What do you think?
Rate this book
Julius Caesar
The Boynton/Cook editions of four of Shakespeare's most popular plays have been reissued with attractive new cover designs and printed on more opaque, easy-to-read paper. This series is specifically designed for high school classes.
Students will be able to see each play as a whole. In their introduction to each of the plays, editors Mack and Boynton suggest ways of approaching the text that allow the reader a broad range of imaginative involvement. Their observations are intended to help students read and experience the play, not to discourage them with critical jargon or peripheral historical information. Students will be reading the best text both in terms of visual excellence and quality of scholarship. They'll immediately appreciate the large page format and highly readable typography. Each volume is consistent with the most authoritative early edition of each play. The glosses are full and clear but don't belabor the obvious or clutter the text. Background information includes the editors' detailed analysis of the Elizabethan theatre and its relation to Shakespeare's dramaturgy, C. W. Hodges's drawing re-creating the original Globe Playhouse, a brief account of Shakespeare's life and a chronological listing of his works, and a bibliography, lists of videotapes (VHS), records, and tapes of the complete plays. Students will experience added critical and imaginative dimensions. An essay following each play suggests ways of approaching it as a live dramatic experience in the theatre of the mind. The concern is not how the play might be produced in a theatre, but rather how parts of it may be realized in the imagination through close attention to what the language is saying and suggesting. Students can get a deeper understanding of each scene through helpful, detailed questions included at the back of each volume. These questions encourage group discussion or written response. Also included are topics for longer papers.304 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1599
5306 people are currently reading
91289 people want to read
About the author
William Shakespeare
28k books47.2k followersWilliam Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet, and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 8,160 reviews
July 30, 2019
In the course of teaching high school sophomores for thirty years, I have read Julius Caesar more than thirty times, and I never grow tired of its richness of detail or the complexity of its characters. Almost every year, I end up asking myself the same simple question--"Whom do I like better? Cassius or Brutus?"--and almost every year my answer is different from what it was the year before.
On one hand, we have Cassius, the selfish, manipulative conspirator who, after the assassination, shows himself to be an impulsive, loyal friend and an able politician, and, on the other hand, Brutus, the conscientious intellectual and lover of the republic who becomes, under the weight of his guilt, an irritatingly scrupulous moralist and an inept general more concerned with reputation than success. And then of course there is Antony: brilliant, vicious, unscrupulous, and ultimately as unknowable as a tornado.
This is a great play about politics and human character.
November 17, 2019
“Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come.”
Beware the Ides of March. Beware to those that have aspirations to rule. You may encounter many enemies. People who will thwart your plans. People quite possibly afraid of your genius. People suffering from delusions of grandeur.
I always say keep an eye on the son of your favorite squeeze.
Marcus Junius Brutus, what a fickle man, you are running around like a plucked chicken looking for your missing head. ”He seems completely blind to reality, an ineffectual idealist whose idealism cannot prevent him from committing a senseless and terrible crime.” You let the insidious Cassius fill your ear with dilettante, conspiratorial nonsense. ”Cadaverous and hungry-looking, much given to brooding, and a great reader; a scorner of sports and light diversions, a very shrewd judge of human nature, and deeply envious of those who are greater than himself.” So the question remains, is Cassius the shrewd judge of character, capable of seeing the future, or is he the man consumed by jealousy who wants to see the mighty Julius Caesar fall?
You fell for that first man of Rome, the republic is your responsibility, and all that. As it turns out, you aren’t the only dagger maestro in your family. Gaius Servilius Structus Ahala, a distant relative of yours, saved Rome from another tyrant named Spurius Maelius. Of course, that is all in the far distant past and might even be a myth, but Cassius knows the right buttons to push.
”And therefore think him as a serpent’s egg,
Which, hatch’d, would, as his kind, grow mischievous,
And kill him in the shell.”
You might have said the line Brutus, but the stench of it, the green gray smoke of it, smacks of Cassius. Wouldn’t it have been more prudent to see what Caesar intended to do with his power before you stab, stab, STABBED him to death?
“Et tu, Brute?”
That must have felt like a punch in the gut given that you had his blood all over your sword and hands at the time. Caesar’s parting guilt laden gift to you. I’m just putting a few thoughts out there in the wind. How’d you feel about Caesar putting the sausage to your mother? Did the bedposts banging against the wall feel like a drummer hammering your skull? Maybe Cassius doesn’t have to be that convincing.
Cassius
It must have been a real kick in the subligaculum when that hack William Shakespeare named the play after Julius Caesar. My god, man, you have four times the lines, and for most of the play Caesar is nothing more than an apparition. An annoying apparition, by the way, who keeps showing up at the most inconvenient times and saying things like, ”Let loose the dogs of war.”
Letting Marc Antony live was probably a mistake. He isn’t the brightest star in the firmament, but he is a brave soldier. A good leader, but better as number two than number one. You aren’t really a mad dog killer after all, so the thought of killing Antony is like crunching on the bones of a stale dormouse.
”Of course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius,
To cut the head off and then hack the limbs,
Like wrath in death and envy afterwards;
For Antony is but a limb of Caesar.
