copyright©écriture2011  

e-­‐note:  HSC  Module  C  Julius  Caesar    The   assassination   of   Julius   Caesar  was   viewed  by   commentators   from   antiquity   to  

the   Renaissance   as   an   act   of   heroism   or   villainy,   depending   on   the   political  

convictions   of   those   commenting.   According   to   critic   Katharine   Eisaman   Maus,  

Michelangelo   and   Milton   idealise   Brutus   as   a   selfless   defender   of   human   liberty,  

while  Dante  sentences  him,  along  with  Cassius,  to  the  deepest  realms  of  hell.  It  is  not  

surprising,  then,  that  Shakespeare  was  alive  to  the  dramatic  possibilities  inherent  in  

these  conflicting  perspectives.  He  stages  an  incident  that  has  been  provoking  debate  

for  more  than  sixteen  hundred  years.  

   

For   Eisaman   Maus,   the   play   raises   some   interesting   questions:   what   limits   can   a  

community  place  on  those  in  power?  Are  citizens  allowed  to  defend  the  rule  of  law  

against   those  who  breach   these   limits  by  using  extralegal   violence?  What  happens  

when   the   demands   of   civic   responsibility   conflict   with   those   of   personal     loyalty?  

Which   ones   prevail?   Brutus,   of   course,   is   our   manifestation   of   these   conflicts.  

Brutus’s   idealism,   his   ‘love   for   Rome’   seems   admirable   within   a   context   that  

privileges   selfishness,   yet   this   idealism   results   in   committing   disastrous   tactical  

errors.  He  refuses  to  see  Antony  killed  alongside  Caesar  (“Let’s  be  sacrificers,  but  not  

butchers”   2.1.166),   and   he   permits   Antony   to   speak,   unsupervised,   at   Caesar’s  

funeral   (“Caesar   shall/Have   all   true   rites   and   lawful   ceremonies”   3.1.242-­‐243),  

consequently   losing  his  political  advantage,  his  own   interpretation  of   the  events  at  

hand.  Thus,  Brutus  eventually  destroys  the  cause,  the  high  political  and  moral  tenets,  

he  is  attempting  to  serve.  

   

Cassius,  however,  works  as  a  counterpoint.  He  has  a  keen  eye  on  the  way  the  world  

works,   and   is   unscrupulous   in   his   agenda   (“Let   Antony   and   Caesar   fall   together”  

2.1.161).  Antony  also  emerges  as  a  formidable  opponent  to  Brutus,  because  of,  not  

despite,  the  traits  that  Brutus  only  sees  as  weaknesses:  sensual  indulgence,  a  lack  of  

principle   and   adherence   to   immediacy,   ‘living   in   the   moment’.   Antony   exploits  

copyright©écriture2011  

rhetoric  and  props,  and  utilises  his  passion   in  order  to  achieve  political  astuteness.  

Brutus,  however,  responds  directly  to  group  desire,  and   longs  for  a  reassuring  self-­‐

control,  a   longing  that  costs  him  his   life.  This  desire  for  fixity   is  at  odds   in  a  play   in  

which   the   characters   are   complex   and   mutable,   but   the   complexity   serves   to  

highlight  the  sharp  distinction  between  the  private  and  public  self,  a  distinction  that  

is  fundamentally  human.