julius caesar

[pauraque_bk]

And now for something completely different.

I saw Julius Caesar performed twice last week, and enjoyed it very much -- it's one of my favorite plays. I have a heavily annotated copy of the text, which discusses many troublesome points and different interpretations thereof, but there was one thing I was really wondering about that isn't addressed at all.

I'm intrigued by the scene where Pindarus reports that Titinius has been captured, spurring Cassius to commit suicide. I first wondered if there was a parallel here with the murder of Caesar: In the end, Cassius is destroyed because he's mistaken a friend for an enemy. And on a larger scale, perhaps the conspirators (and Rome as they knew it) were destroyed for a similar reason -- because in Caesar, they also mistook a friend for an enemy.

That thought raised another: When Pindarus gives his report, is he making an honest mistake, or is he lying? His dialogue indicates it was a mistake, but in a play so full of deception (and self-deception), I found myself wondering if it should be taken at face value. Pindarus did benefit from Cassius' death, but could he have known Cassius would kill himself? If he knew Cassius well, he might have anticipated it: In the course of the play, Cassius threatens suicide three times [ "I know where I will wear this dagger then: / Cassius from bondage will deliver Cassius." (1.3.89-90), "If this be known, / Cassius or Caesar never shall turn back, / For I will slay myself." (3.1.20-22), "Come, Antony, and young Octavius, come, / Revenge yourselves alone on Cassius, / For Cassius is a-weary of the world" (4.3.92-94) ], and even as Pindarus is going up onto the hill to observe the battlefield, he seems on the point of it: "Time is come round; / And where I did begin, there shall I end."

In the heat of what looked like a losing battle, could Pindarus have seized this chance for freedom, misinforming Cassius while only half-believing Cassius would really follow through on his threats this time? And what an interesting line Pindarus exits on: "Far from this country Pindarus shall run, / Where never Roman shall take note of him."

All very intriguing. It almost inspires one to write.... :)

(As an aside: Brutus/Cassius is my OTP.)

Comments

[gelliaclodiana]

Interesting stuff regarding Pindarus. I'll have to go look at my text.

And on a larger scale, perhaps the conspirators (and Rome as they knew it) were destroyed for a similar reason -- because in Caesar, they also mistook a friend for an enemy.

My insane love for Cicero makes me doubt this, although of course scholars have argued over Caesar's intentions for two millenia now. It's worth remembering that the establishment of the Principate is hardly an inevitability.

[pauraque]

scholars have argued over Caesar's intentions for two millenia now.

True. There are a couple of different layers here, though, since we're discussing a play about historical figures (RPF? ;) ). I can't speculate on what the real Julius Caesar had in mind -- I've read the relevant Plutarch, but I'm hardly an expert. I meant my suggestion to apply to Julius Caesar as a work of literature. In that context, the parallel (if it exists) is just another hint about Caesar's ambiguous nature. It's left up to the audience to decide whether Caesar did or did not deserve to die (in a good production, anyway), and for my part I prefer to leave it undecided -- I just enjoy digging up all the hints in both directions.

In this case, of course, it's less of a hint about Caesar and more of a hint about Cassius. Did Cassius unwittingly create a tyrant where there had been none before? Or did the destiny of Rome -- to be an empire -- simply override his efforts, steamrollering over the individuals who tried to stand in its way? Or something else entirely?

It's worth remembering that the establishment of the Principate is hardly an inevitability.

Historically, sure. In the context of the play, I don't know. This play is categorized as a tragedy, not a history. Brutus has deep flaws -- his naïveté, his mental disconnect between principles and reality -- which prompt his actions, and at the same time doom his efforts to backfire. This is a story full of omens and prophecies, which certainly speak to an inevitable outcome. I think it's very telling that Brutus begins his soliloquy with a conclusion: "It must be by his death", and then reasons backwards to justify it.

In this play, does free will exist? I don't know; I think that's one of the central questions. We're not just exploring the tyranny of man over man, but also of *fate* over man.

Thanks for replying. To be honest, I'm a bit humbled to be discussing this with a college professor.... I hope my comments aren't too terribly callow. :)

[gelliaclodiana]

There are a couple of different layers here, though, since we're discussing a play about historical figures (RPF? ;) ).

