Cassius

[DarkPrincess]

Hi, firstly, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year!

Secondly, I'm studying Julius Caesar for a college course, and I was wondering about Cassius Character. It has always been said that he was motivated in organizing the consipracy out of jealousy, and hatred. But when I read the play I only can see that he hates Caesar yes, but he also thinks of him as a tyrant, and this was obvious in his speech with Casca. (I elminated his Speech with Brutus because he has to act this way in order to win him, but with csca he could speak more freely since Casca already hates Caesar)

I feel that Cassius really believe that if Caesar became a king, he will make slaves of them all.
In Cassius soliloquy in Act I, sc II, he says:
"If I were Brutus, and he were Cassius,
He should not humour me......
...For we will shake him, or worse days endure"
And of course he can see that Because he isn't a friend of Caesar, and in his own philosophy, a friendly eye will never see a friends infirmities. Unlike Brutus, who is loved by Caesar, and loves Caesar.If Cassius was in Brutus's place he would have never killed his beloved friend.

So, what do you think his motives were? and did Shakespeare mention that Cassius was actually jealous from Caesar in the play?

I know I'm babbling, but I have been awake all night long , thinking about Brutus and Cassius, and How Brutus isn't actually as honourable as he seems to be. But don't worry this will be the topic of a totally another thread, my be I'll post it after I finish my examinations (wish me luck, plz), if you are interested of course.

[Virgil]

Hi, firstly, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year!

Secondly, I'm studying Julius Caesar for a college course, and I was wondering about Cassius Character. It has always been said that he was motivated in organizing the consipracy out of jealousy, and hatred. But when I read the play I only can see that he hates Caesar yes, but he also thinks of him as a tyrant, and this was obvious in his speech with Casca. (I elminated his Speech with Brutus because he has to act this way in order to win him, but with csca he could speak more freely since Casca already hates Caesar)

I feel that Cassius really believe that if Caesar became a king, he will make slaves of them all.
In Cassius soliloquy in Act I, sc II, he says:
"If I were Brutus, and he were Cassius,
He should not humour me......
...For we will shake him, or worse days endure"
And of course he can see that Because he isn't a friend of Caesar, and in his own philosophy, a friendly eye will never see a friends infirmities. Unlike Brutus, who is loved by Caesar, and loves Caesar.If Cassius was in Brutus's place he would have never killed his beloved friend.

So, what do you think his motives were? and did Shakespeare mention that Cassius was actually jealous from Caesar in the play?

I know I'm babbling, but I have been awake all night long , thinking about Brutus and Cassius, and How Brutus isn't actually as honourable as he seems to be. But don't worry this will be the topic of a totally another thread, my be I'll post it after I finish my examinations (wish me luck, plz), if you are interested of course.

Princess, I think what you're missing in understanding Cassius is a little background of ancient Roman history. Until Julius Ceasar (middle of the first century B.C.) Rome had been a proud Republic for over 400 years I believe, hating the thought of Kings. All kings were thought of as tyrants. Ceasar would have loved to become King, but he knows the Roman people will never accept it. That is why he turns down the laural crown early in the play. Cassius is a young man who wants to maintain the tradition of the Senatorial rule and sees Ceasar as a threat to the Republic, even though Ceasar is immensely popular. But he can only depose Ceasar by enlisting Brutus. Brutus's ancester is the man who actually killed the last King who ruled over Rome some four hundred years before.

[DarkPrincess]

Princess, I think what you're missing in understanding Cassius is a little background of ancient Roman history. Until Julius Ceasar (middle of the first century B.C.) Rome had been a proud Republic for over 400 years I believe, hating the thought of Kings. All kings were thought of as tyrants. Ceasar would have loved to become King, but he knows the Roman people will never accept it. That is why he turns down the laural crown early in the play. Cassius is a young man who wants to maintain the tradition of the Senatorial rule and sees Ceasar as a threat to the Republic, even though Ceasar is immensely popular. But he can only depose Ceasar by enlisting Brutus. Brutus's ancester is the man who actually killed the last King who ruled over Rome some four hundred years before.

