Category: The Tragedy of Julius Caesar

Why is Julius Caesar considered a tragic hero? The answer is Julius Caesar fits all characteristics of a tragic hero except the tragic hero’s death at the end of the play. First, Shakespeare explains how Caesar is a tragic hero by showing that he is a historical man with tragic imperfections that lead to his death. He is powerful, confident, and an arrogant dictator. He is also extremely ambitious, and he believes that he cannot be defeated as if he is a god. Nevertheless, he is a well-liked nobleman that Rome’s people go after him. And this appears in Act 1, Scene 1 when the people of Rome are celebrating Caesar’s defeat over Pompey, although they loved Pompey, they are celebrating Caesar in any way due to his respectable position. This also shows one of his powerful points as a protagonist or a hero. In addition, it turns our attention to the power of rhetoric’s theme. The second heroic characteristic is how his flaw and bad decisions lead him to his downfall or death. As evidence, the soothsayer warned Caesar of the ides of March. In Act 1, Scene 2.

“Beware the Ides of March. / He is a dreamer. Let us leave him. Pass. “

He does not take his prediction, and this shows his arrogance and self-confidence that he cannot be defeated.

All legends have a character blemish that prompts their destruction. Brutus’ fatal defect was being guileless. He believed that everything was acceptable on the planet and that all men were respectable. He accepted every one of the individuals who let him know and felt anybody would lie or hoodwink him. Because he did not deceive anybody, he accepted the world would restore this demonstration. This trademark drove him to his demise. All that he trusted tricked him at once or another during the play. He permits others, similar to Cassius and Antony to double-cross him. He is excessively trustful and does not understand what individuals can do to him after making them his companion. Because of this unfortunate defect, the defeat of the character happened before long. The occasions that happened, as a result, Brutus’ gullibility prompted his destruction and passing. His first slip-up was in Act 2, Scene 1. This was the point at which the phony letters are sent to him from the schemers. This was each falsehood, a snare, to get Brutus to participate in the plot for Cassius realized he was unable to do it without Brutus’ support. Brutus accepts these letters from the individuals of Rome and consents to the demise of Caesar. Another case of this innocence is in Act 3, Scene 2. Brutus chooses to permit Antony to address and show respect to Caesar. At long last, this choice vestige him. Antony disturbs the group into accepting that the backstabbers are on the whole insidious, and they should seek retribution. As result, a war breaks out. His last blunder was less a direct result of his credulous attribute, it was simply unadulterated want in Act 5, Scene 2. This shortcoming happened when he begins the fight without educating Cassius concerning it. Brutus acknowledges it is an ideal opportunity to strike and realizes that he should begin the fight. There is now an ideal opportunity to tell Cassius. This decision, at long last, was the fundamental purpose behind his self-destruction. He executes himself since he understands it is more honorable to end it all than become caught and hauled through Rome.

With all of Brutus s qualities, he is clearly the lamentable saint of this play. All through this dramatization, he shows the nature of respect commonly. He is a respectable man, and I think Antony’s entireties in up well in his last part in the play, which peruses,

“This was the noblest Roman of all.” (5.5.69)

At long last, Brutus is vanquished on the account of his weak spot. Brutus was innocent and did not understand the genuine methods of the individuals he trusted. Marcus Brutus is the genuine heartbreaking legend of Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Caesar.

Introduction:

Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar explores the downfall of a great leader, highlighting the consequences of pride and unchecked ambition. Julius Caesar, the titular character, possesses a tragic flaw that ultimately leads to his demise. This essay critically examines Caesar’s tragic flaw, its manifestation throughout the play, and its significance in shaping the tragic events that unfold.

Body:

The Ambition and Hubris of Julius Caesar:

Caesar’s tragic flaw lies in his overwhelming ambition and hubris, which blinds him to the warning signs and ultimately leads to his downfall. Throughout the play, Caesar exhibits a sense of invincibility and an overestimation of his own abilities, dismissing the concerns of others and disregarding the omens that foretell his fate. His unchecked pride clouds his judgment and prevents him from recognizing the treachery that surrounds him.

