Julius Caesar I: The Fool & the Trickster

     “Et tu, Brute?” One of the most common examples of betrayal is when Julius Caesar’s best friend participated in his murder. What got Brutus to the point of murder? William Shakespeare's fictional adaptation of the historical event gives us insight into what drives people to do the wrong thing for the right reason.

     Cassius manipulated Brutus, that much is clear, What was Cassius doing when Brutus said to him "Into what dangers would you lead me Cassius, that you would have me seek into myself for that which is not in me?" Cassius was pointing out Brutus' flaw in being too rigid in his beliefs, however Cassius points this out as a trickster. Brutus was a rigid person with a lot of dissonance.

Brutus

     Brutus had a lot of faith in the Republic, and often disagreed with what Julius Caesar was doing in destroying the Republic. However, Brutus was rigid, too rigid, his beliefs never wavered, despite reason and others’ surrounding opinions. For the most part, most would agree with Brutus in that the Republic was better than any version of a king. But when Cassius said he would support Brutus and his beliefs by having Brutus do xyz, Brutus was inclined to go along with the guy who claimed to agree with him.

     Brutus was also riddled with anxiety and dissonance, Brutus didn’t want power, he didn’t want to get political against Caesar, he was just the friend who would stay friends with someone with a different opinion than him, until that got to be too much. If both parties are too rigid in their own belief system to take criticism from those closest to them, even the most well meaning people will not be able to stay friends with the disagreeing party. Brutus loved Caesar, but he also loved the Republic, creating obvious anxiety and inner turmoil that was easy to manipulate.

Cassius

     So what was Cassius’s part in this? Cassius manipulated Brutus into killing his own best friend, arguably a bad thing, but Cassius took part in saving the Republic for a minute, so wasn’t it good in the long run? Perhaps for the situation, but the individual being manipulative was still missing the mark in his own life.

     Cassius did want to be political, Cassius was selfish. Most characters fit into categories within the story and while on their own personal journey through life. The fool, the trickster, and the savior (often the savior of themselves). Throughout the story, Cassius is a trickster, and Brutus is a fool. Brutus wants to do what is right, but has not made enough error on his journey to know how to be his own savior. Cassius is the trickster, he knows enough about life to be cunning, but he doesn’t know what the right rules to break are, and is a detriment to himself by being tricky in the wrong ways.

     Yoda, or Dumbledore, are great examples of Savior types. Dumbledore is certainly tricky, but he is not a trickster. Dumbledore manipulated Harry Potter all throughout the story, to better Harry, to mend Dumbledore’s own mistakes, and to save the wizarding world. So yes, manipulation can be a good thing, depending on the intent, and the competence of the manipulated party. Caretakers of children have to manipulate the children, or trick them into doing hard things in order to learn, it is up to the caretaker to be a savior rather than a trickster. Overall, what Cassius did was wrong, and there is a reason why manipulation has negative connotations. If you are not seeking learning; if you are not seeking truth, then no intention validates manipulation, or betrayal.