Misinterpretation: the Role of Omens, Divination and Superstition in Shakespeares Julius Caesar - Essay Example

Prof’s Misinterpretation: the Role of Omens, Divination and Superstition in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar There are many religions in which omens and superstition play an important role. There are likewise many Shakespearean plays that deal in these things: they are excellent plot elements to keep the interest in plays where the audience perpetually knows that the entire cast – or at least much of it, is eventually going to die. Yet in Julius Caesar, omens, divination and superstition take on a larger role even than they often do in other Shakespearean tragedies. Omens, divination and superstition are, at their most fundamental levels, attempts to know things that are unknowable: to predict the future. They vary widely in supposed predictive powers; superstitions are things that give people temporary pause but may or may not be disregarded: they are the least potent of the three. One step up are omens – these are things that are known and generally believe to have predictive powers of some sort, but are often vague in their predictions; a certain thing might mean that it will be a bad year for agriculture, for instance, but might not tell of a specific event (the same is true of windfalls, the positive cousin of omens, which are, by definition, ill). Divination is supposedly the most strongly predictive of the three, seeing directly into the future. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar indicates that omens, superstition and divination were important parts of Roman religion, and well practiced; it also makes some room for human free will, however, in whether or not to heed the omens and give them their just respect. One of the major things that jumps out at someone upon reading or seeing this play is that there are simply a massive sheer number of omens, superstitions and episodes of divination in the play. For instance, in Act One Scene 3 alone, Casca experiences three things that she considers omens. The first of these omens was possibly the most notable: a slave had his left hand set on fire, but he did not feel the burn. This is clearly an unnatural experience: flesh should burn when set aflame. Yet it does not. In almost any society this would be taken as an omen. Later, however, there is a lion who gazes at Casca in the street – free and unfettered, but chooses not to attack him. This is something of a more understandable occurrence; not every lion is a bloodthirsty killer. Finally, an owl was seen sitting and hooting at the marketplace at noon, at the height of the day, when Owls are supposed to be nocturnal animals. This is something more natural than the last event even – owls are rarely but still occasionally seen by day, and it is quite easy to imagine this happening without there being some kind of mystical force at work. It would be strange, certainly, but imaginable. However, what these omens do show is that Roman culture was incredibly sensitive to omens and incredibly superstitious. Firstly, their sheer number and placement in the play demonstrates this – these three are simply the first examples, and occur early in the play, but there are countless others that could have been chosen. This alone shows that omens were taken very seriously. The relatively mundane nature of the last two omens further reinforces the importance of omens to Roman religion. Someone from a different religious or cultural background might simply think it was a full lion and a strange owl, but someone immersed in Roman religion sees otherwise – the natural explanations fall to the wayside and these two possibly ordinary events become omens. Julius Caesar clearly shows that omens and superstition were important parts of Roman religious practice, and beyond this they also show that these omens are far from prescriptive; they are open to interpretation, and are often misinterpreted, giving room for human free will. One of the best examples of divination’s subjectivity occurs in the Second Act. At one point, Calphurina dreams that a large group of Romans were standing together washing their hands in the blood of their leader, Julius Caesar (2.2.11). There is an obvious way to interpret this: that Caesar is in great danger from those around him, who will use his blood to attempt to cleanse themselves and their realm, which is the analysis of the dream that Calphurnia puts forward. Decius, however, interprets the dream differently, and convinces Ceasar of the interpretation that this simply means that he will be Rome’s savior – that his blood will cleanse the realm metaphorically speaking, without him actually dying. In one of the most important moments in the play, Caesar chooses to believe Decius’s interpretation, and thus does not act to defend himself against betrayal. This moment raises an interesting question in the play: is this an act of free will, or simply Julius Caesar living out his predestined path, as shown by the omens? I would argue that this moment constitutes free will – in some plays, characters seem drawn almost inexorably forward into their doom, but in this play, Caesar seems to have the option of choice. He weighs each of the competing arguments, and, in part using Calphurnia’s gender as a factor, decides to go with Decius’s interpretation. This is not the process that would usually happen if someone were destined to do something: there would be a great deal less active thought. While the play does seem to leave some room for freedom of thought and action, the play shows that in Roman religion omens and superstition did indeed have incredible predictive powers. The fact is that many of the omens or divinations do have predictive powers once someone stumbles on the correct interpretation. In one case, for instance, Caesar sacrifices an animal to learn that it has no heart (4.2.13). He sees this as a sign that he would be a coward to fail to return to the capital – that the gods were almost taunting him with this sacrifice, enticing him to move forward. The reader, however, knows that the heartlessness is coming from the conspirators, people who have, in secret, agreed to assassinate their leader. Furthermore, in Calphurnia’s dream, mentioned above, her explanation of the divination proves to be almost exactly correct: Caesar is in grave danger when he is surrounded by his fellow Romans, and should at all costs defend himself from those who are close to him. So it seems that omens do have considerable predictive power, even if many times (and more often than not), the omens are misinterpreted by the people who experience them. Julius Caesar reveals several important things about the role of divination, omens and superstition in Roman religion. First, it is quite clear that each of these are incredibly important in Roman religious practice – they appear frequently, from the very opening of the play almost until the moment of Caesars’s death (which, itself, is the fruition of many omens). The play, however, also shows conflicting portraits about the roles that omens play. In some ways, omens function as warning posts that can be seen and thus can allow someone to avert disaster if they only act correct. Yet in the play, the characters that have the power to shift the tide of events consistently fail to heed their warnings and thus fall to the predicted dooms. This thus shows that omens and divination in Roman religion can be viewed in two conflicting ways: warnings that can be augmented by free will, or simple proof that the future is already written. The play seems to come down on the latter interpretation. Works Cited Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Ed. Alvin B. Kernan. New Haven: Yale UP, 1959. Print. Read More