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.

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.

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?

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?

The Fall of Caesar's Character

So after our discussion about the HBO series in class on Monday- and of course after reading the first two acts of the play- I started thinking about the potential differences between the show and the play. So to that end, my discussion question would have to be 'How similar or different are the show and the play?' for example, are the reasons for the assassination of Caesar as selfish and morally gray as they were in the tv show, or is he more of a clear villain? Or do they not adequately explain why he had to die? I think discussing this would help us gain more of an understanding of whether Caesar was truly an evil man, or if he suffered from the same defamation of character that Richard III did.