Wolfe 1

Laurel Wolfe

Dr. Holmes

ENG325 Shakespeare’s Tragedies and Tragicomedies

23 November 2020

Discerning the Tragic Hero of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

Identifying the tragic hero in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar proves quite the conundrum

for critics and casual readers alike. The titular ambitious emperor begins the play celebrating his

victory over Pompey. However, the character of Caesar is soon distorted by the conspirators,

leaving the audience to question the great man’s nobility and integrity prior to his death.

Conversely, Brutus is portrayed as an honorable man throughout the work, yet his betrayal of

Caesar, not for crimes the emperor has committed, but for fear of what he might do in future,

proves base. In both cases, a great man, whether by others’ treachery or by conscious choice, is

brought low. Numerous critics have expressed a plethora of varying outlooks and interpretations

of the play, most of which seem plausible. For some, Julius Caesar is a drama about tyranny and

oppressive rule, for others, Rome and Caesarism. Some champion Brutus as the fallen tragic hero

with Caesar as the dastardly tyrant, while others, acknowledging the title, perceive Caesar as the

tragic hero with Brutus as the pitiable, manipulated villain, (Foakes 259). These opposing

analyses of the work imply an inherent complexity (259). This paper examines these diametric

views and argues that there exists no single tragic protagonist within Julius Caesar.

Perhaps it would be most beneficial and logical to begin this paper by defining a ‘tragic

hero.’ McCollom in his essay “The Downfall of the Tragic Hero” identifies such a protagonist as

a paradoxical character who is simultaneously both great and wretched (51). He lays out four

standard scenarios of tragic heroes, citing hybris as the general underlying cause of the hero’s
 Wolfe 2

downfall. Although Caesar fails to fully meet the standard criteria of any one grouping, Brutus

easily falls into the fourth category because his murder of Caesar could be construed as innocent

from one perspective and heinous from another. “Faced by terrible alternatives, he sees the evil

in both. He experiences ‘existential’ anxiety and dread. But he chooses and acts” (54). However,

Brutus remains unhappy with his rationalization for killing Caesar and fails to provide Antony

valid reasons for doing so (Paolucci 331-332). While the hero’s actions cannot be faultless, the

unfolding of the tragedy will reveal how right or wrong he was (McCollom 54). Grady in “Moral

Agency in Julius Caesar” directly identifies Brutus as the tragic hero and states that while his

decision may have been good for Rome, it was destructive to Brutus interiorly (19). Some

pardon may be granted Brutus for his morally evil decision first by citing Cassius’ manipulation

of Brutus (Grady 19). Though, from Caesar’s point of view, Brutus and Cassius are equal

participants in the conspiracy (Foakes 263). Secondly, Shakespeare, through Antony’s speech

honoring the recently defeated Brutus, emphasizes the validity of intentions in judging others’

actions (Grady 20). “All the conspirators save only he did that they did in envy of great Caesar.

He only, in a general honest thought and common good to all, made one of them.” (V.v. 68-71).

The conspirators attempt to heal the sick city of Rome, but only cause further grief and

bloodshed (Foakes 262). Furthermore, while the conspirators are obviously murderers, the same

can be said of Antony and Caesar’s other followers (Grady 21). Interestingly, Shakespeare never

directly presents Caesar himself in such a light (21). However, as a character, he lacks depth,

possibly because Shakespeare intended him to represent Rome (22). While Shakespeare’s

characters may be great men, they remain human and human judgement and knowledge are

faulty (24). Because of his poor political judgement, Brutus’ good intentions are continually

misdirected (24). Throughout the play, omens play a pivotal role in foreshadowing the
 Wolfe 3

impending conflict in Rome. According to Grady, these events prove that Brutus is less morally

autonomous than one might presume (25). If the future political catastrophe is made evident in

nature, are Brutus’ actions truly free or was he predestined to betray Caesar? In the end, the

question of Brutus’ agency and morality proves futile as Grady concludes that both are morally

ambiguous (26). 

While approaches that pinpoint Brutus as the tragic hero appear more abundantly, some

critics negative Brutus’ validity as the tragic protagonist of Julius Caesar. “Fatal Logic in Julius

Caesar states that the cause of Brutus’ failure to save Rome from tyranny remains uncertain

(Houppert 3). He refuses the counsel of others while attempting to maintain certain principles of

honor (3). For instance, he refuses to sacrifice Antony because he poses no clear, immediate

threat of tyranny unlike Caesar, thus distinguishing Brutus from Cassius. Furthermore, Cassius

and his fellow conspirators view Caesar as a tyrant, whereas Brutus sees the emperor as one who

merely possesses the potential for tyranny (4). Houppert asserts that Brutus’ fatal error was one

of simple logic in not searching for an alternative to murdering Caesar (6). Decius Brutus, who

bears no meaningful connection to Caesar, is able to manipulate the emperor into appearing

before the people (6). This proves that there exists a means of checking Caesar’s ambition

through flattery without killing him (7). Houppert suggests that what separates Brutus from

Shakespeare’s other tragic heroes who make morally evil decisions, like MacBeth for instance, is

his lack of repentance (8). “Caesar was not sacrificed, but butchered” and Brutus failed to repent

or feel remorse for his actions (8). Thus, Brutus does not fit the mold of Shakespeare’s other

tragic heroes.

