GREAT discussion!
No, I agree, for sheer bestiality the 20th century beats the ancients any time. Rwanda alone. Pol Pot and his Killing Fields in Cambodia alone.
Would I put Brutus and Cassius in the lowest rung of hell? I wouldn't put anybody there but then I didn't write the Inferno, with such a wonderful honorable man as Brutus, one wonders why Dante put him there?
The point is, he did. Living when he did. Would anybody today put him there? It might depend on the criteria you apply. The most evil man in the world? no. The greatest mass murderer? No. Those don't appear to be the criteria Dante applied either.
Did Cassius have good reasons? Apparently not, according to Plutarch, who says of him:
"And they were well persuaded that Cassius, being a man governed by anger and passion, and carried often, for his interest's sake, beyond the bound of justice, endured all these hardships of war and travel and danger most assuredly to obtain dominion to himself, and not liberty to the people. (Marcus Brutus section, page 1204...I don't know what page that is in other editions).
But of Brutus Plutarch says, "But Brutus for his virtue was esteemed by the people, beloved by his friends, admired by the best men, and hated not by his enemies themselves. For he was a man of a singularly gentle nature, of a great spirit, insensible of the passions of anger or pleasure or covetousness; steady and inflexible to maintain his purpose for what he thought right and honest. And that which gained him the greatest affection and reputation was the entire faith in his intentions."
(Plutarch in the chapter Marcus Brutus, page 1204).
And yet Brutus for all this great honor, and sense of honesty, and everybody finding him spotless in intent, entered into a dishonest cowardly conspiracy to kill the man who had not only pardoned him twice and his friends, and elevated him to high office, but who saw him as a friend and possibly successor in some way. Plutarch quotes Caesar, who apparently was able to see thru Brutus, when he was told of the conspiracy and that Brutus was part of it, "Brutus will wait for this skin of mine," intimating that he was worthy to bear rule on account of his virtue, but would not be base and ungrateful to gain it." (Caesar section page 888 in this book). Again this is repeated slightly differently, in another part of Plutarch, paraphrased as Caesar held up his hand, as surely Brutus can wait for this little body.
Plutarch also says of Brutus, "But the honors and favors he received from Caesar took off the edge from the desires he might himself have felt for overthrowing the new monarchy. For he had not only been pardoned himself, after Pompey's defeat at Pharsalia , and had procured the same grace for many of his friends, but was one in whom Caesar had a particular confidence....Nor would Caesar afterwards listen to some who spoke against Brutus..."
Caesar had also pardoned Cassius, when Cassius deserted his friend Pompey when Pompey's fortunes turned bad at Pharsalus and nevertheless was pardoned afterwards by Caesar.
Caesar was too lenient a man, and too generous in his pardons, in my opinion. So why did Dante put the most honorable man alive into Hell, and not only Hell, in the lowest possible place? What did he know we don't? Even by Dante's time genocide and torture had taken place on a large scale.
The name Brutus in Latin means stupid. It literally means "idiot." Brutus is not the family name, it's his cognomen, kind of like a nickname. He claimed descent from the first Brutus tho this was somewhat doubted. Again possibly a problem with the "honest" bit. (There's a nifty story about the first Brutus, the honorable ancestor that Marcus Brutus hoped to emulate and how he did a play on words on his name).
As for our Marcus Junius Brutus, surely when the most honorable of men saw his secret group running about putting on wreaths on statues of Caesar to slander him and arouse the public against him, and the conspirators meeting in secret meetings, he felt perhaps ashamed. His reported inability to sleep before the murder was much remarked on. Maybe we should read Brutus before we're through.
I guess it depends on what a person thinks is character and loyalty. He didn't seem to have a problem with Pompey's sole consulship. Plutarch says in the Brutus section again page 1204, "For it had not ever been supposed that Pompey the Great himself, if he had overcome Caesar, would have submitted his power to the laws, instead of taking the management of the state upon himself, soothing the people with the specious name of consul or dictator, or some other milder title than king."
In other words, the "Republic" was already done. It was Caesar, not Pompey, nor Brutus, who increased the number of senators to 900.
Cicero's letters also reveal a slightly different slant on Brutus' character: on his financial dealings with the people of Salamis (in Cyprus) he lent money at 48 percent interest, and was said to be prepared to go to any length to recover the debt.
Both the Caesar and the Brutus chapters are very interesting sections. On the positive side Plutarch quotes Antony himself who is said to have observed that "Brutus was the only man that conspired against Caesar out of a sense of the glory and the apparent justice of the action, but that all the rest rose up against the man himself, from private envy and malice of their own."
"The glory and the apparent justice of the action, sounds positive, unless you think it's not glorious or in the name of justice for any reason to surround and stab an unarmed man 23 times.
Goldsworthy remarks of the conspirators that "Yet although these men believed that they were doing what was right for the Republic, they would not have been Roman aristocrats if they did not also crave the fame and glory that they felt would be attached to such a deed. It should also be noted that the conspirators, especially the most distinguished of them like Cassius, Marcus and Decimus Brutus, Trebonius and Galba, were bound to do very well politically if the venture succeeded. They were men likely to be foremost amongst those senators who would guide the restored Republic, especially since it was scarcely likely that those who had remained staunchly loyal to Caesar would prosper after his death. But Marcus and Decimus Brutus gave up certain consulships, but could confidently predict that they would win the magistracy in the election. (Page 504).
Why did Dante put Brutus there with Cassius? It may have something to do with betrayal of loyalty and friendship. What a cowardly act it was, to me.
