Explaining Character in Shakespeare

Four Major Characters in Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar is a play written and first staged in 1599. It is a play that considers universal questions such as the ease and extent of manipulation, the nature of betrayal and the circumstantial justification of murder. The world of Shakespeare’s Rome is one centered about the submission of one man to another. Coppélia Kahn, who writes extensively about gender and Shakespeare, identifies the Rome of Julius Caesar as one of emulation, which she defines as “pairs of evenly matched heroes act out a mixture of admiration, imitation, and domination”.⁸ Caesar definitively works within the framework. The men of the conspiracy, Cassius in particular, act out this consideration, beginning with admiration, and escalating quickly to envious rivalry. The highly competitive nature of the male spheres of both Roman and Elizabethan societies run concurrently in this work. Kahn, also, aptly points out that “Brutus and Cassius, though bound together by shared ideals, subtly compete with each other”⁹ and that male friendships are indistinguishable from politics itself”.¹⁰ In this view, Julius Caesar is a play in which male friendship and politics are inextricable, hence the discussion of the four primary male characters and their interactions with one another naturally presupposes the discussion of the thematic elements of the play as well.

Shakespeare creates characters with universal appeal that grapple with issues applicable to all time periods through creative and economic uses of language. The primary thrust of this unit entails close examination of how characters represent themselves with their words, how they are represented in the words of others and in what ways the language conveys characterization. Julius Caesar is the most useful play for this exercise, as “in this drama in particular, language is designed to make things happen, to influence, to persuade, to seduce, or manipulate others”.¹¹ The analysis of the characters that follows will paint a clear portrait of each of their motivations and affectations.

Marc Antony

Marcus Antonius is the athletic party boy with an affinity for competition and the winner of race on the Feast of Lupercal. Antony is described as “of that quick spirit” (1.2.32), in direct opposition the “not gamesome” (1.2.31) nature of Brutus. At times, Antony is portrayed as having an almost sycophantic love of Caesar. How much of this is adherence to social and political code, and how much of this reflects his true feelings is not particularly easy to distinguish. The first few lines he is painted as a subservient fawner to Caesar. In response to Caesar’s request for Marc Antony to propagate his good luck to Calpurnia, Antony responds, “When Caesar says ‘Do this’ it is performed” (1.2.13). This complicity, perhaps, spares him his life, as he is portrayed as a puppet of Caesar’s and later, when the conspiracy assembles at Brutus’ home, the need to assassinate Antony is dismissed because he is only a “limb of Caesar” (2.1.174). His role as acolyte saves his life in a manner of speaking. To the conspiracy, he is seen as inept, and described by Brutus as capable of doing “no more than Caesar’s arm/When Caesar’s head is off” (2.1.190-192). When Antony sends his servant to check whether he is clear of danger, he directs him to state, “Mark Antony shall not love Caesar dead/ so well as Brutus living” (3.1.145-146). Whether this is a demonstration of Antony’s fickleness or an act of self-preservation could engender an interesting discussion amongst students.

His funeral oration, one of the more discussed passages in all of Shakespeare, illuminates a side of him not previously revealed. He previously promises the conspiracy that he will not speak negatively of them and their actions, and he does not, but with the power of his words instead incites and rouses the plebian mob. This speech demonstrates of an element of manipulation in Antony and points toward his duplicitousness, allowing the reader to wonder about the sincerity of his words before and after. He has been described as having “at least two rather contradictory sides”.¹² He loves games, competition, and by Caesar’s account “revels long o’ nights” (2.3.122). However, his jaunty nature shifts during Antony’s funeral oration, which reveals him as a “cunning demagogue who manipulates and stirs up the citizens in a most insidious way”.¹³ Later, in Act 4.1, Antony’s words characterize him as ruthless, unwavering in his desire to seek vengeance through the murder of his own nephew as well as other relatives of Caesar. Antony’s second side is further developed, when the generals meet on the plains of Philippi and Antony repeatedly taunts Brutus and Cassius. In his final fluctuation of ethos, Antony characterizes Brutus once again as honorable, but with marked sincerity.

Marcus Brutus

Harold Bloom, in his essay on the play, remarks that he feels the play could have been called “The Tragedy of Marcus Brutus”¹⁴, because much of the psychological introspection and weighing of the political gravitas of the assassination of Caesar is worked out in the words of Brutus. Bloom calls Brutus “Shakespeare’s first intellectual”¹⁵ and he is repeatedly characterized as a model Stoic. Brutus, whose name seems an apt homophone, as we do find Brutus to brood through the length of the play, is portrayed as frequently ruminating over issues not always clear to the reader. His internal conflicts, as Cassius notes, are clearly portrayed on his face, which Brutus himself describes as a result of being “with himself at war” (1.2.51). In Act 1 is it unclear what is the exact reason for his melancholy; however, as the play progresses into Act 2 one quickly sees his focus shift to the issue of the assassination of Caesar for the good of Rome. This is an issue Brutus does not take lightly, stating, “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” (1.2.178-181). Brutus’ intelligence and introspection set him up perfectly as “the one Roman to whom the conspirators look for leadership” ¹⁶ and because of his balanced and stoic nature he supplants Cassius as the “architect” of the entire conspiracy.¹⁷

Later, in his funeral speech at the Forum, Brutus makes it clear that his motivations were not personal but focused on the benevolent (and in by his estimation, justifiable) purpose of the protection of the sanctity of Rome.