 Moody in “The Search for a Hero in Julius Caesar” points out that many critics make

statements declaring that Brutus is the tragic hero of the work while such a pronouncement is not
 Wolfe 4

necessary for other tragedies (81). This implies that Brutus’ supposed role as the tragic hero is

not implicit. However, Caesar fails to meet the criteria of a tragic hero as he dies halfway

through the play (82). He is the center of the work, but not the protagonist (85). Brutus

exemplifies nobility in his position as leader of the conspiracy and proves preoccupied with his

honor (93). Yet, the quarrel between Cassius and Brutus in Act IV changes the audience’s view

of Brutus (94). Cassius’ political judgements are consistently correct, and the character becomes

more sympathetic and appealing to the audience (93). Moody goes so far as to claim that

Cassius’ farewell speech before committing suicide is equal to that of any Shakespearean hero

(94). Throughout the play, Brutus fails to recognize the extent to which his poor political

judgement has ruined the conspirators (95). He lacks the ability to see himself and the doom his

decisions have spelled out, the distinguishing mark of Shakespeare’s other tragic heroes (95). “It

is very doubtful whether the most fruitful way to approach Julius Caesar is as a tragedy of

Brutus” (101). 

While the majority of scholars identify Brutus as the tragic hero, such a conclusion

questions the very naming of the play. Shakespeare has never titled a play after a character who

is not the tragic hero. Anne Paolucci, in her essay “The Tragic Hero in Julius Caesar,” suggests

that Shakespeare, in naming the play as he did, is indicating the distinction between Brutus’

romanticized perception of Caesar and the actual Caesar, a disparity resulting in Brutus’ fall

from grace. Essentially, she asserts that Brutus conceived Caesar as the tragic hero. She

automatically rules Caesar out as an option for the tragic hero because he is not significant

enough to fulfill the demands of a tragic hero (Paolucci 329). Shakespeare continually portrays

Caesar as prone to sickness and inclined to superstition, culminating in Cassius’ recounting of

Caesar struggling against the current of the Tiber until Cassius himself saved the emperor
 Wolfe 5

(Foakes 264).  Conversely, Caesar displays cunning in politics and insight into the minds as he

accurately sizes up Cassius as a deceptive man. While Brutus claims that he kills Caesar for what

he will become if granted power, Paolucci asserts that his decision stems from Brutus’

perception of the emperor’s supposed hybris (Paolucci 330). “Brutus sees in Caesar a man of

strong will and hidden pride whose fault is not political ambition - though Brutus makes use of

that excuse publicly - but divine self-sufficiency, the terrible sin of hybris” (330). However,

Brutus ironically succumbs to hybris at Cassius’ promptings (331). Yet, Brutus experiences a

reversal in sentiment toward the deceased emperor after Caesar’s ghost appears. Caesar is now a

great man and those who murdered him are “villains” in Brutus’ mind (IV.iii.18-24). At this

point, the full truth of what has transpired and of his actions weigh heavily on Brutus’ soul (332).

While pondering this at Philippi, Brutus turns on himself and demands justice. “He comes to

realize that in upholding the sacred cause of freedom, in protecting the republic from the

violence and tyranny of dictatorship, he has broken the equally binding law of humanity which

demands of every man integrity in his relationship with others (332-333). Thus, his death at

Philippi is necessitated not by poor military judgement, but by his betrayal of Caesar (333).

Paolucci concludes her argument justifying the title of the play by asserting that Brutus saw in

the great, ambitious Caesar whom he murders a tragic hero, not the emperor as the man he was

(333).

“The Complexity of Julius Caesar,” offers a rather different approach to the ambiguity in

the play, examining it in conjunction with Plutarch’s historical account of the murder of Caesar.

The author notes that the Roman public is much more easily swayed from Pompey to Caesar and

then from Brutus to Antony in Shakespeare than in Plutarch (Hartstock 61). While there may not

be a unifying approach to Julius Caesar, it can be noted that the audience’s or reader’s
 Wolfe 6

commitment to a particular character, like that of the mob, constantly vacillates throughout the

work (61). One possible explanation for this is that Shakespeare wished for his audience to

ponder the moral and political issues of the work and its characters (61). A rationale for the

ambiguity of the play is that Shakespeare desired to imply that the difference between

appearance and reality cannot always be distinguished (61).

