage, actors readily dissolve
these language stumbling blocks. They study Shakespeare’s dialogue and express it dramatically in word and
in action so that its meaning is graphically enacted. If the reader studies Shakespeare’s lines as an actor does,
looking up and reflecting upon the meaning of unfamiliar words until real voice is discovered, he or she will
suddenly experience the excitement, the depth and the sheer poetry of what these characters say.
Julius Caesar: Summary
5
Shakespeare’s Sentences
In English, or any other language, the meaning of a sentence greatly depends upon where each word is placed
in that sentence. “The child hurt the mother” and “The mother hurt the child” have opposite meanings, even
though the words are the same, simply because the words are arranged differently. Because word position is
so integral to English, the reader will find unfamiliar word arrangements confusing, even difficult to
understand. Since Shakespeare’s plays are poetic dramas, he often shifts from average word arrangements to
the strikingly unusual so that the line will conform to the desired poetic rhythm. Often, too, Shakespeare
employs unusual word order to afford a character his own specific style of speaking.
Today, English sentence structure follows a sequence of subject first, verb second, and an optional object
third. Shakespeare, however, often places the verb before the subject, which reads, “Speaks he” rather than
“He speaks.” Solanio speaks with this inverted structure in The Merchant of Venice stating, “I should be
still/Plucking the grass to know where sits the wind” (Bevington edition, I, i, ll.17-19), while today’s
standard English word order would have the clause at the end of this line read, “where the wind sits.”
“Wind” is the subject of this clause, and “sits” is the verb. Bassanio’s words in Act Two also exemplify this
inversion: “And in such eyes as ours appear not faults” (II, ii, l. 184). In our normal word order, we would
say, “Faults do not appear in eyes such as ours,” with “faults” as the subject in both Shakespeare’s word
order and ours.
Inversions like these are not troublesome, but when Shakes–peare positions the predicate adjective or the
object before the subject and verb, we are sometimes surprised. For example, rather than “I saw him,”
Shakespeare may use a structure such as “Him I saw.” Similarly, “Cold the morning is” would be used for
our “The morning is cold.” Lady Macbeth demonstrates this inversion as she speaks of her husband: “Glamis
thou art, and Cawdor, and shalt be/What thou art promised” (Macbeth, I, v, ll. 14-15). In current English word
order, this quote would begin, “Thou art Glamis, and Cawdor.”
In addition to inversions, Shakespeare purposefully keeps words apart that we generally keep together. To
illustrate, consider Bassanio’s humble admission in The Merchant of Venice: “I owe you much, and, like a
wilful youth,/That which I owe is lost” (I, i, ll. 146-147). The phrase, “like a wilful youth,” separates the
regular sequence of “I owe you much” and “That which I owe is lost.” To understand more clearly this type
of passage, the reader could rearrange these word groups into our conventional order: I owe you much and I
wasted what you gave me because I was young and impulsive. While these rearranged clauses will sound like
normal English, and will be simpler to understand, they will no longer have the desired poetic rhythm, and the
emphasis will now be on the wrong words.
As we read Shakespeare, we will find words that are separated by long, interruptive statements. Often subjects
are separated from verbs, and verbs are separated from objects. These long interruptions can be used to give a
character dimension or to add an element of suspense. For example, in Romeo and Juliet Benvolio describes
both Romeo’s moodiness and his own sensitive and thoughtful nature:
I, measuring his affections by my own,
Which then most sought, where most might not be found,
Being one too many by my weary self,
Pursu’d my humour, not pursuing his,
And gladly shunn’d who gladly fled from me. (I, i, ll. 126-130)
In this passage, the subject “I” is distanced from its verb “Pursu’d.” The long interruption serves to provide
information which is integral to the plot. Another example, taken from Hamlet, is the ghost, Hamlet’s father,
who describes Hamlet’s uncle, Claudius, as
Julius Caesar: Reading Shakespeare
6
…that incestuous, that adulterate beast,
With witchcraft of his wit, with traitorous gifts—
O wicked wit and gifts, that have the power
So to seduce—won to his shameful lust
The will of my most seeming virtuous queen. (I, v, ll. 43-47)
From this we learn that Prince Hamlet’s mother is the victim of an evil seduction and deception. The delay
between the subject, “beast,” and the verb, “won,” creates a moment of tension filled with the image of a
cunning predator waiting for the right moment to spring into attack. This interruptive passage allows the play
to unfold crucial information and thus to build the tension necessary to produce a riveting drama.
While at times these long delays are merely for decorative purposes, they are often used to narrate a particular
situation or to enhance character development. As Antony and Cleopatra opens, an interruptive passage
occurs in the first few lines. Although the delay is not lengthy, Philo’s words vividly portray Antony’s
military prowess while they also reveal the immediate concern of the drama. Antony is distracted from his
career, and is now focused on Cleopatra:
…those goodly eyes,
That o’er the files and musters of the war
Have glow’d like plated Mars, now bend, now turn
The office and devotion of their view
Upon a tawny front…. (I, i, ll. 2-6)
Whereas Shakespeare sometimes heaps detail upon detail, his sentences are often elliptical, that is, they omit
words we expect in written English sentences. In fact, we often do this in our spoken conversations. For
instance, we say, “You see that?” when we really mean, “Did you see that?” Reading poetry or listening to
lyrics in music conditions us to supply the omitted words and it makes us more comfortable reading this type
of dialogue. Consider one passage in The Merchant of Venice where Antonio’s friends ask him why he seems
so sad and Solanio tells Antonio, “Why, then you are in love” (I, i, l. 46). When Antonio denies this, Solanio
responds, “Not in love neither?” (I, i, l. 47). The word “you” is omitted but understood despite the confusing
double negative.
In addition to leaving out words, Shakespeare often uses intentionally vague language, a strategy which taxes
the reader’s attentiveness. In Antony and Cleopatra, Cleopatra, upset that Antony is leaving for Rome after
learning that his wife died in battle, convinces him to stay in Egypt:
Sir, you and I must part, but that’s not it:
Sir you and I have lov’d, but there’s not it;
That you know well, something it is I would—
O, my oblivion is a very Antony,
And I am all forgotten. (I, iii, ll. 87-91)
In line 89, “…something it is I would” suggests that there is something that she would want to say, do, or have
done. The intentional vagueness leaves us, and certainly Antony, to wonder. Though this sort of writing may
appear lackadaisical for all that it leaves out, here the vagueness functions to portray Cleopatra as rhetorically
sophisticated. Similarly, when asked what thing a crocodile is (meaning Antony himself who is being
compared to a crocodile), Antony slyly evades the question by giving a vague reply:
It is shap’d, sir, like itself, and it is as broad as it hath breadth.
It is just so high as it is, and moves with it own organs.
It lives by that which nourisheth it, and, the elements once out of it, it transmigrates. (II, vii,
Julius Caesar: Reading Shakespeare
7
ll. 43-46)
This kind of evasiveness, or doubletalk, occurs often in Shakespeare’s writing and requires extra patience on
the part of the reader.
Shakespeare’s Words
As we read Shakespeare’s plays, we will encounter uncommon words. Many of these words are not in use
today. As Romeo and Juliet opens, we notice words like “shrift” (confession) and “holidame” (a holy relic).
Words like these should be explained in notes to the text. Shakespeare also employs words which we still use,
though with different meaning. For example, in The Merchant of Venice “caskets” refer to small, decorative
chests for holding jewels. However, modern readers may think of a large cask instead of the smaller,
diminutive casket.
Another trouble modern readers will have with Shakespeare’s English is with words that are still in use today,
but which mean something different in Elizabethan use. In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare uses the
word “straight” (as in “straight away”) where we would say “immediately.” Here, the modern reader is
unlikely to carry away the wrong message, however, since the modern meaning will simply make no sense. In
this case, textual notes will clarify a phrase’s meaning. To cite another example, in Romeo and Juliet, after
Mercutio dies, Romeo states that the “black fate on moe days doth depend” (emphasis added). In this case,
“depend” really means “impend.”
Shakespeare’s Wordplay
All of Shakespeare’s works exhibit his mastery of playing with language and with such variety that many
people have authored entire books on this subject alone. Shakespeare’s most frequently used types of
wordplay are common: metaphors, similes, synecdoche and metonymy, personification, allusion, and puns. It
is when Shakespeare violates the normal use of these devices, or rhetorical figures, that the language becomes
confusing.
A metaphor is a comparison in which an object or idea is replaced by another object or idea with common
attributes. For example, in Macbeth a murderer tells Macbeth that Banquo has been murdered, as directed, but
that his son, Fleance, escaped, having witnessed his father’s murder. Fleance, now a threat to Macbeth, is
described as a serpent:
There the grown serpent lies, the worm that’s fled
Hath nature that in time will venom breed,
No teeth for the present. (III, iv, ll. 29-31)
Similes, on the other hand, compare objects or ideas while using the words “like” or “as.” In Romeo and
Juliet, Romeo tells Juliet that “Love goes toward love as schoolboys from their books” (II, ii, l. 156). Such
similes often give way to more involved comparisons, “extended similes.” For example, Juliet tells Romeo:
‘Tis almost morning,
I would have thee gone,
And yet no farther than a wonton’s bird,
That lets it hop a little from his hand
Like a poor prisoner in his twisted gyves,
And with silken thread plucks it back again,
So loving-jealous of his liberty. (II, ii, ll. 176-181)
An epic simile, a device borrowed from heroic poetry, is an extended simile that builds into an even more
elaborate comparison. In Macbeth, Macbeth describes King Duncan’s virtues with an angelic, celestial simile
Julius Caesar: Reading Shakespeare
8
and then drives immediately into another simile that redirects us into a vision of warfare and destruction:
…Besides this Duncan
Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been
So clear in his great office, that his virtues
Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongued, against
The deep damnation of his taking-off;
And pity, like a naked new-born babe,
Striding the blast, or heaven’s cherubim, horsed
Upon the sightless couriers of the air,
Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye,
That tears shall drown the wind…. (I, vii, ll. 16-25)
Shakespeare employs other devices, like synecdoche and metonymy, to achieve “verbal economy,” or using
one or two words to express more than one thought. Synecdoche is a figure of speech using a part for the
whole. An example of synecdoche is using the word boards to imply a stage. Boards are only a small part of
the materials that make up a stage, however, the term boards has become a colloquial synonym for stage.
Metonymy is a figure of speech using the name of one thing for that of another which it is associated. An
example of metonymy is using crown to mean the king (as used in the sentence “These lands belong to the
crown”). Since a crown is associated with or an attribute of the king, the word crown has become a
metonymy for the king. It is important to understand that every metonymy is a synecdoche, but not every
synecdoche is a metonymy. This is rule is true because a metonymy must not only be a part of the root word,
making a synecdoche, but also be a unique attribute of or associated with the root word.
Synecdoche and metonymy in Shakespeare’s works is often very confusing to a new student because he
creates uses for words that they usually do not perform. This technique is often complicated and yet very
subtle, which makes it difficult of a new student to dissect and understand. An example of these devices in
one of Shakespeare’s plays can be found in The Merchant of Venice . In warning his daughter, Jessica, to
ignore the Christian revelries in the streets below, Shylock says:
Lock up my doors; and when you hear the drum
And the vile squealing of the wry-necked fife,
Clamber not you up to the casements then… (I, v, ll. 30-32)
The phrase of importance in this quote is “the wry-necked fife.” When a reader examines this phrase it does
not seem to make sense; a fife is a cylinder-shaped instrument, there is no part of it that can be called a neck.
The phrase then must be taken to refer to the fife-player, who has to twist his or her neck to play the fife. Fife,
therefore, is a synecdoche for fife-player, much as boards is for stage. The trouble with understanding this
phrase is that “vile squealing” logically refers to the sound of the fife, not the fife-player, and the reader
might be led to take fife as the instrument because of the parallel reference to “drum” in the previous line.
The best solution to this quandary is that Shakespeare uses the word fife to refer to both the instrument and the
player. Both the player and the instrument are needed to complete the wordplay in this phrase, which, though
difficult to understand to new readers, cannot be seen as a flaw since Shakespeare manages to convey two
meanings with one word. This remarkable example of synecdoche illuminates Shakespeare’s mastery of
“verbal economy.”
Shakespeare also uses vivid and imagistic wordplay through personification, in which human capacities and
behaviors are attributed to inanimate objects. Bassanio, in The Merchant of Venice, almost speechless when
Portia promises to marry him and share all her worldly wealth, states “my blood speaks to you in my veins…”
(III, ii, l. 176). How deeply he must feel since even his blood can speak. Similarly, Portia, learning of the
penalty that Antonio must pay for defaulting on his debt, tells Salerio, “There are some shrewd contents in
Julius Caesar: Reading Shakespeare
9
yond same paper/That steals the color from Bassanio’s cheek” (III, ii, ll. 243-244).
Another important facet of Shakespeare’s rhetorical repertoire is his use of allusion. An allusion is a
reference to another author or to an historical figure or event. Very often Shakespeare alludes to the heroes
and heroines of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. For example, in Cymbeline an entire room is decorated with images
illustrating the stories from this classical work, and the heroine, Imogen, has been reading from this text.
Similarly, in Titus Andronicus characters not only read directly from the Metamorphoses, but a subplot
re-enacts one of the Metamorphoses’s most famous stories, the rape and mutilation of Philomel. Another way
Shakespeare uses allusion is to drop names of mythological, historical and literary figures. In The Taming of
the Shrew, for instance, Petruchio compares Katharina, the woman whom he is courting, to Diana (II, i, l. 55),
the virgin goddess, in order to suggest that Katharina is a man-hater. At times, Shakespeare will allude to
well-known figures without so much as mentioning their names. In Twelfth Night, for example, though the
Duke and Valentine are ostensibly interested in Olivia, a rich countess, Shakespeare asks his audience to
compare the Duke’s emotional turmoil to the plight of Acteon, whom the goddess Diana transforms into a
deer to be hunted and killed by Acteon’s own dogs:
Duke:
That instant was I turn’d into a hart,
And my desires, like fell and cruel hounds,
E’er since pursue me. […]
Valentine:
But like a cloistress she will veiled walk,
And water once a day her chamber round…. (I, i, l. 20 ff.)
Shakespeare’s use of puns spotlights his exceptional wit. His comedies in particular are loaded with puns,
usually of a sexual nature. Puns work through the ambiguity that results when multiple senses of a word are
evoked; homophones often cause this sort of ambiguity. In Antony and Cleopatra, Enobarbus believes “there
is mettle in death” (I, ii, l. 146), meaning that there is “courage” in death; at the same time, mettle suggests
the homophone metal, referring to swords made of metal causing death. In early editions of Shakespeare’s
work there was no distinction made between the two words. Antony puns on the word “earing,” (I, ii, ll.
112-114) meaning both plowing (as in rooting out weeds) and hearing: he angrily sends away a messenger,
not wishing to hear the message from his wife, Fulvia: “…O then we bring forth weeds,/when our quick minds
lie still, and our ills told us/Is as our earing.” If ill-natured news is planted in one’s “hearing,” it will render
an “earing” (harvest) of ill-natured thoughts. A particularly clever pun, also in Antony and Cleopatra, stands
out after Antony’s troops have fought Octavius’s men in Egypt: “We have beat him to his camp. Run one
before,/And let the queen know of our gests” (IV, viii, ll. 1-2). Here “gests” means deeds (in this case, deeds
of battle); it is also a pun on “guests,” as though Octavius’ slain soldiers were to be guests when buried in
Egypt.
One should note that Elizabethan pronunciation was in several cases different from our own. Thus, modern
readers, especially Americans, will miss out on the many puns based on homophones. The textual notes will
point up many of these “lost” puns, however.
Shakespeare’s sexual innuendoes can be either clever or tedious depending upon the speaker and situation.
The modern reader should recall that sexuality in Shakespeare’s time was far more complex than in ours and
that characters may refer to such things as masturbation and homosexual activity. Textual notes in some
editions will point out these puns but rarely explain them. An example of a sexual pun or innuendo can be
found in The Merchant of Venice when Portia and Nerissa are discussing Portia’s past suitors using innuendo
to tell of their sexual prowess:
Julius Caesar: Reading Shakespeare
10
Portia:
I pray thee, overname them, and as thou namest them, I will describe them, and according to
my description level at my affection.
Nerrisa:
First, there is the Neapolitan prince.
Portia:
Ay, that’s a colt indeed, for he doth nothing but talk of his horse, and he makes it a great
appropriation to his own good parts that he can shoe him himself. I am much afeard my lady
his mother played false with the smith. (I, ii, ll. 35-45)
The “Neapolitan prince” is given a grade of an inexperienced youth when Portia describes him as a “colt.”
The prince is thought to be inexperienced because he did nothing but “talk of his horse” (a pun for his penis)
and his other great attributes. Portia goes on to say that the prince boasted that he could “shoe him [his horse]
himself,” a possible pun meaning that the prince was very proud that he could masturbate. Finally, Portia
makes an attack upon the prince’s mother, saying that “my lady his mother played false with the smith,” a
pun to say his mother must have committed adultery with a blacksmith to give birth to such a vulgar man
having an obsession with “shoeing his horse.”
It is worth mentioning that Shakespeare gives the reader hints when his characters might be using puns and
innuendoes. In The Merchant of Venice, Portia’s lines are given in prose when she is joking, or engaged in
bawdy conversations. Later on the reader will notice that Portia’s lines are rhymed in poetry, such as when
she is talking in court or to Bassanio. This is Shakespeare’s way of letting the reader know when Portia is
jesting and when she is serious.
Shakespeare’s Dramatic Verse
Finally, the reader will notice that some lines are actually rhymed verse while others are in verse without
rhyme; and much of Shakespeare’s drama is in prose. Shakespeare usually has his lovers speak in the
language of love poetry which uses rhymed couplets. The archetypal example of this comes, of course, from
Romeo and Juliet:
The grey-ey’d morn smiles on the frowning night,
Check’ring the eastern clouds with streaks of light,
And fleckled darkness like a drunkard reels
From forth day’s path and Titan’s fiery wheels.
(II, iii, ll. 1-4)
Here it is ironic that Friar Lawrence should speak these lines since he is not the one in love. He, therefore,
appears buffoonish and out of touch with reality. Shakespeare often has his characters speak in rhymed verse
to let the reader know that the character is acting in jest, and vice-versa.
Perhaps the majority of Shakespeare’s lines are in blank verse, a form of poetry which does not use rhyme
(hence the name blank) but still employs a rhythm native to the English language, iambic pentameter, where
every second syllable in a line of ten syllables receives stress. Consider the following verses from Hamlet, and
note the accents and the lack of end-rhyme:
The síngle ánd pecúliar lífe is bóund
With áll the stréngth and ármor óf the mínd (III, iii, ll. 12-13)
Julius Caesar: Reading Shakespeare
11
The final syllable of these verses receives stress and is said to have a hard, or “strong,” ending. A soft ending,
also said to be “weak,” receives no stress. In The Tempest, Shakespeare uses a soft ending to shape a verse
that demonstrates through both sound (meter) and sense the capacity of the feminine to propagate:
and thén I lóv’d thee
And shów’d thee áll the quálitíes o’ th’ ísle,
The frésh spríngs, bríne-pits, bárren pláce and fértile. (I, ii, ll. 338-40)
The first and third of these lines here have soft endings.
In general, Shakespeare saves blank verse for his characters of noble birth. Therefore, it is significant when
his lofty characters speak in prose. Prose holds a special place in Shakespeare’s dialogues; he uses it to
represent the speech habits of the common people. Not only do lowly servants and common citizens speak in
prose, but important, lower class figures also use this fun, at times ribald variety of speech. Though
Shakespeare crafts some very ornate lines in verse, his prose can be equally daunting, for some of his
characters may speechify and break into doubletalk in their attempts to show sophistication. A clever instance
of this comes when the Third Citizen in Coriolanus refers to the people’s paradoxical lack of power when
they must elect Coriolanus as their new leader once Coriolanus has orated how he has courageously fought for
them in battle:
We have power in ourselves to do it, but it is a power that we have no power to do; for if he
show us his wounds and tell us his deeds, we are to put our tongues into those wounds and
speak for them; so, if he tell us his noble deeds, we must also tell him our noble acceptance of
them. Ingratitude is monstrous, and for the multitude to be ingrateful were to make a monster
of the multitude, of the which we, being members, should bring ourselves to be monstrous
members. (II, ii, ll. 3-13)
Notice that this passage contains as many metaphors, hideous though they be, as any other passage in
Shakespeare’s dramatic verse.
When reading Shakespeare, paying attention to characters who suddenly break into rhymed verse, or who slip
into prose after speaking in blank verse, will heighten your awareness of a character’s mood and personal
development. For instance, in Antony and Cleopatra, the famous military leader Marcus Antony usually
speaks in blank verse, but also speaks in fits of prose (II, iii, ll. 43-46) once his masculinity and authority have
been questioned. Similarly, in Timon of Athens, after the wealthy lord Timon abandons the city of Athens to
live in a cave, he harangues anyone whom he encounters in prose (IV, iii, l. 331 ff.). In contrast, the reader
should wonder why the bestial Caliban in The Tempest speaks in blank verse rather than in prose.
Implied Stage Action
When we read a Shakespearean play, we are reading a performance text. Actors interact through dialogue, but
at the same time these actors cry, gesticulate, throw tantrums, pick up daggers, and compulsively wash
murderous “blood” from their hands. Some of the action that takes place on stage is explicitly stated in stage
directions. However, some of the stage activity is couched within the dialogue itself. Attentiveness to these
cues is important as one conceives how to visualize the action. When Iago in Othello feigns concern for
Cassio whom he himself has stabbed, he calls to the surrounding men, “Come, come:/Lend me a light” (V, i,
ll. 86-87). It is almost sure that one of the actors involved will bring him a torch or lantern. In the same play,
Emilia, Desdemona’s maidservant, asks if she should fetch her lady’s nightgown and Desdemona replies,
“No, unpin me here” (IV, iii, l. 37). In Macbeth, after killing Duncan, Macbeth brings the murder weapon
back with him. When he tells his wife that he cannot return to the scene and place the daggers to suggest that
the king’s guards murdered Duncan, she castigates him: “Infirm of purpose/Give me the daggers. The
sleeping and the dead are but as pictures” (II, ii, ll. 50-52). As she exits, it is easy to visualize Lady Macbeth
Julius Caesar: Reading Shakespeare
12
grabbing the daggers from her husband.
For 400 years, readers have found it greatly satisfying to work with all aspects of Shakespeare’s
language—the implied stage action, word choice, sentence structure, and wordplay—until all aspects come to
life. Just as seeing a fine performance of a Shakespearean play is exciting, staging the play in one’s own
mind’s eye, and revisiting lines to enrich the sense of the action, will enhance one’s appreciation of
Shakespeare’s extraordinary literary and dramatic achievements.
Julius Caesar: List of Characters
Julius Caesar—Dictator of Rome
Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony)—Friend of Caesar and one of the leaders of Rome after Caesar’s death
Marcus Brutus—Friend of Caesar who kills him “for the good of Rome”
Cassius—Leader of the conspiracy against Caesar and brother-in-law of Brutus
Casca—The first conspirator to stab Caesar
Trebonius—Member of the conspiracy against Caesar
Caius Ligarius—Final member of the conspiracy, a sick man who joins them when Brutus asks him to help
make Rome well
Decius Brutus—Conspirator who uses flattery to get Caesar to the Senate House
Metellus Cimber—Conspirator and brother of Publius Cimber who was banished from Rome
Cinna—Conspirator who urges Cassius to bring Brutus into the conspiracy to gain favorable public opinion
Flavius and Marullus—Tribunes who guard the rights of Roman citizens
Octavius Caesar—Nephew of Julius Caesar and first Roman Emperor
Lepidus—Ally of Antony and Octavius and one of the three rulers of Rome after Caesar’s assassination
Cicero—Roman senator and orator later killed by Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus
Publius—Elderly senator and witness to Caesar’s death
Popilius Lena—Senator who was opposed to Caesar
Calphurnia—Wife of Caesar who tried to keep her husband home on the day of his assassination
Portia—Wife of Brutus, daughter of Cato and sister of Young Cato
Lucilius—Officer in Brutus’ army who is captured by Antony
Titinius—Officer in Cassius’ army who commits suicide after Cassius’ death
Julius Caesar: List of Characters
13
Messala—Officer in Brutus’ army who gives Brutus information from Rome, including news of Portia’s
suicide
Young Cato—Brother-in-law of Brutus who dies in battle
Varro and Claudius—Soldiers under Brutus’ command who wait in his tent in Sardis before the battle at
Philippi
Volumnius, Clitus, and Dardanus—Soldiers under Brutus’ command who refuse to help him commit suicide
after the battle of Philippi
Strato—Loyal friend of Brutus who assists him in his suicide
Lucius—Servant of Brutus
Pindarus—Servant of Cassius who helps his master commit suicide
Artemidorus—Friend of Caesar who writes a letter warning him of the plot
Soothsayer—Seer into the future who tries to warn Caesar about the plot to kill him
Cinna the Poet—Poet on his way to Caesar’s funeral who is killed by an angry mob out for revenge
Another Poet—Jester who enters Brutus’ tent while Brutus and Cassius are arguing
Labeo and Flavius—Soldiers in Brutus’ army
Julius Caesar: Historical Background
Historical Background
In 1599, when Julius Caesar was first performed, Queen Elizabeth I, the Tudor Queen, was in the final years
of her 45-year reign (1558–1603). It was a period of history called the “Age of Discovery,” a time of
scientific growth, a rebirth of the arts, and exploration of the recently discovered continents of North and
South America. Historical plays were popular during Shakespeare’s lifetime and people were eager to learn
about worlds other than their own. A play like Julius Caesar taught them about Roman history, and at the
same time, provided them with a mirror of their own society—a peacetime monarchy after a hundred years of
warfare and before the Civil War that began in 1642.
Elizabeth’s reign was one of the most secure known by the English in hundreds of years. But her throne came
under attack from Roman Catholic plots to replace the Protestant monarch with a Catholic. While Shakespeare
was writing Julius Caesar, Elizabeth’s own favorite, the Earl of Essex rebelled in 1601, intending to replace
the Queen’s Secretary of State, Sir Robert Cecil, with a group of young aristocrats. His plan failed. But even
more damaging attacks on the idea of monarchy came from loyal Puritans. Radicals like Peter Wentworth and
John Field wanted democracy and called for “liberty, freedom and enfranchisement,” words echoed in
Shakespeare’s play.
Like Julius Caesar, Queen Elizabeth had no heirs to follow her on the throne. In 1599, when she was ill,
people feared that civil war and religious struggle would be the only way the question of her succession could
be answered.
Julius Caesar: Historical Background
14
Although Shakespeare was writing about Rome, he was also posing questions about his own times. Who is fit
to have authority? Who is fit to take this authority away? Is authority justified by legal or divine right? Can
rebellion against authority ever be justified? All of these concerns can be found in Julius Caesar.
Performance of the Play
In September of 1599, a Swiss doctor visiting London wrote in his journal that he crossed the Thames and
“there in the thatched roof witnessed an excellent performance of the tragedy of the first emperor Julius.”
This entry is one of the few surviving pieces of information about the production in the original Globe
Theater.
We know that a performance of Julius Caesar included realistic sound effects for thunder and battle scenes.
The actor playing Caesar probably had a pig’s bladder filled with blood under his costume, and when he was
stabbed, he and the conspirators were covered with blood. About 15 men played all the parts in the play,
memorizing several parts each. The two female roles were played by boy apprentices. There were no woman
actors in the theater at this time.
Today critics are divided over Julius Caesar. Some consider it flawed because it is the only Shakespearean
tragedy where the title character is killed halfway through the play. Also, the focus of the action is never clear.
Who is the hero of the play? Is it Caesar or Brutus? What is the message Shakespeare intends? Certainly, they
agree, the play is not as powerful as Hamlet or King Lear.
In reading the play today, we tend to judge it by our modern standards and concepts of democracy and
freedom. When you read the play, try to see it through the eyes of one who lived in England at the beginning
of the 17th Century. It was a time of change and discovery, yet it was a time of divine right, monarchy, order
and obligation. Without these things the world would be in chaos. What destroys the harmony in Caesar’s
Rome—Caesar’s ambition for power? Cassius’ jealousy? Brutus’ naivete? Or the fickleness of its citizens?
Julius Caesar: Summary and Analysis
Act 1, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
New Characters:
Flavius and Marullus: tribunes opposed to Caesar’s growing power
Roman Citizens: among them a cobbler and carpenter, supporters of Caesar
Summary
The setting is February 15, 44 B.C., the Feast of Lupercal, on a street in Rome. After the death of Pompey,
Caesar has returned to Rome as the most powerful man in the Republic. The play begins on a Roman street
with a confrontation between Flavius and Marullus (Roman tribunes) and a crowd of citizens out to celebrate
Caesar’s arrival for the games. The tribunes are concerned about Caesar’s growing power and popular
support and how it may destroy the Roman Republic. They scold the citizens and remind them of the love and
support Rome once gave Pompey, who was killed in the civil war with Caesar. Flavius and Marullus drive the
crowd from the streets. They decide to pull down any banners and decorations honoring Caesar, and scatter
the crowds wherever they find them in an attempt to weaken popular support for Caesar.
Analysis
The opening scene is expository. It establishes the time and place and gives the audience an indication of what
happened before the play began. It shows the political climate in Rome and the conflict surrounding Caesar.
Rome, once ruled by three men (a triumvirate) is now in the hands of only one, Caesar, whose ambitions
Julius Caesar: Summary and Analysis
15
include becoming king. The citizens, once loyal to Pompey, one of the triumvirate, now form the base of
Caesar’s power. Others, represented by Flavius and Marullus, are opposed to Caesar and the threat he
represents to the Roman Republic.
Flavius and Marullus drive the crowd from the streets. This shows how easily the crowd can be manipulated
and controlled. Flavius and Marullus are concerned about the welfare of the Roman state and the negative
impact that Caesar’s lust for power will have on its citizens. Yet the crowd seems unconcerned about politics.
They are only interested in having a holiday from work, and it does not seem to matter if the celebration is for
Pompey or for Caesar.
This fickleness of the commoners will surface several times throughout the play. Ultimately the commoners
are used as a force to affect the politics of Rome. This will become a significant factor later in the play.
Also significant are the issues of interpretation and subjectivity. Throughout the play a character’s judgment
is affected by another character’s interpretation of events. In this scene Flavius and Marullus are able to
influence the actions of the crowd by their accounts of Pompey and how good he was for Rome. This may or
may not have been true, but their perception prevails in the scene. Look for other indications of this subjective
interpretation of events as Brutus considers if he should kill Caesar, the interpretation of the meaning of
omens in the play, and even Pindarus’ report to Cassius of the capture of Titinius in Act V.
Note Shakespeare’s use of the pun, a play on words, in the opening lines of this scene. “I am / but , as you
would say, a cobbler.” (10–11) The word cobbler meant bungler as well as shoemaker. Later the character
says, “all that I live by is with the / awl.” (24–25) Since Shakespeare’s audience was often noisy and rowdy,
he opens the scene with humorous wordplay to focus his audience’s attention, make them laugh, and get them
to listen. Once that has been done, he returns to the essential information in the scene—the developing conflict
surrounding Caesar’s growing ambition.
Act I, Scene 2: Summary and Analysis
New Characters:
Caesar: the most powerful man in the Roman Republic after the death of Pompey
Calphurnia: Caesar’s wife
Brutus: friend of Caesar, concerned about the welfare of Rome
Cassius: brother-in-law of Brutus and leader of the conspiracy against Caesar
Casca: a conspirator against Caesar
Antony: a close friend of Caesar
Soothsayer: one who sees the future and tries to warn Caesar
Summary
The setting for this scene is another Roman street on the Feast of Lupercal. Caesar enters at the head of a
procession (triumph) with a flourish of trumpets, accompanied by his wife, friends, and some of the
conspirators who will later stab him to death. They are on their way to the Coliseum for the traditional
footrace to celebrate the Feast of Lupercal, a fertility festival in honor of the god Pan. Caesar stops the
procession and calls for Calphurnia. He then orders Antony, who is dressed to run, to touch Calphurnia during
Act 1, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
16
the race. The Romans believed that a barren (sterile) woman touched by the winner of the race on the Feast of
Lupercal would “Shake off their sterile curse.” (11) As they are about to move off, a soothsayer calls to
Caesar from the crowd. He warns Caesar, “Beware the ides of March.” (March 15) (21) But Caesar dismisses
the man as “a dreamer” and the procession continues to the Coliseum.
Cassius and Brutus remain behind. Cassius voices his concern about Brutus’ seeming coolness toward him.
Brutus assures Cassius that they are still friends, explaining to Cassius that he is simply distracted. During
their conversation they hear three shouts from the Coliseum, and Brutus admits he is afraid the people have
chosen Caesar to be king.
Cassius then begins his campaign to undermine Caesar and his growing power. He tells Brutus that the
Romans have allowed Caesar to grow too powerful and tries to show Brutus why Caesar is unfit to rule Rome.
Cassius says he once saved Caesar from drowning during a swimming race, and another time he saw Caesar
with a fever, crying “As a sick girl.” (135) Cassius appeals to Brutus to do something before Caesar destroys
the Roman Republic. Brutus says he will not live under the control of a king, and he is even ready to die for
the good of Rome.
After the games end, Caesar and his entourage return. When he sees Cassius and Brutus together he
recognizes the potential threat that Cassius represents. He tells Antony, “Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry
look. / He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous.” (204–205) He says that Cassius is never at “heart’s
ease” when he is in the company of someone who is better than he (Caesar). But Caesar quickly dismisses the
threat posed by Cassius “for always I am Caesar.” (222)
Casca, cynical and sarcastic, describes to Brutus and Cassius what happened at the Coliseum. The crowd
cheered when Antony presented Caesar with a crown three times, which Caesar refused each time. According
to Casca’s account, the people cheered so much that their bad breath knocked Caesar down and he passed
out. Brutus, however, says that Caesar has epilepsy.
Before he fell, Casca says, Caesar told the crowd that they could cut his throat if he displeased them, and
Casca says he would have done it if he had a knife. When he recovered from his seizure, Caesar apologized
for his words and actions, winning the forgiveness and sympathies of the crowd. Casca also tells Cassius and
Brutus that Flavius and Marullus “for pulling scarves off Caesar’s images, are put to silence.” (296–7) This
might mean they were put out of office, imprisoned, or even put to death.
Cassius recognizes Casca as another potential ally against Caesar and invites him to supper. He tells Brutus to
consider all the things they have discussed. When Cassius is alone he says in a soliloquy (a speech made by a
character who is alone on the stage) that he will write letters in different handwriting and leave them where
Brutus will find them. He hopes the letters will convince Brutus that public opinion is opposed to Caesar, and
move Brutus to take action.
Analysis
This scene shows Caesar’s power and the attitudes of those surrounding him. This is done through Caesar’s
words in the opening lines, the reactions of others to him, and what others say about him. Caesar is vain,
insensitive, and conceited. He humiliates his wife by publicly calling attention to her sterility. Yet Antony
jumps when Caesar gives him an order. Antony responds, “When Caesar says ‘Do this,’ it is performed.”
(13) Caesar seems to be afraid of nothing. He dismisses the soothsayer as a “dreamer.” This inflated opinion
of himself will resurface later in the scene and several other times in the play.
The scene reveals that Brutus is troubled by Caesar’s rise to power. This concern has preoccupied him to the
point that he has neglected his friends. Brutus is at war with himself.
Act I, Scene 2: Summary and Analysis
17
If there is a villain in the play, it is Cassius. He is jealous of Caesar and aware that Brutus can be manipulated
by what he perceives to be for the good of Rome. Cassius probes Brutus by asking if he is aware of what is
happening in Rome. When Brutus reacts to the shouts from the crowd, Cassius steps up his attack on Caesar.
His story about saving Caesar’s life may or may not be true. Angrily he points out that Caesar has become a
god and that he must bow to him.
The issue of subjective interpretation is significant in this scene. Although Brutus is already considering the
potential threat Caesar poses to Rome, it is Cassius’ perception of Caesar that adds to Brutus’ concern. Is
Caesar really as great a threat as Cassius says?
When Caesar reappears, his astute political judgment is revealed when he immediately recognizes the threat
that Cassius poses. He assesses Cassius as a loner who doesn’t sleep, who reads, and who is generally not
content with his life. Caesar knows instinctively that if any man is to be feared, it is Cassius. Yet Caesar is
afraid of nothing. This pride, coupled with ambition, blinds him and makes him vulnerable. Caesar wishes to
be a god, but, ironically, he suffers from certain physical afflictions. He is deaf in his left ear, and he is an
epileptic.
The cynical and sarcastic Casca gives a humorous and biased account of the events that occurred at the
Coliseum, revealing his own feelings toward Caesar. Caesar played to the crowd by three times refusing
Antony’s offer of a coronet, a small crown. Caesar may have done this because the crown offered by Antony
was only symbolic, and had no power connected with it. By refusing the crown, Caesar would show the crowd
that he wasn’t really ambitious. According to Casca, when the crowd cheered, their bad breath knocked
Caesar down. In actuality Caesar suffered an epileptic seizure. Brutus calls it “the falling sickness.” Cassius
makes a pun, indicating that Rome has “the falling sickness,” falling down in worship before Caesar.
Casca’s attitude, his account of the events and his reference to cutting Caesar’s throat, indicate to that he is
another candidate for the growing plot against Caesar. Cassius invites Casca to supper to recruit him into the
conspiracy. Casca’s news that Flavius and Marullus were silenced is another indication of Caesar’s possible
abuse of power.
Cassius’ soliloquy is an important aspect of this scene. A soliloquy, a speech made by a character who is
alone on the stage, reveals the character’s true nature, thoughts, and feelings. In his soliloquy, after Casca and
Brutus exit, Cassius indicates how he plans to trick Brutus into the plot against Caesar. He will forge letters
indicating that Rome wants Caesar killed, and leave them where Brutus will find them. Cassius is shrewd,
calculating, and ready to take advantage of Brutus for his own political and personal reasons. He knows that
Brutus is well-respected in Rome, and his joining the conspiracy will give it respectability.
Act I, Scene 3: Summary and Analysis
New Characters:
Cicero: a Roman senator and orator
Cinna: a conspirator against Caesar
Summary
It is the night before the ides of March, and a terrible storm is raging. A frightened Casca, with his sword
drawn, meets Cicero on a Roman street. Casca describes to Cicero all the unusual things he has witnessed:
heaven “dropping fire,” a man with his hand ablaze but not burning, a lion in the Capitol, an owl hooting in
the marketplace at noon, and men on fire walking through the streets. Casca interprets all these signs to mean
either the gods are engaged in civil war, or they are determined to destroy Rome. They mention Caesar’s
Act I, Scene 3: Summary and Analysis
18
plans to be at the Capitol in the morning, and Cicero exits as Cassius enters.
Cassius is unconcerned about the storm and tells Casca that he has been daring the lightning to strike him.
When Casca says all these terrible things are signs from the gods, Cassius interprets them as warnings against
Caesar. Casca reveals that the senators plan to make Caesar king, and give him a crown that he may wear
“every place save here in Italy.” (91) Cassius says he would rather kill himself than see Caesar made king.
He tells Casca of a plot to kill Caesar, and convinces him to join the conspiracy.
Cinna, another conspirator, enters and reports to Cassius that the others are waiting for him at Pompey’s
Porch, the covered entrance to the theater built by Pompey. Cassius gives Cinna some letters and instructs him
to leave them where Brutus will find them. When Cinna leaves, Cassius tells Casca that Brutus is almost
convinced to join them, and that one final push “yields him ours.” (161) Casca rightly states that Brutus is
well-respected in Rome, and his joining the conspiracy will give it respectability. Act I ends with them
heading for Brutus’ house to “wake him and be sure of him.” (169)
Analysis
A month has passed, and there is a storm raging, symbolizing the political storm unfolding in Rome. Caesar,
the head of state, is on the brink of assassination, and the natural order in Roman society is being threatened.
Casca, like many Romans, is superstitious. He interprets these unusual events as evil omens. The gods, he
thinks, are bent on destroying Rome.
Cassius sees Caesar’s unbridled power as a greater evil and the surest way to destroying the Roman Republic.
In his meeting with Casca, he reveals himself to be unafraid and undisturbed by events. Cassius is confident,
openly daring the lightning to strike him. His mood is almost joyful as he and the other conspirators plan to
rid Rome of a tyrant. Cassius calls the evening “A very pleasing night to honest men,” (46) indicating that he
regards his plans to kill Caesar as just and necessary. Cassius uses a similar approach to discover Casca’s
feelings toward Caesar and recruit him into his plot as he did with Brutus. He tells Casca that Romans have
grown weak and “womanish” as Caesar has grown strong. His words are convincing and Casca, with a
handshake, joins Cassius and the others against Caesar.
When Cinna arrives, Cassius identifies the other conspirators by name. Decius Brutus (not to be confused with
Marcus Brutus), Trebonius, and Metellus Cimber are among them. The letters Cassius gives to Cinna are
those he mentioned in his soliloquy. In the course of the month that has passed, many letters have been posted
where Brutus would find them. They have had the desired effect of convincing Brutus of a public sentiment
against Caesar. Cassius says of Brutus, “Three parts of him / Is ours already, and the man entire / Upon the
next encounter yields him ours.” (159–61) The importance of having Brutus with them is also understood by
Casca who says, “O, he sits high in all the people’s hearts, / And that which would appear offense in us / His
countenance, like richest alchemy, / Will change to virtue and to worthiness.” (162–65)
In this scene Cassius introduces the idea of suicide. He says he will kill himself before he will see Caesar
made king. Elizabethan England was generally opposed to the concept of suicide, because it went against the
Christian teaching that only God could take a person’s life. However, the notion of suicide among Romans,
as in the Japanese samurai tradition, was acceptable. Many Romans considered suicide preferable to dishonor
and defeat. This will become a significant factor in Act V.
Act II, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
New Characters:
Lucius: Brutus’ servant
Act II, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
19
Decius: conspirator who plans to flatter Caesar and bring him to the Senate House
Metellus Cimber and Trebonius: conspirators against Caesar
Portia: wife of Brutus
Caius Ligarius: ill friend of Brutus; the last to join the conspiracy
Summary
The setting for the scene is before three o’clock in the morning of the ides of March, and Brutus is alone in
his garden. He is unable to sleep. His mind is still disturbed as he wrestles with what to do about Caesar. In a
soliloquy, Brutus considers the possibilities. He has no personal feelings against Caesar, yet he must consider
the good of Rome. Caesar has not yet acted irresponsibly, but once he is crowned and has power, he could
change and do harm to Rome. Brutus compares Caesar to a poisonous snake. Because Caesar may be
corrupted by power, Brutus decides he must be prevented from gaining power. He says, “And therefore think
him as a serpent’s egg, / Which, hatched, would, as his kind, grow mischievous, / And kill him in the shell.”
(33–35) Lucius, Brutus’ servant, brings him some letters he has found. They all urge Brutus to act against
Caesar.
Cassius, Casca, Cinna, Decius, Metellus Cimber, and Trebonius arrive to put more pressure on Brutus. Brutus
announces his intention to join them, taking charge. First he convinces the others that they don’t need Cicero
in the conspiracy, and then he convinces them that Antony should not be killed with Caesar. Brutus tells
Metellus to send Caius Ligarius, who has a grudge against Caesar, to see him so that Brutus may bring him
into the plot. Decius says that he will use flattery to get Caesar out of his house if he decides to remain home.
They leave with plans to arrive at Caesar’s house at eight o’clock to escort him to the Capitol.
After they are gone, Portia, Brutus’ wife, appears and begs him to confide in her what is going on. She
convinces him that although she is a woman, she is strong and capable of keeping his secrets. But just as
Brutus is about to tell Portia everything, an ill Ligarius arrives. Because he has such regard for Brutus,
Ligarius agrees to “discard [his] sickness” (347) and follow Brutus. Brutus leads Ligarius towards Caesar’s
house, revealing the details of their plans as they go.
Analysis
For a month Brutus has been wrestling with his thoughts, unable to eat or sleep. Lucius, in contrast, has no
difficulty falling asleep. In Shakespeare’s world, sleep is reserved only for the innocent, those with
untroubled minds.
While pacing in his garden Brutus decides that Caesar must be killed, not for what Caesar is, but for what he
may become. His decision to kill Caesar has nothing to do with a desire for personal gain or power. Brutus is
driven purely by concern for the good of Rome. He regards Caesar, his friend, as a potential threat to the
well-being of the Republic. He compares Caesar to a poisonous snake that is dangerous only after it is
hatched. To prevent danger, it must be killed in the shell. So Caesar must be killed before he abuses his
power. The letters presented by Lucius, left by Cinna at the direction of Cassius, only reaffirm what Brutus
has already decided.
When the other conspirators arrive, Brutus joins them with a handshake and commits himself to their plan to
kill Caesar. Immediately he becomes their new leader, replacing Cassius. Ironically, the man who does not
want power takes over, making decisions for these men throughout the rest of the play. He convinces them
that they need not swear an oath to their cause, because what they are about to do is noble and important
enough to bind them together.
Act II, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
20
When Metellus and the others want Cicero in the conspiracy to “purchase us a good opinion / And buy men’s
voices to commend our deeds,” (157–58) Brutus persuades them that Cicero is unnecessary, “For he will
never follow anything / That other men begin.” (163–64)
When the question of killing Antony is brought up by the practical Cassius, Brutus again prevails. He says
that they are “sac¬rificers, but not butchers,” (179) and convinces them that if they kill Antony, their “course
will seem too bloody.” (175) It would be like cutting off Caesar’s head and afterwards hacking off his arms
and legs.
Cassius’ desire to kill Antony, however, is based on sound political considerations. Antony, a friend of
Caesar, might later cause trouble for the conspirators. Cassius rightly concludes that Antony should be killed
with Caesar. The idealistic Brutus is moved by what he perceives to be right, and to him killing Antony would
be wrong. His speech in lines 175–196 convinces them to let Antony live. This error, and other errors in
judgment made by Brutus in Act III, will later prove disastrous.
The matter of Caesar’s superstition arises when Cassius questions whether Caesar will even leave his house
while so many strange phenomena are occurring. Decius says he will take advantage of Caesar’s vulnerability
to flattery to persuade Caesar to come to the Capitol.
As the conspirators leave, determined to meet at Caesar’s house by eight o’clock, Portia enters. She begs
Brutus to share his problems with her as his true wife. She kneels, telling him that even though she is a
woman, she is strong enough to keep his secrets. To prove this she even gives herself a voluntary wound in
the thigh without crying out. Brutus is so moved by Portia’s display that he says he is not worthy of such a
wife. The only thing that prevents him from telling her everything is the arrival of Caius Ligarius. In a very
brief exchange with Ligarius, the esteem in which Brutus is held by his peers is revealed. The ill Ligarius
ignores his own sickness because Brutus needs him for some undisclosed enterprise. It is a testimonial to the
high opinion Ligarius and Rome have of Brutus.
Note Shakespeare’s use of anachronisms (an object or event from the wrong time period) in this scene.
Shakespeare was not concerned about the historical accuracy of certain details, and he mixed events from his
era with those from Roman times. Sometimes these anachronisms were convenient methods to move the play
along. How would the conspirators account for the time if the clock didn’t strike three? (Clocks did not exist
in Caesar’s time.) Lucius tells Brutus that he does not recognize the men at the gate because they are wearing
hats and cloaks. Neither hats nor cloaks were part of the Roman dress, but were in the 1600s. In addition,
kerchiefs were worn by sick men and women in Shakespeare’s England. Look for other anachronisms in the
course of the play.
Act II, Scene 2: Summary and Analysis
Summary
It is almost eight o’clock in the morning on the ides of March at Caesar’s house. Caesar is awakened by
Calphurnia crying out in her sleep. Caesar orders his servant to have the priests sacrifice an animal and bring
back word of the results. Calphurnia asks her husband to stay at home because she is afraid he will be
murdered, but the proud and haughty Caesar refuses to take her warning. Caesar’s servant returns with word
from the augurers (priests), who want Caesar to remain inside because, “They could not find a heart within
the beast.” (43)
Caesar interprets this differently. He says, “The gods do this in shame of cowardice. / Caesar should be a
beast without a heart / If he should stay at home today for fear.” (44–46) It is only when Calphurnia kneels
and begs him to stay home for her sake that Caesar agrees.
Act II, Scene 2: Summary and Analysis
21
As planned, Decius arrives to escort Caesar to the Senate. Caesar tells him to take word to the senators that he
intends to remain home. When Decius presses him for a reason, Caesar tells him of Calphurnia’s dream,
where she saw a statue of Caesar oozing blood in a hundred places, with many Romans bathing their hands in
it. However, Decius interprets the dream in a favorable way. He says that Caesar is the lifeblood of Rome, and
the men bathing in his blood are gaining strength from him. Decius also appeals to Caesar’s pride. He tells
him that the senators might think Caesar is afraid if he does not show up because Calphurnia had bad dreams.
Decius’ appeal changes Caesar’s mind. He decides to ignore his wife’s fears and go to the Senate. Brutus,
Cassius, and the others arrive in time to put more pressure on Caesar. The scene ends with them leaving
together for the Senate House.
Analysis
This scene parallels the preceding scene, where Portia influences Brutus, only to be interrupted by Ligarius.
Here Calphurnia convinces Caesar to stay at home, only to have Decius interrupt, changing Caesar’s mind.
Superstition and supernatural forces again play an important part in this scene. In an attempt to convince her
husband to stay home, Calphurnia describes fantastic events she has witnessed or heard about, and interprets
them as omens meant to warn Caesar. She tells of graves yielding up their dead, a lioness giving birth in the
streets of the city, and blood dripping from the clouds onto the Capitol, events similar to those extraordinary
occurrences mentioned earlier by Casca. Calphurnia pleads with Caesar to give into her fears. “Caesar, I
never stood on ceremonies, / But now they fright me.” (13–14) But because of his pride, Caesar is unmoved.
He says, “Cowards die many times before their deaths; / The valiant never taste of death but once.” (34–35)
When his servant brings word that the augurers could not find a heart in the beast they sacrificed, Caesar
interprets it to mean the gods would consider him a coward without a heart if he does not go to the Senate. It
is only when Calphurnia kneels to him, as Portia did with Brutus, that he consents. For an instant a tender and
human side of Caesar is revealed. But when Calphurnia tells Caesar to say he is sick, it is too much for his
pride to lie to “greybeards.” When he does agree to send Decius to the Senate with his decision, Caesar says,
“Tell them that I will not come today. / Cannot is false, and that I dare not falser. / I will not come today.”
(66–68) It must be made clear to the senators that Caesar is in control.
After hearing Calphurnia’s dream, Decius interprets it in a favorable way. He says it is a good omen, that
Caesar is the center of Rome and from him “great Rome shall suck / Reviving blood.” (92–93) He convinces
Caesar to go by telling him that the Senate plans to give him a crown, and they may change their mind if
Caesar does not come. There are those who will laugh at Caesar and think him a coward if he hides himself at
home because Calphurnia had bad dreams. This is too much for Caesar to bear, and he changes his mind once
again and agrees to go to the Senate. The man who says he hates flatterers is flattered and lured to his death.
Act II, Scenes 3 and 4: Summary and Analysis
New Character:
Artemidorus: teacher and friend of some of the conspirators; he has learned about the plot against Caesar
Summary
The setting is a Roman street on the ides of March shortly before the planned assassination. Artemidorus, a
teacher and friend of some of the conspirators, has learned about the plot to kill Caesar. He has written a letter
naming each man and warning Caesar to be on his guard. He plans to wait for Caesar to pass and then present
the letter as a suitor looking for a political favor.
At the same time, on another part of the street, an agitated Portia tells Lucius to run to the Capitol and report
back to her everything his master, Brutus, says and does. The confused boy is unsure of what the distracted
Portia wants him to do and he hesitates. When Portia sees the soothsayer passing by his way to the Capitol,
Act II, Scenes 3 and 4: Summary and Analysis
22
she asks him if he knows about any harm intended toward Caesar. The soothsayer responds, “None that I
know will be, much that I fear may chance.” (Sc. 4, 38) He tells her that he plans to speak to Caesar when he
passes.
In an aside, Portia wishes Brutus success in his enterprise and she sends Lucius off on his errand.
Analysis
How Artemidorus learned about the plot is not explained, but his information is correct and up-to-date. His
list of conspirators includes Ligarius, who joined Brutus only recently. His letter cautions Caesar against
overconfidence. “If thou beest not immortal, look about you. Security gives way to conspiracy.” (Sc. 3, 6–7)
It is precisely Caesar’s sense of his own immortality, his attitude that he is a god, that makes him so
vulnerable.
Portia’s behavior in Scene 4 indicates that she knows what is about to occur. Because Shakespeare does not
say exactly how she knows, we must assume she has either been told by Brutus, or has figured it out for
herself. The issue of her being a “weak” woman, brought up in the previous scene, is mentioned again. “O
constancy, be strong upon my side; / Set a huge mountain ‘tween my heart and tongue. / I have a man’s mind
but a woman’s might. / How hard it is for women to keep counsel!” (Sc. 4, 7–10) Portia is now so agitated
she can hardly contain herself, and is about to burst. Her orders to Lucius are unclear and his response is
almost humorous. “Madam, what should I do? / Run to the Capitol, and nothing else? / And so return to you,
and nothing else?” (Sc. 4, 12–14). Her exchange with the soothsayer makes it clear she knows there is a plot
to “harm” Caesar.
Since all of the roles in Shakespeare’s plays were acted by males, Portia’s comment about a man’s mind and
a woman’s might is a joke that wouldn’t have been missed by the audience in the Globe Theater.
Act III, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
New Characters:
Lepidus: one of the three rulers of Rome after Caesar’s death
Publius: elderly Roman senator who escorts Caesar to the Senate
Popilius Lena: senator who wishes success to Cassius
Servant: messenger from Octavius
Summary
Caesar arrives at the Senate House on the ides of March. Artemidorus tries to give Caesar his warning letter,
as Decius offers Caesar a petition. Artemidorus presses Caesar to read his letter first because it “touches
Caesar nearer.” (7) Caesar responds, “What touches us ourself shall be last served.” (8) In other words, he
ignores the letter because it is of a personal nature. Cassius is afraid that their plans are known when Popilius,
a senator, says to him, “I wish your enterprise today may thrive.” (14)
Cassius tells Casca to act quickly. Trebonius, as prearranged, removes Antony from the scene. Under the
pretext of begging repeal of a banishment decree imposed by Caesar on Publius Cimber, brother of Metellus,
they surround Caesar and isolate him from the rest of the senators. As Caesar rejects each of their appeals, the
conspirators tighten the circle around him. Casca is the first to strike, and, after each of the conspirators attack
Caesar, Brutus is the last to stab him. Mortally wounded, Caesar says his last words, “Et tu, Brutè?—Then fall,
Caesar,” (85) and dies.
Act III, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
23
Panic ensues as the senators run from the Senate House. Under the direction of Brutus, the conspirators bathe
their hands and swords in Caesar’s blood and prepare to go into the streets. But before they can tell the
Romans what has happened, Antony’s servant enters and begs for permission for his master to come and
speak to all of them. Brutus agrees, but before Antony’s arrival, Cassius again considers the possibility of
killing Antony.
When Antony arrives he tells the conspirators that he is ready to die, if that is their plan. Brutus assures
Antony that there is no harm intended toward him, or anyone else. Reassured by Brutus, Antony shakes their
bloody hands and asks for permission to bring Caesar’s body to the marketplace and to speak at Caesar’s
funeral. Again Brutus is quick to agree, and again Cassius objects. Brutus overrides the objection and tells
Antony that he may speak, but only with certain restrictions. Antony may not blame the conspirators for
killing Caesar, although he may say good things about Caesar. He must say he speaks by permission from the
same pulpit after Brutus speaks.
After they leave, Antony declares his true feelings in a powerful soliloquy. He predicts a violent and bloody
civil war, and he vows revenge for Caesar’s death. A messenger arrives with news that young Octavius,
Caesar’s nephew, has arrived outside of Rome. Antony tells the messenger to wait until after his funeral
speech, and then return to Octavius with news as to whether or not it is safe or not for him to enter Rome.
Together they carry Caesar’s body to the marketplace.
Analysis
Time is running out for Caesar, but there are still two possibilities that may save his life. The first is the
soothsayer and the other is Artemidorus. Caesar dismisses the soothsayer when he sees him with his mocking,
“The ides of March are come.” (1) Then, he ignores Artemidorus’ letter because it is personal business.
Ironically, this man who regards himself as a god, who identifies himself as the center of Rome, who uses the
words “us ourself” when he refers to himself, cuts himself off from possible salvation by putting himself last.
Fearing detection because their security has been compromised, Cassius indicates he will kill himself rather
than live under Caesar. But it becomes clear that Popilius, a senator who wishes Cassius well, does not intend
to warn Caesar, and the conspirators are free to carry out their plan. Trebonius is the only conspirator who
doesn’t stab Caesar. His purpose is to lead Antony off and prevent him from coming to Caesar’s aid.
As he begins the day’s proceedings, Caesar’s ego is apparent. He says, “What is now amiss / That Caesar
and his Senate must redress?” (34–35) Clearly, Caesar considers Rome and the Senate to belong to him. In
his exchange with the conspirators, Caesar will not reconsider his decision banishing Publius Cimber. He says
he is incapable of making mistakes. “Know: Caesar doth not wrong.” (52) He considers himself no “ordinary
man” and he can not be swayed by flattery.
However, Caesar’s assessment of himself is not very accurate. He has already made some serious mistakes by
dismissing the many warnings he has received, and by thinking the people around him are his friends. Also,
Decius was able to flatter Caesar into changing his mind about coming to the Senate. Nevertheless, he says to
Cassius, “I could be well moved, if I were as you. / If I could pray to move, prayers would move me. / But I
am constant as the Northern Star.” (64–66) He says that trying to change Caesar’s mind is an impossibility,
like trying to lift Mount Olympus. The concern Brutus had in his garden about Caesar seems to be justified by
Caesar’s inflexibility.
Casca is the first to stab Caesar. It is fitting that Brutus be the last. Caesar’s words to him—Et tu Brutè? (and
thou, Brutus?)—indicate his disbelief that his friend could do such a thing.
In the panic that follows Caesar’s death, Metellus warns the conspirators to “Stand fast together.” (96) But
Brutus takes charge and assures the frightened senators that “Ambition’s debt is paid.” (91) To mark
Act III, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
24
themselves as the men who killed Caesar and gave their country “Liberty, freedom and enfranchisement,”
(89) Brutus tells them to bathe their hands in Caesar’s blood. With this act Calphurnia’s dream comes true.
Brutus is so blinded by delusions of his own nobility that he goes so far as to suggest that the conspirators
have done Caesar a favor by killing him: “ . . . Death is a benefit / So we are Caesar’s friends that have
abridged / his time of fearing death.” (115-17)
The arrival of Antony provides another opportunity to study the differences between the idealistic Brutus and
the practical Cassius. Brutus is innocent, to the point of being naive. Because he believes his motives for
killing Caesar are noble and pure, and because any reasonable Roman would recognize them as such, Brutus
has no problem with Antony’s request to speak at Caesar’s funeral. Since they all acted for the good of
Rome, how could Antony, or any Roman, not understand? Cassius however, instinctively sees the political
truth and knows the problems Antony may cause them. His strenuous objections are downplayed by Brutus,
who thinks he can allay Cassius’ fears by imposing restrictions on Antony. He tells Antony, “You shall not
in your funeral speech blame us / But speak all good you can devise of Caesar / And say you do’t by our
permission, / . . . And you shall speak / In the same pulpit whereto I am going, / After my speech is ended.”
(270–76)
When the others leave, the bloody Antony, who has shaken hands with each of the conspirators, indicates his
true intentions in a soliloquy. He vows revenge for Caesar’s murder, and he promises to throw Italy into such
a violent civil war, “That mothers shall but smile when they behold / Their infants quartered with the hands of
war, / All pity choked with custom of fell deeds.” (293–95)
The arrival of a messenger at the end of the scene introduces Octavius, Caesar’s young nephew, who has an
important role in the rest of the play.
Act III, Scenes 2 and 3: Summary and Analysis
New Characters:
Plebeians: Roman citizens at Caesar’s funeral
Servant: messenger from Octavius
Cinna the Poet: a poet with the same name as one of the conspirators
Summary
The setting is in the marketplace at Caesar’s funeral shortly after his death. The agitated crowd demands an
explanation for Caesar’s assassination. Cassius leaves with some of the crowd to give his version of why
Caesar was killed, while Brutus remains behind with the others to give his own account of the events. Brutus
explains that although he was Caesar’s friend, and loved him, Caesar was ambitious and had to be killed for
the good of Rome. If allowed to live, Caesar would have made slaves of all the Romans. He tells the crowd
that he is ready to kill himself with the same dagger he used to kill Caesar, if they think he did wrong. But
they are so moved by his speech that the crowd wants to erect statues in Brutus’ honor and make him king.
Brutus declines their offer, and after telling them to listen to what Antony has to say, Brutus leaves.
Antony faces a hostile audience when he ascends into the pulpit and begins his oration with the words,
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.” (Sc. 2, 82) Slowly he wins them over, proving that
Caesar was not ambitious. He calls the conspirators “honorable men,” yet he shows them to be traitors.
Antony cries for Caesar and produces his will. He tells the angry citizens that he dare not read the will
because it might stir them to mutiny and rage against Cassius and Brutus. He shows them Caesar’s bloody
cloak and his mutilated body, stirring them up with every word. And when he finally reads the will, revealing
Act III, Scenes 2 and 3: Summary and Analysis
25
the generous legacy Caesar left the citizens of Rome, the crowd is transformed into an angry mob, out of
control and intent on revenge against the conspirators. Antony is quite pleased with these results, and with the
news brought by a messenger from Octavius, that Cassius and Brutus have fled Rome.
In the next scene, Cinna, the poet, on his way to Caesar’s funeral, is confronted by a mob carrying torches
and clubs. They demand answers to their questions, and when Cinna tells them his name they threaten to kill
him as a conspirator. He says he isn’t one of the conspirators, but a poet. The angry mob kills him anyway,
“for his bad verses,” (Sc. 3, 31) and then runs off to burn the houses of the conspirators.
Analysis
The scene provides another example of subjective interpretation, and shows how it affects the actions of
others. The crowd of citizens is moved first by Brutus’ picture of Caesar, and then turned into an angry mob
by a totally different Caesar painted by Antony. The fickleness of the Roman people, evident from the first
scene of the play, becomes more apparent now. After Caesar’s assassination, the angry crowd, commoners
who were the foundation of Caesar’s power, demand an explanation from the bloody men who just murdered
their hero. Brutus is so sure killing Caesar was the right thing to do that he is ready to die for his convictions.
He is so convincing in arguing that Caesar’s ambition would have destroyed the Roman Republic that the
crowd is eager to “Bring him with triumph home unto his house. / Give him a statue with his ancestors. / Let
him be Caesar.” (Sc. 2, 51–53) In their response lies the irony. Brutus killed Caesar, who would be king, to
deliver Rome from tyranny, and these same people would make their liberator king. They have missed the
point behind Brutus’ actions and oration.
