Saturday, March 31, 2018
Sibling love/rivalry
As anyone with siblings knows, fighting is inevitable. However, underneath it all we still love each other. When reading Act 4 Scene 3, I saw Cassius and Brutus to be very much like brothers. They were bickering a lot and pointing out each other's flaws and shortcomings, but they both know that they need each other and when Cassius hears of Portia's death, he immediately apologizes to Brutus and realizes that he went too far. They may fight, but in the end they know that they are stuck with each other and they are in the long-haul together.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
America/UN = Brutus/Liberators?
Upon reading through Act III of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, I believe that Caesar’s attempts to consolidate his power and his self proclaimed divinity are comparable to two current situations transpiring within international politics: the controversy of the 2018 Russian election integrity being compromised and Chinese President Xi’s consolidation of power.
Roman aristocratic Senators’ biggest fear was the Roman Senate being deemed powerless by Caesar. No authority when justifying war, no influence on budgetary issues, and no jurisdiction over any legal matters. The fear of consolidation of power was the impetus that led Brutus, Cassius, and Trebonius to assassinate Julius Caesar in order to restore the power of the Senate and ‘the people’ in Rome.
This situation, in my opinion, mirrors the current developments in China and Russia. Recently, Russia held their 2018 Presidential election. Vladimir Putin was re-elected to a fourth term and faced virtually no opposition. His lone legitimate opponent, Alexei Navalny, was imprisoned for “organizing a protest against President Putin without permission.” In Beijing, China’s communist party voted to change the nation’s constitution in order to abolish term limits, which in turn would allow President Xi to serve for life.
This draws similarities to Caesar appointing his own Senators to serve in the Roman Senate, and become subservient to Caesar’s power addictive agenda, thus consolidating his power even more.
How does our current Presidential administration respond to these attacks on Russian and Chinese election integrity? So far, the response has been unprecedented.
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/26/17053220/china-xi-jinping-constitution-thought-term
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/world/europe/putin-russia-election.html
Brutus' Takeover
"Caesar's better parts
Shall be crown'd in Brutus."
Julius Caesar (3.2.1587)
Although its small, I found this quote interesting. Right before, someone says basically that Brutus should be Caesar, but then someone corrects him to say only the good parts about Caesar. This shows the people didn't completely not care for Caesar, only some parts of him. It shows they still want a good leader, they just need some different qualities. Their society isn't mad over Caesars death, but they're at the same time not celebrating it. They desire a good leader. Right after, someone says "Peace silence, Brutus speaks!" just like they used to say when Caesar spoke, it shows how Brutus was so quickly transformed into Caesars place, and how it didn't really phase the people.
Veni, Vidi, Confossus: I Came, I Saw, I was Stabbed
 |
| Julius Caesar faces his assassins. https://www.biography.com/people/julius-caesar-9192504 |
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Was Killing Caesar For the Greater Good?
The part of this reading that stood out to me the most was when Caesar was killed and to me it felt that there was mixed emotions about the execution. Many characters that were around seemed un-sure if this was the best move for their society. For how bad of a leader/person Caesar was portrayed by others, I was expecting a more confident reaction.
So what does this part of the act illustrate on a larger scale. Unfortunately, I am bringing the President situation of the United States back to our english class. There is probably more hate for our current president than liking of him in office. If the government decides to impeach him, how will we know if that is the proper move? Sure there may be predictions based off facts and "promises" of other candidates impeaching President Trump may not be the best idea as some would agree. My point is societies are heavily influenced by opinions along with rational decision making and society has to be cautious of letting opinions take over proper decision making strategies in order for a successfully ran society.
So what does this part of the act illustrate on a larger scale. Unfortunately, I am bringing the President situation of the United States back to our english class. There is probably more hate for our current president than liking of him in office. If the government decides to impeach him, how will we know if that is the proper move? Sure there may be predictions based off facts and "promises" of other candidates impeaching President Trump may not be the best idea as some would agree. My point is societies are heavily influenced by opinions along with rational decision making and society has to be cautious of letting opinions take over proper decision making strategies in order for a successfully ran society.
Monday, March 26, 2018
Beware the Ides-Quotation
"Beware the ides of March." Julius Cesar (1.3.103) is one of Shakespeare's most famous one liners. It has been referenced and used in media for hundreds of years since. This one liner carries with it a very ominous tone, which is almost contradictory to its actual meaning. Ides were one of the ancient Roman markers used for their lunar calendar. The ides, specifically represented a time of festivities and merriment. Once you understand what this warning means literally, you can better understand the significance of this Shakespearean prophecy. It sticks to the pattern he established in many of his plays, Macbeth for instance, of giving the main character a false sense of security. This security can be felt by the audience to, and keeps them guessing throughout the play as to what the prophecy truly means.
Riddle me this....
Why is it, do you think, that Shakespeare's Julius Caesar begins and stays for an entire scene without Caesar himself, specifically in relation to Richard III? Richard was about as direct as could be as he spoke directly to the audience with a bold monologue, whilst Caesar is only talked about by other people at first.
What does it say about Caesar's character and what Shakespeare's intent was in regard to presenting the characters (Richard III and Caesar)? Consider how it would be as performed in front of a live audience and the affect it would have on them.
P.S.
Seems like a lot to ask, but it's pretty much the same thought; answering one thing helps answer another, I think. I, of course, have my own conclusions on the matter, but I figured since it's a discussion question that I shouldn't write my own answers here...? Eh?
