Et tu Brute?

"Our own General does not promise. He threatens. To those who know the lessons of history this has a familiar tone and temper. When provoked he easily gets unsettled, snarls and resorts to intemperate language. As for his allies, their Bell has a false ring of freedom; their Elephant has gone rogue."
...............................

By Nalin Swaris

(January 21, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Even you Brutus? Most famous last words in history, due to its inclusion in William Shakespeare’s tragedy ‘Julius Caesar’. Before turning to Shakespeare, a few historical facts about Gaius Julius Caesar (100 BCE- 44 BCE). Julius’ surname became the title of emperors after him. Julius undoubtedly was Rome’s greatest General – a military genius and ambitious politician. In 44 BCE, because of his brilliant victories in war and his great political influence, Caesar became Consul for a fifth time, with Mark Antony as his devoted supporter, Caesar got himself declared ‘dictator for life’.

He summoned the Senate for a meeting extraordinaire on the March 15 44 BCE - the now famous "Ides of March". As the Senate convened, Caesar was stabbed to death by a group of senators who called themselves the Liberatores (Liberators); they justified their action on the grounds that they were preserving the Republic from Caesar’s dictatorial rule and alleged monarchical ambitions. Among the assassins were Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius.

The older Caesar loved his protégé Brutus like a son and named him as one of his testamentary heirs. Hence the pathos of the question, Et tu Brute?

Brutus Villain or Hero?

Though most political commentators regard Brutus as a parricide, this verdict is not universal. The Roman poet and historian, Francis Petrarch (1304-1374) used the literary device of addressing letters to authors of the ancient world. He wrote to Cicero (died 43 B.C.E.) criticising him for praising Octavius Caesar. He asked, "What answer can you give to Brutus? … We must conclude that you are not so anxious to be rid of all tyrants as to find a tyrant who will be well-disposed toward yourself. Now, unhappy man, you were to take the last false step, the last and most deplorable…I grieve, dear friend at such fickleness. These shortcomings fill me with pity and shame."

The Italian fascist dictator Generalissimo Musssolini, consciously styled himself after Julius Caesar. Dr. Jan Nelis of the University of Ghent, Belgium, writes,

"Julius Caesar was the quintessential populist leader, swaying the masses into being ruled. Steadily, he enforced his grip on the people of Rome, becoming dictator and maybe even hoping to be king one day. The life and deeds of Caesar present a perfect example of a recurrent phenomenon in human history: the willingness of the masses to be ruled, and eventually nearly always to witness the unavoidable forced death of the authoritarian ruler, victim to his own megalomania, or, in Latin, superbia. As such, the figure of Caesar can count as the prototype and prefiguration of many later political leaders, especially those who will use the masses as the base for their, in various degrees exclusive, claims to power. To give but one clear example: the dictator of Italian fascism, Benito Mussolini, declared on various accounts that the only real example he drew from the past was Caesar."

Our own General does not promise. He threatens. To those who know the lessons of history this has a familiar tone and temper. When provoked he easily gets unsettled, snarls and resorts to intemperate language. As for his allies, their Bell has a false ring of freedom; their Elephant has gone rogue.

Nietzsche and Shakespeare

Many Lankans are still under the impression that Friedrich Nietzsche was the ideologue of German Fascism. This is largely because his sister Elizabeth, a fascist, published a grossly distorted version of his The Will to Power from Nietzsche’s unedited notes after he became insane. Hitler made avid use of this doctored version. Nietzsche’s ‘Ubermensch’ did not refer to a biologically superior type, but to individuals who morally overcome themselves, not others. Since the sixties of the last century, scholars have simply buried the notion that Nietzsche was an anti-semite and fascist. His last act before he lapsed into insanity, was to send a postcard to his Jewish friend Franz Overbeek and his wife. In it Nietzsche had written, I am somebody who pays his debts. I am just having all anti-Semites shot."

Having cleared the ground, we can turn to Shakespeare’s drama. After Caesar’s death, Brutus delivers an oration defending his actions, "It is not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more" and for the moment, the crowd is on his side. In contrast to the rational tone of Brutus’ speech, Mark Antony begins cautiously and then with a subtle and eloquent speech he manipulates the emotions of the Roman populace. Reading a list of populist measures, Caesar had planned for the common people Mark Antony, delivers a rabble rousing speech over Caesar’s corpse. He who said he had come not to praise Caesar but to bury him, becomes lavish in Caesar’s praise. He deftly turned the mood of his audience against the assassins by manipulating the emotions of the common people. Antony rouses the mob to drive the conspirators from Rome.

Act Four of the play has a quarrel scene, where Brutus attacks Cassius for soiling the noble act of regicide by accepting bribes, "Did not great Julius bleed for justice’ sake? / What villain touch’d his body, that did stab, / And not for justice?" (IV.iii.19–21).

Brutus and Casius are defeated in battle and commit suicide. The play ends with a tribute to Brutus by Antony, who proclaims that Brutus was "the noblest Roman of them all" (V.v.68), because he was the only conspirator who acted for the good of Rome.