Thank you Virgil for answering my post
Well, you agree with me then that both Cassius and Brutus' motivations were the same; the fear that Caesar will demolish the Republic and establish a monrach, and not as most critics say that Cassius motives were hatred, and envy. The only difference between them was that Brutus was an idealist, and Cassius was a practical politician.

By the way, I always thought of Cassius as an old man, not a young one.

[J.D.]

Brutus and Cassius weren't motivated by entirely honorable ends.

[J.D.]

“Love of the Republic” might have been the motivation cited by Cassius, and certainly Brutus would’ve felt a responsibility to fight against “tyrants” because of his lineage. But the real fear, the real motivation, was that the senatorial class, of which Brutus and Cassius were part, was full of rich old-money families who feared that Caesar would diminish their power over the plebs. Caesar was a master of manipulating the crowd; as such, he was in a strong position to ruin the rich families of the senatorial class. The assassination was hardly about the “honor” of the senate—after all, the senate was a disgustingly corrupt body anyway—or about patriotism in some pure and honorable sense. It was in large part about maintaining social position for the elite.

So, you could say Brutus and Cassius were motivated by envy, or at least by selfishness. They didn't want Caesar to have power because it might diminish their own power.

[Virgil]

“Love of the Republic” might have been the motivation cited by Cassius, and certainly Brutus would’ve felt a responsibility to fight against “tyrants” because of his lineage. But the real fear, the real motivation, was that the senatorial class, of which Brutus and Cassius were part, was full of rich old-money families who feared that Caesar would diminish their power over the plebs. Caesar was a master of manipulating the crowd; as such, he was in a strong position to ruin the rich families of the senatorial class. The assassination was hardly about the “honor” of the senate—after all, the senate was a disgustingly corrupt body anyway—or about patriotism in some pure and honorable sense. It was in large part about maintaining social position for the elite.

So, you could say Brutus and Cassius were motivated by envy, or at least by selfishness. They didn't want Caesar to have power because it might diminish their own power.

Well, preservation of the Republic coincided with their personal status. So what? And please cite what passage makes you think that they were not acting out of idealism. I think it's quite clear that at least Brutus is acting out of idealism; he struggles with the decision. Even Cassius who seems to have personal grudges against Ceasar is still putting his neck on the line. Yes there are multiple rationales, but preservation of the Republic is still sincere.

[J.D.]

Virgil-- My fault; I was referring to the historical Cassius and Brutus rather than to Shakespeare's version of them. When the conversation turned to historical perspective, I thought I would throw in my two cents. Based on what I know about the feelings of the ruling class toward the masses, about the deaths of earlier reformers like Tiberius Gracchus, about the threats Caesar's reforms posed to the ruling class, and about general historical trends, I believe the motivation I provided is a fair inference.

This isn't to say the pair couldn't have been motivated by idealism as well as self preservation. They might certainly have believed that the Republic was a virtuous and worthy institution--after all, the idea of innate equality is relatively new, so the fact that the senate essentially bent to the will of the upper class might not have bothered them.

But I tend to think that they understood the senate was a corrupt, underhanded institution, full of bribery and B.S. From what I've read of Cicero's letters, I would say he certainly understood this, so why would Cassius or Brutus not understand it, too? To continue this line of thinking: If the pair knew the senate to be corrupt, they certainly couldn't have believed killing Caesar to protect it was noble--more likely, this was something they said--or even made themselves believe--in order to justify the act. I firmly believe the primary motivation was that the power of the corrupt senate was tied to their own personal interests, and Caesar with the masses threatened that.

Think about it: Who gets hurt if Caesar becomes an all-powerful king? Not the plebs, who are already basically subject to the whims of the senate (which is synonymous with the patrician class, really). If Caesar's reforms had, say, increased the patrician power rather than jeopardizing it, I don't think the senate would have plotted against him.