Antony’s funeral speech is the dramatic high point of the play. Not only is he able to stir up the Romans into
a frenzied mob, as he predicted he would in his soliloquy in Act III, but he does so while fulfilling the
restrictions imposed on him by Brutus. Antony cautiously ascends to the same pulpit as Brutus, after Brutus
speaks, and he says he speaks by permission. He doesn’t blame the conspirators, but uses the phrase
“honorable men” with such unmistakable irony that the crowd calls them villains and murderers. His pun, “O
judgment thou has fled to brutish beasts,” (Sc. 2, 106) followed by his tears, has an electrifying effect on his
audience. Antony manipulates the crowd by showing them Caesar’s will, and then telling them he cannot
read it. He holds off their demands to read it, allowing their emotions to build. Next, Antony, who was not
present when Caesar was killed, shows them Caesar’s cloak, and dramatically points out where each of the
conspirators stabbed. “Look, in this place ran Cassius’ dagger through. / See what a rent the envious Casca
made. / Through this the well-beloved Brutus stabbed.” (Sc. 2, 186–8) It is a theatrical ploy, but most
effective. The crowd even forgets about the will, until Antony reminds them. He reads the will: “To every
Roman citizen he gives, / To every several man, seventy-five dracmas (silver coins).” (Sc. 2, 255–6) And,
“Moreover, he hath left you all his walks, / His private arbors, and new-planted orchards, / On this side
Tiber.” (Sc. 2, 261–3) This pushes the crowd into a frenzy that Antony sets loose on Rome.
In a move of tactical brilliance, Antony announces himself as a lamb so he can later pounce like a lion:
I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts
I am no orator, as Brutus is;
But (as you know me all) a plain blunt man
That loves my friend, and that they know full well
That gave me public leave to speak of him.
For I have neither writ, nor words, nor worth
Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech
To stir men’s blood; I only speak right on. (Sc. 2, 228–235)
By creating the illusion that he will not attempt to stir the crowd, he lowers its resistance, opens its heart, and
firmly sinks in his teeth. In such a way, Antony easily manipulates the crowd, by claiming he is not the
Act III, Scenes 2 and 3: Summary and Analysis
26
manipulative type. Furthermore, Antony cleverly attributes his own powers of manipulation to the unwitting
Brutus by suggesting that he is not an orator like Brutus. Antony’s political cunning is obvious, especially in
contrast to Brutus’ sincerity (albeit misguided).
Cinna, the poet, becomes the first victim of the mob. He is in the wrong place at the wrong time, drawn there
by some unknown, supernatural forces. “I dreamt tonight that I did feast with Caesar, / And things unluckily
charge my fantasy. / I have no will to wander forth of doors, / Yet something leads me forth.” (Sc. 3, 1–4) He
is surrounded by people out for revenge, who ask him many questions but are not interested in his answers.
He responds to one of these questions about being married or single, “Wisely I say, I am a bachelor.” (Sc. 3,
17) They then threaten to beat him for implying “they are fools that marry.” (Sc. 3, 18–19) Clearly the mob is
out for blood. Ultimately they kill him just for being there, using his “bad verses” as their justification.
Act III ends with Rome in complete chaos and on the brink of civil war.
Act IV, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
New Characters:
Octavius: Caesar’s nephew and one of the three leaders to rule Rome after his death
Lepidus: the third leader to rule Rome after Caesar’s death
Summary
The setting is a house in Rome some time after Caesar’s death. The Republic is in turmoil, as Antony
predicted. Rome is in the hands of Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus. They are compiling a death list of their
political enemies. Antony sends Lepidus to “fetch” Caesar’s will so they might reduce some of the legacies
mentioned by Antony to the citizens in his funeral speech. When Lepidus leaves, Antony tells Octavius that
Lepidus is unfit to have so much power. Antony plans to use Lepidus to achieve his political objectives and
then cut him off. They talk about Brutus and Cassius, who have fled the country and are raising an army in
Greece. Antony and Octavius make plans to muster their own forces to fight them.
Analysis
Act IV addresses the corrupting effects of power. Rome is on the brink of a terrible civil war. Antony has
joined forces with Octavius and Lepidus to become one of the three most powerful men in Rome. They are the
second triumvirate to rule the Republic. (Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus were the first.)
To solidify their political power, and because they have many enemies in Rome, they are making a list of
Roman senators and citizens they plan to execute. Their decisions are cold and unfeeling. In a political
tit-for-tat, Lepidus consents to listing his own brother, provided that Antony agrees to include his nephew.
Ironically, their total disregard for life goes beyond anything Brutus feared Caesar might do. Their greed is
made more evident in their plan to change Caesar’s will for their personal gain.
The moral flaw in Antony’s character can also be seen when he reveals his contempt for Lepidus. When
Octavius calls Lepidus “a tried and valiant soldier,” (32) Antony compares Lepidus to his horse who “must
be taught and trained and bid go forth.” (39) It is Antony’s intention to use Lepidus as a practical means to
his desired end, much as Cassius used Brutus. It is not a flattering picture of the man who rose to great heights
in Act III, and who is about to lead Rome into civil war.
Act IV, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
27
Act IV, Scenes 2 and 3: Summary and Analysis
New Characters:
Pindarus: servant to Cassius taken prisoner in Partheia
Lucilius: officer in Brutus’ army
Messala: officer in Brutus’ army
Titinius: friend of Cassius and Officer in his army
Varro: soldier in Brutus’ army
Claudius: soldier in Brutus’ army
Poet: jester who enters Brutus’ tent
Caesar’s Ghost
Soldiers
Summary
The setting is the camp of Brutus in Sardis, Greece. Brutus and his soldiers are awaiting the arrival of Cassius
and his army. When Pindarus, a slave to Cassius, brings his master’s greetings, Brutus indicates his
misgivings about the course of events. He confides to Lucilius, one of his officers, that he has regrets about
killing Caesar.
As soon as Cassius arrives in camp he begins to quarrel with Brutus. Brutus cautions him that they should not
fight in front of the troops they will soon lead into battle, so they move into Brutus’ tent to continue their
argument.
Cassius is angry because a friend of his, Lucius Pella, has been punished for taking bribes and Brutus ignored
letters that Cassius wrote in the man’s defense. Brutus attacks Cassius for defending Pella, and he attacks
Cassius’ own reputation for taking bribes. As their tempers flare, they come to the point of drawing swords.
Cassius physically threatens Brutus, who dismisses him as a “slight man,” (Sc. 3, 40) and reminds him that
they killed Caesar for the sake of justice and not for personal gain.
Brutus is angry because he sent a request to Cassius for money to pay his troops and Cassius refused. Cassius
denies refusing the money, and is so disturbed by what Brutus thinks that he offers him his dagger and tells
Brutus to kill him. This calms Brutus and he and Cassius shake hands, reaffirming their friendship. Brutus
tells Cassius he is distraught because he learned of his wife’s death in letters from Rome. Depressed by
Brutus’ flight, she committed suicide.
Messala and Titinius, officers in their armies, enter with news from Rome, confirming Portia’s death, along
with the murder of 70 to 100 Roman senators.
Brutus turns their attention back to “our work alive,” a battle plan to meet the advancing enemy armies.
Brutus wants to march to Philippi, while Cassius thinks they should remain where they are and have their
enemies come to them. Brutus argues that they are in unfriendly territory, at the peak of their strength, and
they must seize the opportunity before they weaken. Once again Cassius gives in to Brutus, and the decision is
Act IV, Scenes 2 and 3: Summary and Analysis
28
made to set off for Philippi in the morning.
While reading a book in his tent Brutus begins to doze. In this twilight of consciousness, the ghost of Caesar
appears to him. The ghost says he is Brutus’ evil spirit, and that he will see Brutus again at Philippi. Before
Brutus awakens fully the ghost is gone. Brutus calls Varro and Claudius, soldiers in his army, and tells them
to send word to Cassius to move his troops to Philippi at once.
Analysis
As Scene 1 showed the corrupting effects of power on Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus, these scenes indicate
the breakdown in the relationship between Brutus and Cassius. The passage of time, the unexpected chaos that
has developed in Rome, the reaction of the Roman people, and Cassius’ behavior have made Brutus wish
“Things done undone.” (Sc. 2, 9) Nothing is what he expected.
His meeting with Cassius in the camp at Sardis is a confrontation over money, but there are deeper issues
addressed during their fight in the tent. Cassius is angry because he thinks Brutus wronged him when he
disregarded the letters Cassius wrote in defense of Lucius Pella. Brutus, however, thinks that Cassius wronged
himself to sanction bribery. He questions Cassius’ honesty and accuses him of taking bribes and selling his
favors to the highest bidder. Cassius is infuriated, but Brutus, whose motives are always noble, reminds
Cassius that they killed Caesar for justice, not for money.
Cassius warns Brutus not to bait him or he may do something he will be sorry for. Brutus responds, “You
have done that you should be sorry for,” (Sc. 3, 74) meaning the assassination of Caesar. At the point of
drawing their swords, Brutus tells Cassius he is not afraid of him. “There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats,
/ For I am armed so strong in honesty / That they pass by me as the idle wind, / Which I respect not.” (Sc. 3,
75–77) He confronts Cassius with the fact that when Brutus needed money to pay his army, Cassius refused
to send it to him.
Cassius is so troubled by what Brutus says that he calls upon Antony and Octavius to come and avenge
themselves on Cassius. Then Cassius offers Brutus his sword and tells him to use it on him:
There is my dagger,
And here my naked breast; within, a heart
Dearer than Pluto’s mine, richer than gold.
If thou be’st a Roman, take it forth.
I that denied thee gold will give my heart.
Strike as thou didst at Caesar, for I know
When thou didst hate him worst, thou lovedst him better
Than ever thou lovedst Cassius. (Sc. 3, 111–19)
His words calm Brutus and they shake hands and make up. It is then that Brutus tells Cassius about the
unusual circumstances of Portia’s death. She committed suicide by swallowing burning coals.
Titinius and Messala arrive to make plans for battle. Messala confirms the deaths of Portia and 70–100
senators, including Cicero. They are the casualties of the death list compiled by Antony, Octavius, and
Lepidus earlier.
The rest of the scene serves to show that Brutus is still making the decisions. Despite the objections of
Cassius, Brutus convinces them it would be better to march to Philippi. The Sardians become Brutus’ soldiers
due to forced loyalty, and thus, may join the enemy. Brutus says it would be safer to put the Sardians at their
backs and march out to meet the enemy. He uses a sea metaphor to make his point:
Act IV, Scenes 2 and 3: Summary and Analysis
29
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves
Or lose our ventures. (Sc. 3, 249–55)
Throughout the play Brutus has made serious errors in judgment in letting Antony live, and allowing him to
speak at Caesar’s funeral. It is the decision to march to Philippi however, that will prove to be a fatal mistake
for Cassius and Brutus.
The scene ends with another appearance of the supernatural, a visit from Caesar’s ghost, as Antony predicted
earlier in his soliloquy in Act III. But is it really Caesar’s spirit Brutus sees as he dozes over a book, or Brutus
having qualms of conscience for what he has done? The apparition foreshadows Philippi, where Brutus will
see Caesar’s ghost again.
Act V, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
Summary
The setting is on the battlefield at Philippi. Antony and Octavius, at the head of their armies, are preparing to
begin the battle. Through spies Antony knows the enemy is not ready for the fight. A messenger brings word
that the battle is at hand. Before the combat, Antony and Octavius go into the field to exchange insults with
Brutus and Cassius. They call each other traitors to Rome. Cassius says to Brutus that Antony would not be
alive if Cassius had his way on the ides of March. They break off and plan to settle matters with their swords.
Cassius confides in Messala that he is reluctant to fight this battle on his birthday. He has seen signs that have
convinced him that they are going to lose. But he is resigned to face whatever comes. Cassius and Brutus
discuss what they will do if they are defeated. Both agree that they will not be led as captives back to Rome.
Although Brutus is opposed to suicide, he will die before he is taken prisoner. They say their final good-byes
and prepare for the battle.
Analysis
The battle to decide the fate of Rome is at hand. The growing conflict between Antony and young Octavius is
foreshadowed by their exchange prior to the battle. Antony tries to tell Octavius to fight on the left side of the
field, but Octavius asserts himself and refuses to be ordered by Antony. When Antony asks him why he
opposes him, Octavius responds, “I do not cross you, but I will do so.” (21)
In the play the four generals never face one another in a decisive battle or even a fight. Instead, their
confrontation is one of words, insults, and accusations, before the war begins. When Antony attacks Brutus
and Cassius as villains and flatterers, Cassius takes the opportunity to tell Brutus, “I told you so.” “Now,
Brutus, thank yourself! / This tongue had not offended so today / If Cassius might have ruled.” (49–51) His
instincts about Antony are proven to be correct.
Superstition manifests itself again in this scene, as Cassius tells Messala that although he “held Epicurus
strong” (did not believe in the supernatural influence on human affairs) he knows they are going to lose the
battle because of the omens he has observed. The mighty eagles once perched on their battle ensigns, fed by
his soldiers, have been replaced by ravens, crows and kites, scavengers that feast on corpses and “Fly o’er
our heads and downward look on us / As we were sickly prey.” (93–4)
Act V, Scene 1: Summary and Analysis
30
The farewell between Brutus and Cassius is the last time Brutus will see his brother-in-law alive. Time is
running out for both of them. Cassius speaks of the worst case scenario, and both agree that they will kill
themselves rather than face defeat at the hands of Antony and Octavius. But win or lose, Brutus is content that
whatever the outcome of the day’s events, it will end what began on the ides of March.
Act V, Scenes 2 and 3: Summary and Analysis
New Character:
Cato: Brutus’ brother-in-law and a soldier in his army
Summary
The battle begins as Brutus orders Messala to send all of his legions against Octavius’ army. While Brutus
gains the advantage on another part of the field, Cassius is in retreat, surrounded by Antony’s forces.
Pindarus, the slave of Cassius, enters with a warning for his master to fall back further. But Cassius decides
that he has retreated far enough. He asks his friend, Titinius, to ride his horse and determine if the soldiers in
his tents are friend or enemy. As Pindarus climbs the hill to report Titinius’ progress, Cassius considers the
real possibility that his life has reached its end on his birthday. Pindarus describes Titinius overtaken and
surrounded by horsemen, and as Titinius dismounts, he is captured by the cheering soldiers.
Cassius, ashamed that he has lived to see his best friend taken by the enemy, promises to give Pindarus his
freedom in exchange for Pindarus ending Cassius’ life by stabbing him.
After Cassius’ death Pindarus runs from the battlefield, and Titinius, holding a wreath of flowers, returns
with Messala and the news of Brutus’ victory. They discover the body of Cassius and Messala leaves to tell
Brutus the bad news. When Titinius is alone with Cassius’ body, he places the wreath on Cassius’ head and
then he kills himself with Cassius’ sword, as a final act of loyalty to his friend.
When Brutus enters with young Cato and Messala, they find two dead bodies to be mourned. Brutus says that
the carnage is the spirit of Caesar, who is “mighty yet . . . and turns our swords / in our own proper entrails.”
(Sc. 3, 105–107)
Since the first fight was not decisive—Cassius was defeated by Antony, while Octavius was defeated by
Brutus—preparations are made for the final battle.
Analysis
Throughout the play Brutus has been the noble hero, who has made errors only because of his honesty, moral
principles, or political naivete. In this scene Cassius, perhaps the least noble of the main characters in he play,
rises in stature. Here, however, he makes the one mistake that will prove fatal. His army is in retreat and on
the verge of mutiny. They are surrounded by Antony, when Brutus’ troops, gaining the advantage over
Octavius, stop fighting to loot the dead bodies instead of supporting Cassius’ army. When Pindarus, the slave
Cassius captured years before in Parthia, announces, “Mark Antony is in your tents, my lord. / Fly therefore,
noble Cassius, fly far off,” (Sc. 3, 10–11) the “noble” Cassius is determined to make his stand and not
retreat. When Cassius asks his friend Titinius to take his horse and ride down to see who is in his tents,
Titinius indicates his love, honor, and respect for Cassius by his quick actions. He is ready and willing to put
his own life on the line for his friend. “I will be here again even with a thought.” (Sc. 3, 20)
Cassius’ fatal error comes when he infers from Pindarus’ account that Titinius was captured by enemy
troops. It is another example of how subjective interpretation effects the actions of another. True to his word,
Cassius makes good on his pledge to Brutus to commit suicide rather than surrender. He calls on Pindarus to
return the kindness Cassius once showed him. When Pindarus was captured in battle, Cassius spared his life,
Act V, Scenes 2 and 3: Summary and Analysis
31
evoking a promise from him to do whatever Cassius asked of him. Now Cassius grants Pindarus his freedom
in exchange for stabbing him when his head is turned. It is Pindarus’ words that express his feelings. He
would rather Cassius be alive and remain his slave. “So I am free, yet would not so have been, / Durst I have
done my will. — O Cassius!—” (Sc. 3, 52–53)
The arrival of Titinius and Messala provides an explanation of the events misinterpreted by Cassius. The
troops that surrounded Titinius were Brutus’ men. Their shout was one of joy. The garland Titinius carries, to
be presented to Cassius, is a token of Brutus’ victory over Octavius.
Titinius shows his love for Cassius by his words and his actions. After sending Messala to bring the bad news
to Brutus, Titinius kills himself with Cassius’ sword. His final words are a tribute to his friend. “Brutus,
come apace, / And see how I regarded Caius Cassius.— / By your leave, gods, this is a Roman’s part. / Come
Cassius’ sword, and find Titinius’ heart!” (Sc. 3, 97–100)
Brutus’ reaction to their deaths is one of sorrow and tribute. He calls them “the last of all the Romans” (Sc.
3, 111) and says that Rome can never again produce such a breed. Although Cassius is not the tragic hero of
the play, in death he has grown in stature.
The scene ends with Cassius’ body being sent to Thasos, a Greek island in the Aegean, to await funeral rites,
as Brutus readies his troops to “try fortune in a second fight.” (Sc. 3, 123)
Act V, Scenes 4 and 5: Summary and Analysis
New Characters:
Clitus, Dardanus, Strato, and Volumnius: soldiers in Brutus’ army
Summary
At the height of the second battle Brutus charges into the field. Young Cato is killed and Lucilius, an officer
in Brutus’ army, is captured. To confuse the enemy soldiers, Lucilius tells them he is Brutus, and offers them
money to kill him. Antony identifies their captive and tells the soldiers to keep Lucilius safely under guard.
On another part of the field, after hours of fighting, Brutus and his men are in retreat. They have lost the war.
Brutus begs Clitus, Volumnius, and Dardanus to assist him in his suicide, but they decline and run off as
Antony and Octavius advance. Brutus convinces Strato to hold his sword while Brutus runs onto it and kills
himself.
Octavius and Antony arrive with Lucilius and Messala under guard. When they ask for Brutus, Strato says his
master is safe from capture and humiliation. Octavius offers amnesty for those who served Brutus and takes
them into his army, restoring order after the chaos of civil war. Antony praises Brutus, calling him a noble
Roman and an honest man, the best of the conspirators. The play ends with Octavius making plans to bury the
dead, including Brutus, who will be given an honorable soldier’s burial, and spread the news of their great
victory.
Analysis
The end arrives as Brutus sees his soldiers and his friends killed or captured. Lucilius is taken by Antony’s
soldiers. He tries to confuse them by claiming that he is Brutus, to allow the real Brutus to escape. But Antony
recognizes him and tells his soldiers, “Give him all kindness. I had rather have / Such men my friends than
enemies.” (Sc. 4, 29–30) Antony seems to be recruiting allies for a future clash with Octavius.
Act V, Scenes 4 and 5: Summary and Analysis
32
Brutus now realizes he has lost. “Our enemies have beat us to the pit. / It is more worthy to leap in ourselves /
Than tarry till they push us.” (Sc. 5, 27–29) Brutus is in tears when he pleads for someone to assist him in his
plan to kill himself, but Clitus, Dardanus and Volumnius turn down his request as “not an office for a friend,
my lord.” (Sc. 5, 33)
Brutus says his final farewells, content that he is going to his death knowing that what he did was right for
Rome. He is still unaware that he was tricked into the conspiracy by Cassius. He tells his “poor remains of
friends” “My heart doth joy that yet in all my life / I found no man but he was true to me.” (Sc. 5, 38–39) It
is Strato who proves to be Brutus’ best friend, agreeing to hold his sword while Brutus impales himself on the
blade. His last words are addressed to Caesar’s spirit. “Caesar, now be still. / I killed not thee with half so
good a will.” (Sc. 5, 56–57)
The arrival of Octavius and Antony gives the play closure and restores the world to its rightful order. By
granting amnesty to the rebellious soldiers, Octavius ends the civil war that has torn Rome apart. A final peace
is made with Brutus, the real tragic hero of the play. Antony honors Brutus and his reputation in death even
though he attacked him in life before the battle. He calls him “the noblest Roman of them all.” (Sc. 5, 74) He
recognizes that all of the others acted out of envy for Caesar, but Brutus acted for the common good. Antony
says of Brutus something he might have said of Caesar in his funeral oration: “His life was gentle and the
elements / So mixed in him that nature might stand up / And say to all the world ‘This was a man!’” (Sc. 5,
79–81)
With the final words from Octavius—the new Caesar—the Roman world is settled, at least for now, as the play
ends.
Julius Caesar: Critical Commentary
Act I Commentary
Scene i: The opening scene of the play is meant to establish the differences of opinion among the Roman
citizens and the commoners regarding Julius Caesar. Caesar, who is extraordinarily popular among the
common people, excites Rome when he defeats Pompey, who formerly possessed popularity among the
Roman masses, in battle. However, not everyone is thrilled at Caesar's victory, as Flavius and Marcellus,
among the elite of Rome, chastise the people for their celebration and proceed to tear down celebratory
decorations, an act which will result in their arrest. The anger and mistrust of Caesar demonstrated by Flavius
and Marcellus in this scene reflect the sentiments of the conspirators, who are disturbed by Caesar's rise to
power and willing to risk punishment to stem it.
Scene ii: The action of the play begins in this scene. The first section of the scene begins with Caesar ordering
Marc Antony to touch Calphurnia during the chariot race in an effort to cure their marriage of barrenness.
Caesar's lack of a son is important because he wishes to become king and needs an heir. Octavius, Caesar's
nephew, will also eventually become Caesar because of this, which is why he is involved in the triumverate.
After this order, the soothsayer comes to warn Caesar to "beware the ides of March," or March 15. This is the
first of several signs or omens that occur during the play, which brings about one of the play's central
themes—fate and free will. In this case, Caesar dismisses the soothsayer as a "dreamer" and does not question
him further about his warning, ignoring the sign being given to him. Caesar will ignore several other omens
before his death in Act III due to his own ego, which also surfaces in this first section when he refers to
himself in royal terms: "I hear a tongue shriller than all the music/Cry 'Caesar.' Speak. Caesar is turned to
hear" (ll. 19-20). Although Caesar has a great deal of power, he is not a king, and his reference to himself as
Caesar belies his great belief in his own power, for he is, as he puts it, "always Caesar."
Julius Caesar: Critical Commentary
33
In the second section of the scene, Cassius attempts to discern Brutus' position on Caesar as king. This
introduces the conspiracy element to the play, as well as Brutus' love for both his friend Caesar and for his
country. Unlike most of Rome, Brutus is not celebrating Caesar's victory because he knows that Caesar is
almost certain to become king. Although Caesar is already Emperor, it is an appointed military position, and
the Roman Senate is the body that holds the true power in Rome. By making Caesar king, Caesar would have
absolute power for the rest of his life and then pass down that power to his heir, and the Senate would be at his
mercy. Brutus, having been born a "free man," resists the tyranny that such an appointment could represent,
although he loves and values Caesar as his best friend. Cassius also resists the idea of Caesar becoming king,
but it is clear in this scene that Cassius resents Caesar's rise to power, especially considering that Caesar is
epileptic, deaf in one ear, physically weak, and no greater than any other man. Cassius attempts to manipulate
Brutus into participating in the conspiracy to come, using Brutus' love for the empire and his devotion to
freedom as means. Brutus, however, is aware of the "dangers" into which Cassius would lead him, and
hesitates until he learns from Casca that Marc Antony has tried to give Caesar a crown, which leads him to
agree to meet Cassius the next day.
The failed coronation leads back to the nature of Caesar's character. As reported by Casca, Caesar is offered a
laurel or coronet three times in this scene, and refuses all three times. The purpose of this, from Casca's view,
is to win the crowd's approval. Caesar also knows that without the approval of the Roman Senate, the crown
means very little, which is why Casca refers to the incident as "mere foolery." Caesar's action here is
amplified by a sudden swoon, which leads the masses to feel sorry for him. (It is not clear whether this swoon
is intentional or a result of epilepsy, but it is most certainly well-timed). Caesar's ability to manipulate the
emotions of the Roman public establishes his position as a master politician while striking fear into his
political opponents. This incident, combined with Caesar's popularity in the Senate and his military power,
motivates Cassius into action and leads Brutus in the direction of the conspiracy.
Scene iii: More omens open this scene, which takes place during a powerful lightning storm. Casca, whose
sour disposition would usually lead him to ignore fantastic events, trembles in fear of the storm, as well as
several other strange occurrences happening throughout the city. He tells Cicero of a slave whose left hand
burns unscorched, a lion wandering the streets, women who saw men walk in flames, and an owl who
shrieked midday in the marketplace. Cicero points out the obvious—something important is about to happen.
Cassius also recognizes the importance of the omens around him, and is invigorated by it because he realizes
that the omens point to the end of Caesar's power, although he notes that the Senate has decided to make
Caesar king the next day. It is this resolution that leads Casca to agree to join the conspiracy to kill Caesar
before he can be crowned, and Cassius notes that there are several other senators ready to assist in the murder.
However, despite the number of "honorable" senators involved in the scheme, the conspirators all realize that
Brutus' participation in the murder is vital. As Caesar's best friend and an honorable member of the Senate,
Brutus legitimizes the murder because he has no personal or political reason to kill Caesar other than his love
for Rome. Cassius continues to manipulate this love by sending Brutus several notes from "citizens" urging
Brutus to action.
Act II Commentary
Scene i: The complication in Act II begins with Brutus, who begins to receive the various notes left by
Cassius. Brutus ponders Caesar's ambition, which is the main root of his fear that Caesar will become a tyrant.
Although Brutus knows that his friend is extremely ambition, he has never seen anything that would indicate
that Caesar might become tyrannical if crowned king. However, the mere thought of giving Caesar the
opportunity to become a tyrant is enough to frighten Brutus into action. Brutus also notes that the only way to
stop Caesar from becoming king is to kill him, and becomes resolved to do this upon reading the letters.
Brutus also recalls the soothsayer's warning, and realizes that Caesar must be killed the next day (the ides of
March) before he can be crowned.
Act I Commentary
34
When the conspirators arrive, Brutus immediately takes charge of the situation, despite his previous reticence
about participating at all. It is Brutus who refuses to let the conspirators swear an oath to kill Caesar, and
remind them that shaking hands should be enough to bind them together. Brutus also rejects involving Cicero
in the conspiracy despite his good and wise reputation because he does not finish what he starts. Most
importantly, Brutus rejects the notion of killing Antony, who Cassius notes is a "shrewd contriver" whose
ambition may hurt the conspirators. Despite this, Brutus convinces Cassius to allow Antony to live because
they will have killed too many people. Brutus also underestimates Antony in this scene, claiming that Antony
is nothing more than a playboy puppet of Caesar. Cassius, of course, proves himself to be correct by the end
of Act III—if Antony had been eliminated, the conspirators might well have succeeded in winning over the
Roman public to their opinion. However, now that Brutus is committed to the conspiracy, he is the one who
will make all of the decisions, whether or not they are accurate ones.
Another side of Brutus' character is revealed in his conversation with Portia. Portia is not the typical Roman
wife—she is educated and beautiful, and has, until this point, shared a fairly equal relationship with her
husband. Portia notices that Brutus is troubled as opposed to ill, and she begs him to reveal his thoughts to
her. She wants to share in Brutus' troubles, but Brutus insists on protecting her from knowledge of the
conspiracy. Although he loves his wife and promises to give her the explanation she seeks, Brutus has already
separated himself from her by agreeing to kill Caesar. This separation is what eventually leads to Portia's
death. By separating himself from his wife, Brutus once again demonstrates that he places his political duty
above everything else and does not realize the ramifications of his decisions.
Scene ii: While the lightning storm continues, Caesar leaves his bedchamber to see who has come to visit
him. Calphurnia, who has spent the night having nightmares of Caesar's death, begs him not to leave the
house, especially considering that today is the ides of March. Despite the fact that "the heavens blaze forth the
death of princes" and the numerous omens that have occurred during the night, Caesar insists on going to the
Senate, stating that everything that has threatened him vanishes when he faces them, once again indicating his
inflated opinion of his own power. Even when a messenger comes with news from the augurers that he should
not leave his house because they could not find a heart within the beast that they sacrificed for a vision of the
future, Caesar still insists on going to the Senate. It is only when Calphurnia begs on her knees that Caesar
agrees to stay home. This action recalls the previous scene when Portia begs Brutus on her knees to tell her
what is troubling him. Both men agree to do what their wives want but never actually follow through on it. In
this case, Decius Brutus arrives and flatters Caesar into coming to the Senate House when Caesar reveals to
him that Calphurnia has made him agree to stay home. Caesar tells Decius this because he does not want the
senators to believe that he is too frightened by all of the omens to come. Decius then reinterprets Calphurnia's
dream to a more agreeable end and then informs Caesar that the Senate has decided to make him king.
Caesar's tremendous ego is far too large to resist Decius' flattering interpretation of the flowing statue, the idea
that he might be called a coward for not coming to the Senate, and the coronation that is now emminent,
which is why Caesar chooses to go to the Senate House.
Scenes iii-iv: These two scenes function to contribute to the rising action leading up to Caesar's death. In
scene 3, Artemidorus reveals the conspiracy in a letter to Caesar, hoping to deliver it to him as he passes into
the Senate House. In scene 4, Portia, who suspects that Brutus is plotting to kill Caesar, sends Lucius to his
master to see what he is doing. Meanwhile, the soothsayer tells Portia that he, too, will be going to the Senate
House to attempt to get Caesar to "befriend himself." Both scenes create tension because the entire plot of the
play hinges on which party gets to Caesar alone first—the conspirators or those who conspire to protect Caesar.
Act III Commentary
Scene i: Although the conspirators escort Caesar to the Senate House, both Artemidorus and the soothsayer
are able to speak with Caesar prior to his entry into the Senate. Caesar brags that the ides of March have come
Act II Commentary
35
(implying that there has been no major incident), but the soothsayer reminds him that the day has not yet
passed. Despite this, the warning is ignored. Artemidorus fares no better—when he gives Caesar the letter
informing him of the conspiracy, Caesar chooses to read the one from Trebonius first, stating that what
concerns him personally will be the last issue to be addressed. Although both of these warnings worry Casca,
who fears the conspiracy has been discovered, they do not touch Caesar at all because Caesar refuses to see
what the conspirators are capable of.
The murder of Caesar is couched in an appeal to Caesar. Metellus Cimber begs that his brother, Publius
Cimber, be allowed to return to Rome as an enfranchised citizen. Caesar refuses, stating that while lesser men
can be flexible, he must be "constant." He also tells the conspirators that he does not want anyone kneeling
before him because he does not want that kind of flattery. Despite this, the conspirators all kneel, and because
Caesar refuses to repeal Publius Cimber's banishment, Casca begins the murder. Although all of the
conspirators stab Caesar, Shakespeare implies that it is Brutus who actually kills him: "Et tu, Brute?—Then
fall, Caesar" (l. 85). Indeed, it is Brutus who has given legitimacy to this plot, and the conspirators may not
have carried it out without him. He is also the one who has taken charge of the conspiracy even though he did
not originally want to participate in it. Because of this, the idea that Brutus is the one who actually kills
Caesar is at least figuratively correct.
Although the conspirators are successful in stopping Caesar from becoming king, they have little idea of how
to proceed next, which is evident in their dealings with Antony and the Roman public. Antony, who chooses
to flatter Brutus so that he will survive to avenge Caesar, shakes hands with the conspirators, indicating that
he will agree to their plans. Cassius, however, is once again suspicious of Antony, and attempts to bribe him
with thoughts of power, but this offer is ineffective. Brutus, too moved by the murder that has just occurred
and too anxious to justify his actions, tells Antony that there are reasons for Caesar's death and that Antony
can speak at Caesar's funeral if he agrees not to speak against the conspirators (although censorship is
certainly not a part of the freedom and liberty that the conspirators claim they have provided to Rome).
Cassius, of course, turns out to be correct in his assessment of Antony—Antony intends to avenge Caesar
whether he is foresworn or not.
Scene ii: The people of Rome have heard the news of Caesar's death by this point and insist on an immediate
explanation. The crowd, as suggested in Act I, scene 1 by their support of Caesar over Pompey, is easily
swayed. They at first yield to Brutus' "logical" explanation for why the conspirators killed Caesar. Brutus
claims that he killed Caesar because of Caesar's ambition, which would have resulted in the enslavement of
the "free" citizens of Rome. He then points out that the only people who should be offended by Caesar's death
are those who want to be slaves. Brutus claims that the death of Caesar is necessary for the benefit of Rome
and that, should the time come that he is a detriment to his country, he should be put to death as well. The
irony here is that Brutus' actions have resulted in the death of a caesar and the beginning of a civil war, and, as
such, have been a great harm to the empire. The public, fickle as always, accepts Brutus' arguments and
demand to make him Caesar. Then, in an attempt to be fair and to "render unto Caesar," Brutus persuades the
crowds to listen to Antony's funeral oration. It is by doing this that Brutus makes one of his most fatal errors
in the execution of the conspiracy.
When Antony speaks, the crowd does not want to listen initially. What changes their minds is the method in
which Antony delivers his speech. Instead of trying to convince the public to feel sorry for Caesar, Antony
uses reverse psychology by stating that he will not praise him. He then proceeds to mention all of the good
Caesar has done, from being a good friend to bringing in money and slaves to helping the poor. While doing
this, Antony uses the statement "Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man" at first to
calm the crowd and later to remind them of the hypocrisy of the conspirators. Antony also uses Caesar's
manipulation techniques, including dramatic pauses and crocodile tears, to change the crowd's opinion. He
also gives the public time to consider what he says. What finally motivates the crowd is their own
greed—when they discover that the will leaves money to all of the citizens and donates his property to the
Act III Commentary
36
general public, their anger leads to rioting. Had Brutus stayed to hear Antony, he might have been able to
prevent the crowd from turning against the conspirators. However, the conspirators are forced to flee the city,
and Antony goes in search of Octavius, Caesar's heir, in order to decide on a plan of action.
Scene iii: This scene serves to further portray the violence and illogical nature of the Roman public. When
Cinna the poet (as opposed to Cinna the conspirator) goes outside despite a warning in a dream that he should
stay in, several citizens kill him despite the fact that they know he is not a conspirator simply because they are
in a killing mood. After two other scenes highlighting the moods of the Roman public, it is not a surprise that
they should do so. The masses turned on Pompey in favor of Caesar despite Pompey's tremendous popularity,
they turned on Caesar in favor of Brutus after one speech, and they turned on the conspirators in favor of
Antony and Caesaar after one more speech (and a "will"). They have also ransacked the city by this point.
This is one of the major themes of the play—those who would have power must be able to ingratiate
themselves with the masses. It is because Caesar and Antony are master politicians that they are able to
succeed and overcome otherwise-popular figures like Pompey and Brutus. Those who cannot control popular
opinion will end like Pompey and Brutus—destroyed by those more popular than they.
Act IV Commentary
Scene i: The triumverate of Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus begin this scene much in the same way that the
conspirators planned in Act II, scene 1. They make several decisions about who will live and who will die,
citing reasons for each. They also attempt to extract money from Caesar's will, despite Antony's assurances in
Act III, scene 2 that much of the money will go to the general public. Once Lepidus leaves, Octavius and
Antony dispute his usefulness. Although Antony criticizes Lepidus as a horse that always needs direction,
Octavius comes to his defense because he is a good soldier. Despite Octavius' young age, he is now Caesar,
and he makes it clear in this scene that he will not be brushed aside by Antony despite Antony's greater
breadth of experience. These tensions foreshadow the problems of Antony and Cleopatra.
Scene ii: This scene serves to counterpoint the situation in scene 1. Like the triumverate, the alliance between
Brutus and Cassius does not appear to be as solid as it once was. Lucilius informs Brutus that Cassius does not
treat him as well as he once did, indicating that Cassius is angry with Brutus. Indeed, when Cassius appears,
he immediately accuses Brutus of wronging him, even though they are still in public. Brutus reminds him that
they should speak privately, as a public disagreement is hardly constructive for an army that needs to maintain
morale, and that they need to present a united front. They then move to Brutus' tent.
Scene iii: The argument continues in this scene. The accusations that fly back and forth between Brutus and
Cassius underscore the tension of the failed conspiracy. Cassius, who killed Caesar out of jealousy and does
not worry about being honorable, is angered by Brutus' morality even though this is the very attribute that
made him so valuable to Cassius in the conspiracy plot. Brutus, on the other hand, is angered by Cassius'
pragmatism, although this is what convinced Brutus to kill Caesar. The pressure to win this war is also
affecting both men, who are on the run despite believing that they did what was best for their country. The
friends do make up and find reasons for their ill humor—Cassius blames his mother, and Brutus tells Cassius
that Portia has committed suicide.
The next section of the scene deals with military strategy. Although Cassius once again has the better idea by
suggesting that they wait on attacking and make the forces of the triumverate find them, Brutus insists that
they attack at Phillipi before Octavius and Antony are able to get more soldiers. Brutus' plan sounds logical,
but like his speech in Act III, scene 2, and his refusal to kill Antony and Act II, scene 1, Brutus has
overlooked the wisdom of Cassius. Cassius points out that it would be better to make Antony and Octavius
seek them out because it will tire their forces while their own are able to rest and defend. When Cassius tries
to make Brutus see his point, Brutus refuses to listen. Cassius once again agrees to Brutus' plan, even though
Act IV Commentary
37
he knows better than to do so. If Cassius' ideas had been followed throughout this play, the conspirators might
well have controlled Rome. But because Brutus takes over as the head of the conspirators, the conspirators'
plans fail.
This failure becomes evident to Brutus in the last section of the scene. The ghost of Caesar appears to Brutus,
calling itself Brutus' "evil spirit." It then informs Brutus that he will see the ghost again at Phillipi, suggesting
that Brutus will die. Brutus, just like Caesar and Cinna the poet, ignores the omen given to him. He knows he
will see Caesar at Phillipi, as he indicates on line 330, but he chooses to do nothing to avoid it. The accuracy
of the omens in this play suggests that there are signs that can predict the future but that people refuse to heed
them.
Act V Commentary
Scene i: The discord in the conspirator camp during the last scene is once again paralleled by the
disagreement between Octavius and Antony in this scene. Despite his lack of military experience, Octavius
correctly predicts that the conspirators would attack at Phillipi, even though Antony thought they would not.
Octavius also demands that he be the one to attack from the right side. When Antony asks why Octavius
continues to question him, Octavius simply tells him that he is not crossing Antony, but will do as he pleases
despite Antony's suggestions. It is clear from the opening part of this scene and the previous scene that no
matter who eventually wins this battle, there will be no harmony in Rome.
Once the two sides have traded insults, Cassius and Brutus reveal more of their character in conversation with
Messala and each other. Cassius notes that today is his birthday, and that he is being forced to fight a battle on
this day against his will because of Brutus. It is at this point that Cassius reveals that he has begun to believe
in omens, having seen the two eagles that had stayed with his legion fly away that very morning. However,
Cassius has demonstrated belief in omens before. On the night before Caesar's assassination, it is Cassius who
is invigorated by the otherwise terrifying occurrences because they signified Caesar's downfall. He believed
this at the time despite claiming to be a believer in the teachings of Epicurus, who denied the existence of the
supernatural. Because Cassius disagrees with Brutus' strategy in attacking at Phillipi and because he is
beginning to believe in omens, Cassius makes his pact with Brutus to ensure that neither one of them will ever
be taken prisoner.
Scene ii: In Scene 2, Brutus sees a weakness in Octavius' forces. Brutus' assessment of the situation is correct,
but he leaves Cassius' army to the mercy of Antony. While the battle is balanced, this action eventually proves
to be another miscalculation that leads to Brutus' downfall.
Scene iii: The results of Brutus' action in scene 2 manifest themselves in this scene, where Cassius' army is
about to be overcome by Antony's forces. When Cassius sends Titinus to see if Brutus has been successful, his
servant mistakes Titinus for a soldier that is taken prisoner. Not waiting for word to come from the camp,
Cassius, once again believing in bad omens, decides to have his slave Pindarus kill him. Titinus blames this
on a "lack of trust," which has created the destructive situation. This lack of trust, which is also evident
between Octavius and Antony, will continue to plague Rome after the battle.
Brutus' reaction to Cassius' death demonstrates that he has not progressed in his understanding of warfare or
the situation at hand. When he sees Cassius' body, Brutus' first inclination is to blame Caesar: "O Julius
Caesar, thou art mighty yet;/Thy spirit walks abroad and turns our swords/In our own proper entrails"
(ll.105-107). Given the omens, especially the appearance of Caesar's ghost, as well as the expert military
advice of Cassius, Brutus should have known not to attack at Phillipi. Instead of taking responsibility for that
decision, Brutus blames the power of Caesar, and instead of learning from his military mistakes, he orders a
second attack.
Act V Commentary
38
Scene iv: In this scene, Antony demonstrates that despite being portrayed as a playboy and a betrayer, he still
does have some honor. When Lucilius pretends to be Brutus in order to protect him, Antony orders that he be
kept safe and given "all kindness." Antony orders this because he sees the worth of Lucilius and knows that he
deserves to be treated with honor. Antony will demonstrate this again in scene 5 in his description of Brutus.
Scene v: The final scene of the play begins with Brutus in defeat. He begs several of his friends to help him
kill himself, but their love for him is so strong that they cannot bring themselves to do so. This is because, as
Brutus notes, he has never in his life found anyone that has betrayed him. This is ironic in that although
Brutus loved Caesar, Brutus betrayed Caesar out of good for his country. Brutus' final lines, "Caesar, now be
still./I killed not thee with half so good a will," imply that he was more hesitant to kill Caesar in than he is
himself now. The honor that Antony shows in scene 4 is evident again in this scene, as is the respect of
Octavius. When Octavius and Antony discover that Brutus has committed suicide by his own sword rather
than be taken prisoner (which was considered an honorable way to die by the Romans), both Octavius and
Antony are respectful of his servants and of him. Octavius takes Strato as a servant, and Antony gives Brutus
a short but important eulogy, noting that Brutus, not Caesar, was "the noblest Roman of them all" (l. 74). Not
to be outdone, Octavius orders a proper burial for Brutus, even though Roman military code did not require
proper burial of an enemy. Octavius even orders that Brutus' body lie in his own tent, a type of "lying in state"
not usually accorded to traitors. However, despite the solemnity of the moment, Octavius is still determined to
celebrate the "glories of this happy day," even though all of the repercussions of this event have yet to unfold
(Shakespeare leaves that part of the story to Antony and Cleopatra).
Julius Caesar: Quizzes
Act I, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
Study Questions
1. How does Shakespeare use humor in the opening scene?
2. A pun is a play on words, two words that sound alike but have different meanings. Find two examples of
puns in the opening lines of the scene.
3. How does Shakespeare show the political conflict in Rome?
4. What is the reason the cobbler tells Flavius and Marullus he is leading the people through the street?
5. What is the real reason the people are out in the street?
6. What about Pompey is revealed in this scene?
7. What information is given about Caesar?
8. How does the scene show the fickleness of the crowd?
9. Shakespeare often uses comparisons (metaphor and simile) and figurative language. What is the
comparison Flavius makes in the final lines of the scene?
10. What are the intentions of Flavius and Marullus as the scene ends?
Answers
1. His characters pun, or play with word meanings. They use words that sound alike but have different
Julius Caesar: Quizzes
39
meanings.
2. The word “cobbler” has two meanings, shoemaker and bungler. A “mender of bad soles” is a reference to
shoemaker. This is a play on the word “souls.” An awl is a leather punch. It is used with the word “all.”
Recover means to repair, as in repair shoes. Recover also means to get better as from an illness.
3. He does this by opening the play with a confrontation between the tribunes and the citizens, two opposing
forces in Rome.
4. The cobbler wants them to wear out their shoes so he will get more work.
5. They are out to see Caesar and rejoice in his triumph.
6. Pompey was once loved and respected by the people of Rome.
7. Caesar was responsible for Pompey’s death.
8. Flavius and Marullus are able to change the mind of the crowd with their words and convince them to
disperse.
9. He compares Caesar to a bird. Driving the crowd from the street will be like plucking feathers from a
bird’s wing so it can not fly high.
10. They plan to go through the streets and pull down any banners that honor Caesar.
Act I, Scene 2: Questions and Answers
Study Questions
1. How is Caesar’s power indicated in the scene?
2. What was the soothsayer’s warning?
3. What reason does Brutus give Cassius for his coolness towards him?
4. What two stories does Brutus tell about Caesar?
5. What does Cassius compare Caesar to in lines 142–45?
6. What reasons does Caesar give Antony that Cassius is dangerous?
7. Why does Casca say Caesar fell?
8. What does Brutus mean when he says Caesar has the “falling sickness”?
9. What does Cassius mean when he says, “But you, and I / And honest Casca, we have the falling sickness”?
(266–67)
10. How does Cassius plan to trick Brutus into joining the plot against Caesar?
Act I, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
40
Answers
1. When he tells Antony to touch Calphurnia in the race, Antony says, “When Caesar says ‘Do this,’ it is
performed.”
2. The Soothsayer warns, “Beware of the ides of March.”
3. Brutus says that he has some private matters on his mind that are troubling him.
4. Caesar challenged Cassius to a swimming race, and Cassius had to save his life. He also saw Caesar with
the fever in Spain, crying like “a sick girl.”
5. He compares Caesar to a giant statue, under whose legs Romans must walk.
6. He is too thin. He is lean and hungry for power. He doesn’t sleep. He reads. He is an observer. He doesn’t
smile or go to plays or listen to music. He thinks too much.
7. Casca says that the bad breath of the crowd knocked Caesar down.
8. Caesar suffers from epilepsy.
9. Cassius means that Romans are falling down before Caesar’s power.
10. Cassius plans to forge letters and leave them where Brutus will find them. The letters will convince Brutus
that public sentiment is against Caesar.
Act I, Scene 3: Questions and Answers
Study Questions
1. Why does Casca have his sword drawn?
2. What two “supernatural” events does Casca describe to Cicero?
3. What unusual “natural” event does he tell about?
4. Why does Casca think these unusual things are happening?
5. What information about Caesar is revealed in their conversation?
6. How is Cassius’ conduct in the storm different from Casca’s?
7. How does Cassius interpret all that is happening in Rome?
8. What news does Cinna bring to Cassius?
9. Why does Casca think it is important for Brutus to join with them in the plot against Caesar?
10. How does Cassius plan to put extra pressure on Brutus at the end of Act I?
Answers
1. He passed a lion walking in the streets of the Capitol.
Act I, Scene 2: Questions and Answers
41
2. A slave with his hands on fire was not burned. Men on fire were walking through the streets.
3. An owl, the bird of night, sat hooting in the marketplace at midday.
4. The gods are either at war or are trying to destroy the world.
5. He is going to the Capitol in the morning on the ides of March.
6. He is unafraid because he is an honest man. He even dares the lightning to strike him.
7. He says the gods are warning Romans against Caesar.
8. The other conspirators are assembled at Pompey’s Porch and they are awaiting Cassius.
9. Public opinion of Brutus is favorable, and he will make the killing of Caesar seem like a noble act.
10. He and Casca and the others plan to go to his house and press him to join them.
Act II, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
Study Questions
1. What reason does Brutus give in his soliloquy for killing Caesar?
2. What do the letters addressed to Brutus say?
3. Why can’t Lucius identify the men with Cassius?
4. Why does Brutus oppose the idea of swearing an oath?
5. Why does Brutus object to Cicero joining the conspiracy?
6. Why does Brutus oppose killing Mark Antony?
7. How does Decius plan to get Caesar to the Capitol?
8. What advice does Brutus give the conspirators as they leave his house?
9. Why does Portia think she is strong enough to share in Brutus’ plans?
10. How does Caius Ligarius prove his high regard for Brutus?
Answers
1. Brutus justifies killing Caesar for the good of Rome, fearing that he may abuse his power.
2. The letters urge him to “speak, strike and redress,” to act against Caesar.
3. The men have their hats pulled down and their cloaks pulled up so their faces are hidden.
4. Brutus feels their cause is good enough to bind them together, and if it is not, they might as well go home
and wait for death to take them.
Act I, Scene 3: Questions and Answers
42
5. He says Cicero will never follow what someone else began.
6. Their cause would seem too bloody, and they would be considered murderers. He thinks Antony is not
dangerous.
7. He says he will use flattery.
8. He tells them to look fresh and hide their plans by smiling so their appearances won’t give them away.
9. Portia is the daughter of Cato and the wife of Brutus, and she gave herself a voluntary wound in the thigh
without crying out.
10. Ligarius agrees to do whatever Brutus needs him to do without knowing what it may be, even though he is
sick.
Act II, Scene 2: Questions and Answers
Study Questions
1. Why is Caesar concerned when the scene begins?
2. What is Calphurnia’s request of Caesar?
3. What is Caesar’s response to Calphurnia’s concern he might be killed?
4. What was the result of the sacrifice performed by the augurers?
5. What reasons does Caesar give Decius for staying home?
6. What was Calphurnia’s dream?
7. How does Decius use flattery to get Caesar to change his mind?
8. How does Decius interpret Calphurnia’s dream?
9. What does Trebonius say when Caesar tells him to stay by?
10. What is the irony in Caesar’s last lines in the scene?
Answers
1. A storm is raging and Calphurnia had a dream that Caesar was murdered.
2. She wants him to stay at home. Calphurnia is afraid for his safety because of the unusual events that are
going on and because of her dream.
3. Caesar’s response is, “Cowards die many times before their deaths; / The valiant never taste of death but
once.”
4. The augurers could not find a heart in the beast they sacrificed and they want Caesar to stay at home.
5. Caesar tells Decius that he is staying home because Calphurnia wants him to.
Act II, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
43
6. Calphurnia dreamed a statue of Caesar was spouting blood and Romans were washing their hands in it.
7. Decius interprets Calphurnia’s dream in a favorable way. He tells Caesar that people will think Caesar is a
coward if he doesn’t go to the Senate House. He says the senate may change their minds about giving Caesar
a crown.
8. Caesar is the lifeblood of Rome, and Romans, bathing in his blood, derive strength from him.
9. He says, in an aside, that he will stay so close that Caesar’s friends will wish Trebonius had been further
away.
10. He regards the conspirators as friends, having no idea they plan to kill him within the hour.
Act II, Scenes 3 and 4: Questions and Answers
Study Questions
1. How does Shakespeare add the element of suspense in these two short scenes?
2. What is Artemidorus’ warning?
3. What does Artemidorus mean when he says, “Security gives way to conspiracy”? (Sc. 3, 7–8)
4. How does he plan to give Caesar his letter?
5. Why doesn’t Lucius carry out Portia’s request?
6. What does Portia mean in her aside, “O constancy, be strong upon my side; / Set a huge mountain ‘tween
my heart and tongue. / I have a man’s mind but a woman’s might. / How hard it is for women to keep
counsel!” (Sc. 4, 7–10)?
7. What does she tell Lucius to do?
8. What does the soothsayer tell Portia he plans to do?
9. What is Portia’s wish for Brutus?
10. How does Portia try to cover up being overheard by Lucius?
Answers
1. He provides Caesar with two possibilities of saving his life: through Artemidorus’ letter or the soothsayer.
2. Artemidorus warns Caesar to be on his guard if he is not immortal.
3. He means that overconfidence on Caesar’s part opens the way to conspiracy and death.
4. He will wait on the street as a suitor looking for some political favor and present the letter to Caesar when
he passes.
5. Portia does not make her intentions clear.
Act II, Scene 2: Questions and Answers
44
6. She is afraid she will not be able to keep Brutus’ plans a secret because she is a “weak” woman.
7. Portia tells Lucius to bring back word as to how Brutus looks, what Caesar does, and which suitors present
themselves to Caesar.
8. He will go down the street and speak to Caesar when he comes by and try to warn him about the possible
danger.
9. She hopes the heavens will help him in his enterprise.
10. She tells him Brutus has a suit (a request) that Caesar will not grant him.
Act III, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
Study Questions
1. Why does Caesar not read Artemidorus’ letter?
2. Why does Cassius think their assassination plan has been discovered?
3. Why does Caesar get angry at Metellus?
4. What does Brutus tell the frightened senators after Caesar’s assassination?
5. How does Calphurnia’s dream come true?
6. What does Antony want from the conspirators?
7. What restrictions does Brutus place on Antony when he allows him to speak at the funeral?
8. What does Antony predict in his soliloquy?
9. What information does the messenger bring to Antony?
10. What are Antony’s intentions as the scene ends?
Answers
1. He says because it is personal business it can wait. He puts affairs of state before personal matters.
2. Popilius Lena wishes him good luck in their enterprise and then he goes and talks to Caesar.
3. He thinks Metellus is trying to flatter him into changing his mind. Caesar says he cannot be swayed.
4. He says no harm is intended toward anyone else and they shouldn’t be afraid.
5. Brutus tells the conspirators to bathe their hands and swords in Caesar’s blood to mark them as the men
who killed Caesar and gave their country freedom.
6. First he says he wants to die by Caesar if they intend to kill him. Then when he realizes he will be allowed
to live, he wants to know why Caesar was killed and to speak at Caesar’s funeral.
Act II, Scenes 3 and 4: Questions and Answers
45
7. Antony may not blame the conspirators for killing Caesar, though he may say good things about Caesar. He
must say he speaks by their permission. He must speak from the same place as Brutus after Brutus has first
addressed the crowd.
8. He predicts a bloody civil war, with dead bodies waiting for burial, and revenge for Caesar’s death.
9. Octavius, summoned by Caesar, has arrived outside of Rome.
10. He plans to stir up the crowd and then send word to Octavius if it is safe for him to enter Rome.
Act III, Scenes 2 and 3: Questions and Answers
Study Questions
1. How does Brutus justify the killing of Caesar to the people of Rome?
2. What is the crowd’s reaction to Brutus’ speech?
3. What two reasons does Antony give to prove Caesar wasn’t ambitious?
4. How does Antony use irony in his funeral speech?
5. What is the pun Antony uses in line 114 of Scene 3?
6. How does Antony use Caesar’s cloak to manipulate the crowd?
7. How does Antony say that Caesar died?
8. What is the news that the messenger brings to Antony at the end of the scene?
9. Why is Cinna out on the streets?
10. What is the excuse the mob uses to kill Cinna?
Answers
1. Caesar was ambitious and Brutus says he killed him because he loved Rome more than Caesar.
2. They want to erect statues in his honor and make him king.
3. Caesar was too sensitive and cried when he saw the poor crying. “Ambition should be made of sterner
stuff.” (Sc. 2, 101) Also, Caesar refused the crown three times when Antony offered it to him on the feast of
Lupercal.
4. He uses the words “honorable men” repeatedly, twisting the meaning so the crowd understands that he
means the exact opposite.
5. He uses the phrase “brutish beasts,” a pun on Brutus’ name and his bestial behavior in killing Caesar.
6. He points out the rips in the cloak and describes where each of the conspirators stabbed Caesar, even
though he wasn’t there to witness the event.
Act III, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
46
7. He says that Caesar died of a broken heart when he was stabbed by Brutus who was Caesar’s angel (best
friend).
8. Octavius is outside of Rome, and Brutus and Cassius have fled the city.
9. He is on his way to Caesar’s funeral, driven out of doors by some unknown force.
10. They kill him for writing bad poetry.
Act IV, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
Study Questions
1. Why are Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus together in the scene?
2. How does Shakespeare show their callousness?
3. Why does Antony send Lepidus to Caesar’s house?
4. What is Antony’s true opinion of Lepidus?
5. Why did Antony pick Lepidus as one of the new leaders of Rome?
6. What does Antony compare Lepidus to?
7. What is Octavius’ assessment of Lepidus?
8. What is Antony’s response to Octavius?
9. What news does Antony tell Octavius about Brutus and Cassius?
10. Why does Octavius agree with Antony’s plan to go after Cassius and Brutus?
Answers
1. They are making a list of people to be killed in order to tighten their control in Rome.
2. Lepidus agrees to have his brother placed on the list if Antony agrees to condemn his own nephew.
3. He sends him for Caesar’s will. They plan to reduce what Caesar left to the Roman citizens.
4. He thinks Lepidus is fit to be sent on errands, but not fit to be one of the three most powerful men in the
world.
5. Antony needs Lepidus to gain favorable public opinion.
6. He compares him to a mule that carries a load from one place to another and then is turned loose to graze.
He also compares him to his horse.
7. Octavius says Lepidus is an experienced and brave soldier.
Act III, Scenes 2 and 3: Questions and Answers
47
8. Antony says his horse is also a brave soldier, who must be taught to fight, run, and stop, and be ruled by
Antony, as must Lepidus.
9. They are raising an army in Greece and preparing for war.
10. He says they are surrounded by many enemies in Rome and those who pretend to be their friends are not.
Act IV, Scenes 2 and 3: Questions and Answers
Study Questions
1. Why is Brutus concerned about Lucilius’ account of his meeting with Cassius?
2. Why does Brutus tell Cassius to come into his tent?
3. Why is Cassius angry with Brutus?
4. Why is Brutus angry with Cassius?
5. Why does Brutus say he is not afraid of Cassius’ threats?
6. What is the advice given to Cassius and Brutus by the poet?
7. What is the news from Rome?
8. What are Brutus’ and Cassius’ battle plans?
9. What reasons does Brutus give for his plan?
10. What does the ghost of Caesar tell Brutus?
Answers
1. It reaffirms Brutus’ feelings that Cassius’ friendship seems to be cooling down.
2. He doesn’t want their troops to see them fighting.
3. Brutus disregarded letters Cassius wrote in defense of Lucius Pella, who was accused of taking bribes.
4. Brutus sent to Cassius for money to pay his soldiers and his request was denied.
5. Brutus says he is so honest that Cassius’ threats mean nothing and pass him by like the idle wind.
6. He tells them to “Love and be friends as two such men should be.” (Sc. 3, 150)
7. Between 70 and 100 senators, including Cicero, have been killed by Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus. Portia
committed suicide by swallowing fire.
8. Brutus wants to march their armies from Sardis to Philippi and meet the enemy there. Cassius wants to
remain where they are and have the enemy come to them.
Act IV, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
48
9. He says the Sardians are not friendly. Their armies are at peak strength, and if they delay they will weaken.
He says the opportunity to act is at hand, and if they do not take it, they will miss their chance for success.
10. The ghost says it is Brutus’ evil spirit, and that it will see Brutus again at Philippi.
Act V, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
Study Questions
1. What does Octavius report to Antony in the opening lines of the scene?
2. What is the cause of the disagreement between Antony and Octavius?
3. How does Antony insult Cassius and Brutus?
4. What is Cassius’ response to Antony’s insult?
5. Why is Cassius reluctant to fight the battle?
6. What are the omens he has observed?
7. Why would it be ironic if Cassius dies in the battle?
8. What is Brutus’ attitude concerning suicide?
9. What is Brutus’ response when Cassius asks if he is “contented to be led in triumph / Thorough the streets
of Rome?” (119–20)
10. Why is Brutus anxious for the battle to begin?
Answers
1. The enemy is preparing to attack before Antony and Octavius are ready.
2. Antony tells Octavius to fight on the left side of the field, but Octavius says no.
3. He calls them villains and flatterers.
4. Cassius tells Brutus he should have listened to him and killed Antony when they killed Caesar.
5. From the signs and omens he is sure they will lose.
6. The eagles that were perched on their battle flags flew away and were replaced by ravens, crows, and kites,
birds that feed on dead bodies.
7. It is his birthday.
8. He condemned his father-in-law, Cato, for killing himself rather than live under Caesar. He thinks it
cowardly and vile to commit suicide in fear of what may happen in the future.
9. Brutus says he will never go back to Rome as a prisoner.
Act IV, Scenes 2 and 3: Questions and Answers
49
10. Win or lose, he wants to end the work that began on the ides of March.
Act V, Scenes 2 and 3: Questions and Answers
Study Questions
1. What order does Brutus give Messala in the battle?
2. How does Cassius try to prevent the retreat?
3. What news does Pindarus bring the retreating Cassius?
4. Why does Cassius ask Pindarus to describe Titinius’ ride instead of doing so himself?
5. What does Pindarus describe?
6. What request does Cassius make of Pindarus?
7. What is ironic about the way Cassius dies?
8. What is the message Titinius has for Cassius?
9. How does Titinius show his high regard for Cassius?
10. Why does Brutus plan to send Cassius’ body to Thasos for burial?
Answers
1. Brutus tells him to ride and order his army to attack Octavius’ flank (wing).
2. He killed his own ensign (flag carrier) when the soldier retreated, causing Cassius’ troops to follow the
flag.
3. Antony’s troops are in Cassius’ tents.
4. He says that he has bad eyesight.
5. Titinius is surrounded. He is taken and the soldiers shout for joy at his capture.
6. He asks Pindarus to kill him in exchange for his freedom.
7. He is killed on his birthday by the same sword that killed Caesar.
8. Brutus has won his battle, and he brings a wreath of victory to present to Cassius.
9. He kills himself with Cassius’ sword.
10. He doesn’t want his army to become depressed because of Cassius’ death as they plan for the final battle.
Act V, Scene 1: Questions and Answers
50
Act V, Scenes 4 and 5: Questions and Answers
Study Questions
1. What happens to young Cato?
2. How does Lucilius try to confuse the enemy troops?
3. What does Lucilius request of the two soldiers?
4. What does Antony do when he recognizes Lucilius?
5. Why does Brutus say he wants to commit suicide?
6. What is the one thing Brutus says he is happy about before he dies?
7. How does Brutus die?
8. How does Strato answer Messala’s inquiry about Brutus?
9. How does Octavius restore order to Rome after the battle?
10. How does Antony regard Brutus at the end of the play?
Answers
1. He is killed in the battle.
2. Lucilius tells his capturers that he is Brutus.
3. He offers them money and asks them to kill him.
4. He tells his men to treat Lucilius well and keep him safe because he wants him as a friend.
5. He uses the metaphor of a pit. His enemies have forced them to the edge and it is more noble to jump in
than be pushed in.
6. Brutus is happy that in all his life his friends have been truthful and honest with him. The irony is that he
was tricked by Cassius into joining the conspiracy against Caesar.
7. Strato holds his sword and Brutus runs onto it, stabbing himself.
8. He tells him that Brutus is safe from bondage (captivity), and that he was not conquered by his enemy.
Brutus only conquered himself.
9. He gives amnesty to those who fought on the side of Brutus, and he invites them into his army.
10. He calls him a noble Roman who did what he thought was right. He was the only one who acted against
Caesar for unselfish reasons, the common good.