Nietzsche - In praise of Shakespeare — I could not say anything more beautiful in praise of Shakespeare as a human being than this: he believed in Brutus and did not cast one speck of suspicion upon this type of virtue! Independence of the soul!—that is at stake here! No sacrifice can be too great for that: one must be capable of sacrificing one’s dearest friend for it, and even if he should also be the most glorious human being, an ornament of the world, a genius without peer—if one loves freedom as the freedom of great souls and he threatens this kind of freedom:—that is what Shakespeare must have felt! The height at which he places is the finest honour he could bestow on Brutus: that is how he raises beyond measure Brutus’ inner problem as well as the spiritual strength that was able to cut this knot

Could it really have been political freedom that led this poet to sympathize with Brutus — and turned him into Brutus’ accomplice? Or was political freedom only a symbol for something inexpressible? Could it be that we confront some unknown dark event and adventure in the poet’s own soul of which he wants to speak only in signs? What is all of Hamlet’s melancholy compared to that of Brutus! — and perhaps Shakespeare knew both from first hand experience! Perhaps he, too, had his gloomy hour like Brutus!"(The Gay Science, 98.)

Nietzsche scholars suggest that the "dark unknown event" was in fact an allusion to a painful episode in Nietzsche own life. According to Nietzsche’s eminent biographer Walter Kaufmann, the philosopher’s great friend and hero was Richard Wagner; Wagner’s wife Cosima was the only woman he truly loved. Suffering from excruciating headaches due to a congenital illness Nietzsche enjoyed the quiet and repose of Wagner’s country house in Bayreuth and Cosima’s caring company. Nietzsche became alarmed by Wagner’s leanings toward fascism and his celebration in his music of Germany’s past glory as handed down in Nordic folklore. He finally broke with Wagner despite the great personal pain and loss it entailed. He openly condemned Wagner in his polemical work, Nietzsche contra Wagner (1895). In that context, he penned one of his famous aphorisms, "Jesus said, "Love your enemies but sometimes it is more important to hate one’s friends".

The local Generalissimo

Space does not permit a fuller discussion of Shakespeare’s other tragic hero, Othello, also a General who achieved heroic status because of spectacular war victories. Shakespeare’s arch villain, Iago, seethed with resentment at Othello’s position and popularity. Feigning friendship and loyalty, Iago manipulated a personality flaw of Othello – his proneness to jealousy. He succeeded in feeding Othello’s latent fears about his wife’s fidelity to him, till demented by ‘the green eyed god’, he killed the thing he loved - the fair Desdemona.

The General’s revolt against the President and the Defence Secretary is the manifestation of a deep seated personality flaw. As long he could have his way, he proved to be a steady and resolute Army Chief of great military acumen. He reveled in the adulation of the masses. But when his ambitions were thwarted, latent fissures in his personality surfaced and now gape canyon deep and wide. Why is he seething with so much resentment against his former Commander-in-Chief who extended his term of office four times and overlooked his vain posturings? He threw a tantrum and stamped his foot like a spoilt child, because he was not given what he demanded. His personality flaw is being exploited by opportunists for their cunning ends. His rankling rancour and revolt is making the nation vulnerable to the machinations of external powers.

Who would have thought that even before a year past after the scourge of terrorism was eradicated the man who played the major role in a glorious victory would join the President ‘s political foes to drive the latter from power? "Poda Mahinda!" - as Wickremesinghe contemptuously shouted. The General joined the very people who attempted to sabotage his war effort!

One jabbering fool called the General a donkey: English equivalent of "gona"(‘bull) ’- saying, "Any donkey can fight a war if given the weapons." He indirectly gave credit to the President who provided the weaponry and ammunition, but faulted him for handing them to a donkey.

The General’s current lieutenant on his right flank, taunted him that he has no knowledge of geography: "What’s the big deal about capturing Thoppigala? It’s a mere jungle!" Another geographer derided him in Parliament that when the government announces a march on Kilinocchi, the General sends his army to Medawacchi; when the government says the Army will take Alimankade – Elephant Pass - the General’s troops stray into Pamankade - a Colombo suburb. Another utterer of gibberish, now the General’s campaign manager, said he is not fit even to lead the Salvation Army.

In his hunger for revenge and power, the General has been willing to sell his soul and sign Faustian pacts with anyone. But, he may not trivialize those vilifications and dismiss them saying he answered his revilers at that time and he does not bear them any wairaya – vengeful resentment - because he is a forgiving man! Is this a ‘credible change’ of heart? Hardly. What drives the General’s juggernaut is burning wairaya against the President and the Defence Secretary. He can, but may not forget, that those jibes were calculated to demoralise his officers and soldiers and to debilitate their will to fight. The General’s revilers were aware that if the war was won the President would be politically invincible. Now Fonseka has put aside the General’s thoppiya – cap – to assail a political Thoppigala. He is turning to Somawanse, Wickremesinghe, Kiriella and Karunanayeke for his battle plans, with lads like Tissa as his batman and and Dayasiri as a more reliable cook.

Treachery Most Foul

A head giddy with hubris and burning with resentment, cannot control its tongue. The General’s boast at Dhamarashoka Vidyalaya in Ambalangoda on July 10 2009, has done irreparable damage to his Army and the country he now wants to save! Was it a mere coincidence that he was asked to tender his resign a few days after that? The Ambalangoda bravado was duly noted by the US State Department in its 2009 Report on Sri Lanka. It was tabled in the US Congress making it a legal document incriminating this country’s political leaders and his senior army officers for perpetuity. Not all Fonseka’s equivocations can cancel half a line of it. For this betrayal alone he is not qualified to be Head of State.

In T.S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral, Archbishop Thomas Beckett tells his last tempter, "The last sin is the worst treason/to do the right thing for the wrong reason". In this instance, the ultimate sin and worst treachery is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason - make a General seeking revenge win the war he has declared on the President. Fortunately, this time, General will not win his ‘Second Campaign’. The rural poor, whose sons and daughters sacrificed their lives and limbs and fought valiantly till the villains were vanquished, will not be misled by an embittered and vengeful man.