Let’s be sacrificers, but not butchers, Caius.
We all stand up against the spirit of Caesar.”
Magnanimous of you, Brutus. Well said, but did you think ZOINKS after Antony dropped that rap battle speech at Caesar’s funeral.
Marc Antony
”Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
You remember the one, right? The speech where he basically calls you a douche bag under the guise of singing your praises.
I’m not going to talk about the disaster at the battle of Philippi. I think that might have been where the term Caesar salad came into common usage. Marc Antony and Octavius join forces and break the will of your men. We are all ready, way past ready, for you to fall on your own sword. In fact, I would have happily given you a firm Caligae to the arse if you needed a little extra encouragement.
If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten
March 27, 2025
هربار که با خواهرم به کتابفروشی میرفتیم، دم همان ورودی از هم جدا میشدیم. او به طرف قفسهی کتابهای نوجوان میرفت و من به تازههای نشر سر میزدم. من همیشه گیج و مبهوت بین آنهمه کتاب چرخ میخوردم، ورق میزدم، میخواندم، و دست آخر کتابی به پیشنهادِ پسر فروشندهی مو فرفری می خریدم. اما خواهرم تکلیفش روشن بود. همیشه اولین انتخابش شکسپیر بود و بعد هرچیز دیگری که بنظرش جذاب و خواندنی میآمد، مثل دارن_شان یا بچهی چلمن، داستانهای ترسناک...
به خانه نرسیده شروع میکرد به خواندن، گاهی بلند و بیشتر زمزمه کنان . در میان جملهها غوطه میخورد یا انگار در خلایی مقدس شناور بود. آنقدر میدانم که در لذتی حقیقی غرق میشد، از چرخش شاداب مردمک چشمها و کشیدگی ملایم روبه بالای لبهاش این را میفهمیدم. زیباتر میشد...
حالا هروقت هرجا اسم شکسپیر را بشنوم، روی هر کتابی بخوانم، امکان ندارد که به یادش نیوفتم ، نلرزم و قلبم مچاله نشود. شکسپیر برای من متعارف است با خواهر.
چقدر دلم برای حرف زدن با خواهرکم تنگ شده. برای شنیدن صدایش، برای کتاب خواندنش، برای آه بلندی که وسط خواندن جملههای طولانی، وقتی نفس کم میآورد میکشید. برای خیلی چیزها. بیشتر از هرچیز برای همان کشیدگی شوخ گوشهی لبش موقع کتاب خواندن. چند روز قبل که هم جمعه بود و هم برف، و دلتنگیش به سینهام پنجه میکشید، برای شنیدن صدای فرشتهام به کتابهایش پناه بردم. کتابش را ورق زدم ، رد انگشتان معصومش را روی کاغذ تاخورده بوسیدم، دلتنگتر شدم.
خواهرم رفته ولی هرگوشهی دنیا چیزی از او را به یادم میآورد.
.
.
.
درباره کتاب:
به دلْ گفتم: «کدامین شیوه دشوار است در عالم؟»
نفَس در خون تپید و گفت: «پاسِ آشناییها»
بیدل دهلوی
به خانه نرسیده شروع میکرد به خواندن، گاهی بلند و بیشتر زمزمه کنان . در میان جملهها غوطه میخورد یا انگار در خلایی مقدس شناور بود. آنقدر میدانم که در لذتی حقیقی غرق میشد، از چرخش شاداب مردمک چشمها و کشیدگی ملایم روبه بالای لبهاش این را میفهمیدم. زیباتر میشد...
حالا هروقت هرجا اسم شکسپیر را بشنوم، روی هر کتابی بخوانم، امکان ندارد که به یادش نیوفتم ، نلرزم و قلبم مچاله نشود. شکسپیر برای من متعارف است با خواهر.
چقدر دلم برای حرف زدن با خواهرکم تنگ شده. برای شنیدن صدایش، برای کتاب خواندنش، برای آه بلندی که وسط خواندن جملههای طولانی، وقتی نفس کم میآورد میکشید. برای خیلی چیزها. بیشتر از هرچیز برای همان کشیدگی شوخ گوشهی لبش موقع کتاب خواندن. چند روز قبل که هم جمعه بود و هم برف، و دلتنگیش به سینهام پنجه میکشید، برای شنیدن صدای فرشتهام به کتابهایش پناه بردم. کتابش را ورق زدم ، رد انگشتان معصومش را روی کاغذ تاخورده بوسیدم، دلتنگتر شدم.
خواهرم رفته ولی هرگوشهی دنیا چیزی از او را به یادم میآورد.
.
.
.