This is what I believe based on my understanding of Roman history.

[Virgil]

Virgil-- My fault; I was referring to the historical Cassius and Brutus rather than to Shakespeare's version of them. When the conversation turned to historical perspective, I thought I would throw in my two cents. Based on what I know about the feelings of the ruling class toward the masses, about the deaths of earlier reformers like Tiberius Gracchus, about the threats Caesar's reforms posed to the ruling class, and about general historical trends, I believe the motivation I provided is a fair inference.

Oh, no problem.

This isn't to say the pair couldn't have been motivated by idealism as well as self preservation. They might certainly have believed that the Republic was a virtuous and worthy institution--after all, the idea of innate equality is relatively new, so the fact that the senate essentially bent to the will of the upper class might not have bothered them.

But I tend to think that they understood the senate was a corrupt, underhanded institution, full of bribery and B.S. From what I've read of Cicero's letters, I would say he certainly understood this, so why would Cassius or Brutus not understand it, too? To continue this line of thinking: If the pair knew the senate to be corrupt, they certainly couldn't have believed killing Caesar to protect it was noble--more likely, this was something they said--or even made themselves believe--in order to justify the act. I firmly believe the primary motivation was that the power of the corrupt senate was tied to their own personal interests, and Caesar with the masses threatened that.

Think about it: Who gets hurt if Caesar becomes an all-powerful king? Not the plebs, who are already basically subject to the whims of the senate (which is synonymous with the patrician class, really). If Caesar's reforms had, say, increased the patrician power rather than jeopardizing it, I don't think the senate would have plotted against him.

This is what I believe based on my understanding of Roman history.

But we'll never know what the real Brutus and Cassius were thinking. They never left any writing. But we do know that there were I think around a dozen Senators involved in the assassination. I also think there was a big difference between the reformers like the Gracchus brothers and Julius Ceasar. Ceasar was actually commanding an Army that had amassed territory and victories outside the authority of the Senate and was part of a dictatorial triumpherate ten years prior. This wasn't just land distribution for the army, but an actual military take over. And he did appoint himself dictator for life, I believe. Nonetheless, it was quite obvious to many that the Republic could not stand based on the events of the first century BC, or even before that to the Gracchus brothers. The huge territorial acquisitions made it impossible to rule, plus leaders pursuing glory undermined faith in rule of law. Was Ceasar trying to push for a government to meet the new reality? That is putting his intentions in the best light. Was he just trying to equal the status of Alexander The Great at the expense of his nation? That is putting his intentions in the worst light. We'll never know. We can only speculate. The reality is probably in between. Same thing with Brutus and Cassius and the other assassins. We'll never know.

[J.D.]

But we'll never know what the real Brutus and Cassius were thinking. . .

We'll never know. We can only speculate. The reality is probably in between. Same thing with Brutus and Cassius and the other assassins. We'll never know.

Agreed. And that's what makes it fun to debate

[byquist]

One thing that the text itself devotes time to is the story (not made up) that Cassius tell to Brutus. That is, about when Cassius and Caesar were younger and they challenged each other to swim across a cove or river. They get out there and Caesar starts to sink and drown, and cries out to Cassius to save him (which he does). They were probably reasonable friends then. But it irritates and galls Cassius that now this second-rate athlete, this primadonna, who Cassius had to save, is looked upon as a god by all the people. Cassius can't stand it that people have been gulled into having awe for this (in his eyes) very mediocre man.

In this regard I think he says: "I would as lief not be as live to be in awe of such a thing as myself." If Cassius doesn't think that he himself is deserving of any outstanding honor and regard (and would rather be dead than obtain undeserved acclaim), Caesar definitely doesn't deserve it. Cassius is ready to respect someone who deserves it. But it irks him to no end when people repeatedly cheer out Caesar's name. He feels he knows the truth about Caesar, and wants others to know it too.