Bayram 1

Zeki Doğukan Bayram

3102160022

Res.Assist.Dr. Emre Çakar

ING 4106 Research and Writing II

9.7.2021

Thesis Statement = In this paper, I will study and analyze the aspects of tragic betrayals in

William Shakespeare’s one of the most acclaimed plays, Julius Caesar by providing historical

background which includes the setting, diplomatic and political climate, religious drives and

personal relationships of the time and its reflection on the mentioned play.

Outline

1. Introduction

2. Tragedy and Betrayal in Literature

a. Ancient Greek

b. Middle English Period

3. William Shakespeare

a. Shakespearean Tragedy

4. Betrayal in Julius Caesar

a. Inter-character Betrayal

b. Betrayal to Roman Ideology and to the State

c. Betrayal to the People

5. Conclusion
 Bayram 2

6. Works Cited

Introduction

Julius Caesar is one of the significant tragedies of Shakespeare which deals with the events of

the prior to, during, and afterwards of the assassination of Rome’s arguably the most influential

son, Gaius Julius Caesar with the plot including many different concepts regarding the

character’s ambitions, internal thoughts which are derived from past and present, drives that push

them towards their future, schemes, doubts and hesitations, prophecies, visions and other

supernatural events, political and humane corruptions which eventually lead to the mentioned

assassination and its eventual retribution. In this paper, I will study and analyze the aspects of

tragic betrayals in William Shakespeare’s one of the most acclaimed plays, Julius Caesar by

providing historical background which includes the setting, diplomatic and political climate,

religious drives and personal relationships of the time and its reflection on the mentioned play.

Treachery, betrayal, disloyalty, unfaithfulness and in some context’s faithlessness, even

infidelity with their many other synonyms in many different languages underline why this

sentiment is so prominent among many other feelings. Belief and trust which are fundamental to

create such emotions in which their depth are strong sensations. They are hard to put forward and

lay in front of another person, a belief or an ideology. That is the reason when misplaced and

violated, these risky emotions create immense amount of sorrow, guilt, shame and wrath for not

only the person of interest, but also for the people around the betrayed one and therefore spreads

like wildfire.

I will explore the reasons, motives and justifications behind this endeavour and their

portrayal within William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar by utilizing a magnifying glass on the acts
 Bayram 3

of multidimensional treacheries and by comparing the acts in parallel with this throughout

historical tragedies.

Tragedy and Betrayal in Literature

Aristotle, the author of Poetics defines tragedy as “the imitation of an action that is

serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself” (6) which indicates the existence of

strong emotions and the necessity of their existence in this genre. One’s chances of experiencing,

or simply observing a tragedy as a sense of tragic event can be considered as more than probable.

Events such as these are volatile in nature, and their impacts can likewise be considered as quite

negative, so avoiding them might be the best course of action. Thus, the need to observe them

from afar, experiencing their taste whilst sitting on a comfortable seat without being the subject

has been attractive for different people from different cultures for a long time. This reality is one

of many reasons why tragedies have been popular and something as iconic as tragedies would

have a tradition. Methods to create them, claims of the right and proper way to produce quality

contents, and with time’s ever-changing nature, observing many alterations from traditional

senses towards modern theater is a might be considered as a normal phenomenon. On the other

hand, some of the core elements of tragedies such as tragic flaws, building up tension that

eventually leads to catharsis, a heartbreaking ending which usually derives from aforementioned

flaws stayed within the genre in order not to lose the recipe which leads to the successful

achievement of the desired effect. The concept of betrayal, even if it isn’t one of the essentials, it

can be considered as a popular choice since there are many of them throughout the history of

tragedies.

a. Ancient Greek
 Bayram 4

Ancient myths include many famous and important characters such as Odysseus from

The Odyssey, Achilles of Iliad, Medea of Medea. In fact, actual tragedies include much more

significant characters such as Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex. His story mainly consists of events that

occur outside his control, even though he has the illusion of being in control, and signifies faith’s

webs are inescapable no matter how much one tries to elude it. Attempts of these evasions start

from the very beginning with Jocasta, giving her son Oedipus away to a shepherd from a

different city in order her son to be raised by him, away from the dreadful prophecy that was

made even before he was born. His tragic flaw, which is also called Hamartia by Aristotle in his

