William Shakespeare has been called not only the greatest dramatist
the world has ever known, but also the greatest man of this millennium.
Both of these titles grew from one thing, his masterful storytelling talent.
Shakespeare used some of this talent to write a series of plays based upon
historical events. Throughout these history plays, one can perceive
a common thread: the characters. Using examples from Richard III
and Julius Caesar, this essay will illustrate this commonality in both
its similarities and differences. More specifically, four main character
pairings will be used to show this thread, those of Queen Margaret and
the soothsayer, Henry VI and Julius Caesar, Richard and Cassius, and Richard
and Brutus.
Queen Margaret and Julius Caesar's soothsayer are similar characters
in some ways, yet in others, they couldn't be farther apart. Queen
Margaret appears in Act I, scene iii of Richard III, spouting revelations
of the past. From lines 187-232 of the same scene, she lays all of
her curses upon Richard, Elizabeth, and many of the other characters.
She curses many with death, as well as suffering before death, since "This
sorrow I have, by right is yours,/ and all the pleasures you usurp are
mine."(Richard III I, iii, 171- 172) Throughout her curses, though, a stream
of truth appears, delving into the character of Richard himself.
Margaret, though unstable and biased, still does provide some insight into
the depths of which Richard's character can sink, how much of a "cacodemon"
he really is. In Julius Caesar, the soothsayer is a much smaller
part, and the prophetic words he brings are much more cryptic. Rather
than spelling out the death of each individual person, the soothsayer bids
Caesar one thing only: "Beware the Ides of March"(Julius Caesar I, ii,
23) Both of these prophets' words also begin to really set the tone for
the play, or in Richard III, solidify the tone even more. But beyond
their prophetic function, these two characters are very different.
They come from completely different ends of society, one being a former
queen of England, and the other being a poor dreamer on the streets of
Rome. This shows that even though characters may serve a similar
function, they are not necessarily identical characters.
Henry VI and Julius Caesar are an interesting
pair to contrast. Henry VI appears only once in Richard III, at the
beginning, and at this point he is already dead. Julius Caesar is
alive until Act III in Julius Caesar, and then also enters the afterlife.
To fully compare these two characters, one must look back into the 3 Henry
VI, where the murder of Henry VI took place. When one looks here,
the two characters can be aligned easier. The death of King Henry
physically resembles that of Caesar, multiple stab wounds. Even when
the wounds are being described, there is a comparison to be made there.
When Richard first appears, Anne brings attention to Henry's wounds, telling
the audience that they bleed forth yet again, the veins where their should
be no blood. This speech in Act I, scene ii, lines 50-67 of Richard
III is very similar to Antony's oration following Caesar's death, in Act
III, scene ii, lines 169-196 of Julius Caesar. Antony shows the citizens
of Rome the rent "Through [which] the well-belovèd Brutus stabbed."(JC
III, ii, 175) Both are killed by the "Wrong-Righters", or God's avenging
angels, Richard and Brutus. Also, the deaths of both of these characters
set up the conflict for the main bodies of the rest of these two plays.
Richard, Duke of Gloucester, is the mind behind
his own bid for the throne, orchestrating the death of many people.
In Julius Caesar, Caius Cassius is very similar, plotting the death of
Caesar for both his own gain as well as that of Rome, in toppling a (possible)
forbidden king. The two share a similar function, and their motivations
are similar. Cassius wishes everyone to believe him the saviour of
Rome, one who topples a tyrant. But in reality, Cassius is protecting
his own position, and gaining more for himself. Cassius is part of
the current Roman government, and due to that, he would be losing at least
some of his power and influence if Caesar were to ascend to a Roman throne.
Also, Cassius wants more power for himself, wishing to rise even higher
upon the ladder of Rome, especially with the deaths of the previously ruling
triumvirate. He does this through manipulating Brutus into supporting
his attempt on Caesar's life, for Brutus is well loved in Rome, as well
as being a close friend of Caesar. With his support, the act would
be better received by the citizens of Rome, and it is, until Antony gives
his moving oration, raising the citizens against Cassius, Brutus, and Casca.
