Where JC and Oedipus/Greece Intersect

I realize that, for many of you, yesterday's performance of Julius Caesar was difficult to follow. It was unfortunate that we didn't have class time to set things up properly, but the relevance will become more apparent as the year moves on, since we will eventually deal with Caesar during the Rome unit. That said, there are some connections to be made right now, especially with regards to Greek tragedy and the political conflicts between Athens and Sparta.

In terms of tragedy, both JC and Oedipus struggle with fate. In Act I, Cassius challenges the notion of fate in a conversation with Brutus:

BRUTUS
Another general shout!
I do believe that these applauses are
For some new honours that are heap'd on Caesar.

CASSIUS
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

The key part comes at the end of Cassius's excerpt. Fate, he says, is not the will of the gods, but a product of man's individual will. To put it another way, Cassius is essentially denying the existence of fate by saying that a man creates his own destiny.

As the play proceeds, Shakespeare plays games with fate, though, and seems to wrestle with to what extent this is man-made, and to what extent it is divine in origin. Is Caesar's death a matter of divine will? Before the final plot against his life is hatched, the prophecy is already declared - "Beware the Ides of March!" The conspirators are, to some extent, forced into action on that day out of fear that Caesar will be crowned before they can strike their collective blows. Did they create their own destiny, or were their actions scripted by the gods (and not just by Shakespeare)?

Following Caesar's assassination, as the civil war unfolds, the ghost of Caesar - which was an artistic choice by this production company and is not always present in performances of the play - seems to wreak havoc on the conspirators, overseeing their defeat and death. Was this doomed to occur because of fate? Or, is Shakespeare arguing something else - that immoral deeds only beget more immorality, that murder only leads to more murder and greater instability?

To draw the two works together, is the culminating downfall in JC a product of the gods, as is the case in Oedipus, or a product of the men involved in it?

Moving in a different direction - while Julius Caesar is identified as one of Shakespeare's tragedies, is it a Tragedy in the Aristotleian sense? If so, who is the tragic hero and what is his flaw? Is it Brutus or Caesar, or someone else altogether? What is the moment of anagnorisis? What is the lesson to be learned?

Finally, the central tension in JC is the division over how Rome should be ruled. Brutus and Cassius favored a Republic, with power dispersed among a larger group of Romans (to call it democratic would be misleading; it was, at best, an oligarchic democracy). Caesar, in aspiring to become an emperor - and being propelled towards it by the masses - was pursuing dictatorial power. While not a perfect parallel by any means, there are some comparisons to be made here between Brutus-Caesar and Athens-Sparta; indeed, the historical parallels proceed from these critical moments through to the modern day. The temptation is often strong to elevate the "good" leader to an all-powerful position from which he can rule effectively, especially when compared with the relatively disorganized governance of a diverse democracy - and all the more so during times of trouble. We will pursue this topic in much greater detail in the months ahead.

What thoughts did you have on JC?