Ignoring the Soothsayer’s Warning:

One crucial manifestation of Caesar’s tragic flaw is his dismissal of the soothsayer’s warning to “Beware the Ides of March.” Despite multiple warnings and ominous signs, Caesar chooses to ignore the advice, believing himself to be above the reach of fate. This arrogance and refusal to heed caution set in motion the tragic events that follow, showcasing the consequences of his tragic flaw.

Believing in His Own Immortality:

Caesar’s tragic flaw is further evident in his belief in his own immortality and invulnerability. He sees himself as a god-like figure, a perception reinforced by the adoration of the Roman populace. This inflated sense of self-importance leads him to underestimate the threat posed by the conspirators, particularly Brutus, whom he trusts implicitly. Caesar’s tragic flaw blinds him to the reality that he is surrounded by those who seek to undermine his power.

Refusal to Listen to Wise Counsel:

Caesar’s tragic flaw is highlighted by his unwillingness to listen to the advice and counsel of his closest allies and confidants. Despite multiple warnings from his wife Calpurnia and the respected senator, Artemidorus, Caesar dismisses their concerns as insignificant. This refusal to seek guidance and consider alternate perspectives isolates him and reinforces his tragic flaw, leaving him vulnerable to the conspirators’ machinations.

Tragic Irony and Consequences:

The consequences of Caesar’s tragic flaw are portrayed through tragic irony. His downfall is the result of the very qualities that brought him success and adulation: his ambition, pride, and belief in his own invincibility. The irony lies in the fact that Caesar’s tragic flaw ultimately leads to the collapse of the Roman Republic, the rise of tyranny, and his own tragic demise.

Conclusion:

Julius Caesar’s tragic flaw, characterized by his overwhelming ambition, hubris, and refusal to listen to wise counsel, plays a pivotal role in shaping the events of Shakespeare’s play. Through his downfall, the play explores the destructive nature of unchecked pride and ambition, highlighting the fragility of power and the consequences of succumbing to one’s tragic flaw. Caesar’s downfall serves as a cautionary tale, reminding audiences of the dangers of hubris and the devastating consequences it can have on both individuals and society.

Textual Background

It is thought that Shakespeare composed Julius Caesar between 1599 and 1600 and even though there were many prior accounts of Caesar`s rule and demise, Shakespeare is the only one that follows the other characters, particularly Brutus (Shakespeare`s Plays). The only reliable text of Julius Caesar comes from the First Folio of 1623 and it is believed to be derived from a promptbook by the theatre company rather than Shakespeare, because of the inclusion of stage directions (Greenblatt, Cohen, Howard, & Maus 1555).

Although the First Folio edition is considered dependable, there are a few discrepancies In some of the acts there has been uncertainty regarding some of the minor roles as well as the omittance of some lines or parts of lines. It is possible that the lines were left out or altered due to revisions that someone forgot to remove from the manuscript or the performances The Norton edition of the Anthology of Shakespeare implies that these variations lead to an interesting aspect of Brutus`s character regarding political ideologies and the different morals residing in the public and private domains (Greenblatt, Cohen, Howard, & Maus 1556). Julius Caesar is thought to be one of the first plays performed on the stage of Shakespeare`s famed Globe theatre (Yu 79). According to Stephen Greenblatt in his book about the life of Will Shakespeare, the performances of Julius Caesar and other great plays helped the Globe theatre`s success to the point where in six months’ time their rivals at the nearby Rose Theatre packed up and headed across the river (293). It is noted by Dobson and Wells in their Oxford Companion to Shakespeare that the play has remained on the minds of audiences over the centuries with theatrical productions and even film adaptations In fact, Caesar has been a popular choice for school readings, possibly due to the fact that the lewdness which always found its way into Shakespeare`s works seems to be missing (Dobson and Wells 231).