Act V, Scenes 4 and 5: Questions and Answers
51
Julius Caesar: Essential Passages
Essential Passage by Character: Brutus
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 crown'd:
How that might change his nature, there's the question.
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder
And that craves wary walking. Crown him? that;
And then, I grant, we put a sting in him
That at his will he may do danger with.
The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins
Remorse from power, and, to speak truth of Caesar,
I have not known when his affections sway’d
More than his reason. But 'tis a common proof
That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round,
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend. So Caesar may;
Then, lest he may, prevent. And, since the quarrel
Will bear no color for the thing he is,
Fashion it thus, that what he is, augmented,
Would run to these and these extremities;
And therefore think him as a serpent's egg
Which hatch'd would as his kind grow mischievous,
And kill him in the shell.
Act 2, Scene 1, Lines 10-34
Summary
Julius Caesar has returned from his victorious battle against Pompey in the Roman civil war. It is the feast of
Lupercalia, a fertility rite, and Caesar has told his wife, Calpurnia, to stand in the path of Caesar’s loyal
friend Mark Antony, who runs in the race, for people believed if a woman is touched by a runner during this
rite she will become pregnant. The implication is that Caesar expects to be made a king, and he is eager for a
son who might inherit his title. A soothsayer ominously tells Caesar, “Beware the ides of March” (which is
the next day), and this second instance of superstition increases the suspense that something is going to
happen to Caesar. In fact, some of Caesar’s generals and noblemen are worried that the mob will try to make
Caesar king and that he will accept the honor. Cassius, a senator who distrusts Caesar’s ambitions and resents
the adulation bestowed on him, hints to Brutus, another great friend of Caesar’s, that he should participate in
a plot to assassinate Caesar, hoping that Brutus’s reputation for virtue and wisdom will lend moral weight to
the cause. Cassius tells Brutus he has noticed he looks worried and then suggests he must be worried about
Caesar, because he is too. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves, that we are
underlings,” he tells him (1.2.146-147), trying to convince Brutus to take responsibility for preserving a free
Rome. After he hears that Caesar was offered the crown three times, including once by Antony, Brutus tells
Cassius he will think about the idea. Late that night, Cassius meets with Casca and Cicero, two other
conspirators. The night is stormy, and Casca says he has seen many unnatural sights on his way to their
Julius Caesar: Essential Passages
52
meeting, including a slave with a burning hand and a lion that glared at him. Meanwhile, unable to sleep
during the storm, Brutus is in his orchard, meditating on whether to join in Cassius’s plot against Caesar. He
has always admired Caesar and considered him a good leader, but he wonders whether Caesar would continue
to be just and honorable if he is granted the tremendous authority of kingship. After concluding that Caesar
will indeed be corrupted by power, as Cassius has suggested, he receives a letter from the conspirators that
firms his decision to lead them in assassinating Caesar.
Analysis
Some think the play should be called The Tragedy of Marcus Brutus because Brutus, not Caesar, is the tragic
hero here. Brutus is a great man, which we see by the fact that Cassius and the other conspirators need him in
their plot to kill Caesar. However, like all tragic heroes, Brutus has flaws: idealism and poor judgment. He
allows Cassius to convince him that Caesar as king would corrupt Rome without considering the
consequences of an assassination—chaos and war. Even worse, he assumes Cassius’s motives are noble
because his own are. However, Cassius’s method of convincing him might be suspect, which we see in Act 1
when he tells Brutus, “Since you know you cannot see yourself / ...I... / Will modestly discover to yourself /
That...which you yet know not of” (1.2.72-75). In other words, Cassius tells Brutus, “You don’t seem to
know what you are thinking, so allow me to tell you.” And he tells him that Caesar should not be made king
because he is only a man, not greater than they, and should therefore not rule over them.
With Cassius’s suggestions planted firmly in his mind, Brutus makes his decision about killing Caesar in
terms of his feelings—what he thinks about “human nature”—rather than basing it on an astute political
consideration of the consequences of such a deed and the baser motives, including envy, that Cassius might
have in suggesting it. Nor does he have a strong logical argument; instead, he uses analogies from nature to
arrive at his conclusion to kill Caesar. The monologue in the quoted passage above enacts Brutus’s internal
conflict. He worries that Caesar will “disjoin remorse from power,” which means he would become cold and
heartless in the process of exercising authority. That, for Brutus, would be dangerous, which he expresses in
three similes. Just as an adder comes out in the daylight, Caesar, safe as a general, might become deadly with
the power of kingship. Power corrupts, Brutus concludes. His second simile suggests another aspect of power:
ambition. Just as a man climbing a ladder necessarily looks down on those people on rungs below him, so
Caesar will look down on others, think they are of less importance than he, once he reaches the pinnacle of
power that kingship would provide. Brutus now believes that Caesar has been climbing that ladder all along
(although he does not provide reasons for this belief). Finally, Brutus compares Caesar to the egg of a serpent
“which, hatch’d, would, as his kind, grow mischievous”; as a result, he determines to “kill him in the shell.”
The letter he reads from Cassius later in the scene tells Brutus to “awake” to see the problems in Rome,
suggesting that if he is a man and a patriot, he will “take action” to save Rome and kill Caesar. That does it.
Remembering the patriotism of his ancestors, he promises Rome that it will receive “full petition at the hand
of Brutus!”
The storm and strange occurrences that are part of this scene symbolize that nature protests the assassination
of a leader, for that is an unnatural act. Shakespeare was always cognizant of his audience, in this case
Elizabeth I, who herself had problems claiming the throne over her rival Mary Queen of Scots. In this way,
the play is deeply political as well as tragic, asserting the wrongness of murdering a leader, even an ambitious
one. However, it is important to remember that Brutus is not an evil man but a good one, too easily convinced
and too idealistic, not sufficiently a man of reason and therefore doomed. Even in the last act, Antony, by that
time his enemy and allied with Octavius, Caesar’s nephew, calls Brutus “gentle” and says he “was the
noblest Roman of them all” (5.5.74). Quite a tribute from one’s enemy, this testament to Brutus confirms his
tragic heroism.
Essential Passage by Character: Brutus
53
Essential Passage by Character: Antony vs. Brutus
ANTONY:
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious;
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest—
For Brutus is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men—
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me;
But Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honorable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill.
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept;
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honorable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
And sure he is an honorable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause;
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O judgement, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
Act 3, Scene 2, 81-115
Summary
The crowd’s approval of Brutus’s speech earlier in Act 3 gives him the opportunity to succumb to his own
ambitions if he has any, but he does not. He tells the crowd, “Good countrymen, let me depart alone, / And,
for my sake, stay here with Antony.” What Brutus does not know, however, is that after Antony pledged to
him his loyalty and shook his bloody hand, Antony said (in soliloquy), “Woe to the hand that shed this costly
blood,” and asked his servant to bring Octavius, Caesar’s nephew, back to Rome to help him (and Ledipus,
another senator) rule in a triumvirate. Thus, when Brutus tells the crowd that they should listen to what
Antony has to say, we the audience know, but Brutus does not, that Antony intends to undermine Brutus’s
credibility. This dramatic irony causes us to wonder whether Antony has Rome’s best interest at heart, for we
Essential Passage by Character: Antony vs. Brutus
54
know he wants to convince the crowd that Brutus should pay for his treachery. He must do this indirectly,
however, through verbal irony and sarcasm, so that he does not directly contradict Brutus. Doing so might
jeopardize his relationship with the crowd, whom he wants to win to his side. Just as after Caesar’s death, he
proclaims, “Domestic fury and fierce civil strife / Shall cumber all the parts of Italy,” so when he concludes
this funeral oration he says, “Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot, / Take thou what course thou wilt!”
He intends to cause trouble, partly to avenge the death of Caesar but mostly to ensure that the triumvirate, not
Brutus and Cassius, become the new rulers of Rome. The dramatic irony also lends a greater understanding of
the persuasive strategies of Antony’s speech, which prove considerably more effective than those used by
Brutus, who again appears naive and idealistic by not understanding politics in a very political world. Antony,
however, understands politics very well, as this speech demonstrates, even beginning with the fact that he
enters the Forum with Caesar’s body in tow, which he will use as a prop throughout his oration.
Analysis
Antony’s speech reveals all of the tension of this tragedy. The first line echoes Brutus’s opening words
earlier in the scene while rearranging them. Where Brutus begins with “Romans” to reflect his appeal to their
reason (however faulty at times) and fellowship as citizens, Antony begins with “friends,” which reflects the
more emotional tactic he will take in his speech. When he then says he comes to bury Caesar not to praise
him, he flatly lies, which becomes apparent when he in fact praises him by saying, for example, that Caesar
was “faithful” and “just” as well as generous. Just as Brutus repeatedly used the word "honor" to convince
the crowd (and perhaps himself) that he is a man of honor, so Antony also returns to the word again and again,
but while Brutus uses it with a sincere tone, Antony uses it with sarcasm, changing its meaning altogether so
that it communicates the exact opposite, providing a perfect example of irony as tone and how it can
completely reverse the ostensible meaning of a statement.
By the time Antony finishes, his sarcasm twists “honor” until it becomes a curse, moving the fickle crowd to
call for death for the conspirators. In addition, by using “ambitious” or “ambition” seven times and
“honorable” five, Antony deflates ambition and transforms honorable from praise to condemnation. Nowhere
does Antony say anything that literally denigrates Brutus, but his meaning is completely clear. As he nears the
end of his speech, Antony again lies directly: “I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, / But...to speak
what I do know.” Neither perceiving nor caring about this boldface untruth, the crowd by now is completely
caught up in the emotional impact of Antony’s oratory. This pathos reaches its pinnacle when he finally says,
“My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, / And I must pause till it come back to me.”
Through both lies and irony, therefore, Antony’s speech reveals Brutus for what he is, an assassin, and we,
the audience, become keenly aware of his fall from the stature he had when the play opens; but because we
still have Brutus’s eloquent and honest (if possibly defensive) speech echoing in our ears from earlier in the
scene, we cannot forget that Brutus’s intentions were honorable and that he is in essence a good man.
Simultaneously, this speech reveals that Antony cannot fully be trusted, might indeed be treacherous, but he
understands politics and can manipulate people quite easily. He had, after all, already dissembled to Brutus
when he pledged his loyalty to him when shaking the bloody hands of the conspirators. It is difficult to admire
a manipulative person, and Antony is nothing if not that, but such might be the stuff of which politicians are
made. On one hand, Antony is the antagonist because he acts in opposition to the protagonist, Brutus, an
honest man who, flawed by misjudgment, errs severely and must therefore receive his due. This task, which
the less noble Antony must carry out, is what makes this play so tragic: the flawed hero must be brought to
justice by a man more deeply flawed than he. The difference between the two characters is that Antony never
“falls” from a position of nobility and goodness—from the beginning we know that, though loyal, he is also
politically savvy, which makes him manipulative and dangerous. Brutus, lacking these qualities, is doomed.
Through this complex relationship between tragic hero and his antagonist, Shakespeare interrogates the
equally complex relationship of honor to ambition, and the ways in which loyalty intersects with both. At the
end of the play Shakespeare reconciles these tensions. Realizing his errors, Brutus nobly kills himself, with
Antony and Octavius confirming the greatness of their enemy by affirming “there was a man.” Antony,
Essential Passage by Character: Antony vs. Brutus
55
however, never quite gains the respect we lose for him in tricking Brutus and in making this funereal speech
with the intention of causing “mischief.” We thus leave the play feeling pity and fear that Brutus, a good
man, fell from grace, but relieved that he understood his wrong and even his enemy appreciated his greatness,
which is what makes this play such an effective tragedy.
Julius Caesar: Themes
The crux of Julius Caesar is a political issue that was as urgent in Shakespeare's Elizabethan England as it
was in Caesar's day. It revolves around the question of whether the killing of a king is justifiable as a means of
ending (or preventing) the tyranny of dictatorship and the loss of freedom. Brutus strikes Caesar down is the
name of liberty, fearing that absolute power and Caesar's view of himself as more than a mere mortal will
enslave Rome to the will of a single man. This was a problem with which the educated members of
Shakespeare's society grappled, with those believing in a divine right of kings to rule pitting themselves
against the claim that regicide is warranted when liberty is at stake. Brutus, at least, seems to be motivated by
this Republican doctrine. It is important to note that none of the conspirators are champions of popular rule.
Indeed, Brutus fears that the people will anoint Caesar as their absolute monarch (I.ii.77-78). The violent
actions of the base mob confirm his view of the common people as an irrational body capable of surrendering
their liberty (and that of Rome's nobles) to Caesar.
Immediately after Caesar is slain, Brutus proclaims to his fellow conspirators that "ambition's debt is paid"
(III.i.82). Ambition is in fact a central theme of the play. Its centrality is underscored by Mark Antony's use of
the word "ambition" in his funeral oration for Caesar. He asks the crowd the rhetorical question: "Did this in
Caesar seem ambitious?" after recounting that Caesar enriched the public coffers and wept when the poor
cried. If this was "ambition," Mark Antony argues, then it should be made of "sterner stuff." Having secured
the people's tacit assent to the view that Caesar was not ambitious, Mark Antony then points out that Brutus
claims that Caesar was ambitious and that Brutus is an "honorable" man (III.ii.90-95). The discordance here
leads to the conclusion that Brutus and others were wrong about Caesar and that they are, therefore, not
honorable men. Caesar, as Shakespeare clearly shows, was in fact ambitious. He is lured by Decius into
coming to the Senate by the prospect of his being crowned king. Ironically, though, the most ambitious of the
play's characters is not Caesar or Brutus, but Mark Antony, who exploits the situation at hand to become a
member of the ruling triumvirate along with Julius Caesar's heir apparent Octavius (Augustus Caesar).
Ambition, in the conventional meaning of the word, is the cause, but not the primary motive, of the
conspiracy against Caesar. For all of the conspirators except Brutus, envy and resentment toward Caesar fuel
their individual decisions to assassinate this "colossus." Envy is most evident in Cassius, who complains:
And this man
Is now become a god, and Cassius is
A wretched creature, and must bend his body
If Caesar carelessly but nod on him.
(I.ii.115-118)
Cassius measures himself against Caesar and finds no reason that he should not hold the same power as this
self-proclaimed "god." There is, however, no explicit plan for Cassius to seize the rule of Rome once Caesar
is dead. The minor conspirators of the plot are generally motivated by dissatisfaction with Caesar's
high-handed treatment of them and by personal grievances.
Brutus, however, is ambitious in the sense of being divided between two visions of the future. Brutus has no
complaint against Caesar as he is, but fears what Caesar might become if the people and the Senate crown him
as Rome's king. "He would be crown'd; / How that might change his nature, there's the question" (II.i.12-13),
Julius Caesar: Themes
56
as Brutus poses it to himself. Unlike Cassius and the others, Brutus does not act out of personal envy or
resentment over past wrongs, but out of fear for the future of the Roman Republic. For the sake of Rome,
Brutus takes personal responsibility for the murder of its ruler, bathing his hands in Caesar's blood as an open
acknowledgment of his deed. But after the tyrannicide is done, Brutus continues to be plagued by doubts and
haunted by great Caesar's ghost. Trying to straddle the present and the future, Brutus acts irrationally, making
a series of self-defeating political and military blunders.
While a Roman future without Caesar temporarily prevents tyranny, it yields an even worse outcome from the
standpoint of the Republic as well as in the view of Shakespeare and the play's Elizabethan audiences: civil
war. Just before inciting the mob to action, Mark Antony foresees the carnage ahead and predicts:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines, with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.
(III.i.270-275)
The "foul deed" of regicide unleashes complete civil disorder, the effect of preventing Caesar from exerting
"god-like" control over Rome being anarchy. This theme of civil disorder stemming from the death of a king
is dramatically captured in Act III, scene iii, in which a blood-thirsty mob kills the poet Cinna even after
realizing that he is not the conspirator Cinna. When the head of the state, be it Caesar or an Elizabethan
monarch, is severed from the body of the nation, violent spasms ripple throughout society. Although
Shakespeare is sympathetic toward Brutus and the cause of liberty, Julius Caesar presents a cautionary
message about the wages of regicide, an act that disturbs the civil order and undermines the natural order.
Disease is a complementary motif in Julius Caesar. Brutus complains of being sick before the assassination
and after learning of Portia's suicide. Other conspirators, Cinna for example, see the death of Caesar as the
cure that will heal them and Rome at large. Insomnia is rampant throughout the play. Caesar ironically
complains about sleepless men like Cassius and finds his own slumber disturbed by Calphurnia's prescient
nightmare. Brutus is unable to sleep on the cusp of the battle at Philippi, the ghost of Caesar issuing the
ominous vow that they will meet again. Omens, portents, and signs of calamity abound. The act of killing a
king has its effects on the conscious level of political order and at the subconscious level of the human psyche.
Julius Caesar: Character Analysis
Antony (Character Analysis)
A professional soldier and public official. He has the third largest speaking role in the play. While his role in
the first two acts of the play is minimal, in the third act Mark Antony takes on a dominance maintained
through the rest of the play.
Antony's first appearance in the play is as a runner in the games in honor of Lupercal. His athletic nature, as
well as other virtues, are noted by Brutus who states that Antony is "given / To sports, to wildness, and much
company" (II.1.188-89). Caesar also points out that Antony "revels long o'nights" (II.ii.116). This view of
Antony is the factor that spares him from being an additional target of the conspirators' murderous plans.
When the conspirators are considering whether to kill Antony along with Caesar, Trebonius agrees with
Brutus in the assessment that Antony is somewhat of a playboy, and not a threat to their plans. The two
reassure the others that there is nothing to fear in Antony.
Julius Caesar: Character Analysis
57
Though Antony is not regarded before the conspiracy as a serious threat by Brutus, the conspirators still take
the precaution of having Trebonius draw him off from the scene of the assassination, and after the deed
Antony flees to his home. He sends word immediately afterward via a servant, asking permission to speak to
the conspirators. Antony returns to the Capitol and at the sight of Caesar's body, he voices his grief. When
Brutus promises to explain to Antony the reasons why Caesar was killed, Antony shakes hands with the
conspirators, stating that he does not doubt their wisdom. As he goes on speaking, however, he begins
praising Caesar and grieving for him again. At this point, Cassius asks Antony what his intentions are: does he
stand with them or against them? Antony does not directly answer him, but asks again for their reasons for the
assassination of Caesar. Brutus reasserts his promise to reveal their motivation for murdering Caesar and, at
Antony's request, Brutus allows Antony to speak at Caesar's funeral.
After the conspirators leave Antony with Caesar's body, Antony delivers his first major speech in the play: a
soliloquy in which he vows vengeance against the conspirators. This speech is cited by many scholars as
evidence that Antony is motivated by his loyalty to Caesar and his promise of revenge (rather than his own
self-interest). It is argued that this speech displays the depth of Antony's grief for Caesar, and that as Antony
is alone when he delivers it rather than in front of people he might be trying to influence, the emotions are
genuine.
In his oration at Caesar's funeral, Antony demonstrates his rhetorical skill. In order to win back the crowd
from Brutus, Antony uses irony, flattery, evidence, and the inclusion of natural pauses which allow the
audience time to respond emotionally to what he is saying. He mentions Caesar's military accomplishments
and the prosperity such endeavors brought to Rome. He discusses Caesar's repeated refusal of the crown. At
various points Antony seems unable to proceed in his speech, overcome by emotion. Likewise, he shows
compassion for the crowd's feelings, acknowledging their tears. After viewing Caesar's mutilated body and
hearing multiple references to Caesar's will, the crowd is incited to riot.
While Antony's oration has been criticized by some for being manipulative and contrived, many audiences
respond to its emotion and to the fact that the sentiments of the speech are in line with what Antony expressed
privately over Caesar's body. At any rate, the speech inspires the crowd to turn against the conspirators, who
have fled the city.
In Act IV, in what is known as the "proscription scene," Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus—who have formed a
political alliance—are compiling a list of Romans who will be killed or executed. At Lepidus's request, Antony
agrees to the death of his nephew in exchange for the life of Lepidus's brother. When Lepidus leaves, Antony
speaks thus of Lepidus to Octavius: "This is a slight unmeritable man, / Meet to be sent on errands"
(IV.i.12-13), dismissing him as a temporarily useful tool.
Although the proscription scene may supply evidence that Antony is self-serving and cruel, in the last scenes
of the play, he seems to be depicted in a more positive manner. When Lucilius, a member of Brutus's party, is
taken prisoner, Antony asks that he be treated well. Antony also honors Brutus by stating that Brutus was the
only one of the conspirators who acted for the general good, rather than out of envy of Caesar. Antony goes
on to say that Brutus was "the noblest Roman of them all" (V.v.68).
Brutus (Character Analysis)
Despite the play's title, Brutus is the central character of Julius Caesar, and it is within the anguished
workings of Brutus's mind that the issue of tyranny versus freedom is played out. The last word on the
character of Brutus falls to Mark Antony, and it ironically contradicts Antony's previous doubts about Brutus
as an honorable man.
Antony (Character Analysis)
58
This was the noblest Roman of them all:
All the conspirators, save only he
Did that they did in envy of great Caesar,
He, only in a general honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.
His life was gentle, and the elements
So mix'd him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world: "This was a man!"
(V.v.68-75).
Brutus is a Roman nobleman who plays a prominent role in the conspiracy against Caesar. The primary issues
surrounding Brutus's character are his idealism and devotion to the principle of republicanism, his political
judgment, his motives for joining the conspiracy, and his role as a tragic hero. Brutus is typically viewed as a
noble man, although some argue that he is flawed in his philosophical commitment to principle. It has also
been suggested that Brutus unwittingly creates the chaos that descends upon Rome after the assassination.
When Brutus first appears at the Lupercal, he is approached by Cassius, who discuss with Brutus the
weaknesses of Caesar. Although Cassius presses Brutus to join the plot against Caesar, Brutus indicates that
he has already considered some of the points that Cassius is making, and in I.ii.79, Brutus states his fear that
Caesar will be chosen king by the people of Rome.
Act II opens with Brutus's famous "It must be by his death" (II.i.10) soliloquy. In this speech, Brutus states
that he has no personal objections to Caesar, but is concerned for the public good. Additionally, Brutus
questions how Caesar's nature would be changed if he were crowned king. The speech has been viewed as an
act of self-deception in which Brutus attempts to justify the assassination. It has also been argued that the
speech gives evidence to Brutus's being consumed either by political idealism and sense of duty to Rome or
by self-righteousness. Later on in the same scene, when the other conspirators propose that Mark Antony be
killed as well, Brutus objects, arguing "Our course will seem too bloody. Let us be sacrificers, but not
butchers" (II.i.162, 166). This is often viewed as an attempt by Brutus to make the murder seem like an
honorable deed, a ritual sacrifice. Brutus reasserts this idea when, after the assassination, he instructs the
conspirators to wash their hands in Caesar's blood.
In his oration at Caesar's funeral, Brutus declares, in response to any who question why Brutus killed Caesar,
that his actions indicate "Not that I lov'd Caesar less, but that I lov'd Rome more" (III.ii.21-2). He goes on to
say that Caesar was slain because of his ambition. Brutus's speech initially seems successful, as the crowd
cheers in his favor by the time Brutus finishes. As Antony is preparing to speak, members of the crowd state
that ''Caesar was a tyrant" (III.ii.69) and that they "are blest that Rome is rid of him" (III.ii.70). Following
Mark Antony's speech, however, the mob turns against Brutus and the other conspirators.
At Sardis, Brutus and Cassius quarrel at length. The argument, which begins when Cassius accuses Brutus of
wrongfully condemning one of Cassius's men for taking bribes, centers around questions of Brutus's and
Cassius's honor and the love they have for one another. Brutus also restates his belief that the assassination
was an honorable deed. It has been suggested that this quarrel highlights Brutus's inability to distinguish his
own motives from noble principles. When the fight has ceased, Brutus tells Cassius that Portia has committed
suicide in her despair over the consequences of the assassination. Cassius and Brutus then discuss their
upcoming military conflict with the army of Antony, Lepidus, and Octavius. Brutus insists that the enemy will
be engaged at Philippi, despite Cassius's protests. Later, Brutus sees the ghost of Caesar, who identifies
himself as an "evil spirit" (IV.iii.282) and promises Brutus that they will meet again.
In the final act of the play, at the battle of Philippi, Brutus prematurely attacks the forces of Octavius. When
Brutus is certain that his forces will be defeated, he decides to take his own life rather than be captured and led
Brutus (Character Analysis)
59
into Rome as a prisoner. A reluctant Strato agrees to hold steady Brutus's sword—the sword with which Brutus
killed Caesar—so that Brutus can run upon it and impale himself. In the final scene of the play, Mark Antony
eulogizes that Brutus was "the noblest Roman of them all" (V.v.68), and states that Brutus was the only
conspirator who acted for the good of Rome, rather than out of personal envy of Caesar. As a final tribute,
Octavius orders a soldier's burial for Brutus.
As a final note, no matter what opinion we may have of the regicide issue in the abstract, the practical
consequences of Caesar's assassination are bluntly apparent. After the killing has occurred, Brutus, reputed to
be a competent, admired political and military leader, engages in a series of mistakes. It is at Brutus's behest
that Mark Antony is spared, and it is Brutus who permits Antony to address the crowd after he departs from
the scene. Brutus also errs in the field: his strategy of taking the offensive plays into the enemy's hands, and at
the crucial moment, he gives the command to advance too early. In each of these instances, Brutus seems to
be governed by a desire to achieve resolution and closure of his internal conflict even if the outcome is one of
defeat and death. In Acts IV and V, Brutus displays a symptomatic inconsistency. It is he who provokes a
conflict with Cassius over minor matters, thereby threatening the cause of the conspirators. Troubled by guilt,
Brutus seems subconsciously bent upon his own punishment. He is, at the very least, a man divided. He
confides to Cassius that he is "sick" with the news of Portia's death, but immediately thereafter, he tells
Messala that he was not aware of his wife's suicide (IV.iii.182). Some critics take this inconsistency to be an
error on Shakespeare's part, others maintain that Brutus is attempting to exhibit a stoical attitude toward word
of Portia's demise. Elsewhere we find that Brutus does engage in manipulating his soldiers, suggesting that
they leave his cause while knowing that this will only reaffirm their loyalty and reignite their morale. But like
Caesar deciding whether or not to go the Senate on the fateful day of his death, Brutus displays inconsistency,
shifting from optimism to pessimism about the outcome of the civil war.
Julius Caesar (Character Analysis)
Julius Caesar, a Roman statesman and general, appears in only three scenes and is assassinated halfway
through the play. Although he is the title character, he speaks fewer lines in the play than Brutus, Cassius, or
Antony.
One of the most controversial issues surrounding the character of Caesar is the question of whether he was a
good or bad leader, and whether or not his assassination was justified. There is no clear answer to this
question. Caesar has been interpreted in a number of ways: as superstitious and weak, as ambitious and
arrogant, as a commanding leader concerned with the well-being of Rome.
Caesar's own words and actions, as well as those of other characters in the play, can provide insight into his
character. However, as some scholars emphasize, most of the characters in the play who discuss Caesar are his
enemies, so their views of him should be regarded with this in mind.
In the first scene of Act I, the tribunes Flavius and Murellus subdue commoners who are celebrating one of
Caesar's recent military victories. This scene gives the reader an early glimpse of Caesar's character. It has
been suggested that since the commoners are celebrating Caesar's victory, perhaps they do not feel as though
they are oppressed by a tyrannical leader. What of the tribunes, however? Their actions against the
commoners indicate negative feelings toward Caesar.
Caesar appears in the next scene at the games in honor of Lupercal. Caesar publicly directs Mark Antony to
touch Calphurnia as Mark Antony runs in the race. It was believed that runners in the Lupercalian race could
make barren women fertile by touching them during the course of the race. Caesar then ignores a warning
shouted by a soothsayer, dismissing the man as a "dreamer" (I.ii.24). After Caesar exits the scene with his
followers, Brutus and Cassius remain. Cassius discusses Caesar's weaknesses, telling Brutus how Caesar was
Julius Caesar (Character Analysis)
60
boastful about his swimming prowess and challenged Cassius to join him in a swim across the Tiber on a day
when the river was churning and turbulent. Caesar almost drowned and had to be rescued by Cassius.
Likewise, Cassius recalled a time during one of Caesar's military campaigns in Spain when Caesar fell victim
to a "fit" in which he was shaking and feverish. Cassius sums up Caesar's behavior as that of "a sick girl"
(I.ii.128).
In the same scene, after Caesar and his entourage return, Caesar pulls Mark Antony aside and tells him of his
mistrust of Cassius. Caesar asserts, however, that he does not fear Cassius. Caesar's group exits the scene
again, leaving Casca, Brutus, and Cassius. Casca tells Brutus and Cassius how Mark Antony offered Caesar
the crown three times and how Caesar refused it each time, eventually collapsing from an epileptic attack.
There are differing views on how Caesar is depicted in this scene. While Caesar's superstition and physical
weakness are presented here, he also demonstrates that he is to some degree a good judge of character: he is
suspicious of Cassius, who indeed poses a threat to him.
Act II, scene ii opens at Caesar's residence, where his wife has just had a dream in which a statue of Caesar
spouts blood. When Calphurnia discusses her fears with him, Caesar is dismissive and seems unconcerned
with the prospect of death. He comments that "Cowards die many times before their deaths, / The valiant
never taste of death but once" (II.ii.32-33). A servant reports that the augurers, whom Caesar had ordered to
perform a sacrifice, have witnessed an omen and advise him to remain at home. He hears the report but
dismisses it. Yet, at his wife's insistent plea, he agrees to stay. When Decius arrives and hears about the omens
and Calphurnia's dream, he provides another interpretation which focuses on Caesar's importance to Rome.
Caesar is swayed by Decius and, after the arrival of several other conspirators, the men share wine and then
leave together for the Capitol.
Caesar's actions in this scene again seem to emphasize his superstitious nature, although it has been argued
that Caesar's beliefs were typical at that time in Rome. Additionally, most audiences note that Caesar
continues to be concerned about maintaining his image as a fearless leader.
At the Capitol, in Act III, Caesar speaks in a tone that has been characterized as lofty and overbearing. The
soothsayer warns Caesar again about the Ides of March, reminding Caesar that they have not yet passed.
Artemidorus urges Caesar to read his letter, which details the plot against Caesar. But Caesar responds that
personal matters will be attended to last. He tells Metellus Cimber, who is pleading for the return of his
banished brother, that he rejects his fawning, comparing the groveling behavior to that of dogs. When Brutus
and Cassius offer their support for Metellus Cimber, Caesar associates himself with the North Star and with
Mount Olympus, suggesting his constant and unwavering attitude on this issue. The conspirators then gather
around him and stab him repeatedly.
Caesar's actions in this scene have been used to support differing views of his character. Some argue that his
refusal to listen to others demonstrate his high-handed, arrogant nature. It has also been suggested that perhaps
Caesar recognized the need to act in the interest of Rome, rather than on his personal preferences.
After Caesar's death, his spirit is a dominant presence in the play. Mark Antony cries out to Caesar in front of
the conspirators. Later, when Mark Antony is alone with the body, he speaks to Caesar, vowing revenge
against the conspirators. Caesar's ghost appears to Brutus at night in the camp at Sardis, promising to meet
Brutus at Philippi. Before Brutus's own death, he mentions having seen the ghost another time, the night
before the battle at Philippi. Both Brutus and Cassius acknowledge the presence of Caesar's spirit at their
deaths. Cassius says "Caesar, / thou art reveng'd, / Even with the sword that kill'd thee" (V.iii.45-46), and
Brutus's last words are: "Caesar, now be still, / I kill'd not thee with half so good a will" (V.v.50-51).
Julius Caesar (Character Analysis)
61
Cassius (Character Analysis)
Cassius is the instigator in the conspiracy against Caesar. Statements Cassius makes, particularly during the
"seduction scene," suggest that his motivation for initiating such a plot is a combination of political ideology
and personal envy. Throughout the play Cassius reveals himself to be an accurate judge of other men and their
abilities. Against this good judgment, Cassius unfailingly defers to Brutus's decisions in various matters
throughout the course of the play.
In I.ii, in what is known as the "seduction scene," Cassius attempts to convince Brutus to join the plot against
Caesar. Cassius offers no hard evidence of Caesar's tyrannical or ambitious nature, although he does discuss
the stature Caesar has achieved. Rather, he speaks at length about Caesar's physical weakness. Cassius
compares himself to Aeneas, the legendary founder of Rome, in his saving of Caesar from drowning in the
Tiber. He reveals his personal envy of Caesar in expressing resentment that Caesar has risen to the status of ''a
god" (I.ii.116) and that he, Cassius, must be subordinate to such a man: ''and Cassius is / A wretched creature,
and must bend his body / If Caesar carelessly but nod on him" (I.ii.116-118). Cassius incorporates references
to honor and equality and republican ideals into the speech as well. After Brutus leaves, Cassius in a soliloquy
states his intention to further sway Brutus to his cause. Cassius plans to send Brutus forged letters, ostensibly
from Roman citizens, which highlight Caesar's alleged ambitions.
During the course of the play, Cassius proves to be a shrewd and accurate analyst of the men and events
surrounding the assassination plot. Despite his good judgment, however, he repeatedly defers to Brutus's
wishes. It is generally understood that Cassius, in these instances, acts out of the love and friendship he
repeatedly expresses for Brutus. Some, however, suggest that perhaps Cassius's primary interest, at least
initially, is the credibility that the widely-respected Brutus brings to their cause.
The first significant instance of Cassius's deferring to Brutus is during II.ii, when Cassius suggests that Mark
Antony be slain along with Caesar. Brutus disagrees, reasoning that Antony is merely a "limb of Caesar"
(II.i.165). Cassius tries to protest again, but Brutus interrupts him, dismissing any notion that Antony poses
any threat. Cassius says nothing further.
In III.i, following the assassination, Brutus gives his consent to Antony's request to be allowed to speak at
Caesar's funeral. Cassius pulls Brutus aside and tries to convince Brutus to reconsider, citing the influence
Antony has with the citizens of Rome. Brutus brushes aside this concern, stating that Antony's speech "shall
advantage more than do us wrong" (III.i.242). Cassius defers to Brutus's decision, although he comments that
he does not like it.
Finally, in Act IV, Cassius concedes to Brutus in an important military matter. In IV.iii, Brutus asks Cassius
his opinion about attacking their enemy at Philippi. Cassius reasons that it would be better to remain at Sardis,
and allow the enemy to seek them and expend valuable resources and energy in the process. Cassius
continues, stating that by the time enemy forces reached their own, they would be well-rested and ready.
Brutus dismisses this logic, and argues that his plan is a better one. Cassius then agrees to follow Brutus to
Philippi.
Just prior to this strategical discussion, the two men quarreled bitterly. As the argument begins, Cassius
accuses Brutus of wronging him repeatedly; and following Brutus's own verbal attack, Cassius states that
Brutus no longer loves him. In despair, "Hated by one he loves" (IV.iii.96), Cassius asks Brutus to kill him.
After this outburst, the two reconcile.
Just before the battle of Philippi, Cassius undergoes an unexplained change, which is often noted by scholars
and audiences: he falls prey to superstition. Cassius was once a rationalist who claimed that "The fault, dear
Cassius (Character Analysis)
62
Brutus, is not in our stars, / But in ourselves … " (I.ii. 140-41), and an Epicurean, who believed that the gods
had no interest in the lives of men. Cassius now refers to the presence of omens and asks that the gods "stand
friendly" (V.i.93).
As the battle ensues, Cassius instructs his friend Titinius to ride towards the nearby troops to deter mine if
they "are friend or enemy" (V.ii.18). After Titinius leaves, Cassius asks his bondman Pindarus to watch
Titinius and report to him what he sees. The request is made as Cassius says, because his "sight was ever
thick" (V.ii.21), meaning short or dim. Pindarus then mistakenly reports that Titinius has been captured by the
enemy, a report which leads Cassius to ask Pindarus to help him kill himself. Cassius's bad vision is
sometimes viewed as symbolic of the limits of his understanding of the conspiracy, his role in it, and its
consequences.
Other Characters (Descriptions)
Another Poet
An unnamed poet approaches the tent of Brutus to seek out Brutus and Cassius. He is ridiculed by both men
for his crude verses and philosophy.
Army
Brutus's and Cassius's army is originally encamped at Sardis. In the final act of the play this army confronts
the army led by Mark Antony and Octavius at Philippi.
Artemidorus of Cnidos
Artemidorus is a teacher of rhetoric. He writes Caesar a blunt letter of warning, naming the men who have
plotted against Caesar. He plans to stand along the road and hand his letter to Caesar as he goes to the Capitol.
On the Ides of March, Artemidorus urges Caesar to read his letter, as it contains a matter of personal interest
to Caesar, but Caesar sees that as the very reason to postpone reading it until last, and dismisses Artemidorus
as "mad" (III.i.10).
Attendants
Attendants, servants, and messengers appear in several scenes in the play. One of Caesar's servants is sent to
consult the augurers and to report back to Caesar. Another servant delivers a message from Antony to the
conspirators shortly after the assassination. Other characters such as Portia also have unnamed attendants.
Portia takes her life in the absence of her attendants. Octavius's servant is the most fully depicted of the
unnamed messengers. He comes to Rome bearing a message for Antony from Octavius. The servant is
shocked at the sight of Caesar's body and weeps. He helps Antony carry the body to the marketplace for the
funeral orations. After the orations, he reports that Octavius has arrived in Rome and that Brutus and Cassius
have fled the city.
Brutus (Decius Brutus)
Decius is one of the conspirators against Caesar. When Cassius voices his concern that Caesar might be
unwilling to go to the Capitol on the Ides of March, Decius confidently states that he will be able to flatter and
persuade Caesar to accompany him to the Capitol. When the morning arrives and Caesar is indeed hesitant
about leaving and anxious about the augerer's omens and Calphurnia's dream, Decius reinterprets the dream in
a way that highlights Caesar's importance to Rome. When Caesar has heard this interpretation, along with
Decius's mentioning that the Senate is thinking of offering Caesar the crown, he announces that he has
changed his mind and will go to the Capitol.
Caesar (Octavius Caesar)
Octavius is Julius Caesar's adopted great-nephew and heir. He is also a triumvir with Mark Antony and
Other Characters (Descriptions)
63
Lepidus after the death of Caesar.
In the meeting of the triumvirs, Octavius shows himself to be fair-minded and judicious. He challenges
Antony's slighting view of Lepidus, questioning how Antony could feel this way and still allow Lepidus to
condemn people to death. Arguing against Antony's limited assessment, Octavius states his appreciation of
Lepidus as a competent soldier.
At the battle at Philippi, Octavius disagrees with Antony's orders for the conduct of the battle, and instead of
following those orders, Octavius states and follows his own military strategy. When Brutus and Cassius
approach and engage Octavius in a verbal exchange prior to the battle, Octavius replies: ''Defiance, traitors,
hurl we in your teeth. / If you dare fight to-day, come to the field; / If not, when you have stomachs''
(V.i.64-6). When Brutus's body is discovered, Octavius orders that a soldier's honor and burial be given to
Brutus. Speaking the closing words of the play, Octavius calls the armies from the field and directs that the
"glories" (V.v.81) of the day be shared. It has been suggested that Octavius's commanding presence in the last
act of the play indicates the future stability of the Roman Empire.
Caius Ligarius
See Ligarius
Calphurnia (also Calpurnia)
Calphurnia is Caesar's wife. In II.i, she is concerned about the bad omens, which she frankly admits she has
never put much credence in before this time. When Calphurnia gets on her knee to Caesar, she temporarily
succeeds in persuading him to remain at home. She offers to let Caesar use her anxiety as an excuse for not
going to the Capitol.
Carpenter
See Commoners
Casca
Casca, is one of the conspirators against Caesar. He provides important accounts of scenes which take place
both on and off stage. When Caesar and his train depart after the Lupercal festivities and marketplace
orations, Casca tells Brutus and Cassius what took place. He ridicules the mob and Caesar alike and reports on
the silencing of the tribunes. Cassius persuades Casca to join the conspiracy, and after he has agreed, he
recognizes the importance of having Brutus as a member of their group. He is the first to strike Caesar, though
his wound alone is not fatal. As soon as Caesar is dead, he asks Brutus to go the pulpit and defend the
conspirators' cause to the public.
Cato (Young Cato)
Young Cato is a friend to Brutus and Cassius. He is Portia's brother. He is slain in the second battle at
Philippi. Though the play makes the two battles appear to take place on the same day, in actuality they
occurred twenty days apart.
Cicero
Cicero is a Roman senator. When discussing with Cassius and Brutus Caesar's refusal of the crown, Casca
mentions that Cicero spoke a few words in Greek during the ceremony, and that some people smiled and
shook their heads at Cicero's comments. His only speaking part in the play is in I.iii, when he speaks to Casca
on the stormy night before the Ides of March. Later, the conspirators discuss whether to have Cicero as one of
their number, but Brutus decides against this, arguing that Cicero would never follow another man's lead.
Brutus and Cassius receive word at Sardis that Cicero has been executed by the triumvirate, though he had no
part in the conspiracy.
Other Characters (Descriptions)
64
Cimber (Metellus Cimber)
Metellus Cimber is one of the conspirators. His personal grievance against Caesar is that Caesar has banished
Metellus's brother, Publius Cimber. At the Capitol on the day of assassination, Metellus approaches Caesar
and asks to have the banishment lifted. Caesar refuses the request.
Cinna
Cinna is a member of the conspiracy. He urges Cassius to enlist Brutus for their cause. Immediately after
Caesar's assassination, Cinna yells, ''Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!" (III.i.78).
Cinna the poet
Shortly after the assassination, Cinna the poet, on his way to Caesar's funeral, is walking through the streets
thinking of a dream he has had of dining with Caesar. Confronted by the conspirator-seeking mob, he states
repeatedly that he is Cinna the poet, not the conspirator. He is killed by the mob anyway.
Citizens
Roman citizens are present in various crowd scenes, such as the holiday of Lupercal and the streets of Rome
on the Ides of March. After the assassination, Brutus assures the citizens that they have no need to be afraid.
For more information on the common people of Rome, see Plebeians.
Claudio
Claudio is a servant to Brutus. He appears with Varrus in IV.iii.
Clitus
Clitus is a servant to Brutus. Though Brutus asks Clitus to help in his suicide, Clitus replies that he would
rather kill himself than help Brutus in such an action.
Cobbler
See Commoners
Commoners
Two tradesmen, a carpenter and a cobbler, have taken a holiday on the feast of Lupercal to see Caesar and to
celebrate him. The cobbler jokes about his trade.
Dardanius
Dardanius is a servant to Brutus. Though Brutus asks Dardanius to help in his suicide, Dardanius does not
wish to assist.
Decius Brutus
See Brutus
Flavius
Flavius is a tribune who scolds two tradesmen for spending their time celebrating Caesar's recent military
victory by not working. For their offense, he tells them to cry tears into the Tiber. Flavius and his fellow
tribune, Murellus, remove from statues of Caesar decorations intended to honor him. In the next scene Casca
reports that the tribunes are ''put to silence" (I.ii.286) for removing the decorations from the statues. This
expression suggests either that they were removed from office, or that they were executed.
Ghost of Caesar
The ghost appears to Brutus at Sardis and briefly speaks to him. Brutus says he also appears the night before
the battle at Philippi.
Other Characters (Descriptions)
65
Julius Caesar
See Caesar
Lena (Popilius Lena)
Popilius Lena is a Roman senator. Just prior to the assassination, Popilius says to Cassius, ''I wish your
enterprise to-day may thrive" (III.i.13). Cassius nervously takes the statement as evidence that the plot has
been discovered. After a brief discussion between Brutus and Cassius, Brutus decides that Popilius does not
know about the plot.
Lepidus (M. Aemilius Lepidus)
Lepidus is one of the triumvirs after the death of Caesar. Antony sees Lepidus as unworthy to be one of the
three rulers of the Roman empire, whereas Octavius is willing to honor him as a tested soldier. Lepidus is not
present in the battle at Philippi.
Ligarius (Caius Ligarius)
Caius Ligarius is one of the conspirators against Caesar. According to Metullus Cimber, Caius Ligarius bears
a personal grudge towards Caesar, for Caesar upbraided him for speaking well of Pompey. Despite his illness,
he is drawn in to the conspiracy by Brutus.
Lucilius
Lucilius is a friend to Brutus and Cassius. He is not a conspirator but is present at Sardis and Philippi. He
impersonates Brutus on the battlefield in order to protect him. When he is captured, his worth is recognized by
Antony, who does not have him slain.
Lucius
Lucius is a servant to Brutus. He finds an anonymous note in Brutus's private quarters and gives it to his
master. The note urges Brutus to "Speak, strike, redress!" (II.i.47). In the camp at Sardis, Lucius plays a song
for Brutus at Brutus's request.
M. Aemilius Lepidus
See Lepidus
Marcus Antonius
See Antony
Marcus Brutus
See Brutus
Mark Antony
See Antony
Messala
Messala is a friend to Brutus and Cassius. He discusses current news from Rome with Brutus at Sardis,
including the deaths of Portia and the proscribed senators.
Metellus Cimber
See Cimber
Murellus (in some editions, Marullus)
Murellus is a tribune. With Flavius, he scolds two tradesmen for honoring Caesar. He orders them to pray for
forgiveness. Later Murellus and Flavius are "put to silence" (I.ii.286). This expression indicates that they have
Other Characters (Descriptions)
66
either been removed from office or executed.
Octavius Caesar
See Caesar
Pindarus
Pindarus is a servant to Cassius. He incorrectly reports to Cassius that Titinius has been captured. Cassius then
promises to give Pindarus his freedom on the condition that Pindarus will assist Cassius in his suicide. As
soon as Cassius's death is accomplished, Pindarus flees from the Romans.
Plebeians
The plebeians are the common people of Rome. They are also referred to as plebs, or the vulgar. Their main
characteristics in the play are their fickleness, or changeability, and their tendency toward mob behavior.
These characteristics are evident in their responses to Brutus's and Mark Antony's funeral orations. The
plebeians find Brutus's speech so persuasive that they wish to give him a statue, a crown, and an escort to his
house and they cry out ''Let him be Caesar'' (III.ii.51). In spite of their response to Brutus's speech, they listen
attentively to Antony, becoming more and more emotionally aroused throughout his speech. When Antony
first takes the pulpit, the crowd believes the conspirators to be honorable men and Caesar to be justly slain as
a tyrant. Yet soon the plebeians are calling the conspirators traitors, exclaiming "Revenge! About! Seek!
Burn! Fire! Kill! Slay! Let not a traitor live!" (III.ii.204-205). Several times they are ready to rush out and do
harm, but they are held back by Antony. When they are finally unleashed, they burn Caesar's body as a kind
of holy sacrifice and plan to torch the houses of the conspirators. In their fervor, they encounter Cinna the
poet, not Cinna the conspirator, but kill him anyway, simply for his "bad verses" (III.iii.30).
Popilius Lena
See Lena
Portia
Portia, Brutus's wife, displays her concern for her husband and asks that he share with her his burdens. She
wishes to know the source of his abrupt mood changes and why Cassius and the others have visited him,
claiming that sharing such confidences with her husband is the "right and virtue'' (II.i.269) of a wife. In an
effort to prove her devotion to him, she wounds herself in the thigh. In IV.iii, Brutus learns that Portia has
committed suicide.
Publius
Publius, a senator, appears in II.ii with the other senators who have arrived at Caesar's house in order to
accompany him to the Capitol. When Brutus notices Publius's absence following the assassination, he seeks
out the senator in order to reassure him that he will not be harmed. Brutus then instructs Publius to assure the
Roman citizens that no harm is meant to anyone else.
Senators
In III.i, immediately following the assassination, Brutus directly addresses the senators and the people who
have witnessed the murder, telling them not to be frightened.
Soothsayer
The soothsayer is a sort of fortune teller. On the feast of Lupercal, he calls Caesar from the crowd. He tries to
warn Caesar about the Ides of March but is dismissed by Caesar as a "dreamer" (I.ii.24). Caesar speaks to him
dismissively at the Capitol, yet the soothsayer replies that the Ides of March is not over yet.
Strato
Strato is a servant to Brutus. He holds the sword for Brutus to run on. Brutus says of Strato that he has had
Other Characters (Descriptions)
67
some degree of honor in his own life. Strato repays the compliment to his master by saying to Messala and the
conquerors that no man has honor by Brutus's death but Brutus himself. Strato is recommended by Messala,
and agrees to work for Octavius.
Titinius
Titinius is a close friend to Cassius. At Cassius's request, Titinius approaches nearby troops in order to
determine if they are friends or enemies. When he is surrounded on his horse by cheers and cries, the sound is
misinterpreted by Cassius's bondsman, Pindarus, as meaning Titinius is captured. Cassius takes his own life
on the strength of Pindarus's report. When Titinius returns and sees his friend slain, he mourns the end of
Rome as he has known it and crowns the dead Cassius with a wreath. He then takes his own life.
Trebonius
Trebonius is one of the conspirators against Caesar. He visits the home of Brutus with the others. He agrees
with Brutus that the others need not fear Antony as a threat to them. Trebonius's role in the plot is to draw off
Antony at the Capitol before the assassination.
Varrus
Varrus is a servant to Brutus. His duty is to be on call for delivering messages. He carries Brutus's message
regarding movement of the troops to Cassius.
Volumnius
Volumnius is a friend to Brutus and Cassius. He denies that Brutus's time of death has come. He and Brutus
went to school together, and he feels that holding a sword for a person bent on suicide is not a fit job for a
friend.
Young Cato
See Cato
Julius Caesar: Principal Topics
The depiction of Roman politics is a major issue in Julius Caesar. The nature of this concern lies in the
question of whether Caesar's assassination should be considered murder or a justifiable action. One argument
maintains that Shakespeare portrayed Caesar as a contemptible despot with a seemingly limitless appetite for
conquest. Brutus joins the conspirators because he fears that the Roman republic will be destroyed if Caesar
becomes king. From this perspective, Julius Caesar can be interpreted as a conflict between liberty and
tyranny in which the conspirators' assassination of the would-be dictator is noble and just. A contrary reading
asserts that Shakespeare created a benevolent, if somewhat vain, leader in Caesar, who is brutally murdered
by envious traitors who manipulate Brutus's republican ideals to give their cause some credibility. This
interpretation is manifested in the character of Antony, who remains loyal to Caesar and avenges his murder
by rousing the Roman populace against the conspirators. Antony's and Brutus's use of rhetoric, or persuasive
language, has a decided effect on the dramatic action in Julius Caesar. Particularly in their opposing funeral
speeches in Act III, scene ii, the two men present different verbal strategies, though their goals are in some
ways similar. In his oration, Brutus's principal technique is to imply that the commoners must choose between
mutually exclusive alternatives—dying as slaves under Caesar's tyrannical rule or living as freemen in the
republic—without proving that these are the only alternatives. Antony's eulogy, however, is characterized by
its extensive use of irony and repetition, as well as by action words, exciting the commoners' emotions rather
than appealing to their sensibilities. Neither Brutus nor Antony offer rational proofs of their arguments
regarding Caesar, and consequently the more eloquent rhetorician, not the truth, sways public opinion. The
fickle crowd, too, plays an important role in Julius Caesar; its willingness to summarily exchange rulers and
to be easily led, first by the arguments of Brutus, then by the rhetoric of Antony, demonstrates its instability
Julius Caesar: Principal Topics
68
and lack of purpose. Shakespeare's depiction of the populace in Julius Caesar, in fact, has often been viewed
as his condemnation of class rule, or democracy, in favor of monarchy.
Another principal topic concerns the private and public values of Brutus and Caesar and the relationship
between human endeavors and history. While the private Brutus is a sensitive man who loves Caesar and
abhors violence, the public figure is a noble idealist who puts his personal feelings aside to protect the Roman
state from his leader's ambition. The private Caesar is a superstitious man plagued by illness, but the public
figure is a demigod or a superman who, in the words of Cassius, "doth bestride the narrow world / Like a
Colossus" (I.ii.136-37). The private world represents the characters' interior motives, but the public world
depicts their actions which, once performed, become independent of them and a part of history. More broadly
speaking, this process in the play reflects the larger issue of humanity's inability to control the results of its
deeds because history ultimately neglects one's private intentions and records only one's public actions.
Ritual also plays a key role in the interpretation of Julius Caesar. This aspect of the play is structured around
one central ceremonial rite—Brutus's attempted exalting of Caesar's assassination to the level of a formal
sacrifice. Brutus almost literally states this intent when he declares: "Let's kill [Caesar] boldly, but not
wrathfully; / Let's carve him as a dish fit for the gods, / Not hew him as a carcass fit for hounds" (II.i.172-74).
Shakespeare provides added theatrical effect to the ritual motif when, after the conspirators stab Caesar to
death, Brutus orders them to wash their hands in his blood. This episode emphasizes Brutus's chief character
flaw, self-deception, for he truly believes that he can purify Caesar's assassination by regarding it as a
ceremonial sacrifice. In addition, the treatment of blood establishes one of three major image patterns in Julius
Caesar, along with the patterns of storm and fire. Each of these groups of images serves a dual purpose, thus
heightening the thematic ambiguity of the play. The blood can symbolize either the injustice of Caesar's
murder and the conspirators' guilt or a ritual blood-letting that restores the Roman political state to new health.
The storm can represent the evil of Caesar's tyranny or the evil of the traitors' plot to assassinate him. Finally,
fire can signify a purifying force that eliminates political treachery or the destructive power of civil strife.
Julius Caesar: Essays
The Political Dilemma in Julius Caesar
The political events dramatized by Shakespeare in Julius Caesar actually occurred, the play's narrative line
following the accounts of Caesar's assassination as recorded by ancient Roman historians, most notably by
Plutarch in his Lives. Indeed, the killing of the foremost political and military figure in Rome in 44 B.C. shook
the world, influencing the development of the Roman state, its empire and civilization. The significance of
Caesar's assassination as a political issue transcended the fall of Rome some five hundred years later. In
Shakespeare's age, the Renaissance and the Reformation required a re-definition (or at least a re-statement) of
what makes for legitimate power, of sovereignty and of kingship. The conservative camp with which
Shakespeare is most often associated, saw the murder of Caesar as a heinous crime, as a regicide, and as the
inevitable cause of civil war. Examples of regicide in more recent English history stood out in the minds of
Shakespeare's audiences. At the same time, the experience of political tyranny was also fresh among the
Elizabethans, and with it, the assertion that the killing of a "king" is justifiable for the sake of human liberty.
The primary issue of order versus freedom is framed in the play's first scene. As the Roman crowd awaits the
celebration of Caesar's triumph over his arch-rival Pompey, it is plain that they are prepared to accept his
absolute rulership over Rome. It is then that the tribunes Flavius and Marcellus challenge this exaltation of
Caesar into an absolute Emperor by tearing down symbolic decorations of his victory and power. We note that
Caesar does not threaten to seize power: in Act I, scene ii., the crowds cheer Caesar on to wear the crown of
an emperor. He protests his election by popular acclaim, but he clearly awaits his elevation into a tyrant by the
Roman Senate and is lured to his death by word that his confirmation by the aristocracy lies at hand. Less than
Julius Caesar: Essays
69
half way through the play (Act III, scene i.) Brutus, Cassius, and the other conspirators take matters into their
own hands. They stab Caesar and cry out, "Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!" with the "honorable" Brutus
declaring that "ambition's debt is paid." But the side of Freedom, those who commit regicide in the name of
Liberty unleash chaos, mayhem, and then, civil war.
This leads to the closely related matter of popular government. It is essential to note that the conspirators are
not champions of democracy. Indeed, the demos or common people are part of their problem. The mob here,
as in all of Shakespeare's political works, is fickle, self-interested, and vulnerable to the manipulations of
demagogues. Brutus fears that the ignorant plebians will proclaim Caesar as Rome's absolute monarch (I, ii,
ll.77-78), and he is right. Caesar plays the mob with his feigned, ceremonial refusal of the crown from their
hands. Mark Antony's famous funeral oration is a model of rabble-rousing propaganda, raising the crowd's
feelings toward Brutus and the rest, then shaping those feelings into hatred before motivating them through
the promise of material gain according to Caesar's will. Granted, Brutus, Cassius and their cohorts flee Rome,
but what is most striking about the crowd's reaction is not its pointed animosity toward the conspirators, but
its mindless frenzy. With tyranny vanquished by lethal force, authority is cut asunder and men at large (at
least the mass of them) return to a savage, pre-civil state, where poets are killed for having the wrong name.
Lastly, as in other of Shakespeare's plays, the conspirators against "legitimate sovereigns" ultimately fall out
amongst each other. Beyond the need for addressing the crowd, Cassius, Brutus, and the rest do not have a
plan for restoring order, choosing a successor, or restructuring government. They lack a unifying vision. Most
of them take part in the assassination due to envy or personal resentment: Brutus appears to have higher
motives. Yet they lack a constructive purpose, and ultimately Brutus comes into conflict with Cassius, the two
arguing first over Marc Antony's fate, then squabbling over petty rumors, and then disagreeing about military
strategy. The consequences of killing a king, then, are presented by Shakespeare in Julius Caesar as worse
than the problem of tyranny, for with the death of the king comes the collapse of authority and the need for a
bloody conflict among clashing powers.
The Character of Brutus: Is He an Honorable Man?
The use of the word "honorable" in explicit or implicit conjunction with the name of Brutus has become a
coded way of casting doubt upon the motives and morals of a speaker's opponents. Today, when said with a
knowing inflection, the statement that someone is an "honorable man" recalls Marc Antony's famous funeral
oration in which he subtly twists the word "honorable" into its opposite meaning. When Marc Antony tells the
crowd after Caesar's assassination that Brutus is "honorable," his ultimate innuendo is that his reputation as a
man of principle is now proven false by the heinous crime that he has committed in the very name of principle
(Act III, scene ii, ll.90-95). Yet this sly inference of dishonor takes on a much richer meaning when we recall
Cassius's reference to Brutus as a "honorable man" in his frank soliloquy of Act I, scene ii. For Cassius, a man
who acts against Caesar from personal motives, Brutus's "honor" is an obstacle to be overcome if his plot to
kill the Emporer is to succeed. Ironically, this suggests that Marc Antony's inference is false, that Brutus is,
indeed, an honorable man, albeit one committed to a bad cause.
What is Brutus's motive for taking part in the conspiracy and can this reconcile his crime with his reputed
honor? At the beginning of Act II, Brutus speaks to his servant Lucus about his fears that Caesar may become
a tyrant if he is crowned king. Just then, he receives a letter written by Cassius urging him to protect the
Roman Republic from just such a course. This strongly suggests that Brutus's motives, if not his actions, are
those of an honorable man, a patriot defending his homeland at the cost of killing a man for whom he
otherwise bears deep affection. Brutus acts "honorably" in the aftermath of the assassination. He takes open
responsibility for the murder, washing his hands in the fallen leader's blood, and urging his fellow
conspirators to do the same. In Act III, scene ii, Brutus addresses the crowd, and tells him that he took part in
the killing of Caesar "not that I lov'd Caesar less, but that I lov'd Rome more."
The Political Dilemma in Julius Caesar
70
To this juncture, we have no reason to question Brutus's explanation, and it is consistent with that of an
honorable person acting for the greater good. Marc Antony, of course, calls his honor into question, but this is
for propaganda reasons. When all is said and done, Antony proclaims the fallen Brutus to be the "noblest
Roman of them all," who alone among the conspirators was moved by "a general honest thought/And
common good to all" (Act V, scene v, ll.68, 71-72). In the last word, Brutus's honor is restored to him
according to its normal meaning.
But the last word falls to Marc Antony, and he has already misused the very term "honor" in relation to
Brutus. After he has killed Caesar and fled Rome, Brutus appears somewhat less honorable than he was in the
first half of the play. He argues with Cassius about trifles and is anything but democratic in his insistence on
moving forward to meet the army of Antonio and Octavius. Most telling of all, he is haunted by Caesar's ghost
on the eve of the Battle of Philippi, and this clearly shows us a guilty conscience that does not square with the
mind of an honorable man. Indeed, in the play's final scene, Brutus is unable to complete his suicide pact with
Cassius as planned. He cannot stab himself and must ask one of his loyal soldiers to perform the task. The
sense that we gain is that Brutus is honorable until the time that he actually kills Caesar, but that the
commission of this crime wounds his own "honorable" self.
The Character of Marc Antony
Marc Antony has the distinction of being a leading character in two of Shakespeare's Roman plays, the
relatively early Julius Caesar and the mature Antony and Cleopatra written a decade later. It is also a mature
Antony who romances Cleopatra, his Roman nobility being coupled with her Egyptian charms. In the earlier
play, however, Antony has not yet emerged as a global giant in his own right. At the outset of Julius Caesar,
he is the title character's protégé, but not his heir apparent, and although the conspirators consider him to be a
potential threat, his powers of retaliation are dismissed, the consensus being that once Caesar has been
dispatched, Antony will fall in line with the new regime. This does not occur. Remaining in the background
until his mentor is killed, Antony emerges from the shadows into the role of Caesar's main avenger in his
funeral oration over Caesar's body, propelling himself into political power. It is Antony who comes out as the
winner of the civil war, becoming a co-ruler of the entire Roman Empire. And, above all, it is Antony who
harbors ambition, coordinating his military plans with security for the person that will lend the new
government legitimacy, the boy Octavian, whom he will encounter again in Antony and Cleopatra. When
Brutus proclaims that "ambition's debt is paid" with the death of Julius Caesar, these words take on ironic
force as the play proceeds, for "ambition" is quickly resurrected in Marc Antony.
As the adage goes, "it takes on to know one," and when Cassius characterizes Mark Antony as a "shrewd
contriver" (II, i. l. 158), the events of the play bear him out. With Antony's ultimate fate unsettled, word
arrives through one of Antony's servants that while his master loved Caesar, he does not love Caesar as much
dead as he loves Brutus alive. The momentum against him forestalled, Antony appears in the flesh and offers
his life to the conspirators. His appeal is to Brutus (whom he knows to be honorable), and it is Brutus who
intercedes on Antony's behalf. But when he is left alone on stage, Antony reveals that he will avenge Caesar's
death. He then agitates the mob after concealing his intentions from the other conspirators, playing upon the
basest instincts of the rabble.
Moreover, it is not merely for the good purpose of deceiving wrong-doers so that he can exact justice upon
them that Antony speaks words that are at odds with his demeanor. Having fooled the conspirators into saving
his life, Antony alone on stage with Caesar's corpse shows no reverence whatsoever for the quasi-divinity of
his Emperor, saying "O, pardon me, though bleeding piece of earth/That I am meek and gentle with these
butchers" (III, I, .254-255). Not only does he denigrate Caesar's person into a piece of dirt, he makes it plain
that he will deal with these butchers as he sees fit, not as Caesar's blood cries out, but as suits Antony's own
plans.
The Character of Brutus: Is He an Honorable Man?
71
In fact, while he becomes the "noble Roman" of Antony and Cleopatra, in Julius Caesar Antony is not
distinguished by his honorable character but, instead, by his foresight and willingness to proceed under the
banner of a good cause, the restoration of legitimate rule under Caesar's rightful successor, Octavius. We
realize that Antony's involvement in this good cause stems from a mixture of motives. These include the
honorable duty of personal revenge against those who have slain his patron and his loyalty to the Roman state
and its sovereignty. But Antony fully realizes that the boy Octavius cannot rule on his own and that he,
Antony, will have the opportunity to prove his equality with even Caesar's heir by leading the loyalist armies
against Brutus and Cassius.