Foakes suggests in “An Approach to Julius Caesar” that the solution to the quandary of

identifying the tragic hero lies in analysis of the play’s theme of names (259). In terms of

rebellion, Brutus is not the tragic hero, nor is Caesar the villain (262). Brutus confuses his ideal

of honor with treachery and “Caesar maintains an ideal vision of himself as necessary to his

position...” (262). Names are a central theme or motif in the work and themselves are

acknowledgements of lineage and character. However, neither man lives up to his name. “Caesar

the man is less powerful than his name, and Brutus less honorable than his reputation or his great

ancestry…” (265). The name of Caesar is synonymous with power and kingship and it was the

name of Caesar that Brutus sought and failed to destroy because it lives on in spirit (266). Even

nature, with its recurring omens and portents of doom make Caesar appear grander and his

downfall more affecting (260). Brutus’ name is associated with his Tarquin ancestors and

nobility and is equated with honor (267). Both men feel that they must act in accord with their

names (269).  The concepts and name of Rome and Romans are of importance as well. Brutus

perceives the Romans as free men made slaves under the reign of Caesar and thus joins the

conspiracy in the name of freedom (268-269). However, both Brutus and Caesar fail to match the

ideal projection of himself or his reputation (264). In his first appearance on stage, Caesar proves

trusting of superstition and easily susceptible to sickness. Brutus acts in the name of the ideal of

freedom to destroy the ideal of Caesar, but his actions remain dishonorable because Caesar is not
 Wolfe 7

a tyrant (269). The conspirators claim to act in the name of Rome but divide and polarize Rome

further as seen in the behavior of the mob (269). Cassius and Brutus fail to kill Caesar’s name as

they had intended and merely bring chaos and disorder to Rome (270). Foakes concludes his

analysis stating that there is no tragic hero or villain in Julius Caesar because the two principal

characters are simultaneously weak and noble (270). “All is the result of self-deception, an

obsession with names and an ignorance of reality that could lead Brutus to think he was acting

honorably in slaying his ‘best lover’ (III.ii.49), and Cassius to think the death of one man would

bring freedom” (270).

In conclusion, through the years, literary critics have expressed and maintained a variety

of interpretations of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar in attempting to identify the tragic hero. Some

claim Caesar himself as the protagonist, referencing the name of the work as evidence. Still

more, however, refute this profession because Caesar’s assassination occurs in the middle of the

play and champion Brutus, a significantly more multifaceted character who plays an active role

throughout the entirety of the drama. Yet, regardless of how one approaches Julius Caesar, there

are complexities and complications on both sides as Shakespeare leaves the play ambiguous. It

appears then, that the most logical conclusion is that a single tragic protagonist does not exist.

Perhaps the playwright, knowing that he could easily sway the opinions of the audience with his

masterful writing, intended the Roman public to mirror his Elizabethan audience. Throughout the

play, the Roman citizens vacillate between the sides of Antony Brutus. Maybe Shakespeare’s

inconclusivity is a means of holding up a mirror to his society and commenting on the fickleness

of people and politicians while implying that politicians are not meant to be admired from

pedestals, but are mere mortals who are more than capable of making poor decisions. 
 Wolfe 8

Works Cited

Foakes, R. A. “An Approach to Julius Caesar.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 3, 1954, pp. 

259–270. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=mzh&AN=0000200243&site=ehost-live.

Grady, Hugh. “Moral Agency and Its Problems in Julius Caesar: Political Power, Choice, and 

History.” Shakespeare and Moral Agency, edited by Michael D. Bristol, Continuum

International Publishing Group, 2010, pp. 15–28. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mzh&AN=2019421349&site=ehost-

live.

Hartsock, Mildred E. “The Complexity of Julius Caesar.” PMLA: Publications of the Modern 

Language Association of America, vol. 81, no. 1, Mar. 1966, pp. 56–62. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.2307/461308.

Houppert, Joseph W. “Fatal Logic in ‘Julius Caesar.’” South Atlantic Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 4, 

Nov. 1974, pp. 3–9. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=mzh&AN=0000214704&site=ehost-live.

McCollom, William G. “The Downfall of the Tragic Hero.” College English, vol. 19, no. 2,

Nov. 

1957, pp. 51–56. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/372701.

Prior, Moody E. “The Search for a Hero in Julius Caesar.” Renaissance Drama, vol. 2, 1969, pp. 

81–101. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=mzh&AN=1969102701&site=ehost-live.

Paolucci, Anne. “The Tragic Hero in Julius Caesar.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 3,

1960, 
 Wolfe 9

pp. 329–333. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=mzh&AN=0000200516&site=ehost-live.