Julius Caesar : A History? A play of its times? A play of all times?
Julius Caesar : A History? A play of its times? A play of all times?
Julius Caesar still maintains great popularity in school studies and with theatrical audiences since 1599 when the first production of Julius Caesar took place. In my exploration of the play I will discover a new meaning to the word history as told by Shakespeare. But will then continue to explore if this meaning assists the answering of the first question in my studies. I will delve into Elizabethan England to deliberate whether Julius Caesar is a mirror depicting the time it was written. The final theme I will consider is if Julius Caesar is a thing of the past or a relevant piece of writing that can have meaning in generations gone by and generations to come. Firstly, "A History?" will be considered.
The word history is not to be fixated to the idea that it is just factual knowledge, for example dates and names, therefore I need to generate the meaning of history by exploring different views. The classification by Genre gave a new meaning to history in 1623 when history was described in the sense of Shakespeare's play writing. Plays containing battles, many characters, not-noble characters etc were know as histories. Julius Caesar therefore could be described as a history in this sense. However, this could be disputed as tragedies classed by genre can also describe the basic plot of Julius Caesar i.e. the protagonist, a conspiracy, many deaths at the end etc. This therefore gives us an undecided meaning when classing by genre as Julius Caesar fits both descriptions.
By comparing it to a secondary source such as Plutarch could help to answer the question. As he is said to be an account of the true history of Julius Caesar's life.
A massive difference between Plutarch and Shakespeare's writing was that Plutarch did not display any reasoning for the characters actions. Shakespeare shows emotions, thoughts and feelings in order to show people why the conspiracy and battles may have happened. These are not said to be true in any of the references to Julius Caesar but it could be disputed that by adding conversations etc to tell why characters did what they did Shakespeare fills the gaps of history. He uses his knowledge of Julius Caesar's life to re-make the missing conversations between conspirators and it must be said that no one could prove these to be untrue.
Another huge difference between Plutarch and Shakespeare's text is that Shakespeare compresses the time scale dramatically. In Julius Caesar everything seems to happen in a few days but actually happens in a few years, evidence of this is provided in that within one scene eighteen months passes in true time. On the other hand it might be argued that Shakespeare had to change the chronology because a play could simply not fill in huge passes of time between important happenings otherwise the play would never end. Also, Shakespeare's main perspective was to entertain his audience therefore he ignored the time scale in order to meet this target, as he didn't want to bore the listeners.
In the text, during the feast of Lupercal, Shakespeare involves Calphurnia showing some superstitions of the Roman's at the time.
"Forget not in your speed Antonius, to touch Calphurnia; for our elders say, the barren touched in the holy chase, shake off their sterile curse."
However Plutarch does not intimately refer to a relationship between Caesar and the feast of Lupercal just the superstition believed by the Roman people.
"And many noble women and gentleman also go of purpose to stand in their way and so put forth their hands to be stricken.........and also, ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
In the text, during the feast of Lupercal, Shakespeare involves Calphurnia showing some superstitions of the Roman's at the time.
"Forget not in your speed Antonius, to touch Calphurnia; for our elders say, the barren touched in the holy chase, shake off their sterile curse."
However Plutarch does not intimately refer to a relationship between Caesar and the feast of Lupercal just the superstition believed by the Roman people.
"And many noble women and gentleman also go of purpose to stand in their way and so put forth their hands to be stricken.........and also, being barren, that it will make them to conceive with child"
This evidence proves that Shakespeare has moulded some historical facts into dramatized playwright, as Plutarch does not mention Calphurnia having being intimately involved in the feast. This may suggest to us that Shakespeare does not contain historical facts but moulded history for an audience's benefit. However, Shakespeare still describes the same detail as Plutarch just in a different way. Shakespeare was a writer, not a historian and met his audiences approval whilst making an historical fact into an entertaining scene. In truth Shakespeare explains a real superstition but puts it into a different context than Plutarch writes.
A further part of Shakespeare's text describes Caesar refusing the crown thrice.
"When he perceived the common heard was glad he refused the crown, he plucked me ope his doublet, and offered thou his throat to cut."
Plutarch simply describes,
"There upon also Caesar rising departed home to his house, and tearing open his doublet collar, making his neck bare, he cried out aloud to his friends that his throat was ready to offer to any man that would come and cut it."
Shakespeare's text is combining two events that actually happened on separate occasions; again relating back to the chronology, but this once more shows the reader an incorrect particular, proving Julius Caesar to simply be a play rather than a history. On the other hand, both Plutarch and Shakespeare specify that Caesar opened his "doublet" but this could not be true as Romans wore togas, which were simple pieces of cloth wrapped around the body. Doublets were of the time rather than of past times. This therefore suggests to us the question of how reliable our secondary source is. And, how clear the English translation of Plutarch's Latin writing was. This then tells us should we really see Plutarch as a history, after all he is a secondary source. Plutarch was written some eighty years after the events of Julius Caesar's life and probably told to him by word of mouth, this could mean that some facts were changed so Plutarch's text may not be directly history itself.