Antony's role as a less honorable man than Brutus (or, rather, Brutus until Julius Caesar's assassination) who
seizes the moment and attaches himself to the "right" side of political legitimacy is confirmed in Act IV, scene
i. He meets with Octavius and a third member of the emerging triumvirate, Lepidus, and it soon becomes
apparent that Lepidus is not the equal of his cohorts. After Lepidus is sent on a trivial mission by the dominant
Antony, Antony calls him an "a slight unmeritable man" and compares him to an ass, as a vehicle to be used
for the time but who is ultimately expendable. Lepidus does not appear again: ultimately he is imprisoned by
Octavius before his wars with the mature Antony of Antony and Cleopatra. What is plain from this episode is
that even his associates are expendable in Antony's eyes. Unless they have the capacity to sustain power, as
Octavius does but Lepidus does not, they are mere stepping stones for the more ambitious. Ultimately, Antony
is a cynic, and what honor he subject to its usage in the amoral exercise of power.
It is to Marc Antony that Shakespeare assigns the funeral eulogy of Act V, scene v. This, in itself, raises
ambiguity about Brutus's tarnished honor. Nonetheless, we almost believe Antony's assessment of his fallen
adversary. The qualities that he speaks of in Brutus, honesty, concern for the commonweal, and a "gentle"
nature, the attributes that "…say to all the world: `This was a man!'"(V. v. ll. 73-75), are precisely the qualities
that the opportunist Antony lacks. Antony is not honorable, but he above all can discern it in others, as he
does in Brutus. And as in the deception of Brutus and his gentle desire not to create a bloodbath by killing
Antony along with Caesar, Antony exploits the quality of honor in Brutus. Antony does not have honor, but
he is astute enough to see it in others.
Speechmaking in Act III, Scene ii
Act III, scene ii of Julius Caesar is one of the most critical points of the entire play. Caesar has just been
murdered, and the conspirators have yet to justify their action to an angry Roman public. Antony, meanwhile,
has sworn to avenge Caesar's death while publicly agreeing to the conspirators' demands. The outcome of the
entire play depends on who can gain the trust of the crowds, which both Brutus and Antony attempt to attain
through speechmaking. Both speeches reveal not only the purposes of the speakers, but also their
understanding of the events that have unfolded as well as aspects of their character. Because Antony, like his
mentor Caesar, understands what motivates the crowds, he is able to successfully persuade the Roman public
to turn against the conspirators and sweep them out of the city.
Brutus is the first to speak to the crowds after the assassination of Caesar. He speaks first because, as he
explains to Cassius in Act III, scene i, he hopes to gain an advantage with the crowds by showing Caesar
respect:
I will myself into the pulpit first
And show the reason of our Caesar's death.
What Antony shall speak I will protest
He speaks by leave and by permission
And that we are contented Caesar shall
Have all true rites and lawful ceremonies (ll. 261-266).
The Character of Marc Antony
72
This demonstrates Brutus' motivation not only for the next scene but also for the act of killing Caesar—he
wants to do what is honorable and good for Rome without seeming like a butcher. This is also the same reason
that Brutus refuses to allow the conspirators to kill Antony. Cassius, by contrast, does not concern himself
with appearing savage, but tells Brutus that allowing Antony to speak at Caesar's funeral is not a good idea, as
Antony may be able to sway the public. Brutus then makes the mistake of believing that he can control
Antony's influence by dictating what Antony may say at the funeral:
You shall not in your funeral speech blame us
But speak all good you can devise of Caesar
And say you do't by our permission,
Else shall you not have any hand at all
About his funeral. And you shall speak
In the same pulpit whereto I am going,
After my speech is ended (ll. 269-276).
Brutus mistakenly believes that by not allowing Antony to say anything bad about the conspirators and that by
making Antony speak after Brutus, he will be able to control any influence Antony may have over the people.
As we shall see, Antony obeys both instructions in his funeral oration but is still perfectly capable of turning
the crowds against the conspirators.
When the plebians demand an explanation for Caesar's murder, Brutus begins his appeal. Brutus' first
statement to the crowds is that they should listen to him because he is honorable, which should engender
respect for him. He then makes an appeal to the crowd's logic: "Censure me in your wisdom, and awake your
senses that you may the better judge" (ll. 17-19). This appeal is critical to Brutus' argument. The entire
premise of the conspirators' plot to kill Caesar is that Caesar must die because he may become a tyrant. They
have no proof that Caesar would become one, but they infer that he will because he has the power to do so.
This argument is logical in nature rather than emotional, and it is what has led Brutus to the conspiracy even
though he loves Caesar. In order for the crowds, who also love Caesar, to accept the actions of the
conspirators, they must, in Brutus' opinion, hear and believe the argument of the conspirators and repress their
emotions, which is why Brutus asks them to use their own logic in listening to his justification. In order to
remind the crowds why they should put aside their love for Caesar, Brutus then reminds them that he, too,
loves Caesar, probably more than any other, but that even Caesar is not more important than the love of
Rome. At this point, Brutus is making an appeal to love of country, which is often considered a "higher" love
than that of an individual (This is similar to the appeal to respect for honor that he makes in the beginning of
the speech). Brutus combines love of country and logical thought by asking the public if they would have
preferred to be slaves than for Caesar to die. He urges the Romans to appreciate all of the benefits that Caesar
brought to Rome, but not to forget that they might have become slaves because of Caesar's ambition. Brutus
then ends the first section of his speech with a series of questions to indicate that none of the Romans have
been offended or harmed by the death of Caesar. All of these arguments demonstrate what Brutus himself
believes to be important: honor, freedom, and love of country.
The second section of Brutus' speech occurs as Antony is bringing the body of Caesar out from the Capitol.
Brutus reminds his audience that he has not offended or harmed anyone, and that Caesar would have
eventually harmed them all because of his ambition. He also reminds them that they will all receive the
benefit of Caesar's death—freedom from tyranny. Once again, all of these arguments are designed to appeal to
the logic of the audience, and because Brutus speaks first, the audience is convinced. They even go so far as to
demand that Brutus be named Caesar, showing the same fickleness that moved them from support of Pompey
to Caesar in the first place. Brutus does offer two dramatic actions to reinforce the good opinion of the crowd
at the end of his speech. First, he offers to kill himself if his country needs him to do so (which the crowd begs
him not to), and then he demands that the crowd stay and listen to Antony's funeral oration while Brutus
departs alone. The first action is extremely dramatic yet underscores the logic of Brutus' arguments because
Speechmaking in Act III, Scene ii
73
the whole point of killing Caesar is that it is best for Rome. The second action, leaving before Antony's speech
and demanding that the crowd stay, is intended to show Brutus' faith in his own argument (and, quite possibly,
his overconfidence). By insisting that the public stay to for the funeral, Brutus appears to be fair and
honorable, qualities that he has been attempting to put forth during his speech. And for the moment, the crowd
believes him.
Unlike Brutus, Antony recognizes the gullibility of the Roman public and turns it to his advantage, while at
the same time obeying Brutus' strictures about not speaking against the conspirators. Although it seems as if
the Romans cannot be swayed after hearing Brutus' speech, Antony knows that the crowd easily changes
opinions and manipulates them by appealing to their emotions and to their own greed. Unlike Brutus, Antony
is not concerned with what is "honorable"—he only wants to avenge Caesar's death and to stop the
conspirators. In the first section of Antony's speech, he appears to be doing nothing more than following
Brutus' lead:
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him ...
The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious.
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it (ll. 82-89).
With this opening, Antony seems to be in agreement with the conspirators. Antony begins this way because
the crowds have already been convinced by Brutus' arguments, and Antony must lure them back bit by bit.
Recognizing that the crowds believe Brutus to be honorable (as Brutus spends so much of his speech
reminding them that he is), Antony uses the statement "Brutus says he [Caesar] was ambitious, and Brutus is
an honorable man" to bring the crowd from this belief in Brutus into an entirely different opinion of Brutus
and the conspirators. The first time Antony uses this statement is when he mentions to the public that the
conspirators have allowed him to speak, which he agreed to do in the previous scene. The second time he uses
it is after he notes that Caesar was a good and just friend, reminding the crowd that he too was close to Caesar.
Antony then proceeds to subtly attack Brutus' assertion that Caesar's ambition made him dangerous to Rome.
He reminds the crowd that Caesar brought a great deal of money through captive ransoms, he cried for the
poor and assisted them, and three times refused the crown that Antony offered him at Lupercal. These
statements, which are interspersed with the mantra "Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable
man," make the crowds begin to question if Caesar was indeed ambitious and tyrannical despite all of the
benefits he brought to Rome. This motivates the crowd not only to question Brutus' assertions, but also to
understand Antony's sorrow over Caesar's death. Antony emphasizes this in an appeal to the crowd's emotions
when he takes the dramatic pause at the end of the first part of his speech. This action is much like the
swooning of Caesar when Antony offers him the crowd—it is meant to manipulate the crowd for their support
and sympathy. And, just like Caesar, Antony's dramatic action stimulates the crowd's pity.
Now that he has stemmed the hostility of the crowd, Antony turns to motivating them to attack the
conspirators. After reminding the public once again that Brutus and the conspirators are honorable men, he
mentions the topic of Caesar's will. Instead of reading it immediately, Antony stirs the crowd's curiosity by
only mentioning that if he were to read it, the will would upset them because they would realize Caesar's love
for his countrymen. When the plebians begin to demand that Antony read the will, he continues to refuse for
the crowd's own "benefit," which, of course, makes the crowd more insistent. By doing this, Antony has not
only restored the love of the crowd for Caesar, but he has done so by getting the crowd to make him do it
instead of openly betraying the conspirators. This allows Antony to show Caesar's body to the crowd, an
action they would not have been influenced by earlier in his oration. However, now that Antony has motivated
their love for Caesar, their curiosity, and their greed, the sight of Caesar's mangled body moves the crowd
toward vengeance and rioting.
Speechmaking in Act III, Scene ii
74
Although Antony may well have manipulated the crowd enough to destroy the conspirators by this point, he
ensures his success by a few last tactical decisions. First, he once again reminds the crowd that the
conspirators are honorable and will have answers for the points that have come up during his funeral speech.
The effect of this reminder, of course, is to anger the crowd further and make them less likely to listen to the
conspirators, which occurs. Antony also says that he is not an orator as Brutus is, and has no power to
convince the crowd of anything. This appearance of being weak in comparison to Brutus makes Antony seem
pitiable while Brutus appears ambitious and powerful, the two traits Brutus has spent so much effort to
eradicate. Once again, Antony is not concerned with the truth of his statements—he knows he is a good
speaker because he is manipulating the crowds. Finally, Antony ensures his success when he reads Caesar's
will, which gives every citizen money and leaves all of his property to the state for public use. This final
reminder of Caesar's love for his people, which results in a monetary benefit for every citizen, stirs the greed
in the crowd and starts the rioting. Antony is able to succeed in his attempt to turn the Roman crowd against
the conspirators despite their earlier support of Brutus because Antony tailors his appeals to what matters most
to the Romans—their own material well-being.
The Role of Omens in Julius Caesar
One of the minor but still important themes of Julius Caesar is the issue of omens. There are several instances
in the play where incidents or statements predict an all-too-accurate future, yet the characters almost entirely
ignore these warnings despite noting their significance. What are these warnings, then, and what is their
importance if the characters in the play do not heed them? The answer lies in the faults of the characters
themselves.
One of the most prevalent examples of omens in the play is the Soothsayer. The Soothsayer first appears in
Act I, scene ii, to give Julius Caesar the famous (or infamous) warning to beware the ides of March. The
timing of this warning reveals an important aspect of Caesar's character. He has just ordered Calphurnia to
stand close enough to Antony during the chariot race so that he can touch her, which will hopefully cure her
of sterility. This order indicates that Caesar is superstitious, at least in regard to his wife. However, when the
Soothsayer warns Caesar to beware the ides of March, Caesar dismisses him as a "dreamer." This is typical of
Caesar throughout the play—he will often ask about the future, but if he receives an unfavorable reply, he
ignores it because he refuses to accept or even contemplate failure. This fault helps contribute to his death,
despite the Soothsayer's early warning.
The Soothsayer appears two more times in the play in order to remind the audience that Caesar is indeed
destined to die. While the Soothsayer merely warns Caesar of an impending problem on the feast of Lupercal,
the Soothsayer's motives are made more explicit in Act II, scene iv, in his conversation with Portia. Here the
Soothsayer reveals that he will go to the Capitol in an effort to beg Caesar to "befriend himself" (l. 30). This
demonstrates deliberate action on the part of the Soothsayer, who has already warned Caesar about this day.
Furthermore, the Soothsayer also mentions that he will have a great deal of trouble trying to gain Caesar's
attention because of the narrowness of the streets and the great crowds that constantly surround Caesar, which
"will crowd a feeble man almost to death" (l. 36). In order to avoid this, the Soothsayer will have to go to a
place that is less crowded. This is a great deal of effort from the Soothsayer, and it is clear that he wants
Caesar to avoid the impending harm that the Soothsayer "fears." However, despite all of this effort from the
Soothsayer to gain access to Caesar, he only exchanges one sentence of a reply to Caesar in Act III, scene i.
Caesar, who recognizes the Soothsayer from Lupercal, brags to him that "The ides of March are come," to
which the Soothsayer's response is merely "Ay, Caesar, but not gone" (ll. 1-2). Although this final warning is
ominous, it is also ambiguous, which gives Caesar the ability to ignore it, especially given Decius's assurances
that he will receive a crown from the Senate. The ambiguity of the Soothsayer's warnings, then, provides
Caesar with an excuse to ignore them so that he can be blinded by his own power.
The Role of Omens in Julius Caesar
75
Another type of omen occurs at the end of Act I and throughout Act II. Instead of someone foretelling the
future, this type of omen is a sign, and there are several of them in this part of the play. In Act I, scene iii, a
typically stoic Casca is terrified by the events occurring throughout the city on the night before Caesar's
murder. Casca tells Cicero that there has been a firestorm, a slave whose hand is on fire but not burned in the
least, a lion who is running around the capitol, a hundred horrified women who swear they have seen men in
flames walking the streets, and an owl shrieking in the middle of the marketplace in the middle of the day.
These events have frightened even Casca into believing that "they are portentous things/unto the climate that
they point upon" (ll. 31-32). Even Cassius, who later claims he has never believed in omens until the final
battle of the play, recognizes that these signs warn of the death of Caesar. (In fact, Cassius is so certain of this
that he even dares the heavens to strike him with lightning). These omens, along with the news that the Senate
has decided to name Caesar king, serve to motivate Cassius and the conspirators into enacting their murder
plot before Caesar can arrive at the Senate because the heavens are clearly on their side.
Meanwhile, a sign as well as another type of omen, a dream, will be delivered to Caesar. In Act II, scene ii,
Calphurnia begs Caesar not to go to the Senate on the ides of March because she has had three dreams that
Caesar will be murdered. These omens worry the otherwise-implacable Caesar, and he requests that the priests
do a sacrifice to tell him what the day's events will bring. This request, like the one he makes in Act I, scene ii,
show that Caesar does hold some belief in omens. The problem, however, is that Caesar's inflated notion of
his own power makes him insensitive to the warnings presented to him. This is clear in his response to
Calphurnia's news about the omens in the city (where she notes that numerous ghosts have been seen in
addition to the events that Casca lists in Act I, scene iii). Caesar, of course, is not frightened by this news, and
simply dismisses the events as a warning for the world instead of for himself. Even when Caesar is presented
with the findings of the priests, who could not find a heart within the beast that they sacrificed (the beast was
alive without a heart), Caesar refuses to stay home until Calphurnia literally gets on her knees to beg him.
Caesar makes it clear in this scene that he only stays home to calm Calphurnia, and does not recognize the
danger to himself because he thinks he is more powerful than danger. This is how Decius is able to persuade
Caesar into coming to the Senate despite his promise to Calphurnia and the multitude of omens throughout the
play—by appealing to Caesar's ego. Thus, even though Calphurnia believes and attempts to heed the warnings
of the omens, Caesar's overconfidence in his own power renders Calphurnia's beliefs useless.
Caesar, however, is not the only character who overestimates his own power and ignores the omens presented
to them. In Act IV, scene iii, another type of omen, a ghost appears to Brutus on the night before the final
battle. The ghost of Caesar informs Brutus that they will see each other again at Philippi. Brutus' fear of the
ghost stops him from asking anything other than why the ghost has come and if he will see the ghost again,
but the message is plain—Brutus' battle plan will not succeed. Despite this warning (as well as the objections
of Cassius), Brutus insists on attacking at Philippi because he sees it as the most logical plan of action. Brutus
has demonstrated great faith in the power of logic, a belief that motivates his actions in Act III, scene ii. This
belief in the power of logic is as strong as Caesar's belief in his ability to overcome danger, and it blinds both
characters from clearly seeing and understanding the events around them. Like Caesar's faith in his own
power, Brutus' belief that his logic is more powerful than the omen or the forces of Antony and Octavius will
lead to his downfall.
One final sign appears in the beginning of Act V that actually convinces one of the major characters of its
power, but is rendered useless by circumstances. Cassius notes that a pair of eagles who had accompanied his
legions from Sardis has flown away, and ravens, crows, and kites (scavengers) have come in their place.
Cassius, who claims to be a follower of Epicurus (who refused to believe in superstition or omens), now
changes his mind and "partly credit things that do presage" (l. 78). However, Cassius's reaction to the
terrifying omens of Act I, scene iii, indicates that he must have some belief in the power of signs. One
explanation for this is that in the beginning of the play, Cassius, like Caesar, only acknowledges the power of
the supernatural when it suits his purposes. However, unlike Caesar and Brutus, Cassius eventually comes to
recognize the power of omens even when they foretell something bad. Despite this belief, the battle is already
The Role of Omens in Julius Caesar
76
about to occur, and there is nothing that Cassius can do to stop it. This situation creates a parallel between
Cassius and Calphurnia—both recognize the dangers in the omens, but they cannot convince the victims of
them. Despite all of the signs, ghosts, and soothsayers in this play, the characters of Julius Caesar fall victim
to their own faults and render any warning of the future useless.
The Protagonists and Antagonists of Julius Caesar
Literary scholars have debated for centuries about the question of who exactly is the protagonist of this play.
The seemingly simple answer to this question would be Julius Caesar himself—after all, the play is named
after him, and the events of the play all relate to him. However, Caesar only appears in three scenes (four if
the ghost is included), thus apparently making him an unlikely choice for the protagonist, who is supposed to
be the main character. Meanwhile, Brutus, who is in the play much more often than Caesar (and actually lasts
until the final scene), is not the title character of the play, and is listed in the dramatis personae not only after
Caesar, but after the entire triumvirate and some senators who barely appear in the play. Determining the
protagonist is only a part of the issue, because the identification of the protagonist also defines who the
antagonists of the play are. If Caesar is the protagonist of the play, then Brutus, Cassius, and the rest of the
conspirators are antagonists whose function is to interfere with the goals of the protagonist. If Brutus is the
protagonist, then Caesar and the triumvirate become the antagonists who complicate his goals.
Given that the play is called Julius Caesar, let us first consider Caesar as the protagonist of the play. Caesar's
status and goals are clearly delineated in the first two scenes of the play. In the first scene, we learn that the
Roman public generally loves Caesar, while some of the Roman citizens are angered by his popularity. In Act
I, scene ii, Caesar's weaknesses and desires are revealed. He lacks an heir, which is why he makes Calphurnia
stand where Antony can touch her. He is not afraid of anything because he is "always Caesar," but he is wary
of Cassius. He is deaf in one ear and, as revealed by Cassius, has suffered through many medical conditions,
including epilepsy. He will play to the Roman crowd in order to maintain his popularity, which is why he
refuses the laurel with which Antony presents him. Most important of all, we learn in this scene that Caesar
hopes to be crowned king by the Roman Senate. Although this is the only scene in this act that Caesar appears
in, a great deal of his character is revealed in it, and his motivations and goals are clear.
The aspects of Caesar's character in Act I, scene ii, are expounded upon in Caesar's two other scenes. In Act
II, scene ii, Caesar's refusal to comply with Calphurnia's request that he stay at home because of the terrible
omens that have occurred throughout the night is a direct result of his weaknesses. Caesar is unafraid of the
omens because he refuses to show fear: "Caesar should be a beast without a heart/If he should stay at home
today for fear" (ll. 42-43). Caesar's reputation, then, is more important to him than ensuring his own safety.
This attribute of Caesar is compounded by his overestimation of his own power. Because he is "always
Caesar," Caesar believes that he can overcome anything, even danger itself:
Danger knows full well
That Caesar is more dangerous than he.
We are two lions littered in one day,
And I the elder and more terrible (ll. 44-47).
This inflated notion of Caesar's abilities is even criticized by Calphurnia in her response: "Alas, my lord,/Your
wisdom is consumed in confidence!" (ll. 48-49). It is a combination of this overconfidence, the desire to
appear unafraid of anything, and ambition to become king that allows Decius to convince Caesar to come to
the Senate, even though he has already told Calphurnia he will stay home. These aspects of Caesar's character
also appear in his final scene (alive) in the play. Caesar's overconfidence is displayed in his boast to the
Soothsayer that the ides of March have come without incident. His refusal to read Artemidorus' petition and to
allow Metellus Cimber to kneel before him recall his manipulation of the Roman public in Act I because
The Protagonists and Antagonists of Julius Caesar
77
Caesar pretends that he cares more about Rome than himself. Caesar's overconfidence in himself and his
decisions also lead him to reject Cimber's suit, because he is too "great" to be inconsistent and change his
mind (although this is what he does in Act II, scene ii). By the end of three scenes, then, Shakespeare has
managed to give us a complete picture of this would-be protagonist for whom the play is named. We know
Caesar's strengths, his weaknesses, and his desires. All of the aspects of the protagonist are fulfilled, including
whether or not the protagonist attains his goal, which Caesar does not because he is killed. Furthermore, the
rest of the play hinges on the death of Caesar and its consequences. The speeches of Act III, scene ii, the
rejection of the conspirators, the forming of the triumvirate and the war at the end of the play are all a direct
result of Caesar's death. Also, Shakespeare no longer focuses on any one specific character after this scene, as
the play alternates between the conspirators (mainly Brutus and Cassius) and the triumvirate (mainly Antony
and Octavius). All of the events in the last half of the play are overshadowed by the specter of Caesar, both
figuratively, and, in the case of Act IV, scene iii, literally. These arguments would support the identification of
Caesar as protagonist, and of Brutus, Cassius, and the conspirators as antagonists.
Despite this, there are compelling reasons to argue that Brutus, and not Caesar, is the protagonist of the play.
Like Caesar, Brutus is also prominently featured in Act I, scene ii, and Brutus' character traits are also
revealed in depth in this scene. Cassius immediately notes Brutus' apparent anguish over the idea of Caesar as
king. This observation demonstrates that Brutus, although Caesar's best friend, puts the affairs of his country
above his own personal concerns. This "honorable" attribute makes it difficult for Brutus to accept the loss of
freedom that will occur if Caesar becomes monarch. It is also the means that Cassius will use in order to
persuade Brutus to join the conspiracy. Brutus will spend the first two acts of the play attempting to reconcile
his love for his country and his love for Caesar. The development of Brutus' character from this internal
conflict is illustrated throughout the first half of the play, and the time that Shakespeare takes to focus on it
suggests that we are meant to view Brutus as the protagonist.
Not only is Brutus' decision about whether or not to join the conspiracy the main focus of the first two acts of
the play, his final decision to become a conspirator eventually makes him the leader of the group. Although
Cassius is the one who organizes the conspiracy and works very hard to ensure Brutus' participation in it, it is
Brutus who determines the plans of the conspiracy once he decides to join it. This is evident in Brutus'
rejection of the idea of killing Antony (although Cassius is clearly correct in fearing Antony's love for
Caesar). Brutus' power in the murder scene is also clear. Caesar does not fall until Brutus stabs him, even
though he is the last of the conspirators to do so: "Et tu, Brute?—Then fall Caesar" (Act III, scene i, l. 76). The
implication here is that it is Brutus that murders Caesar, and not the rest of the conspirators. Once Caesar falls,
Brutus is the one who directs the course of events. He tells the conspirators to bathe in Caesar's blood, and he
is the one who decides that Antony should be allowed to speak at Caesar's funeral, despite Cassius' warnings
that he should not. Brutus' role as leader of the conspirators remains intact throughout the rest of the play, and
is what leads to the eventual failure of the conspiracy.
Brutus is the only character who is clearly a focus point throughout the play. Caesar dies in Act III, and he
never appears in a scene in which Brutus does not also appear. Antony does not become a major character
until after Caesar's death. Cassius begins the conspiracy, but allows Brutus to take charge and determine the
fate of the conspirators, despite Cassius' better judgment. Brutus is also the only character whose development
and progression is actually portrayed on a consistent basis throughout the play, and his death at the end of Act
V is as momentous and riveting as Caesar's. Also, Brutus' concerns for Rome if Caesar were to become king
are valid—liberty would be in danger because freedom would be only at the whim of Caesar, and Caesar could
very well have become a tyrant because of it. Caesar's pursuit of monarchy arguably becomes antagonistic to
the needs of Rome and its citizens. If one accepts these arguments, it is Brutus who is the protagonist of the
play, and Caesar and the triumvirate, especially Antony, who become the antagonists, especially because they
attempt to enslave the free men of Rome.
The Protagonists and Antagonists of Julius Caesar
78
Unlike many of Shakespeare's other plays, Julius Caesar has no clear protagonist. The case can be made that
Caesar is the central figure because of his dominance of the play's events. Brutus, too, can be viewed as the
protagonist, as he is the character with the most progression and has much more time on stage than Caesar.
One possible explanation for this discrepancy is the Elizabethan public, who had two minds about the
historical death of Caesar. During the medieval period, the murder of Caesar was seen as horrendous, but
during the Renaissance, some argued that the conspirators were correct in attempting to preserve their
freedom. Some literary critics argue that these two opinions find their way into the play by Shakespeare's
presentation of both points of view. If this is the case, there can be no one clear protagonist because that
would give us only one focal point when we are meant to look at both sides of the issue.
Women in Julius Caesar
The women characters in Julius Caesar are not themselves instrumental in the plot and therefore have little
importance as characters in their own right. To a certain extent, they serve to illuminate the more personal, as
opposed to the public, sides of their respective husbands. They also provide elements of love and loyalty in a
play that is largely concerned with death and intrigue.
Portia is the more fully described of the two women and provides a portrait of a woman of above average
strength and quality. Throughout the play, references to womanly qualities are used to denote the weaker sides
of men's characters. Women are supposedly weak physically and intellectually. Thus for a man to be called
womanly is an insult to his strength of character. Cassius is especially prone to making such equations
between women and weakness and less worthy qualities of character. In pointing to the cowardice of the
population in accepting Caesar's rule, he states
Our father's minds are dead
And we are governed by our mothers’ spirits. (I. iii. 82-3)
Portia is an example of a woman who does not conform to the prevailing idea of the limitations of women in
general. As the wife of Brutus and the daughter of Cato, she regards herself as necessarily stronger than the
rest of her sex. To prove herself, she wounds herself in the thigh to show she is physically capable of bearing
pain. So, too, she concludes, has she the strength of mind to bear Brutus’s secret.
But Portia also retains her womanly qualities. Worried at her husband's melancholy mood, his troubled
thoughts and his new impatience, she persistently uses her womanly guile to draw his secret from him. She is
aware that Brutus’s anxiety is not a physical sickness. As his wife, it is her right to share his every thought,
and she appeals to him, through love, and on her knees, to divulge his secret. Portia demands that he
remember their marriage vows. He should treat her as a wife, not as a harlot who would only know the outer
man, not the inner, thus instilling a guilt in him. Brutus must admit her nobility.
Though Portia has strengths normally attributed only to men, she also possesses womanly qualities:
I have a man's mind but a woman's might. (II. iv. 8)
Her anxiety over Brutus's mission, she also considers a weakness, as though love were a weakness. Her final
proof of strength comes when she horribly kills herself because of Anthony's growing power which is a threat
to her husband.
Portia, more than Calphurnia, is a character in her own right. Calphurnia serves merely to illustrate the weaker
side of Caesar's character. Caesar has lately become superstitious. When Calphurnia dreams of his death,
declaring it a portent of what is to come, Caesar tends to believe her because she is not normally inclined to
Women in Julius Caesar
79
attach importance to such omens. He himself is led to order sacrifices to be made to find whether they
forebode good or ill. Calphurnia knows the portents are specifically for her husband’s benefit. Caesar, on his
part, wants to suppress this weaker side of himself that would give credence to the omens, and concludes that
no-one can change what the gods ordain. The signs, he continues, are for the world in general. Calphurnia is
convinced that such storms and thunder and lightning that have recently taken place, do not foretell the death
of common people.
Caesar professes not to fear death. Only the valiant do not think of death constantly. But the results of the
sacrifices strengthen Calphurnia’s fears. For his part, Caesar is afraid to be called a coward should he fail to
appear at the Capitol, and for this reason does not want to heed Calphurnia, that is, his weaker side. He is, he
says, more dangerous than danger. Calphurnia retaliates by warning him that confidence is obscuring wisdom.
But her wisdom is intuitive. Brutus professes to match Calphurnia’s love for Caesar with love plus reason,
and appeals to Caesar's vanity by pointing out that he will be called a coward for staying away from the
Capitol because of his wife's whims. Thus Caesar is forced to feel ashamed of yielding to Calphurnia’s and
by extension, his own fears embodied in her dreams. Calphurnia is willing that he use her fear and weakness
as an excuse for his own. For her, love overrules courage, which will lead Caesar to his death. Unlike Brutus,
she cannot offer the ‘manly’ quality of reason. She has nothing to substantiate her fears. Though, like Portia,
she uses womanly charm in supplication by kneeling to her husband, he cannot heed the ‘womanly’ in
himself. She begs his compliance, knowing she can save him but he must suppress this weaker side of his
nature. His ‘womanliness’ is externalized in Calphurnia.
Part of Portia's role is to point out Brutus’s indecision and his basic nobility, for the scene between husband
and wife proves Brutus’s genuine distress at having to kill his friend. In private, with his wife, we know the
full extent and effect of this distress, and how it has changed his demeanor. He has become impatient and can
neither eat nor sleep, Portia bears witness to the difficulty of his position.
Calphurnia reflects the dichotomy of Caesar as man and husband. In ignoring her advice, he acts like Caesar
the soldier and politician. He is a little ashamed of Caesar the husband, for this role embodies his weaknesses.
The scene with Calphurnia serves to show these conflicting traits that make up the total man.
Julius Caesar: Criticism
Overviews
Lawrence Danson
[Danson presents an in-depth overview of Julius Caesar, focusing on how the linguistic strategies in the play's
major scenes contribute to the overall tragic progression of the play. The critic also assesses whether Caesar
or Brutus is the tragic hero of the drama and examines the circumstances surrounding Caesar's assassination
and Mark Antony's subsequent funeral speech (III. ii 73ff.). Danson concludes the essay by briefly contrasting
the themes developed in Shakespeare's tragedy with the known historical facts of Brutus's conspiracy and
Caesar's murder, ultimately arguing that the two points of view cannot necessarily be reconciled.]
In Julius Caesar we find ... those problems of communication and expression, those confusions linguistic and
ritualistic, which mark the world of the tragedies. The play opens with the sort of apparently expository scene
in which Shakespeare actually gives us the major action of the play in miniature. Flavius and Marullus, the
tribunes, can barely understand the punning language of the commoners ... It is ostensibly broad daylight in
Rome, but the situation is dream-like; for although the language which the two classes speak is phonetically
identical, it is, semantically, two separate languages. The cobbler's language, though it sounds like the
tribunes', is (to the tribunes) a sort of inexplicable dumb show.
Julius Caesar: Criticism
80
And as with words, so with gestures; the certainties of ceremonial order are as lacking in Rome, as are the
certainties of the verbal language. The commoners present an anomaly to the tribunes simply by walking
"Upon a labouring day without the sign / Of [their] profession" [I. i. 4-5]. To the commoners it is a "holiday,"
to the tribunes (although in fact it is the Feast of Lupercal), a "labouring day." The commoners have planned
an observance of Caesar's triumph—itself, to the tribunes, no triumph but rather a perversion of Roman
order—but the tribunes send the "idle creatures" off to perform a quite different ceremony:
Go, go, good countrymen, and for this fault
Assemble all the poor men of our sort;
Draw them to Tiber banks, and weep your tears
Into the channel, till the lowest stream
Do kiss the most exalted shores of all.
[1.1. 56-60]
Thus, in a Rome where each man's language is foreign to the next, ritual gestures are converted into their
opposites; confusion in the state's symbolic system makes every action perilously ambiguous. The tribunes,
having turned the commoners' planned ritual into its opposite, go off bravely to make their own gesture, to
"Disrobe the images" of Caesar [I. i. 64]: but shortly we learn that they have actually been made to play parts
in a bloodier ritual (one which, as we shall see, becomes increasingly common in the play). And when, in a
later scene, we find Brutus deciding upon his proper gesture, the confusions of this first scene should recur to
us.
The second scene again opens with mention of specifically ritual observance, as Caesar bids Calphurnia stand
in Antony's way to receive the touch which will "Shake off [her] sterile curse" [I. il. 9]. Perhaps Shakespeare
intends to satirize Caesar's superstitiousness; at least we can say that Calphurnia's sterility and the fructifying
touch introduce the question, what sort of ritual can assure (political) succession in Rome? Directly, the
Soothsayer steps forth, warning Caesar, "Beware the ides of March." But this communication is not
understood: "He is a dreamer; Let us leave him. Pass" [I. ii. 24].
What follows, when Caesar and his train have passed off the stage leaving Brutus and Cassius behind, is an
enactment—virtually an iconic presentation—of the linguistic problem. More clearly even than the first scene,
this scene gives us the picture of Rome as a place where words and rituals have dangerously lost their
conventional meanings. As Cassius begins to feel out Brutus about the conspiracy—telling him of Rome's
danger and wishes, of Caesar's pitiful mortality, of Brutus's republican heritage—their conversation is
punctuated by shouts from offstage, shouts at whose meaning they can only guess (pp. 52-3).
Casca, an eye-witness to the ritual in the marketplace, finally arrives to be their interpreter; but even he has
understood imperfectly. Caesar (he says) has been offered the crown, but
I can as well be hang'd as tell the manner of it: it was mere foolery; I did not mark it. I saw
Mark Antony offer him a crown—yet 'twas not a crown neither, 'twas one of these coronets ...
[I. ii. 235-38]
Caesar refused the crown, but Casca suspects "he would fain have had it." "The rabblement hooted," and
Caesar "swooned and fell down at" the stench [I. ii. 244, 248], As for the rest, Cicero spoke, but again the
language problem intervened: "He spoke Greek" [I. ii. 279]. There is other news: "Marullus and Flavius, for
pulling scarfs off Caesar's images, are put to silence" [I. ii. 285-86]. And, "There was more foolery yet, if I
could remember it" [I. ii. 287].
The dramatic point of it all lies not so much in the conflict between republican and monarchical principles, as
in the sheer confusion of the reported and overheard scene. It is all hooting and clapping and uttering of bad
Overviews
81
breath, swooning, foaming at the mouth, and speaking Greek. Casca's cynical tone is well suited to the
occasion, for the farcical charade of the crown-ritual, with Caesar's refusal and Antony's urging, is itself a
cynical manipulation. The crowd clapped and hissed "as they use to do the players in the theatre" [I. ii.
260]—and rightly so.
These two opening scenes give us the world in which Brutus is to undertake his great gesture. When we next
see Brutus, his decision is made: "It must be by his death" [II. i. 10]. Behind Brutus's decision is that linguistic
and ceremonial confusion which is comic in the case of the commoners and sinister in the case of Caesar's
crown-ritual. The innovations in Rome's ceremonial order give evidence to Brutus for the necessity of his
gesture. But those same innovations, attesting to a failure in Rome's basic linguistic situation, also make it
most probable that his gesture will fail. Brutus is not unlike Hamlet: he is a man called upon to make an
expressive gesture in a world where the commensurate values necessary to expression are lacking. The killing
of Caesar, despite the honorable intentions that are within Brutus and passing show, will thus be only one
more ambiguous, misunderstood action in a world where no action can have an assured value. Brutus's grand
expression might as well be Greek in this Roman world.
Brutus's position is not unlike Hamlet's, but he does not see what Hamlet sees. Indeed, he does not even see as
much as his fellow conspirators do. To Cassius, the dreadful and unnatural storm over Rome reflects "the
work we have in hand" [I. iii. 129]; to the thoughtful Cassius, the confusion in the heavens is an aspect of the
confusion in Rome. But Brutus is, typically, unmoved by the storm, and calmly makes use of its strange light
to view the situation: "The exhalations, whizzing in the air, / Give so much light that I may read by them" [II.
i. 44-5]. And what he reads by this deceptive light is as ambiguous as the shouts of the crowd at the
crown-ritual: the paper bears temptations slipped into his study by the conspirators, words that mislead and
may betray. On the basis of this mysterious communication, revealed by a taper's dim light and the unnatural
"exhalations" above, Brutus determines to "speak and strike" [II. i. 55]. Every sign is misinterpreted by
Brutus; and the world that seems to him to make a clear demand for words and gestures is in fact a world
where words are equivocal and where gestures quickly wither into their opposites.
The situation, as I have so far described it, forces upon us the question critics of the play have most frequently
debated: who is the play's hero? A simple enough question, it would seem: the title tells us that this is The
Tragedy of Julius Caesar. But that answer only serves to show the actual complexity of the question, for if
Caesar (who is, after all, dead by the middle of the play) is to this play what say, Hamlet is to his, then Julius
Caesar is, structurally at least, a most peculiar tragedy. The question of the hero—and a glance at the critical
literature shows that the position is indeed questionable—bears upon fundamental matters of meaning and
structure.
Now it is a curious fact about Shakespeare's plays (and, to an extent, about all drama) that the questions the
critics ask have a way of duplicating the questions the characters ask, as though the playwright had done his
best to make all criticism redundant. As if the play were not enough, nor the characters sufficient unto their
conflicts, the critical audience continues to fight the same fights and ask the same questions the characters in
the play do. Of Julius Caesar, as I have said, the question we most often ask concerns the play's hero: Caesar
or Brutus? I have not bothered to tally the choices; for our purposes it is more interesting to notice the mode
of critical procedure and the way in which it tends to imitate the actions of the characters in the play. Both
critics and characters tend to choose sides in their respective conflicts on the bases of political prejudice and
evaluations of moral rectitude. Since the moral and political issues in Julius Caesar are themselves eternally
moot, it is not surprising that the critical debate continues unresolved.
About Caesar, for instance: if we try to make our determination of herohood on the basis of Caesar's moral
stature, we are doing precisely what the characters do; and we find, I think, that he becomes for us what he is
for Shakespeare's Romans, less a man than the object of men's speculations. Caesar is the Colossus whose legs
we may peep about but whom we can never know; characters and audience alike peep assiduously, each gives
Overviews
82
us a partial view which simply will not accord any other. Within the play, Caesar is virtually constituted of the
guesses made about him: Casca's rude mockery, Cassius's sneers, Brutus's composite portrait of the present
Caesar (against whom he knows no wrong) and the dangerous serpent of the future, Antony's passionate
defense, the mob's fickle love and hate: these are the guesses, and contradictory as they are, they give us the
Caesar of the play—and of the play's critics.
Of Caesar's, or for that matter of Brutus's, moral status we can have little more certain knowledge than the
characters themselves have. What we are in a privileged position to know is the structure of the play: the
characters' prison, the play's encompassing form, is our revelation. What I propose to do, therefore, is to look
at the implicit answer Brutus gives (through his actions) to the question, who is the play's tragic hero?, and
compare that answer to the answer revealed by the play's unfolding structure.
Everything Brutus does (until the collapse of the conspiracy) is calculated to justify the title of the play, to
make it indeed The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. As we watch Brutus directing the conspiracy,
that Caesar indeed be its hero-victim. The assassination, as Brutus conceives it, must have all the solemnity
and finality of a tragic play. The wonder of the spectacle must, as in tragedy, join the audience (both within
and without the play) into a community of assent to the deed. For his part, Brutus is content with a necessary
secondary role, the mere agent of the hero's downfall ... (pp. 54-7).
But of course Brutus's plot (in both senses of the word) is a failure. The withholding of assent by the audience
(again, both within and without the play) proves his failure more conclusively than do moral or political
considerations. Brutus misunderstands the language of Rome; he misinterprets all the signs both cosmic and
earthly; and the furthest reach of his failure is his failure to grasp, until the very end, the destined shape of his
play. Brutus's plot is a failure, but by attending to the direction he tries to give it we can find, ironically, a
clear anatomy of the typical tragic action.
Brutus makes his decision and in Act II, scene i he meets with the conspirators. Decius puts the question,
"Shall no man else be touch'd but only Caesar?" [II. i. 154]. Cassius, whose concerns are wholly practical,
urges Antony's death. But Brutus demurs: the assassination as he conceives it has a symbolic dimension as
important as its practical dimension; and although Brutus is not able to keep the two clearly separated (he
opposes Antony's death partly out of concern for the deed's appearance "to the common eyes" [II. i. 179]) he
is clear about the need for a single sacrificial victim. His emphasis on sacrifice indicates the ritual shape
Brutus hopes to give the assassination:
Let's be sacrificers, but not butchers, Cassius.
We all stand up against the spirit of Caesar,
And in the spirit of men there is no blood.
O that we then could come by Caesar's spirit,
And not dismember Caesar! But, alas,
Caesar must bleed for it! And, gentle friends,
Let's kill him boldly, but not wrathfully;
Let's carve him as a dish fit for the gods,
Not hew him as a carcass fit for hounds ...
We shall be call'd purgers, but not murderers.
[II. i. 166-74, 180]
The "sacrifice" must not be confused with murder, with mere butchery. The name of the deed becomes all
important, indicating the distance between a gratuitous, essentially meaningless gesture, and a sanctioned,
efficacious, unambiguous ritual.
Overviews
83
But Brutus's speech, with a fine irony, betrays his own fatal confusion. "In the spirit of men there is no blood,"
but in this spirit—this symbol, this embodiment of Caesarism [dictatorship]—there is, "alas," as much blood as
Lady Macbeth will find in Duncan. Whatever we may feel about Brutus's political intentions, we must
acknowledge a failure which has, it seems to me, as much to do with logic and language as with politics:
Brutus is simply unclear about the difference between symbols and men. And his confusion, which leads to
the semantic confusion between "murder" and "sacrifice," and between meaningless gestures and sanctioned
ritual, is the central case of something we see at every social level in Rome. The assassination Brutus plans as
a means of purging Rome dwindles to just more of the old ambiguous words and empty gestures. The
assassination loses its intended meaning as surely as the commoners' celebration did in scene i.
The assassination is surrounded by Brutus with all the rhetoric and actions of a sacrificial rite. It becomes
ritually and literally a bloodbath, as Brutus bids,
Stoop, Romans, stoop,
And let us bathe our hands in Caesar's blood
Up to the elbows, and besmear our swords.
[II. i. 105-07]
Even the disastrous decision to allow Antony to address the mob arises from Brutus's concern that "Caesar
shall / Have all true rites and lawful ceremonies" [III. i. 240-41]. In Brutus's plot, where Caesar is the
hero-victim whose death brings tragedy's "calm of mind, all passion spent," no one, not even Antony, should
be left out of the ceremonious finale. With the conspirators' ritualized bloodbath, indeed, the implied
metaphor of the assassination-as-drama becomes explicit—if also horribly ironic:
Cas. Stoop then, and wash. How many ages hence
Shall this our lofty scene be acted over
In states unborn and accents yet unknown!
Bru. How many times shall Caesar bleed in sport ...
[01. i. 111-14]
Trapped in their bloody pageant, these histrionic conspirators cannot see what, in the terms they themselves
suggest, is the most important point of all: this lofty scene occurs, not at the end, but in the middle of a tragic
play.
Brutus's plot is not Shakespeare's; and immediately after the conspirators have acted out what should be the
denouement of their tragic play, the actual shape of the play (the one they cannot see as such) begins to make
itself clear. Antony, pointedly recalling Brutus's distinction between "sacrificers" and "butchers," says to the
slaughtered symbol of tyranny, "O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth, / That I am meek and gentle with
these butchers!" [III. i. 254-55], and announces the further course of the action:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.
[III. i. 270-75]
Brutus's revolutionary gesture, which was intended to bring to birth a stabler order, has been (in an esthetic as
well as a political sense) premature. His ritual has failed, and now, as Caesar's spirit ranges for revenge (for
there is blood in the spirits of men), it still remains for the proper ritual to be found. Now Brutus will at last
Overviews
84
assume his proper role: Brutus must be our tragic hero.
Of course he does his best to deny that role. His stoicism—the coolness, for instance, with which he dismisses
Caesar's ghost: "Why, I will see thee at Philippi, then" [IV. iii. 286]—is hardly what we expect of the grandly
suffering tragic hero. Still, it is to Brutus that we owe one of the finest descriptions of the peculiar moment in
time occupied by a Shakespearean tragedy:
Since Cassius first did whet me against Caesar,
I have not slept.
Between the acting of a dreadful thing
And the first motion, all the interim is
Like a phantasma or a hideous dream.
The Genius and the mortal instruments
Are then in council; and the state of man,
Like to a little kingdom, suffers then
The nature of an insurrection.
[II. i. 61-9]
The moment is suspended, irresolute, but charged with the energy to complete itself. The separation of
"acting" from "first motion," of "Genius" from "mortal instruments," is an intolerable state—the measure of it
is the insomnia—which demands resolution ... [It] is the tragic moment, and Brutus, for all his Roman calm,
must pass through it to its necessary completion.
The acting of the "dreadful thing"—or, rather, what Brutus thinks is the dreadful thing, Caesar's death—does
not bring the promised end; that is made immediately clear. Antony's funeral oration shows that Brutus's
grand gesture has changed little. Antony easily converts Brutus's sacrifice into murder. In Rome ... men's
actions merely "seem," and Antony can shift the intended meaning of Brutus's action as easily as the tribunes
had changed the intended meaning of the commoner's actions in Act I, scene i. Antony can use virtually the
same words as the conspirators—he can still call Brutus an "honourable man" and Caesar "ambitious"—and yet
make condemnation of approval and approval of condemnation. Even after the revolutionary moment of
Caesar's death, this Rome is all of apiece: a volatile mob, empty ceremonies, and a language as problematic as
the reality it describes.
Even names are problematic here. It was with names that Cassius first went to work on Brutus:
'Brutus' and 'Caesar'. What should be in that 'Caesar'?
Why should that name be sounded more than yours?
Write them together: yours is as fair a name.
Sound them: it doth become the mouth as well.
Weigh them: it is as heavy. Conjure with 'em:
'Brutus' will start a spirit as soon as 'Caesar'.
[I. ii. 142-47]
Cassius's contemptuous nominalism reminds one of Edmund in King Lear, who also thinks that one
name—that of "bastard," for instance—is as good as any other. Names, to Cassius and Edmund, are
conventional signs having reference to no absolute value, and they may be manipulated at will.
In his funeral oration, Antony also plays freely with names; and with the repetition of those two names
"Brutus" and "Caesar" he does indeed conjure a spirit. It is the spirit of riot, of random violence, and its first
victim (with a grotesque appropriateness) is a poet and a name:
Overviews
85
3 Pleb. Your name sir, truly.
Cin. Truly, my name is Cinna.
1 Pleb. Tear him to pieces; he's a conspirator!
Cin. I am Cinna the poet, I am Cinna the poet
4 Pleb. Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his bad verses!
Cin. I am not Cinna the conspirator.
4 Pleb. It is no matter, his name's Cinna; pluck but his name out of his heart, and turn him
going.
3 Pleb. Tear him, tear him!
[III. iii. 26-35]
"Pluck but his name out of his heart, and turn him going": it is like Brutus's impossible, "And in the spirit of
men there is no blood" [II. i. 168]. Again, it is the confusion between symbol and reality, between the abstract
name and the blood-filled man who bears it. Poets, whose genius it is to mediate symbol and reality and to
find the appropriate name to match all things, generally have rough going in Julius Caesar. Brutus the
liberator shows how he has insensibly aged into a figure indistinguishable from the tyrant when he dismisses a
peace-making poet with a curt, "What should the wars do with these jigging fools?" [IV. iii. 137]. And Caesar,
too, had rebuffed a poetical soothsayer.
The gratuitous murder of Cinna the poet reflects ironically upon the murder of Caesar. The poet's rending at
the hands of the mob is unreasonable, based solely on a confusion of identities (of names, words), and while it
bears some resemblance to the sacrifice of a scapegoat figure, it is really no sacrifice at all but unsanctioned
murder. Caesar's death, similarly, was undertaken as a sacrificial gesture, but quickly became identified with
plain butchery. In the mirror of the Cinna episode the assassination is seen as only one case in a series of
perverted rituals—a series that runs with increasing frequency now, until the proper victim and the proper form
are at last found.
Immediately following the murder of Cinna we see the new triumvirate pricking the names of its victims. The
death of Caesar has released the motive force behind the tragedy, and that force runs unchecked now until the
final sacrifice at Philippi. From the very first scene of the play we have witnessed ritual gestures that wither
into meaninglessness; with the conspiracy and Caesar's death, we become aware of sacrifice as the particular
ritual toward which the world of the play is struggling: the series of mistaken rituals becomes a series of
mistaken sacrifices, culminating at Philippi.
The wrong sacrifice, the wrong victim: the play offers an astonishing gallery of them. It has been noticed that
all of the major characters implicate themselves in this central action:
each character in the political quartet in turn makes a similar kind of theatrical gesture
implying the sacrifice of his own life: to top his refusal of the crown, Caesar offers the Roman
mob his throat to cut; Brutus shows the same people that he has a dagger ready for himself, in
case Rome should need his death; with half-hidden irony, Antony begs his death of the
conspirators; and in the quarrel scene, Cassius gives his "naked breast" for Brutus to strike.
[Adrien Bonjour, in his The Structure of "Julius Caesar"]
The idea of sacrifice is imagistically linked to the idea of hunters and the hunted. Caesar, says Antony, lies
"like a deer strucken by many princes" [III. i. 209]. The ruthless Octavius feels, improbably enough, that he is
"at the stake, / And bay'd about with many enemies" [IV. i. 48-9]. But it was the conspirators themselves who
first suggested the analogy between sacrifice and hunting: their blood-bathing ceremony suggests (as Antony
makes explicit) the actions of a hunter with his first kill. And finally, appropriately, the sacrifice-hunting
imagery fastens on Brutus: "Our enemies have beat us to the pit" [V. v. 23].
Overviews
86
From a slightly different perspective, the final scenes at Philippi might be a comedy of errors. Military
bungles and mistaken identities follow quickly on each other's heels; the number of suicides, especially, seems
excessive. Of the suicide of Titinius, a relatively minor character, [Harley] Granville-Barker asks [in his
Prefaces to Shakespeare], "why, with two suicides to provide for, Shakespeare burdened himself with this
third?" The answer to his question, and the explanation for the apparent excesses generally, must be found, I
believe, in the context of false sacrifice throughout the play. Caesar's death was one such false sacrifice; Cinna
the poet's a horrible mistake; the political murders by the triumvirate continued the chain; and now Cassius
sacrifices himself on the basis of a mistake, while Titinius follows out of loyalty to the dead Cassius. Brutus
embarked on the conspiracy because he misinterpreted the confused signs in, and above, Rome; the intended
meaning of his own gesture was in turn subverted by Antony and the mob. And now Cassius has
misinterpreted the signs: friendly troops are mistaken for hostile, their shouts of joy are not understood; thus
"Caesar, thou art reveng'd," as Cassius dies, in error, "Even with the sword that kill'd thee" [V. iii. 45-6]. And,
because Cassius has "misconstrued everything" (as Titinius puts it [V. iii. 84]), Titinius now dies, bidding,
"Brutus, come apace" [V. iii. 87].
Titinius places a garland on the dead Cassius before he dies himself; and Brutus, entering when both are dead,
pronounces a solemn epitaph:
Are yet two Romans living such as these?
The last of all the Romans, fare thee well!
It is impossible that ever Rome
Should breed thy fellow. Friends, I owe moe tears
To this dead man than you shall see me pay.
I shall find time, Cassius, I shall find time.
[V. iii. 98-103]
The words and the actions form an appropriate tragic device of wonder—but this is no more the end than it was
when Brutus spoke an epitaph for Caesar. The death of Cassius is still not the proper sacrifice, and the play
has still to reach its culminating ritual.
At Philippi, Brutus at last accepts his role. Against the wishes of Cassius, Brutus insists upon meeting the
enemy even before (as the enemy puts it), "we do demand of them" [V. i. 6]. The ghost of Caesar has
appeared and Brutus has accepted its portent: "I know my hour is come" [V. v. 20]. Most significant in
Brutus's final speeches is their tone of acceptance:
Countrymen,
My heart doth joy that yet in all my life
I found no man but he was true to me.
I shall have glory by this losing day,
More than Octavius and Mark Antony
By this vile conquest shall attain unto.
So fare you well at once; for Brutus' tongue
Hath almost ended his life's history.
Night hangs upon mine eyes; my bones would rest,
That have but labour'd to attain this hour.
[V. v. 33-42]
The expressed idea of the glorious defeat is an authentic sign of Shakespearean tragedy ... Brutus recognizes
here the necessary end of "his life's history" [V. v. 40]: all, from the very start, has tended to this gesture. (pp.
57-66)
Overviews
87
And this gesture receives, as the assassination of Caesar did not, the requisite assent. Brutus "hath honour by
his death" [V. v. 57], says Strato; and Lucilius, "So Brutus should be found" [V. v. 58]. The opposing parties
join together now in Octavius's service, and it is Antony himself who can pronounce the epitaph, "This was
the noblest Roman of them all" [V. v. 68]. His words and the gestures are universally accepted.
But what of Rome and its future? ... [It] is the close involvement of Julius Caesar with widely known
historical facts which forces upon us the recognition of ... truth's limitations. Indeed, the play contains
hints—the bloody, divisive course of the triumvirate has been made plain, for instance—which, even without
prior historical knowledge, might make us temper our optimism over the play's conclusion. With Brutus's
death the play has revealed its tragic entelechy [scheme]; the destined shape has been found, and the discovery
brings its esthetic satisfactions. That the price of our pleasure is the hero's death is not (as in King Lear it will
so terribly be) a source of discomfort. But what we cannot dismiss is our knowledge that every end is also a
beginning. History will have its way; "fate" will defeat men's "wills"; and the "glory" of this "losing day" will
tarnish and become, in the movement of time, as ambiguous as the glorious loss on the ides of March.
Thus we must entertain two apparently opposite points of view. With Brutus's sacrificial gesture the ritual has
been found which can satisfy the dramatic expectations created by the play. The final words are spoken, the
language is understood; and thus the play has given us what Robert Frost demanded of all poetry, "a
momentary stay against confusion." But if we stress in Frost's definition his modifying word momentary, we
find ourselves cast back upon history; and once out of the timeless world of the play, "confusion"
predominates. (pp. 66-7)
Lawrence Danson, "Julius Caesar," in his Tragic Alphabet: Shakespeare's Drama of Language, Yale
University Press, 1974, pp. 50-67.
Robert E. Knoll
[Knoll presents a comprehensive overview of Julius Caesar, arguing that the play lends itself remarkably well
to the five-act dramatic structure. Each of the major characters occupies a significant place in one of the five
acts, the critic maintains, for their actions generally overshadow and shape the events of those acts which
they dominate. Knoll attributes Act I to Cassius, who determines the course of events in the play by
persuading Brutus to join the conspiracy. Act II belongs to Brutus, for his soliloquies and conversations
establish the idealistic context by which he legitimates Caesar's assassination. Antony is the protagonist of
Act III, for it is his rousing funeral oration that turns the tables on the conspirators and ultimately leads to
their failure. Caesar is the focus of Act IV, not only because his spirit haunts the guilt-ridden Brutus, but also
because his murder creates a chaotic political vacuum in Rome. Finally, Octavius dominates Act V because
his confident assumption of leadership over the other major characters promises future political stability in
the Roman Empire.]
Though Shakespeare did not divide all his plays uniformly into scenes and acts—these conventional divisions
were regularized by editors long after his death—he seems to have conceived Julius Caesar in a five-act
structure. If we look at it an act at a time, we may see how it combines to create a unified dramatic whole. The
play is "brilliantly constructed," as the editors say. Each act is dominated by a single personage who
commands our attention by controlling the direction of its action. By the end of the fifth act a series of
archetypical Romans have paraded across the stage and caused us to think of fundamental political and human
issues. In Act I, though we learn important facts about the Roman plebians, Caesar, and others, Cassius
dominates the stage. In Act II, Brutus is in the center. We follow him in his moment of highest decision. Act
III belongs to Antony, who steals the scene from the conspirators and enflames the Roman populace. Act IV
belongs to Caesar, whose ghost haunts the quarrel between Cassius and Brutus. Act V is Octavius's and the
play ends with his words. Let us consider the play in some detail, act by act.
Overviews
88
Cassius is the protagonist in Act I. That is, he determines the course of events. The decisive action in this act
is his conversation with Brutus, and it is through this exchange that we come to understand his nature and the
political situation in Rome.
When the play begins, we perceive that Rome has reached a turning point in its history. The "Establishment,"
represented by Flavius and Marullus, is clearly out of touch with the people. The plebians may be mercurial in
their loyalties, but they are hardly insensitive or stupid; they are certainly not the blocks and stones and worse
than senseless things Marullus says they are. They are witty and full of life. Notice how the cobbler delights in
punning and playing with language [I. i. 2 Iff.]. The Tribunes, however, fail to understand the temper of
contemporary events and want to "disrobe the images" [I. i. 64] that have been decorated for this day of
Caesar's celebrations without sympathy for their significance In the popular Feast of Lupercal. (pp. 6-7)
The second scene gives us Caesar, over whose nature and position the controversy turns. Though the episode
in which he first appears is brief, we have an early impression of his authoritative manner. He is one of those
rare men who command whatever group they appear in: Wherever this man sits is the "head of the table."
"Charisma," that rather silly fashionable word, is much too small for what Caesar has. Everyone accedes to his
wishes, whether they want to or not, so much authority has he in his manner. Nearly every line he speaks has a
command in it. In this and other scenes, as we will see, he seems aware of this remarkable magnetism and in a
sense stands aside from it, observing himself. He seems as fascinated by his power over others as we are.
But in these first lines, we are only given a hint of what we will see later; in Act I the emphasis is not on
Caesar's personality. If he were given more lines, he would so overbalance the play that we would neglect to
follow the fortunes of Cassius, Brutus, and the others, and the play as Shakespeare has conceived it is not so
much about Caesar as it is about the reactions of those persons to his magnificence.
After only twenty-five lines, the scene directs our attention to Cassius, as he persuades Brutus to join in a
rebellion against Julius Caesar [I. ii. 25ff.]. We will see as the play proceeds that Cassius, though an
intellectual, is a passionate man, a man of feeling. He is filled from top to toe with envy; and from this envy,
rebellion grows. Caesar's magnificence diminishes him (see I. ii. 116-17; 135-8; 209-10). As second in
command to Brutus, Cassius can be large, for Brutus is not a demi-god, not a superman, not larger than life.
As second or third to Caesar, Cassius would disappear and Caesar, of course, does not even give him this
chance. Cassius rationalizes his envy by merging it into what he takes to be a passion for republican freedom,
but we fear that he is as much concerned with his own place as with the public good. Personal goals and
public values are combined inextricably in his mind.
Cassius does have very considerable gifts, and we can admire them. A great observer, "he looks quite through
the deeds of men" [I. ii. 202-03] and senses the emotions of persons he talks to. He easily matches his words
to their feelings. Watching Brutus, he perceives Brutus's innermost thoughts, and his long speeches of
persuasion follow the movements of Brutus's mind, playing first on Brutus's pride in himself and then on what
he asserts is Caesar's dangerous ambition. Cassius is genuinely fond of Brutus. Indeed, his ability to love is
the other side of his envy; an emotional man, he loves as readily as he hates. His is a restless, not a passive,
nature (see I. ii. 139-41). He loves no plays, as Caesar says of him; and he listens to no music. His mind is too
active, too full of observations and schemes to be diverted by gaming and play-acting [I. ii. 192-214].
For all his imaginative perception, Cassius allows envy to warp his judgments. He complains that Caesar is
not the athlete that he himself is, that Caesar is aging, that his body is less vigorous than it once was. His
observations are correct. Caesar speaks of his own deafness [I. ii. 213], and we learn later that he is given to
"the falling sickness" [I. ii. 254]; but Cassius should know that it is the spirit of Caesar that rules, not his arm;
that leaders may be crippled (like Roosevelt) or small (like Napoleon) or physically weak (like Joan of Arc)
and still be strong.
Overviews
89
Cassius's judgments of other persons are fairer. He has a fundamental contempt for Casca, but he sees the
danger in Casca's malice. Casca is "sour" as the pes are "sour" in Aesop's fable. Notice how Casca begins each
reply to Brutus with a disparaging "Why." Cassius's judgment of Brutus is not warped either. He knows that
Brutus is large-minded; he also knows that he and Brutus are not made of the same stuff [I. ii. 308-15]. The
difference neither intimidates him nor puts him off, for Cassius knows how to deal with people. He turns
Casca's superstitious fear of the night storm to his own purposes, even while he rationally remains unmoved.
As he spoke of honor, to the honorable Brutus, he speaks of violence to the violent Casca [I. iii. 89-115], and
he does not waste his rhetoric on Cinna, who has already been won to the conspiracy. Coolly, he simply
directs Cinna to manipulate the vain Brutus [I. iii. 142-47]. Cassius is clearly the ringleader of the faction.
Act I is dominated by Cassius, and by the end we are confident that he will win Brutus over, he is so clever, so
determined, so affectionate, and so clear-eyed. He knows what he is doing, and Caesar has reason to be afraid
of him. He is a man to have on your team. He is too perceptive, by half, to be left with an enemy, unchecked.
But Cassius is also one of those thinkers who prefer people to ideas. The proposed rebellion against Caesar is
not ideological for him. It is personal. He rejects the authority of Julius Caesar, but he only incidentally
defends republicanism.
The first act of this play is Cassius's. The second belongs to Brutus, and he dominates all its scenes, even
those in which he does not appear. The act begins with what amounts to an eighty-five line soliloquy in which
Brutus speaks of the decision he has made to kill Caesar [II. i. 10ff.]. The soliloquy is dramatically interrupted
four times by the serving boy, Lucius, who briefly turns Brutus's attention to the everyday world. Three of
these interruptions are not necessary to the action of the play but serve to intensify our sense of Brutus's
purpose. The cumulative strength of this soliloquy is such that Brutus does not need to speak to us directly
ever again.
