In William Shakespeare's play “Julius Caesar,”
Caesar mocks the soothsayer’s earlier prediction to “Beware the Ides of March.” Later, Caesar says, “The Ides of March have
come” to point out the supposed dreaded day did not bring disaster. The soothsayer responds with a prophetic point,
“Ay, Caesar; but not gone.” Shortly thereafter, Caesar is stabbed many
times over by conspirators in the Senate, including by his good friend Marcus Brutus. As he lies dying, Caesar mumbles those infamous
last words, “Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Caesar!” What often gets lost in popular history is
that this is just a play, not an actual accurate portrayal of the assassination of Julius Caesar. Like any modern day movie, this was Shakespeare
taking considerable literary and creative license with a real event. Caesar's last dying breath was not "Et tu,
Brute?...”, as even some before Shakespeare had claimed. However, it is accurate that Caesar was murdered
on the “Ides of March,” which is March 15th on today’s calendar. So what really happened on this day? Rome in 44 BCE was a city bubbling over with
tension. Several years earlier, civil war had begun
when Pompey-led factions of the Senate asked Caesar to disband his army and return to Rome. Why did this spark a war? By the Cornelia Majestatis Law Governors of
Roman provinces (promagistrates) were not allowed to bring any part of their army within
Italy itself and, if they tried, they automatically forfeited their right to rule, even in their
own province. The only ones who were allowed to command
soldiers in Italy were consuls or preators. Caesar knew to return without his army at
his back, which was what was required, given the political climate at the time would be
exceptionally risky and so had to decide whether the risk was greater to bring his army or
go alone. As then Roman aristocrat Marcus Caelius Rufus
aptly summed up: “The closer we come to this inevitable clash, the more apparent the
danger. At the heart of the issue is this: Pompey
declares he won’t allow Caesar to be elected consul unless Caesar relinquishes control
over his army and provinces; Caesar, on the other hand, is convinced his status is threatened
if he gives up his troops ... So now ... their scandalous liaison isn’t stepping behind
the scenes ... but exploding into full-scale war!” It should be noted here that shortly before
this Caesar did make an offer to the senate that he would disband his army on the condition
that Pompey do the same. The Senate even voted on the issue, with 370
voting for accepting Caesar’s terms and 22 against. Ultimately however, Pompey and some of the
22 went against this vote and he refused to go along with the plan. Not long after, the Senate declared Caesar
a public enemy. Negotiations nonetheless continued, with Caesar
again making the same offer, but it was rejected. Later he offered that if they’d let him
keep one legion and allow him to govern Illyria (which is in the Balkans today), he would
disband the rest of his legions. That offer was likewise shot down, in large
part due to speeches against it given by Cato the Younger. This all finally led to Caesar deciding the
safer bet for himself was to march on Rome. Shortly after the news hit Rome that Caesar
was coming with an army, many of the Senators, along with the consuls G. Claudius Marcellus,
L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus, and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, a.k.a. Pompey, fled. Rome were under the impression that Caesar
was bringing nearly his whole, highly experienced army to Rome, which would have massively outnumbered
the forces they had there. They had not dreamed he’d be so bold as
to strike with a lesser force. Instead, he was just bringing one legion,
largely due to speed’s sake and a gamble by Caesar. You see, while Pompey had two legions at his
command, one of them, the 15th legion, was formerly Caesars and had been swindled out
of his hands by the Senate and given to Pompey not long before. (The Senate had requested the use of a legion,
but then when the legion arrived and was put in Pompey’s hands, they canceled their plan
to use it against the Parthians and simply put the legion under Pompey’s direct control.) Thus, Caesar thought this legion might just
end up turning on Pompey and fighting for him instead. (Although it’s noteworthy that later Caesar
was unable to turn them against Pompey when they did begin to meet in battle.) At the same time Caesar was marching on Rome
with the one legion, he’d also organized a couple others to join him and even more
to strategic locations, close enough to join him if necessary, but also in positions to
block support troops getting to Pompey. Had he actually waited to gather all his forces