Poetics fills one more of the requirements of a proper tragedy and his flaw which is hubris leads

him towards his demise. Gradual sense of fear of a tragedy therefore planted with an eerie

divination and proceeded with a constant reminder of its disembarking, keeping the audience

with expectation of damnation. Aristotle states that weaving of such effect, without brutality or

gore is what a good tragedy seeks in order to be in touch with the concept and enjoying its own

unique pleasure (14). Betrayal is not the main point of Oedipus Rex but could be considered as

existent if it is looked from the deities’ point of view. Oedipus’ pride prevents him from taking

the prophecy seriously, overlooks the potential of its reality, and thus commits relatively sinful

acts knowingly or involuntarily. After he leaves his own original city to evade what the oracle

tells him, he never questions who he murdered on the way, or how the position of king is vacant

in Thebes, where he solves the sphinx’s riddle and marries his mother. When the truth reveals

itself, he is shocked, and in order to purify himself from his sins, he takes dreadful actions which

leads to the catharsis, the upcoming retribution of the gods is felt, and his betrayal avenged.

b. Middle English Period

 Bayram 5

Middle English period consists of various examples of texts which include betrayals that

appear according to the moral values, codes and creeds of the time. The idea of chivalry and

being honor-bound is dominant within Middle English literature and their natural gravity and

inherent prerequisite of trusting relationships bring many opportunities to display and utilize

treason to affect the audience towards being captivated. As Gregory L. Laing suggests in

Treason and Betrayal in the Middle English Romances of Sir Gawain, treason and loyalty

become pivotal motifs to deprive the protagonists of their inheritance, divide them from “true

love” and challenge the bonds of loyalty to others (2). Typically, treacheries on behalf of true

love often lead to the division of the lovers, and create an arc of tension, later get resolved by a

conflict and eventual reunion. He continues to underline the diversity of the meaning of the word

‘treason’ by giving its The Middle English Dictionary definition “disloyalty, faithlessness, or

culpable indifference to sacred obligations or allegiance” (3). This multidimensionality of

meaning is also emphasized by Richard Firth Green, a Canadian scholar in his book A Crisis of

Truth by regarding the word ”treason” as the antonym of “truth” in which itself also possesses a

similar, complex meaning (207). Overlapping meanings of treason become relevant especially in

the Arthurian chivalric romance Sir Gawain and the Green Knight by Gawain Poet, as Laing

suggests that it is different from other Middle English romances since the betrayal within Gawain

romances not only endangers not only the hero of the story, but also the Arthurian world (5).

Treachery in question, adultery of Arthur’s Queen Guinevere and Lancelot brings the betrayal of

trust as well as a breach in marital vows and insubordination to their Feudal authority figure, thus

becomes a personal, religious and class-related issue of disgrace.

William Shakespeare
 Bayram 6

William Shakespeare was an English playwright who is widely known for his works

which are widely considered amongst the best. His works are translated into every single living

language and keep being studied. He was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire

in 1564. He married Anne Hathaway and they had three children: Susanna and twins Hamnet and

Judith. In between 1585 and 1592 he began his career as an actor, and a writer. At the age of 49

he retired to Stratford and died in 1616. Most of his private life is unknown, and this fact gave

way to many different speculations about his physical appearance, sexuality, religious belief or

even whether he existed or not.

His early works mainly consisted of comedies and histories. After that, he mainly wrote

tragedies, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth and Julius Caesar are

amongst the most famous ones and they are considered to be amongst the finest works of English

literature.

Shakespearean Tragedy

Shakespeare’s tragedies are generally considered as unique to themselves; each of them

presents a variety of different tastes to the audience as they are rarely distinguished as a

collection of a common pattern. This deduction is the introduction of The Cambridge

Companion to Shakespearean Tragedy, and it sets the expectation of uniqueness by stating that

there isn’t a formula which fits every one of Shakespeare’s tragedies, and attempts to distinguish

them collectively from other dramatists aren’t quite successful (1). Yet, there are ties that present

a common denominator such as revenge and ambition, and their moral or immoral reasons which

affects the audience to whether justify the act itself or deem it unforgivable according to the

norms of the time and the place. Shakespeare’s observations of his audience might have led him

to create such scenarios that would be satisfactory in an unfair society where the upper class may
 Bayram 7

have gotten away from any sorts of crime with impunity due to their position within their society

whereas the struggles of lower class, as basic as matters of survival, may have been overlooked

since justice was a rare commodity amongst them, let alone an inter-class resolution. Claire

McEachern states that Shakespeare takes very ordinary human situations and impulses, and

magnifies them and reflects them into his plays (162). Ambition lays way to betrayal in which

illusion of achievement without any response from the protagonist, and betrayal leads to revenge,

a fair act in order to prevent disrupting the order of the setting.