In the first act, we have seen that Brutus's central emotion is a consistent concern for his "honor," an honor
that is his by right of both birth and attainment. He is an aristocrat, and this fact is the key to his conduct and
his temper. Because he is descended from the founders of the Roman Republic, he holds himself to the highest
standards on its defense (II. i. 53ff., for example). He cannot be bought, for he feels himself judged by his
ancestors. His personal affection for Julius Caesar and his private relationship to his wife must submit to the
high ideals he has had set for him by his forebears. Kind to his servants, he is filled with noblesse oblige
[obligations of rank]. Patronizing of his peers insofar as he recognizes any peers—Cassius, his only confidant,
does not appear to be a member of the aristocratic party by virtue of ancient birth—he is confident of his
judgment as young men brought up in privileged circles are confident of themselves. When Cassius, Decius,
and others fear to leave Antony alive, Brutus overrules them without hesitation, [II. i. 155-70]. But Brutus is
not young, and by this time he should have learned to respect the judgments of men of the world. Instead, he
is ignorant of general human nature, so secluded by his class has he been from the general run of men. He
assumes naively that all the conspirators are as disinterested as he is [II. i. 118-40]; and it never occurs to him
that the populace might judge his actions as less noble than he claims them to be. He thinks (like Macbeth)
that he can commit murder without becoming a murderer and that an assassination is a state ritual, because he
says it is [II. i. 166-80].
Right here the trouble lies: Brutus is so high-minded that his vision is distorted. He is not very bright; and
worse, by far, he does not know it. He is the only figure in the play whom we see in the agony of decision (II.
i. 61-9; 78-85, for example), and we therefore know him considerably better than we know the others. We
know him better than he knows himself. He doesn't explore issues but passes hastily over first principles,
though he prides himself on his philosophical nature. "A fastidious contempt of the shameful means necessary
to achieve his ends is the constant mark of the political idealist," one shrewd critic, John Palmer, has noted.
When Brutus finds that he must choose between loyalty to his friend, whom he loves, and loyalty to his
country, which he venerates, we see that his patriotic ideals are more important to him than people.
Dostoevsky observes that men of philosophic mind are necessarily cruel, and this seems true of Brutus.
Overviews
90
Fancying himself a philosopher, Brutus deals in abstract values in a political situation that calls for the
practicality of a precinct politician. Brutus is the kind of "idealist" who wants to shape public events rather
than that kind of practical man who makes the most of a situation, accepting the "given" and building on that.
He is insufficiently humble before facts, before events, before political reality. One might say, rather
paradoxically, that he is an intellectual—one who deals in concepts and ideas—who is not very intelligent.
Brutus knows, as all the conspirators know, that without him the rebellion against Julius Caesar will fail. One
might say that Brutus "legitimatizes" the operation (see I. iii. 158-60), for everybody knows that his hands are
clean. But clean hands are only one requirement of statesmanship, and perhaps not the most important. A little
touch of humanity might help, but we see in the scene with his wife that even in his bedroom he is a public
figure [II. i. 234-309]. He never forgets that he is a Roman, with Roman duties.
Portia is his counterpart, the very model of one kind of Roman matron. Notice how she repeatedly speaks to
Brutus in the third person [II. i. 258; 261; 263; 287]. But like Brutus she is a republican aristocrat, making
herself morally tall by standing on tiptoe. Perhaps she is playing over her head; her wounding of herself to
prove her constancy [II. i. 299-301] and her shocking death suggest that her moral grandeur has more than a
touch of neuroticism in it. In her scene with Lucius and the soothsayer [II. iv] she lacks the self-control that
Stoics like Brutus and Cato admire [A Stoic is a member of the school of philosophy founded by the Greek
thinker Zeno about 300 B.C. This discipline holds that wise men should be free from passion, unmoved by joy
or grief, and submissive to natural law]. In her relationship with Brutus, we see that both have a greater sense
of duty than of love; both of them aspire to live by principle.
Caesar, whom we next see in II. ii, is not less an aristocrat than Brutus, but for Caesar, being an aristocrat is
not an important fact. He and Calpurnia do not act like aristocrats. Calpurnia "never stood on ceremonies" [II.
ii. 13] or strove to be high-minded. She is the wife of a successful politician, superstitious and ordinary.
Caesar, like Brutus, has considerable vanity—he refers to himself in the third-person even when talking to his
wife!—but he has all the confidence necessary to the truly great. He does seem to be infected with what has
come to be called Caesarism, that passion for unlimited power, and like Brutus, he can be manipulated by
lesser men. Decius knows how to touch his vanity, although it is not flattery that changes Caesar's mind about
going to the Forum. It's ambition [II. ii. 92-105]. His eagerness for power overcomes his respect for his wife's
premonitions. But for all his awareness of his high place, Caesar the politician, unlike Brutus the philosopher,
never forgets that he deals with men who respond to hospitality and who cherish their own pride of place.
Caesar speaks by name to each person who comes to him, and he offers them wine.
Brutus wins our reluctant admiration because of his fidelity to his ideals, his sincerity; but Caesar fascinates
us by his complex response to fact. Just as Act I belongs to Cassius only because Caesar is kept in the wings,
so Act II belongs to Brutus only because Caesar is kept off center stage.
The climax of Julius Caesar is reached with the assassination in the Forum [III. i. 77]. All the action has been
leading to this event, and the first part of Act III increases the rising suspense.
In what transpires before the killing, we learn nothing new about the conspirators or of Caesar himself. All act
well within their established natures. Caesar shows not only that he is a kind of superman but that he knows it.
He plays a part. "In his two short speeches in the Capitol [III. i. 35-48; 58-73]," Ernest Schanzer has written,
"Shakespeare gives us a compendium of Caesar's most unamicable qualities: the cold, glittering hardness, the
supreme arrogance, and again the dissociation of himself from the rest of mankind." Brutus's continued
self-deception is also exhibited. His political naivete shows itself in his lack of planning for what is to happen
after the ceremonial blood bath. "Let us bathe our hands in Caesar's blood," he says [II. i. 106]. He seems to
feel, as many revolutionists feel, that once the power they identify as evil is removed, good will automatically
rise; though a philosopher, Brutus has not thought through the political problem that will face Rome once its
leader is removed. Cassius exhibits his continuing emotional and personal dependence on Brutus, but he also
shows his understanding of individuals and crowds in urging that Antony not be given the pulpit from which
Overviews
91
to preach a funeral sermon [III. i. 227-43]. Cassius, like Antony, as we will see, is an enthusiast, one who feels
his way to conclusions as often as he thinks his way to them; and he understands Antony's fidelity to Caesar.
He has a similar fidelity to Brutus.
The act belongs, however, not to Brutus, Cassius, or even to Caesar, it is Antony who seizes the initiative
from the conspirators and determines the future. The conspirators may have set the stage for a new order of
things, but it is Antony who acts on it, instinctively and quickly. Hardly is Caesar dead than, without time to
plan, he seizes title opportunity that comes to him. Sending a servant to announce his arrival [III. i. 123-37],
he quickly appears himself [III. i. 147]. His leader being gone, he has pulled himself together (as we might
say) and in his celebrated address to "Friends, Romans, countrymen" [III. ii. 73ff.] instigates civil war in
Rome, presumably as vengeance for the assassination. The rhetorical fervor of his address is in marvelous
contrast to the rational remarks by Brutus a moment before [III. ii. 12ff.]. Antony plays on the prejudices of
his Roman audience like an organist at his console. He is one of that frightening kind of rabble-rouser who is
moved by his own words, taken in by his own half-truths. As Granville-Barker says, "Antony ... is more than
an actor; for one thing he writes his own part as he goes along. But he gathers the ideas for it as he goes too,
with no greater care for their worth than the actors need have so long as they are effective at the moment."
When his speech is finished, Antony is half drunk with the delight of the occasion. He exults [III. ii. 266-67].
The fact that the plebians can be so quickly taken in suggests that the days of Republican individualism are
already past, that Caesar or someone like him is necessary to keep Roman order. Certainly after Antony's
address all chaos breaks loose, and murder and rampage fill the streets. The plebians who in Act I seemed so
witty, so lively, have now become Nazi bully-boys, urged on by Antony (see III. ill). It is significant that
Antony does not set out to seize the power of the state exclusively for himself but that he automatically looks
for an alliance with Octavius [III. i. 287-97; IV. i]. Younger, less experienced in peace and battle both, on the
face of it Octavius should offer Antony little competition for Caesar's position, but Antony, rather like
Cassius, is a perpetual number-two man. In the end he is incapable of bearing full authority on his own. In his
dealings with Lepidus and the young, cool Octavius [IV. i], Antony talks the most, but Octavius has the veto.
Had he observed this conference, Cassius would have seen this in a minute—but then though similar in passion
to Antony, Cassius is brighter. "He reads much, / He is a great observer" [I. ii. 201-02]. Antony reaches the
peak of his achievement in the Forum immediately after the assassination. Never again does he come so close
to final power. His moment of ultimate glory is brief.
The principal scene of Act IV contains a bitter quarrel between Brutus and Cassius. In the previous two
scenes, the one with the plebians attacking Cinna the poet [III. iii] and the other with the counter-conspiracy
of Lepidus, Octavius, and Antony [IV. i], we have seen what happens when the linchpin of an axle-tree is
drawn. Communities become mobs and generals become bandits. In this complementary scene [IV. ii] and the
next one [IV. iii] we see what happens to the political idealist and his colleague when central authority has
been dissolved. The memory of Caesar and then (a bit later) his ghost preside throughout. In this act we are
not allowed to forget Julius Caesar.
The quarrel tells us of Rome and the two conspirators. We see [IV. ii] that they have fallen out even before
Cassius and Brutus retire to Brutus's tent. Cassius does not deal "with such free and friendly conference / As
he hath used of old" [IV. ii. 17-18], and Brutus has to quiet him: "Speak your grief softly" [IV. ii. 41], he says.
Cassius in anger protests that his orders have been countermanded by Brutus, whose authority he says is no
greater than his own. With the power of Rome dispersed, this raises a central question: Where does authority
lie? Brutus feels that his financial needs have not been met, that Cassius has failed his contractual obligations.
Too fine to soil his own hands at collecting revenue from reluctant peasants, Brutus still requires gold from
Cassius. Both men act within their natures as we have come to know them, yet we perceive that the stated
cause of their anger and the real cause of it are different.
Overviews
92
Cassius suffers from a bone fatigue; he is "aweary of the world" [IV. iii. 95] because he can see no possibility
of real success. The conspiracy has failed both to bring him unqualified place and to bring freedom to Rome.
In his emotional way, he compensates for his disappointment by turning to Brutus for love [IV. iii. 85-7]. If
Rome is not his, at least Brutus may be: "I, that denied thee gold, will give my heart" [IV. iii. 104], he says.
He is almost childish in his appeal for sympathy, almost uxorious in his dependence.
Brutus is no less frustrated. All his hopes for Republican Rome have come to nothing, and the conspiracy that
was to return the state to individual responsibility and to insure it peace and harmony has delivered it, rather,
into civil war. We know that without Brutus the conspiracy might have succeeded. Without him Antony as
well as Caesar would have been assassinated in the Forum, and more knowing generals than Brutus would
have conducted the battles against Octavius. It is ironical that the conspirators needed Brutus and that he is
also the cause of their failure. Brutus's dream-revolution has collapsed. But there is more than this. Brutus
suffers from a troubled spirit. He has killed his dearest friend and is attacked by what G. Wilson Knight calls
"his own trammelling and hindering conscience." Brutus does not confront all this, of course; his aristocratic
pride combined with his philosophical obtuseness refuse to allow him to see his actions objectively, let alone
his spiritual state accurately. Having chosen his way, he will brave it out, stoically holding to his solitary
course, giving way to no remorse or grief, though his wife kills herself in sorrow and in loneliness. Even when
Caesar's ghost appears to tell him of impending disaster at Philippi, he clings to his masculine dignity. By the
end of the act, Brutus is overwrought beyond endurance: and yet he endures: and however mistaken his
individual choices turn out to have been, we come to admire his Roman tenacity. He is as fatigued as Cassius
("If I do live ..." [IV. iii. 265], he says), and like Cassius half longs for an end to the course he must run. But
where Cassius gives way, Brutus resists, and his opponent is Caesar. Long before the ghost of Caesar appears
on stage, Caesar's spirit has brooded over these proceedings. Caesar is inescapable. His shadow lies across this
act as it lies across the Mediterranean world.
Act V is dominated by Octavius, however brief his lines may be. Antony shows himself the enthusiast we
have seen before, and Octavius overrules him. "I do not cross you," Octavius says to him, "but I will do so"
[V. i. 20]. In the subsequent exchange with Cassius and Brutus, before the approaching battle, Octavius is
confident. But even when Octavius is not on stage, he dominates the action. Cassius and Brutus say farewell
to each other with a kind of half yearning that the end may quickly come. As in the previous act, Cassius
solicits Brutus's love, leaning on it as on a value that no battle can take from him. Perhaps he is even
sentimental. Brutus returns his love, insofar as he is capable of considering any person other than himself; and
he assures us that his honor will not allow him to be led in Octavius's triumphant procession through the
streets of Rome. Cassius thinks of human relationships whereas Brutus thinks of public responsibility; and
both are dominated by their awareness of Octavius.
In the next scene Cassius kills himself, thinking his forces defeated because "Brutus gave the word too early"
[V. iii. 5]. "My life is run its compass" [V. ill. 25], he says. But it is Octavius who determines Cassius's
ultimate fate, though he remains in another part of the battlefield, off stage. When Brutus discovers Cassius
dead, like Macbeth whose wife also kills herself, Brutus can only promise that there will be time in another
place for thought of him [V. iii. 103]. Octavius's forces command his energies.
If the spirit of Julius Caesar "walks abroad and turns our swords / In our own proper entrails" [V. iii. 95], as
Brutus tells us, it is in part to bequeath Octavius Caesar his legacy. Cassius has died impetuously, before his
necessary time; Brutus now dies deliberately, unable to see that he has been used, that his life has been a
failure because he has been the instrument of other men's aspirations. With nearly his last words, "I found no
man but he was true to me" [V. v. 35], he shows that he is unable to understand that all who knew him have
used him, the conspirators for their devious political ends, Antony for his. Even in his death Brutus lacks
self-knowledge; and though he says that he will have more glory in losing than Octavius and Mark Antony in
conquering [V. v. 36ff.], we are not so sure. Indeed we may wonder if there is glory for any of them, in this
confused world of politics. Brutus may have been "the noblest Roman of them all" [V. v. 68], because he
Overviews
93
strove to be disinterested; but he hardly possessed the spirit that calls up the awe due heroic figures—Hamlet,
say, Othello, the magnificent Lear. "This was a man!" [V. v. 75]—but he was only a man. Octavius can safely
lay his bones ceremonially on the battlefield of Philippi; for Brutus's ghost unlike Caesar's will not walk. His
spirit has been exhausted in life. The story of Brutus ends with the end of the play, whereas the story of Julius
Caesar continues into the life of Rome. Even if we knew no Roman history, we would know that the last scene
of the play is not the last Roman scene. Octavius, Caesar's heir, commands the future as he has dominated this
act. (pp. 7-17)
Robert E. Knoll, "The Organization of the Play," in The Shakespeare Plays: A Study Guide, The University of
California, 1978, pp. 4-19.
Roman Politics
Alice Shalvi
[Shalvi seeks to determine whether Shakespeare condemns or condones Caesar's assassination. The critic
argues that while Shakespeare makes it evident that Brutus's fears of Caesar's tyranny are justified, he
nonetheless presents the murder as an immoral act that must be avenged. In Shalvi's opinion, Brutus's sole
motive for participating in the plot against Caesar is to safeguard the liberty of the Roman citizens;
ironically, however, it is this noble purpose that causes his political ineptitude and contributes to the failure
of the conspiracy. Despite the play's insistence on the idea that "blood will have blood," the critic argues,
Julius Caesar is more than a revenge tragedy, for it dramatizes the effect of Caesar's assassination not just on
the murderers, but also on the Roman populace, who, in another example of irony, will suffer greater injustice
under the rule of Octavius and Antony than under Caesar. Although Julius Caesar ends tragically, Shalvi
concludes, it affirms humankind's essential goodness by showing how Brutus and Cassius are ennobled
through suffering and eventually become aware of the relation between their acts and their destinies.]
The mature comedies which Shakespeare wrote at the turn of the century posited an ideal of nobility,
goodness, generosity and moderation—an ideal, based both on chivalry and on Christian-Humanist teaching,
which was the guide of the Elizabethan gentleman in his every action. The earliest of Shakespeare's mature
tragedies, Julius Caesar and Hamlet, both present a similar ideal in the characters of their heroes, but they
serve to illustrate what happens to the noble man when he is placed in a situation which tests his nobility to
the uttermost and they show the tragic limitations of nobility when it is confronted by really evil forces such
as did not exist in the golden landscapes of Arden [in As You Like It] and Illyria [in Twelfth Night].
Despite the title of the play, it is Brutus who is the tragic hero of Julius Caesar; it is his fate which is the
central concern of the play. Brutus's prime characteristic is his honour. Descended of valiant ancestors who
'did from the streets of Rome / The Tarquin drive when he was called a king' [II. i. 53-4], derived from that
Brutus who 'would have brooked / The eternal Devil to keep his state in Rome / As easily as a king' [I. ii.
159-61], Marcus Brutus fears the threat to Rome's liberty which is implied in Caesar's desire for kingship and
autocratic rule. Unlike Cassius, whose prime motivation is clearly a personal envy of Caesar, Brutus is wholly
unselfish in his devotion to the welfare of the Roman Republic and prepared to face even death if this is
required for his country's good. 'What is it that you would impart to me?' [I. ii. 84] he asks Cassius, when the
latter first broaches the subject of Caesar's ambition:
If it be aught toward the general good,
Set honour in one eye and death i' the other,
And I will look on both indifferently,
For let the gods so speed me as I love
The name of honour more than I fear death.
[I. ii. 85-91
Roman Politics
94
Brutus is the only one of the conspirators who is portrayed as inwardly debating the justification for
commiting the 'dreadful thing' which Cassius proposes, and once again Shakespeare stresses that it is no
personal animosity towards Caesar that motivates Brutus, but only a regard for the 'general good'. The
ultimate factor in persuading Brutus to join the conspiracy is his belief that his countrymen wish him to act on
their behalf, a belief based on the letters cast in at his window or conspicuously left for him in public places.
These letters we, however, know to come from the wily Cassius, who realises that there is no other way to win
over an honourable man to commit an act of violence and evil than by making him believe the act to be
honourable. The conspirators need Brutus precisely because he is known to be honourable and will therefore
lend colour to their conspiracy when the time comes to justify their action to the people of Rome. As Casca
says:
... he sits high in all the people's hearts:
And that which would appear offence in us.
His countenance, like richest alchemy,
Will change to virtue and to worthiness.
[I. iii. 157-60J
So we are shown how the man of virtue, with none but the best of motives, may become the tool of men less
noble than himself. Cassius himself draws the correct conclusion:
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?
[I. ii. 308-12J
Yet, ironically, it is Brutus's nobility which in fact unfits him for the conspiracy and brings about the reversal
of his noble aims. Inevitably, because of his greatness, Brutus becomes the leader of the conspirators and his
essential goodness and moderation overrule the subtler perceptions of the wily Cassius. He refuses to permit
Antony to be killed together with Caesar and, despite Cassius's arguments to the contrary, he permits Antony
to make the funeral-oration over Caesar's body which rouses the populace against the conspirators. Secure in
the knowledge that he has acted in all sincerity and for the good of his country, Brutus fails to take into
account both Antony's Machiavellian wiles (which the equally Machiavellian Cassius does suspect) and the
fickleness of the masses, who are like 'blocks and stones and worse than senseless things' [I. i. 35;
Machiavellianism represents the view that politics is amoral and that any means, however unscrupulous, can
justifiably be used in achieving political power]. He makes the tactical errors of allowing Antony to have the
last word, of leaving him alone with the crowd and of letting him produce the dead body of Caesar. The great
difference between Brutus and Antony is excellently conveyed by the contrast between the monotonous
rhythms of Brutus's prose and the impassioned, oratorical art of Antony, who skilfully uses the device of
repetition with the recurrent phrase, 'honourable men'. There is no doubt which of them better understands the
mentality of Rome's masses. It is Brutus's political ineptitude after the assassination and his military ineptitude
in insisting on meeting the enemy at Philippi that bring about his own downfall and that of Cassius, and the
ineptitude stems primarily from essential innocence, naivete and goodness. As in the case of Henry VI,
Shakespeare here stresses that goodness is not sufficient qualification for the dirty business of politics, indeed
that it virtually disables a man from fulfilling the tasks of leadership.
But it is not alone Brutus's ineptitude that brings about the reversal of the conspirators' hopes and plans. The
real cause of the defeat of Brutus lies in the fact that the murder of Caesar is an act of evil, an act of horror,
that has to be expiated. Politically, the overthrow of Caesar may be necessary for the welfare of Rome. This is
brought out by the way in which Caesar is portrayed. He is a great warrior, who, in the past, has done good
Roman Politics
95
service for his country but he returns to Rome now having triumphed over no alien power but over Pompey,
the great Roman general. Caesar is vain and conceited. Infirm in body, deaf in one ear and subject to epileptic
fits, fearful of attack from men such as Cassius who 'think too much' [I. ii, 195], Caesar nevertheless believes
himself 'immortal' and aspires to be king of Rome. He grows angry when the crowd cheer his repeated
rejection of the coronet offered him by Mark Antony instead of urging him to accept it. The people's tribunes
are put to death for 'pulling scarves off Caesar's images' [I. ii. 285-86] and, when Calpurnia's prophetic dreams
and the augurers' warnings dissuade him from venturing forth on the Ides of March, Caesar camouflages his
fears with an imperious message to the senators, whom he contemptuously dismisses as 'greybeards':
Decius, go tell them Caesar will not come ...
The cause is in my will: I will not come;
That is enough to satisfy the senate.
[II. ii. 68, 71-2]
Like most conceited men, Caesar is susceptible to flattery and yet prides himself on being immune to it. As
Decius says: 'When I tell him he hates flatterers, / He says he does, being then most flattered' [II. i. 207-08]. It
is by appealing to Caesar's vanity and ambition that Decius persuades him to reject the counsels of Calpurnia
and the soothsayers, for he tells Caesar that this is the day on which the senators mean to offer him the crown
and that they may well change their minds if he fails to appear. Arrived at the Senate, Caesar further reveals
his weaknesses of character. Once again he prides himself on immunity to flattery as he rejects the
supplications of Metellus Cimber:
... Be not fond.
To think that Caesar bears such rebel blood
That will be thaw'd from the true quality
With that which melteth fools; I mean, sweet words,
Low-crooked court'sies and base spaniel-fawning.
Thy brother by decree is banished:
If thou dost bend and pray and fawn for him,
I spurn thee like a cur out of my way.
Know, Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause
Will he be satisfied.
[II. i. 39-48]
As supplicant after supplicant kneels before him to urge the repeal of Publius Cimber's banishment, Caesar
remains firm in his sentence, and speaks of himself in terms which indicate clearly that he thinks of himself as
a demi-god:
... I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix'd and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.
The skies are painted with unnumber'd sparks,
They are all fire and every one doth shine,
But there's but one in all doth hold his place:
So in the world; 'tis furnish'd well with men,
And men are flesh and blood, and apprehensive;
Yet in the number I do know but one
That unassailable holds on his rank,
Unshaked of motion: and that I am he.
[in. i. 60-701]
Roman Politics
96
How ironic these assertions of steadfastness are in the light of the previous scene in which we saw him
vacillating between the conflicting advice of Calpurnia and Decius. What Caesar is being so adamant about is
in refusing pardon and mercy, the truly god-like qualities in man. It is the moment of his downfall: his
unyielding pride and vanity lead to his death.
Thus Shakespeare makes it clear that Brutus's fears are justified. It is apparent that Caesar in power would
bring servitude to Rome, and, if the only way to prevent Caesar from attaining power is by murdering him, the
murder is presumably justified. Nevertheless, the murder is never wholly condoned by Shakespeare. Brutus
speaks of it beforehand as a 'dreadful thing' [II. i. 63] and it is important to note his uncertainty as to Caesar's
tyranny; the outcome of crowning Caesar is left deliberately uncertain: 'So Caesar may: I Then lest he may,
prevent' [II. i. 27-8]. The murder itself is shown onstage in its full brutality and violence, with the
out-numbered Caesar helplessly overwhelmed by his enemies, and almost immediately after the murder our
feelings are swayed in favour of Caesar by Antony's genuine mourning and the terms of praise in which he
refers to the dead man: 'Thou art the ruins of the noblest man / That ever lived in the tide of times' [III. i.
256-57]. Brutus's treachery in participating in the murder is particularly stressed, since it is his presence
among the assassins which so appals Caesar as to make him cry out the famous 'Et tu, Brute? Then fall,
Caesar!' [III. i. 77]. And after the murder we have the strange appeal of Brutus to his colleagues to stoop and
bathe their hands in Caesar's blood and then proceed with their blood-besmeared swords to cry 'Peace,
freedom and liberty' [III. i. 110] in the market-place. This serves as an ironic counter to his earlier
remonstrances:
Let's kill him boldly, but not wrathfully;
Let's carve him as a dish fit for the gods,
Not hew him as a carcass fit for hounds:
And let our hearts, as subtle masters do.
Stir up their servants to an act of rage,
And after seem to chide 'em ...
[II. i. 172-77]
Indeed, the corruption in Brutus has, inevitably, set in earlier, since it was essential for him, together with the
other conspirators, to pretend a friendliness towards Caesar which none of them really felt. Brutus is aware of
this terrible hypocrisy, for his reaction on seeing the masked conspirators arriving at his house in the night is:
... O conspiracy,
Shamest thou to show thy dangerous brow by night,
When evils are most free? O, then by day
Where wilt thou find a cavern dark enough
To mask thy monstrous visage? Seek none, conspiracy;
Hide it in smiles and affability:
For if thou path, thy native semblance on,
Not Erebus itself were dim enough
To hide thee from prevention.
[II. i. 77-85]
Yet he himself later bids them
... look fresh and merrily;
Let not our looks put on our purposes,
But bear it as our Roman actors do,
With untired spirits and formal constancy.
[II. i. 224-27]
Roman Politics
97
Shakespeare implicitly condemns the conspiracy, then, on two scores: firstly, because it inevitably involves
moral corruption even in the best and noblest of men and, secondly, because murder is always, no matter in
what circumstances or however it may be justified, bloody and cruel. 'Blood' is the word that echoes and
re-echoes throughout the scenes which follow the assassination—and blood will have blood. Murder must be
avenged and Caesar does indeed achieve vengeance. Though his ghost appears physically only once, in
visitation upon Brutus before the battle of Philippi, Caesar's presence broods over the action after his murder
just as much, if not more, than it did during his lifetime. 'He doth bestride the narrow world like a Colossus' [I.
ii. 135-36] and his influence does not end with his death. Antony, at the close of Act III, sc. i, utters a terrible
prophecy which ends with what is, in effect, an invocation of Caesar's ghost:
Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!
Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,—
Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips,
To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue—
A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;
Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.
[ni. i. 258-75]
The prophecy is most horribly fulfilled and Caesar has his revenge on the men who murdered him.
The revenge takes various forms. Firstly, we learn of Brutus and Cassius's desperate flight from the vengeful
mob, a flight from the very city they had sought to free from tyranny and for which Brutus, at least, had been
prepared to lay down his life. Then we see the dissension which develops between these two men, leading to
insult, accusation and open quarrel in IV, iii. We may note the way in which the assassination is referred to
here, when Brutus warns Cassius of the consequences of corruption:
Remember March, the ides of March remember:
Did not great Julius bleed for justice' sake?
What villain touch'd his body, that did stab,
And not for justice? ...
[IV. iii. 18-21]
There is irony here in the fact that Brutus still believes that the murder was commited for wholly noble ends
and has still not seen through the essentially corrupt and self-centred motives of the other conspirators.
Later in the same scene we learn of the death of Portia, Brutus's wife, and this, too, is indirectly the outcome
of the assassination, for, Brutus says,
Roman Politics
98
Impatient of my absence,
And grief that young Octavius with Mark Antony
Have made themselves so strong: ... with this she fell distract,
And, her attendants absent, swallow'd fire.
[IV. iii. 152-56]
The ghost of Caesar calls himself Brutus's 'evil spirit' [IV. iii. 282]; he is unseen by any of the other people
present and may, like the ghost of Banquo [in Macbeth], be interpreted as an emanation of the murderer's
guilty conscience. He warns Brutus that he will see him at Philippi and although the ghost never reappears it
is indeed the assassination which is once again the central theme referred to by the leaders on both sides
during the parley that precedes the battle. Octavius warns his opponents that the battle will not end 'till
Caesar's three and thirty wounds /Be well avenged; or till another Caesar / Have added slaughter to the sword
of traitors' [V. i. 53-5]. The two sides join battle, Cassius's tents are set on fire and he sends his good friend
Titinius to ascertain whether the nearby troops are friends or enemies. By a tragic error, he is deceived into
believing them enemies, into believing himself responsible for his friend's death and into thinking capture
irnminent. He takes the truly noble way out: he kills himself—with the same sword as he had used in killing
Caesar. His last words are significant: 'Caesar, thou art revenged, Even with the sword that killed thee'[V.ii.
44-5] ... And equally significant is [Brutus's] comment on Cassius's death: 'O Julius Caesar, thou art mighty
yet! / Thy spirit walks abroad, and turns our swords / In our own proper entrails' [V. iii. 94-6]. The same point
is made again at the close of the play, when Brutus's dying words as he kills himself are 'Caesar, now be still, /
I killed not thee with half so good a will' [IV. v. 50-1]. With the death of Brutus the crime is finally expiated
and Caesar's ghost may rest at ease. Vengeance has been achieved.
But to show that blood will have blood and that murder will be avenged is not Shakespeare's main purpose in
this play. It is not simply a revenge tragedy in the Senecan tradition so popular in Elizabethan England
[Seneca, a Roman statesman, author, and philosopher of the first century A. D., is famous for nine
melodramas which had a great influence on tragic drama in Elizabethan England]. The consequences of the
murder of Caesar are not confined to his murderers, for perhaps the most tragic result of the assassination lies
in Brutus's failure to achieve by this act of violence the original, noble goal for which he had committed the
crime. He had, as we have seen, one sole justification for killing his friend: Caesar's death was demanded by
the 'common good', the general welfare and prosperity and freedom of the Roman people and the Roman
Republic. What we are shown is that an act may lead to the very reverse of what the committer of the act
intended and bring about precisely what it aimed at preventing. The immediate result of the assassination is
Mark Antony's successful oratorical exploitation of the assassination and the hacked body to arouse the
ignorant, fickle Roman mob against the conspirators. Antony cares nothing for the 'common good'. He seeks
vengeance for his friend's death and power for himself. This is clear from the coldly callous comment as the
mob goes off in fury: 'Mischief, thou art afoot, / Take thou what course thou wilt' [III. iii. 260-61]. The course
it takes is the most terrible one of irrational, blood-thirsty violence. In the very next scene we witness the
lynching of Cinna the poet, torn to pieces despite his desperate avowals that he is not Cinna the conspirator:
'Tear him to pieces for his bad verses ... Pluck but his name out of his heart, and turn him going ... Tear him,
tear him' [III. iii. 30, 33-5]. This wild, unrestrained, blood-thirsty mob-rule finds an icy counter-point in Act
IV, sc. i, the scene that immediately follows it. What has been the outcome for Roman government of Caesar's
assassination? Who is in power now? Three dictators instead of one. The opening words of the first scene in
which we witness the new triumvirate at work are ominous: 'These many then shall die, their names are
prick'd' [IV. i. 1]. The cold-bloodedness is stressed by the equanimity with which Lepidus and Antony barter a
brother's death for that of a nephew:
ANTONY: These many, then, shall die; their names are prick'd.
OCTAVIUS: Your brother too must die; consent you, Lepidus?
LEPIDUS: I do consent,—
OCTAVIUS: Prick him down, Antony.
Roman Politics
99
LEPIDUS: Upon condition Publius shall not live. Who is your sister's son, Mark Antony.
ANTONY: He shall not live; look, with a spot I damn him.
[IV. i. 1-6]
And Antony's cold, calculating hypocrisy is proved by the contempt with which he speaks of 'old Lepidus' and
plots to get rid of him once Lepidus has served his own and Octavius's purpose.
It is to this, then, that Brutus's act of salvation has brought Rome and it is now that we can appreciate the full
irony of that cry of 'Liberty, Freedom and Justice' [cf. III. i. 81] which succeeded the assassination. The
country is divided in civil war, its government in the hands of men as ruthless as Caesar and probably far less
honest and valiant than he was—men who, in injustice, will not fall short of what Caesar would have been
even had he become king. Brutus's aims are, therefore, tragically reversed; it is for this that he has betrayed
friendship and committed a crime.
Nevertheless, despite the tragic reversal of Brutus's aims and the vision of Rome governed by ruthlessly cruel
men, the play concludes with the affirmation of the dignity of man and the worthwhileness of human life and
this re-affirmation is to be found in the essential nobility of Brutus, which is re-asserted and confirmed in the
final scenes of the play that show his suffering and defeat. Similarly, Cassius is now displayed as possessing a
nobility of character which had not been revealed earlier in the play. Both men accept their fate with truly
noble Roman stoicism [A stoic is a member of the school of philosophy founded by the Greek thinker Zeno
about 300 B. C. This discipline holds that wise men should be free from passion, unmoved by joy or grief, and
submissive to natural law]. 'No man bears sorrow better' we are told of Brutus's response to Portia's death [IV.
iii. 147], and the same noble acceptance of fate is typical of him and of Cassius before and during the final
battle at Philippi.
Acceptance of fate's decrees does not, however, mean passivity and inaction on the part of the individual.
Brutus is no Romeo, bemoaning the way in which Fate overrules his plans and hopes. The key words in this
play, spoken by Brutus and indicating what is now Shakespeare's view of the respective roles of Destiny and
Free Will, are:
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
[IV. iii. 218-24]
This is an echo of Cassius's earlier words: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, / But in ourselves that we
are underlings' [I. ii. 140-41]. Our destiny lies in ourselves, is dependent on the way we seize the opportunities
given to us by chance or fate or destiny or whatever name we choose to give to the superior force which exists
in the universe.
Thus both Brutus and Cassius, enlightened as to the cause of their downfall, aware of their guilt in murdering
Caesar, take the painful, courageous way of suicide rather than allowing themselves to be led as captives
through the streets of Rome. As in the case of Richard II, we feel the truth of Brutus's dying assertion:
I shall have glory by this losing day
More than Octavius and Mark Antony
By this vile conquest shall attain unto.
Roman Politics
100
[V. v. 36-8]
The important thing here, as in all tragedy, is not physical triumph and survival, but self-conquest, the
exorcism of all that is weak, ignoble and vilely human in the hero's nature, so that he goes to his death purified
and spiritually triumphant over the forces that oppose him.
Courage and endurance are the two important qualities which Brutus proves himself to possess. His plans may
have gone tragically awry and, what is more, the very act which he committed may have been shown by
Shakespeare to have been evil. Nevertheless his crime is counter-balanced by the magnificent way in which
he expiates it, by the suffering which it causes him. This suffering ennobles Brutus, it ennobles his
fellow-conspirator, Cassius, its spectacle ennobles the audience and, most significantly, it impresses his
enemies. It is Mark Antony who delivers the valedictory oration and correctly describes Brutus as 'the noblest
Roman of them all' [V. v. 68]. Antony is aware that:
All the conspirators save only he
Did that they did in envy of great Caesar;
He only in a general honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.
His life was gentle, and the elements
So mix'd in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world 'This was a man!'
[V. v. 69-75]
This is a fitting summary of the way in which Brutus has been portrayed throughout the play: a truly gentle,
noble, man, kind to his servants, loving to his wife, slow to anger and speedily pacified, honest and generous.
He makes one tragic error: he believes a crime to be justified when the aim is a noble one. This is fiercely
negated by Shakespeare who here, as in the history-plays, shows that nothing justifies murder. But
Shakespeare presents no satisfactory alternative solution to the problem of the just, honourable man living in a
time of vice and corruption, other than to imply that if one engages in political combat one must be utterly
ruthless and discard all thoughts of mercy and moderation. Had Brutus heeded Cassius and slain Antony all
might have been well—except that Brutus would have shown himself even more corrupt and evil. Shakespeare
here shows us the tragic dilemma of the good man called upon to combat evil and stresses that it is impossible
to fight evil without becoming corrupted oneself. The tragic dilemma of Brutus is also the tragic dilemma of
Hamlet. In this, the earlier of the two plays, no solution is offered to the dilemma However firm a reassertion
Shakespeare here makes, through the character of Brutus, of man's essential nobility and his capacity for
spiritual greatness in the face of physical defeat, politically the play ends on a note of pessimistic query. (pp.
169-78)
Alice Shalvi, "Shakespeare's 'High Roman Fashion': Julius Caesar," in The World & Art of Shakespeare by A
A. Mendilow and Alice Shalvi, Israel University Press, 1967, pp. 169-78.
Brents Stirling
[Stirling examines the extent to which Shakespeare relied upon his source material in his presentation of the
Roman populace in Julius Caesar. The critic notes that although Shakespeare's portrait of the commoners as
fickle, unreasonable, and opportunistic generally echoes Plutarch's lives of Caesar and Brutus, the dramatist
also elaborated upon Plutarch's account notably in Act III, scene ii, when Brutus and Antony deliver their
funeral orations for Caesar, and in Act III, scene iii, when the citizens interrogate the poet Cinna. While the
effect of the changes in the first of these scenes is to accentuate the instability of the mob, Stirling maintains,
Shakespeare did not deliberately alter his source to further denigrate the populace; rather, the changes were
made for dramatic effect and, moreover, were warranted by Plutarch's descriptions of the mob in other
episodes of his narratives. The critic states that the second of these scenes, not recorded by Plutarch, reveals
Roman Politics
101
an Elizabethan understanding of mob behavior in its emphasis on the hostility and irrationality of class
conflict; similarly, Brutus and Antony's funeral orations, only briefly outlined by Plutarch, lend political
realism to the tragedy.]
In Julius Caesar the self-interest and sorry instability of the Roman populace turn the tide against Brutus and
the other conspirators. Although their ill fortune materializes at Philippi, the climactic change from good to ill
for the conspirators occurs in Act III with the shift against them of mob sentiment. Accordingly, it will not
surprise those familiar with Shakespeare's methods of exposition that the note of plebeian stupidity and
mutability is struck powerfully in the opening scene of the play. There the disorderly citizens, who have
decked themselves in their best "to make holiday, to see Caesar and to rejoice in his triumph" [I. i. 30-1), are
denounced by their own tribunes for ingratitude and; change of heart. After the cynical speech by Marullus on
the crowd's erstwhile devotion to Caesar's adversary, Flavius pronounces chorally upon its:
See, whether their basest metal be not moved;
They vanish tongue-tied in their guiltiness.
[I. i. 61-2]
The next we hear of the Roman mob is from Casca who, in the well-known lines of Scene ii, reports its
reception of Caesar's refusal of the crown.
... and still as he refus'd it, the rabblement hooted and clapp'd their chapp'd hands and threw
up their sweaty nightcaps and uttered such a deal of stinking breath because Caesar refus'd the
crown, that it had almost choked Caesar, for he swounded and fell down at it; and for mine
own part, I durst not laugh, for fear of opening my lips and receiving the bad air.
[I. ii. 243-501]
Casca ends his splenetic account of the populace with the "three or four wenches, where I stood" who cried
"Alas, good soul!" [I. ii. 271-72] and one is reminded of Richard II on Bolingbroke's courtship of the people:
"Off goes his bonnet to an oyster wench" [Richard II, I. iv. 31]. Both Richard and Casca are jaundiced
personalities, and their allusions to humanity in the mass are doubtless in character and part of the
characterization process ... [it] will be observed that Shakespeare generally uses characters of a cynically
patrician humor for comment upon the populace and that a dramatist's calculation of audience response may
be largely revealed by such consistent choice of commentators. Moreover, when the "slanting" is not done by
aristocrats, when it is done by the tribunes in the present play, and by Cade's own followers or indeed by Cade
himself in Henry VI, the picture drawn of popular assemblage is altogether as scurrilous.
The next appearance of the citizenry is in the second scene of Act III. After the killing of Caesar in the
previous scene, Brutus and Cassius enter with a throng of citizens who are given the first line, "We will be
satisfied; let us be satisfied" [III. ii. 1]. The citizens divide, some to hear Cassius, others to hear Brutus. The
honest and highly epigrammatic speech of Brutus quickly converts the suspicious crowd, and they clamor,
"Let him be Caesar"; "Caesar's better parts shall be crown'd in Brutus" [III. ii. 51-2]. The uproar of impulsive
approval is so loud that Brutus must implore silence so that Antony may speak, and as Antony goes into the
pulpit there are cries, '"Twere best he speak no harm of Brutus here" and "This Caesar was a tyrant" [III. ii.
68-9]. (pp. 25-7)
In complete contrast with Brutus, Antony is no expounder but rather an evoker who pulls, one by one and
each at the strategic moment, all the stops of the organ. Some forty lines following a self-effacing start, his
nostalgic reminiscences of Caesar and his apparent emotional breakdown have the citizens murmuring in his
favor. His mention of Caesar's will and quick disavowal of intent to read it increase the murmur to a clamor,
in the midst of which he produces Caesar's bloody mantle; the clamor then becomes a frenzy as the citizenry
cry, "About! Seek! Burn! Fire! Kill! Slay!" [III. ii. 205]. Caesar's wounds, "poor dumb mouths" [III. ii. 225]
Roman Politics
102
are given tongues as the mob is tensed to the critical pitch. In their upheaval the commoners forget the will,
and Antony, with what seems cold-blooded cynicism, calls them back to hear Caesar's bequests in their favor.
After that there is no check which can be put on them as they rush through the city with firebrands;
significantly enough, they accomplish only irrelevant violence in killing Cinna the poet who, for want of a
better reason, is torn for his bad verses.
In his chapter on the source of Julius Caesar, [in Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background], M. W.
MacCallum is not specifically concerned with Shakespeare's presentation of Rome's unreasonable populace.
At the outset, however, he does discuss the peculiar shiftiness of the mob's bullying questions addressed to the
poet Cinna. MacCallum observes that none of this is in Plutarch and that it is Shakespeare's realistic
contribution based upon intuitive understanding of the behavior of bravoes who have run down a victim. This
is valuable. As a short scene in which the bland sadistic stare and the irrelevant retort are thrust upon an
innocent who tries to explain himself, the episode deserves more space than MacCallum devotes to it. In its
forty lines are packed such an awareness of the hostility and cogent unreason found in class conflict that the
scene could be called modern in all senses, sober and ironical, of the term. For in Shakespeare's conception
there is surely none of the wistful expectation that aroused masses will act objectively; the scene rests upon a
knowledge of such behavior in crisis which is hard to explain other than by the dramatist's intuitive
observation.
While he comments briefly upon this bit of realism as a factor not found in Shakespeare's source, MacCallum
is silent upon a similar and far more elaborate transmutation of source material. It is well known that the
speeches of Brutus and Antony in the funeral scene are Shakespeare's own, but no discussion of altered
sources would be adequate which failed to note the political realism which underlies these additions. From
Plutarch Shakespeare certainly derived Brutus's high-mindedness and his tactical error in allowing Antony to
speak, but there is no implication, in the source, of the kind of speech Brutus made. It has the laconic and
functional sparseness of the Gettysburg Address. Tragically, however, it is not delivered as a tribute to men
who died in battle, but as justification of a political coup and as an appeal for mass support. Shakespeare
conceives of Brutus as an idealist who believes that facts honestly and simply explained are politically
adequate. Because of his concern not to sully himself and his pains to represent his opposition fairly, Brutus
wins support only until Antony begins to explore crowd responses. And although Shakespeare may not have
intended it, Brutus's speech exhibits perfectly the egocentrism of those who make a religion of objectivity.
The scorn of emotionality suggested by it, the conviction implied in it that orderly analysis is preeminent, and
the perfectionistic compactness of it as a composition, all suggest a self-regard by the inward eye which may
be the bliss of solitude, but which is fatal in an emergency requiring audience response.
Antony's famous rejoinder is a tour de force which completes Shakespeare's picture of the kind of persuasion
most effective with the citizenry. Plutarch does give the prescription for this speech, but only in formula.
"When [Antony] saw that the people were very glad and desirous also to hear Caesar spoken of, and his
praises uttered, he mingled his oration with lamentable words, and by amplifying of matters did greatly move
their hearts and affections."
The gist of this is the essence of Antony's oration. Antony, above all, is an analyst of audience temper; he first
finds what his listeners want to hear and then wanders among the bypaths of their "hearts and aifections."
Shakespeare's grasp of crowd psychology has been the subject of study [see Frederick Tupper, "The
Shakespearean Mob," PMLA XXVII (1912): 486-523], but there remains a need to examine Antony's speech
for its surprising arsenal of cynical devices. There is the vivid and platitudinous beginning:
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones.
[III. ii. 75-6]
Roman Politics
103
Next comes the apparent admission against interest: "If it [Caesar's ambition] were so, it was a grievous fault"
[III. ii. 79]. Now occurs a hint of the common touch, "When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept" [III.
ii. 91]. Then, just as Antony is beginning to warm to his subject, comes his first exploratory halt; apparently
inarticulate with emotion, he must pause till his heart, "in the coffin there with Caesar," [III. ii. 106], comes
back to him. The commoners begin to mutter and Antony, sensing it, advances to the next strategic point: he
mentions Caesar's will but disclaims all intention of capitalizing upon material interest. Another exploratory
pause, and as the citizens clamor for the will Antony knows that he can throw caution away. His subsequent
move is to produce the concrete object, the evocative thing which men can touch and see, Caesar's gown with
the bloody rents in it. But first he recalls old times and old campaigns.
I remember
The first time ever Caesar put it on;
'Twas on a summer's evening, in his tent
That day he overcame the Nervii.
[in. ii. 170-73]
And now, in a climax of mingled sentiment and abuse, he holds the grisly thing up for the crowd to see. Next,
and in clinching employment of the concrete objective device, he drives the crowd's attention directly to the
hacked body of Caesar, and there is no holding them. They even forget the will which Antony, who has saved
material interest as the most telling and final point, must call them back to hear.
This is not a pretty example of how to manipulate the electorate, and it is even less so when we perceive two
ingredients which do not occur at any one point, but are pervasive. In contrast with the understatement of
Brutus, who tells the crowd briefly why he killed his best friend, Antony's irony, with its six-fold repetition of
the "honorable men" phrase, evolves steadily into the most blatant kind of sarcasm. He knows the inadequacy
of quiet irony; he also knows the value of repetition and how to use it climactically. The second pervasive
factor in Antony's speech is that the crowd really makes it for him. He could have learned nothing from a Dale
Carnegie [the author of How to Win Friends and Influence People], for he knows with sure insight that he
cannot really convince people unless they think they are convincing themselves or, better yet, that they are
convincing him. He is "no orator, as Brutus is," but "just a plain blunt man" [III. ii. 217-18] who is trying to
think this thing out with the rest of them.
Shakespeare's penetration into this darker side of political behavior rivals two modern fictional efforts in that
direction, both of them based in a non-literal way upon the career of Huey Long [the controversial Louisiana
governor; see Number One, by John Dos Passos, and All the King's Men, by Robert Penn Warren]. Whether
his cynical picture of mass persuasion is based upon intuition or observation or both, it is impossible to say.
One thing is certain, however: the contributions of Plutarch to Shakespeare's conception of how the popular
mind may be translated into action are limited to a skeletal formula with bare details concerning the will, the
bloody gown, and Caesar's body.
In evaluating Shakespeare's use of Plutarch in this episode, we have not only the demagoguery of Antony's
speech to consider but also a portrait of the populace itself. Concerning the latter, the evidence is conflicting.
As the account in Plutarch is followed, it would seem at first that Shakespeare had made a gratuitous and
major change in order to emphasize the instability of crowd responses. All readers of Shakespeare know that
in his play the citizenry plumps solidly for Brutus, only to change over suddenly at Antony's provocation.
Plutarch's account of Marcus Brutus, however, runs entirely counter to this.
When the people saw him [Brutus] in the pulpit, although they were a multitude of rakehells
of all sorts, and had a good will to make some stir: yet being ashamed to do it for the
reverence they bare unto Brutus, they kept silence to hear what he would say. When Brutus
began to speak, they gave him quiet audience: howbeit immediately after, they showed that
Roman Politics
104
they were not at all contented with the murder. For when another called Cinna [the
conspirator] would have spoken, and began to accuse Caesar, they fell into a great uproar
among them and marvelously reviled him.
The account of the same event in Plutarch's life of Caesar depicts the citizenry as being moved by Brutus
neither one way nor the other.
There are two reasons, however, why this change taken by itself cannot be relied upon to show a
transmutation by Shakespeare with intention of casting discredit upon the populace. The first of these is that
there is dramatic reason for the change: it is simply more effective to show a populace swayed first one way
and then the other, and the story would be flat without it. Perhaps this principle, if extended, would also
account, upon a purely dramatic basis, for the cynical virtuosity exhibited in Antony's speech ... A second
reason why little can be made of Shakespeare's change in this episode is that although Plutarch does not
exhibit a fickle citizenry first in agreement with Brutus and immediately afterward with Antony, he does
elsewhere and generally give clear hints of its instability. In the life of Marcus Brutus, and but a few pages
beyond the excerpt just quoted, occurs this description of the populace just after Antony's winning of their
favor: "The people growing weary now of Antonius' pride and insolency, who ruled all things in manner with
absolute power: they desired that Brutus might return again."
Beyond the specific data described in the last few pages, there are some general notions in Plutarch which
bear upon the problem and find their way into Shakespeare's adaptation of the episode. There is material
throughout which establishes the opportunistic allegiance of the populace to Caesar. Cato, for example, feared
"insurrection of the poor needy persons, which were they that put all their hope in Caesar." Caesar, moreover,
"began to put forth laws meeter for a seditious Tribune than for a Consul: because by them he preferred the
division of lands, and the distributing of corn to every citizen, gratis, to please them withal." The people are
described, however, as antagonistic to the idea of Caesar as emperor, and as making outcries of joy when he
refused the crown. And in direct line with Shakespeare's conception of a Rome plagued with popular
insurrection, we learn from Plutarch that:
Rome itself also was immediately filled with the flowing repair of all the people their
neighbors thereabouts, which came hither from all parties like droves of cattle, that there was
neither officer nor magistrate that could any more command them by authority, neither by any
persuasion of reason bridle such a confused and disorderly multitude: so that Rome had in
manner destroyed itself for lack of rule and order.
Plutarch, in fact, declares that "men of deep judgment and learning" were so concerned with the "fury and
madness" of the people that they "thought themselves happy if the commonwealth were no worse troubled
than with the absolute state of a monarchy and sovereign lord to govern them." Unlike his story of Coriolanus,
Plutarch's account of Caesar, and to some extent his story of Brutus, provided Shakespeare with a ready-made
aversion to the populace which amounts to contempt. Apparently unnoticed by source studies, which have
been more concerned with story and characterization than with social bias, is a brief passage in the life of
Marcus Brutus which probably furnished the cue for Shakespeare's opening scene. This scene is begun by
Flavius with a denunciation of the commoners, containing the line, "What! know you not, being mechanical...
" [II. i. 2-3]. In the scene, moreover, six of the seven responses from the citizenry are made by a cobbler. The
suggestion for this may well have been words in Plutarch addressed by Cassius to Brutus: "What! knowest
thou not that thou art Brutus? Thinkest thou that they be cobblers, tapsters, or suchlike base mechanical
people, that write these bills and scrolls ... ?" Whether the passage suggested part of Shakespeare's opening
scene or not, it is typical of the social point of view toward commoners which was available to Shakespeare in
his source data.
Roman Politics
105
Finally, in a source-play comparison involving Julius Caesar it should be made plain that Plutarch supplied
Shakespeare with the flagrant and literally inflammatory action of the mob which follows Antony's oration:
But when they had opened Caesar's testament and found a liberal legacy of money
bequeathed unto every citizen of Rome, and that they saw his body (which was brought into
the market place) all bemangled with gashes of swords: then there was no order to keep the
multitude and common people quiet ... Then ... they took the firebrands, and went unto their
houses that had slain Caesar, to set them afire. Others also ran up and down the city to see if
they could meet with any of them, to cut them in pieces.
Directly after this comes Plutarch's description of the mobbing of Cinna the poet. (pp. 27-35)
Brents Stirling, "The Plays: Julius Caesar," in his The Populace in Shakespeare, Columbia University Press,
1949, pp. 25-35.
Virgil K. Whitaker
[Whitaker discusses the political and moral implications of Shakespeare's characterization of Brutus and
Caesar. The critic describes in detail how Shakespeare altered Plutarch's narratives to represent Caesar as a
great ruler and Brutus as a virtuous but self-righteous and muddle-headed man. Shakespeare's purpose in
deviating from his source, the critic argues, was to portray Brutus as the tragic hero of the drama—"the first
of Shakespeare's superb tragic figures who fail through false moral choice." Brutus's tragic error is presented
in his soliloquy at II.i.10-34, in which he assumes that Caesar will become a tyrant if he is crowned emperor
and that his death is in the best interests of the Roman people. According to Whitaker, Brutus's wrong moral
choice reflects Shakespeare's belief in the superiority of monarchy to democracy; it also underscores his
conviction that immoral conduct results from faulty reasoning.]
Julius Caesar, the first of Shakespeare's mature tragedies, can be very confidently dated in 1599, just after
Henry VI and alongside As You Like It and Twelfth Night. It is a landmark in the development of
Shakespeare's thought. Its very structure results from applying to the sources in Plutarch two postulates ...
encountered in the earlier plays—namely, that monarchy is necessary to social order and that wrong conduct
results from a failure of reason. (p. 224)
When Shakespeare first read Plutarch, presumably while he was writing the Henry VI plays, he obviously did
not approach the life of Caesar without preconceptions. He had doubtless already encountered two contrasting
views of the man. The first was that exemplified by Dante, who placed Brutus and Cassius along with Judas
Iscariot in the lowest circle of hell. For him the murder of Caesar by bis friends was the second greatest crime
recorded in history. The other interpretation was derived from Plutarch himself and from later Roman writers.
It portrayed Caesar as a commanding genius but fundamentally an evil man. In later tradition he had become
vainglorious as well. (p. 226)
Let us now turn to Shakespeare's handling of his source material in Julius Caesar ... [Contradictory]
indications appear; but the preponderant evidence indicates that Shakespeare, while in the main accepting
Plutarch's account, attempted to reconcile it with his notion of a great man and ruler.
In Plutarch's "Caesar" Shakespeare found a portrait that emphasized the man's courage, his ambition, his
vanity, and his superstition but did scant justice to his greatness as a statesman. Beginning his play in the last
days of Caesar's life further emphasized this bias of his source. The conquests were past, and Plutarch gives
no adequate indication of the statesmanlike schemes for the government of Rome that we know Caesar to
have formulated during his last months. Shakespeare found only one element in his source that he recognized
as commensurate with the greatness of Caesar's influence—namely, the omens which marked his death. To
these he gave maximum lere is no reason to doubt that Shakespeare, like his contemporaries, accepted these
Roman Politics
106
details in classical writers as historically accurate. The achievement of pagan gods and of oracles Christian
theory explained by assuming that the fallen angels had masqueraded as gods to work the further damnation
of man. But Shakespeare perhaps had no need to rely upon such an explanation of these omens, for
subsequent history amply demonstrated Caesar's place in the divine scheme of things; Providence might be
expected to intervene directly to foretell his death. As Calphurnia tells him: "The heavens themselves blaze
forth the death of princes" [II. ii. 31], Shakespeare therefore seized upon these details and emphasized them as
properly indicating Caesar's surpassing greatness. (p. 228)
In finding a second means of squaring his source with his own notion of Caesar's greatness, Shakespeare was
perhaps guided by a passage in the life of Caesar ... :
But his [Caesar's] great prosperity and good fortune, that favoured him all his lifetime, did
continue afterwards in the revenge of his death, pursuing the murtherers both by sea and land,
till they had not left a man more to be executed, of all them that were actors or counsellors in
the conspiracy of his death.
This sentence, which has a marginal gloss "The revenge of Caesar's death," is followed by the information
that Cassius "slew himself with the same sword, with the which he strake Caesar" and an account of various
prodigies of nature. Plutarch then continues:
But, above all, the ghost that appeared unto Brutus showed plainly that the gods were
offended with the murther of Caesar ... looking towards the light of the lamp that waxed very
dim, he saw a horrible vision of a man, of a wonderful greatness, and dreadful look, which at
the first made him marvellously afraid. But, when he saw that it did him no hurt, but stood by
his bedside and said nothing, at length he asked him what he was. The image answered him:
"I am thy ill angel, Brutus, and thou shalt see me by the city of Philippi."
Shakespeare had only to convert Plutarch's evil genius into the ghost of Caesar to achieve not only a perfect
dramatic revenge ghost but also a personification of the greatness of the man, whose influence Brutus himself
confesses on the battlefield:
O Julius Caesar, thou art mighty yet!
Thy spirit walks abroad, and turns our swords
In our own proper entrails.
[V. iii. 94-6]
In addition to selecting his material carefully, Shakespeare attempted by changing various details to alter the
impression created by the source. (pp. 229-30)
In Plutarch, Caesar, who is himself superstitious, is frightened by the prodigies of nature and by Calphurnia's
dream, whereas she "until that time was never given to any fear or superstition." He has to be shamed out of
his decision to stay home by Decius Brutus. Shakespeare presents him as without superstition and gives him
bravery. In the play Caesar at first refuses to heed warnings that he stay home, and the fears are Calphurnia's.
His words during this episode have been taken as boasting, vacillating, and rationalizing; but they are more
likely to be simple statements of fact, such as Shakespeare gives to his great men even though in lesser men
they might seem immodest. They are further justified in that they involve a clever reinterpretation of the
omens taken by the augurers to be unfavorable:
Caesar should be a heart without a heart,
If he should stay at home today for fear ...
We are two lions litter'd in one day:
Roman Politics
107
And I the elder and more terrible:
[II. ii. 42-3, 46-7]
(p. 231)
Events on the way to the Senate have also been changed to ennoble Caesar. In Plutarch he "many times
attempted" to read the crucial message from Artemidorus warning of the conspiracy, put he could not because
of the people who pressed about him. Shakespeare gives the soothsayer significant motives:
My heart laments that virtue cannot live
Out of the teeh of emulation.
[II. iii. 13-14]
Caesar refuses to read the paper because Artemidorus urges that it touches him personally: "What touches us
ourself shall be last serv'd" [III. i. 8]. (Notice, incidentally, that in a public pronouncement he uses the royal
"us.")
Most meaningful of all, perhaps, is Shakespeare's handling of Brutus' crucial soliloquy [II. i. 10-34]. This will
need to be discussed at length in connection with the structure of the play. But we may note here that it is
apparently based in part upon Plutarch's introductory summary of Caesar's character:
His enemies, judging that this favour of the common people would soon quail, when he could
no longer hold out that charge and expense, suffered him to run on, till by little and little he
was grown to be of great strength and power. But in fine, when they had thus given him the
bridle to grow to this greatness, and that they could not then pull him back, though indeed in
sight it would turn one day to the destruction of the whole state and commonwealth of Rome:
"too late they found, that there is not so little a beginning of anything, but continuance of time
will soon make it strong, when through contempt there is no impediment to hinder the
greatness. Thereupon Cicero, like a wise shipmaster that feareth the calmness of the sea, was
the first man that, mistrusting his manner of dealing in the commonwealth, found out his craft
and malice, which he cunningly cloked under the habit of outward courtesy and familiarity."
What the source states as fact, the play develops as a hypothesis, and Brutus says explicitly that it is a
hypothesis unsupported by past conduct.
How is one to reconcile these contrary changes from the source, which make Caesar more subject to physical
infirmities but also more careful and unselfish as a ruler? In part, probably, Shakespeare is actually trying to
contrast human weakness and royal power. But the obvious explanation is to be found, I think, in Plutarch.
Shakespeare took Caesar as one who "yielded not to the disease of his body," but triumphed by the strength of
his will and intellect as well as by his, bravery:
What can be avoided
Whose end is purpos'd by the mighty Gods? ...
Cowards die many times before their death;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
[II. ii. 26-7, 32-3]
To magnify Caesar's achievements, Shakespeare presented him as weaker of body than in the source, and
therefore stronger of will. No one ever regarded Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralysis as detracting from his
greatness. Quite the contrary. His triumph over it was part of his hold upon men. Shakespeare expected those
who were without Cassius' envy to take the same view of Caesar. He was a great and good ruler. To kill him
was regicide. (pp. 232-34)
Roman Politics
108
There may be question as to what Shakespeare was trying to accomplish by the changes he made in portraying
Caesar. There can be no doubt whatever as to what he was trying to do to Brutus. To Plutarch Brutus was an
almost perfect example of the antique and heroic republican mould. To Shakespeare he was a very great man,
but, because of fundamental defects in his own mind and character, he made a horrible and tragic error—in
short, he was a tragic hero.
Shakespeare therefore emphasized both Brutus' self-righteousness and his impractical and muddled head. His
deviations from his source indicate that such was his intention. In the meeting of the conspirators that
occupies the latter half of Act II, Scene i, Brutus overrules three suggestions by Cassius. The first is an
outright invention, and the other two involve significant divergences from the account of Brutus' reasoning in
the source. Cassius first proposes an oath, which Brutus rejects on the grounds that it would "stain the even
virtue of our enterprise" [II. i. 132-33]. Cassius then suggests that they invite Cicero to join them. Plutarch
implies that the conspirators agreed to omit Cicero "for they were afraid that he being a coward by nature, and
age also having increased his fear, he would quite turn and alter all their purpose, and quench the heat of their
enterprise, the which especially required hot and earnest execution, seeking by persuasion to bring all things
to such safety, as there should be no peril." For this general distrust of a born politician Shakespeare
substituted a rejection by Brutus alone on grounds more indicative of his own vanity than of Cicero's
incompetence:
O, name him not; let us not break with him.
For he will never follow anything
That other men begin.
[II. i. 150-52]
In Plutarch Brutus' reasons for refusing to kill Antonius, as Cassius wishes, at least show genuine idealism:
But Brutus would not agree to it. First, for that he said it was not honest; secondly, because he
told them there was hope of change in him. For he did not mistrust, but that Antonius, being a
noble-minded and courageous man, (when he should know that Caesar was dead) would
willingly help his country to recover her liberty, having them an example unto him, to follow
their courage and virtue.
Shakespeare makes his motives reflect both self-righteousness and a lack of worldly experience. He argues
that, because Antony is given to wild living, he is not dangerous:
If he love Caesar, all that he can do
Is to himself—take thought and die for Caesar;
And that were much he should, for he is given
To sports, to wildness, and much company.
[II. i. 186-89]
Later, when Antony asks to deliver a funeral oration over Caesar's body, Shakespeare attributes to Brutus
himself the very arguments for granting the request which Plutarch makes Antony advance. Coming from
Antony they were crafty; coming from Brutus they are fatuous. Brutus also demands the impossible in the
following proviso: praise Caesar without dispraising us!
You shall not in your funeral speech blame us.
But speak all good you can devise of Caesar.
