A NOTE ON JULIUS CAESAR

 

G. SRIRAMA MURTY

 

            The drama Julius Caesar occupies a special position in the canon of Shakespeare. It has often been described as a gateway to the great tragedies that followed it. Its affinities with the four great tragedies, especially with Hamlet and Macbeth, are pointed out many a time. Professor Bradley has found the play falling short of his famous recipe for tragedy and refused to consider it as typical Shakespearean tragedy.1 Some recent Shakespearean critics have considered it to be a group tragedy. 2 The divergence of opinion concerning the nature of the play is a proof positive that it is a class by itself.

 

            Shakespeare does not seem to hold a theory of his own concerning the nature of tragedy. He might have certain opinions but he made no attempt to give a connected account of the tragic idea. The nature of the play, it seems, depends on the story he selects for the nonce. We know that Shakespeare borrowed his plots from many sources and it is the borrowed elements in the process of getting transformed at his artistic touch that give a particular pattern to the play, making it different from the other plays though the art that went into the making is broadly the same. The pattern may be readily seen or missed altogether but it is this pattern imposed by the “content” that determines the “form” of the play. As the content is often borrowed the author himself may not be conscious of its full potentiality sometimes. Nevertheless the content will have its impact and the wary reader may notice a pattern that escapes notice at first.

 

            The mythical basis of Julius Caesar is not as readily seen as the historical and Plutarchan consent. In the course of the drama we observe that Caesar does little to save himself. The forces that work for Caesar are feeble and insignificant. The soothsayer and Artemidorus do not constitute a force to reckon with. Caesar is entirely passive and altogether will-less. Not that he has no will of his own. Far from it. He is a self-willed man and appears to us as a man of indomitable will. “Wilt thou lift up Olympus?”, he challenges one of the conspirators in the Senate. His proud speeches in his house and at the Senate clearly show how strong-willed he is. Yet his will works in unison with the superior will called Fate. He resigns himself to fate or, better still, he resolves to accept his fate. It is important to note this trait in his character. We do not come across this type of presentation of tragic hero in other tragedies. Individual will elsewhere in the tragedies comes into clash with the general will and it is the individual will that ultimately surrenders in the conflict. This conflict is totally absent in the character of Caesar. Caesar falls without striking a blow, both literally and metaphorically.

 

            We cannot accept the argument of Bernard Shaw that Caesar fought to defend himself until Brutus stabbed him and then fell because of the great betrayal on the part of Brutus. 3 Shaw’s account is based on the funeral oration of Mark Antony. The lines are as follows:

 

            This was the most unkindest cut of all;

            For when the noble Caesar saw him stab,

            Ingratitude, more strong than traitors’ arms

            Quite vanquish’d him: then burst his mighty heart;

Act III, Sc. (ii)

 

            We should bear in mind in this connection that there is no stage direction suggesting that Caesar tried to defend himself and that Antony’s speech was not based upon facts. He was absent in the Senate when the murder of Caesar took place. His invention was only to rouse the sympathies of the people for the murdered Caesar. What is really funny is that Antony had so successfully deceived the people and got away with it and not Caesar as Shaw would have us believe. There is nothing comic about Shakespeare’s Caesar. Caesar, on the other hand, was pure and his death was a sacrifice. He was not a tiger but a sacrificial beast, say a lamb (Christ if you like). The following speeches of Brutus should dispel any doubt in this regard:

 

            Let us be sacrificers, but not butchers, Caius

Act II, Sc. (i)

 

                        “And, gentle friends,

            Let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully;

            Let’s carve him as dish fit for the gods,

            Not hew as a carcass fit for hounds:”

Act II, School. (i)

 

We do not wish to suggest, however, that Caesar knew that he was sacrificing his life at the altar of Rome. He is just as unconscious or his purpose as the lamb that goes to the altar. We only suggest that his will works in accordance with the general will whether he believes it or not.

