Throughout the play it is clear that from the viewpoint of the characters, it is Julius Caesar who is the villain of Rome and must be killed to protect the republic. However, when looking at it from the readers point of view, I would argue that from what the reader knows about the characters, Cassius is much more of a villain in the play then Caesar is. While Caesar does seem to have ambitions to be crowned emperor of Rome, there is no clear evidence that he evil as a person. For all we know, Caesar could truly have Romes best interests in heart and prove himself to be a noble and wise leader. Of course, the opposite could also be true that he could misuse his power. However, the point is that from what the reader has read, there is no way of knowing for sure.
This is why I would argue Cassius is the true villain in the play. So what makes Cassius a villain? To answer this we must think about what makes a villain. A villain usually manipulates people, brings harm to people, has deeper motivations than those that are clear to the other characters, and usually has a reasonable amount of intelligence over other characters in the play. After reading, has become clear that Cassius meets a lot of these requirements as a villain. Cassius manipulates Brutus by sending fake letters from citizens expressing their fear of Caesar being crowned emperor in order to get Brutus to join his cause to assassinate Caesar. This is seen in the quote:
"Be you content. Good Cinna, take this paper,
And look you lay it in the praetor's chair,
Where Brutus may but find it; and throw this
In at his window; set this up with wax
Upon old Brutus' statue" (Act I.III).
Cassius clearly plans to harm Caesar by getting a group together to assassinate him at the capitol. Also, from reading the play there are indications that Cassius is not the true noble character in the play but Brutus is. Cassius seems to be motivated by thinking that Caesar simply isn't strong enough in character to be emperor of Rome, and in many ways is after power himself. However, Brutus seems to have a the best interests of Rome at heart and his motivations are not self centered. Also, it is clear that Cassius is a thinker and is reasonably smart from the quote:
"Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o'nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous." (Act I.II).
Here Caesar is expressing his fear of Cassius to Antony because he knows how much Cassius thinks and how smart he is. He showing that it is those that think that are dangerous and because Cassius thinks a lot he could turn on him and try to stop his ambitions to be crowned. However, Antony dismisses Caesar's fear by saying that Cassius loves Caesar and only wants the best for him. This is yet again more evidence that Cassius has successfully manipulated his enemies into thinking he is a friend and his friends into thinking Caesar is the enemy. Thus, while the play is called "Julius Caesar" it is clear that the play focuses around Cassius and that in one interpretation it could be Cassius who is the true villain. However, I will need to read more of the play to fully understand Cassius's motivations, to fully know for sure if he is the true villain.
Nice article. To me, Shakespeare tells you straight off who is the villain when he introduces the fictional conversation between Caesar and Anthony about Cassius. Cassius is not to be trusted because he can read people and see a person's true intentions. If I had a secret plot to rule the world, I would indeed avoid him. This is a Rome where hundreds a day were killed in the Colosseum under Caesar's orders. Astrology and superstition ruled the day. People shared a brush that they used to clean themselves with after squatting in a trough to do their business. Too many people use today's standards to contextualize the a time before Jesus. He was already a de facto Emporer lacking only the title. He could order death on the spot, or maybe just an arm on a whim. In fact, if you believe Plutarch, who wrote of the event 100 years or so later, Caesar had just denied the crown three times. But in our own day, in the United Republic of States, Hillary Clinton and Chris Christi deny almost daily that they will run for president. So the question of who is the villain depends mostly on if you believe that Rome was better as a Republic or under a Emporer -the latter of which which it became 15 years later anyway and only after tremendous loss of blood and treasure in two civil wars. But that is hindsight and maybe absolute power really doesn't corrupt absolutely like it did with Nero and Caligula.
ReplyDeleteI think of Iraq, Syria, Egypt and the rest of the Green Revolution. If we are lucky enough to live 15 years to look back on current events, will any of them be any better off for having thrown off the mantle of a monarchy or will they even still be a democracy? In a way, the US can be viewed as Cassius in this role and opinion is pretty split along sectarian lines as to who is the villain today.