[10. i. 245-46]
Roman Politics
109
Shakespeare tried so obviously to accentuate Brutus' self-righteousness in the quarrel between Brutus and
Cassius just before Philippi that his writing is actually clumsy. In Plutarch Brutus gets money from Cassius
while they are at Smyrna. Some time later, during the quarrel upon which Shakespeare's scene is based, he
reproves Cassius for his way of exacting money. But Shakespeare so arranges matters that Brutus first
reproves Cassius for his methods of getting money ... and then, all the while protesting his own superior
virtue, upbraids Cassius for not sending him some of the ill-gotten wealth:
I did send to you
For certain sums of gold, which you deni'd me;
For I can raise no money by vile means.—
By heaven, I had rather coin my heart
And drop my blood for drachmas than to wring
From the hard hands of peasants their vile trash
By any indirection.—I did send
To you for gold to pay my legions,
Which you deni'd me.
[IV. iii. 69-77]
These lines suggest that Shakespeare took more pains to emphasize Brutus' self-righteous inconsistency than
to construct a credible speech.
Finally, Shakespeare made Brutus alone responsible for the disaster at Philippi by attributing to his order [V.
iii. 5] the fatal premature charge which lost the battle. Plutarch says that it was caused by the impatience of the
troops. Brutus' failure is further emphasized by Cassius' speech protesting that he fights against his will [V. i.
70-88]. The protest is taken from the source; but this speech, being much the longest in the entire act, focuses
attention upon what Plutarch mentions in passing.
Brutus therefore emerges from Shakespeare's hand considerably shorn of the perfection which Plutarch gave
him. The importance that one attaches to this shift of emphasis depends, of course, upon the view that one
takes of the structure of the play. I must therefore confess my conviction that Julius Caesar is a
well-constructed tragedy of which Brutus is the hero. The name is obviously irrelevant; for the respect due
kingly rank made Shakespeare name a serious play after the reigning monarch as inevitably as his first
printers placed a king's name at the head of the dramatis personae, no matter how slight his part in the action
of the play, and we have noted that Shakespeare thought of Caesar as a ruler. (pp. 234-37)
If it be granted that Brutus is the real hero, the changes in characterization fit into an orderly pattern, and the
play proves to be worked out in terms of two sets of ideas ... : Shakespeare's political theory and his concept
of moral choice.
The very first scene develops the political background for the play. In Plutarch the images were decked by
Caesar's flatterers "to allure the common people to call him king, instead of dictator." The tribunes, "meeting
with them that first saluted Caesar as king ... committed them to prison." The people rejoiced at this defence
of Roman liberty. For Shakespeare all this simply had no meaning. The images are decked for Caesar's
triumph over Pompey, and the tribunes are moved by loyalty to the fallen leader. The people are a fickle
rabble, as in so many of the plays. As Sir Mark Hunter observed in a stimulating essay on "Politics and
Character in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar" [in Essays by Diverse Hands, Vol. X, edited by Sir Francis
Youngblood], "Liberty" as an end in itself had no meaning for Shakespeare, obedience being the chief virtue
in his political philosophy. Brutus' reliance upon liberty as the basis of his own thinking and in his appeal to
the people is simply self-deception. This the people themselves make clear when they respond to his oration
by saying, "Let him be Caesar" [III. ii. 51], and Antony's oration depends for its effect upon the contrast
between his appeal to Caesar's good deeds and Brutus' nebulous charge that Caesar was ambitious.
Roman Politics
110
As the play progresses, we are introduced to a Roman state organized in the hierarchical fashion that Tudor
theory prescribed ...
The throng that follows Caesar at the heels.
Of senators, of praetors, common suitors.
[II. iv. 34-51]
Here we have the degrees of society that should wait upon a monarch, arranged in proper order. Caesar is still,
in fact though not in name, what Margaret called him in Henry VI [III. i. 18]—a king. And he has for
Shakespeare the sanctity that surrounds a king. (pp. 238-39)
The conspirators also add their testimony that Shakespeare regarded Caesar as a monarch. They do not justify
their attack, as in Plutarch, only on the grounds that he wanted to be king. They repeat the word "king," it is
true; but, like all Shakespeare's regicides, they add "tyrant" and "tyranny." "And why should Caesar be a
tyrant then?" asks Cassius [I. iii. 103], "Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!" proclaims Cinna as Caesar is
stabbed [III. i. 78]. The first plebian concedes, "This Caesar was a tyrant" [III. ii. 69]. And young Cato boasts
three distinctions: he is "the son of Marcus Cato, ho! a foe to tyrants, and my country's friend" [V. iv. 4-5].
Shakespeare's Tudor absolutism was therefore at complete odds with Plutarch's idealization of Brutus as the
epitome of the old republican virtues. That Shakespeare approached his source with the presuppositions of his
own times is not surprising. What does mark his intellectual development is the fact that he was able to read
Plutarch with such sympathetic understandin
Public and Private Values
Maynard Mack
[Mack discusses the public and private values of Brutus and Caesar in terms of what he views as the primary
theme of the play: "the always ambiguous impact between man and history." The private Brutus, the critic
asserts, is a gentle, sensitive, and studious man who loves Caesar and deplores violence, while the public
figure is a noble idealist who participates in the conspiracy because he believes he must act on behalf of the
state. Mack contends that in the first half of the drama Shakespeare focuses on "human will as a force in
history" by portraying individuals, such as Brutus, choosing courses of action and controlling events; in
contrast, the second half of Julius Caesar demonstrates the inadequacies of noble intentions, rationalism, and
human will, once they are displayed in action, in influencing history. Caesar's dual nature, the critic
continues, similarly dramatizes Shakespeare's thesis that history is only partially responsive to human will.
The private Caesar, an ordinary man plagued by physical weaknesses and susceptible to superstition, cannot
escape being assassinated. However, the public Caesar is the "marble superman of state," the "everlasting
Big Brother—the Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Peron, Stalin, Kruschev, to mention only a handful of
his more recent incarnations ... who must repeatedly be killed but never dies."]
I am one of those who believe that Shakespeare can be taught to almost any sort of audience. I am perfectly
aware, of course, of the language problem that Shakespeare presents for today's students ... ; and I am
perfectly willing to admit that there are classes to whom it would be preposterous to offer his plays. I would
only argue that to any group to whom literature in any form may be offered with a prospect of success,
Shakespeare may be offered with equal and usually with greater success. After all, it was not mainly the
verbalizers and the "brighties" of Elizabethan London who showed up with their penny at the Globe to stand
for two and a half hours in the pit. It was the odoriferous and stupid, the groundlings, capable, as Shakespeare
himself said, of little but "inexplicable dumb shows and noise" [Hamlet, III. ii. 12]. Yet he had something to
say to these people: he held them. In the hands of a patient teacher, who will make the most of student
participation, he still does—as no other reading but the comics will. And when he does not, I suggest it is
Public and Private Values
111
almost invariably for one of two reasons. On the one hand, the teacher is a bardolater and holds the play aloft
for distant veneration as if it were a thing too refined for human nature's daily food. I had a teacher like this
myself. Whenever we came to any of the great speeches in the plays, he would lean back in his chair, close his
eyes, and murmur, in a voice you could pour on a waffle, "ah, the magic of it, the magic!" That same magic
took me a whole year to get over and almost sent me into chemical engineering.
Then there is the other alternative: the teacher is not actually interested in the play except as a scratching post
of the student's memory. In this teacher's class, the interminable question is "What next? What after that?
What then?" as though the play were a time-table to a destination that will never be reached. I get a good
many of that teacher's pupils in my classes ... They know exactly what follows what in the first act of
Macbeth, say, but nobody has ever asked them any questions beginning with "Why?" Why does the play open
with the witch scene? Why is the number of the witches three? Is there any significance in the fact that there
are also three banquets, three murders, three apparitions, and even three murderers at Banquo's death? And
what does the second witch mean by saying "When the battle's lost and won"? What battle? and how can it be
won and lost at the same time?
Questions like these, I feel, suggest the approach that most of us who are neither bardolaters nor mnemonicists
will wish to take to Shakespeare, and if we are taking it with Julius Caesar, I think the place we may want to
begin is with I. ii; for here, as in the first witch scene in Macbeth, most of the play to come is already implicit.
We have just learned from scene i of Caesar's return in triumph from warring on Pompey's sons, we have seen
the warm though fickle adulation of the crowd and the apprehension of the tribunes; now we are to see the
great man himself. The procession enters to triumphal music; with hubbub of a great press of people; with
young men stripped for the ceremonial races, among them Antony; with statesmen in their togas: Decius,
Cicero, Brutus, Cassius, Casca; with the two wives Calpurnia and Portia; and, in the lead, for not even
Calpurnia is permitted at his side, the great man. As he starts to speak, an expectant hush settles over the
gathering: what does the great man have on his mind?
CAES. Calpurnia.
CASCA. Peace, ho! Caesar speaks.
CAES. Calpurnia
CAL. Here, my lord.
CAES. Stand you directly in Antonius' way
When he does run his course. Antonius.
ANT. Caesar, my lord?
CAES. Forget not, in your speed, Antonius,
To touch Calpurnia; for our elders say,
The barren, touched in this holy chase, Shake off their sterile curse.
ANT. I shall remember:
When Caesar says, "Do this," it is perform'd.
[I. ii. 1-10]
What the great man had on his mind, it appears, was to remind his wife, in this public place, that she is sterile;
that there is an old tradition about how sterility can be removed; and that while of course he is much too
sophisticated to accept such a superstition himself—it is "our elders" who say it—still, Calpurnia had jolly well
better get out there and get tagged, or else!
Then the procession takes up again. The hubbub is resumed, but once more the expectant silence settles as a
voice is heard.
SOOTH. Caesar!
CAES. Ha! Who calls?
Public and Private Values
112
CASCA Bid every noise be still; peace yet
again!
CAES. Who is it in the press that calls on me?
I hear a tongue shriller than all the music
Cry "Caesar!" Speak. Caesar is turn'd to hear.
SOOTH. Beware the ides of March.
CAES. What man is that?
BRU. A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March.
CAES. Set him before me; let me see his
face.
CAS. Fellow, come from the throng; look upon Caesar.
CAES. What say'st thou to me now?
Speak once again.
SOOTH. Beware the ides of March.
CAES. He is a dreamer. Let us leave him.
Pass.
[I. ii. 11-24]
It is easy to see from even these small instances, I think, how a first-rate dramatic imagination works. There is
no hint of any procession in Plutarch, Shakespeare's source. "Caesar," says Plutarch, "sat to behold." There is
no mention of Calpurnia in Plutarch's account of the Lupercalian race, and there is no mention anywhere of
her sterility. Shakespeare, in nine lines, has given us an unforgettable picture of a man who would like to be
emperor pathetically concerned that he lacks an heir, and determined, even at the cost of making his wife a
public spectacle, to establish that this is owing to no lack of virility in him. The first episode thus dramatizes
instantaneously the oncoming theme of the play: that a man's will is not enough; that there are other matters to
be reckoned with, like the infertility of one's wife, or one's own affliction of the falling sickness which spoils
everything one hoped for just at the instant when one had it almost in one's hand. Brutus will be obliged to
learn this lesson too.
In the second episode the theme develops. We see again the uneasy rationalism that everybody in this play
affects; we hear it reverberate in the faint contempt—almost a challenge—of Brutus' words as he turns to
Caesar: "A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March." Yet underneath, in the soothsayer's presence and
his sober warning, Shakespeare allows us to catch a hint of something else, something far more primitive and
mysterious, from which rationalism in this play keeps trying vainly to cut itself away: "He is a dreamer. Let us
leave him. Pass." Only we in the audience are in a position to see that the dreamer has foretold the path down
which all these reasoners will go to that fatal encounter at the Capitol.
Meantime, in these same two episodes, we have learned something about the character of Caesar. In the first,
it was the Caesar of human frailties who spoke to us, the husband with his hopeful superstition. In the second,
it was the marble superman of state, impassive, impervious, speaking of himself in the third person: "Speak!
Caesar is turn'd to hear." He even has the soothsayer brought before his face to repeat the message, as if he
thought that somehow, in awe of the marble presence, the message would falter and dissolve: how can a
superman need to beware the ides of March?
We hardly have time to do more than glimpse here a man of divided selves, when he is gone. But in his
absence, the words of Cassius confirm our glimpse. Cassius' description of him exhibits the same duality that
we had noticed earlier. On the one hand, an extremely ordinary man whose stamina in the swimming match
was soon exhausted, who, when he had a fever once in Spain, shook and groaned like a sick girl, who even
now, as we soon learn, is falling down with epilepsy in the market place. On the other hand, a being who has
somehow become a god, who "bears the palm alone," who "bestrides the narrow world like a colossus" [I. ii.
131, 135-36]. When the procession returns, no longer festive now, but angry, tense, there is the same effect
Public and Private Values
113
once more. Our one Caesar shows a normal man's suspicion of his enemies, voices some shrewd human
observations about Cassius, says to Antony, "Come on my right hand, for this ear is deaf" [I. ii. 213]. Our
other Caesar says, as if he were suddenly reminded of something he had forgotten, "I rather tell thee what is to
be fear'd / Than what I fear, for always I am Caesar" [I. ii. 211-12].
Whenever Caesar appears hereafter, we shall find this singular division in him, and nowhere more so than in
the scene in which he receives the conspirators at his house. Some aspects of this scene seem calculated for
nothing else than to fix upon our minds the superman conception, the Big Brother of Orwell's 1984, the great
resonant name echoing down the halls of time. Thus at the beginning of the scene:
the things that threatened me
Ne'er look'd but on my back; when they shall see
The face of Caesar, they are vanished.
[II. ii. 10-12]
And again later:
danger knows full well
That Caesar is more dangerous than he:
We are two lions litter'd in one day,
And I the elder and more terrible.
[II. ii. 44-7]
And again still later: "Shall Caesar send a lie?" [II. ii. 65]. And again: "The cause is in my will: I will not
come" [II. ii. 71]. Other aspects, including his concern about Calpurnia's dream, his vacillation about going to
the senate house, his anxiety about the portents of the night, plainly mark out his human weaknesses. Finally,
as is the habit in this Rome, he puts the irrational from him that his wife's intuitions and her dream embody;
he accepts the rationalization of the irrational that Decius skillfully manufactures, and, as earlier at the
Lupercalia, hides from himself his own vivid sense of forces that lie beyond the will's control by attributing it
to her:
How foolish do your fears seem now, Calpurnia!
I am ashamed I did yield to them.
Give me my robe, for I will go.
[H. ii. 105-07]
So far in our consideration of the implications of I. ii. we have been looking only at Caesar, the title personage
of the play, and its historical center. It is time now to turn to Brutus, the play's tragic center, whom we also
find to be a divided man—"poor Brutus," to use his own phrase, "with himself at war" [I. ii. 46]. The war, we
realize as the scene progresses, is a conflict between a quiet essentially domestic and loving nature, and a
powerful integrity expressing itself in a sense of honorable duty to the commonweal. This duality in Brutus
seems to be what Cassius is probing at in his long disquisition about the mirror. The Brutus looking into the
glass that Cassius figuratively holds up to him, the Brutus of this moment, now, in Rome, is a grave studious
private man, of a wonderfully genitle temper, as we shall see again and again later on, very slow to passion, as
Cassius' ill-concealed disappointment in having failed to kindle him to immediate response reveals, a man
whose sensitive nature recoils at the hint of violence lurking in some of Cassius' speeches, just as he has
already recoiled at going on with Caesar to the market place, to witness the mass hysteria of clapping hands,
sweaty nightcaps, and stinking breath. This is the present self that looks into Cassius' mirror.
The image that looks back out, that Cassius wants him to see, the potential Brutus, is the man of public spirit,
worried already by the question of Caesar's intentions, the lineal descendant of an earlier Brutus who drove a
Public and Private Values
114
would-be monarch from the city, a man whose body is visibly stiffening in our sight at each huzza from the
Forum, and whose anxiety, though he makes no reply to Cassius' inflammatory language, keeps bursting to
the surface: "What means this shouting? I do fear the people / Choose Caesar for their king" [I. ii. 79-80]. The
problem at the tragic center of the play, we begin to sense, is to be the tug of private versus public, the
individual versus a world he never made, any citizen anywhere versus the selective service greetings that
history is always mailing out to each of us. And this problem is to be traversed by that other tug this scene
presents, of the irrational versus the rational, the destiny we think we can control versus the destiny that
sweeps all before it.
Through I. ii, Brutus' public self, the self that responds to these selective service greetings, is no more than a
reflection in a mirror, a mere anxiety in his own brain, about which he refuses to confide, even to Cassius. In
II. i, we see the public self making further headway. First, there is Brutus' argument with himself about the
threat of Caesar, and in his conclusion that Caesar must be killed we note how far his private self—he is, after
all, one of Caesar's closest friends—has been invaded by the self of public spirit. From here on, the course of
the invasion accelerates. The letter comes, tossed from the public world into the private world, into Brutus'
garden, and addressing, as Cassius had, that public image reflected in the mirror: "Brutus, thou sleep'st: awake
and see thyself" [II. i. 46]. Then follows the well-known brief soliloquy ... , showing us that Brutus' mind has
moved on now from the phase of decision to the inquietudes that follow decision:
Between the acting of a dreadful thing
And the first motion, all the interim is
Like a phantasma, or a hideous dream.
[II. i. 63-5]
What is important to observe is that these lines stress once again the gulf that separates motive from action,
that which is interior in man and controllable by his will from that which, once acted, becomes independent of
him and moves with a life of its own. This gulf is a no man's land, a phantasma, a hideous dream.
Finally, there arrives in such a form that no audience can miss it the actual visible invasion itself, as this
peaceful garden quiet is broken in on by knocking, like the knocking of fate in Beethoven's fifth symphony,
and by men with faces hidden in their cloaks. Following this, a lovely interlude with Portia serves to
emphasize how much the private self, the private world has been shattered. We have something close to
discord here—as much of a discord as these very gentle people are capable of—and though there is a
reconciliation at the end and Brutus' promise to confide in her soon, this division in the family is an omen. So
is that knock of the late-comer, Caius Ligarius, which reminds us once again of the intrusions of the public
life. And when Ligarius throws off his sick man's kerchief on learning that there is an honorable exploit afoot,
we may see in it an epitome of the whole scene, a graphic visual renunciation, like Brutus', of the private good
to the public; and we may see this also in Brutus' own exit a few lines later, not into the inner house where
Portia waits for him, but out into the thunder and lightning of the public life of Rome. It is perhaps significant
that at our final view of Portia, two scenes later, she too stands outside the privacy of the house, her mind
wholly occupied with thoughts of what is happening at the Capitol, and trying to put on a public self for
Brutus' sake: "Run, Lucius, and commend me to my Lord / Say I am merry ..." [II. iv. 44-5].
Meantime, up there by the Capitol, the tragic center and the historical center meet. The suspense is very great
as Caesar, seeing the Soothsayer in the throng, reminds him that the ides of March are come, and receives in
answer, "Ay, Caesar, but not gone" [III. i. 2]. More suspense as Artemidorus presses forward with the paper
that we know contains a full discovery of the plot. Decius, apprehensive, steps quickly into the breach with
another paper, a petition from Trebonius. More suspense still as Popilius sidles past Cassius with the whisper,
"I wish your enterprise today may thrive" [III. i. 13], and then moves on to Caesar's side, where he engages
him in animated talk. But they detect no tell-tale change in Caesar's countenance; Trebonius steps into his
assignment and takes Antony aside; Metellus Cimber throws himself at Caesar's feet; Brutus gives the signal
Public and Private Values
115
to "press near and second him," and Caesar's "Are we all ready?" draws every eye to Caesar's chair [III. i.
29,31]. One by one they all kneel before this demigod—an effective tableau which gives a coloring of
priest-like ritual to what they are about to do. Caesar is to bleed, but, as Brutus has said, they will sublimate
the act into a sacrifice:
Let's kill him boldly but not wrathfully;
Let's carve him as a dish fit for the gods,
Not hew him as a carcass fit for hounds.
[II. i. 172-74]
Everything in the scene must underscore this ceremonial attitude, in order to bring out the almost fatuous
cleavage between the spirit of this enterprise and its bloody purpose.
The Caesar that we are permitted to see while all this ceremony is preparing is almost entirely the superman,
for obvious reasons. To give a color of justice to Brutus' act and so to preserve our sense of his nobility even if
we happen to think the assassination a mistake, as an Elizabethan audience emphatically would, Caesar has to
appear in a mood of superhumanity at least as fatuous as the conspirators' mood of sacrifice. Hence
Shakespeare makes him first of all insult Metellus Cimber: "If thou dost bend and pray and fawn for him, / I
spurn thee like a cur" [II. i. 45-6]; then comment with intolerable pomposity, and, in fact, blasphemy, on his
own iron resolution, for he affects to be immovable even by prayer and hence superior to the very gods.
Finally, Shakespeare puts into his mouth one of those supreme arrogances that will remind us of the
destroying hubris which makes men mad in order to ruin them. "Hence!" Caesar cries, "Wilt thou lift up
Olympus?" [III. i. 74]. It is at just this point, when the colossus Caesar drunk with self-love is before us, that
Casca strikes. Then they all strike, with a last blow that brings out for the final time the other, human side of
this double Caesar: "Et tu, Brute?" [III. i. 77].
And now this little group of men has altered history. The representative of the evil direction it was taking
toward autocratic power lies dead before them. The direction to which it must be restored becomes emphatic
in Cassius' cry of "Liberty, freedom, and enfranchisement" [III. i. 81]. Solemnly, and again like priests who
have just sacrificed a victim, they kneel together and bathe their hands and swords in Caesar's blood. Brutus
exclaims:
Then walk we forth, even to the market place;
And waving our red weapons o'er our heads,
Let's all cry, "Peace, freedom, and liberty!"
[III. i. 108-10]
If the conjunction of those red hands and weapons with this slogan is not enough to bring an audience up with
a start, the next passage will be, for now the conspirators explicitly invoke the judgment of history on their
deed. On the stages of theatres the world over, so they anticipate, this lofty incident will be re-enacted, and
So oft as that shall be.
So often shall the knot of us be call'd
The men that gave their country liberty.
[III. i. 16-18]
We, the audience, recalling what actually did result in Rome—the civil wars, the long line of despotic
emperors—cannot miss the irony of their prediction, an irony that insists on our recognizing that this effort to
control history is going to fail. Why does it fail?
Public and Private Values
116
One reason why is shown us in the next few moments. The leader of this assault on history is, like many
another reformer, a man of high idealism, who devoutly believes that the rest of the world is like himself. It
was just to kill Caesar—so he persuades himself—because he was a great threat to freedom. It would not have
been just to kill Antony, and he vetoed the idea. Even now, when the consequence of that decision has come
back to face him in the shape of Antony's servant, kneeling before him, he sees no reason to reconsider it.
There are good grounds for what they have done, he says; Antony will hear them, and be satisfied. With
Antony, who shortly arrives in person, he takes this line again:
Our reasons are so full of good regard
That were you, Antony, the son of Caesar
You should be satisfied.
[III. i. 224-26]
With equal confidence in the rationality of man, he puts by Cassius' fears of what Antony will do if allowed to
address the people: "By your pardon; I will myself into the pulpit first / And show the reason of our Caesar's
death" [III. i. 235-37]. Here is a man so much a friend of Caesar's that he is still speaking of him as "our
Caesar," so capable of rising to what he takes to be his duty that he has taken on the leadership of those who
intend to kill him, so trusting of common decency that he expects the populace will respond to reason, and
Antony to the obligation laid on him by their permitting him to speak. At such a man, one hardly knows
whether to laugh or cry.
The same mixture of feelings is likely to be stirring in us as Brutus speaks to the people in III. ii. As
everybody knows, this is a speech in what used to be called the great liberal tradition, the tradition that
assumed, as our American founding fathers did, that men in the mass are reasonable. It has therefore been
made a prose oration, spare and terse in diction, tightly patterned in syntax so that it requires close attention,
and founded, with respect to its argument, on three elements: the abstract sentiment of duty to the state
(because he endangered Rome, Caesar had to be slain); the abstract sentiment of political justice (because he
was ambitious, Caesar deserved his fall); and the moral authority of the man Brutus. As long as that moral
authority is concretely before them in Brutus' presence, the populace is impressed. But since they are not
trained minds, and only trained minds respond accurately to abstractions, they do not understand the content
of his argument at all, as one of them indicates by shouting, "Let him be Caesar!" [III. ii. 51]. What moves
them is the obvious sincerity and the known integrity of the speaker; and when he finishes, they are ready to
carry him off on their shoulders on that account alone, leaving Antony a vacant Forum. The fair-mindedness
of Brutus is thrilling but painful to behold as he calms this triumphal surge in his favor, urges them to stay and
hear Antony, and then, in a moment very impressive dramatically as well as symbolically, walks off the stage,
alone. We see then, if we have not seen before, the first answer to the question why the attack on history
failed. It was blinded, as it so often has been, by the very idealism that impelled it.
When Antony takes the rostrum, we begin to get a second answer. It has been said by somebody that in a
school for demagogues this speech should be the whole curriculum. Antony himself describes its method
when he observes in the preceding scene, apropos of the effect of Caesar's dead body on the messenger from
Octavius, "Passion, I see, is catching" [III. i. 283]. This is a statement that cannot be made about reason, as
many a school teacher learns to his cost. I have not time at my disposal to do anything like justice to Antony's
speech, but I should like to make the following summary points. First, Brutus formulates from the outset
positive propositions about Caesar and about his own motives, on no other authority than his own. Because of
his known integrity, Brutus can do this. Antony takes the safer alternative of concealing propositions in
questions, by which the audience's mind is then guided to conclusions which seem its own:
He hath brought many captives to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? ...
Public and Private Values
117
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
[III. ii. 88-90, 95-7]
How well Shakespeare knew his crowds can be seen in the replies to Antony. Brutus, appealing to their
reason, was greeted with wild outbursts of uncomprehending emotion: "Let him be Caesar!" [III. ii. 51].
Antony appeals only to their emotions and their pockets, but now they say, "Methinks there is much reason in
his sayings" [III. ii. 108], and chew upon it seriously.
Second, Antony stirs up impulses and then thwarts them. He appeals to their curiosity and their greed in the
matter of the will, but then he doesn't come clean on it. In the same manner, he stirs up their rage against the
conspirators, yet always pretends to hold them back: "I fear I wrong the honorable men / Whose daggers have
stabb'd Caesar; I do fear it" [III. ii. 151-52]. Third, and this is largely the technical means by which he
accomplishes the stirring up, his speech is baited with irony. The passage just quoted is a typical specimen. So
is the famous refrain, "For Brutus is an honorable man" [III. ii. 82,87,94]. Now the rhetorical value of irony is
that it stimulates the mind to formulate the contrary, that is, the intended meaning. It stimulates what the
psychologists of propaganda nowadays call the assertive factor. "Are you the one man in seven who shaves
daily?'' "Did your husband forget to kiss you this morning?" The advertiser's technique is not, of course,
ironical, but it illustrates the effect.
Finally, Antony rests his case, not, like Brutus, on abstractions centering in the state and political justice, but
on emotions centering in the individual listener. The first great crescendo of the speech, which culminates in
the passage on Caesar's wounds, appeals first to pity and then to indignation. The second one, culminating in
the reading of Caesar's will, appeals first to curiosity and greed and then to gratitude. The management of the
will is particularly cunning: it is an item more concrete than any words could be, an actual tantalizing
document that can be flashed before the eye ... It is described, at first vaguely, as being of such a sort that they
would honor Caesar for it. Then, closer home, as something which would show "how Caesar lov'd you" [III.
ii. 141]. Then, with an undisguised appeal to self-interest, as a testament that will make them his "heirs." The
emotions aroused by this news enable Antony to make a final test of his ironical refrain about the "honorable
men," and finding the results all that he had hoped, he can come down now among the crowd as one of them,
and appeal directly to their feelings by appealing to his own: "If you have tears to shed, prepare to shed them
now" [III. ii. 169].
The success of this direct appeal to passion can be seen at its close. Where formerly we had a populace, now
we have a mob. Since it is a mob, its mind can be sealed against any later seepage of rationality back into it by
the insinuation that reasoning is always false anyway—simply a surface covering up private grudges, like the
"reason" they have heard from Brutus; whereas from Antony himself, the plain blunt friend of Caesar, they
are getting the plain blunt truth and (a favorite trick of politicians) only what they already know to be the
truth.
But also, since it is a mob and therefore will eventually cool off, it must be called back one final time to hear
the will. Antony no longer needs this as an incentive to riot; the mingled rage and pity he has aroused will
take care of that. But when the hangover comes, and you are remembering how that fellow looked swaying a
little on the rope's end, with his eyes bugging out and the veins knotted at his temples, then it is good to have
something really reasonable to cling to, like seventy-five drachmas (or even thirty pieces of silver) and some
orchards along a river.
At about this point, it becomes impossible not to see that a second reason for the failure of the attack on
history is what it left out of account—what all these Romans from the beginning, except Antony, have been
trying to leave out of account: the phenomenon of feeling, the non-rational factor in men, in the world, in
Public and Private Values
118
history itself—of which this blind infuriated mob is one kind of exemplification. Too secure in his own fancied
suppression of the sub-rational, Brutus has failed altogether to reckon with its power. Thus he could seriously
say to Antony in the passage I quoted earlier: Antony, even if you were "the son of Caesar / You should be
satisfied," as if the feeling of a son for a murdered father could ever be "satisfied" by reasons. And thus, too,
he could walk off the stage alone, urging the crowd to hear Antony, the very figure of embodied "reason,"
unaware that only the irrational is catching.
Meantime, the scene of the mob tearing Cinna the Poet to pieces simply for having the same name as one of
the conspirators (III. iii) gives us our first taste of the chaos invoked by Antony when he stood alone over
Caesar's corpse. And as we consider that prediction and this mob, we are bound to realize that there is a third
reason why the attack on history failed. As we have seen already, history is only partly responsive to noble
motives, only partly responsive to rationality. Now we see—what Shakespeare hinted in the beginning with
those two episodes of Calpurnia and the soothsayer—that it is only partly responsive to human influence of any
sort. With all their reasons, the conspirators and Caesar only carried out what the soothsayer foreknew. There
is, in short, a determination in history, whether we call it natural or providential, which at least helps to shape
our ends, "rough hew them how we will" [Hamlet, V. ii. 11]. One of the names of that factor in this play is
Caesarism. Brutus put the point, all unconsciously, in that scene when the conspirators were gathered at his
house. He said:
We all stand up against the spirit of Caesar:
And in the spirit of men there is no blood:
O that we then could come by Caesar's spirit,
And not dismember Caesar! But, alas,
Caesar must bleed for it.
[II. i. 167-711]
Then Caesar did bleed for it; but his spirit, as Brutus' own remark should have told him, proved to be
invulnerable. It was only set free by his assassination, and now, as Antony says, "ranging for revenge, ... Shall
in these confines with a monarch's voice / Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the dogs of war" [III. i. 272-73].
The rest of the play, I think, is self-explanatory. It is clear all through Acts IV and V that Brutus and Cassius
are defeated before they begin to fight. Antony knows it and says so at V. i. Cassius knows it too. Cassius, an
Epicurean in philosophy, and therefore one who has never heretofore believed in omens, now mistrusts his
former rationalism: he suspects there may be something after all in those ravens, crows, and kites that wheel
overhead. Brutus too mistrusts his rationalism. As a Stoic, his philosophy requires him to repudiate suicide,
but he admits to Cassius that if the need comes he will repudiate philosophy instead. This, like Cassius'
statement, is an unconscious admission of the force of unreason in human affairs, an unreason that makes its
presence felt again and again during the great battle. Cassius, for instance, rails to realize that Octavius "Is
overthrown by noble Brutus' power" [V. iii. 52], becomes the victim of a mistaken report of Titinius' death,
runs on his sword crying, "Caesar, thou are reveng'd" [V. iii. 45], and is greeted, dead, by Brutus, in words
that make still clearer their defeat by history: "O Julius Caesar, thou art mighty yet! / Thy spirit walks abroad,
and turns our swords / In our own proper entrails" [V. iii. 94-6]. In the same vein, when it is Brutus' turn to
die, we learn that the ghost of Caesar has reappeared, and he thrusts the sword home, saying, "Caesar, now be
still" [V. v. 50].
To come then to a brief summary. Though I shouldn't care to be dogmatic about it, it seems clear to me that
Shakespeare's primary theme in Julius Caesar has to do with the always ambiguous impact between man and
history. During the first half of the play, what we are chiefly conscious of is the human will as a force in
history—men making choices, controlling events. Our typical scenes are I. ii, where a man is trying to make up
his mind; or II. i, where a man first reaches a decision and then, with his fellows, lays plans to implement it;
or II. ii, where we have Decius Brutus persuading Caesar to decide to go to the senate house; or II. i and ii,
Public and Private Values
119
where up through the assassination, and even up through Antony's speech, men are still, so to speak,
impinging on history, moulding it to their conscious will.
But then comes a change. Though we still have men in action trying to mould their world (or else we would
have no play at all), one senses a real shift in the direction of the impact. We begin to feel the insufficiency of
noble aims, for history is also consequences; the insufficiency of reason and rational expectation, for the
ultimate consequences of an act in history are unpredictable, and usually, by all human standards, illogical as
well; and finally, the insufficiency of the human will itself, for there is always something to be reckoned with
that is non-human and inscrutable ... Accordingly, in the second half of the play, our typical scenes are those
like III. iii, where Antony has raised something that is no longer under his control; or like IV. i, where we see
men acting as if, under the control of expediency or necessity or call it what you will, they no longer had wills
of their own but prick down the names of nephews and brothers indiscriminately for slaughter; or like IV. iii
and all the scenes thereafter, where we are constantly made to feel that Cassius and Brutus are in the hands of
something bigger than they know.
In this light, we can see readily enough why it is that Shakespeare gave Julius Caesar that double character.
The human Caesar who has human ailments and is a human friend is the Caesar that can be killed. The
marmoreal Caesar, the everlasting Big Brother—the Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Peron, Stalin,
Kruschev, to mention only a handful of his more recent incarnations—that Caesar is the one who must
repeatedly be killed but never dies, because he is in you, and you, and you, and me. Every classroom is a
Rome, and there is no reason for any pupil, when he studies Julius Caesar, to imagine that this is ancient
history. (pp. 322-36)
Maynard Mack, "Teaching Drama: 'Julius Caesar'," in Essays on the Teaching of English: Reports of the Yale
Conferences on the Teaching of English, edited by Edward J. Gordon and Edward S. Noyes,
Appleton-Century-Crafts, Inc., 1960, pp. 320-36.
Ritual
Brents Stirling
[Stirling discusses the significance of ritual and ceremony to the thematic design of Julius Caesar. According
to the critic, the play is structured around a central ceremonial rite—Brutus's attempt to raise Caesar's
assassination to the level of formal sacrifice. Nearly every scene prior to Caesar's murder, Stirling asserts,
features a ceremony, which is then followed by a counter-ritual mocking it. The effect of these satirical
scenes, the critic argues, is to reveal Brutus's self-deception in thinking he can purify Caesar's assassination
through ceremony. After Caesar's death, Stirling continues, the hollowness of the ritual surrounding the
murder and the savagery of the conspirators' act are further underscored by Antony in another series of
counter-rituals. Stirling also notes that Shakespeare's portrait of Brutus is consistent with the
sixteenth-century view of Roman history, for most Elizabethans acknowledged the figure's honorable
intentions but questioned the validity of both his political goals and his efforts to justify Caesar's
assassination.]
Modern readers are prone to find the tragedy of Brutus in his rigid devotion to justice and fair play. Many
members of the Globe audience, however, believed that his virtues were complicated by self-deception and
doubtful principle. In sixteenth-century views of history the conspiracy against Caesar often represented a
flouting of unitary sovereignty ... and exemplified the anarchy thought to accompany "democratic" or
constitutional checks upon authority. Certain judgments of Elizabethan political writers who refer to Brutus
are quite clear upon this point. Although naturally aware of his disinterested honor and liberality,
contemporary audiences could thus perceive in him a conflict between questionable goals and honorable
action, a contradiction lying in his attempt to redeem morally confused ends by morally clarified means. The
Ritual
120
Elizabethan tragedy of Brutus, like that of Othello, is marked by an integrity of conduct which leads the
protagonist into evil and measures him in his error.
The distinction between modern and Elizabethan views of Julius Caesar is not the point of our inquiry, but it
is a necessary beginning, for the older view of Brutus determines both the symbolic quality and the structure
of the play. I hope to show that a sixteenth-century idea of Brutus is as thoroughly related to Shakespeare's art
as it is to his meaning.
"When a dramatist wishes to present an idea, his traditional method, of course, is to settle upon an episode in
which the idea arises naturally but vividly from action and situation. Such an episode in Julius Caesar is the
one in which Brutus resolves to exalt not only the mission but the tactics of conspiracy: having accepted
republicanism as an honorable end, he sets out to dignify assassination, the means, by lifting it to a level of
rite and ceremony. In II. i, as Cassius urges the killing of Antony as a necessary accompaniment to the death
of Caesar, Brutus declares that "such a course will seem too bloody... / To cut the head off and then hack the
limbs" [II. i. 162-63]. With this thought a sense of purpose comes over him: "Let's be sacrificers, but not
butchers, Caius" [II. i. 166]. Here his conflict seems to be resolved, and for the first time he is more than a
reluctant presence among the conspirators as he expands the theme which ends his hesitation and frees his
moral imagination:
We all stand up against the spirit of Caesar,
And in the spirit of men there is no blood;
Oh, that we then could come by Caesar's spirit,
And not dismember Caesar! But, alas,
Caesar must bleed for it! And, gentle Mends,
Let's kill him boldly, but not wrathfully;
Let's carve him as a dish fit for the gods.
Not hew him as a carcass fit for hounds.
[II. i. 167-74]
This proposed conversion of bloodshed to ritual is the manner in which an abstract Brutus will be presented in
terms of concrete art. From the suggestion of Plutarch that Brutus' first error lay in sparing Antony,
Shakespeare moves to the image of Antony as a limb of Caesar, a limb not to be hacked because hacking is no
part of ceremonial sacrifice. From Plutarch's description of Brutus as high-minded, gentle and disinterested,
Shakespeare proceeds to the Brutus of symbolic action. Gentleness and disinterestedness become embodied in
the act of "unwrathful" blood sacrifice. High-mindedness becomes objectified in ceremonial observance.
A skeptical reader may ask why the episode just described is any more significant than a number of others
such as Brutus' scene with Portia or his quarrel with Cassius. If more significant, it is so only because of its
relation to a thematic design. I agree, moreover, that Shakespeare gains his effects by variety; as a recognition,
in fact, of his complexity I hope to show that the structure of Julius Caesar is marked by reference both varied
and apt to Brutus' sacrificial rite, and that this process includes expository preparation in earlier scenes,
emphasis upon "mock-ceremony" in both earlier and later scenes, and repeated comment by Antony upon
butchery under the guise of sacrifice—ironical comment which takes final form in the parley before Philippi.
Derived in large measure from Plutarch, but never mechanically or unselectively, the theme of incantation and
ritual is thus prominent throughout Julius Caesar, and this is no less true at the beginning than during the
crucial episodes of Acts II and III. In the opening scene of the play we are confronted with a Roman populace
rebuked by Marullus for ceremonial idolatry of Caesar:
And do you now put on your best attire?
And do you now cull out a holiday?
Ritual
121
And do you now strew flowers in his way
That comes in triumph over Pompey's blood?
[I. i. 48-51]
For this transgression Marullus prescribes a counter-observance by the citizens in immediate expiation of their
folly:
Run to your houses, fall upon your knees,
Pray to the gods to intermit this plague
That needs must light on this ingratitude.
[I. i. 53-5]
To which Flavius adds:
Go, go, good countrymen, and for this fault.
Assemble all the poor men of your sort;
Draw them to Tiber banks, and weep your tears
Into the channel, till the lowest stream
Do kiss the most exalted shores of all.
[I. i. 56-60)
And after committing the populace to these rites of atonement for their festal celebration of Caesar, the two
tribunes themselves leave to remove the devotional symbols set up for his welcoming. "Go you ... towards the
Capitol; / This way will I Disrobe the images / If you do find them decked with ceremonies. / ... let no images
/ Be hung with Caesar's trophies" [l. i. 63-5. 68-9]. It is the hope of Flavius that these disenchantments will
make Caesar "fly an ordinary pitch, / Who else would soar above the view of men" [I. i. 73-4].
Act I, scene ii is equally unusual in carrying the theme of ritual. It is apparent that Shakespeare had a wide
choice of means for staging the entry of Caesar and his retinue; yet he selects an entry based upon Plutarch's
description of the "feast Lupercalia" in which the rite of touching or striking barren women by runners of the
course is made prominent. Caesar, moreover, after ordering Calpurnia to be so touched by Antony,
commands: "Set on; and leave no ceremony out" [I. ii. 11 ]. It can be said, in fact, that the whole of this scene
is written with ceremonial observance as a background. Its beginning, already described, is followed by a
touch of solemnity in the soothsayer's words; next comes its main expository function, the sounding of Brutus
by Cassius, and throughout this interchange come at intervals the shouts and nourishes of a symbolic
spectacle. When the scene is again varied by a formal reentry and exit of Caesar's train, Casca remains behind
to make a mockery of the rite which has loomed so large from off-stage. Significantly, in Casca's travesty of
the ceremonial crown-offering and of the token offering by Caesar of his throat for cutting, Shakespeare has
added a satirical note which does not appear in Plutarch.
The process, then, in each of the two opening episodes has been the bringing of serious ritual into great
prominence, and of subjecting it to satirical treatment. In the first scene the tribunes denounce the punctilio
planned for Caesar's entry, send the idolatrous crowd to rites of purification, and set off themselves to
desecrate the devotional images. In the second scene a multiple emphasis of ceremony is capped by Casca's
satire which twists the crown ritual into imbecile mummery. At this point, and in conformity with the mood
set by Casca, occurs Cassius' mockery in soliloquy of Brutus:
Well, Brutus, thou art noble; yet I see
Thy honorable mettle may be wrought
From that it is dispos'd; therefore it is meet
That noble minds keep ever with their likes:
Ritual
122
For who is so firm that cannot be seduc'd?
[I. ii. 308-12]
The next scene [I. iii] is packed with omens and supernatural portents, a note which is carried directly into II. i
where Brutus, on receiving the mysterious papers which have been left to prompt his action, remarks,
The exhalations whizzing in the air
Give so much light that I may read by them.
|II. i. 44-5]
Appropriately, the letters read under this weird glow evoke his first real commitment to the "cause":
O Rome, I make thee promise
If the redress will follow, thou receivest
Thy full petition at the hand of Brutus!
[I. i. 56-8]
Now appear his lines on the interim "between the acting of a dreadful thing / And the first motion" in which
"the state of man / Like to a little kingdom, suffers then / The nature of a insurrection" [II. i. 63-4, 67-9]. This
conventional symbolizing of political convulsion by inward insurrection is followed by the soliloquy on
conspiracy:
O, then by day
Where wilt thou find a cavern dark enough
To mask thy monstrous visage? Seek none, Conspiracy!
Hide it in smiles and affability.
[II. i. 79-82]
The conflict within Brutus thus becomes clear in this scene. First, the participant in revolution suffers
revolution within himself; then the hater of conspiracy and lover of plain dealing must call upon Conspiracy
to hide in smiling courtesy.
We have now reached the critical point [II. i. 154 ff.] to which attention was first called, an outward
presentation of Brutus' crisis through his acceptance of an assassin's role upon condition that the assassins
become sacrificers. Already a theme well established in preceding scenes, the idea of ritual is again made
prominent. As the soliloquy on conspiracy closes, the plotters gather, and the issue becomes the taking of an
oath. Brutus rejects this as an idle ceremony unsuited to men joined in the honesty of a cause and turns now to
the prospect of Caesar's death. This time, however, honorable men do need ceremony, ceremony which will
purify the violent act of all taint of butchery and raise it to the level of sacrifice. But although Brutus has
steadied himself with a formula his conflict is still unresolved, for as he sets his course he "unconsciously"
reveals the evasion which Antony later will amplify: to transmute political killing into ritual is to cloak it with
appearances. We began with Brutus' passage on carving Caesar as a dish for the gods; these are the lines
which complete it:
And let our hearts, as subtle masters do,
Stir up their servants to an act of rage,
And after seem to chide 'em. This shall make
Our purpose necessary and not envious;
Which so appearing to the common eyes,
We shall be called purgers, not murderers.
[II. i. 175-80]
Ritual
123
The contradiction is interesting. In an anticlimax, Brutus has ended his great invocation to ritual with a note
on practical politics: our hearts shall stir us and afterward seem to chide us; we shall thus "appear" to the
citizenry as purgers, not murderers.
Shakespsare never presents Brutus as a demagogue, but there are ironical traces of the politician in him ... It is
curious, in fact, that although Brutus is commonly thought to be unconcerned over public favor, he expresses
clear concern for it in the passage just quoted and in II. i. 244-51, where he sanctions Antony's funeral speech
only if Antony agrees to tell the crowd that he speaks by generous permission, and only if he agrees to utter no
evil of the conspiracy. Nor is Brutus' speech in the Forum wholly the non-political performance it is supposed
to be; certainly Shakespeare's Roman citizens are the best judges of it, and they react tempestuously. Although
compressed, it scarcely discloses aloofness or an avoidance of popular emotive themes.
Act II, scene ii now shifts to the house of Caesar, but the emphasis on ritual continues as before. With
dramatic irony, in view of Brutus' recent lines on sacrificial murder, Caesar commands, "Go bid the priests do
present sacrifice" [II. ii. 5]. Calpurnia who has "never stood on ceremonies" (omens) is now terrified by them
[II. ii. 13]. News comes that the augurers, plucking the entrails of an offering, have failed to find a heart.
Calpurnia has dreamed that smiling Romans have laved their hands in blood running from Caesar's statue, and
Decius Brutus gives this its favorable interpretation which sends Caesar to his death.
The vivid assassination scene carries out Brutus' ritual prescription in dramatic detail, for the killing is staged
with a formalized approach, ending in kneeling, by one conspirator after another until the victim is
surrounded. This is met by a series of retorts from Caesar ending in "Hence! Wilt thou lift up Olympus," and
the "sacrifice" is climaxed with his "Et tu Brute!" [III. i. 74, 77]. The conspirators ceremonially bathe their
hands in Caesar's blood, and Brutus pronounces upon "this our lofty scene" with the prophecy that it "shall be
acted over / In states unborn and accents yet unknown!" [III. i. 112-13].
The mockery in counter-ritual now begins as a servant of Antony enters and confronts Brutus:
Thus, Brutus, did my master bid me kneel,
Thus did Mark Antony bid me fall down;
And being prostrate, thus he bade me say:
Brutus is noble, wise, valiant, and honest.
[III. i. 123-26]
Here a threefold repetition, "kneel," "fall down," and "being prostrate," brings the ceremonial irony close to
satire. Following this worship of the new idol by his messenger, Antony appears in person and with dramatic
timing offers himself as a victim, in one speech he evokes both the holy scene which the conspirators so
desired and the savagery which underlay it:
Now, whilst your purpled hands do reek and smoke,
Fulfill your pleasure. Live a thousand years,
I shall not find myself so apt to die;
No place will please me so, no mean of death,
As here by Caesar, and by you cut off.
[III. i. 158-62]
The murder scene is thus hallowed by Antony in a manner which quite reverses its sanctification by the
conspirators. Brutus, forbearing, attempts to mollify Antony with his cherished theme of purgation:
Our hearts you see not. They are pitiful.
And pity to the general wrong of Rome—
Ritual
124
As fire drives out fire, so pity pity
Hath done this deed on Caesar.
[III. i. 169-72]
Antony's response is again one of counter-ceremony, the shaking of hands in formal sequence which serves to
make each conspirator stand alone and unprotected by the rite of blood which had united him with the others.
The assassins had agreed as a token of solidarity that each of them should stab Caesar. Antony seems to allude
to this:
Let each man render me his bloody hand.
First, Marcus Brutus, will I shake with you;
Now, Caius Cassius, do I take your hand;
Now, Decius Brutus, yours; now yours, Mettellus;
Yours, Cinna; and, my valiant Casca, yours;
Though last, not least in love yours, good Trebonius.
Gentlemen all—alas what shall I say?
[III. i. 184-90]
It is then that Antony, addressing the body of Caesar, suddenly delivers his first profanation of the ritual
sacrifice:
Here wast thou bay'd brave hart;
Here didst thou fall; and here thy hunters stand,
Sign'd in thy spoil, and crimson'd in thy lethe.
[III. i. 204-06]
And lest the allusion escape, Shakespeare continues Antony's inversion of Brutus' ceremonial formula: the
dish carved for the gods is doubly transformed into the carcass hewn for hounds with further hunting
metaphors of Caesar as a hart in the forest and as "a deer strucken by many princes" [III. i. 209]. Brutus agrees
to give reasons why Caesar was dangerous, "or else were this a savage spectacle" [III. i. 223], and the stage is
set for what may be called the play's chief counter-ritual. Only Brutus, who planned the rite of sacrifice, could
with such apt irony arrange the "true rites" and "ceremonies" which are to doom the conspiracy.
I will myself into the pulpit first
And show the reason of our Caesar's death.
What Antony shall speak, I will protest
He speaks by leave and by permission,
And that we are contented Caesar shall
Have all true rites and lawful ceremonies.
[III. i. 236-41]
But exactly after the manner of his speech announcing the ritual sacrifice [II. i] Brutus concludes again on a
note of policy: "It shall advantage more than do us wrong" [II. i. 242].
Next follows Antony solus [alone rendering his prophecy of "domestic fury and fierce civil strife" [III. i. 263]
symbolized in Caesar's ghost which will
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth.
[III. i. 273-74]
Ritual
125
The passage is similar in utterance, function, and dramatic placement to Carlisle's prophecy on the deposition
of Richard II, and for that reason it is to be taken seriously as a choric interpretation of Caesar's death.
Significantly, the beginning lines again deride Brutus' erstwhile phrase, "sacrificers but not butchers":
O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these
butchers!
[III. i. 254-551]
It is unnecessary to elaborate upon the Forum scene; Antony's oration follows the speech of Brutus with
consequences familiar to all readers. But there is an element in Antony's turning of the tables which is just as
remarkable as the well-known irony of his references to "honorable men." If we remember that Shakespeare
has emphasized ritual at various planes of seriousness and of derision, the conclusion of Antony's speech to
the populace will link itself with the previous theme. For here Antony reenacts the death of Caesar in a ritual
of his own, one intended to show that the original "lofty scene" presented a base carnage. Holding Caesar's
bloody mantle as a talisman, he reproduces seriatim [in a series] the sacrificial strokes, but he does so in terms
of the "rent" Casca made and the "cursed steel" that Brutus plucked away with the blood of Caesar following
it. Again, each conspirator had struck individually at Caesar and had symbolically involved himself with the
others; for the second time Antony reminds us of this ritual bond by recounting each stroke, and his recreation
of the rite becomes a mockery of it. Brutus' transformation of blood into the heady wine of sacrifice is
reversed both in substance and in ceremony.
For the "realists" among the conspirators what has occurred can be summed up in the bare action of the play:
the killing of Caesar has been accomplished, but the fruits of it have been spoiled by Brutus' insistence that
Antony live and that he speak at Caesar's funeral. "The which," as [Thomas North's translation of] Plutarch
has it, "marred all." With reference to Brutus, however, something much more significant has been enacted;
the "insurrection," the contradiction, within him has taken outward form in his attempt to purify assassination
through ceremony. This act, not to be found in Plutarch, symbolizes the "Elizabethan" Brutus compelled by
honor to join with conspirators but required by conscience to reject Conspiracy.
We have followed the ritual theme in Julius Caesar from early scenes to the point of Antony's oration, at
which it is completely defined. There remains, however, a terminal appearance of the theme in the first scene
of Act V. The ultimate clash between the idealism of Brutus and Antony's contempt for it comes during the
parley on the eve of Phillippi, at which Antony again drives home the old issue of ceremonial imposture.
Brutus has observed that his enemy wisely threats before he stings; the reply is Antony's last disposition of the
sacrificial rite:
Villains, you did not so when your vile daggers
Hack'd one another in the sides of Caesar,
You show'd your teeth like apes, and fawn'd like hounds,
And bow'd like bondmen, kissing Caesar's feet;
Whilst damned Casca, like a cur, behind
Struck Caesar on the neck.
[V. i. 39-44]
Antony invokes the "hacking" which Brutus earlier foreswore, and he again inverts the cherished formula of
sacrifice: once more the dish carved for gods becomes the carcass hewn for hounds. Over the body of Caesar
he had previously employed the hunting-hound figure ("Here wast • thou bay'd, brave hart."); the apes, the
hounds, and the cur of these lines complete his vengeful irony of metaphor.
Ritual
126
What, finally, is to be inferred from Antony's concluding passage on "the noblest Roman of them all" [V. v.
68]? Commonly found there is a broad vindication of Brutus which would deny an ironical interpretation.
When Antony's elegiac speech is read plainly, however, its meaning is quite limited: it declares simply that
Brutus was the only conspirator untouched by envy, and that, in intention, he acted "in a general honest
thought / And common good to all" [V.v. 71-2]. The Elizabethan view of Brutus as tragically misguided is
thus consistent with Antony's pronouncement that he was the only disinterested member of the conspiracy.
But Brutus is not to be summed up in an epitaph; as the impersonal member of a conspiracy motivated largely
by personal ends, he sought in a complex way to resolve his contradiction by depersonalizing, ritualizing, the
means.
Shakespeare's achievement, however, is not confined to the characterization of a major figure, for we have
seen that the ceremonial motive extends beyond the personality of Brutus into the structure of the play.
Exposition stressing the idea of ritual observance leads to the episode in which Brutus formulates the
"sacrifice," and clear resolution of the idea follows in event and commentary. Structural craftsmanship thus
supplements characterization and the two combine, as in Richard II, to state the political philosophy implicit
in the play. (pp. 34-43)
Brents Stirling, "'Or Else Were This a Savage Spectacle' [Ritual in Julius Caesar]," in Shakespeare, The
Tragedies: A Collection of Critical Essays, edited by Alfred Harbage, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964, pp. 34-43.
Imagery and Language
Maurice Charney
[Charney provides a detailed analysis of the principal image patterns in Julius Caesar—the storm and its
supernatural elements, blood, and fire—and demonstrates how each set of images connotes two contradictory
meanings that contribute to the thematic ambiguity of the play. According to the critic, the violent storm in
Act I, scene iii can be interpreted as evidence of either the evil of Caesar's tyranny or the evil of the
conspirators who plot to assassinate him. Charney also suggests that blood imagery in the play may, on the
one hand, be viewed as a symbol of the injustice of Caesar's murder and the conspirators' guilt or, on the
other, as a ritual blood-letting that restores the Roman political state to new health. Similarly, fire may be
regarded as a purifying force that eliminates political treachery (either Caesar's tyranny or the evil of the
conspiracy) or as a destructive force symbolizing civil strife. Additionally, the critic points out, fire imagery is
used to signify passion and its power to enkindle emotion. Charney also stresses that regardless of the way the
storm, blood, and fire imagery are interpreted in Julius Caesar, the action of the play progresses from chaos
to restoration of order.]
... The chief image themes in Julius Caesar are the storm and its portents, blood, and fire. All of these have
two opposed meanings, depending upon one's point of view. With reference to the conspirators, the storm and
its portents indicate the evil of Caesar's tyranny in the body politic of Rome, while blood and fire are the
means of purging and purifying this evil. But with reference to Caesar and his party, the storm and its portents
indicate the evil of conspiracy that is shaking the body politic of Rome, while blood and fire are the signs of
assassination and civil strife this evil brings in its wake. From either point of view, however, the action of the
play moves from disorder (Caesar's tyranny or the conspiracy) to an uneasy restoration of order at the end
(murder of Caesar or destruction of the conspiracy). These issues are never clearly resolved in the play.
Although the defeat and death of the conspirators seem to be a comment on the futility of their enterprise, the
rise of Antony and Octavius is by no means an affirmation of justice, truth, and human values.
The imagery of the storm and its portents allows Shakespeare to range freely among the correspondences of
man, the state, and the cosmos. The tempest in nature reflects disturbances in man and the state, or,
conversely, these disturbances are projected or externalized in the tempest. (pp. 42-3)
Imagery and Language
127
The final couplet of Cassius' soliloquy in I. ii serves as a prologue to the storm theme:
And after this let Caesar seat him sure,
For we will shake him, or worse days endure.
[I. ii. 321-221]
The thunder and lightning of I. iii follow immediately as a comment of the heavens on Cassius' words; this is
the beginning of "worse days" for Rome. After the thunder and lightning, Casca enters "breathless" and
staring [I. iii. 2], with his sword drawn [I. iii. 19], and in great anxiety. This disordered entrance conveys an
immediate visual impression of the storm's awesome power, for the present Casca is entirely different from
the blunt and somewhat cynical figure of I. ii. He asks Cicero with obvious agitation: "Are not you mov'd
when all the sway of earth / Shakes like a thing unfirm?" [I. iii. 3-4]. There has never been such a storm as
this, so terrible and so full of unnatural prodigies, for
never till tonight, never till now,
Did I go through a tempest dropping fire.
Either there is a civil strife in heaven,
Or else the world, too saucy with the gods,
Incenses them to send destruction.
[I. iii. 9-13]
Casca seeks the meaning of the storm in the relations between the "gods" and the "world," and the "civil strife
in heaven" will soon serve as a pattern for the conflict on earth.
Casca goes on to enumerate wonders—the slave with the burning hand, the lion near the Capitol, the men in
fire seen by women, the screech-owl at noon in the market place—they are all impossible things that the gods
have sent as signs and warnings to men:
When these prodigies
Do so conjointly meet, let not men say
'These are their reasons—they are natural,'
For I believe they are portentous things
Unto the climate that they point upon.
[I. iii. 28-32]
These prodigies serve as a choric comment on the evil that is taking place (growing conspiracy) and on the
evil that is about to occur (murder of Caesar and consequent civil war).
The entrance of Cassius marks a movement from description of the storm to an application of its meaning.
Since it signifies so much, this is indeed "A very pleasing night" [I. iii. 43] to Cassius, who has walked about
the streets
And, thus unbraced, Casca, as you see,
Have bar'd my bosom to the thunder-stone;
And when the cross blue lightning seem'd to open
The breast of heaven, I did present myself
Even in the aim and very flash of it.
[I. iii. 48-52]
Cassius does not remain in fear and trembling like Casca, because the "true cause" [I. iii. 62] of this "strange
impatience of the heavens" [I. iii. 61] is at once apparent:
Imagery and Language
128
Why all these fires, why all these gliding ghosts,
Why birds and beasts, from quality and kind;
Why old men, fools, and children calculate;
Why all these things change from their ordinance,
Their natures, and preformed faculties,
To monstrous quality—why, you shall find
That heaven hath infus'd them with these spirits
To make them instruments of fear and warning
Unto some monstrous state.
[I. iii. 63-71]
This is a key passage for understanding the effect of the storm, and unnaturalness and disorder are emphasized
in every line. These prodigies represent a twisting of things from their natural course ("ordinance") and
essential being ("preformed faculties") into a "monstrous" sort. The word "monstrous" specifically links the
condition of the state with what is occurring in external nature, and it is a strong indication of disorder.
Remember that conspiracy wears a "monstrous visage" [II. i. 81], and that the Ghost of Caesar is to Brutus a
"monstrous apparition" [IV. iii. 277]. Cassius proceeds to identify the storm and its portents with Caesar, the
ruler of the "monstrous state":
Now could I, Casca, name to thee a man
Most like this dreadful night
That thunders, lightens, opens graves, and roars
As doth the lion in the Capitol;
A man no mightier than thyself or me
In personal action, yet prodigious grown
And fearful, as these strange eruptions are.
[I. iii. 72-8]
The analogy is very close, and Cassius' identification is driven home by the naive question of Casca: "Pis
Caesar that you mean. Is it not, Cassius?" [I. iii. 79].
The sense of storm is maintained in II. i by several references, although it remains a minor motif. Brutus
comments that "The exhalations, whizzing in the air, / Give so much light that I may read by them" [II. i.
44-5]. Further, Cassius wonders whether Caesar will stay away from the Capitol because of
these apparent prodigies,
The unaccustom'd terror of this night,
And the persuasion of his augurers.
[II. i. 198-200]
Cassius fears that Caesar may be interpreting the signs of the storm as he himself has done in I. iii. In the
dialogue between Brutus and Portia atmospheric detail is added to our feeling of the storm by references to the
"raw cold morning" [II. i. 236], the "dank morning" [II. i. 263], and the "rheumy and unpurged air" [II. i. 266].
At the very end of the scene there is a stage direction, "Thunder," and the next scene opens with "Thunder and
lightning." Julius Caesar appears in his dressing gown ("nightgown") and comments on what is occurring:
Nor heaven nor earth have been at peace tonight.
Thrice hath Calphurnia in her sleep cried out
'Help, hoi They murther Caesar!'
[II. ii. 1-3]
Imagery and Language
129
To Calphurnia the storm and its portents point to the murder of Caesar, and we should remember that this is
the same storm in which Casca and Cassius have actually plotted his death, and in which Brutus has been won
to the conspiracy. Calphurnia tries to dissuade Caesar from going forth by an account of unnatural prodigies:
"O Caesar, these things are beyond all use, I And I do fear them!" [II. ii. 25-6]. "Use" is a word for what is to
be expected, what is natural, the proper "ordinance" [II. iii. 66] of things. Calphurnia fears that the portents by
their very magnitude cry out the death of Caesar; there is a proportion in these things, and portents are not the
same for all men:
When beggars die there are no comets seen;
The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes.
[II. ii. 30-1]
Finally, we have Calphurnia's dream of Caesar's statue running pure blood, which she interprets as "warnings
and portents / And evils imminent" [II. ii. 80-1].
The central issue about the meaning of Julius Caesar is raised most forcefully and vividly by the imagery of
blood. If the murder of Caesar is indeed a "savage spectacle" [III. i. 223], then the blood with which the
conspirators are smeared "Up to the elbows" [III. i. 107] is the sign of their guilt. But if the murder of Caesar
is a ritual blood-letting of the body politic of Rome, then blood is the sign of purification and new life. The
latter point of view marks the tragedy of Brutus, for he cannot foresee that his high-minded but specious
motives will be drowned in the bloodiness of murder and civil strife. He is tragically unable to bridge the gap
between reasons and acts.
The blood theme begins in II. i, where it becomes a powerful symbol for the conspiracy. The question of what
to do with Antony after the murder of Caesar is a crucial one. The shrewd and practical Cassius wants to kill
him, but Brutus objects and makes ... the first great tactical error of his career. This decision also indicates the
rift between the other conspirators and Brutus, who argues his position from the analogy between the bodies
human and politic:
Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius,
To cut the head off and then hack the limbs,
Like wrath in death and envy afterwards;
For Antony is but a limb of Caesar.
[II. i. 162-65]
He thinks of blood as the symbol of common murder, and he fears the stain of its guilt. The slaying of Caesar
is a necessary and beneficial act, but Brutus wishes that there were no blood:
Let's be sacrificers, but not butchers, Caius.