at once, it would have given Pompey time to bring his many legions to Rome as well as
well as raise more in the interim. A few years later, largely thanks to Pompey
struggling to raise new forces of his own thanks in part to Caesar’s reputation for
cruelty against those who opposed him on the battlefield and his ever growing reputation
as a commander Caesar defeated Pompey, with the older one-time friend and teacher being
executed by Egypt’s king in 48 BCE. The victor returned to Rome and was declared
dictator for ten years. However, Caesar stocked the Senate with allies
and was ultimately named dictator for life. Of course, this did not sit well with many
Roman citizens, elites or those who were not Caesar supporters in the Senate. While they had endured Sulla as dictator not
long before, a dictator for life was a bit too close to a "king" in the eyes of many. To put the gravity of this designation in
perspective, kings ruled Rome prior to the founding of the Republic by Lucius Junius
Brutus. Lucius Brutus- ancestor of the more famous
Brutus of "Et tu Brute?" fame- in roughly 509 BC summoned the Roman
people to vote for the overthrow and exile of the monarchy- an act of rebellion sparked
by the rape of a Roman noblewoman and Brutus’ kin, Lucretia by one Sextus Tarquinius, who
in turn was the son of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, who just so happened to be the king of Rome. After the monarchy was successfully deposed,
one of Brutus’ first acts was supposedly to get the people to swear an oath that never
again would a king rule in Rome. Unsurprising from this, in the years leading
up to 44 BCE, as described in Barry Strauss’s book The Death of Caesar: The Story of History’s
Most Famous Assassination, several other Caesar assassination plots were thwarted before they
were carried out. Nonetheless, the dictator wasn’t shaken
despite the number of enemies he was accumulating. He didn’t help matters with his behavior:
For instance, in either December 45 BCE or January 44 BCE, the Senate voted on formally
presenting honors to Caesar. As Caesar sat in front of the Temple of Mother
Venus, the Senate marched to him expecting to be greeted. Despite etiquette calling for Caesar to stand,
he did not - even making jokes about the Senators and rejecting their gift. This, of course, did not sit well with the
ruling class. (Although it should be noted that according
to Plutarch, Caesar would later blame his failure to rise and behavior on his frequent
sickness, long claimed to have been seizures but may not have been as we'll get to shortly,
that resulted in him becoming, to quote Plutarch "speedily shaken and whirled about, bringing
on giddiness and insensibility...") Another noteworthy incident took place shortly
afterward when a crowd greeted Caesar as “Rex” - Latin for “King"- a major no-no in Roman
politics, as previously mentioned. On this one, according to Dio, two tribunes,
Gaius Epidius Marullus and Lucius Caesetius Flavus, had the person believed to have started
the chant arrested. Caesar was supposedly furious for what he
thought to be poor treatment of the person and ultimately saw to it that the two tribunes
were stripped of their titles. Another incident occurred during the Lupercalia
festival, in which fertility is celebrated, Marc Antony presented Caesar with a diadem
(essentially, a crown). While many in the crowd sat in stunned silence,
Caesar refused it. Antony tried again and this time Caesar said,
“Jupiter alone of the Romans is king.” This got a huge applause from the crowd. Later, Caesar made sure it was recorded that
he refused this crown. Whether this was a staged event to try to
convince everyone Caesar had no interest in being king (despite working hard at acquiring
all the powers one associates with a king) or not, with more and more incidents of Caesar
being compared to a king, the ruling class were restless many among them saw Caesar as
a power hungry tyrant who needed to be stopped before it was too late. While Shakespeare gives Brutus and Cassius
the credit as lead conspirators in the downfall of Caesar, it should also be noted that, outside
of Plutarch who wrote his account almost a century and a half after Caesar's death),
most other ancient sources list another as the key conspirator of the trio. This includes the earliest account, written
by Nicolaus of Damascus within a few decades of the event, naming Decimus Junius Brutus
Albinus (who Shakespeare incorrectly called Decius) as the most important of the three
in organizing Caesar's death. Decimus was a high-ranking general and close
friend of Caesar, and was perhaps the man that the Caesar most trusted of the three,
and the only one of the trio that supported Caesar throughout the war with Pompey. It isn't clear today why Decimus turned on
his friend; speculation abounds on this, with some believing he was angry at having been
