Explaining Character in Shakespeare

Content Objectives

My sophomores will have been introduced to Shakespeare in their freshman year through the text of Romeo and Juliet, so while the rigor of this unit is great, it is not their first encounter with the Bard. Additionally, the unit will not occur in isolation of their other academic courses. The English II students are required to concurrently enroll in World History, which focuses on Rome for the first six weeks of instruction, making this the ideal time for me to teach this unit. Beyond creating interdisciplinary connections between their classes, it creates a more authentic learning experience and precludes the necessity of providing background historical information about Rome and Julius Caesar.

Concerning Rhetoric

Aristotle’s Rhetoric

Greek philosopher Aristotle offered three means to persuade your audience: ethos, pathos, and logos.¹ While ethos is said to translate to ethics, it really suggests the modern sense of image in that the speaker is relying upon their authority to convince the audience based upon our impression of their character. Considering ethos from both the perspective of analyzing how advertising or political rhetoric is meant to impact the audience, but also how a writer can use word choice and style to create their own ethos, is imperative. Logos, or logical argument, traditionally utilizes syllogisms, yet an exploration of inductive and deductive reasoning, logical fallacies and what exactly makes for effective reasoning will be a more appropriate for my purposes. The emotion aroused in audience, or pathos, is crucial to persuasion.  Negative emotions such as anger, fear and insecurity are the most effective and prevalent in modern advertising and politics.²

The Five Canons of Rhetoric

After determining the audience and context for an appeal, Cicero felt effective persuasion necessitated consideration of invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery.³ Familiarity with these canons is necessary to both craft a speech and to properly analyze the rhetoric of others. Invention tailors an approach for the audience and context: What is the most appropriate appeal and which words will one use to effectively convey that appeal? Arrangement requires the establishment of the credibility of the speaker via ethos, and then the use of pathos or logos to pursue the argument using a structure suitable for the audience and context; traditionally this order is: introduction, statement and proof, conclusion. Style is the choice of appropriate rhetorical techniques and figures of speech and of the construction of the argument, and may include diction, grammar, rhythm and metaphor. Memory is not necessarily rote recall of the words, but a familiarity with the speech that allows the content to seem natural and fluid upon delivery and can support or erode ethos. Delivery of the appeal includes body language and intonation, which profoundly affect ethos and the subconscious reaction to the appeal. Several famous speeches will be analyzed as both a text and a performance to familiarize students with these terms.

Plutarch

Produced in 1599, the play Julius Caesar is based on Sir Thomas North’s 1579 translation of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, which Shakespeare undoubtedly used to create his account.⁴ While Julius Caesar could be considered a political revenge tragedy, it is hardly a biographical narrative. The content relating to his many military exploits and success as a general and politician is eliminated from the play as Shakespeare focuses on the end of his life and the turmoil that ensued after his murder. It is thought-provoking to contrast the historical figure documented by Plutarch with the leader in the play. Interestingly, Plutarch clearly states that Caesar was ambitious, the crime for which he was assassinated. “But the chiefest cause that made him mortally hated was the covetous desire he had to be called king.”⁵

The historical figure is a physically robust and mentally astute leader, whereas Shakespeare’s portrayal seems to evince a weaker individual. One example of this might be Cassius’ tale of Caesar needing to be rescued while swimming whereas Plutarch’s account demonstrates him to be a vigorous and accomplished swimmer. Plutarch cites that during the war in Alexandria Caesar:

leaping into the sea, with great hazard saved himself by swimming. It is said that then, holding divers books in his hand, he did never let them go, but kept them always upon his head above water, and swam with the other hand, notwithstanding that they shot marvelously at him.”⁶

Is this description of a man in the midst of a battle leaping into the sea while holding books above his head compatible with Cassius’ account, wherein it is Cassius who emerges as brave, strong and heroic?

Caesar said to me, “Dar’st thou, Cassius, now

Leap in with me into this angry flood

And swim to yonder point?” Upon the word,

Accoutered as I was, I plunged in

And bad him follow. So indeed he did.

The torrent roared, and we did buffet it

With lusty sinews, throwing it aside,

And stemming it with hearts of controversy.

But ere we could arrive the point proposed,

Caesar cried, “Help me, Cassius, or I sink.” [I,ii,102-111]

The fact that Cassius positions himself as the first to enter the Tiber having been dared, and then must encourage Caesar to follow him into the water is an interesting juxtaposition. He then demonstrates a huge ego when he compares himself to Aeneas as he saves Caesar from drowning. This tale is wholly believed by Brutus, along with other claims that Caesar was a physically weak, deaf, epileptic who demonstrates a superstitious nature and a vacillating opinion driven by a need for sycophantic devotion.⁷ This older Caesar is markedly different from the historical figure represented by Plutarch, but it is exaggerated so greatly by Cassius as to make his jealousy evident. Perhaps “Shakespeare weakens Caesar physically in order to suggest that his bodily vulnerabilities exemplify his psychological and moral failings.”

Similarly, Antony and Brutus are characterized differently by Shakespeare than the historical annals of Plutarch might suggest. Plutarch even suggests that Brutus is the illegitimate son of Julius Caesar and Harold Bloom contends that Shakespeare does not allude to this relationship as it “would have given Brutus too personal a motive for letting himself be seduced into Cassius’s conspiracy.”⁹

Elizabethan Theater

It may be useful to provide a sketch of the Elizabethan theater, where the common people clamored to see repertory performances in the afternoons in venues that could pack in up to 3000 theatergoers. There was no intermission, but the crowd did not sit attentively and quietly for three hours: they ate, talked and gambled. The nobility and upper middle class would sit in the galleries while the commoners, or groundlings, stood in the courtyard directly in front of the stage. As audience will be key to the reception of the funeral speeches, students should really be encouraged to visualize the theater and the proximity of the groundlings, whom Shakespeare transforms into the plebeians themselves being swayed by first Brutus and then Antony. The plebeians are easily swayed by effective oratory; thus, they are manipulated by Antony into a dangerous mob. This fickle responsiveness to rhetoric should serve as a warning to each of us that we too might easily fall victim to persuasive rhetoric. Brutus and Antony’s speeches not only sway the plebeians at the Forum, Shakespeare’s rhetoric is aimed at us as well.

While the play is typically considered to be one of Shakespeare’s histories, the very title, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar begs the question, ‘whose tragedy?’ Given that the titular character is murdered in the third act, students must consider whether the tragedy is the loss of innocence that Brutus undergoes as politics and morals collide. In common with the Histories, however, concern over the throne, given that Queen Elizabeth was a female monarch with no progeny, is also a feature of Julius Caesar. Shakespeare may have had the English monarchy in mind as he wrote of this hero of the Roman Republic, whose sanctioned authority was tragically undermined when he was assassinated, leading to instability in the Republic. The stability of his reign was followed by turmoil, which may further evince tragedy as in a larger sense Rome fell into chaos and war.¹⁰ Given that Shakespeare demonstrated an awareness of how his works supported the legitimacy of the Tudors, and specifically the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the revenge for the untimely death of this iconic figure may reflect the fear of civil insurrection many Elizabethans harbored. The titular character may only appear in three scenes, but his immortality is attained through his achievements and our acknowledgement that the Roman Republic is headed for decline after these triumphs.¹¹ Until her death in 1603, the play may have served as an argument for stability and civil harmony in that the social upheaval that preceded Queen Elizabeth and ominously loomed during her reign and the question of legitimate rule was always present in the minds of the people.