From: Thibault M.
Date: Ven mars 21, 2003 07:35:24 Europe/Zurich
To: me
Subject: Tragic hero

Tragic hero


A tragic hero, by definition, is a basically good and noble man in a high position, suffering from hubris. This tragic flaw, or hamartia, brings him to his downfall.

When you are faced with a tragedy such as those of Shakespeare, you will be confronted with a wide array of characters, tragic flaws, and downfalls to choose from.
This is a story, frozen in time because of its morals, true still today. Love, treason, jealousy, as well as ultimatums.

Rome, has forever been known as the city of the people. The first republic, and the closest to democracy. But now, Brutus, one of Caesar’s closest friends is left with the choice of the probability of a tyrant coming to power where the people is sacred, or killing his best friend.

In this play, the tragic hero that might jump to the reader’s eye would be Brutus. But I don’t agree: Although Brutus’s traits all meet up with a tragic hero’s, he is not necessarily the one. Yes, he does suffer from hubris, and yes, he is in a high position. Nevertheless, his downfall does not mark the culminating point of the story. To the contrary, his downfall is at the end of the play. However, Julius Caesar’s assassination does. It is then that we reach the point of no return, the climax.
Julius Caesar’s assassination, or downfall, commences the duel between Brutus and his conspirators, and Brutus and Octavius. This is the climax.
What do you call a basically good and noble man who refers to himself in the third person? A hubristic one.
Or what do you call a noble leader who only reluctantly refuses an olive wreath?

Throughout the whole play, Julius Caesar proves to suffer from a severe case of hubris, which eventually leads him to skim unconscious tyranny.
Julius Caesar’s hubristic traits are not only obvious but recurrent: bias self references, deceitful behaviour ( pretending to dislike flattery…),  and even a number of blatant pretentious comments. Julius Caesar wrongfully took Pompeii, through hubris. Luckily, he didn’t meet his downfall then, but he will soon after.
Brutus, his slayer, was a noble man, who thought for himself. Not only did he think for himself, but he did love Caesar. What would it take for you to kill your leader and best friend? Is being afraid of a dictatorship a legitimate reason? Yes. But not only was Caesar a threat to his society, but he might also have been a threat to the world’s greatest even-handed people, the Romans. Of course, because of his hubristic, ambitious personality. Shakespeare very much played on this fact.
Like Brutus said: "Not that I loved Caesar less, but I loved Rome more."
Yes, Caesar did love his people, and yes Caesar was very respected, loved, noble and powerful. But when men climb the ladder of ambition, they tend to climb to high, hence blinding them upon what is below them. That was the risk to be taken by letting Caesar live. The conspirators knew, as well as the people of Rome, that that was not an option.

Nobody hated Caesar, nobody envied him. His people praised him and esteemed him. But it wasn’t for nothing that his best friend  was led to assassinating him.
At the moment where Brutus raises his dagger to kill his beloved Caesar, Caesar has but one option left: he gives way to Brutus deadly strike, uttering only "Et tu Brute ?" as his last words. Julius Caesar is so overwhelmed by seeing his best friend holding the dagger that will end his life that he lets himself be killed.

Just like every powerful man desiring only the best for his so easily manipulated people; the glory, and consciousness of having a simple vacillating people quickly, and unconsciously takes over all thoughts.  If that is not a downfall of a good and noble man due to hubristic behaviour, hence marking the climax of the story, then what is?


ps. a friend of mine is coming to switzerland from new york, can she come for a little while in english class? (ndlr: Sure.)