passed over for a promotion or that he felt he had been disrespected, such as when Caesar
broke tradition and allowed some of his other lieutenants to conduct triumphal parades,
but did not allow Decimus the same honor after Decimus' great victories in Gaul. Or maybe he was simply jealous of Caesar. Whatever the case, it was Decimus, a man who
was one of Caesar's most trusted lieutenants even through the previous war with Pompey,
who made sure Caesar went to the Portico of Pompey that fateful day. As for Brutus, while Shakespeare depicts him
as something of a son to Caesar, in fact this is a bit of a misrepresentation. While Brutus was technically an ally of Caesar,
this was only after being given a large amount of money and a posh political appointment
to buy that allegiance. Directly before this, unlike Decimus, he had
been Caesar’s enemy fighting alongside Pompey during the civil war. On top of that, about a year before the assassination,
Brutus divorced his wife and married his cousin Porcia, who was the daughter of Cato the Younger,
a recently deceased enemy of Caesar's, who had killed himself rather than live under
Caesar's rule. That said, it should be noted that during
the war, Caesar had specified that Brutus, if captured, should be brought in alive, unlike
certain others. But why he did this isn't fully clear, given
Brutus' actions. It has been speculated that this may have
been out of affection for Brutus' mother who was formerly Caesar's mistress. (Some have further speculated that Brutus
was in fact the son of Caesar and that Caesar knew it, but this would have put Caesar fathering
Brutus at the age of 15. Not impossible, of course, but most historians
think unlikely and there is no documented evidence to back this claim up.) As for Cassius, he was a senator and likewise
an opponent of Caesar's during the war with Pompey, as well as known to have chaffed under
Caesar's rule. This brings us to the soothsayer in Shakespeare's
play- there is no record of any such individual saying the words “Beware the ides of March.” It does appear, however, Caesar was warned
that his life was in danger for a thirty day period ending on March 15th (not just in danger
on the Ides of March). This warning came from a haruspex by the name
of Spurinna. This, however, was an easy prediction that
was likely no news to Caesar given the political climate. Spurinna's access to the elites of Rome also
ensured he was just as well acquainted with the rumors of conspiracies against Caesar. Even the 30 day number was mostly a no-brainer. Everyone knew that Caesar was to embark Rome
on March 18th, which meant that an attempt on his life needed to be done before that
day. Once Caesar was off campaigning, if he was
successful in those campaigns, his popularity with the people would only grow and, surrounded
by his army, there would be little chance to safely get rid of him directly for some
time. And so it was that shortly before his death,
Decimus convinced Caesar to change his mind on his plans to skip the Senate session on
the 15th. Caesar's wife, Calpurnia had been insisting
that Caesar keep a low profile before his upcoming military campaign, and particularly
that he avoid the Senate meetings where he'd be vulnerable as only Senators were allowed
inside and he would be unarmed. As Nicolaus of Damascus writes, “...his
friends were alarmed at certain rumors and tried to stop him going to the Senate-house,
as did his doctors, for he was suffering from one of his occasional dizzy spells. His wife, Calpurnia, especially, who was frightened
by some visions in her dreams, clung to him and said that she would not let him go out
that day. But [Decimus] Brutus, one of the conspirators
who was then thought of as a firm friend, came up and said, 'What is this, Caesar? Are you a man to pay attention to a woman's
dreams and the idle gossip of stupid men, and to insult the Senate by not going out,
although it has honoured you and has been specially summoned by you? But listen to me, cast aside the forebodings
of all these people, and come. The Senate has been in session waiting for
you since early this morning.'” Beyond Decimus goading him into going, it
is also significant to note that Caesar may not at this point have been in his right mind. While it's traditionally stated, as previously
noted, that Caesar suffered from the occasional seizure, this may not have actually been what
was happening, despite Caesar himself claiming such. (Caesar played up the "morbus comitialis"
angle, owing to the fact that those who suffered from epilepsy were thought to be touched by
the gods during their episodes, with the condition called by Hippocrates "the Sacred Disease"
because of it.) However, researchers Dr. Francesco Galassi
