Caesar as Comic Antichrist: Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and the Medieval English Stage Tyrant

Abstract

Shakespeare's representation of Julius differs notably from those of his contemporaries, as well as from picture of that emerges from his most obvious classical source, Plutarch's Lives. Plutarch's is shrewd, resilient, and relatively dignified; Shakespeare's, in contrast, is physically weak and surprisingly obtuse, prey to laughable grandiosity. Other early modern authors such as Marc-Antoine Muret and William Alexander model their versions of on Seneca's Hercules as well as Plutarch's biography. Shakespeare, however, seems to draw inspiration for his departure from Plutarch from conventional depiction of Julius Caesar's successor Augustus, as well as other tyrants such as Herod Great, in medieval English mystery plays. Over course of these pageants depicting Christian salvation history, protagonists such as Moses and Isaac set up a typology of Christ. (1) Meanwhile, however, secular antagonists such as Pharaoh of Egypt establish a contrary pattern: a typology of Antichrist. Like Lucifer, as well as Antichrist himself, Caesar in mystery plays is typecast as a blustering, comically inadequate parody of Godhead. Vaunting speeches proclaiming his supreme worldly might echo language of God Father. These boasts are then belied, however, by his inability to forestall coming of Christ, whom he fears as a potential political rival. Mystery plays, naturally enough, tend to focus on Augustus emperor of Rome at time of Christ's Nativity. (2) Shakespeare's Julius however, stands in same medieval tradition. As a type of Antichrist, he is a foil for future Christ. His failure sets stage for a different and paradoxically more powerful Messiah. The Problem of Two Caesars In nineteenth century, Shakespeare's representation of as a self-important blowhard met with cries of critical dismay. (3) William Hazlitt complains, We do not much admire representation given here of Julius nor do we think answers to portrait of him in his commentaries. He makes several vapouring and rather pedantic speeches, and does nothing. (4) George Bernard Shaw is less restrained: It is impossible for even most judicially minded critic to look without a revulsion of indignant contempt at this travestying of a great man as a silly braggart. (5) James Boswell, son of famous biographer, saw problem as evidence of Shakespeare's proverbial small Latin and less Greek. (6) Citing Caesar's own Gallic Wars, Boswell writes, cannot be a stronger proof of Shakespeare's deficiency in classical knowledge, than boastful language he has put in mouth of most accomplished man of all antiquity, who was not more for his achievements, than for dignified simplicity with which he has recorded them. (7) By twentieth century, problem of Caesars was well-established. (8) G. Wilson Knight sums up dilemma: We are, indeed, aware of two Caesars: ailing and petulant old man, and giant spirit standing colossal over Roman Empire to be. There is an insubstantial, mirage-like uncertainty about this Caesar. How are we to see him? He is two incompatibles, shifting, interchanging. (9) In his commentary on Plutarch's Life of Julius Caesar, C. B. Pelling observes that Greek biographer seems to admire Caesar. Or at least, his portrait of is more studiously neutral than that of many other classical authors. (10) Suetonius, for instance, praises for his admirable moderation and clemency both in administration and as victor in civil war but concludes that the balance is tilted by his other actions and words, so that he is thought to have abused his power and to have been justly killed. (11) Plutarch, in contrast, ends with remarkable claim that nothing cruel or tyrannical sprang from [Caesars rule]. On contrary, he maintains, it seemed that state needed monarchy, and was Heaven's gift to Rome as gentlest possible doctor. …