Strictly, of course, we can never know, any more than we can understand the mind of any dead assassin today. How feeble are our explanations of terrorist murders in Boston and London and Paris and Copenhagen. Social factors and political contexts explain a little but not what it was like to be among the killers. Mr. Strauss’s reconstructions are imaginative ones, solidly founded on the source material he knows so well, informed by the most recent scholarly discussions. For each of the key players he offers a sketch of their motivations: Brutus who mistook his self-interest for idealism; Cassius driven by a potent cocktail of ambition and principle; Decimus by hatred well concealed. Jealously and resentment at Caesar’s many alleged affairs—Brutus’ mother, possibly Cassius’ wife—simmered beneath the surface. But our most ancient sources cannot agree on whether Caesar went to the Senate House that morning arrogantly disregarding every warning or whether he fatalistically felt he had “lived long enough.” How can we do better at guessing his mental state? Or that of Cassius and Brutus, Decimus and Trebonius, Antony and Octavian? Perhaps some readers will still put “The Death of Caesar” down with a sigh for noble Brutus (although I won’t be one of them!).
Read the rest here...