 

            Why does Shakespeare present him so? Tragic heroes are no doubt passive in other plays too. But is it not the passivity that matters here. What is specially noteworthy is his acceptance of the fate. Hamlet who acknowledges “There is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow” at least tries to muster forces to reconquer his lost kingdom from his ‘Pelican daughters’. Macbeth and Othello fight to defend themselves but not so Caesar.

 

            The character of Caesar as drawn by Shakespeare and the other details pertaining to him suggest that Caesar of Shakespeare is a mythical figure rather than a historical person. What we mean to say is that the myth of Caesar is lost in the dramatic account of Caesar’s death. The object of this paper is to explain in detail the mythological basis of the character of Caesar.

 

            Julius Caesar had become a legend even in his own time. As time wore on, he passed into myth and was duly identified with Egyptian Sun God, Osiris. Later on he found a place even in Christian mythology and was identified with Jesus Christ, who in his turn, was also identified as Pagan Sun God. 4 In the Julius Caesar of Shakespeare, Caesar strikes us as a Christ figure. The events that precede his death and his character lend substance to our surmise.

 

            There are certain obvious similarities between Caesar and Christ in their lives and circumstances. Both are decendants of a Royal family which once held sway but ceased to rule for a very long time. The etymological meaning of Caesar is king while that of Christ (Kristos) also is king. Neither of them however really claimed kingship although both of them were accused of being ambitious. Christ was tried and sentenced to death by Pilate for being an impostor though Christ repeatedly denied that he was one. Now Caesar too does not wish to be a king. In the drama itself we do not have positive evidence to show that Caesar ever wanted to become king. Even on the Ides or March, Caesar was reluctant to accept the crown. The following is the report on the final decision arrived at by the Senate and Caesar:

 

            “Indeed, they say the Senators tomorrow

            Mean to establish Caesar as a king;

            And he shall wear his crown by sea and land

            In every place, save here in Italy.”                                                                    

Act II

 

            The passage suggests that Caesar was persuaded to accept kingship in spite of himself and the decision was a compromise between the wish of Caesar and the will of the Senate. In the case of Christ, the kingship is entirely spiritual and never temporal. But these distinctions seem to be of no avail in a world ruled by rhetoric and prejudice. The word ‘king’ is enough to rouse the ire of the people, no matter what it stands for. Is it not interesting to note that in the same play Shakespeare shows how the rabble refused to draw a distinction between Cinna, the poet, and Cinna the conspirator and murdered innocent Cinna weeping and wailing? It is the way of the world. It is no use saying that those who murdered Caesar and Christ were enlightened and exalted citizens, whereas Cinna’s murderers were mere unruly mob. The truth about the matter, however, was summed up once for all by Christ himself when he said “Father forgive them; for they know not what they do.” Christ never seems to have claimed that he was the “Son of man”. Nevertheless his admirers and followers claimed that he was divine, to the woe of Christ. Judas would not have betrayed his master if he believed that his master was a mere “Son or man” and had no power to save himself under all circumstances. Caesar’s followers made a God of him in spite of Caesar and Caesar’s enemies made excellent use of it. Here is Cassius exploiting the alleged divinity of Caesar.

 

            “I have heard,

            Where many of the best respect in Rome,–  

            Except immortal Caesar,–speaking of Brutus,

            And groaning underneath this ages yoke,

            Have wish’d that noble Brutus had his eyes.”

Act 1, Sc. 2.

 

            “He had a fever when he Was in Spain,

            And when the fit was on him, I did mark

            How he did shake: ’tis true, this God did shake

Act l, Sc. 2.