We all stand up against the spirit of Caesar,
And in the spirit of men there is no blood.
O that we then could come by Caesar's spirit
And not dismember Caesar! But, alas,
Caesar must bleed for it!
[II. i. 166-71]
This is one of the most important passages in the play for showing the tragic wrongness of Brutus. The
murder of Caesar proves to be not a loving sacrifice, but only a fruitless act of butchery, and its bloodiness is
stressed as significantly as the murder of Duncan in Macbeth. When all is done, only the body of Caesar has
been killed, not the spirit, which stays very much alive in Antony and Octavius and wins vengeance in civil
strife. The meaning of the play can almost be formulated by taking the negative of all these statements of
Imagery and Language
130
Brutus. (pp. 44-9)
Blood imagery is of greatest importance in III. i, where it is not only a repeated verbal theme, but also enters
into the stage action. Animal blood from concealed bladders or sponges was probably used to represent
Caesar's murder on the Elizabethan stage, and, from all indications, there was a frank emphasis on the
spectacular effects of murder scenes. (p. 51)
A number of blood images in III. i show Caesar in the height of pride just before his fall. He thrusts aside
Metellus Cimber, who "might fire the blood of ordinary men" [III. i. 37], but not Caesar's. He does not bear
"such rebel blood" [III. i. 40] that can be melted by emotional persuasion, and the chief connotation of "blood"
is the passion that Caesar forswears. The world is full of men who are "flesh and blood, and apprehensive"
[III. i. 67], but only Caesar remains in cold, unchanging constancy. Yet ten lines later he is stabbed to death as
readily as any mortal, and the blood that would not be fired or thawed now flows freely from the dagger
wounds of the conspirators.
From this point until the end of the play the fact of Caesar's assassination is kept constantly before the
audience, and this is done to a large extent by blood imagery. Of course, Caesar's bloody and rent body is on
stage through all of this scene, and at a number of important moments [III. i. 148-50, 194-210, 254-75]
Antony addresses it as if it were a living presence; Octavius' Servant does the same [III. i. 281]. In the next
scene it is absent only for the short time of Brutus' oration. At line 41 Antony and others enter with the body,
which remains on stage until removed by the plebeians for the funeral pyre [s.d., III. ii. 259]. Thus Caesar's
body dominates the scene for almost 450 lines after his death. The body plays a conspicuous role during
Antony's funeral oration, but throughout the time it is on stage it serves as a visible indictment of the
conspirators. Its commanding presence on stage, possibly on the elevated platform or dais on which the
"throne" usually stood, keeps the audience aware of the crime of assassination.
Shortly after the murder, Brutus directs the conspirators in a fearful blood ritual:
Stoop, Romans, stoop,
And let us bathe our hands in Caesar's blood
Up to the elbows and besmear our swords.
Then walk we forth, even to the market place.
And waving our red weapons o'er our heads,
Let's all cry 'Peace, freedom, and liberty!'
[III. i. 105-10]
This action fulfills the prophecy of Calphurnia's dream [II. ii. 76-9], and we may assume that stage blood was
liberally used for these effects, since the conspirators' hands and swords need to remain very vividly bloody
for about 150 lines (until the exit at III. i. 253). The blood ritual that Brutus began at II. i. 166 seems now a
sacrilege rather than a consecration. It is continued as Cassius takes up Brutus' invocation:
Stoop then and wash. How many ages hence
Shall this our lofty scene be acted over
In states unborn and accents yet unknown!
[III. i. 111-13]
And Brutus answers antiphonally in the same spirit of uncontrolled exaltation:
How many times shall Caesar bleed in sport,
That now on Pompey's basis lies along
No worthier than the dust!
Imagery and Language
131
[III. i. 114-16]
The eyes of the conspirators are on posterity, which they are sure will approve their present acts. These
speeches represent the highest point in the development of the conspirators; with the entrance of Antony's
Servant their downward course begins.
Antony's speeches in this scene reiterate "blood" both as the symbol of the murdered Caesar and as the sign of
the conspirators' guilt. The double emphasis is made almost in his first words:
I know not, gentlemen, what you intend,
Who else must be let blood, who else is rank.
If I myself, there is no hour so lit
As Caesar's death's hour; nor no instrument
Of half that worth as those your swords, made rich
With the most noble blood of all this world.
I do beseech ye, if you bear me hard,
Now, whilst your purpled hands do reek and smoke,
Fulfil your pleasure.
[III. i. 151-59]
Antony's thoughts run on blood as he boldly dares the conspirators to kill him, too. Their hands and swords
have been bathed in Caesar's blood, whose visual signs they now flaunt to all Rome as justification of their
deed. Throughout this scene Antony provides a bitter, sarcastic commentary on these "purpled hands" and
swords, for they bear the stain of guilt upon them just as surely as Macbeth's hands and dagger do. (pp. 51-4)
[It] is the bloody hands of the conspirators that Antony is insisting on as the outward badge of their guilt. In a
supremely ironic ceremony Antony shakes each of their hands:
Let each man render me his bloody hand.
First, Marcus Brutus, will I shake with you;
Next, Caius Cassius, do I take your hand;
Now, Decius Brutus, yours; now yours, Metellus;
Yours, Cinna; and, my valiant Casca, yours.
Though last, not least in love, yours, good Trebonius.
[III. i. 184-89]
This ceremony parallels the one by which Brutus entered the conspiracy: "Give me your hands all over, one
by one" [II. i. 112]. We need to supply the all-important expression and attitude of Antony here, the mingling
of intense loathing and feigned reconciliation. From this hand-shaking Antony acquires "bloody fingers" [III.
i. 198] ... , and he speaks as if to undo the guilty ritual in which he has participated:
Pardon me, Julius! Here wast thou bay'd, brave hart;
Here didst thou fall; and here thy hunters stand,
Sign'd in thy spoil, and crimson'd in they lethe.
O world, thou wast the forest to this hart;
And this indeed, O world, the heart of thee!
How like a deer, stroken by many princes,
Dost thou here lie!
[III. i. 204-10]
Imagery and Language
132
He has almost gone too far, and Cassius says menacingly "Mark Antony—" [III. i. 211], but Brutus, who
himself loved Caesar, will now shield Antony. The hunting imagery of this speech stresses butchery rather
than the sacrifice Brutus hoped for in [II. i. 166 ff.]. A grotesque pun demonstrates that the "heart" of the
world can be killed bloodily like a "hart." Perhaps "lethe," too, is a part of this imagery and refers to the
marking of hunters with the blood of a slain deer. When Cassius asks Antony if he will be a friend, Antony
answers ironically: "Therefore I took your hands ..." [III. i. 218]. By sharing in Caesar's blood he has seemed
to condone the murder, but behind this mask vengeance for Caesar is being prepared. (pp. 54-5)
Antony's soliloquy after the conspirators leave says directly and forcefully what has already been said
ironically ... Antony apologizes to the dead Caesar for his conciliatory role with "these butchers" [III. i. 255],
and he prophesies the vengeance of blood for blood that must follow:
Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!
Over thy wounds now do I prophesy
(Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips
To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue),
A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;
Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quartered with the hands of war,
All pity chok'd with custom of fell deeds ...
[III. i. 258-69]
Antony's vision of civil war is like the Bishop of Carlisle's in Richard II [IV. i. 136-49], and both serve as
turning points in the action. The conspirators have shed Caesar's "costly" (precious) blood, which will indeed
prove "costly" (dear, expensive) to them.
In III. i we learn that Antony will use his funeral oration to see "how the people take / The cruel issue of these
bloody men ... " [III. i. 293-94], and the oration never allows us to forget the blood of Caesar. If Antony read
Caesar's will, the commons would "go and kiss dead Caesar's wounds / And dip their napkins in his sacred
blood ..." [III. ii. 133-34]. This blood has now become that of a martyr or a saint. Brutus' "most unkindest cut
of all" [III. ii. 183] burst Caesar's heart, and
Even at the base of Pompey's statue
(Which all the while ran blood) great Caesar fell.
[III. ii. 188-89]
We recall Caesar's triumphing "over Pompey's blood" [I. i. 51] at the beginning of the play; now Pompey
triumphs over Caesar's blood. Antony very artfully disclaims any power as an orator "To stir men's blood"
[III. ii. 223]. The "most bloody sight" [III. ii. 202] of Caesar's body and "sweet Caesar's wounds, poor poor
dumb mouths" [III. ii. 225] speak for themselves and act as a powerful persuasion to vengeance.
There is a general slackening of the blood imagery in Acts IV and V. After Brutus' "bloody spur" [IV. ii. 25]
image for the civil war, the next significant use of "blood" is in the quarrel scene. Brutus counters Cassius'
waspish indignation with the fact of Caesar's murder:
Remember March; the ides of March remember.
Did not great Julius bleed for justice sake?
Imagery and Language
133
What villain touch'd his body that did stab
And not for justice?
[IV. iii. 18-21]
If the purpose of the assassination were not justice, then Caesar's blood is the mark of butchery and murder.
By the time of this scene the first flush of idealism has gone out of the conspiracy. It is seen here on the
defensive, and Cassius' venality is a sign of disillusion. Only Brutus persists in his original uprightness, which
is repeatedly expressed with all the insolent frankness of the morally sure. There is also a suggestion here that
Brutus is beginning to be aware of the tragic betrayal of the original ideals of the conspiracy. This awareness
creates a sense of doom and fatality in the scene, which is climaxed by the appearance of Caesar's Ghost.
The blood imagery of V. i sets the tone for the battle of Philippi in V. ii. A Messenger reports the enemy's
"bloody sign of battle" [V. i. 14] to Antony and Octavius. Further on, Octavius cuts off the ingenious conceits
of the battle parley with the words of a practical man:
Come, come, the cause! If arguing make us sweat,
The proof of it will turn to redder drops.
Look,
I draw a sword against conspirators.
When think you that the sword goes up again?
Never, till Caesar's three-and-thirty wounds
Be well aveng'd, or till another Caesar
Have added slaughter to the sword of traitors.
[V. i. 48-55]
This is the case against Brutus, Cassius, and their party: they are "conspirators" and "traitors" who must
answer for it in battle; the arbitration of the issue will be in blood, not words. The final blood image is used by
Titinius for the dead Cassius:
O setting sun,
As in thy red rays thou dost sink to night,
So in his red blood Cassius' day is set!
The sun of Rome is set.
[V. iii. 60-3]
So Cassius ends in his own "red blood," slain by the same hand and with the same sword that stabbed Caesar.
This is the reciprocity of blood for blood.
The fire imagery of Julius Caesar follows the basic conflicts in the play in a manner similar to the themes of
storm and blood. Here, too, the interpretation of the images depends on our attitude toward Caesar and the
conspirators.
Does fire refer to Caesar's tyranny or to the evils of conspiracy? It is the conspirators' tragic error to think of
the destructive power of fire as also being purgative and purifying. Brutus, for example, justifies the murder
by a proverb: "As fire drives out fire, so pity pity" [III. i. 171]—the fire of conspiracy will destroy the fire of
Caesar's tyranny. But the conspirators are themselves consumed in the fire of civil war that avenges Caesar.
These comments may serve as a schematic and simplified pattern of the fire imagery, in which there are also
two distinct lines of development. First, "fire" is used in the sense of passion, emotional power, the ability to
inflame or enkindle, as Antony's oration inflames the mob. Second, "fire" is considered as a destructive and
purifying force. This is the literal sense of fire, and it is carried into the stage action when the mob which
Antony has inflamed lights firebrands to burn the conspirators' houses. In this scene the two meanings of fire
Imagery and Language
134
merge.
The theme of fire as passion and its kindling power begins in the dialogue of Brutus and Cassius in I. ii.
Brutus is aware of the fact that Cassius is "working" him to conspiracy [I. ii. 163], so that there is a certain
sense of triumph in Cassius' remark:
I am glad
That my weak words have struck but thus much show
Of fire from Brutus.
[I. ii. 176-77]
Brutus is the flint that the passionate Cassius strikes against in his effort of persuasion. The flint image is used
again more explicitly in the quarrel scene, where Brutus confesses his weakness:
O Cassius, you are yoked with a lamb
That carries anger as the flint bears fire;
Who, much enforced, shows a hasty spark,
And straight is cold again.
[IV. iii. 110-13]
This imagery points the contrast between the hot Cassius and the cold Brutus (compare the hot-cold contrast
between Cleopatra and Octavia in Antony and Cleopatra).
The fire of conspiracy that Cassius ignited in Brutus is thoroughly confirmed in the fire imagery of II. i.
Brutus shrinks from a formal oath, since the motives for conspiracy themselves should
bear fire enough
To kindle cowards and to steel with valour
The melting spirits of women ...
[II. i. 120-22]
The noble Brutus thinks of himself as kindled to conspiracy by justice alone. "Enkindled" [II. i. 249] is indeed
the word which Portia uses for her husband later in the scene (it is significant how often Portia uses Brutus'
words—it strengthens the bond between them and attests to Portia's dependence on her husband). At the end of
the scene Brutus is able to persuade Caius Ligarius to abandon his sickness for an "exploit worthy the name of
honour" [II. i. 317]. Caius needs only the example of Brutus,
And with a heart new-fir'd I follow you,
To do I know not what; but it sufficeth
That Brutus leads me on.
[II. i. 332-34]
Brutus, fired to conspiracy by Cassius, is now able to fire others, and Caius Ligarius is a good example of
Brutus' power to win an unquestioning assent. This passage suggests one obvious reason why Cassius was so
anxious to gain the support of Brutus.
These images of fire as passion and its kindling power are strongly associated with the conspiracy. It is
interesting to note that shortly before his murder in III. i Caesar renounces this sense of fire by asserting his
cold constancy. Metellus Cimber's suit "Might fire the blood of ordinary men ..." [III. i. 37], but not Caesar's.
He is "constant as the Northern Star" [III. i. 60], and fire to him implies inconstancy:
Imagery and Language
135
The skies are painted with unnumb'red sparks,
They are all fire, and every one doth shine;
But there's but one in all doth hold his place.
[III. i. 63-5]
Caesar's murder follows soon after these declarations of starry stability.
The second sense of fire, as a destructive and purifying force, is developed in the theme of the storm and its
portents. Casca has never until this night been through "a tempest dropping fire" [I. iii. 10], nor seen a sight
like this:
A common slave (you know him well by sight)
Held up his left hand, which did flame and burn
Like twenty torches join'd; and yet his hand,
Not sensible of fire, remain'd unscorch'd.
[I. iii. 15-18]
Shakespeare dramatizes Plutarch here with a personal touch: the anonymous "common slave" becomes a
figure whom Cicero knows "well by sight." Among the prodigies are also the "Men, all in fire," who "walk up
and down the streets" [I. iii. 25]. In II. ii, Calphurnia warns Caesar that "Fierce fiery warriors fight upon the
clouds ..." [II. ii. 19], and the fiery comet portent of this scene [II. ii. 30-1] is a heavenly emblem of Caesar's
murder. To Cassius fire is a symbol of the base passivity of Rome, which lets itself be used as kindling matter
for Caesar's tyranny:
Those that with haste will make a mighty fire
Begin it with weak straws.
What trash is Rome, What rubbish and what offal, when it serves
For the base matter to illuminate So vile a thing as Caesar!
[I. iii. 107-11]
This "monstrous state" [I. iii. 71] of Rome can only be righted by deeds "Most bloody, fiery, and most
terrible" [I. iii. 130].
Both senses of fire—as passion and its kindling power, and as a destructive and purifying force—are brought
together in the scene of Antony's funeral oration. At the end of this scene the fire imagery emerges into the
dramatic action, which marks the culmination of the theme in the play. Antony's oration, by its persuasive
rhetoric, enkindles and inflames the mob. When he pauses for tears, the Second Plebeian remarks: "Poor soul!
his eyes are red as fire with weeping" [III. ii. 115]. Antony's success depends on his ability to communicate
the "fire" of his own emotions, and he has soon gained such hypnotic power over the mob that he is able to
control their reactions. At line 169, for example, he says: "If you have tears, prepare to shed them now"; this
achieves its effect some twenty-five lines further: "O, now you weep, and I perceive you feel / The dint of
pity" [III. ii. 193-94].
It is just this technique of suggestion that Antony uses in connection with Caesar's will:
You are not wood, you are not stones, but men;
And being men, hearing the will of Caesar,
It will inflame you, it will make you mad.
[III. ii. 142-44]
Imagery and Language
136
With masterful rhetoric Antony suggests the effect if only he provide the cause, and he seems to take pleasure
in playing with effects. In this respect both he and Cassius (compare his soliloquy at the end of I. ii) have
qualities of the Machiavel [one who views politics as amoral and that any means, however unscrupulous, can
justifiably be used in achieving political power]. Antony is able to withhold the will for almost a hundred lines
while he himself stirs up the mob to cry for vengeance: "Revenge! About! Seek! Burn! Fire! Kill! Slay! / Let
not a traitor live!" [III. ii. 204-05]. Fire now becomes the instrument of destruction as Antony's own
insinuation of mutiny is taken up by the plebeians:
1. Pleb. We'll burn the house of Brutus.
3. Pleb. Away then! Come, seek the conspirators.
[III. ii. 231-32]
When Antony reads the will, the incensed mob seeks fire to wreak havoc on its enemies:
1. Pleb. Come, away, away!
We'll burn his body in the holy place
And with the brands fire the traitors' houses.
Take up the body.
2. Pleb. Go fetch fire!
3. Pleb. Pluck down benches!
4. Pleb. Pluck down forms, windows, anything!
[III. ii, 253-58]
We recall that this same violent, enthusiastic mob was the hostile group of citizens before whom Antony
began his oration. Antony observes his effect with all the aloofness of the successful plotter: "Now let it work.
Mischief, thou art afoot, / Take thou what course thou wilt" [III. ii. 259-60]. He has finished with his
inflammatory rhetoric, and he now speaks in the cold, political tone of the proscription scene (IV. i) some fifty
lines further.
After the concentrated verbal imagery of fire in Antony's oration, we have the image of actual fire as the mob
goes to burn Caesar's body and the houses of the conspirators. This stage imagery of fire is the logical climax
of the theme. The Second Plebeian's cry, "Go fetch fire!" suggests that firebrands are brought in from
off-stage, but the mob could also ignite the firebrands right there in front of the audience. Actual fire at this
hectic moment is a powerful image of the citizens' passionate and destructive temper, and there is a sense of
poetic justice in the use of brands from Caesar's funeral pyre to burn the conspirators' houses. It shows the
double aspect of fire: consecration and destruction. In an over-all view, fire, which was first identified with
the conspiracy as a symbol of destruction, has now, after the murder of Caesar, become an instrument of
vengeance. It thus takes on a purgative, consecrating role. (pp. 56-65)
There is not much further use of fire imagery in Acts IV and V. In IV. iii. Brutus tells Cassius of Portia's death
by swallowing fire [IV.iii. 156]; the political events in their personal turn have been too much for her. The
only reference to fire in the battle of Philippi is made when Cassius asks Titinius: "Are those my tents where I
perceive the fire?" [V. iii. 13]. This is a further indication of the destruction of the conspirators by fire, a point
emphasized in III. ii and III. iii. The final fire image provides a significant conclusion to the theme. Strato,
who held the sword for Brutus, affirms the honor of his master:
The conquerors can but make a fire of him;
For Brutus only overcame himself,
And no man else hath honour by his death.
[V. v. 55-7]
Imagery and Language
137
The fire of conspiracy, having been turned as an instrument of vengeance against the conspirators, now ends
with the dead body of Brutus ready for the pyre. This is the final requiting of Caesar. (p. 66)
Maurice Charney, "The Imagery of Julius Caesar," in his Shakespeare's Roman Plays: The Function of
Imagery in the Drama, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961, pp. 41-78.
Gayle Greene
[Greene examines the use of rhetoric and persuasive language in four crucial passages of Julius Caesar. In
the first of these scenes, the critic claims, Cassius attempts to convince Brutus to join the conspiracy against
Caesar (Act I, scene ii) by making vague, unspecified charges of Caesar's tyranny and by subtly suggesting
that Brutus is the "ideal of Roman manhood." Greene then demonstrates that although Brutus appears to be
offering rational arguments for the necessity of killing Caesar in his soliloquy in Act II, scene i, his use of
analogy and metaphor lead him to numerous lapses in logic. For example, he likens Caesar to a dangerous
"serpent's egg" though he has no solid reason for doing so; nevertheless, he pursues the image and concludes
that, like a serpent Caesar should be killed before he can do harm. The critic then examines the rhetorical
strategies of Brutus's and Antony's speeches in Act III, scene ii. Brutus's principal technique, she notes, is to
imply that his listeners must choose between mutually exclusive alternatives—dying as slaves under Caesar's
tyrannical rule or killing him and living as freemen in the republic, for example—without proving that these
are the actual alternatives. Antony's oration is, Greene states, characterized by its extensive use of irony and
repetition, as well as by action words, and therefore excites the commoners' emotions rather than appealing
to their sensibilities. Significantly, since neither Brutus nor Antony present rational proofs of their arguments
regarding Caesar but rely solely on verbal strategies, we are left "at the mercy of rhetoric" and cannot
determine what is true. The play thus reveals that "if a point of view is persuasively stated, it passes for
truth."]
When Antony concludes his funeral oration by modestly disclaiming the powers of rhetoric he has so
abundantly displayed—
I am no orator, as Brutus is;
But (as you know me all) a plain blunt man ...
For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth, ... nor the power of speech
To stir men's blood; I only speak right on.
[III. ii. 217-18, 221, 222-23]
—he draws attention to the very arts of oratory which have enabled him to seize triumphant control of his
world. Indeed, his rhetorical tour de force turns the course not only of the action of the play, but of the tide of
times. Effecting the shift of power from Brutus to Antony, it marks the end of the Republic and the beginning
of events which will issue in the Empire; and, as his words "inflame" [III. ii. 144] his audience, their "fire"
[III. ii. 15] becomes more than metaphorical, to spark the actual blaze that burns Rome. Nor is the oration an
isolated instance: it is but one of a series of persuasion scenes on which the play as a whole is structured,
wherein language is used to "work," "fashion," "move," "fire," its listeners. (pp. 67-8)
The markedly rhetorical style has often been noted, and Dr. [Samuel] Johnson's opinion [in his Notes on
Shakespeare's Plays: "Julius Caesar"] that "Shakespeare's adherence to ... Roman manners [was] cold and
unaffecting" has been echoed by critics such as Mark Van Doren, who characterizes the play as "more rhetoric
than poetry" and its characters as "more orators than men" [see Sources for Further Study]. But rhetoric in this
play is a theme as well as a style: according prominence by structure and imagery, it is integral to
characterization, culture, and to the central political and epistemological concerns [Epistemology is the study
of what knowledge is and how it is acquired]. In Shakespeare's depiction of Rome as a society of skilled
speakers whose rhetorical expertise masks moral and political truth is implied a criticism of rhetoric and of
language itself which is central to the play's tragic vision. (p. 69)
Imagery and Language
138
An analysis of four crucial "persuasion" scenes will demonstrate how language functions to "work,"
"fashion," "move," "fire" its listeners, leaving the central political questions veiled in obscurity. Brutus is, as
we hear repeatedly from him and from others, an honorable man and a man of reason, a stoic who prides
himself on reason and is forever urging "reasons" to others; this leads us to expect that his participation in the
conspiracy will be undertaken with deliberation and cause [A stoic is a member of the school of philosophy
founded by the Greek thinker Zeno about 300 B.C. This discipline holds that wise men should be free from
passion, unmoved by joy or grief, and submissive to natural law]. But if we look to the scenes where we most
expect to find cause for Caesar's assassination—the scene in which Cassius "seduces" [I. ii. 312] Brutus to
come into the conspiracy; the soliloquy in which Brutus "fashions" [II. i. 30] an argument for himself to join
the conspiracy; the forum scene, where first Brutus, then Antony, "move" [III. ii. 229] the crowd, Antony
"working" [III. ii. 271] and "inflaming" [III. ii. 144] them to riot and mutiny—we find no reasons, only a
rhetoric that obscures questions of Caesar's ambition and the justice of his death.
The "seduction scene" [I. ii. 31-175], in which "Cassius first did whet [Brutus] against Caesar" [II. i. 61], is
the first place where we would expect to hear the case against Caesar, or at least some specific grievance. Yet,
as [Ernest] Schanzer observes, "in this crucial scene ... Cassius ... does not mention any specific acts of
tyrannical behaviour" [see excerpt in section on Julius Caesar's character]. Schanzer concludes that Cassius is
not well suited to his role of guileful seducer. His case against Caesar is made in terms like "this age's yoke"
[I. ii. 61], "these hard conditions as this time / Is like to lay upon us" [I. ii. 174-75]—hardly convincing enough
to warrant murder. In fact, on the surface, Cassius and Brutus seem barely to hear or to speak to one another.
In the first part of the scene (to [I. ii. 88]), they essay one another, Cassius trying both to ascertain Brutus's
feelings and to persuade him of his own point of view, without actually stating that point of view, while
Brutus, partly defensive, partly enticed, simultaneously backs off and beckons him on. Twice, Brutus asks
directly what Cassius wants of him ("Into what dangers would you lead me, Cassius?" [I. ii. 63]; "wherefore
do you hold me here so long?" [I. ii. 83], and twice, Brutus's attention is deflected so that Cassius does not
have to reply. On neither occasion does Brutus seem to notice or object. The first time, Cassius merely
continues his line of thought, without any indication that he has even heard Brutus's question [I. ii. 66]; and
the second time, rather than waiting for a reply to his question, Brutus continues his own line of thought [I. ii.
85-9]. Twice, Cassius declares intentions to speak of subjects he never again refers to: Brutus's hidden
worthiness" [I. ii. 57] and "honor." Though he announces "honor is the subject of my story" (in the first of the
two long speeches [I. ii. 92-131] which comprise the second movement of the scene), honor is not his subject;
it is, rather, his outrage at Caesar's physical infirmities.
Yet by the end of the exchange, they have communicated, and Brutus indicates, in veiled, vague terms, that he
assents:
What you would work me to, I have some aim:
How I have thought of this, and of these times,
I shall recount hereafter ... What you have said
I will consider; what you have to say
I will with patience hear, and find a time
Both meet to hear and answer such high things.
[I. ii. 163-65, 167-70]
In measured, balanced phrases (as though a control of language could assure a control of reality), he refers the
whole matter to another time.
Though Brutus nowhere, here or later, insists on clearer definition of Cassius's suggestions, he is persuaded
because something else is going on in the exchange. Cassius's real appeal is made in veiled, allusive terms
which communicate, not through what they state but through what they suggest "thoughts of great value,
worthy cogitations" [I. ii. 50], noncommital terms with enticing innuendoes which Brutus is echoing by the
Imagery and Language
139
end of the scene—"such high things" [I. ii. 170]. The real argument is made through indirection and insinuation
because the actual grounds of Cassius's appeal are not the sort he can state: they are to Brutus's vanity and
image of himself as a noble Roman, and are inarticulated because inadmissible.
Cassius reveals these terms in solioquy at the end of the scene, when he describes the petitions he plans to
throw in at Brutus's window:
... all tending to the great opinion
That Rome holds of his name; wherein obscurely
Caesar's ambition shall be glanced at.
[I. ii. 318-20]
"Opinion," "Rome," the "name"—and only then is Caesar's ambition "obscurely glanced at." Indeed, these
terms are implicit throughout the "seduction," and are the power of an otherwise nonexistent argument. When
Cassius offers to be Brutus's "glass" [I. ii. 68] to show him an image of his "hidden worthiness" [I. ii. 57],
Brutus's acknowledgment that "the eye sees not itself / But by reflection, by some other things" [I. ii. 52-3] is
an admission of his dependence on the opinions of others for knowledge of himself. A few lines later, Cassius
again evokes the imaginary audience he knows is so essential to Brutus's self-esteem, mirrors without which
he cannot see and does not know himself: "many of the best respect in Rome /... Have wish'd that noble
Brutus had his eyes" [I. ii. 59, 62]. A similar appeal is contained in his second long speech, "Why, man, he
doth bestride the narrow world" [I. ii. 135ff.], where he weaves the words "Rome," "man," "Brutus," "Caesar,"
"name," "fame," and "shame" into a pattern that creates an ideal of Roman manhood: an ideal represented by
the name ("yours is as fair a name" [I. iL 144]), by opinion ("When could they say, till now, that talk'd of
Rome ..." [I. ii. 154]), by "our fathers" and the first Brutus [I. ii. 158,159]. According to this ideal, Cassius
urges Brutus to define himself, and this "works" [I. ii. 163, 308] more strongly than logical argument.
"Rome," "honor," "name" are words which are loaded with affective connotations that make them capable of
kindling powerful responses. Though for the moment Brutus says nothing, their effect on him is obvious later
when, again asked to "see thyself!" [n. i. 46], he responds with an outburst about Rome and his ancestors [II. i.
53-5]. These words are powerful because they enshrine the dominant cultural values, the thought and belief of
the past—libertarian ideals of republican Rome passed down through what "our fathers say" [I. ii. 158] ...
These words and notions are bound up with Brutus's conception of himself, determining the way he
experiences himself and reality.
The most important of these is "honor." Honor words are used so frequently by Brutus or with reference to
him that they become, as [Maurice] Charney notes, "almost an identifying tag for his character" [in
Shakespeare's Roman Plays: The Function of Imagery in Drama], Brutus's susceptibility to what touches his
honor is indicated by his outburst in this scene:
Set honour in one eye, and death i' th' other,
And I will look on both indifferently;
For let the gods so speed me as I love
The name of honour more than I fear death.
[I. ii. 86-9]
Though his general intention is clear, his language is not, and this is typical of Brutus's confusions when his
imagination has been kindled and of his real confusions concerning honor: it is, as he says, "the name of
honor" he loves. This conception of honor—as "name" or "reputation"—was associated, by the Renaissance,
with classical antiquity, and is an aspect of Shakespeare's depiction of Rome. But the idea of honor as a social
attribute conferred by the "opinion" of the community is a notion of which Shakespeare is elsewhere critical,
one which he associates elsewhere, as here, with confusion in language. (pp. 73-7)
Imagery and Language
140
Brutus's uncritical acceptance of the Roman ideal both results from and reinforces the confusions in language
which make him obtuse to the real terms of Cassius's appeal.
The real strengths of Cassius's argument are thus weaknesses in Brutus's character—his concern with
reputation and appearance, his subtle vanity and pride—and it is on these grounds that the noble Brutus is
seduced. Depending on the opinions of others for his image of himself, Brutus does not know himself, and is
vulnerable to whoever provides the desired "reflection." Indeed, the entire exchange begins with Cassius's
assurance that he loves Brutus, and ends with Brutus's "That you do love me, I am nothing jealous" [I. ii. 162],
as though its entire purport had been to assure Brutus only of this—which, in a way, it has. It is Brutus's
confusion of real and professed motives that accounts for Cassius's verbal obliquity: Cassius "palters with him
in a double sense" [Macbeth, V. viii. 20], with different meanings for the heart and ear, seeming to appeal to
"honor" and concern for "the general good" [I. ii. 85], while actually appealing to vanity. He is, contrary to
what Schanzer says of him, an extremely guileful seducer, who looks quite through the words of men to their
real concerns and appeals to the one while seeming to appeal to the other.
But Brutus's fatal confusions are most apparent when, in soliloquy [II. i. 10-34], he defends his decision to
take part in the murder of a man he protests he loves. He is, as Antony says, the only conspirator not
motivated by "envy of great Caesar" [V. v. 70], so we look to these lines when he is alone with himself—the
only time in the play—for a cause why Caesar should be killed. Yet the issue disturbingly blurs, disappearing
into a tangle of strange and disconnected images of uncertain relevance to one another or to their supposed
subject, Caesar. Brutus's language, always more metaphorical than the other characters', is even more
metaphorical than usual in this speech. Attempts to make sense of the soliloquy—like John Dover Wilson's
"Brutus' theme is the effect of power upon character" [see excerpt in section on Roman Politics]—probably
represent something like what Brutus would have liked to have said, but nothing this coherent emerges until
we have supplied certain missing logical links, and in making this much sense of it, we are ignoring what the
language is communicating. Its broken rhythms, uncompleted thoughts, and associational movement present a
glimpse into the mind of a man who has not slept for weeks and who has never, in his clearest moments,
defined the issues that are tearing him. The sequence of thought and statement is not logical, the conscious,
active intellect is not in control, and what emerges is a sense of exhaustion, a linguistic image of the
"phantasma" [II. i. 65] Brutus describes a few lines later.
Brutus begins with "It must be by his death" [II. i. 10]—words which have more clarity and conviction than
any in the soliloquy, until, perhaps, the final "kill him in the shell" [II. i. 34]. Finding "no personal cause to
spurn at him [II. i. 11], he looks to "the general" [II. i. 12], but finding no "general" cause either, by the third
line, he has shifted to the conditional: "He would be crown'd: / How that might change his nature, there's the
question" [II. i. 12-13]. Now, instead of evidence from Caesar's past or present conduct to answer the
"question" he has posed about a hypothetical future, Brutus reaches for a metaphor:
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder,
And that craves wary walking.
[II. i. 14-15]
Again he returns to the question of Caesar's potential—"Crown him?—That;—" [II. i. 15]. The broken thought
creates the sense of groping, but what Brutus is groping for is not, as we might expect, reasons for supposing
that Caesar is like an adder; rather, he develops the metaphor: "And then I grant we put a sting in him" [II. i.
16].
Brutus's next statement is a generalization, somewhat confusingly worded, about the misuse of power: "Th'
abuse of greatness is when it disjoins / Remorse from power" [II. i. 18-19]. But he has difficulty applying this
generalization specifically to Caesar, since he can find nothing in Caesar's conduct to warrant it:
Imagery and Language
141
... and, to speak truth of Caesar,
I have not known when his affections sway'd
More than his reason.
[II. i. 19-21]
So he makes another generalization—"But 'tis a common proof " [II. i. 21]—which he supports with a
metaphor: "... That lowliness is young ambition's ladder" [II. i. 22]. Though he has admitted difficulty in
applying his general principle to Caesar, finding an appropriate metaphor seems to suffice and relieve him of
having to justify its applicability. The relevance of this image to Caesar is even less obvious than that of the
"adder"; perhaps, in view of the associational movement of the lines, it is there because it rhymes. It is
startling, as Schanzer points out, "to find Brutus ... speak of Caesar as if he were still at the beginning of his
career." But it seems to satisfy Brutus because he develops it for the next seven lines, until the
"climber-upward" attains "the upmost round" and,
... then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend.
[II. i. 23, 24, 25-7]
Though strangely ineffectual for the weight it carries in the argument, the figure seems to serve Brutus's need,
demonstrating his general principle about the effect of power upon purpose, while still not specifying its
relevance to Caesar. What follows weakens the argument even further: "So Caesar may; / Then lest he may,
prevent" [II. i. 27-8]. The only possible application of "vehicle" to "tenor" puts the whole case back in the
conditional. Since "the thing he is" [II. i. 29] will not warrant killing him, Brutus states his intention to
"fashion,", "color," "And therefore think him," and thus takes the leap that clinches the argument—once more,
reaching for metaphor:
And since the quarrel
Will bear no colour for the thing he is,
Fashion it thus: that what he is, augmented,
Would run to these and these extremities;
And therefore think him as a serpent's egg.
Which, hatch'd, would as his kind, grow mischievous,
And kill him in the shell.
[II. i. 28-34]
There is the same incongruity about this metaphor as the last: Caesar is not "in the shell"; he is, as Brutus
himself calls him, "the foremost man of all this world" [IV. ill. 22].
What Brutus has said in this soliloquy is that there is no complaint about Caesar as he is or has been, but, on
the basis of what often happens to people when they get power. Caesar might, given power, change. Brutus
cites no "reasons," no cause, for supposing that he would change: images of "adder," "ladder," and "serpent's
egg" develop his argument, carrying it to the conclusion to which he is committed. His thought moves back
and forth between general observations about human behavior and metaphors that illustrate them, and
nowhere does he look outside this self-referential linguistic construct to the supposed subject, Caesar himself.
Brutus could "think him" anything on the basis of metaphors enlisted to support "common proofs," and his
interpretation need bear no more, or less, relation to his subject than "a serpent's egg"; but the progression of
tenses in the soliloquy, from the tentative "might" [II. i. 13] to "may" [II. i. 17], to the final "would" [II. i. 33],
indicates that he has blurred the distinction between the hypothetical or metaphorical and the actual. The
tentativeness of the subordinate clauses and appositions of the last five lines are overriden by the inexorable
rhythms of "And since ... And therefore ... And kill," with their strong sense of causal necessity; the uncertain,
Imagery and Language
142
choppy rhythms find release in the smooth, clinching "kill him in the shell." With his conscious mind relaxed,
the conceptual controls dulled by exhaustion, the mechanism of Brutus's fatal construing is obvious: his
willingness to let words do his thinking for him. (pp. 77-81)
The strategies of deception that work privately, between a man and his friend, and, more insidiously, between
a man and himself, are merely subtler, less obvious versions of the rhetorical tactics used publicly in the
funeral orations. Brutus's oration [in. ii. 13-47], his prose, "attic" statement of "public reasons" [III. ii. 7] is
traditionally contrasted to Antony's impassioned "asiatic" style, and is usually read as an appeal to the intellect
rendered powerless by Antony's more effective appeal to the emotions. These misreadings of Brutus's lines
are extremely revealing, since they are based on effects which Brutus himself carefully creates. Brutus
explicitly, in the first lines, establishes his authority as a man of reason addressing the reason of others-Romans, countrymen, and lovers, hear me for my cause, and be silent, that you may hear.
Believe me for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that you may believe. Censure
me in your wisdom, and awake your senses, that you may the better judge.
[III. ii. 13-17]
—associating himself, by the repetition of key words, with honor, wisdom, and judgment. The technique is
ethos, establishing the personal character of the speaker, on the basis of the principle—stated by Aristotle—that
we are likely to accept the argument of a good man. And despite the confusions Brutus has manifested, critics
seem simply to have taken him at his word, interpreting the oration, nearly unanimously, as an appeal to the
reason—a "straightforward statement" of "real reasons" "logically delivered." Yet when we look more closely,
no reasons appear, no argument that could appeal to logic. The one accusation of Caesar—"he was ambitious"
[II. i. 26-7]—is slipped in among protestations of Brutus's love for him and is nowhere supported or even
referred to again. Caesar's ambition is again, in Cassius's phrase, "obscurely ... glanced at" [I. ii. 319-20], in a
linguistic construction which makes use of formal patterning, abstract terminology, and brevity to gloss over
issue and event. Yet critics who have read the oration as an appeal to the reason are taking their cues from
actual elements in it, from rhetorical and syntactical effects carefully contrived to create the illusion Brutus
desires.
Brutus's most effective device is to present the issue as though it were a choice between two alternatives
which leave no choice but to assassinate Caesar, but which rest on unexamined assumptions concerning
Caesar: so that, again, the argument is a self-referential construct that makes sense in its own terms but casts
no light outside itself to its supposed subject. He is aided in this by rhetorical figures that are related to logical
processes and enable him to suggest logical distinctions and relationships, while actually falsifying the
distinctions they imply. The first three sentences (quoted above) make use of one such figure, "antimetabole,"
a figure which "repeats words in converse order, often thereby sharpening their sense" [Miriam Joseph, in her
Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language]. But, while seeming to "sharpen the sense," its function in
Brutus's speech is simply tautology [a redundant or self-defining statement]: "Believe me for mine honor and
for mine honor believe." The necessity of choice between two mutually exclusive alternatives, love of Caesar
and love of Rome, is asserted in the line, "Not that I lov'd Caesar less, but that I lov'd Rome more" [III. ii.
21-2], but nowhere does Brutus substantiate that these were the alternatives, or that they excluded one
another. The question he then springs ("Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar
were dead, to live all freemen?" [III. ii. 22-4]) again implies logical distinction and the necessity of choice
between alternatives suggested to be mutually exclusive—living in freedom or dying in bondage—but again,
without evidence that these were the real alternatives. Both these distortions involve "enthymeme," an
abridged syllogism, in which the omission of one premise results in "a strong tendency to accept the
conclusion without scrutinizing the missing premise on which the argument rests" [Joseph]. The implicit
premise on which all these claims depend is an assumption about Caesar: that Caesar's nature was such that it
was necessary to choose between love of him and love of Rome, that Caesar living would have necessitated
their "dying all slaves." This is the missing premise, nowhere confronted or supported, on which Brutus bases
Imagery and Language
143
his entire case. The rhetorical questions which conclude his oration again present a choice between
alternatives that again rest on an unexamined assumption regarding Caesar: "Who is here so base that he
would be a bondman? If any, speak, for him have I offended" [III. ii. 29-30]. Brutus creates a context wherein
any objection would be an admission of rudeness, baseness, or vileness—so that, within this circular construct,
it is indeed true, "Then none have I offended" [III. ii. 36].
There are, moreover, close-knit causal relationships Implied within nearly every line that further this illusion
of logic. The first three sentences make use of a construction that twice implies causality—"for" (on account
of) and "that" (in order that). The next two lines are conditional clauses setting up "if ... then" relationships.
Brutus uses the figure "taxis" to mete reward and penalty in a syntactical arrangement implying distribution of
effect according to cause: the cumulative effect of "as Caesar was ... so I," repeated three times, lends finality
to the concluding "but, as he was ambitious, I slew him" [III. ii. 26-7]. Of the sixteen sentences in the oration,
six begin with "if," lending the final "Then none have I offended" a weight that clinches the argument. Even
his last lines, which are not part of the argument but merely refer his audience to the records in the Capitol,
use a construction that metes out reward and punishment in logical distribution: "his glory ... wherein he was
worthy ... his offences ... for which he suffer'd death" [III. ii. 38-40]. Such syntactical arrangements occur
from beginning to end of his speech, creating an illusion of irrefutable logic, causing the mind to fill out the
pattern suggested by the syntax and to perceive reasons where there are none.
The oration is far from an appeal to the intellect with "real reasons"; nor is it an ineffective piece of oratory
showing the intellectual's inability to communicate with the masses, as it has also been interpreted. It is a
brilliant piece of oratory, brilliantly suited to manipulating a difficult crowd, while resorting to none of the
obviously cheap tricks so conspicuous in Antony's performance. Thus it enables Brutus to preserve his
conception of himself in his own eyes and others' as a rational man reasonably motivated—an effect he
accomplishes with spectacular success, judging from critics' misreadings. (pp. 82-5)
All Antony does in the opening speech of his remarkable oration—"Friends, Romans, countrymen" [III. ii.
73-107]—is to pretend to accept Brutus's claim, Caesar "was ambitious," and then set about undermining it, by
twisting a few crucial words. Merely by repeating, at regular and strategic intervals within a subtly changing
context, "Brutus says he was ambitious and Brutus is an honorable man" [III. ii. 86-7,93-4,98-9], he causes
the words "honor" and "ambition" to assume opposite and ironic meanings, and Brutus's claim to redound on
itself: the repetition is "anh'phrases, or the broad flout ... irony of one word" [Joseph]. Thus twenty-one lines
into the speech, "Brutus says he was ambitious, / And Brutus is an honorable man" actually means, "Caesar
was not ambitious, nor is Brutus honorable," and by [III. ii. 153], the crowd itself can draw the conclusion
which Antony nowhere has to state: "They were traitors; honorable men!" Master of irony, Antony is a master
of language who has power to make words mean what he wills.
His power derives from his understanding of irony, his skill in adapting language to audience, and his superior
insight into the value of pathos in persuasion. The oration is a lurid and dramatic appeal to a whole range of
feelings, from grief for the loss of a leader and friend, desire to honor the dead, to curiosity, greed, fury, and
revenge. At the end of this first long section, Antony pauses, ostensibly to compose himself, actually to
calculate his effect on the crowd, and from this point on, he makes use of techniques and props to supplement
the verbal: the will, the bloody mantle, and the body. In the next long speech [III. ii. 169-97], he "comes
down." has the crowd make a ring around the corpse, and, holding up the bloody mantle, reenacts the murder.
Antony's language and action are all concentrated on evoking the deed, with effects quite opposite to Brutus's
distancing, obfuscating techniques. Injunctions occur at the beginnings of four lines—"Look" [III. ii. 174],
"See" [III. ii. 175]. "Mark" IIII. ii. 178], "Judge" [iii. ii. 184]--building to the final moment when he reveals
the body itself--"Look you here" [III. ii. 196]. His language is characterized by a quality R. W. Zandvoort
describes as "animation," the ascription of life to lifeless objects, somewhat in the manner of the pathetic
fallacy ["Brutus's Forum Speech in Julius Caesar," Review of English Studies XVI, No, 61 (January 1940):
62-6]: Caesar's wounds are "poor, dumb mouths" which "speak for me" [III. ii. 225-26]: the "blood of Caesar"
Imagery and Language
144
followed Brutus's sword "As rushing out of doors to be resolv'd / If Brutus so unkindly knock'd or no" [III. ii.
179-80]; while Pompey's statue "all the while ran blood" [III. ii. 189]. This is the key to the vitality of his
language, the energy that enables him to seize hold of his world. Finally, sweeping aside the garment to reveal
the body, he releases forces of chaos and destruction: "Revenge! About! Seek! Burn! Fire! Slay!" [III. ii.
204-05] "power of speech" [III. ii. 222]—in a triumphant flourish of his own showmanship. This gesture is an
appropriate conclusion to a performance which is pervaded with irony, for irony is the essence of his oration,
from his persona of "a plain blunt man / That ... speak[s] right on" [III. ii. 218-19, 223], to the more specific
rhetorical forms of "anti-phrases" and "paralipsis." "Paralipsis," a mode of irony which works by disclaiming
the very things the speaker wishes to emphasize, is one of his most effective techniques. Repeating the word
"wrong" six times within four lines [III. ii. 123, 125,126,127], he insinuates that wrong has been done in the
very process of denying that it has. Pretending to try to quiet the crowd, to dissuade them from "mutiny and
rage" [III. ii. 122], he achieves his ends even as he disclaims them. His handling of the will, "which, pardon
me, I do not mean to read" [III. ii. 131], similarly makes use of "paralipsis": in enumerating all his reasons for
withholding the will, he describes exactly the ways it will "inflame" [III. ii. 144] them.
Not the least of his ironies is his claim to appeal to the reason: "O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, /
And men have lost their reason" [III. ii. 104-05]. Yet in a sense, for all his histrionics, Antony does offer more
information about Caesar than Brutus did, offering at least the assertions, "He was my friend" [III, ii. 85], he
brought captives home to Rome [III. ii. 88], he wept for the poor [III. ii. 91], he thrice refu
Julius Caesar
Ernest Schanzer
[Schanzer suggests that Shakespeare intentionally presented an enigmatic, or contradictory, portrait of
Caesar to satisfy the different views of him held by Elizabethan audiences. By the close of Act III, the critic
declares, various characters offer evaluations of Caesar's nature that bear little resemblance to one another.
Shakespeare calls into question the validity of each of these estimates, at the same time presenting Caesar as
a figure who is alternately pompous, shrewd, and benevolent. The dramatist thus provides no direct response
to the question of who is the real Caesar. Noting that our view of Caesar depends to a large extent on our
estimate of the justifiability of the assassination, Schanzer asserts that although Shakespeare points up the
futility of the murder through his emphasis on Caesar's spirit in the last two acts of the play, he offers no
conclusive judgment of the morality of the conspiracy.]
Julius Caesar is one of Shakespeare's most controversial plays. Commentators have been quite unable to
agree on who is its principal character or whether it has one; on whether it is a tragedy and, if so, of what
kind; on whether Shakespeare wants us to consider the assassination as damnable or praiseworthy; while of all
the chief characters in the play contradictory interpretations have been given. To illustrate this polarity of
views it will be enough to quote two of its editors. Professor Dover Wilson tells us that in this play
Shakespeare adopted what he claims to be the traditional Renaissance view of Caesar, derived from Lucan,
which regarded him as 'a Roman Tamburlaine of illimitable ambition and ruthless irresistible genius; a
monstrous tyrant who destroyed his country and ruined "the mightiest and most flourishing commonwealth
that the world will ever see"'. The play's theme 'is the single one, liberty versus Tyranny' [see excerpt in
section on Roman Politics].
The assassination is depicted as wholly laudable, the conspirators as unselfish champions of freedom, while
Brutus's tragedy consists in his vain struggle against the destiny of Rome which lies in the establishment of
Caesarism.
When we turn to Sir Mark Hunter's interpretation of the play, we find that 'there can be no doubt that to
Shakespeare's way of thinking, however much he extends sympathy to the perpetrators of the deed, the
Julius Caesar
145
murder of Julius was the foulest crime in secular history'. Of Caesar we learn, 'when put to the test of the stage
the personality of Julius "moves before us as something right royal", a character sufficiently great to render
the impassioned eulogy of Antony and the calm tribute of Brutus not inconsistent with what we have actually
heard and seen of the object of their praise'. Of the conspirators we are told, 'Brutus excepted, there is no sign
anywhere that the enemies of the Dictator, though they have all the political catchwords at command—Liberty,
Enfranchisement, etc.—care one jot for the welfare of any one outside their own order'. And of Brutus,
'Noble-hearted and sincere beyond question, Brutus is intellectually dishonest', he is self-righteous,
pathetically inconsistent, a 'befogged and wholly mischievous politician' [Transactions of the Royal Society of
Literature 10 (1931): 136ff.]. Thus, while Dover Wilson roots the play in the republican tradition of the
Renaissance, which is overwhelmingly hostile to Caesar, Hunter, with equal confidence, places it in the
popular medieval and Renaissance tradition, which is wholly eulogistic.
The reader of Shakespeare's play is consequently faced with a difficult choice. Is he to throw in his lot with
Dover Wilson and Cassius, and regard Shakespeare's Caesar as a boastful tyrant, strutting blindly to his
well-merited doom, and the assassination as a glorious act of liberation? Or is he to follow Mark Hunter and
Mark Antony, and look at him as 'the noblest man / That ever lived in the tide of times' [III. i. 256-57], and at
the assassination as a hideous crime? Fortunately for the irresolute there is a third way in which the play may
be viewed and a third tradition in which it may be placed.
Perhaps more than any other figure in history, Julius Caesar has evoked a divided response in the minds of
those who have written about him. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that such a response, made
up of attraction and repulsion, admiration and hostility, was the prevailing one among informed and educated
men throughout Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance, so that we can speak of it as forming a
tradition extending from Caesar's own day down to that of Shakespeare. (pp. 10-11)
[This] tradition of a complex and divided response to the Caesar story [makes] clear that in all ages
well-informed men have belonged to it and that it ... includes, with very few exceptions, all writers on Caesar
whom Shakespeare is known or suspected to have read. A simple, undivided response, like that claimed by
Dover Wilson, or, conversely, by Sir Mark Hunter, would thus constitute a surprising deviation by
Shakespeare from almost all his known reading. But I do not wish to argue that the complex and divided
attitude to the Caesar story found in Shakespeare's play is merely an accidental inheritance from his 'sources'.
On the contrary, I believe, and hope to show, that, however much it may also be a reflection of what he had
read and felt about the matter, it is used by him as a deliberate dramatic device. (pp. 22-3)
[Let us look at Shakespeare's] presentation of Caesar in this play. Its true nature will be most clearly perceived
if we follow it rapidly, scene by scene, from the play's opening until Antony's funeral oration.
In Flavius and Marullus we get our first glimpse of the Republican opposition to Caesar's rule. The metaphor
which Flavius uses to justify their 'disrobing' of Caesar's images strikes an ominous note.
These growing feathers pluck'd from Caesar's wing
Will make him fly an ordinary pitch,
Who else would soar above the view of men,
And keep us all in servile fearfulness.
[I. i. 72-5]
It points forward to the image of the serpent's egg applied to Caesar in Brutus's soliloquy. There a more
drastic operation is advocated, but in both cases the action is thought of as preventive, directed not against
what Caesar is but what he may become if not checked in time. (pp. 24-5)
Julius Caesar
146
Immediately upon Flavius's words Caesar makes his first appearance, and the imaginative impact of this short
scene tends to bear out rather than to discredit Flavius's fears. With the utmost economy Shakespeare creates
the atmosphere of an oriental court, with its cringing attendants and fawning favourites. 'Peace, ho! Caesar
speaks' [I. ii. 1]. 'When Caesar says "Do this", it is perform'd' [I. ii. 10]. And into this atmosphere intrudes the
first of many warnings that come ever thicker as the moment of the murder approaches, and like all the others
it is contemptuously brushed aside by Caesar. 'He is a dreamer; let us leave him. Pass' [I. ii. 24].
From this slow-moving and portentous scene we pass at once to the rapid, feverish, and impassioned
utterances of Cassius in his great seduction-scene. The contrast which he draws between Caesar's physical
defects, which make him succumb in a swimming-match and shake when suffering from a fever-fit, and the
greatness of the position he has come to occupy, is part of a general contrast, pervading the whole play,
between Caesar's frailties of body and the strength of his spirit, which has enabled him to become 'the
foremost man of all the world' [IV. iii. 22]. Cassius is genuinely perplexed by this contrast. He is like a
schoolboy who is puzzled and angry that someone whom he has always beaten at games should have become
perfect and exact obedience from his physical equals and superiors.
Now, in the names of all the gods at once,
Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed,
That he is grown so great?
[I. ii. 148-50]
Contrary to his intention, he does not throw doubt on Caesar's courage but unwittingly testifies to it. It is the
fever-fit that makes him shake, not the prospect of jumping into 'the troubled Tiber chafing with her shores' [I.
ii. 101]. The story of the swimming-match epitomizes the triumph of Caesar's 'spirit' over his physical
frailties.
It is significant that in this crucial scene, where Cassius can be relied upon to make the most of the
opposition's case against Caesar, he does not mention any specific acts of tyrannical behaviour. There is only
the general assertion that Rome is 'groaning underneath this age's yoke' [I. ii. 61 ]. But the yoke to Cassius lies
in one man's usurpation of the honours and powers that previously belonged to many. To him it is therefore
very much an existing reality, whereas to Brutus the threat lies not in present but in impending conditions.
Brutus had rather be a villager
Than to repute himself a son of Rome
Under these hard conditions as this time
Is like to lay upon us,
[I. ii. 172-75]
he tells Cassius. And in his soliloquy it is again not what Caesar is but what he may become that causes his
fears.
What, then, is the effect of this scene upon our mental picture of Caesar? It heightens, rather than alters, our
previous impression of him as an oriental monarch, a Colossus with clay feet, and begins the process,
continuing through much of the play, of disjoining and contrasting the human and the super-human Caesar,
the man with his physical and moral frailties and the God who is beyond all
fault--John Palmer so well puts it [in his Political Characters of Shakespeare], in his own deification, yet
reminding us of his weaknesses on each of his appearances, underlines this dissociation. In the very next
episode we find him angry at the mob's opposition to his acceptance of the crown, afraid of Cassius, yet
assuring Antony,
Julius Caesar
147
I rather tell thee what is to be fear'd
Than what I fear; for always I am Caesar.
[I. ii. 211-12]
And at once follows the body-spirit contrast:
Come on my right hand, for this ear is deaf,
And tell me truly what thou think's of him.
[I. ii. 213-14J
As Dover Wilson remarks, the atmosphere is again that of an oriental court. When Caesar is angry, 'all the rest
look like a chidden train' [I. ii. 184]. In his remarks about Cassius we get our chief glimpse of the Caesar we
know from Plutarch, the shrewd politician, the keen observer of men, the writer of the Commentaries.
In Casca's narration of the day's events a new Caesar is revealed to us, again with Plutarchian traits; Caesar
the play-actor, skilfully exploiting the passions of the common people. While his fall in the market-place is a
kind of preview of his later fall in the Capitol, his adroit play upon the feelings of the plebs [commoners]
adumbrates Antony's manipulation of them in his funeral oration. Casca's report ends on an ominous note,
which for the moment makes the worst fears of the enemies of Caesar seem justified: 'Marullus and Flavius,
for pulling scarfs off Caesars' images, are put to silence' [I. ii. 285-86]. Not deprived of their tribuneship, as in
Plutarch. Just the sinister 'put to silence'.
Up to this point Shakespeare has tipped the balance in favour of the conspirators' views of Caesar and has
made us share Brutus's apprehensions. Now, by making Cassius, in his soliloquy, so frankly impugn the
integrity of his own motives and show so clearly the personal nature of his opposition, Shakespeare brings us
to question the truth of our impressions of Caesar, so many of which we have received through Cassius. And
our doubts are strengthened by the play's next image of him, again drawn by Cassius, this time for the
terror-stricken Casca, For Cassius's picture of Caesar and his explanation of the portents are clearly part of an
argumentum ad hominem [evasive argument]. Cassius himself is an Epicurean and does not, at least not yet,
'credit things that do presage' [V. i. 78]. But to convince Casca, who does credit them, of the monstrosity of
Caesar's rule, he is quite ready to put them to use to prop up his arguments. Against Cassius's explanation of
the omens we have been indirectly warned just before by Cicero:
But men may construe things after their fashion,
Clean from the purpose of the things themselves.
[I. ii. 34-5]
The groundwork of Cassius's indictment of Caesar here is much the same as in his scene with Brutus. There is
again the contrast between what Caesar really is and what he has become, but what he has become is
something rather different, fitting the altered circumstances. It is no longer a God or a Colossus who dwarfs
his fellow men and blocks the road to glory. This image of Caesar had seemed appropriate for Brutus, in
whom Cassius is trying to awaken a feeling of thwarted ambition. But upon the terrified Casca it is above all a
sense of the fearfulness of Caesar that he is trying to impress.
Now could I, Casca, name to thee a man
Most like this dreadful night;
That thunders, lightens, opens graves, and roars
As doth the lion in the Capitol;
A man no mightier than thyself or me
In personal action, yet prodigious grown,
And fearful, as these strange eruptions are ...
Julius Caesar
148
[I. iii. 72-8]
But while the picture of Caesar as a God and Colossus bore some resemblance to the reality of which we have
been allowed a few glimpses, the Caesar that 'thunders, lightens, opens graves, and roars' is too obviously a
fabrication of the moment to affect our conceptions of him. (The ironic fact that Caesar later seems to bear out
this description by referring to himself as a lion, and Danger's elder twin-brother, does not alter this
impression. For it is Caesar's most ludicrous utterance, and no more affrights us than Snug the joiner's
impersonation of that 'fearful wildfowl' [in A Midsummer Night's Dream].)
Our image of Caesar receives its next modification in Brutus's soliloquy. His Caesar bears no resemblance
either to Cassius's God and Colossus or to his roaring lion. He appears to Brutus in the image of a serpent's
egg, someone yet harmless, but potentially mischievous. At the very moment when it is most in his interest to
incriminate Caesar, his honesty forces him to declare,
and to speak truth of Caesar,
I have not known when his affections sway'd
More than his reason.
[II. i. 19-21]
But are we to take this as a valid view of Caesar? Or is it as mistaken as Brutus's view of Antony? His
reference to Caesar's 'lowliness' suggests this, for it is absurdly out of accord with what we see of him in this
play. Thus Shakespeare calls in doubt the validity of Brutus's image of Caesar, just as he calls in doubt that of
Cassius's and Antony's image, so that the nature of the real Caesar remains an enigma.
Nor is this enigma dispelled by what we see of Caesar in the following scenes. Even in the privacy of his
home he is strenuously engaged in the creation of the legendary figure. There is never any real intimacy in his
scene with Calpurnia, no momentary lifting of the mask in soliloquy or aside. Here and in the Capitol,
Shakespeare gives us above all the thrasonical [boastful] Caesar, who sees himself as outside and above
humanity. Only upon the arrival of the conspirators does he unbend a little, for the first and last time in the
play. For his bearing here Shakespeare was, no doubt, drawing on Plutarch's description of the youthful
Caesar. "And the people loved him marvellously also, because of the courteous manner he had to speak to
every man, and to use them gently, being more ceremonious therein than was looked for in one of his years.
Furthermore, he ever kept a good board, and fared well at his table, and was very liberal besides Plutarch's
coupling of Caesar's hospitality with his courtesy probably suggested to Shakespeare his
Good friends, go in and taste some wine with me;
And we, like friends, will straightway go together.
[II. ii. 126-271]
But these lines also call up memories of the ceremonial sharing of wine before another betrayal, memories
which are strengthened by the kiss which Brutus gives to Caesar in the Capitol ("I kiss thy hand, but not in
flattery, Caesar" [III. i. 52]), and later by Antony's reproach of Brutus at Philippi:
In your bad strokes, Brutus, you give good words;
Witness the hole you made in Caesar's heart.
Crying 'Long live! Hail, Caesar!'
[V. i. 30-2]
('And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said. Hail master; and kissed him.' Matthew xxvi, 49.)
Julius Caesar
149
We are next given another view of Caesar and the conspiracy in Artemidorus's
My heart laments that virtue cannot live
Out of the teeth of emulation.
If thou read this, O Ceasar, thou mayest live;
If not, the fates with traitors do contrive.
[II. 111. 13-16]
Having engaged our sympathies for Caesar more fully than at any previous point in the play, Shakespeare
loses little time to alienate them again, so that by the moment of the assassination our antipathies are more
strongly aroused than ever before. In his two short speeches in the Capitol Shakespeare gives us a
compendium of his Caesar's most unamiable traits. He here speaks with the voice of the Angelo of Measure
for Measure, rejecting, like him, a plea for the pardon of a brother by insisting on the rigour of the law and on
his own separateness from common humanity.
I must prevent thee, Cimber.
These couchings and these lowly courtesies
Might fire the blood of ordinary men.
And turn pre-ordinance and first decree
Into the law of children ...
Thy brother by decree is banished;
If thou dost bend, and pray, and fawn for him,
I spurn thee like a cur out of my way.
[III. i. 35-9. 44-6]
His next speech, like Othello's comparison of himself to the Pontic sea, is full of irony, both in view of the
vacillation we have witnessed in his scene with Calpurnia, and of his impending fall,
I could be well mov'd.\, if I were as you;
If I could pray to move, prayers would move me
But I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix'd and resting quality
There is no fell fellow in the firmament
[III. I. 58-621]
A final ironic touch is added in his 'Hence! Wilt thou lift up Olympus?' [III. i. 74], which, juxtaposed with the
immediately succeeding spectacle of his lifeless body lying at the foot of Pompey's statue, crystallizes the
contrast between the corporeal and spiritual Caesar, which is summed up a little later by Antony's
O mighty Caesar! dost thou lie so low?
Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils.
Shrunk to this little measure?
[III. i. 148-50]
From Antony we now receive our last image of Caesar. His is the Caesar of popular tradition, the mighty
conqueror, the Mirror of Knighthood, the noble Emperor. There is Caesar's nobility,
Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of times;
[III. i. 256-57]
Julius Caesar
150
his fidelity,
He was my friend, faithful and just to me;
[III. ii. 85]
his largesse,
To every Roman citizen he gives,
To every several man, seventy-five drachmas;
[III. ii. 241-42]
his military prowess,
He hath brought many captives home to Rome;
[III. ii. 88]
his compassion,
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept.