Betrayal in Julius Caesar

Betrayal is the prominent sentiment in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. One can observe

there are many conversations that spark the flame of treachery, characters such as Brutus getting

persuaded, or from the other perspective, deceived into foregoing their friendship and promises

in return for the rescue of the already fragile republic, honoring their ancestors and their beliefs

and by proxy, as humble as they are in their facade, their own personal honor and reputation.

Concocting the conspiracy at the initial pages of the play spreads the seeds of treachery,

orchestrated by Cassius and like-minded concerned citizens to end the upcoming tyranny of

Caesar, and from there, events spiral out of control, instability, violence, blood and revenge

follows after. There are many aspects of betrayal that one can observe besides the blatant inter-

character ones such as Caesar’s dismissive approach to the belief of republic due to his

bolstering confidence and contempt from his early conquests against outsiders such as barbaric

tribes of Gaul, and against fellow Romans, the ones who defy his will and pushes him to cross

the Rubicon, take up arms against the people he loves the most, and his eventual colossal victory

against all odds, especially at Pharsallus against Pompey the Great, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus,
 Bayram 8

the ‘adolescent butcher’. His achievements and the stability and security that come along with

success gained the love of the people of Rome and the assassination that took place in the senate

house stripped that away, with pretenses of preserving the republic, or acting out of impulses

such as jealousy of nobleman which Shakespeare greatly reflects within the play.

a. Inter-Character Betrayal

Betrayals amongst characters are the main focus of the play as a drama since they are the

most relatable ones to the audience. In act one, he mainly focuses on Cassius and Marcus Brutus

to be the spearhead of the conspiracy, and one might claim that this is due to the fact that they

had risen against Anthony and Octavian in the second civil war and not Decimus Brutus except

for the initial deceive of Caesar at his estate, telling him that he would be crowned, for him to go

to the senate. He was a solid Caesarian supporter throughout his Gallic conquests and the

following civil war against Pompey, who was one of the three instigators of the assassination and

was present in Caesar’s will to be his second heir, according to ancient historian Plutarch. He

goes on to elaborate that his trust to Decimus Brutus was so tangible that he named him his legal

guardian to his children, if they happen to exist (593). In the play, his betrayal is seen

Marcus Brutus is seen being goaded into being utilized, if not lead the oncoming daring action

by Cassius who urges him to join the conspiracy since his name is ancient and noble, he deserves

love and respect as much as Caesar. Brutus takes these thoughts into long consideration and he is

torn since on one hand, there is the future of the republic and Caesar is seen as he is destroying it

by being adored by the public and hailed as the King of Rome, even though he rejects the offer.

On the other hand, he has a close personal relationship with Caesar and was given a full amnesty

and a province, which was Cisalpine Gaul, a profitable and fitting one to his name, after he took
 Bayram 9

arms against Caesar in Greece (553) and further than that, offices of praetor after the Battle of

Munda ended the civil war decisively (575). Afterwards in the play, Cassius’s haste towards

Brutus’ house before sunrise is shown, and with that Shakespeare greatly reflects the urge of his

actions is to persuade him as quickly as possible, cutting off his time of consideration to finalize

the act, giving him the illusion of a fading opportunity to be the savior of the republic. When the

act is committed, Anthony sends word for a meeting with the conspirators, and arrives at the

scene to shake their hands, shown as slightly distraught by the bloodied corpse of Caesar, gives

his word that he finds them honourable, and asks to tend to Caesar’s funeral, merely out of his

friendship. When the conspirators leave, he confesses how he feels about them, calling them

butchers for what they have done, revealing his true colors, and insinuates that the funeral is an

opportunity to lead people into a blazing torch of revenge, thus betrays conspirator’s trust as he

does what he intends with his infamous speech and causes Brutus and Cassius to flee from the

capital. Furthermore, within the play itself, there is a deception towards Lepidus as well, as

Shakespeare reflects the creation of the second triumvirate even though at that stage was quite

premature, with a conversation between Octavian and Antony, revealing their intention of

utilizing him for his merits until he serves his purpose to their satisfaction, even goes further to

throw a simile as Lepidus is a donkey, carrying their valuables until they reach their destination.

When all of these scenes considered, Shakespeare brandishes the potential of betrayal and the act

of it is possible for both sides of the conflict, as later on gratifies Brutus with the words of

Anthony related to his honour and motives of assassinating Caesar, being the sole pure one and

not being derived from an impulse of jealousy.

