Six things Shakespeare got wrong in ‘Julius Caesar’

Readers of Julius Caesar who know about Caesar’s assassination may be able to deduce the identity of these characters based on their surnames (which are correct). However, anyone who approaches Julius Caesar without prior knowledge may wonder who Decius, Metellus and Caius are. So, were they real assassins or mere inventions?

The answer is yes – these were, in fact, real men named Decimus Brutus, Tillius Cimber and Quintus Ligarius. The reason Shakespeare uses these names is that they appear in his main source, Plutarch. Whether Shakespeare spotted Plutarch’s error or unquestioningly followed suit is unclear, but it leaves three conspirators with literary aliases.

In Julius Caesar, Decimus/Decius is grouped with the minor conspirators. He is a character of few lines, and aside from a scene in which he convinces Caesar to attend the Senate, his presence in the play is mostly insignificant. Plutarch is dismissive of Decimus, and Shakespeare seems to have taken Decimus straight from Plutarch’s account without revisions.

Historically, Shakespeare omitted much about Decimus. He was likely the third leader of the conspiracy and was one of Caesar’s closest associates. Such proximity to Caesar meant Decimus could provide the conspirators with invaluable insider knowledge and was key in getting Caesar to the Senate. Moreover, he brought military expertise and a band of gladiators who would later prove essential in shielding the assassins during their retreat from the Senate. Though Shakespeare portrays the critical moment where Decimus convinces Caesar to attend the Senate, he discards the man’s full significance.

Another baffling presence among the conspirators is Cinna, known only by name but often called ‘Cinna the Conspirator’ to distinguish him from Cinna the Poet. In Shakespeare, Cinna is present at the conspirators’ meeting, stabs Caesar, and is later hunted by the crowd for being an assassin. 

Historically, Cinna was not among the conspirators. The consensus is that ‘Cinna the Conspirator’ is Lucius Cornelius Cinna, a praetor in 44 BC and Caesar’s former brother-in-law. Though he made inflammatory speeches against Caesar and expressed support for the assassins, he was not directly involved. Plutarch erroneously refers to a ‘Cinna the murderer’ in his account, which is likely what prompted Shakespeare to include him among the conspirators. The other possibility is that Shakespeare needed a ‘Cinna the Conspirator’ for the later scene with ‘Cinna the Poet’ to work. Either way, L. Cornelius Cinna has frequently been mistaken for one of the assassins instead of their ally.

The death of Cinna the Poet is a pivotal point in Shakespeare’s play. This tragic case of mistaken identity represents the violence of the Roman mob and may also be interpreted as a subtle critique of Elizabethan censorship laws. Cinna the Poet’s historical counterpart is Gaius Helvius Cinna, who was indeed torn apart by a mob who mistook him for Lucius Cornelius Cinna.

While Helvius Cinna was a plebeian tribune in 44 BC, he wasn’t necessarily a poet. Plutarch claims in his Life of Brutus that Cinna was a poet, but he doesn’t refer to Cinna as a poet in his Life of Caesar. While other ancient sources mention that Cinna was a tribune, none of them say that he was a poet. However, there was a poet named Cinna at the time, and it’s possible that Plutarch (and Shakespeare by extension) simply confused the two.

In Julius Caesar, Casca is the conspirator with the most dialogue after Brutus and Cassius. While Casca is only mentioned sporadically in Plutarch, Shakespeare develops his character, endowing him with a sarcastic and cynical personality that primarily manifests in his report in Act 1, Scene 2. This has led some historical summaries to incorrectly suggest he was a leading conspirator alongside Brutus and Cassius.

Casca is based on Publius Servilius Casca, who stabbed Caesar first. While this is a significant contribution, there’s little information about Casca beyond this. His subtle presence in the ancient sources (one of which conflates him with his brother, Gaius) suggests that he was not as important as Shakespeare may have wanted his readers to believe. Shakespeare’s Casca does, however, embody the ‘reporter’ archetype, so it’s possible that Shakespeare may have chosen a random conspirator for this role, or chose Casca deliberately because of his relative obscurity compared to other conspirators.

At one point in Julius Caesar, Metellus refers to the conspirators’ ‘youths and wildness,’ essentially saying that they are young and reckless. It’s unclear why Shakespeare decided to make the conspirators young (though it’s worth noting that most film and screen adaptations don’t!), since Plutarch doesn’t specify their ages. It’s possible that Shakespeare made them younger to connect them with rebellious individuals from the late Tudor era, such as Robert Devereux, who planned a rebellion against Elizabeth I.

In reality, several of the conspirators in Julius Caesar were probably in their late 30s or 40s in 44 BC. It’s difficult to pinpoint their precise ages, but their political offices offer a reasonable basis, since many of these positions required a minimum age.

• Brutus and Cassius were approximately 41-42 years old
• Decius/Decimus was approximately 36
• Metellus/Tillius Cimber was 40
• Trebonius was 46-48
• Lucius Cornelius Cinna was probably in his 50s (but he wasn’t a conspirator and therefore doesn’t count)