Richard, on the other hand, has no illusions about his desires or purposes.
He makes his bid for the throne ruthlessly, cutting down anyone in his
way, through clever manipulation and playing the two families off each
other. Richard great ability for manipulation is shown in a few lines
of his closing soliloquy in 3 Henry VI:
This quotation gives us a look to his prowess, which is further shown in Act I, scene ii of Richard III, where Richard meets up with Anne, who is overseeing the funeral procession of her husband. With the corpse of her husband sitting on the ground, Richard Crookback wins over Anne. He eventually gets himself named Lord Protector, and then King. Though both men are similar, they do have their differences, though for these two, the differences are more measured in degrees, rather than looked at as contrasts. Cassius is corrupt, but his darkness comes nowhere near Richard, who is Devil-like, called "An Angel with Horns" by A.P. Rossiter. Also, Cassius has some basis for his claim of saving the people of Rome, while Richard, while having some claim, is not aware of it, and uses pure manipulation to gain what he wishes. A very similar pairing, these two characters, but Cassius cannot sink to the depths which Richard has reached, for Richard takes pleasure in the evil he does, even if it serves no purpose."Why, I can smile, and murder whiles I smile,
And cry "Content!" to that which grieves my heart,
And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And frame my face to all occasions."(3 Henry VII III, ii, 182-185)
The final character comparison of this essay
lies on Richard and Brutus. At first, these men seem to be very different.
Brutus was manipulated into doing what he did, and did it out of love for
Rome, while Richard was himself a manipulator, and did what he did out
of his love for power. Brutus was a friend of the man he killed,
while Richard killed many people, either directly or through subordinates
or trickery, and was friends with nobody. But they serve a similar
purpose. Both characters were the "Wrong-Righters" mentioned previously.
Brutus is fighting against a one-king state of Rome. This is something
that he firmly believes in, as it was his ancestor who freed Rome from
the tyranny of the Tarquin kings in the past. Brutus believes that
Rome should always be free, and fights for this, even though he is very
close with Caesar, as shown in Caesar's famous line, "Et tu, Brute? - Then
fall, Caesar!"(JC III, i, 77) This quotation shows the betrayal was feeling
when he died, that if Brutus, his closest friend, were to kill him, then
Caesar had nothing left to live for. This all shows that Brutus did
what he did because he thought it was for a cause which he felt was right.
Richard of Gloucester had no knowledge of his divine purpose. Richard
is an unknowing angel of God, enacting God's revenge upon the houses that
caused chaos and strife previously in England during the War of the Roses,
before he is finally struck down. Richard destroys the "noble and
illustre families of Lancastre and York," (Rossiter 67) and then rises
to power, for a brief time before being struck down by Richmond-Tudor.
Everyone in the play is morally impure, until Richmond-Tudor's appearance,
and they must be destroyed, and this is brought about by Richard.
This further sheds light upon A.P. Rossiter's seemingly paradoxical title:
"An Angel with Horns." Richard is enacting God's justice, even though
he is pure evil. His motivations seem to be his own quest for power,
yet the man is being played like a divine instrument. When his purpose
is finished, the instrument is discarded, and life can resume, free from
the corruption that was running free in England.
William Shakespeare was a literary genius, one of the greatest dramatists
the world has ever seen. This talent shows in his works and his usage
of characters. Even though there are tying links though the characters
of his plays, not all are exact copies of each other, with a slight change
in story and setting. Shakespeare is able to give each character
a life and position of its own, be it high or low, pure or corrupt, and
then use these multicoloured threads to weave a tapestry of a depth almost
unimaginable. The links throughout his plays are there, as shown
in his histories, and this shows depth in his talent, more than merely
telling a story.
by Adam Miller
1999/03/08