English 326 – Shakespeare’s Tragedies
Essay #1 – Julius Caesar Source Study

Sourcing Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

Reading the works of William Shakespeare has often proven quite interesting, as most of his plays are works of fiction, due in part to Shakespeare’s wild imagination. The same cannot be said for his tragic drama of Julius Caesar, a story heavily based not only real life events, but also on Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans, as translated by Sir Thomas North. In studying a source, readers are privy to the creative genius that is Shakespeare, as one takes note of what he has kept in his plays as well as what he changed and added himself along the way.
While the majority of the plot of Act three in Julius Caesar is mostly the same, there are subtle changes here and there that reflect the liberties that Shakespeare took in writing his own version. For the most part, the changes are not so much words, but rather the physical actions of the characters and their dramatized presentation. Plutarch’s source states that Caesar’s entrance into the Senate house was cause for all members of the Senate to stand, and as a result of this, the men surrounded Caesar standing, before they stabbed him. In Shakespeare’s version, the men each come forward and kneel before Caesar prior to the violent stabbing. The kneeling is reflective of their pleading for Plubius Cimber’s return from banishment. The brutality of the stabbing is most likely a dramatic effect intended to grasp the reader’s attention.
In the subsequent moments after Casca first stabs Caesar, the source indicates that the wound was neither great nor mortal because Caesar was able to take hold of Casca’s sword and cry out in Latin. Shakespeare, the dramatist, would have it differently. In his version, he uses an original stage direction to point to the stabbing action instead. It was later added, in an editorial stage direction, that Casca was the first to stab him and Brutus was the last. The harshness of Shakespeare’s staging of the stabbing is also a noted difference, as Plutarch writes a less elaborate description of the event.
Although Plutarch wrote that Caesar cried out in Latin, the footnotes in Shakespeare’s text show that Caesar’s last words, which were not the same ones indicated in Plutarch’s text, were in Greek. While the difference in choice of language is not mentioned, it can only stem from Shakespeare’s desire to create some notable differences throughout his version. In his account, Caesar’s last words (translated) were ‘and you, Brutus’ as to question his deceit, whereas in Plutarch’s text, Caesar questions Casca’s actions, not his motive.
Shakespeare had to modify Plutarch’s work not because it was flawed, but because he had to rework a narrative into a staged drama. Based on the content provided, Plutarch’s narration of Caesar’s story is concise and to the point, and leaves no room for suspense or conjecture. Shakespeare delicately rearranges Plutarch’s use of language without changing his substance, in order to stimulate uncertainty in the play.
In keeping with the theme laid out by Plutarch, Shakespeare too, highlights the idea that the actions of the leaders of Roman society had a greater effect on history than did the actions of the people. In order to achieve this, both Plutarch and Shakespeare emphasize the importance of key political figures to show the distinction between the power of their actions and the power of the actions of the common people.
Shakespeare is also loyal to Plutarch in keeping certain pieces of his narrative verbatim, such as when Antony reveals the wishes Caesar left behind in his will for the people. There are slight changes in the language, but the idea is almost identical to what is outlined in Plutarch’s version – 75 drachmas for each man, and public use of the parks and gardens Caesar had created for private use. Connections such as these and many others show Shakespeare’s gratefulness to his source, for without him, his play may not be what it is. Most notably, Shakespeare also outlines Brutus’ greatest mistakes – his denial to kill Antony despite the wishes of his fellow countrymen, and his acceptance of Antony’s speech at Caesar’s funeral. Had Shakespeare not included these instances, his play might not be as effective.
Although there are certain alterations, which were surely made for stage adaptation, these changes only add to the richness of the story that Shakespeare has fashioned from that which he has learned from Plutarch. Through his creative genius as well as his inspiration, Shakespeare has brought out personalities to characters that once seemed one-dimensional. He proves that some change can be for the good.
As indicated in the guidelines, tackling the source allowed me to learn something about Shakespeare and drama – he adores it. The tone of the source is not as dramatic as one would expect after having read Julius Caesar first. Had I read the source first, I might have expected something more “toned” down, and informative. On the contrary, Shakespeare weaves a tale that allows one’s imagination to wander and believe themselves practically there, with his dramatic descriptions and attention to simple details that the source might have glanced over.
With the section of the source that was assigned, I find that Shakespeare’s greatest creativity and originality in Julius Caesar is not only his play on the words ‘ambitious’ and ‘honorable’ in Antony’s speech in 3.2, but also the contrast in using prose for Brutus’ speech and using verse for Antony’s speech. Shakespeare’s use of language shows how brilliant he truly was in engaging his audience. If all sources are similar in tone and style, then I think more of Shakespeare as a writer than I had before. It shows that he can take something simple and turn it into something magnificent, because he does not lack the imagination to do so. Instead he has the drive to spin it into something that has lasted the test of time.