Brutus: Patriot or Traitor? by Hanuman

Hanuman Durina

Honors English 2B

May 25, 2014

Brutus, the Back-stabber

When white abolitionist John Brown and his followers planned to raid the armory at Harper’s Ferry in 1859, he knew they would be committing treason. He did it anyway, because he felt so strongly that his cause, the abolition of slavery, was just, that he felt that any action he took would be morally justified. In the same way, Brutus justified his role in the assassination of Julius Caesar by arguing that his only goal was to stop Rome’s advance towards imperial rule. Justifying the means to an end is all Brutus is really doing, and as an honorable man, he had to ignore his conscience so as to carry out the heinous crime of stabbing Caesar. Some may argue that Brutus was just doing as he was told by Cassius, the ringleader of the assassins, and that eliminating Caesar was the only way to stop Caesar from rising to power as the Emperor of Rome. However, an intelligent man like Brutus should have foreseen that Caesar’s death alone would not stop the fall of the Roman Republic, as many powerful men besides Caesar desired to become the sole controller of Rome. Brutus proposes his solution to the Caesar problem when he says to himself: “And that craves wary walking. Crown him? And then, I grant, we put a sting in him.“ But this only solves the immediate problem, rather than actually preventing Rome from becoming an Empire. He also should have seen that envious Cassius’s intentions were not pure and been more wary of his counsel. Despite the friendship they shared, Brutus was willing to kill Caesar with no regard for his life or the lives of his family, showing that he betrayed both Caesar and himself by falling prey to the flattering and false words of the conspirators, especially Cassius.

Brutus was an honorable man, and so most people throughout time have believed his claim that his motive was never to hurt Caesar, but only to stop Rome from becoming an empire, a fate he thought so terrible that it justified killing his best friend. However, despite his intentions, Brutus didn’t stop Rome from becoming an empire, he just stopped Caesar from becoming emperor. This path ultimately led to a civil war between the triumvirate, and the eventual reign of an empire more dictatorial than any led by Caesar. Even if Caesar had been crowned, his rule would have been tempered by the Senators, many of whom opposed a strong central system. After Caesar’s death, though, the senators were powerless to restrain the Emperors. Even the citizens knew this to be true; as one said, “I fear there will a worse come in his place.” Another strong argument that can be made in Brutus’s defense is that Brutus was just following the orders he was given by Cassius and the other noble conspirators. Perhaps he let his trust in the Republic and its leaders cloud his judgment and prevent him from seeing Cassius’s greed, hate, and envy at Caesar’s rise to power. But the fact is, Brutus was not simply following orders; his actual role in the horrible act was one of a willing participant.  He was not a fool or a low-minded person, who blindly followed others. Rather, Brutus’s hero complex was the driving force behind the supposedly altruistic assassination. Only such a tragic flaw could inspire a great man to kill a dear friend over mere politics. Caesar clearly expected loyalty from his dear friend Brutus, and was saddened to find that he had taken the side of the murderous conspirators, as shown when Caesar said his famous line: “Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Caesar.”

Brutus killed Caesar. Like many of the killers and conspirators, he was a close friend of Caesar. Not only did he take part in the slaying, but he did it in an underhanded way, ganging up on him and stabbing him in the back. This is not the behavior of an “honorable man.” This one cowardly act led to the end of both Caesar’s and his own lives, along with Brutus’s wife. Many noblemen, conspirators and not, died in the ensuing battle, as did countless soldiers and innocent people like Cinna the poet, who was beaten just for sharing one of the conspirators’ name.  Moreover, his stated “reasons… of such good regard.” which even the son of Caesar should be “satisfied with”, were completely undermined by the outrage and strife resulting from Caesar’s bloody slaughter.  He listened to Cassius, and ignored the obvious personal envy and hatred in his words.  Cassius states in Act I, scene II,

“Caesar cried 'Help me, Cassius, or I sink!'
I, as Aeneas, our great ancestor,
Did from the flames of Troy upon his shoulder
The old Anchises bear, so from the waves of Tiber
Did I the tired Caesar. And this man
Is now become a god, and Cassius is
A wretched creature and must bend his body,
If Caesar carelessly but nod on him.
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,
And that same eye whose bend doth awe the world
Did lose his lustre: I did hear him groan:
Ay, and that tongue of his that bade the Romans
Mark him and write his speeches in their books,
Alas, it cried 'Give me some drink, Titinius,'
As a sick girl. Ye gods, it doth amaze me
A man of such a feeble temper should
So get the start of the majestic world
And bear the palm alone.

Why did the “noble” Brutus not hear the anger and desire for vengeance in Cassius’s words as you surely do? Caesar also noted the hatred of Cassius: “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.” Cassius himself said if he were Brutus, he would not trust Cassius, and that is why he decided to throw the false letters of concern into Brutus’s house at night. Brutus should have been more wary of the counsel of such a snakelike man. He should have used his influence, which was said to be second only to Caesar’s, to lead the conspirators and others to find a less bloody and more reasonable long-term solution to the problems the republic was facing.

To this day, a back-stabber is a despised person. He is a liar, a coward, and a traitor. Of course, today we use the phrase only metaphorically. But Brutus, who “loved Caesar well” actually stabbed his friend in the back with a knife. Maybe, as Brutus believed, his reasons were good, and the act was justified. But if his actions were so well-reasoned, why did the plan backfire on him and the other conspirators? Influenced by Cassius’s flattery and caught up in the mob-mentality of the conspiracy, he committed a murder far beneath the honorable reputation he was so proud of. He spoke of his love for Rome: “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved/ Rome more.” But he is simply using the ends to justify the means. He is falsely claiming that because he loved Rome, the only choice he had was to kill Caesar. Was there no other option? Mark Anthony said it correctly when he called Brutus’s stabbing of Caesar “the unkindest cut of all,” because it caused not only physical pain, but also was a terrible betrayal of Caesar, a dear friend, and betrayal of Rome as well.