 

            “Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world

            Like a Colossus,” (Colossus = Apollo = Sun God)

 

            Now a word about divinity. The ancients seem to have believed that all kings are divine by birth though that does not mean immortality. Shakespeare’s Claudius in Hamlet voices forth this general belief:

 

            “There’s such divinity doth hedge a king,

            That treason can but peep to what it would,

            Acts little of his will.”                                                                

Act IV, Sc. 5

 

            They also seem to have believed that men that are not born in the natural way are divine. A woman delivers her child in the ninth month after the conception. It is the natural way. If the child comes into the world in any other way, it is divine. Such children are not treated as “Sons of man.” In Macbeth, Shakespeare says that Macbeth will not be killed by one “that is the son of a woman.” It turns out that Macbeth was not born in the natural way, he being what we call today a ‘forceps child.’ Now Christ according to a Christian tradition was not delivered forth by Mary in due course but came out through her ear much in the same way as Karna the celebrated hero of Mahaabhaarata. As for Julius Caesar, history tells us that he was the first known child in the world to have come into the world by what we call today ‘Caesarian operation’. No wonder if Caesar was considered divine in those remote days of less scientific advancement. Caesar certainly did not claim immortality; yet it is possible he believed in this type of divinity. This alone explains the haughty language he uses, which critics quote to show his pride. The proud speeches of Caesar such as “wilt thou lift up Olympus” but prove Caesar was as much a child of his times as anyone today or ever is.

 

            Let us now consider the similarity between the two in relation to the circumstances of their death. Caesar’s controversy with Pompey may be compared with Christ’s criticism of the rabbinical elders of Jerusalem. Caesar’s triumphal march into Rome is like Christ’s arrival in the Holy City on the back of an ass on Palmsunday. The attempts of Flavius and Marullus remind us of the neglect by Jews of Christ’s arrival in the city. The deliberations of Cassius, Brutus and the other conspirators bring to our mind the activities in the synagogue at Jerusalem which culminated in the arrest of Christ to be produced before Pilate.

 

            It is important to note that Caesar sends for the priests to know the ‘success’ of the prodigies seen on the night of 14th March, that he yields to the request of his wife and agrees to send a message to the effect that he was ill through Antony to the Senate: later he changes his mind at the instance of Decius Brutus. He goes to the Senate and gets killed there with “Et tu Brute?–Then fall, Caesar” on his lips. The sequence of events remind us of Christ’s passion and crucifixion. Christ takes his Last Supper with his twelve disciples before he was taken into custody, in the same way as Caesar takes wine with the twelve conspirators before he sets out to the Capitol.

 

            Artemidorus’s attempt to have Caesar is like the errand of St. Mark. Caesar’s vacillating mind is reminiscent of Christ’s disturbed mind in the Garden of Gethsemane. Christ prays three times to be saved and at last surrenders to the will of the Lord. The human will of Christ is in conflict with the divine will for the time being and in the end the conflict disappears. The “Son of man” remembers he had a mission to fulfil as Messiah and whole-heartedly surrenders to the will of the God. Nevertheless there seems to be a sense of betrayal

felt by Christ on his cross. His last words “Eli Eli lama Sabachthani”, that is to say, “My God, My God, why has’t thou forsaken me” bear resemblance to Caesar’s “Et tu Brute?–Then fall, Caesar!” Christ dies on the cross redeeming the world of its sins and Caesar dies at the foot of Pompey’s statue in a symbolic redemption of the past.

 

            Caesar’s ghost appears to Brutus as Christ appeared to Peter three days after his burial indicating that he was not really dead. The drama ends only after Brutus and Cassius realised that Caesar’s spirit was mighty yet and immortal. This may be likened to Christ’s resurrection and triumph of Christianity.

 

            To conclude: The play of Caesar though based on historical facts reveals a pattern of Christian myth on inspection. The pattern may be accidental but it explains the character of Caesar and his tragedy. Bradleyan analysis does not find the play satisfactory precisely because of this internal organisation which makes Caesar the tragic figure in terms of Christ’s crucifixion.

 

REFERBNCES

 

1 Shakespearean Tragedy: A. C. Bradley

2 Geofferey Bullough’s lecture in the British Council

3 Seminar on English Literature, Madras, 1958

4 Caesar and Cleopatra: George Bernard Shaw. Oriental edition by A. C. Ward. Orient Longman. p.55.

5 White Goddess: A Grammar of Myth.

 

Back