 Bayram 10

b. Betrayal to the Roman Ideology and to the State

The Roman ideology is a broad term to elucidate, but one can infer from the symbol of

S.P.Q.R. which means the Senate and the People of Rome, that the way of ruling belongs both to

the senate as aristocrats, and to the plebeians, a balance between the classes of society which is

not only symbolic, but in itself, might be considered as an effective way to include everyone to

make decisions for the future of the state. Even though Roman Republic didn’t have an equal

society as it was an ancient society included and utilized thralls, it gave a sort of power to the

people to affect it. Slaves could earn their freedom, eventually become citizens, and plebs could

affect the senate with their power to veto any legislation, even if the entirety of the nobility

agreed on a decision unanimously, except for the Final Act, or Senatus Consultum Ultimum.

When Julius Caesar entered the frame, he belonged to The Populares, the faction which favored

the rights and wishes of the plebs and he wanted many reforms. He was elected as a Consul, hold

the fasces for the first month of his consulship, and on the first day he revealed his intentions of

changing many rooted issues dramatically as he laid his plans before the senate. Plutarch states

that he was constantly interrupted and vetoed by his co-consul Bibilus, and his motions were

dragged on by Cato the Younger in order to fall the senate into a state of stupor. Due to these

reasons that impede his work, Caesar threatened the senate with a show of force, along with his

ally Pompey, unsheathing swords to those who intended to show resistance to the legislations he

proposed (474-476). This event, along with many more to come afterwards, emphasizes that

Caesar had neither the patience nor the respect to the elder man in senate, was greatly troubled

by their interferences, had malicious sentiments towards them which were mostly originated

quite recently, when the senate had rejected his offer to join elections in absentia, which meant

he could not participate to the elections without releasing his command as the general, devoiding
 Bayram 11

him from his triumph over the victory he took in Spain. After the aftermath of the Battle of

Thapsus which he returned to Italy, having eliminated the resistance of Cato the Younger, he

ordered four lavish triumphs, three of them were against enemies of them, and one of them

devoted to his victory over fellow Romans under the pretense of having defeated a foreign king,

Juba of Numidians where in reality it was against the senate’s final resistance (568). After his

victory over Munda against Pompey’s sons and his life-long friend Labienus, he returned to

Rome, and he was appointed as dictator for life, which practically was tyranny. This decision,

perpetrated by Marcus Tullius Cicero, aimed to damage Caesar’s public image, to present him as

obnoxious as possible to the people’s eye, as he already possessed the power of dictatorship

without the decree (575). Then he proceeded to get his statue made amongst the statues of the

kings of Rome, gave his soldiers many plots of land, reigned as free as possible without any

opposition which concerned the aristocracy gravely (576). He was ambitious to say the least, and

possessed unprecedented power. He even snubbed the senate, which were coming to bestow him

extravagant honours and titles in front of the populace in broad daylight by refusing to rise in

front of the consul and continuing his conversation with his colleague over a construction site

(583).

Shakespeare reflected the view to Caesar from many different perspectives, starting with

Murellus and Flavius, insignificant characters that do not show condone to Caesar’s triumph,

stating their hypocrisy by reminding how they cheered for Pompey whilst they do the same thing

to his demise by the hands of Caesar. They even go further to disrupt the statues which were

decorated in tribute to Caesar, aiming somehow to take away his support. Brutus and Cassius

debate many times on how they wouldn’t proceed to be one of Caesar’s slaves, and how they

rather to die as free man. The sense of sincerity was given to Brutus as many times he was hailed
 Bayram 12

as honourable and just by his companions, and this fact even enhances itself with the argument

between Cassius and Brutus as he scolds Cassius for taking bribes to place people in positions of

power, referring to the Ides of March as an act of honesty, and shames him, partially caused by

his grief over his wife Portia’s passing. Shakespeare justifies both parties by presenting

justifications for their acts, leaving any sort of conclusion on which side is right for their actions

with ambiguity as it was even for historians such as Plutarch and Cassius Dio, one might be

considered being pro-caesarian and the other being naught. His sheer focus is on the drama itself,

as the events affected the known world with magnitude, caused another civil war, and changed

the Roman world dramatically as it got transformed from a republic to an empire.

c. Betrayal to the People

As it is aforementioned, Gaius Julius Caesar was a reformist, a representative of

plebeians even though his blood carried nobility, and through acts which might be considered as

tyranny, he delivered many of his promises to empower plebs whether it was solely for the sake

of them or for the detriment of the aristocracy. Plutarch states that as soon as he was elected as a

consul for the first time in year 59 B.C.E. he presented a radical land reform which lead to a land

distribution, buying relatively unused and non-efficient farmlands at inflated prices from mega

plantations with the gold from Rome’s coffers, and redistribute it to the farmers of Rome who

were impoverished and reduced into living in slums, through a lottery which was supervised by

government officials. By proposing of this law, which were ‘fitting not for a consul, but for a

most radical tribune of the people’, he brought solution to one of the problems that reformists

were pushing for approximately 70 years (473). He pushed anti-corruption legislations to prevent

people of power taking advantage of their held offices, distributed money to the poor citizens
 Bayram 13

over his victory in the civil war as a way to increase his popularity and aid Romans who suffered

through the war. He brought exiles home, restored civic rights of the children who had suffered

in the time of Sulla, relieved the burdens of the debtor-class by a certain adjustment of interest

