Abstract
This thesis aims to analyze and define the true personality of Marcus Brutus in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. The characterization of Brutus has long been one of the most controversial issues in the play. The complexity of his behavior and the ambiguity of his motivations have generated extensive critical debate. Although many scholars have explored the psychological dimensions of his character, few have undertaken a comprehensive psychoanalytic investigation to determine his actual character type. This thesis seeks to address this gap in the literature by examining the overarching question of whether Brutus should be regarded as a tragic hero or a villain. To achieve this objective, the study adopts Aristotle’s definition of the tragic hero as the primary evaluative criterion. The analysis employs Sigmund Freud’s theory of the tripartite psyche to investigate both the conscious and unconscious aspects of Brutus’s personality. This theoretical framework is further supported by Paul Ricoeur’s philosophy of hermeneutic phenomenology, particularly his concept of the “hermeneutics of suspicion,” which assumes that overt appearances may conceal deeper truths. The analytical process follows the three stages of Ricoeur’s hermeneutic arc. The pre-understanding stage involves a holistic surface reading of Brutus’s personality. The explanation stage provides an in-depth interpretation through the lens of Freud’s tripartite psyche. Finally, the appropriation stage synthesizes and comprehends the findings derived from the previous stages. Throughout the analysis, a continual movement between pre-understanding and explanation enables a deeper comprehension of Brutus’s character. The findings of the explanation stage ultimately challenge and reject the conclusions reached during the pre-understanding stage. While the initial reading presents Brutus as a tragic hero whose downfall results from excessive idealism and Stoic principles, the psychoanalytic interpretation reveals that he is largely driven by the impulses of the id. These impulses divide him into two conflicting identities: a private self and a public persona. Consequently, his ego functions as a mechanism of deception, employing the principles of the ego ideal as a façade to conceal self-interested and aggressive desires. In the appropriation stage, these findings are evaluated against Aristotle’s definition of the tragic hero. The study concludes that, beneath the play’s overt narrative and through its deeper dynamic structure, Brutus emerges not as a tragic hero but as the true villain of the play.