What does it say about Caesar's character and what Shakespeare's intent was in regard to presenting the characters (Richard III and Caesar)? Consider how it would be as performed in front of a live audience and the affect it would have on them.
P.S.
Seems like a lot to ask, but it's pretty much the same thought; answering one thing helps answer another, I think. I, of course, have my own conclusions on the matter, but I figured since it's a discussion question that I shouldn't write my own answers here...? Eh?
Sunday, March 25, 2018
Convinced to kill
"... Men at some time are masters of their fates. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in out stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings. 'Brutus' and 'Caesar': what should be in that 'Caesar'? Why should that name be sounded more than yours?..." Act 1 Scene 2 Lines 138-142
I Picked this quote to be significant because after a celebration of Caesars military victory, Cassius attempts to persuade Brutus against Caesar. Cassius exclaims that Caesar should not be appreciated more than Brutus and Brutus deserves praise from the people of Rome. Two of the major contributors in Caesars death are plotting against him early in the play.
If Only They Wouldn't Have...
Minor Challenge: Discussion Question
While reading Acts One and Two of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, I wanted to make note of a few situations I felt that needs to be discussed.
In Act One, Scene Two, Cassius was obviously trying to persuade Brutus into plotting against Caesar. Granted, Brutus did say: "What means this shouting? I do fear, the people choose Caesar for their king." (act 1, scene 2, lines 81-82) then, when asked if he wanted Caesar to be king by Cassius, he replied: "I would not, Cassius. Yet I love him well." (act 1, scene 2, line 84). This shows that Brutus already has doubts about Caesar being king, but there does not appear to be any violent intentions of stopping Caesar. Cassius, seeing that Brutus is doubtful, begins to talk dirty about Caesar. After their conversation, Cassius tells us about his plans to butter up Brutus by leaving him letters in places he'll see about how great he (Brutus) is and how unworthy Caesar is. Cassius then tells us and Casca that Brutus is already mainly on their side, and he just needs a little push to fully agree with their plans. Casca then replies: "Oh, he sits high in all the people's hearts, and that which would appear offensive in us, his countenance, like richest alchemy, will change to virtue and to the worthiness." (act 1, scene 2, lines 159-162). These scenes angered me when I read them, because I felt like Cassius and Casca are only using Brutus for their plans, instead of actually being his friend and genuinely supporting him. If Cassius had not tried to influence Brutus, would Brutus still have helped Cassius and the others on his own?
It also bothered me how quickly Brutus gets on board with Cassius's plans to kill Caesar. For the sake of time, it makes sense that Shakespeare would rush this process along, but it still gives me chills thinking about how one man can go from loving his friend to wanting him dead.
What also caught my attention during the reading was how Brutus was not open to the idea of allowing Caesar to become king. Brutus has a theory that Caesar, once he becomes king, will turn his back on his friends and create chaos within Rome. Brutus believes in this theory so much, that he thinks: "And therefore think him as a serpent's egg--which, hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous--and kill him in his shell." (act 2, scene 1, lines 32-34). Instead of giving Caesar the benefit of the doubt, Brutus would rather result to violence. If Brutus and the others changed their minds and allowed Caesar to rule Rome for awhile, would the outcome be the same; Caesar dying at the hands of his friends?
While reading Acts One and Two of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, I wanted to make note of a few situations I felt that needs to be discussed.
In Act One, Scene Two, Cassius was obviously trying to persuade Brutus into plotting against Caesar. Granted, Brutus did say: "What means this shouting? I do fear, the people choose Caesar for their king." (act 1, scene 2, lines 81-82) then, when asked if he wanted Caesar to be king by Cassius, he replied: "I would not, Cassius. Yet I love him well." (act 1, scene 2, line 84). This shows that Brutus already has doubts about Caesar being king, but there does not appear to be any violent intentions of stopping Caesar. Cassius, seeing that Brutus is doubtful, begins to talk dirty about Caesar. After their conversation, Cassius tells us about his plans to butter up Brutus by leaving him letters in places he'll see about how great he (Brutus) is and how unworthy Caesar is. Cassius then tells us and Casca that Brutus is already mainly on their side, and he just needs a little push to fully agree with their plans. Casca then replies: "Oh, he sits high in all the people's hearts, and that which would appear offensive in us, his countenance, like richest alchemy, will change to virtue and to the worthiness." (act 1, scene 2, lines 159-162). These scenes angered me when I read them, because I felt like Cassius and Casca are only using Brutus for their plans, instead of actually being his friend and genuinely supporting him. If Cassius had not tried to influence Brutus, would Brutus still have helped Cassius and the others on his own?
It also bothered me how quickly Brutus gets on board with Cassius's plans to kill Caesar. For the sake of time, it makes sense that Shakespeare would rush this process along, but it still gives me chills thinking about how one man can go from loving his friend to wanting him dead.
What also caught my attention during the reading was how Brutus was not open to the idea of allowing Caesar to become king. Brutus has a theory that Caesar, once he becomes king, will turn his back on his friends and create chaos within Rome. Brutus believes in this theory so much, that he thinks: "And therefore think him as a serpent's egg--which, hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous--and kill him in his shell." (act 2, scene 1, lines 32-34). Instead of giving Caesar the benefit of the doubt, Brutus would rather result to violence. If Brutus and the others changed their minds and allowed Caesar to rule Rome for awhile, would the outcome be the same; Caesar dying at the hands of his friends?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)