(533). Prior to his assassinations, he made plans to an invasion of Parthia, restoring the Roman

honour and Roman eagle standards which were humiliatingly lost with the defeat of Marcus

Licinius Crassus at the Battle of Carrhae. He intended to divert the Tiber River into a deep

channel to give merchants safe and easy passage to Rome, and to convert marshes of Pomentium

and Setia into a plan which afterwards could be cultivated, build moles to prevent and clear the

dangers of Ostia, construct harbours and roadsteads for fleets to visit. Along with the work of

many great mathematicians such as Sosigenes of Alexandria, he reorganized the broken lunar

calendar, pondered on it for many days and spread the seeds of Julian calendar, which is roughly

the foundation of the calendar people use to this day (579-581). He reorganized the grain dole, a

system of welfare for the poorest of citizens to take a portion of food to eliminate their most

prominent need for the sake of getting out of poverty, by reducing the number of participants,

which was infested with the rich having added their family names due to the earlier generations’

struggles and were out of any sort of need, and by forcing it to be strictly supervised so the actual

poor could benefit (571). These achievements and ongoing projects, along with his countless

victories against the enemies of Rome through his ingenuity and political prowess, made Caesar

extremely popular amongst plebeians. By means to an end, Caesar eliminated his opposition

through unorthodox measures and he was blatantly egotistical for he loved to be loved. When he

was at leisure and was reading from the history of Alexander, he burst into tears and told his

friends that it was a matter of sorrow that whilst Alexander at his age was already king of so

many people, and he hadn’t achieved any brilliant success. Nevertheless, the conspirators
 Bayram 14

deprived the people of Rome of much advancement which would undoubtedly strengthen their

quality of life by stripping him from life. Even in doing so, they could not stop him from further

contributing, and it was revealed that Caesar left a sizable monetary gift and donated private

gardens and newly planted orchards for public to enjoy at their leisure (603).

Shakespeare presents the love of the people for Caesar as changeable, irrational and

overall over the top. Whilst Brutus presents his side of the story of how and why the

assassination went on, people praise him for being honourable and noble, but their demeanor

dramatically shifts when Antony shows up to stir and provoke them with his worlds and the

usage of vivid imagery on the dead body of Caesar. After discovering his will, the crowd

becomes uncontrollable, ravaging through the city with the cries of retribution, rallying in front

of their estates to get them out, and having stumbled upon their bodyguards, they even attempt to

burn their houses down in order to force them out, or incinerate within. After this point in the

play, their loyalty is constant towards Caesar and anyone who would pledge to avenge him such

as Anthony and Octavian Caesar, nephew and adopted son of Julius Caesar, later known as

Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. They take their betrayal harshly, even ending up

accidentally assaulting Cinna the Poet who had no business of assassinating Caesar, by mistaking

him for Cinna the Conspirator. The gravity of their fury is fully reflected by Shakespeare, even

though they are brandished as tools for Anthony to utilize them for his ploy.
 Bayram 15

Conclusion

William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar consists of many perspectives to the matter of

betrayal and its inherent tragedy, cogitated through great research and understanding the scale of

the historic event which is immortalized for being one of the most controversial stories of

treachery if not the most, save Judas Iscariot’s betrayal to the Christ. Its delivery is still upheld

and cherished with critical acclaim to this day, its words and idioms invented such as it’s all

Greek to someone is still used, and its influences and multidimensionality still cause debate

amongst friends whether it portrays or sides with morally acceptable party, or takes sides of any

end whatsoever.
 Bayram 16

Works Cited

Aristotle, et al. Aristotle on the Art Of Poetry: Translated By Ingram Bywater With A Preface By
Gilbert Murray. Lector House, 2020.

Laing, Gregory L. Treason and Betrayal in the Middle English Romances of Sir Gawain. Vol. 3,
2009. Print.

Green, Richard Firth. A Crisis of Truth: Literature and Law in Ricardian England. Philadelphia,
PA: U of Pennsylvania, 2002. Print.

McEachern, Claire. He Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Tragedy (Cambridge

Companions to Literature. The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2002.

Plutarch, et al. Demosthenes and Cicero. Cambridge, Massachusetts Harvard University Press,
1919.