and Hutan Ashrafian posit that Caesar's actual symptoms, including dizziness, headaches,
limb weakness, and sudden falls, seem more closely in line with suffering from Transient
Ischemic Attacks, also known as mini-strokes. Beyond the symptoms more lining up with this,
it is also noted that rather than being a lifelong malady, his condition did not pop
up until late in life, which would be a very rare thing for an actual epileptic. From this, it is speculated that the supposed
episode that occurred shortly before the Senate meetings may have seen Caesar not thinking
as rationally as he otherwise might have. And, indeed, given the rumors and Caesar himself
knowing any attempt on his life, if it came at all, would come around this time, it seems
odd that he chose to go on that day. Whatever his state of mind, Caesar made his
way to the Senate on the so-called "Ides of March," essentially the "divide" or "middle
day" of March, signifying the mid-point of the month, which was the 13th in most months
at this time, excepting March, May, July, and October. Contrary to many depictions, he did not, however,
go to the Senate House, as it was being renovated at the time according to Plutarch. Nor did he go to Capitoline Hill as Shakespeare
said. Rather, he went to the Portico of Pompey,
where the conspirators were putting on gladiatorial games at the theatre and the Senate was convening. Here, once again, we see Decimus playing a
key role in that he provided the gladiators, not just for the show, but so that they'd
be nearby if the conspirators needed them for protection after the assassination. Soon after his arrival, several senators approached
Caesar, seemingly to discuss important matters with him. They formed a perimeter around Caesar, not
just to get close to attack him from all sides, but also to make sure no Senators who supported
Caesar could come to his aid before he'd been dealt a fatal blow. Outside, Marc Antony was being distracted
by Gaius Trebonius. A seasoned soldier and strong supporter of
Caesar, Antony could have potentially foiled the plan, or at least made it much more risky
for the conspirators if the two great soldiers fought back to back. This, perhaps, would have allowed some of
the other former soldiers turned Senators that Caesar had strategically put in place
the needed time to come to his aid before the deed was done. And, indeed, we know at least two of the Senators,
Gaius Calvisius Sabinus and Lucius Marcius Censorinus, attempted to aid Caesar, but could
not get to him fast enough. Inside of their togas, the conspirators hid
daggers. Caesar reportedly seemed suspicious of their
approach, but an old friend, Tillius Cimber, came to him with a petition. Upon reaching Caesar, he grabbed Caesar’s
toga causing Caesar to exclaim, "Ista quidem vis est!" (“Why, this violence?”) Caesar very quickly got his answer as daggers
were produced and he began to be stabbed. That said, unlike Shakespeare's play, Caesar,
a great fighter himself, fought back, including severely injuring at least one participate,
Casca, with a stylus. Caesar also tried to escape, but tripped and
fell, where he was an easy target lying on the ground. But he did not die in the arms of Brutus and
did not say “Et tu, Brute?...” as far as any historical account notes. Historians agree that Brutus was there and
stabbed Caesar, but there is no indication he was the last person to do it or that Caesar
placed any significance on Brutus being one of the attackers. As for what Caesar actually said as he lay
dying, most historical accounts seem to indicate nothing at all, or at least nothing that was
recorded. Once the deed was done and death was near,
he simply covered his face with his toga, speculated to have been an act to preserve
his dignity as he lay dying, ironically enough near a statue of Pompey. After Caesar’s assassination, there was
initial hope that Rome would become a Republic once again. Instead, it fell back into the hands of an
all-encompassing leader in less than two decades - Emperor Octavian, Caesar's nephew and one
of the most influential rulers in history, in terms of shaping aspects of the future. In other words, Caesar’s assassination more
or less had the opposite effect as was intended. But for Shakespeare, it was great source material
for his “based on a true story” play- as with so many films today, not tending to
bother too much with accuracy. Bonus Facts: Speaking of the Ides of March, Shakespeare,
and assassinations, the three brothers John Wilkes, Junius Brutus (Jr.), and Edwin Booth-
all critically acclaimed actors of their day- only once all three appeared in the same play
together. That was in a portrayal of Julius Caesar in
1864, with John Wilkes playing Marc Antony; Junius taking the role of Cassius; and Edwin
playing Brutus. The funds from the that performance were donated
