by Jacquelyn Woods, Romeo and Juliets Blogging Circle
William Shakespeare’s play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar is an interesting play to analyze. As we discussed in class, this play’s title is a little puzzling. Julius Caesar is an important historical figure, and his life story is rather famous so it is not surprising for a playwright to be inspired by it. However, Shakespeare’s play does not focus on the life of Caesar but rather his death, which happens in act three, and the many misfortunes that follow it. Why name a play after a character that is destined to die so early? Would it not be more appropriate, as was suggested in our discussion, to name this play The Tragedy of Brutus? I think this is an interesting argument, as a great deal of this play does focus on the downfall of Brutus more so than the physical murder of Caesar. But, this play is not just about Brutus either; it is about everything that results from the behavior of the murderous senators. I would argue that Shakespeare’s title is appropriate because it is Caesar’s murder that breaks the floodgates for the tragedies that follow.
Many characters suffer in this play because of Caesar’s murder, and I believe that the tragedy component of this play is not just in his death, but also in the suicides that follow. This play is then not about the tragedy of a murder, but of suicides. There are three suicides in this play: Portia, Cassius, and Brutus. I think it is interesting to observe this play as a commentary on the tragedy of suicide, and by titling it The Tragedy of Julius Caesar but having Caesar himself be an arguably minor character, Shakespeare allows for interpretations such as this. Caesar is dead, but the tragedy (the play) does not end.
With this interpretation in mind, I think it is also plausible to question how fate plays into the tragic suicides of this play. There are many omens, signs, predictions, etc… throughout The Tragedy of Julius Caesar that foreshadow an already predetermined end. Instances of this include the soothsayer’s warning to Caesar to “Beware the Ides of March” (1.2.18), the dangerous and extreme weather in act one scene three, the lion roaming the city also in act one scene three, and others. The senators interpret theses signs as indicators of Caesar’s ineptitude, Caesar doesn’t seem to notice or care about them, and his wife sees them as warnings of tyranny. These omens are interpreted differently by different characters, but I believe they are meant to be signifiers of the predestined tragedies to come including and instigated by the murder of Caesar. Many characters of this play try to avoid the inevitability of fate, but what results is exactly what was destined: tragedy. Caesar avoids fate with ignorance of invincibility and he is murdered. Portia avoids fate with ignorance of gender, claiming that
I grant I am a woman; but withal
A woman well-reputed, Cato’s daughter.
Think you I am no stronger than my sex,
Being so father’d and so husbanded?
Tell me your counsels; I will not disclose ’em.
I have made strong proof of my constancy,
Giving myself a voluntary wound
Here, in the thigh. Can I bear that with patience.
And not my husband’s secrets?
(2.1.294-302). While she is one of the more feminist female characters in Shakespeare’s play, she does confirm to gender roles in her eventual submission to Brutus. The result of her ignorance is suicide. Cassius and Brutus avoid fate with ignorance of motive and they also commit suicide.
Caesar’s fate is played out as is destined and he is murdered. The fates of Portia, Cassius, and Brutus’ also prove to be unavoidable. These characters meet their fate in suicide. While their deaths are arguably predetermined, can we question if it was meant to be at their own hands? Or in suicide do these characters attempt to exhibit control and free will in a world that is no longer in their control? In this way, the tragedy of this play is in the deterioration of free will to a point where the only control these characters have is in the decision to end their lives.
I think that it is really great that you bring up the question of fate, since it is a concept that is frequently mentioned in the play. The ominous signs at the beginning suggest that all the events that occur in the play are predetermined, while several characters assert that their own decision making is what determines their fate. All of these questions of fate also occur during a play about events that have already occurred, which adds another layer to these questions of fate. I do not think that Shakespeare provides readers with a clear indication of his own opinion of fate, but I think he does provide us with a situation that presents us with the opportunity to question the inevitably of events within people’s lives.