If there be any in

This assembly, any dear friend of Caesar’s, to him I say

that Brutus’ love to Caesar was no less than his. If then

that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this

is my answer: Not that I love Caesar less, but that I

love Rome more (3.2.18-23).

In the infamous funeral speeches scene, Brutus calls Caesar his “best lover” (3.2.45), yet one that was “slew…for the good of Rome” (3.2.44-45). Conversely, in his technically brilliant and persuasive oration, Antony characterizes Brutus as “Caesar’s angel” (3.2.192), as well as the repeated (to the point of excess) identification of Brutus as honorable.

These indications of Brutus’ characterization run through the entire play. His extreme awareness of public perception is set in opposition to Cassius’ volatile nature, when he instructs Cassius to not to lash out in front of the ranks, because the troops should “perceive nothing but love from us” (4.2.48). Brutus is ever aware of the public face and how other people view his associations. His stoic nature is maintained even when he learns of Portia’s suicide, and all the way through to the end of the play, when he nobly takes his own life. Antony points out in his final eulogy that Brutus, of all the conspiracy members was the most noble, motivated not be envy but by “general honest thought/And common good to all” (5.5.77-78).

Julius Caesar

Caesar, the title character of the play, has the least lines and this is partly why his titular priority is often called into question. He dies before the play is half way over; yet his ghost and the consequences of his death haunt Rome for the remainder of the play. The man has an affinity for the third person and demonstrates himself to be both oddly human (infertile and superstitious) and intolerably arrogant. The bombastic words of Caesar are among the play’s more hyperbolic instances of hubris, such as “I’d rather tell thee what is to be feared/Than what I fear; for always I am Caesar” (1.2.218-219). Similarly, when Calpurnia warns her husband of an ominous dream, he responds with: “The things that threaten me/Ne’er looked but on my back. When they shall see/The face of Caesar, they are vanished” (2.2.10-13). In other words, apparitions that scare others are in fact not frightening, and they are also frightened by the fierceness of Caesar. There are claims that this is a necessary act put on by Caesar; however, this claim is stated in private to his wife, hence would seem to reflect a true belief. Later, to his servant, he claims:

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,

And Caesar shall go forth (2.2.46-50).

Caesar is more dangerous than danger, continuing the boast that he is fierce and insurmountably powerful. Despite his propensity to refer to himself in the third person, upon the request to allow Publius Cimber back from exile, he responds:

I could be well moved, if I were as you;

If I could pray to move, prayer would move me:

But I am constant as the Northern Star

Of whose true-fixed and resting quality

There is no fellow in the firmament (3.1.63-67).

These arrogant pretensions seem to provide cover for a more sensitive, superstitious and insecure Caesar: one who is possibly infertile (note his request of Antony to touch Calpurnia and spread his luck), scared of omens (note his momentary willingness to stay home at the heed of his wife after her ominous dream), and fearful of being usurped (telling Antony he wants to “have men about me that are fat/Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o’ nights” (1.2.199-200). As with his ally Antony, Caesar is a man whose contradictory tendencies offer students ample points of discussion.

Caius Cassius

Cassius is the originator of the conspiracy to overthrow Caesar. In Act 1.2, Cassius approaches Brutus to elicit his participation. From the outset, Cassius is very clearly a manipulator. He comments on Brutus’ countenance, telling Brutus: “And since you know you cannot see yourself/So well as by reflection, I, your glass,/ Will modesty discover yourself/That of yourself which you know not of” (1.2.71-74). He goes on to describe himself as not a “common laughter” or as one not apt to “fawn on men and hug them hard,/And after scandal them” (1.2.80-81), in other words, one who is truthful and not duplicitous. Quickly, however, one learns that Cassius’ character does not always align to these claims. He goes on to describe a swimming match, in which Caesar lost to Cassius. It appears from the outset that Cassius is jealous of Caesar’s rise to power, believing himself to be at least equal to Caesar. Sarcastically, Cassius responds to Casca’s account of Caesar’s falling down in the market, saying “No, Caesar has it not; but you and I, /And honest Casca, we have the falling sickness” (1.2.260-263). Cassius dislike of Caesar is based on personal resentment and for Cassius every action and every word has political connotation. Ever the manipulator, when convincing Brutus of this equality amongst themselves and Caesar, Cassius reminds Brutus, “I was born free as Caesar, so were you;/ We both have fed as well, and we can both/ Endure the winter’s cold as well as he” (1.2.103-106). Cassius is sure that he, as well as Brutus, are of made of the same cloth as Caesar and are as equally deserving of the glory bestowed upon the leader.

Later, after the assassination, Brutus rebukes Cassius for having an “itching palm/to sell and mart your offices for gold” (4.3.11-12) to which, Cassius vehemently responds in an epic argument with Brutus. Cassius argues that he is the more experienced solider and thus is more capable than Brutus (4.3.31-33). Quickly, this argument escalates, with Cassius claiming that Brutus “love[s] him not”, because Brutus asserts that he can love Cassius as a friend but not his faults, whereas Cassius believes friends should love one another unconditionally. The argument ends when Cassius apologizes for his outburst, blaming his mother for his inherited quick temper. Shortly thereafter, Cassius decides to end his own life, perhaps out of guilt, perhaps to not give another the benefit of taking his life, because he has grossly misinterpreted information he has received about the battle. Regardless, in this moment, it is difficult to determine whether Cassius is truly remorseful, and possibly redeemed, or if he is simply out of options. In this capacity, students will have sundry opportunity to discuss their own interpretations, because the character’s demise is so ambiguous.