[III. ii. 91]
Yet though we are not made to doubt the sincerity of Antony's tribute to Caesar in his soliloquy, the image of
him created in the funeral oration is called into question by its forming part of his carefully contrived play
upon the emotions of the plebs. Nor are we encouraged to put much trust in the judgement of the man who
assures Caesar that Cassius is not dangerous but 'a noble Roman, and well given' [I. ii. 19].
Throughout the first half of the play, then, we are given a series of images of Caesar, none of which bear
much mutual resemblance, though some of them are not irreconcilable. But doubt is thrown in one way or
another on the validity of most of them. And to these Shakespeare adds his own presentation of Caesar, a
presentation so enigmatic and unrevealing that none of the other images are really dispelled by it. It is a
dramatic treatment of Caesar in the manner of [Luigi] Pirandello. 'Which of all these is the real Caesar?',
Shakespeare seems to ask. And he takes care not to provide an answer. But does not Shakespeare further
anticipate Pirandello by making us feel that perhaps there is no real Caesar, that he merely exists as a set of
images in other men's minds and his own? For his Caesar is continuously engaged in what Pirandello calls
costruirsi, 'building himself up', creating his own image of himself, until we are left to wonder whether a
lifting of the mask would reveal any face at all. (pp. 25-32)
Shakespeare seems to me to be playing on his audience's varied and divided views of Caesar, encouraging and
discouraging in turn each man's preconceptions. And since on our view of Caesar depends, very largely, our
judgement of the justifiability of the entire conspiracy, the whole drama is thus kept within the area of the
problem play. For though, as it seems to me, Shakespeare makes abundantly clear the folly and the
catastrophic consequences of the murder, he does not, I think, make clear its moral indefensibility. His
enigmatic presentation of Caesar's character and motives allows responses like that of Dover Wilson to be
formed. And I see no reason to doubt that there were people who shared these responses in Shakespeare's
audience. In fact, the diversity of critical opinion on the main characters and on Shakespeare's attitude to the
conspiracy bears witness to his success in making Julius Caesar a problem play. It is a problem play in much
the same way as [Henrik] Ibsen's Wild Duck, which has a very similar theme: the tragic mischief created by
the actions of a young idealist in fulfilment of the highest principles, partly through his utter blindness to what
people really are like. In both cases the question is put to the audience: 'Was he morally justified in doing
what he did?' And in both cases the dramatist's answer seems to me to be an insistent but not a compulsive
'No'.
Julius Caesar
151
The main purpose of Shakespeare's persistent dissociation of Caesar's body and spirit is, no doubt, to show up
the foolishness and futility of the assassination. The whole second part of the play is an ironic comment on
Brutus's
We all stand up against the spirit of Caesar,
And in the spirit of men there is no blood.
O that we then could come by Caesar's spirit,
And not dismember Caesar!
[II. i. 167-70]
What is involved in the last two acts is something more than a grim pun, which makes the conspirators find
that, while they have dismembered Caesar's body, his spirit, i.e. his ghost, still walks abroad, and exacts his
revenge. For the spirit of Caesar is also that legendary figure, that God and Colossus, whom Cassius deplores,
and whom Caesar seeks to impose upon the imagination of his countrymen. In this he is handicapped by
frailties of body and character from which the murder frees him and allows the legendary Caesar to come into
his own, assisted by Antony's rhetoric, just as Antony's military skill later assists that other 'spirit' of Caesar,
his ghost, in executing his revenge.
That the spirit of Caesar in the sense of 'Caesarism', the absolute rule of a single man, informs the second part
of the play, as many critics maintain, seems to me unsupported by anything in the text. Dover Wilson, for
instance, writes: When Brutus exclaims
We all stand up against the spirit of Caesar,
[II. i. 1671]
he sums up the play in one line. For the spirit of Caesar, which was the destiny of Rome, is the fate against
which Brutus struggles in vain.' And MacCallum [in his Shakespeare's Roman Plays] from a rather different
standpoint, tells us that 'Shakespeare makes it abundantly clear that the rule of the single mastermind is the
only admissible solution for the problems of the time.' Both these critics seem to me to be reading Plutarch's
view into Shakespeare's play. Nothing there suggests to me that Caesar is to be thought of as the Man of
Destiny, or that the establishment of one man's rule is the inevitable outcome of the Civil Wars. As in
Plutarch, who declares that the people 'could not abide the name of a king, detesting it as the utter destruction
of their liberty', they are shown to be strongly opposed to Caesar's acceptance of the crown [I. ii. 241 ff.].
Against this can only be set the people's shouts after Brutus's oration, 'Let him be Caesar', 'Caesar's better
parts shall be crown'd in Brutus' [III. ii. 51-2], but to take this as evidence of strong monarchic feelings in
plebs seems rather naive. At Philippi it is not Caesarism or the providential scheme of Plutarch and Dante
which defeats Brutus and Cassius, but their human flaws, which make Brutus give the word for attack too
early, and make Cassius slay himself rashly, in premature despair. As far as the supernatural interferes in the
affairs of men, it is Caesar's ghost rather than Destiny or the hand of God that contributes to the defeat of the
conspirators. Nor are we made to feel anywhere ... that the Roman Republic has sunk into a state of disorder
and corruption which only the establishment of one man's rule can cure. (pp. 33-6)
Ernest Schanzer, "Julius Caesar," in his The Problem Plays of Shakespeare: A Study of "Julius Caesar,"
"Measure for Measure," "Antony and Cleopatra," Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963, pp. 10-70.
Brutus
T. S. Dorsch
[Dorsch argues that critics have generally viewed Brutus as a more admirable person than Shakespeare
intended him to be. While acknowledging Brutus's honor and virtue, Dorsch contends that he is arrogant,
Brutus
152
self-righteous, and opinionated. According to the critic, Brutus honestly believes that Caesar's death will
benefit Rome, but he is blind to the consequences of the assassination and to his fellow conspirators' lack of
moral principles. Dorsch does note, however, that Brutus is capable of expressing love and tenderness, as
shown by his relationships with his wife Portia and his servant Lucius.]
Brutus is the dramatic hero of Julius Caesar. He is the most prominent figure, and at almost every stage our
interest is focused on his deliberations and decisions. Obviously Shakespeare was greatly interested by the
mind of Brutus. As presented by Plutarch, he was a man of great probity and integrity, and of sound
judgement backed by a philosophical training, and he was loved and esteemed by his compatriots. Yet he slew
the one undoubted genius of his age, partly, we gather from Plutarch, because he was ambitious of succeeding
him as leader of the state, partly because of some not clearly specified private quarrel, and partly because he
was incensed against him by Cassius. His hatred of tyranny, which is mentioned almost in passing, made him
the readier to listen to Cassius's promptings. We may suppose that Shakespeare found it difficult to reconcile
the conspicuous wisdom and virtue of Plutarch's Brutus with the motives he was given for desiring Caesar's
death. At any rate, he modified his character in several ways, making him at the same time more obviously
consistent in the purity of his intentions, and less amiable and less intelligent.
I cannot help feeling that the majority of past critics have been misled by Brutus's estimate of himself into
regarding him as a more wholly admirable person than Shakespeare intended him to be. The dramatist, says
MacCallum [in his Shakespeare's Roman Plays], "reserves his chief enthusiasm for Brutus"; and "throughout
the piece, it is the personality of Brutus that attracts our chief sympathy and concern." The terms in which
almost all other commentators discuss the character of Brutus are similarly those of admiration and approval.
In Julius Caesar the virtue and nobility of Plutarch's Brutus are brought out, but beside them are set a number
of faults for which there is little or no warrant in Plutarch. Shakespeare's Brutus is, with all his estimable
qualities, pompous, opinionated and self-righteous. His judgement is not to be trusted. He is led by the nose
by Cassius and gulled by Antony. At almost every crisis in his fortunes he makes decisions, against the advice
of experienced men of the world, that contribute materially to the failure of his cause. He seems completely
blind to reality, an ineffectual idealist whose idealism cannot prevent him from committing a senseless and
terrible crime. We may respect the motives for which he spares Antony's life, and later allows him to speak in
Caesar's funeral—if not the reasoning by which he led himself to think Caesar's death necessary; but on both
occasions his decisions are foolish blunders as far as the success of the conspiracy is concerned.
The character of Caesar is established by incidental phrases and by implication rather than by statement or
description. Of Brutus we hear much more, both from other people and from himself. We soon learn that he is
greatly respected by all who know him. Cassius declares that he is noble [I. il. 308], and adds that he is one of
those honourable men who, themselves innocent of guile, may easily be "seduced" by less honourable but
cleverer men. At the end of the next scene Casca pays him a high tribute:
O, he sits high in all the people's hearts:
And that which would appear offence in us,
His countenance, like richest alchemy,
Will change to virtue and to worthiness.
[I. Hi. 157-60]
All the conspirators, even Cassius, defer to his opinions at their first meeting. Caius Ligarius calls him "Soul
of Rome" [II. i. 321 ], and pledges himself to an unknown enterprise simply because Brutus leads him on.
Caesar, too, loves Brutus dearly.
For the modern play-goer admiration is somewhat tempered by the manner in which Brutus himself frequently
stresses his sense of his own disinterestedness and honour. In one of his very first speeches he says:
Brutus
153
What is it that you would impart to me?
If it be aught toward the general good,
Set honour in one eye, and death i' th' other,
And I will look on both indifferently;
For let the gods so speed me as I love
The name of honour more than I fear death.
[II. ii. 84-9]
It should be remembered, however, that one of Shakespeare's simplest—and habitual—methods of telling us
what a person is really like is to let that person himself tell us. We must be on our guard against judging
Brutus's estimate of himself according to modern notions of how people should speak about themselves, and
saying that in this and similar utterances he is merely "talking big". Nevertheless, his manner at various points
in the play does not give us as favourable an impression of him as his friends entertain.
Although he has been drawn into the conspiracy by Cassius, he assumes the role of leader as his natural due,
though it must be admitted that no one questions his right to the position. However, he takes advantage of it to
veto every proposal put forward by any one else. Cassius wants the conspirators to bind themselves by an
oath. No, says Brutus, conscious of his own integrity, the word of a Roman is inviolable; and he delivers a
pompous little homily on the virtue of their enterprise and the sacredness of a Roman promise. Then Cassius,
seconded by Casca, Cinna, and Metellus, suggests that Cicero be sounded about joining them, but Brutus
firmly rejects the suggestion. Cassius points out the potential danger in sparing Antony's life, and urges that he
should fall with Caesar. And again Brutus knows better: Antony, he says, "can do no more than Caesar's arm
when Caesar's head is off" [II. i. 182-83]. It is not the moral rightness of his decision here that we question,
but the immediate grounds on which he bases it, and his inability to see that, once committed to the monstrous
conspiracy, he would be defeating its ends if he did not ensure its success by whatever means. Surely it is with
deliberate irony that Shakespeare in the middle of this discussion makes Brutus say of another man,
For he will never follow any thing
That other men begin.
[II. i. 151-52]
In much the same tone Brutus, after the death of Caesar, overrides Cassius's prudent objection to letting
Antony speak in Caesar's funeral. Antony will be speaking with his gracious permission, and after he himself
has given the people unanswerable reasons for Caesar's death; and in any case he sees no cause to distrust
Antony's professions. Throughout this episode he shows an almost ludicrous naivete, yet at the end his
self-esteem is probably higher than at any other time in the play—as of course Antony intended it should be.
It is during his quarrel with Cassius that Brutus shows to least advantage. No one who reads with care the first
hundred lines of Act IV, Scene iii, could feel that Shakespeare meant us to have any sympathy with Brutus
during this exchange. It is otherwise in later parts of the scene; but while the altercation is at its height, though
we may grant that Brutus has right on his side in the main points at issue, his demeanour is intolerable. He
adopts the tone of an Olympian god chiding an erring mortal, and at the same time lapses into the language of
a squabbling schoolboy. Caesar himself is no more arrogant than Brutus when he says, for example:
There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats;
For I am arm'd so strong in honesty
That they pass by me as the idle wind,
Which I respect not.
[IV. iii. 66-9]
Brutus
154
This aspect of Brutus is brought into prominence several times in later scenes. For instance, when Octavius
says, "I was not born to die on Brutus' sword," Brutus replies,
O, if thou wert the noblest of thy strata,
Young man, thou could'st not die more honourable.
[V. i. 58-60]
Later in the same scene he declares to Cassius:
Think not, thou noble Roman,
That ever Brutus will go bound to Rome;
He bears too great a mind.
[V. i. 110-12]
And finally, a few moments before he abjures his Stoic principles and takes his life, when the battle to which
he has inadvisedly committed the republican armies is lost, and all that he stands for is in ruins, he says:
I shall have glory by this losing day
More than Octavius and Mark Antony
By this vile conquest shall attain unto.
[V. v. 36-8]
However, as I have said, we must beware of hasty judgements. "All that he stands for is in ruins"; "this vile
conquest": if we bear these words in mind we shall not put too harsh a construction on Brutus's speeches.
Some of his "thrasonical" utterances must be put down to Shakespeare's technique of making his characters
reveal their own qualities by direct reference to them; some, in the later scenes, to a species of unconscious
compensation in Brutus for the defeat of all the high principles by which he had been governed in joining the
conspiracy and in his subsequent actions. In Brutus Shakespeare gives us a very subtle portrait of a man
divided against himself—"with himself at war" [I. ii. 46], to use Brutus's own phrase. Even before his first
encounter with Cassius he has been torn by conflicting passions: his admiration for Caesar's high gifts and
noble qualities and his fears of his ambition, his love for Caesar as a personal friend and his sense of duty to
the republic. Throughout the play he is to some degree accompanied by this internal conflict. It is this that
leads him to justify and assert himself so positively, this that stands behind much of his demeanour to Cassius
during the quarrel, this that causes him to kill himself with a better will than that with which he slew Caesar.
He is an entirely honourable man engaged in what he does not realize is a dishonourable cause, and associated
with unscrupulous men whose lack of principle he does not see and would not understand. The sense of
conflict in him is best seen in his soliloquy in his garden ... [This] soliloquy is a wonderful exposition of the
state of mind of a man who, with reasons that are very nearly right, reaches a conclusion that is entirely
wrong.
It is impossible not to sympathize with Brutus in his agonizing dilemma; but it is even more impossible to
sympathize with its outcome. For, having reached the wrong conclusion, Brutus goes no further. The other
conspirators "did that they did in envy of great Caesar" [V. v. 70]; all that mattered to them was that Caesar
should be got out of the way. Brutus thinks that he is acting from the purest patriotic motives; it does not
occur to him that he is doing the state no service by robbing it of its head and making no provision for its
safety thereafter—for so it appears in the play. When Caesar has fallen the conspirators, including Brutus, are
at a loss. Until Antony imposes on them a course of action for the following day, all they can think of doing,
apart from bathing their hands in the murdered man's blood, is to walk about in a transport of republican
enthusiasm, waving their bloody swords and shouting, "Peace, freedom, and liberty!" [II. i. 110]. Within
twenty-four hours of Caesar's death, Antony is in charge of the city, not Brutus; he and Cassius have fled for
their lives.
Brutus
155
Caesar grows in stature as the play proceeds; Brutus deteriorates. In his quarrel with Cassius he is irritable,
undignified, and unjust; he is more intolerant of the meddlesome poet than Cassius; and though he vehemently
disputes Cassius's claim to be the abler soldier, his reasons for engaging the enemy at Philippi are less
convincing than those of Cassius for deferring the battle. It is impossible to reconcile Shakespeare's
presentation of Brutus with the common Renaissance view of him as the great liberator and patriot, the second
of his name to free the Romans from the tyrant's yoke.
He is shown at his most sympathetic in his intimate personal relationships. Hard upon the meeting of the
conspirators comes the beautiful episode in which Portia insists on sharing his anxieties. Here he is seen as the
tender and loving, and dearly loved, husband. The prelude to this encounter brings out his affectionate
consideration for his serving-lad Lucius, and this is seen again at the end of the quarrel scene.
The loyal friendship that Brutus can inspire is well illustrated in the last scene of the play, when he asks them
in turn to hold his sword while he runs upon it, and they shrink back from the request in horror. In this
moment of defeat and humiliation their sorrow is all for him, not for themselves; and conscious of their love,
Brutus is moved to say,
My heart doth joy that yet in all my life
I found no man but he was true to me.
[V. v. 34-5]
If I seem to have emphasized Brutus's less admirable qualities at the expense of the many fine qualities with
which Shakespeare endows him, it is not that I underrate the latter, but because the majority of commentators
have brought out what is sympathetic in him to the virtual exclusion of the faults that Shakespeare must
equally want us to see in him. Brutus seems to me to be a man whom we must respect, but for whom it is
difficult to feel love. Shakespeare accentuates any weaknesses or errors for which there is the slightest warrant
in Plutarch, and gives him what is in many respects a disagreeable personality—such a personality, indeed, as
is not uncommon in perfectly upright men who cannot see beyond their own strict code of conduct. On the
other hand, he makes him act from an entirely sincere belief that he is serving his country by killing Caesar.
He shows him struggling with a problem beyond his capacity to resolve, and in his perplexity coming to the
wrong decision. A man who committed Brutus's crime could not be portrayed as a wholly sympathetic
character; but Shakespeare shows him as blind, not evil. And finally he buries Brutus's crime in his virtues,
and ends the play with Antony's tribute:
This was the noblest Roman of them all.
All the conspirators save only he
Did that they did in envy of great Caesar;
He only, in a general honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.
His life was gentle, and the elements
So mix'd in him, that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world, "This was a man!"
[V. v. 68-75]
This is the impression of Brutus that Shakespeare leaves with us. He leaves us with the feeling, too, that the
play, though it rightly bears Caesar's name, is rather "The Death and Revenge of Julius Caesar" than "The
Tragedy of Julius Caesar", for its tragedy is the tragedy of Marcus Brutus. (pp. xxxix-xliv)
T. S. Dorsch, in an introduction to Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, edited by T. S. Dorsch, revised
edition, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1955, pp. xxvi-hd.
Brutus
156
Cassius
M. W. MacCallum
[Focusing on Cassius's intellectual preoccupations, self-sufficiency, championship of liberty and equality, and
rejection of the supernatural, MacCallum contends that the character's behavior is guided by his belief in the
philosophy of Epicureanism. Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who asserted that pleasure was the highest
good in life. For Epicurus, the greatest joy derived from emotional calm and serenity; he therefore considered
intellectual activities superior to all others. The philosopher also extolled the virtues of freedom and denied
that gods had any control over human affairs. MacCallum also discusses Cassius's strengths and weaknesses
of character, faulting his spitefulness, jealousy, and lack of fortitude, but praising his enthusiasm for the
cause of republicanism and his keen powers of judgment.]
The main lines of [Cassius's] character are given in Caesar's masterly delineation, which follows Plutarch in
regard to his spareness, but in the other particulars freely elaborates the impression that Plutarch's whole
narrative produces,
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look:
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous ...
He reads much;
He is a great observer, and he looks
Quite through the deeds of men; he loves no plays,
As thou dost, Antony; he hears no music;
Seldom he smiles, and smiles in such a sort
As if he mock'd himself and scorn'd his spirit
That could be moved to smile at anything.
Such men as he be never at heart's ease
Whiles they behold a greater than themselves,
And therefore are they very dangerous.
[I. ii. 194-95, 201-10]
Lean, gaunt, hungry, disinclined to sports and revelry, spending his time in reading, observation, and
reflection—these are the first traits that we notice in him. He too, like Brutus, has learned the lessons of
philosophy, and he finds in it the rule of life. He chides his friend for seeming to fail in the practice of it:
Of your philosophy you make no use,
If you give place to accidental evils.
[IV. III. 145-46]
And even when he admits and admires Brutus' self-mastery, he attributes it to nature, and claims as good a
philosophic discipline for himself. There is, however, a difference between them even in this point. Brutus is a
Platonist with a Stoic tinge; Cassius is an Epicurean [Platonists held that the highest reality is intellectual
rather than based on sensory perception. Stoics believed that wise men should be free from passion, unmoved
by joy or grief, and submissive to natural law. Epicureans considered emotional calm the highest good, held
intellectual pleasures superior to others, and advocated the renunciation of momentary in favor of more
permanent pleasures]. That strikes us at first as strange, that the theory which identified pleasure with virtue
should be the creed of this splenetic solitary: but it is quite in character. Epicureanism appealed to some of the
noblest minds of Rome, not as a cult of enjoyment, but as a doctrine that freed them from the bonds of
superstition and the degrading fear of death ... And these are the reasons that Cassius is an Epicurean. At the
end, when his philosophy breaks down, he says:
Cassius
157
You know that I held Epicurus strong
And his opinion: now I change my mind,
And partly credit things that do presage.
[V. i. 76-8]
He has hitherto discredited them ...
Nor stony tower, nor walls of beaten brass,
Nor airless dungeon, nor strong links of iron,
Can be retentive to the strength of spirit:
But life, being weary of these worldly bars,
Never lacks power to dismiss itself.
[I. ill. 93-71]
Free from all superstitious scruples and all thought of superhuman interference in the affairs of men, he stands
out bold and self-reliant, confiding in his own powers, his own will, his own management:
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
[I. ii. 139-41]
And the same attitude of mind implies that he is rid of all illusions. He is not deceived by shows. He looks
quite through the deeds of men. He is not taken in by Casca's affectation of rudeness. He is not misled by
Antony's apparent frivolity. He is not even dazzled by the glamour of Brutus' virtue, but notes its weak side
and does not hesitate to play on it. Still less does Caesar's prestige subdue his criticism. On the contrary, with
malicious contempt he recalls his want of endurance in swimming and the complaints of his sick-bed, and he
keenly notes his superstitious lapses. He seldom smiles and when he does it is in scorn. We only once hear of
his laughing. It is at the interposition of the poet, which rouses Brutus to indignation; but the presumptuous
absurdity of it tickles Cassius' sardonic humour [IV. iii. 124-38].
For there is no doubt that he takes pleasure in detecting the weaknesses of his fellows. He has obvious relish
in the thought that if he were Brutus he would not be thus cajoled, and he finds food for satisfaction in
Caesar's merely physical defects. Yet there is as little of self-complacency as of hero-worship in the man. He
turns his remorseless scrutiny on his own nature and his own cause, and neither maintains that the one is noble
or the other honourable, nor denies the personal alloy in his motives. This is the purport of that strange
soliloquy that at first sight seems to place Cassius in the ranks of Shakespeare's villains along with his Iagos
and Richards, rather than of the mixed characters, compact of good and evil, to whom nevertheless we feel
that he is akin.
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. ii. 308-15]
Cassius
158
It frequently happens that cynics view themselves as well as others in their meaner aspects. Probably Cassius
is making the worst of his own case and is indulging that vein of self-mockery and scorn that Caesar observed
in him. But at any rate the lurking sense of unworthiness in himself and his purpose will be apt to increase in
such a man his natural impatience of alleged superiority in his fellows. He is jealous of excellence, seeks to
minimize it and will not tolerate it. It is on this characteristic that Shakespeare lays stress. Plutarch reports the
saying "that Brutus could evill away with the tyrannie and that Cassius hated the tyranne, making many
complayntes for the injuries he had done him"; and instances Caesar's appropriation of some lions that Cassius
had intended for the sports, as well as the affair of the city praetorship. But in the play these specific
grievances are almost effaced in the vague statement, "Caesar doth bear me hard"; which implies little more
than general ill-will. It is now resentment of pre-eminence that makes Cassius a malcontent. Caesar finds him
"very dangerous" just because of his grudge at greatness; and his own avowal that he "would as lief not be as
live to be in awe" [I. ii. 95-6] of a thing like himself, merely puts a fairer colour on the same unamiable trait.
He may represent republican liberty and equality, at least in the aristocratic acceptation, but it is on their less
admirable side. His disposition is to level down, by repudiating the leader, not to level up, by learning from
him. In the final results this would mean the triumph of the second best, a dull and uniform mediocrity in art,
thought and politics, unbroken by the predominance of the man of genius and king of men. And it may be
feared that this ideal, translated into the terms of democracy, is too frequent in our modern communities. But
true freedom is not incompatible with the most loyal acknowledgment of the master-mind ... (pp. 275-79)
Yet notwithstanding this taint of enviousness and spite, Cassius is far from being a despicable or even an
unattractive character. He may play the Devil's Advocate in regard to individuals, but he is capable of a high
enthusiasm for his cause, such as it is. We must share his calenture of excitement, as he strides about the
streets in the tempest that fills Casca with superstitious dread and Cicero with discomfort at the nasty weather.
His republicanism may be a narrow creed, but at least he is willing to be a martyr to it; when he hears that
Caesar is to wear the crown, his resolution is prompt and Roman-like:
I know where I will wear this dagger then:
Cassius from bondage will deliver Cassius.
[I. iii. 89-90]
And surely at the moment of achievement, whatever was mean and sordid in the man is consumed in his
prophetic rapture that fires the soul of Brutus and prolongs itself in his response.
Cassius. How many ages hence
Shall this our lofty scene be acted over
In states unborn and accents yet unknown!
Brutus. How many times shall Caesar bleed in sport
That now on Pompey's basis lies along
No worthier than the dust!
[III. i. 111-161]
And even to individuals if they stand the test of his mordant criticism, he can pay homage and admiration. The
perception that Brutus may be worked upon is the toll he pays to his self-love, but, that settled, he can feel
deep reverence and affection for Brutus' more Ideal virtue. Perhaps the best instance of it is the scene of their
dispute. Brutus ... is practically, if not theoretically, in the wrong, and certainly he is much the more violent
and bitter; but Cassius submits to receive his forgiveness and to welcome his assurance that he will bear with
him in future. This implies no little deference and magnanimity in one who so ill brooks a secondary role. But
he does give the lead to Brutus, and in all things, even against his better judgment, yields him the primacy.
And then it is impossible not to respect his thorough efficiency. In whatsoever concerns the management of
affairs and of men, he knows the right thing to do, and, when left to himself, he does it. He sees how needful
Cassius
159
Brutus is to the cause and gains him—gains him, in part by a trickery, which Shakespeare without historical
warrant ascribes to him; but the trickery succeeds because he has gauged Brutus' nature aright. He takes the
correct measure of the danger from Antony, of his love for Caesar and his talents, which Brutus so
contemptuously underrates. So, too, after the assassination, when Brutus says,
I know that we shall have him well to friend;
[III. i. 143]
he answers,
I wish we may: but yet I have a mind
That fear him much: and my misgiving still
Falls shrewdly to the purpose.
[III. i. 144-46]
Brutus seeks to win Antony with general considerations of right and justice, Cassius employs a more effective
argument:
Your voice shall be as strong as any man's
In the disposing of new dignities.
[III. i. 177-78]
He altogether disapproves of the permission granted to Antony to pronounce the funeral oration. He grasps the
situation when the civil war breaks out much better than Brutus:
In such a time as this it is not meet
That every nice offence should bear his comment.
[IV. ill. 7-8]
His plans of the campaign are better, and he has a much better notion of conducting the battle.
All such shrewd sagacity is entitled to our respect. Yet even in this department Cassius is outdone by the
unpractical Brutus, so soon as higher moral qualities are required, and the wisdom of the fox yields to the
wisdom of the man ... [however] passionate and wrong-headed Brutus may be in their contention, he has too
much sense of the becoming to wrangle in public, as Cassius begins to do. Another more conspicuous
example is furnished by the way in which they bear anxiety. (pp. 279-82)
[When Popilius Lena speaks with Caesar at the Capitol at the beginning of Act III, scene i,] Cassius believes
the worst, loses his head, now hurries on Casca, now prepares for suicide. But Brutus, the disinterested man, is
less swayed by personal hopes and fears, keeps his composure, urges his friend to be constant, and can calmly
judge of the situation. It is the same defect of endurance that brings about Cassius' death. Really things are
shaping well for them, but he misconstrues the signs just as he has misconstrued the words of Lena, and kills
himself owing to a mistake; as Messala points out:
Mistrust of good success hath done this deed.
[V. iii. 65]
This want of inward strength explains the ascendancy which Brutus with his more dutiful and therefore more
steadfast nature exercises over him, though Cassius is in many ways the more capable man of the two. They
both have schooled themselves in the discipline of fortitude, Brutus in Stoic renunciation, Cassius in
Epicurean independence; but in the great crises where nature asserts herself, Brutus is strong and Cassius is
Cassius
160
weak. And as often happens with men, in the supreme trial their professed creeds no longer satisfy them, and
they consciously abandon them. But while Cassius in his evil fortune falls back on the superstitions which he
had ridiculed Caesar for adopting on his good fortune, Brutus falls back on his feeling of moral dignity, and
gives himself the death which theoretically he disapproves.
Yet, when all is said and done, what a fine figure Cassius is, and how much both of love and respect he can
inspire. (pp. 282-83)
M. W. MacCallum, "Julius Caesar: The Remaining Characters," in his Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their
Background?, 1910. Reprint by Russell & Russell, 1967, pp. 275-99.
Mark Antony
Harley Granville-Barker
[Granville-Barker maintains that on the surface Antony appears to be a "good sort," initially supporting the
conspirators after they have assassinated Caesar; but underneath he is really an instinctive politician, the
critic declares, who demonstrates his opportunism by manipulating the crowd to avenge Caesar's death.
Granville-Barker further contends that Antony's rousing the Roman populace is not altogether mischievous;
rather, it also reflects his empathy for them because he considers himself a common man whose sensibilities
are outraged at the injustice of Caesar's murder.]
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune ...
[IV. iii. 218-19]
Mark Antony cannot always talk so wisely, but he takes the tide that Brutus loses. He is a born opportunist,
and we see him best in the light of his great opportunity. He stands contrasted with both Cassius and Brutus,
with the man whom his fellows respect the more for his aloofness, and with such a rasping colleague as
Cassius must be. Antony is, above all things, a good sort.
Shakespeare keeps him in ambush throughout the first part of the play. Up to the time when he faces the
triumphant conspirators he speaks just thirty-three words. But there have already been no less than seven
separate references to him, all significant. And this careful preparation culminates as significantly in the
pregnant message he sends by his servant from the house to which it seems he has fled, bewildered by the
catastrophe of Caesar's death. Yet, as we listen, it is not the message of a very bewildered man. Antony, so
far, is certainly—in what we might fancy would be his own lingo—a dark horse. And, though we may father
him on Plutarch, to English eyes there can be no more typically English figure than the sportsman turned
statesman, but a sportsman still. Such men range up and down our history. Antony is something besides,
however, that we used to natter ourselves was not quite so English. He can be, when occasion serves, the
perfect demagogue. Nor has Shakespeare any illusions as to what the harsher needs of politics may convert
your sportsman once he is out to kill. The conspirators are fair game doubtless. But Lepidus, a little later, will
be the carted stag.
A barren-spirited fellow; one that feeds
On abject orts and imitations,
Which, out of use and staled by other men,
Begin his fashion: do not talk of him
But as a property ...
[IV. i. 36-40]
Mark Antony
161
to serve the jovial Antony's turn! This is your good sort, your sportsman, your popular orator, stripped very
bare.
The servant's entrance with Antony's message, checking the conspirators' triumph, significant in its
insignificance, is the turning point of the play. But Shakespeare plucks further advantage from it. It allows
him to bring Antony out of ambush completely effective and in double guise; the message foreshadows him as
politician, a minute later we see him grieving deeply for his friend's death. There is, of course, nothing
incompatible in the two aspects of the man, but the double impression is all-important. He must impress us as
uncalculatingly abandoned to his feelings, risking his very life to vent them. For a part of his strength lies in
impulse; he can abandon himself to his feelings, as Brutus the philosopher cannot. Moreover, this bold
simplicity is his safe-conduct now. Were the conspirators not impressed by it, did it not seem to obliterate his
politic side, they might well and wisely take him at his word and finish with him then and there. And at the
back of his mind Antony has this registered clearly enough. It must be with something of the sportsman's—and
the artist's—happy recklessness that he flings the temptation at them:
Live a thousand years,
I shall not find myself so apt to die:
No place will please me so, no mean of death,
As here by Caesar, and by you cut off,
The choice and master spirits of this age.
[III. i. 159-63]
He means it; but he knows, as he says it, that there is no better way of turning the sword of a so flattered
choice and master spirit aside. It is this politic, shadowed aspect of Antony that is to be their undoing; so
Shakespeare is concerned to keep it clear at the back of our minds too. Therefore he impresses it on us first by
the servant's speech, and Antony himself is free a little later to win us and the conspirators both.
Not that the politician does not begin to peep pretty soon. He tactfully ignores the cynicism of Cassius,
Your voice shall be as strong as any man's
In the disposing of new dignities.
[III. i. 177]
But by Brutus' reiterated protest that Caesar was killed in wise kindness what realist, what ironist—and Antony
is both—would not be tempted?
I doubt not of your wisdom.
Let each man render me his bloody hand ...
[III. i. 183-84]
And, in bitter irony, he caps their ritual with his own. It is the ritual of friendship, but of such a friendship as
the blood of Caesar, murdered by his friends, may best cement. To Brutus the place of honor in the compact;
to each red-handed devotee his due; and last, but by no means least, in Antony's love shall be Trebonius who
drew him away while the deed was done. And so to the final, most fitting apostrophe:
Gentlemen all!
[III. i. 190]
Emotion subsided, the politician plays a good game. They shall never be able to say he approved their deed;
but he is waiting, please, for those convincing reasons that Caesar was dangerous. He even lets slip a friendly
warning to Cassius that the prospect is not quite clear. Then, with yet more disarming frankness, comes the
Mark Antony
162
challenging request to Brutus to let him speak in the market place. As he makes it, a well-calculated request!
For how can Brutus refuse, how admit a doubt that the Roman people will not approve this hard service done
them? Still, that there may be no doubt at all, Brutus will first explain everything to his fellow-citizens
himself, lucidly and calmly. When reason has made sure of her sway, the emotional, the "gamesome," Antony
may do homage to his friend.
Be it so;
I do desire no more.
[III. i. 251-52]
responds Antony, all docility and humility, all gravity—though if ever a smile could sharpen words, it could
give a grim edge to these. So they leave him with dead Caesar.
In this contest thus opened between the man of high argument and the instinctive politician, between principle
(mistaken or not) and opportunism, we must remember that Antony can be by no means confident of success.
He foresees chaos. He knows, if these bemused patriots do not, that it takes more than correct republican
doctrines to replace a great man. But as to this Roman mob—this citizenry, save the mark!—whoever knows
which way it will turn? The odds are on the whole against him. Still he'll try his luck; Octavius, though, had
better keep safely out of the way meanwhile. All his senses are sharpened by emergency. Before ever
Octavius' servant can speak he has recognized the fellow and guessed the errand. Shakespeare shows us his
mind at its swift work, its purposes shaping.
Passion, I see, is catching, for mine eyes,
Seeing those beads of sorrow stand in thine,
Began to water.
[III. i. 283-85]
—from which it follows that if the sight of Csesar's body can so move the man and the man's tears so move
him, why, his own passion may move his hearers in the market place presently to some purpose! His
imagination, once it takes fire, flashes its way along, not by reason's slow process though in reason's terms.
To what he is to move his hearers we know: and it will be worth while later to analyze the famous speech, that
triumph of histrionics. For though the actor of Antony must move us with it also—and he can scarcely fail
to—Shakespeare has set him the further, harder and far more important task of showing us an Antony the mob
never see, of making him clear to us, moreover, even while we are stirred by his eloquence, of making clear to
us just by what it is we are stirred. It would, after all, be pretty poor playwriting and acting which could
achieve no more than a plain piece of mob oratory, however gorgeous; a pretty poor compliment to an
audience to ask of it no subtler response than the mob's. But to show us, and never for a moment to let slip
from our sight, the complete and complex Antony, impulsive and calculating, warm-hearted and callous,
aristocrat, sportsman and demagogue, that will be for the actor an achievement indeed; and the playwright has
given him all the material for it.
Shakespeare himself knows, no one better, what mere historionics may amount to. He has been accused of
showing in a later play [Coriolanus] (but unjustly, I hold) his too great contempt for the mob; he might then
have felt something deeper than contempt for the man who could move the mob by such means; he may even
have thought Brutus made the better speech. Antony, to be sure, is more than an actor; for one thing he writes
his own part as he goes along. But he gathers the ideas for it as he goes too, with no greater care for their
worth than the actor need have so long as they are effective at the moment. He lives abundantly in the present,
his response to its call is unerring. He risks the future. How does the great oration end?
Mark Antony
163
Mischief, thou are afoot;
Take thou what course thou wilt!
[in. ii. 260-61]
A wicked child, one would say, that has whipped up his fellow children to a riot of folly and violence. That is
one side of him. But the moment after he is off, brisk, cool and business-like, to play the next move in the
game with that very cool customer, Octavius.
He has had no tiresome principles to consult or to expound.
I only speak right on ...
he boasts;
I tell you that which you yourselves do know ...
[III. ii. 224]
An admirable maxim for popular orators and popular writers too! There is nothing aloof, nothing superior
about Antony. He may show a savage contempt for this man or that; he has a sort of liking for men in the
mass. He is, in fact, the common man made perfect in his commonness; yet he is perceptive of himself as of
his fellows, and, even so, content.
What follows upon his eloquent mourning for Caesar? When the chaos in Rome has subsided he ropes his
"merry fortune" into harness. It is not a very pleasant colloquy with which the fourth act opens.
Antony. These many then shall die; their names are pricked.
Octavius. Your brother too must die; consent you, Lepidus?
Lepidus. I do consent.
Octavius. Prick him down, Antony.
Lepidus. Upon condition Publius shall not live, Who is your sister's son, Mark
Antony.
Antony. He shall not live; look, with a spot I damn him.
[IV. i. 1-6]
The conspirators have, of course, little right to complain. But four lines later we learn that Lepidus himself,
when his two friends have had their use of him, is to fare not much better than his brother—than the brother he
has himself just given so callously to death! Can he complain either, then? This is the sort of beneficence the
benevolent Brutus has let loose on the world.
But Antony finishes the play in fine form; victorious in battle, politically magnanimous to a prisoner or two,
and ready with a resounding tribute to Brutus, now that he lies dead. Not in quite such fine form, though; for
the shadow of that most unsportsmanlike young man Octavius is already moving visibly to his eclipse, (pp.
21-6).
Harley Granville-Barker, "Antony," in Twentieth Century Interpretations of Julius Caesar: A Collection of
Critical Essays, edited by Leonard F. Dean, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1968, pp. 21-6.
Julius Caesar: Selected Quotes
Julius Caesar: Selected Quotes
164
For let the gods so speed me as I love
The name of honor more than I fear death.
(I, ii)
As explained in the thematic discussion there is much in the way of political dilemmas in the play. Brutus, in
this same scene, lets it be know that he fears the people will anoint Caesar as their king, subordinating their
liberty to him. In this quote, Brutus is explaining that his opposition to Caesar's rule is based on honorable
intentions, and not selfish motives.
...and this man
Is now become a god; and Cassius is
A wretched creature, and must bend his body,
If Caesar carelessly but nod on him
(I, ii)
Spoken by Cassius in the beginning of the play, the quote shows his motive of envy and resentment as the
driving force behind his desire to eliminate Caesar. His motives contrast with the honorable motives of
Brutus.
People and Senators, be not affrighted;
Fly not; stand still; ambition's debt is paid.
(III, i)
Spoken by Brutus directly after Caesar is slain, the quote points to one of the themes in the play: ambition.
Brutus believes Caesar has been too ambitious and power-hungry, and that this has caused his death.
O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
(III, i)
Antony, in a soliliquoy at the end of Act III, scene i, anguishes over the death of Caesar, who he considers
"the noblest man that ever lived." The stage is set for the conflict between Antony and Brutus.
If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer,-Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.
Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all
freemen?
(III, ii)
Brutus explains to the crowd of Roman citizens at Caesar's funeral why he rose against Caesar, indicating that
it was for the good of Rome.
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
(III, ii)
In a famous (or infamous) funeral oration, Antony cleverly turns the crowd against Brutus and the
conspirators. He disputes Brutus's claim that Caesar was ambitious, telling the crowd that Caesar cried upon
the deaths of poor people. In the final coup d'etat of the speech, Antony reads from Caesar's will, which
Julius Caesar: Selected Quotes
165
stipulates money and property for the common people. The people begin to mutiny.
His life was gentle, and the elements
So mix'd him that
Nature might stand up
And say to all the world: "This was a man!"
(V, v)
His previous doubts cast aside, Antony submits that Brutus' motives were pure, and that his concern was for
the Roman Republic, unlike the other conspirators. He was a true statesman.
Julius Caesar: Suggested Essay Topics
Act 1, Scene 1
1. Read through Caesar’s Commentaries, an account of his battles in Europe and write a brief history of
Caesar’s rise to power.
2. Research the first triumvirate—Caesar, Crassus and Pompey. What happened to it? What were the causes
and the results of the Roman Civil War?
3. The tribunes Flavius and Marullus are concerned about Caesar’s rise to power. Research the role of the
tribunes in Roman society and discuss their duties and responsibilities.
Act I, Scene 2
1. Read Plutarch’s The Life of Caesar and compare his account of the historical events with the events as they
are depicted in Shakespeare’s play.
2. History has been touched by political assassinations from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King, Jr. Very
often the profile of the assassin is that of a loner, a misfit, who has no friends and does not conform to the
norms of society. Choose one political assassination and research the life and personality of the person
responsible. Compare him to the picture Shakespeare presents of Cassius in the play.
Act I, Scene 3
1. Superstition is an important part of the play and a significant factor in Roman life. Examine the superstition
and the supernatural events described in this scene. Research Roman mythology and Roman superstitions.
What did the Romans believe and what were they afraid of?
2. Compare the character of Casca as he is depicted in Scenes 1 and 2. How has he changed? What does the
audience learn from him and why is he an important character in the play?
Act II, Scene 1
1. Read Plutarch’s Life of Brutus and compare the historical account of Brutus to the character in
Shakespeare’s play.
2. A “tragic flaw” is a weakness of personality in a character that makes the character vulnerable, and leads to
his destruction. What were Caesar’s and Brutus’ “tragic flaws” and how do these flaws make them
vulnerable?
Act II, Scene 2
1. Compare Caesar in Act I, Scene 2 to the Caesar that appears in this scene. How is he the same? How is he
Julius Caesar: Suggested Essay Topics
166
different? What does he fear and what are the forces that influence him?
2. Wives play a key role in Act II, Scenes 1 and 2. How do the wives of Brutus and Caesar try to influence
their husbands? Are they successful?
Act II, Scenes 3 and 4
1. Rome was a republic that depended on slavery similar to the United States until the 1860s. Research the
history of slavery in Rome. Where did the slaves come from? What roles did they play in the Republic? What
was a slave’s life like? What rights and responsibilities did they have? What were the rights and
responsibilities of Roman citizens?
2. Compare the characters of Calphurnia and Portia in terms of how they are portrayed by Shakespeare in this
act. How are the two women similar? Compare the two scenes involving these two wives and their husbands.
What purpose do the scenes serve?
Act III, Scene 1
1. A soliloquy is an important device to expose information and give the reader insight into a character. In a
soliloquy, the character speaks the truth. Read Antony’s soliloquy in this scene again. What truth does it
reveal about Antony who has just apparently reconciled with the men who killed his friend, Caesar?
2. How does Caesar’s “tragic flaw” of pride and ambition enable the events in this scene to occur? How
could these events have been prevented?
Act III, Scenes 2 and 3
1. Compare the funeral speeches of Brutus and Antony. What are their purposes? How effective is each
speech? How does each speech reveal important aspects of both characters?
2. The fickleness of the crowd is an important issue in the play. Brutus and Antony both depend on it. How
are they able to manipulate the crowd in this scene? What other devices do they use in their funeral speeches
to win the support of the crowd? Which speech is more effective and why? Give reasons for your opinions.
Act IV, Scene 1
1. What does this scene reveal about Octavius? What new insight does it give into Antony’s character, and
how does that effect your opinion of him?
2. Antony and Octavius will become the focus of attention for the remainder of the play and Shakespeare will
write about them again in Antony and Cleopatra. Little is said or known of Lepidus. Research the life of
Lepidus. What is his background? Where did he come from, and what happened to him after the civil war
with Brutus and Cassius?
Act IV, Scenes 2 and 3
1. Critics have said that Caesar has a stronger influence on the events, the outcome, and the characters in the
play after his death than he did when he was living. Explain why you agree or disagree with this, and give
reasons to support your opinions.
2. The critic G. Wilson Knight has described the importance of sleep in Julius Caesar. Sleep is mentioned by
Brutus in his soliloquy in the first scene of Act II. It is brought up by Portia, and Calphurnia’s dream is very
significant. Discuss the sleep imagery in the play and show how it is important.
Act V, Scene 1
1. In literature the climax is defined as the highest point of action in a story, where the conflict is resolved.
Julius Caesar: Suggested Essay Topics
167
The battle between Cassius and Brutus and Antony and Octavius would seem to be the climax of the play, but
this confrontation never takes place. When do you think the climax of the play occurs? Give reasons for your
opinions.
2. Write a character sketch of Brutus, Cassius, Antony, Octavius and Caesar based on their actions, what they
say, and what others say about them. What are their strong points and their weaknesses? Which character is
the most interesting in your opinion and why?
Act V, Scenes 2 and 3
1. Caesar considered Cassius a threat, a dangerous man who thought too much. Brutus called his
brother-in-law “the last of all the Romans.” Research the life of Cassius. Whose evaluation of Cassius is
closer to the truth? Who is the real Cassius?
2. Who do you think makes a better leader, a pragmatist (a practical, political person like Cassius) or an
idealist (a man of principle such as Brutus)? Can a leader ever be both? Support your conclusions with
specific references to the events of the play.
Act V, Scenes 4 and 5
1. Some critics contend the play should have been titled Marcus Brutus instead of Julius Caesar because he is
the real tragic hero of the play. Discuss this idea in a short essay and give your reasons why you agree or
disagree.
2. Caesar and Brutus had a great deal in common. Both men were misled and manipulated by their friends.
Show how this is true in terms of what happens to each of them in the course of the play.
3. According to some critics, Julius Caesar is misinterpreted by modern audiences who are concerned with
democracy and freedom. According to these critics, Shakespeare had a different view of things. He lived
under a monarch in a time of peace and prosperity, after a series of bloody civil wars. To Shakespeare, Brutus
was a villain in this play and not a hero. He murdered a popular ruler and destroyed the social order. Do you
agree or disagree with this interpretation of the play? Provide evidence from the play to support your opinions.
Julius Caesar: Sample Essay Outlines
The following paper topics are based on the entire play. Following each topic is a thesis and sample outline.
Use these as a starting point for your paper.
Topic #1
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This statement by Lord Acton, sent in a
letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton on April 5, 1887, provides the basis for understanding the effects of power
on the heads of state, and it furnishes an insight into one of the main themes in the play Julius Caesar.
Write a paper that shows how power affects the characters, the events, and the outcome of the play.
Outline
I. Thesis Statement: Julius Caesar is a play that illustrates the theme expressed by Lord Acton that power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This can be illustrated by studying the actions of the main
characters in the play.
II. Background
A. Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus rule Rome (triumvirate)
Julius Caesar: Sample Essay Outlines
168
B. Power struggle between Pompey and Caesar
C. Civil war ends with the death of Pompey
D. Caesar’s rise to power
III. Concern for the Republic and Caesar’s growing power
A. Flavius and Marullus disperse the crowd to minimize Caesar’s power base and protect the Roman
Republic
B. A view of Caesar’s power on the feast of Lupercal, how he deals with Calphurnia and Antony
IV. The Conspiracy against Caesar
A. Cassius and Brutus discuss what must be done to prevent Caesar from destroying Rome
1. Cassius—wants personal power
2. Brutus—wants the good of Rome
3. Cassius exploits his power over Brutus by forging letters that will sway him
B. Brutus joins the plot to prevent Caesar’s abuse of power and Brutus assumes the leadership, imposing his
wishes on the others
C. The conspirators have the power of life and death in Rome and they decide who will live and who will die
V. The Assassination
A. Caesar’s death causes a power struggle in Rome as the conspirators become the new leaders
B. Brutus’ funeral speech and his rise to power as the crowds want to make him king
C. Antony’s funeral speech and his rise to power unleashing the mob on Rome for his personal reasons
VI. The Aftermath in Rome
A. Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus are changed by their new- found power
1. They make a death list to consolidate their power in Rome
2. They change Caesar’s will and his generous legacy to Rome
3. Antony’s abuse of Lepidus for his political ends
B. The growing conflict between Antony and Octavius
VII. The Aftermath in Greece
A. The conflict between Brutus and Cassius
B. The impending war
VIII. The Civil War
A. The deaths of Brutus and Cassius
B. Antony and Octavius rise to power
Topic #2
Any analysis of Julius Caesar would not be complete without considering the matter of subjective
interpretation. Throughout the play characters and events are judged not by what is actually happening, but by
one or more characters’ interpretation of these things.
Write a paper that examines these subjective interpretations of characters and events throughout the play,
providing examples to support your conclusions.
Outline
I. Thesis Statement: Understanding Julius Caesar depends on realizing that the audience’s attitude toward
the characters, and the events of the play, are not rooted in reality, but in a subjective interpretation of
reality.
Julius Caesar: Sample Essay Outlines
169
II. Act I
A. Flavius and Marullus paint a biased and negative picture of Caesar based on their support of Pompey
1. What did Pompey do that was so good?
2. What did Caesar do that was so bad?
B. Caesar is revealed in his exchanges with Antony, Cal¬phur¬nia, and the soothsayer
C. Cassius describes Caesar to Brutus as physically weak and unfit to rule Rome
1. Cassius saved Caesar’s life while swimming
2. Caesar cried like a sick girl in Spain
D. Caesar’s assessment of Cassius as a dangerous man is the opposite of Antony’s opinion that Cassius is “a
noble Roman, and well given.” (Act I, Sc. 2, 197)
E. Caesar’s behavior off stage is not seen by the audience but by Casca’s biased account of events at the
Coliseum
F. Cassius describes Caesar to Casca as a monster, whose abuse of power is shown by the gods sending
supernatural omens and storms to warn Rome
III. Act II
A. Brutus bases his decision to kill Caesar not on what he has done, but on what he might do
1. Cassius has been influencing him for a month
2. Brutus has received many anonymous letters opposing the tyrant Caesar
B. The conspirators assessment of Antony is also subjective
1. To Cassius he is a danger to be eliminated
2. To Brutus he is only a “limb of Caesar” ( Act II, Sc. 1, 165)
C. The interpretation of supernatural events
1. Calphurnia’s dream is a sign that Caesar will be killed
2. Caesar sees it as a warning from the gods that he is a coward if he stays at home
3. Decius interprets it as Caesar being the strength, power, and lifeblood of Rome and it is his view that
influences Caesar
IV. Act III
A. Caesar’s opinion of himself as “constant as the Northern Star,” (Act III, Sc. 1, 66) incapable of changing
his mind or making mistakes, although he has made several mistakes in judgment to this point
B. To Cinna and Cassius the death of Caesar is a source of “Liberty, freedom and enfranchisement” (Act III,
Sc.1, 81)
C. To Antony, his death is the “ruins of the noblest man / That ever lived in the tide of times.” (Act III, Sc. 1,
296–257) and the first step on the path to anarchy and bloody civil war
D. Brutus’ funeral speech attempts to cast Caesar an ambitious tyrant who would have destroyed the
Republic and made slaves of everyone
E. Antony’s funeral speech shows a compassionate Caesar, who cried for suffering Romans, and a generous
man who left money and land in his will for every citizen
F. Antony’s account of the murder of Caesar, although he did not witness it, stirs the angry mob to want
revenge
V. Act IV
A. Antony’s assessment of Lepidus as being unfit to rule Rome
B. Octavius’ opinion that he is a “tried and valiant soldier” (Act IV, Sc. 1, 29)
C. Cassius’ reasons for not going to Philippi
D. Brutus’ opinions that the must go or lose the opportunity for success
VI. Act V
A. In the parley before the battle both sides see themselves as true Romans and the others as the traitors
B. Pindarus gives his subjective account of Titinius being captured by the enemy, and it results in Cassius’
Julius Caesar: Sample Essay Outlines
170
death
C. Antony’s opinion of Brutus as “the noblest Roman of them all” (Act V, Sc. 5, 69) is in sharp contrast with
his earlier view of Brutus as a murderer and flatterer
Topic #3
Superstition, in the opinion of Polybius, a Greek writer, was an important force in Rome and it plays a major
part in Julius Caesar. Many decisions in the daily lives of the Romans were referred to the augurers, who
could determine the will of the gods through ritual and sacrifice. Augurers decided the Roman calendar, and
what days, were and were not suitable for conducting business. Caesar himself was an augurer, a position of
influence in Roman society.
Write a paper that examines Roman superstition, and show the effects it had on the events and the outcome of
the play.
Outline
I. Thesis Statement: Superstition is an important factor in determining the events and the outcome of Julius
Caesar, a significant force throughout the course of the entire play.
II. The Feast of Lupercal
A. The play begins on a festival in honor of the god Pan, the god of fertility
B. Caesar indicates his superstition by directing Antony to touch Calphurnia during the race, to make her
fertile and enable her to provide Caesar with an heir
C. The soothsayer provides a look into the future and a warning for Caesar
III. The Omens of Nature
A. Casca’s account to Cicero of the unnatural events he has witnessed, which he interprets as the gods in a
state of civil war, or intent on destroying the world
B. Cassius’s account of the message from the gods, warning Rome of Caesar’s growing power and the threat
he poses for the Republic
IV. The Sacrifice of the Augurers
A. Finding no heart in the beast is a warning to Caesar to remain home
B. To Caesar it is a rebuke from the gods that he is a coward if he does not go out
V. Calphurnia’s Dream—Caesar’s statue spouting blood
A. Calphurnia’s interpretation it is a warning of Caesar’s impending death
B. Decius’ favorable interpretation of the dream as a sign of Caesar’s stature in Rome and the respect all the
Romans have for him
VI. Signs before the Battle
A. Caesar’s ghost, an omen of Brutus’ death
B. The eagles on the ensign replaced by ravens and kites, a sign that Cassius and Brutus will lose the battle
and die
Julius Caesar: Modern Connections
One of the major issues Julius Caesar deals with is the overthrow of a ruler. In this play, Shakespeare raises
the question of whether this is ever justified and if so, under what circumstances. At the time Shakespeare was
writing, a commonly held view on this topic was that the overthrow of any ruler—good or bad—was morally
wrong. This view is prevalent in Dante's The Inferno (a part of a longer work completed between 1308 and
1321). In the poem, Dante (an Italian poet) put Brutus and Cassius in the lowest level of Hell as punishment
Julius Caesar: Modern Connections
171
for their rebellion. This concept was well-known in Shakespeare's time through literature such as The Inferno
and through the views of England's rulers. The two English monarchs during Shakespeare's lifetime, Queen
Elizabeth and King James I, shared the view that an attack on the ruler was deeply immoral and dangerous to
the kingdom. James I felt that even a bad ruler should not be overthrown, for such a person was sent by God
to test and mature the character of the Christian subject of the ruler. Hence, in no situations should the subject
turn to rebellion. Both Elizabeth and James were the targets of plots against them, but both survived the plots.
A view opposite to the medieval one of Dante was put forward by some Renaissance thinkers in their
writings. Two Renaissance writers who supported the overthrow of a tyrant ruler were the Italian political
writer Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and the French essayist Michel Eyquem Montaigne (1533-92). In
their philosophical arguments, they discussed the causes which would lead people to seek to overthrow a
ruler. Additionally, some Catholic and Protestant polemicists advocated the overthrow and assassination of an
unjust ruler when specific circumstances, such as lack of religious toleration in the kingdom, applied.
In Julius Caesar, Brutus argues that Caesar was killed because of his ambition. He worries about the change
that Caesar might undergo if he were to acquire more power. The historical Julius Caesar was able to achieve
a level of personal power exceeding that which the ancient Roman political system was designed to allow.
The main governing body in Rome in Caesar's time was the Senate. In Julius Caesar, most of the central
characters—Caesar, Brutus, Mark Antony—are members of the Senate. The principal officials of the Senate
were known as consuls. Two consuls were elected from the Senate by the general public. These two consuls
served alternate months during the same year. The power of a consul was intended to be checked by the
presence of the second consul and by the short term of office. However, in a period of civil wars, many
exceptions to these rules were made for the victorious military leader, Caesar. The Senate awarded additional
honors and power beyond that of a consul to Caesar due to his successful military exploits. Later, Caesar
claimed even more power for himself.
Like the ancient Roman legal system, the modern democratic system is one in which officials are elected by
the general public and in which checks and balances are incorporated into the governing process. In a
democracy, people have the power to vote out of office individual leaders who are not representing their
views in the passing of laws. A system of checks and balances exists with the division of the U.S. government
into three branches: legislative, judicial, and executive. Informal checks are also in place which prevent one
person from amassing too much power. Such checks include regularly scheduled elections, campaign laws,
independent media, a system of public education, well-trained lawyers and a jury system, separation of church
and state, and lobbyists for various constituencies.
Another area of interest for the modern audience is the difference between the historical record, mainly as
found in the writings of Greek biographer Plutarch (died c. 120 A.D.), and Shakespeare's use of the record.
Much of Shakespeare's story for Julius Caesar is found in Plutarch. However, Shakespeare omits a number of
things: 1) reference to Portia's first marriage or her offspring from that marriage 2) the fact that Caesar saved
Brutus's life after the battle of Pharsalus 3) the comment that Brutus stabbed Caesar in the "privities."
Suetonius, a Roman biographer/historian and contemporary of Plutarch, reported on a tradition that Brutus
was Caesar's illegitimate son, another aspect of Roman record which is not mentioned in the play. It has been
suggested that perhaps Shakespeare omitted such information in order to depict Brutus in a sympathetic
manner. Additionally, there are a number of other differences between Plutarch's historical record and
Shakespeare's play, including compressions of time. Similarly, modern artists rely on historical or official
records for inspiration. The artist—whether he or she is a poet, an author, a playwright, a director—may
interpret or embellish aspects of such documents for any number of reasons, including theatrical or political
purposes. One modern example of variation between the record of an event and an artist’s interpretation of
that event is the difference between the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy and the movie version depicted by film director Oliver Stone.
Julius Caesar: Modern Connections
172
Julius Caesar: FAQs
Why did Shakespeare call this play Julius Caesar?
Brutus, not Julius Caesar, is the main protagonist of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and so the play's title appears
to be misleading. Caesar dies before the mid-point of the play is reached and Shakespeare does not provide
the Roman Emperor with a single memorable speech. On the other hand, it is Caesar's ambition to become
absolute dictator of Rome that provides the dramatic conflict for Brutus's participation in the assassination
conspiracy, and it is Caesar's decision to disregard the warnings of both his wife Calpurnia and the Soothsayer
about the Ides of March that furnishes the conspirators with their opportunity. In the end, however,
Shakespeare may have elected to call his Roman tragedy Julius Caesar for commercial reasons. While his
audiences may not have been familiar with Brutus, they certainly recognized Caesar's name. Composed at a
relatively early juncture in Shakespeare's career, the title of Julius Caesar may well have been chosen to
appeal to an audience that was not yet ready to attend a play solely on the basis of Shakespeare's own
reputation.
What motivates the conspirators to assassinate Caesar?
Shakespeare deliberately emphasized that the motivations of conspirators are highly variable. Most of the
minor members of the cabal are moved by personal grudges. Cassius, by contrast, takes part in the conspiracy
against Caesar owing chiefly to his envy of the lofty and undeserved stature accorded to Caesar as a demigod.
Brutus, however, has no personal grudge against Caesar, nor does Brutus resent Caesar's stature in the eyes of
the people. His principal concern is that Caesar will transform Rome from a quasi-Republic into a
dictatorship. Although Julius Caesar is stymied in this regard, Roman history bore out Brutus's analysis.
Why does Shakespeare insert the death of the poet Cinna
into Julius Caesar?
In Act III, scene iii, we briefly encounter the minor character of a poet who unfortunately has the same name
as one of Caesar's assassins, Cinna. Having dreamt of dining with the slain Caesar, Cinna is intent upon
staying out of the mayhem that Mark Antony has stirred up, but despite his misgivings, "something" leads him
forth. The frenzied plebian mob interrogates him mercilessly and it is evident that they are predisposed to
harm him. When he insists that he is not Cinna the politician but Cinna the poet, one of the plebians exclaims,
"tear him for his bad verses" (III, iii. l.30), and the mob drags him to his death. The killing of this incidental
character is meant to intensify the sense of chaos that has taken hold of Rome with the death of Julius Caesar.
The connection is reinforced by Cinna's following a pattern similar to Caesar; he senses danger but is
nonetheless drawn into harm's way.
What are we to make of Antony's funeral oration for Brutus?
It is ironic that Mark Antony, the Roman general whose funeral oration turns the people against Brutus and
the other "honorable" men is assigned the dramatic function of praising the fallen Brutus at the play's end.
Antony calls Brutus the "noblest Roman of them all," but his words thereafter suggest that the "all" in
question includes only the conspirators against Caesar. The conclusion of this brief speech, in which Nature
stands up to say of Brutus "`This was a man!'" (V, v, l.75) is oddly hollow. Antony is confronted with an
occasion that requires some sort of statement, but his praise for Brutus is oddly inaccurate (Brutus is not truly
"gentle") and couched is such broad generalizations that it could apply to virtually anyone.
Julius Caesar: FAQs
173
Julius Caesar: Bibliography and Further Reading
*If available, books are linked to Amazon.com
Blits, Jan H. The End of the Republic: Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1993.
Bloom, H. and Golding, W., eds. William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: Modern Critical Intepretations. New
York: Chelsea House, 1988.
Bradley, Andrew Cecil. Shakespearean Tragedy. New York: Penguin, 1992.
Bullough, Geoffrey. Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare: The Roman Plays. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1964.
Charney, Maurice. Shakespeare's Roman Plays: The Function of Imagery in the Drama.Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1963.
Coles, Blanche. Shakespeare Studies: Julius Caesar. New York: AMS Press, 1969.
Daiches, David. Shakespeare, Julius Caesar. London: Edward Arnold, 1976.
Granville-Barker, Harley. Prefaces to Shakespeare. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963.
Hamer, Mary, ed. Julius Caesar. University Press of Mississippi, 1999.
Kiefer, Frederick. Fortune and Elizabethan Tragedy. San Marino: Huntington Library, 1983.
McCallum, M.W. Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background. New York: Russell & Russell, 1967.
McElroy, Bernard. Shakespeare's Mature Tragedies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973
Mehl, Dieter. Shakespeare's Tragedies: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Nardo, Don, ed. Readings on Julius Caesar. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999.
Nevo, Ruth. Tragic Form in Shakespeare. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972.
Paris, Bernard. Character As a Subversive Force in Shakespeare: The History and Roman Plays. Hackensack,
New Jersey: FDU Press, 1991.
Ribner, Irving. Patterns in Shakespearian Tragedy. London: Methuen, 1969.
Simmons, J. L. Shakespeare's Pagan World: The Roman Tragedies. Charlottesville: University of Virginia
Press, 1973.
Traversi, Derek. Shakespeare: The Roman Plays. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1963.
Whitaker, V.K. Mirror Up to Nature: The Technique of Shakespeare's Tragedies. San Marino: Huntington
Library, 1965.
Julius Caesar: Bibliography and Further Reading
174
Julius Caesar: Pictures
Copyright
Julius Caesar: Pictures
175