The play is not necessarily thought to be loved so much as admired and appreciated for its powerful themes and the characters that help portray them. Critics and audiences alike applaud Shakespeare for his depiction of the Roman historical event and for apparently being a sympathizer of Brutus’ libertarian ideals (Dobson and Wells 231).

Julius Caesar has been well-received over the years but remains dear to the heart of Americans as a statement against oppression It has even been a topic of argument that the true focus of the play is Brutus, who fills the role of a tragic hero, and a critic, Charles Gildon, even suggested that the play be renamed after Brutus (Dobson and Wells 231) Over the years, the question of categorizing Shakespeare`s Roman works has been ever present for Shakespearian fans and scholars Since Brutus can be considered a tragic hero, it stands to reason that the play itself could be considered a tragedy, rather than merely a Roman history play.

In a journal article, John Alvis purports that Caesar is erroneously considered a Roman play, along with Shakespeare`s Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus (115). It is argued that this is a rather broad categorization that does not truly capture the spirit of the works since the criteria for Romans are all external ones which do not allow for the role of theme and character development in the plays (Alvis 116). It would make more sense to label these Roman plays as tragedies, or at least to doubly categorize them as tragic histories or historical tragedies, as suggested by Andrew Bradley in his book regarding the tragedies of William Shakespeare (3) However, journalist Bala Swamy contends that Caesar is a different kind of tragedy since multiple individuals suffer rather than just one main character Greenblatt asserts that although he personally considers Caesar to be tragedy readers should acknowledge that genre was not so important to Shakespeare because the underlying structure of most human history, with its endless pattern of rising and fall, seemed to him tragic, and conversely, tragedy, as he conceived it was rooted in history (296) The generally accepted standard for tragedy, is that it should include an action that invokes fear and pity within the reader or audience (Aristotle).

Pity comes from the seemingly unnecessary but immense suffering that the tragic hero goes through and fear rests in the way the audience relates to the tragic hero because they can see themselves in him.

Based on these ideals, one could guess that Shakespeare thought of all his history plays, not just the Roman ones, as tragedies because they involved something that Elizabethans could relate to concern for the crown.

Greenblatt confirms this by calling Caesar a tragedy apt for a public still intensely anxious about the threat of an assassination attempt against their queen (293) and also in the sense that they are concerned about the royal lineage of who will inherit the crown after Elizabeth`s death.

Analysis

It is proposed that Julius Caesar is not simply a historical interpretation of the life of the Roman ruler but is more aptly a tragedy with an emphasis on the political corruption of morals The play is about the power rhetoric but also about the distinctive results of that power (Stanivukovic 2) Brutus is the prime example of the corruptive capabilities of power and the split in ethics within the domain of the general public and those of the political sphere The play follows Brutus even after the death of Caesar, resulting in Caesar as the dominating figure but with Brutus serving as the hero (Bradley 7) Marcus Brutus proves to be the tragic hero of the play since it focuses on his internal struggle, or the conflict of the hero`s soul (Bradley 18).

This is noted when he states that he is with himself at war (1.2.48), the conflict that ultimately leads to his downfall.

The audience gains a deep understanding of the workings of the inner mind through Brutus`s soliloquy at the beginning of the second act Shakespeare seems to have improved his soliloquy writing over time (Greenblatt 301) allowing it to become more stream of consciousness, providing insight to the speaker Prior to this external monologue, Cassius has tried to recruit Brutus to join him and Casca in preventing Caesar from taking the throne.

After this idea has been planted, Brutus cannot help but wonder what would happen if Caesar were to become king.

Marcus Brutus contends that his only concern is for the greater good and although Caesar has served the good of the public thus far, Brutus wonders if Caesar`s character would be changed by the crown:

`It must be by his death, and for my part

I know no personal cause to spurn at him

But for the general. He would be crowned.

How that might change his nature, there`s the question.

