Two Distinct Perspectives On Tragedy And Fate

The interpretation of fate in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Sophocles’ Oedipus is that both literary pieces examine the idea of fate and tragedy but in a different way. Sophocles emphasizes the idea of unavoidable fate and predetermined destiny that may or may not be the result of the hero’s tragic flaw in his own character. However, Shakespeare introduces and emphasizes the idea of the free will of the human being and suggests that every individual has some degree of control over his own destiny; thus, personal actions are more significant rather than fate. Moreover, Shakespeare’s interpretation of fate is similar to Sophocles’ idea of destiny as he grants ominous visions and dreams that mirror the significance of prophecy in both settings, but human assertion has far more agency than predestined actions in Julius Caesar.

Furthermore, when Marc Antony refers to Brutus as the “noblest Roman of them all” at the end of the play, it refers to Antony’s assertion that Brutus is the most moral, noble, idealistic, and upright guy among all the assassination plotters throughout the play. Brutus is shown as the character exhibiting honour, devotion, and selflessness whose Roman Republican ideals endorsed him to take part in the assassination of Caesar. Planning for Caesar’s assassination, Brutus is worried about Caesar’s dictatorship on the one hand and the survival of the Roman Republic on the other. While taking part in Caesar’s assassination, Brutus thinks that he is acting in the interests of the greater good: “He only, in a general honest thought And common good to all, made one of them” (Shakespeare), asserting that his fate is linked with his decisions and actions. This contradicts Sophocles’ idea, which he presents in Oedipus, that humans are bound to their destiny, and agrees with the idea of Shakespeare that humans actively shape their life events through their actions.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Heath, 1911.