CHAPTER TWO
CHAPTER THREE
3. Loss of Favour
In this section, I wish to suggest that Cassius and Caesar –like Essex and Elizabeth– were formerly friends (at least in terms of Roman political friendship, amicitia).83 However, their association disintegrates, leading to the isolation and discontent of Cassius. In Act One, Scene Two, it is evident that Cassius has been isolated from Caesar for some time – Caesar has made it obvious to Antony that there is no man he would rather “avoid” than Cassius (I.ii.201-2), someone he appears to know well as his forensic assessment of him indicates (I.ii.). As in Elizabethan politics, Cassius’ loss of access and favour has led to feelings of bitterness and jealousy.
Nevertheless, brief allusions in the text suggest that their relationship was not always so distant. Indeed, Cassius’ Tiber anecdote (I.ii.103-17) obliquely hints at a closer relationship once, no doubt soured by Caesar’s political elevation, which, as
82 James S. Mullican, "Brutus and Cassius: A Timely Contrast," Clearing House 38 (1963): 178.
83 On the variegated nature of amicitia, see Michael Cameron Andrews, "Erasmus and Macbeth:
'Making the Green One Red'," Erasmus in English 15 (1987); Wolfgang Braungart, "Freundschaft,
will be remembered, put Cassius in the humiliating position of “bend[ing] his body” in subservience (I.ii.119). This rankles Cassius all the more so because he had saved
Caesar’s life in the Tiber, something that he might expect to cement their relationship. The Aeneas-Anchises analogy is crucial here. Cassius, appropriating a common analogue for Caesar and his Julian dynasty, positions himself as the Roman hero and Caesar as the frail father, Anchises.84 Evidently, Caesar has not shown Cassius the loyalty that his deed merits, which may help to explain some of his reasons for conspiring against Caesar.85 The next anecdote he relates is even more enlightening, inasmuch as it may reveal the extent of their former friendship, and the underlying
motive for Cassius’ resentment of Caesar (I.ii.121-4): He had a fever when he was in Spain,
And when the fit was on him, I did mark How he did shake. 'Tis true, this god did shake! His coward lips did from their colour fly.
Scholars have failed to appreciate the true significance of these lines. Not a few critics have dismissed the entire section as the tendentious and unreliable reportage of a jealous malcontent.86 However, I suggest a different interpretation is possible.
Shakespeare’s vivid description (“I did mark”) physically places Cassius in Caesar’s
presence in Spain. This is a first-hand account of Caesar’s seizure (cf. Casca’s
confirmation of Caesar’s “falling sickness”: I.ii.251-2). Ultimately, the startling implication of this anecdote is that Cassius had been serving with Caesar on his campaign against the remnants of the Republican forces, which would eventually lead
to Caesar’s triumph over “Pompey’s blood” (I.i.51). This interpretation is
84 Robert Miola, Shakespeare’s Rome (Cambridge, 1983) 85, 88, points out the irony of Cassius as
Aeneas.
85John Doebler, "When Troy Fell: Shakespeare's Iconography of Sorrow and Survival," Comparative
Drama (1985): 321-331, on Aeneas as a symbol of loyalty in Shakespeare’s plays.
86Even Rebhorn, “Crisis of the Aristocracy,” p.83-84, refers to this anecdote ironically as Cassius’
strengthened by the presence of Cassius’ closest friend, Titinius (I.ii.129; cf. V.iii.38:
“best friend”):
“Alas,” it [Caesar’s tongue] cried, “give me some drink, Titinius”
The setting is vague, but Titinius’ presence may suggest a private, intimate environment rather than a public space. Shakespeare’s Cassius and Titinius, then, may have played a role in the defeat of the Republican forces in Spain. By inference, it follows that they seem to have helped Caesar ascend to the position he enjoys at the beginning of the play. Yet Cassius certainly had not been sufficiently rewarded for his
loyalty to Caesar. Indeed, by the time the play begins, “Caesar doth bear me hard”
(I.ii.309). Shakespeare implies to the audience that Cassius has lost Caesar’s favour in
a way akin to the fall from grace that Essex had recently suffered. Essex had served Elizabeth loyally for years, before being unceremoniously cast aside, admittedly after a disastrous military campaign. Cassius suffers the same fate: he returns from foreign soil to find himself out of favour. This interpretation may explain why Cassius refrains from making Republican arguments against Caesar.
Essex and Elizabeth had once been boon companions; and yet, by 1599, their special relationship had remarkably deteriorated to a point where (allegedly) each had made threats on the life of the other. No matter how accurate court gossip was, their friendship had irrevocably disintegrated. After years of unflinching service and mainly meritorious conduct, Essex was unceremoniously cast aside. Essex and Cassius both suffer tragic and perhaps unjustified falls from grace at the hands of their former benefactors. Such an unfortunate reversal of fortune no doubt festers, and inspires thoughts of conspiracy. Shakespeare, then, has encoded a profound
Conclusions
This chapter has attempted to demonstrate how Shakespeare’s socio-political envi- ronment may have affected his characterisation of Cassius. Indeed, many of Cassius’ words and deeds find no ancient (or contemporary dramatic) antecedent. A perfect example of such uniqueness is Cassius’ fabrication of letters to Brutus, which are ostensbily from Roman citizens. As we saw, the forgery of letters to incriminate
aristocrats was not an unknown practice in Shakespeare’s time, and something that no less a figure than William Cecil was almost certainly engaged in (probably on more than one occasion). Unsavoury as such actions are, they are emblematic of the factional politics that defined the 1580s/90s.
Catholic resistance literature also seems to have influenced Shakespeare’s characterisation of Cassius. In his dualogue with Brutus, Cassius decries the state of the Roman nobility, which he feels has abdicated its responsibilities, and created the opportunity for Caesar to establish his tyranny (I.iii.98). Again, in the ancient sources no such arguments are marshalled by Cassius to this effect.
And the political ideas of Machiavelli clearly influence Shakespeare in the style of politics that Cassius engages in. Cassius is not afraid to suggest the ruthless but advantageous proposal of killing Antony. Throughout this chapter, moreover, it has been seen how there are intrigiung parallels between the careers of the Earl of Essex and of Cassius. Essex’s fall from favour, for example, in the late 1590s may also have inspired Shakespeare’s Cassius’ isolation and resentment in Julius Caesar. Cassius, like Essex, feels that the ruler he serves under is inferior to himself. Ultimately,
Shakespeare’s characterisation of Cassius is clearly influenced by many important