In conclusion, I feel the question "is Julius Caesar a history?" to be a difficult question to answer. Every point made for it being a history can be disputed by another point against it. Some evidence of this is shown when comparing the different descriptions of the feast of Lupercal. Also, more problems in answering the question occur when doubting how reliable the secondary source is. All these different pieces of information leave me with the conclusion Julius Caesar cannot be purely described as a history nor as just a piece of fiction. Therefore I believe that Julius Caesar is hypothetical history. Whilst containing some historical facts the gaps e.g. feelings and emotions of characters, cannot be disproved or approved but are based on the hypothesis of Shakespeare in order to entertain.
During the space in which Julius Caesar was written, the queen - Elizabeth the first - had been subject to many assassination attempts. Clearly the assassination of Caesar is the main focal point in the play. Therefore, the attack on Caesar - whilst being vital story line - also echoes the times the play had been written in. Thus starting our to prove second question " Is Julius Caesar of it's times?"
Furthermore, in the text of Julius Caesar unruly crowds celebrate Caesar's victory and his return home. By doing this they were challenging government as it was and supporting Caesar in his quest for ruler of Rome.
"Hence! Home you idle creatures, get you home!"
At the time Julius Caesar was written, mobs roamed Elizabethan London striking fear into respectable society. They did not want government to say as it was. This is then used by Shakespeare and clearly reflected in the text.
Additionally, when Shakespeare wrote his text it was worried that Elizabeth and JamesI intended to become the sole ruler of England where no body could argue with what had been done. Shakespeare displays worry of this sort in a conversation between Cassius and Brutus:
"Brutus and Caesar: what should be in that 'Caesar'?
Why should that name be sounded more than yours?"
This quote shows Cassius questioning if Caesar should be one true leader, which was commonly asked at the time Julius Caesar was written. This again goes back to prove the question that Julius Caesar was of its times because hypothesized conversations reflect affairs at the time.
Again, during the feast of Lupercal Caesar seemed worried about having a child as an heir.
"Forget not in your speed Antonius, to touch Calphurnia; for our elders say, the barren touched in the holy chase, shake off their sterile curse."
At the time it was written Elizabeth was coming to the end of her rein. She had no child and who was going to be her successor was a growing concern with both herself and the common people. Shakespeare again clearly mirrors the goings on of the times. There was no reference to Caesar wanting an heir but still Shakespeare adds this so his audience could personally relate to the play.
A further point is that the two speeches in the play made by Brutus and Antonius both clearly feature the Elizabethan lessons in rhetoric where every young boy was taught in the art of writing speeches. In Brutus speech, for example you can clearly see all parts of a speech told to be added (exordium, narratio, confirmatio, confutatio and conclusio). Here is part of Brutus' exordium (introduction):
"Romans, countrymen, and lovers, hear me for my cause,
and be silent that you may hear"
Antonius' speech also reflects this method and the rhetorical devices Elizabethan children were told to add to speeches for example interrogatio (a rhetorical question):
"Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?"
In conclusion all this information clearly shows to us that the play Julius Caesar is of it times. Shakespeare clearly echoes his teaching and his government at the time into his text. By doing this he dos not directly show his views but still shows to audiences in his day likeness' of the matters at the time.
Julius Caesar was clearly written to echo its time but, is it relevant when looking at it as of all times? This simply means is Julius Caesar relevant to people in the past, present and future?
Certainly, the themes in Julius Caesar clearly reflect today's society and past society. Evidence to prove this is loyalty. In the text of Julius Caesar Brutus fights loyalty for the good of his country, this theme in past day's context would apply to the Civil War.
Historical context can also be seen in Julius Caesar by looking at the gunpowder plot in 1604. This piece of history displays secrecy and plotting not unlike Julius Caesar. The plot to blow up parliament also shows a fight against the government.
The assassination of John.F.Kennedy (and also many other assassinations in past years) again clearly mirrors the assassination on Caesar taken part in the play. However, Lee Harvey Oswald (J.F.K's assassin) is not directly comparable with Brutus, but conspiracy theories might be. Caesar in some views was thought to be a power hungry dictator. J.F.K was thought to have links to the Mafia so to help him reach higher power. So this mastery requirement that J.F.K and Caesar himself seemed to need, may relate to the modern day relevance of Julius Caesar.
Different directors to show its continuing relevance to other times have produced Julius Caesar. Orsen Welles' production in New York in 1937 used modern dress to obtain the concept of relevance of the political debate in Julius Caesar. The play was sub-titled "Death of Dictator" and spectacled on Caesar being desirous of absolute power. The contextual relevance to the date it was written was Hitler taking power over many countries and fascism's widespread in Europe.
In conclusion, I believe Julius Caesar to be "of all times." Its contextual relevance in years gone by and the present day is clearly shown above. Many directors who updated Julius Caesar slightly are proof that Julius Caesar has such a strong relevance to all times. The time taken to edit it a little reflects on how important Julius Caesar must be to all times.
Finally, I believe Julius Caesar to be both successful and popular. Readers and theatre audiences are entertained by the play originally written four hundred years ago. I found the play to be educating even though it is only hypothetical history because of its fictional content. Julius Caesar is clearly a play of its times as it reflects Elizabethan society and the happenings of the day greatly. Past day governmental and social happenings prove to us that Julius Caesar is a play of all times. With its continuing relevance and historical lessons there should be no shock in realising Julius Caesar remains popular even today.
Samantha Edwards
