As a reader of Shakespeare's The Life and Death of Julius Caesar and Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, one would be surprised to learn of the many significant and interesting differences that occur between Plutarch's writings and Shakespeare's. Plutarch, an avid historian who believed that history was propelled by the achievements of great men, saw the role of the biographer as inseparable from the role of the historian. Shakespeare followed Plutarch's lead by emphasizing how the actions of the leaders of Roman society determined history. Though Shakespeare followed Plutarch almost to perfection, he made minor changes; such instances include Calpurnia's crying out, Caesar's epileptic attack on the day he returned from Spain, and the possible redivision of the Roman Republic. Shakespeare deviates from the trappings of history in order to develop character and theme, which in turn both affect the plot by developing it.
             First off, in order to develop his theme indicator of Fate, Shakespeare altered history to meet the needs of the theme. The fact rests in the notion that Calpurnia, Caesar's wife, does not dream of "[Caesar's blood] in which so many smiling Romans bathed," (II. ii. 87) but in reality, dreamed that "she saw [a statue of Caesar] broken down." (Plutarch, 119) Note that the addition of another dream makes the total number of Calpurnia's dreams three, a mythical number in ancient times that usually signaled the dawn of an epoch or its closing. Therefore, Shakespeare adds another dream onto the existing ones in order to develop his theme indicator of Fate. Moreover, since Brutus and his cohorts do bathe themselves in Caesar's blood, one may safely assume that Caesar was meant to die, proving his theme indicator of Fate, while at the same time developing the plot by foreshadowing Caesar's death.
             ...