Calling the play “The Tragedy of Brutus,” would defeat the purpose of the entire play but at the same time, would be an appropriate title as at the end of the play, Shakespeare seems to suggest that Brutus was the only Roman who killed Caesar, not out of envy of his power, but out of a love for the people of Rome. Then there comes another problem: how do we know Caesar wasn’t out for the best for the people of Rome as well? We don’t, but history provides us with many examples of Caesar being a man of the people, providing them with many forms of entertainment and keeping them genuinely happy during his short rule as emperor. It is tragic for Brutus, because he was able to be manipulated by the other senators into killing Caesar simply because they were afraid of the power he held and because he loved the people too much. We have to remember why Caesar took power in the first place: because he saw that the republic of Rome was not doing a good job of governing its people, therefore he seized the throne and established one of the strongest empires the world had ever seen, and is that a crime? I wouldn’t say so. (yes I am Antony reincarnated)
Out of all of Shakespeare’s plays, the theme of “fate” fits heavily into Julius Caesar. The lion, the classic tempest, and even the soothsayer that straight out tells Julius that his life’s in danger, let the audience know that something bad is going to happen. Something else to note was that Caesar actually had a chance to live and potentially escape death. If he had heeded his wife’s warning, then his fate could have been avoided. That would have been too easy, and all the other foreshadowing tools would have been for naught.
I think you outline an interesting self fulfilling prophecy that exists in this play. As you say, the omens cause characters to either affirm their convictions, or act in ways they would not normally. This may mean that the omens, while not meaning anything on their own, caused the characters to choose the events that lead to the tragedy. The alternative is that the characters were predestined to act the way they do, and that the omens are right. One can look at this dichotomy and argue that they are the same: that whether fate was predetermined by the omens or the omens inspired the characters to act does not matter because ultimately the omens and the characters are both in some way responsible. This illusions of free will is a major theme in tragedies.
I think it is true that the tragedy here is less about Caesers’s death, and more about the fact that death must be such an integral part of change. The four key deaths all happen because of a similar motive: “What will happen if I don’t?” Caeser is the most obvious one, as the conspirators feel they must kill Caeser because they are worried about the precedent he might set if he were to remain alive. The suicides all occur in the same vain, the characters are all worried what will happen to them if they are to remain alive. They are all worried about what world they will live to see. In that same sense, they are worried about the person they must become if they are to continue living. I think this is particularly applicable to Brutus, because he such an honorable person. He knows that if he was to keep living he would be accused of the worst and would have to bear witness to a Rome that he was trying so hard to avoid. The tragedy lies in that fate is unavoidable, and that all of these characters died trying to avoid something, besides Caeser. Caeser’s tragedy is that he assumed his fate was written in the stars, which is ultimately what led to his demise.
This is a great post, Jacquelyn, and I think you beautifully articulate the complex negotiation of fate and free will in this play. It’s a concept that’s consistently fascinating to me in Shakespeare’s work, especially when he’s portraying historical events. Focusing on suicide as the ultimate expression of this struggle is such a smart move, especially when you consider the religious implications of suicide as it relates to despair–which, it’s worth noting, is considered the only unforgivable sin by the Catholic Church. In an ethical sense, despair is the complete (and voluntary!) abandonment of all hope for the prospect of saving your own soul; in Catholic thought, this amounts to a rejection of the entire concept of Jesus’ death as a sacrifice for the sake of all of humanity, essentially the assertion that your sins in particular somehow transcend those of other humans to the point that not even God can save you. That idea can only strengthen your argument that suicide in “Julius Caesar” is the pure manifestation of human agency in a world defined by predestination.
I definitely agree with the idea that the name of the play–The Tragedy of Julius Caesar–is fitting. Even though Caesar isn’t the main focus, his assassination and the plan for it set the rest of the tragic events of the play in motion, opening the floodgates for a number of other deaths. Andrea’s insight, about the extra tragedy being that suicide is thought to be the only unforgivable sin, is also interesting. Because there were three suicides that were directly connected to Caesar’s death, it makes sense that his name was prioritized over the other, perhaps more tragic, deaths in naming the play.
Fate plays an absolutely huge role in Julius Caesar. All of Shakespeare’s plays have fate as a theme but this might be one of the biggest examples of it in his entire collection of works. No one escapes the pull of fate in this, and anyone who tries is punished for it. No matter who you are, the bill comes due. You cannot escape the momentum of the world sometimes.
I also agree that the play is most appropriately named, “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” not because of the actual murder of Caesar, but the chaos that follows. The tragedy is not the fact that he was murdered. The tragedy is the event of Caesar being murdered and as a result of it, Rome started falling apart. War was brewing and characters began dying not soon after. Interestingly enough, some of the other characters die because they asked to be killed. Both Brutus and Cassius asked for their deaths, even though Brutus before had said anyone who kills themselves to avoid future events are weak.
I really liked the conversation we had in class about the play’s title and the titular character.I very much think that the play title, “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” is a reference to Caesar as an event in time and not a person. Caesar isn’t a character in this case, he is a metaphor for the events surrounding his life and death. Caesar’s death serves as a catalyst for the downfall of the Roman empire.