[Act 1; scene 2 lines 240-246]
Despite the fact Casca seems certain Caesar desired the crown there can be no denial that he didn’t take it even after being offered it thrice. If Caesar was so egotistical he would have accepted surely. Without being king Caesar wouldn’t legally have had complete dominance and it would have been hard for him to impose a tyrannical rule so.
After Cacsa has notified Cassius of the coronation, Cassius comments on Caesar and is very negative. He is fervent in his argument and manages to persuade Casca to side with the conspirators thus agreeing to help kill Caesar.
“…But that he (Caesar) sees the Romans are but sheep;”
[Act 1; scene 2 line 105]
Cassius’ assessment of his ruler may or may not be wholly accurate but it certainly adds some weight to a so his argument. Cassius’ passionate hatred for Caesar must be rooted in something. Cassius and his views cannot be taken too heavily though as they are the observations of a jealous man, one who reminisces of when he and Caesar were equals. This jealously may also extend to Caesar’s treatment of Brutus. Although Cassius has been ignored under Caesar’s new system Brutus has gained position and respect. Cassius’ feelings surrounding this are made clear during his soliloquy at the end of the scene where professional issues come to the audience’s attention:
“Caesar doth bear me hard, but he loves Brutus.”
[Act 1; scene 2 lines 316-317]
A tyrant must excess in self-belief going so far as arrogance in order to command and hold onto his position. A leader must have a strong will to gain his position (omitting lineage scenarios) and to order such ruthless commands, as a tyrant does, in order to execute them. Sadly for Caesar’s argument there are many occasions when he exercises this trait. The first is his meeting with a soothsayer where he is happy to exercise his whim of seeing this man, who portends Caesar’s demise, away after allowing just one sentence of his wisdom.
Soothsayer: “Beware the ides of March.”
Caesar: “He is a dreamer, let us pass.”
[Act 1; scene 2 lines 23-24]
Caesar speaks as if his word is truth and shows this by the statement ‘let us pass’ after the point he declares ‘he is a dreamer’ without consolation of the procession with him. A second incident occurs later when Metellus Cimber – a conspirator – pleads for the freedom of his banished brother. Caesar refuses the request.
“Know, Caesar not wrong, nor without cause…”
Then after Cimber’s protestations:
“I could be well moved, if I were as you;
If I could pray to move, prayers would move me.”
[Act 3; scene 1 lines 58-59]
Whether Cimber or the general person is meant by ‘you’ is unclear but either way it shows arrogance, more so with the general person though. These are just examples of Caesar’s arrogance but this demeanour seems alien when compared to him with his wife, Calphurnia.
Although mentioned little throughout the play, the one scene she actually appears in shows an altogether gentler side of Caesar, when he is with her. This is very similar to Brutus with his wife. Though it may appear harsh, his behaviour is exceptionally surprising considering Calpurnia is barren; the consequent being that Caesar may have no legacy.
Calphurnia: “Alas my lord,
Your wisdom is consumed in confidence.
Do not go forth today”
Caesar: Mark Antony shall say I am not well,
And for thy humour I will stay at home.”
[Act 2; scene 2 lines 48-50/55-56]
Proof of their close and relaxed relationship is shown by the fact Calphurnia can suggest her husband is overconfident. Although she does cover this liberty up with compliments (‘your wisdom is consumed in confidence’) this is a right no normal friend of Caesar’s could have because we have already established Caesar as a proud man. She seems to know him surprisingly well. Quickly, Caesar relents and lets Calphurnia have her way. This submission is evidence of a break in Caesar’s arrogance. However, this breach seems to extend solely to and for his wife for when a herald enters the scene Caesar’s barriers are back up. When asked to explain why he cannot go to the senate that day Caesar answers:
“The cause is in my will.”
[Act 2; scene 2 line 71]
This defiance of reason shows Caesar’s current power in the senate. He has strong faith that even his whim will satisfy the ‘graybeards’ in the senate. Caesar’s relationship with Calphurnia is made less significant because of Brutus’ with his wife; Portia. This pair shares a similar relationship; both strong and close suggesting it is not so original as it could be. Caesar commands the senate with his ‘will’ and this is perhaps the first sign throughout the book that Caesar dominated the senate, effectively ruling Rome. It is not made clear, though, whether he rules because of respect others have for him or out of fear.
Brutus, despite not being the first conspirator, leads the conspirators and at the end seems steadfast in his belief and justification for disposing of Caesar. His reasons are brutally clear:
“As Caesar loved me, I weep for / him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was / valiant, I honour him; but as he was ambitious, I slew / him.”
