Home » Visual & Performing Arts » Teaching Theatre » JULIUS CAESAR as Multi-Tragedy

JULIUS CAESAR as Multi-Tragedy

© Jon Blackstock

          One of the best acting maxims I’ve ever received as advice is that each actor has to pretend the play is really about his or her character. Of course, this doesn’t mean that an actor should upstage or overact, but each of us as an individual believe that we are the most important person in our lives. As actors, we are supposed to step out of the center of the universe, but that stepping out is done only to let our character in. The director working with the three actors who play Caesar, Brutus, and Cassius in Julius Caesar should allow each to become the tragic hero and the focus of the play because limiting the play to only one will weaken the depth that Shakespeare has given us with these characters. Rather than trying to find a tragic hero in Julius Caesar or arguing that there is not one, the real insight from Shakespeare’s historical tragedy comes from understanding the depth of the three (yes three) tragic heroes, or at least semi-tragical characters that fall from their position in the play.
          Caesar deserves some tragic attention if only because he is the namesake of the play and because his fall is the farthest since he holds the highest position at rise. While there is some argument as to whether he has a tragic flaw, Shakespeare leaves us enough clues that he does have a flaw with his ambition to be king. We should remember that a flaw, by definition, is not a serious problem and is only more tragic when a small flaw causes a great hero to fall. Caesar does want to become absolute ruler and I am not sure what other argument could be made for the denial of the crown than that the denial and the three offerings is a set-up suggestion by Antony to the people. After his wife’s dream, Caesar seems to agree at first that he will not go to the senate, but the senators make him believe that this is the day they will officially crown him. They also imply that if he were not to show up, the senators and the people might believe their leader to be a coward, jeopardizing Caesar’s chances of becoming what he pretends not to want to be.
          Even if Caesar does not have as much ambition as Cassius accuses him of having, he may have enough ambition and ego to cause his fall when these desires keep him from listening to a traditional and a non-traditional authority. Not unlike the Greek Golden Age, the Elizabethan Era and the European Renaissance show man losing respect for the contemplative and monastic life and gaining respect for the individual who, being a Renaissance man, defies authority and controls his own fate. Little evidence would suggest that Shakespeare, even though he is a Renaissance man, believes that this turn to individualism and humanism is good for humanity. The conspirators are afraid that Caesar will become a god, and it is at least possible that he aspires to this god-like position. Shakespeare is also or should also be known for representing relatively strong women. Often, these women (Juliet, Desdemona, Lady Macbeth, etc) bring ruin with their strength, and while I’m not sure that the Bard would be a feminist by today’s standards, Calpernia’s dream offers enough advice that if Caesar had listened to either the metaphysical source or to his wife, he would not have gone to the senate. The news of his crowning keeps him from listening to either. It is interesting, only if as an aside, that a strong woman who should take positive attention away from the politicians may be appropriate for so many reasons during the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

The copyright of the article JULIUS CAESAR as Multi-Tragedy in Teaching Theatre is owned by Jon Blackstock. Permission to republish JULIUS CAESAR as Multi-Tragedy in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.