It is the bright day that brings forth the adder

And that craves wary walking. Crown him that,

And then I grant we put a sting in him

That at his will he may do danger with(2.1.10-20).

Conclusion

In the end, after analyzing all the elements of the topic, I felt joy and joy as I wrote about this very important and vital research, but despite all that I did not give this research its due, as the poet said: And every word in my words is enough for me and what every meaning in my saying satisfies me. I ask God Almighty that this research attains your satisfaction and approval, and God is the Grantor of success

What comes to mind when thinking of a story? A majority of the time the first concept that is brought to attention in a story is the hero and the villain. In Julius Caesar, there is no clear hero or villain, but there are characters that have heroic and villainous traits.

Julius Caesar may lack clear heroes and villains, but it does have characters that can seem malicious or valiant. The reason that characters that have these traits are not heroes or villains is that no matter the story, the villain and the hero cannot be on the same side, working together. So, while some of the characters could certainly be seen as a hero or a villain in another story, in Julius Caesar they could not. In addition to the point that heroes and villains cannot work together, there is also the fact that every character in the story has flaws. Each one has shown a side that opposes their nature, meaning that the “heroic” characters have done truly heinous things, while the “villainous” characters have shown sides of themselves that cannot allow for them to be considered a villain. It goes to prove the point that there are no heroes or villains in Julius Caesar, just characters who waver between the lines of hero and villain, some leaning more towards one than the other. The best example of characters that are not heroes or villains, but do hit a few of the marks is Cassius and Brutus.

Undoubtedly, the character with the most villainous nature is Cassius. Throughout Julius Caesar, Cassius repeatedly commits actions that are selfish and often hurt others. Cassius kills Caesar because he does not approve of him as a ruler. He involves some of Caesar’s best friends just so he can be sure he is not the only one to blame when the time comes. Not only does he kill Caesar, but he also wants to kill Antony to make matters easier for the conspirators. For the most part, Cassius only thinks of himself and only commits actions that he believes will be beneficial to himself. However, in the entire play, there is one moment in which Cassius seems the tiniest bit redeemable. That moment is in the scene of Cassius’ death. His death is self-inflicted and it is caused because he believes that Titinius has been captured and will be killed. This moment is a redeemable one for Cassius since it proves that he cares about a person other than himself and that he feels guilty. Additionally, Cassius can not be a villain while he is working with a character who is on the opposite end of the spectrum, which is Brutus. In the end, though he is not a villain, Cassius is the most malicious character, but he is not irredeemable.

Furthermore, the character that is most valiant in Julius Caesar is Brutus. Time and time again, Brutus makes decisions that are extremely difficult for him, in order to do what he deems necessary for Rome. He kills Caesar, one of his best friends, because he believes that Rome will not be able to flourish with him as a leader. Brutus also decides not to kill Antony, even though it would be easier than leaving him alive. Cassius believes that Antony should be killed in addition to Caesar, but Brutus puts his foot down and says they are not murderers. So, he does not take the easy way out, he remains honorable. With that being said, one of the main reasons that Brutus can not be considered a hero is that he still participates in malevolent acts. He kills Caesar, which is something a hero would not do. A true hero would find another way to save Rome from Caesar’s reign. In addition, Brutus can not be seen as a hero when he is working with Cassius, who does heinous things and cares only about himself. To conclude, Brutus is the most hero-esque character, but he definitely has setbacks that keep him from being an actual hero.

Overall, Cassius and Brutus show the strongest signs of being a villain and a hero, but their partnership keeps them from actually being a villain and a hero. Cassius is malicious but redeemable. Brutus is valiant but still a bit too flawed. The partnership between them is what keeps William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” from having heroes and villains. So, while most basic stories have a hero and a villain, what Shakespeare has written is not just a basic story.

Reference

1. Shakespeare, W. (2003). The tragedy of Julius Caesar. In (R. Sime) & (B. Wahlgren)
2. (Eds.), Elements of Literature: Fourth Course (pp. 777-877). Austin, Texas: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.