[Act 3; scene 2 lines 28-29]
Brutus seems certain Caesar was ambitious, yet he also praises Caesar, calling him a lover and valiant. Arrogance struggles in true friendship as the other party will not consent to having domineering close friend. Caesar has close relationships with both Calphurnia and Brutus. Brutus seems certain Rome was in danger if Caesar lived:
“If then that friend demand why / Brutus rose against Caesar, this then is my answer- / not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved / Rome more.”
[Act 3; scene 2 lines 21-23]
Brutus goes as far as claiming they would all have been slaves under Caesar rather than ‘free men’ without him. But is the crowd satisfied with Brutus’ argument or by the power of his voice, coupled with his harsh images of his personal view on reality?
Antony is another friend of Caesar – his most loyal supporter. Eventually Antony co-leads the armies that will avenge Caesar’s death bringing the death of the conspirators, including Brutus. He speaks shortly after Brutus, and the crowd’s mind is swayed again.
“He was my friend, faithful and just to me;” and then:
“When the poor have cried, Caesar have wept;
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff;”
[Act 3; scene 2 lines 90/96-97]
Two points can be supported by Antony’s two cries of emotion. Firstly; a tyrant is not faithful to others, only to himself. According to what Antony claims Caesar has been his close and ‘faithful’ friend enduring through time. The point that Caesar may have betrayed or lost friendship with Antony later on is moot because the argument of justification (for killing Caesar) cannot rely solely on suppositions. The point could be considered that Antony’s situation (of friendship with Caesar) was a rarity – all men need companionship; even tyrants. This does not mean Caesar isn’t a tyrant though. Maybe this need for companionship is an explanation for his (Caesar’s) behaviour to Calphurnia. A second point that can be argued using Antony’s speech as evidence is simple: maybe ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
Despite the fact Antony claims Caesar would not have become a tyrant the same cannot be said of himself. After Caesar’s death a triumvirate (a group of three leaders with equal power) has formed. This is formulated of Lepidus, Octavius (a close relative of Caesar) and Antony himself. Antony is conceited – obviously believing himself worthy of his new joint leadership and openly scorns Lepidus whilst talking to Octavius:
“This is a slight unmeritable man, / Meet to be sent on errands. Is it fit, / The three-fold world divided, he should stand / One of the three to share it?”
[Act 4; scene 1 lines 12-15]
Antony also clearly mentions that his intent is to get rid of Lepidus after leaving their burdens of accusations for him to deal with. This would consolidate power even more into his and Octavius’ hands. Antony has grown up close to and in the tutorage perhaps of Caesar. These traits Antony is now showing could be the marks of his father figure.
After examining the evidence I have decided that Caesar would not have become a tyrant if he had lived. Certainly Brutus’ idea that they (Romans) would have all become slaves under Caesar, even if metaphorical is far-fetched in the extreme. One of the main persons speaking out against Caesar is Cassius – the leader of the conspiracy before Brutus joined. His argument is flawed though and his argument is to biased to have credibility: Cassius is a nostalgic man who remembers when Caesar was no more important than himself also justifying his argument by the fact Caesar is physically frail. He mentions no non-circumstantial evidence constantly referring to would haves and what ifs. ‘He would have us all in servile fearfulness’ is an example of his claims that have yet come to pass. Brutus’ argument is more thought out but still emphasises his fear of the future. I took Brutus’ argument more seriously because he is not clearly fuelled by personal gain and jealousy.
Caesar himself does neither strongly incriminate nor clear himself. The constant arrogance found in him can be countered with his gentle behaviour towards his wife but is backed up again by the examples found of his arrogance resurfacing afterwards. Caesar speaks strongly for his innocence when we hear (via Casca ironically) that the Senate offered him the crown thrice and he thrice renounced it. This might have been a ploy to subdue anger against him but I find this unlikely for many reasons:
- If he were really extremely arrogant than he would not have feared retribution from those who opposed him.
- He had a lot of support and controlled the Senate – he could have easily dealt with serious opposition to his crowning.
It must be said that Casca did mention ‘he was fain to have it’ so this tact by Caesar may have been a ploy. Caesar never wholly incriminates himself and the arguments put against him are not justified on anything above suppositions. Antony who knew him best kept loyal and the ambition he had may not have come from Caesar. Killing Caesar on suppositions is wrong according to judicial law today and morals should come into the debate. Caesar is innocent according to the poor prosecution as opposed to a strong defence. Cassius is so ridden with guilt during the consequent civil war that Brutus is needed to keep him from suicide.
