Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
Shakespeare’s masterful verse elevates Plutarch’s eclectic philosophy in the ill-fated combination of Brutus and Cassius, who find victory in each other’s moral strength and falter in their combined weakness. Through their diverse philosophical justifications and moral aims, these coconspirators prompt readers to explore questions of honor and nobility, fate and futility, and the responsibility of the individual in service of himself and his republic. Their tragic examples highlight the timeless struggle of all who would pursue virtue: the battle to be the master of oneself, if not the master of circumstance. Through the lens of this conflict, the play becomes a work of Shakespearean poetic philosophy, employing a tragedy of moral complexity and ambiguity to ultimately elevate toward the good.
Similar Articles
- Lee Trepanier, What Can Political Science Learn from Literature? , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 44 No. 1 (2020): Symposium: Wit in the History of Political Thought
- Lee Trepanier, Camus, Nietzsche, and the Cartesian Subject: Political Community in Postmodernity , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 46 No. 2 (2022): Jefferson, Paine, Tolstoy, Frankenstein, and more!
- Barry Cooper, Glenn Hughes, S.F. McGuire, Carol Cooper, Tilo Schabert, Author Meets Critics: Tilo Schabert's The Figure of Modernity: On the Irregularity of an Epoch , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 45 No. 2 (2021): Symposium: Russell Kirk in the 21st Century
- Lee Trepanier, Eric Voegelin and Political Economy: An Introduction , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 47 No. 1 (2023): Political Theory and Economics, and other Essays
- Glenn Hughes, Paul Kidder, James Greenaway, Thomas McPartland, Henrik Syse, Author Meets Critics: From Dickinson to Dylan: Visions of Transcendence in Modernist Literature , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 46 No. 2 (2022): Jefferson, Paine, Tolstoy, Frankenstein, and more!
- Lee Trepanier, Introduction to Symposium , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 40 (2016): A Symposium on Paul Gottfried’s Conservatism in America
- Michael P Zuckert, The Recent Literature on Locke’s Political Philosophy , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 5 (1975): Responses and Reviews
- Jack F Matlock, Literature and Politics , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 9 (1979): Reviews
- Katherine Philippakis, Michael S. Kochin, Pimps, Cuckolds, and Philosophers , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 46 No. 2 (2022): Jefferson, Paine, Tolstoy, Frankenstein, and more!
- Linus Recht, Thucydides at Melos , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 46 No. 1 (2022): Symposium on Political Theology
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Russell Nieli, Social Conservatives of the Left , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 22 (1993): Essays
- David Mapel, Purpose and Politics , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 21 (1992): Symposium: Morality, Politics, and Law in the Thought of Michael Oakeshott
- Walter B Mead, Michael Oakeshott as Philosopher , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 32 (2003): A Symposium on Bertrand de Jouvenel
- Larry Peterman, Approaching Leo Strauss , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 16 (1986): In Memoriam and Reviews
- Walter B Mead, William H. Poteat’s Anthropology , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 27 (1998): Eric Voegelin’s <em>The Ecumenic Age</em>: A Symposium
- Thomas Molnar, Jacques Ellul on Christianity and Politics , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 14 (1984): Reviews
- Edward B McLean, Roscoe Pound and the Law , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 9 (1979): Reviews
- Timothy Fuller, An Introduction , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 21 (1992): Symposium: Morality, Politics, and Law in the Thought of Michael Oakeshott
- Frederick Lawrence, Glenn Hughes, The Challenge of Eric Voegelin , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 24 (1995): John Stuart Mill and Liberalism: A Symposium
- Richard Avramenko, Editor's Note , The Political Science Reviewer: Vol. 42 No. 2 (2018): Symposium: The Political Thought of Robert Nisbet