I think I realized the utter insanity of the fannish debates about RPF when I noticed a drama on USA (or something) about Rudy Guiliani's career. Could we possibly top that, ever?

More seriously, I see your point--within the play the action is determined (or, more usually in tragedies, over-determined). I'm not sure the question is whether Caesar "deserved" to die, because there's a kind of inevitability to Caesar's death, which he himself recognizes in his speeches, but about the fallout of that death--which is where Brutus' character, and Cassius', and Antony's all come into play. The irony of the political events (Caesar's assassination --> the rise of Octavian) gives a structure to the tragedy, but what's interesting is the way the weaknesses and the strengths of the individual characters lead to that end.

In this play, does free will exist? I don't know; I think that's one of the central questions. We're not just exploring the tyranny of man over man, but also of *fate* over man.

Well, isn't that the central question of all tragedy, when you think about it? (Although it also raises a second question of how you define "fate")

[pauraque]

I think I realized the utter insanity of the fannish debates about RPF when I noticed a drama on USA (or something) about Rudy Guiliani's career. Could we possibly top that, ever?

Word. RPF is as old as the hills. The only difference is that now they're writing about people who are still alive.

The irony of the political events (Caesar's assassination --> the rise of Octavian) gives a structure to the tragedy, but what's interesting is the way the weaknesses and the strengths of the individual characters lead to that end.

Hm, yes. And especially interesting in a play that *is* historically based; even at the first performance, the audience knew what the outcome would be. It usually gets some kind of visceral audience reaction, a murmur or an uncomfortable laugh, when the characters make reference to it: "How many ages hence / Shall this our lofty scene be acted over"; "O that a man might know / The end of this day's business ere it come". The reality that frames and limits the story can't be divorced from the story itself, and from these extraordinarily vivid characters. That connect/disconnect between the story, the characters, and (the audience's) reality is one of the things that make the play so riveting to me, I think.

Well, isn't that the central question of all tragedy, when you think about it? (Although it also raises a second question of how you define "fate")

Yeah. Fate=supernatural predetermination, or fate=the unchangeable nature of your own psyche. It's interesting that Cassius, who shows far less self-doubt than Brutus, far less inclination to go against his own nature, is the one who gives us the famous line, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves".

[maidenjedi]

although of course scholars have argued over Caesar's intentions for two millenia now

Heh...it makes for excellent table discussion, so no wonder!

[maidenjedi]

perhaps the conspirators (and Rome as they knew it) were destroyed for a similar reason -- because in Caesar, they also mistook a friend for an enemy.

Ah, Rome.

I don't know - was Rome, as the conspirators knew, destroyed because of Caesar, or because of the conspirators themselves?

Hmm.

Great post, btw.

[pauraque]

Is that you in the icon there? You're adorable!

I don't know - was Rome, as the conspirators knew, destroyed because of Caesar, or because of the conspirators themselves?

One thing about this play is that it's a testament to the destructive power of misused love. Portia loves Brutus, and kills herself in his absence. Cassius loves Brutus, and defers to his poor decisions, leading to disaster. Brutus loves Rome, and Caesar, and destroys both. This is echoed in the conspirators' suicides: Neither actually stabs himself, but each has a beloved friend do the deed.

This is one of the things I love about the play -- it's a stew of intense, conflicting, misplaced human emotions, and ultimately, that's what pulls the Republic down. At the center of it all, Brutus expects others to feel what he feels -- he thinks a simple explanation of why he killed Caesar can substitute for a concrete plan of what to do if political conflict arises. This is fatally naive of him -- both maddening and strangely touching. He expects empathy from his fellow Romans, and is genuinely surprised when he reaches out for it and it isn't there.

[maidenjedi]

Is that you in the icon there? You're adorable!

Yes! And thank you.

One thing about this play is that it's a testament to the destructive power of misused love.

Absolutely - that makes so much sense! All the smaller loves/deaths echo and foreshadow the death of Rome, which is sealed with Caesar's blood (Antony and Octavian are a coda to it, and even they are foreshadowed in the events of the play). I have this mad urge to go reread the play thanks to your analysis (it's been ages, probably eight years or so).

[pauraque]

I have this mad urge to go reread the play thanks to your analysis (it's been ages, probably eight years or so).

Muaha. Do it! I'd be eager to hear any further thoughts you have on it.