to erect a statue of William Shakespeare in Central Park, just south of the Promenade. The statue still stands there to this day. What makes the story of the Booth brothers
even more interesting is, it turns out, Edwin Booth once saved Abraham Lincoln’s son’s
life, as recounted by Robert Todd Lincoln himself in a letter to the editor of Century
Magazine, Richard Gilder, in 1909. The exact date of the event isn't known, but
it apparently took place sometime around late 1863 to early 1865 at the Jersey City railroad
station, shortly before the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth. Robert Lincoln recounted the tale as follows:
“The incident occurred while a group of passengers were late at night purchasing their
sleeping car places from the conductor who stood on the station platform at the entrance
of the car. The platform was about the height of the car
floor, and there was of course a narrow space between the platform and the car body. There was some crowding, and I happened to
be pressed by it against the car body while waiting my turn. In this situation the train began to move,
and by the motion I was twisted off my feet, and had dropped somewhat, with feet downward,
into the open space, and was personally helpless, when my coat collar was vigorously seized
and I was quickly pulled up and out to a secure footing on the platform. Upon turning to thank my rescuer I saw it
was Edwin Booth, whose face was of course well known to me, and I expressed my gratitude
to him, and in doing so, called him by name.” Edwin Booth, was a strong support of Lincoln
and a Unionist, something which had put a wedge in he and his brother's relationship. In fact, when Edwin informed his brother he
had voted for Lincoln during his second presidential run, Wilkes Booth supposedly became rabid
and asserted his belief that Lincoln would soon set himself up as king of America- the
favorite trope of a surprising number of people even today whenever the person in power isn’t
#theirleader. As for Edwin, he apparently remained ignorant
of whose life he had saved until a few months later when he received a letter from Colonel
Adam Badeu, a friend of Booth's, who Robert Lincoln had recounted the tale to. (Both Robert Lincoln and Badeu were members
of General Ulysses S. Grant's staff at the time.) After the assassination, Edwin Booth saw his
famed family name ruined; lost his brother; lost his President, whom he staunchly supported;
and nearly lost his career, due to his association with his brother- all in one day, and with
none of it due to anything he had done. It was reported by his friends that he was
brought stricken to the ground and only with time and the aid of his friends taking turns
keeping a close watch on him in the coming months did he begin to make a recovery. He eventually made a successful return to
the stage in January of 1866, about 8 months after the assassination. It was acknowledged that the knowledge that
Edwin had saved the President's eldest son's life gave him some comfort going forward with
his life. Interestingly enough, this particular Booth
brother saving the life of Lincoln’s son came potentially close to thwarting the assassination. You see, Robert Lincoln was invited to the
theater the night his father was shot, but turned down the invitation and reportedly
went to visit his friend, the President's private secretary, John Hay. This is something Robert Lincoln would regret
for the rest of his life, owing to the fact that had he accepted the invitation, he would
have been sitting in the back seat next to the door at the theater, being the youngest
member of the party, and thus, John Wilkes Booth would have had to get past him to get
to Abraham Lincoln. Robert would have also seen the gun, a notoriously
inaccurate one requiring the shooter to be amazingly close to hit anything, in Booth’s
hand and between those two facts may well have been able to thwart the assassination. Of course, it might not have as well, resulting
in Robert having to witness this assassination. This would have been noteworthy for him as
he was later present and a witness at the assassination of U.S. President Garfield in
1881, at the time serving as the Secretary of War. Further, he was present when President McKinley
was shot in 1901. Because of the fact that he was either present
or close to three presidential shootings, Robert Lincoln eventually began turning down
all invitations, with one exception, to be in the presence of any presidential figure,
once stating: "No, I'm not going, and they'd better not ask me, because there is a certain
fatality about presidential functions when I am present." The one exception was at the dedication to
the Lincoln Memorial in 1922, where President Harding was present, as well as former President
Taft.