درباره کتاب:
به دلْ گفتم: «کدامین شیوه دشوار است در عالم؟»
نفَس در خون تپید و گفت: «پاسِ آشناییها»
بیدل دهلوی
August 7, 2020
The most powerful, famous man in Roman history, her greatest conqueror, loved by the adoring , poor population, of Rome, ( and Cleopatra, also) that has brought glory and prosperity, too, the army will follow anywhere he leads, certain victory and riches to the soldiers, the Senate has given numerous awards to him, Rome's enemies tremble at the name of the mighty Caesar, but of course nobody is loved by all, men are small, petty, and jealous, why should he be above them, (fearing he, becoming King) the less talented and not as successful, always will ask this eternal question...The world is full of chaos, by men who believe in a cause, they never see the consequences, of their actions, what happens, afterwards, most don't care . A conspiracy by a conservative faction of the Roman Senate, organized by Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius, an upper class clique, the aristocrats, didn't like Caesar's rule, but pretended to be his friends, had contempt for the plebeians, (common citizens) and on the Ides (15th) of March, 44 B.C. stabbed the great, brilliant warrior, 23 times ( Et tu, Brutus?) . Those Senators were out of touch with reality, believing they would be praised for their treachery, yet when Mark Anthony, gives a fiery speech, to the dazed, vast crowds, asking them, when will there be another man, like him, never, they shout back, at Caesar's funeral, (but Brutus, said he was ambitious) and shows the bloody body , clothes, of the fallen, and reads his will, giving every poor citizen ( who he loved), a vast amount of money and a park, his own gardens, to the lowly , riots ensue, the surprised assassins, flee for their lives out of the huge city...At the decisive battle of Philippi, in Greece, Mark Anthony and young Octavian, (Augustus Caesar) Julius Caesar's great-nephew, fought Brutus and Cassius, a total of 400,000 soldiers , for the control of Rome, the winners live, the losers die...but none were generals like Caesar... A great, immortal play, that asks who is right and who is wrong , Brutus and Cassius or Caesar, generations past, and in the unforeseen future, will deliberate this unanswerable question, politics can be deadly, when one group believes they know best, anyone opposing them, will be butchered, for the good of the state, these pitiable people, cease to be human, the killers, destroy , but the blood sprays on all, as later the victims, friends, fight back , vengeance is very sweet, thousands , even millions may perish, but the gore continues unrelenting, until the people have had enough, or no one is left, it may go on for a long, long, while, though. There are no noblemen, in hate...
September 5, 2018
'You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!'
February 14, 2019
💜reread for my Shakespeare class
I really do love this play but I was also in it, with an Overly Large Yet Worth It Role, and at this point I have no energy to have thoughts on it, we'll talk about why I love this show and then we'll end with the long list of terrible memes
(also why the FUCK did I give this four stars. it's a five goodnight I love this underrated play)
WHY THIS PLAY IS FUCKING AWESOME
Okay, first of all, and no one else cares: it's pretty damn historically accurate as Shakespeare goes. And I'm a stressed Latin student. So that was nice to see.
It's also a really good play as characters go. Every character parallels around three other characters in interesting ways; Brutus especially is a foil to all of the other three leads. All the relationships between the characters are so interesting and heartbreaking.
This is also just one of the best-written plays I've ever read. I love how Shakespeare varies his meter for every character. Okay, example time: Brutus ends at least half his statements with weak endings rather than in typical Iambic Pentameter. Cool, right? Maybe it's not if you don't know what any of that meant. Nevermind. But my nerd ass loves it. Also, so much rhetoric. That assembly scene changed me as a person. You could write a freaking term paper on that scene and still not fully analyze the whole thing
And it's still a relevant story today!! This play has some really fucking relevant political commentary. There's actually a line in this play about how this bloody scene, this surprise betrayal, will be reenacted a thousand times over in the future, and it's maybe the most brilliant line of all time, ever. I love it. I can't believe we cut it.
Beyond all that, though, this is just one of the most narratively strong plays I've ever read. This is my favorite kind of tragedy. Every single character has sensical motivations!! There's no villain!! There's no fate as the villain!! Every bad thing that happens is the result of a character decision. I just really love this play narratively.
SOME MEMES, FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT
— I can't believe Brutus and Cassius are being chewed on by Satan in hell they didn't deserve this @Dante you take that shit back they were just trying to stop a fucking dictator good god
— comparing Caesar to Trump is unfair?? Caesar cared about poor people how is that comparable to our current president
— please just look at this
— add “bro” to every single line of The Tent SceneTM and it's 100% better trust me I Am A Scientist
— et tu, brote
— some people?? stab emperors?? to coup??
— Cassius every single time something goes wrong: time to die lmao
— au where this whole thing takes place on tumblr and Antony's speech is just a callout post and no one stays in their lane
— that Mean Girls version of the speech is really fucking accurate she even gets in "Brutus is just as cute as Caeser" and if that's not something Cassius would say I don't know what is
— sorry Shakespeare I really do love your work I don't only make memes about it
— and yet: holy fuck
(i'm really sorry)
— this play is literally Macbeth except less supernatural, more Roman, and more gay
— there's also this weird Romeo-and-Juliet esque triple suicide? in which a character who has never shown up before is suddenly Cassius' best friend and then they kill themselves and lie dead next to each other over a misunderstanding? it's weird
— and then Brutus comes in and dies too so... triple suicide? cool??
— I feel like I should mention that random new character is quite literally named Titty-nius
— Shakespeare, on his 1610 ao3 account: lmao let's write a crossover of Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth except... Roman au
— this play invented the bury your gays trope
— or maybe someone just yelled "the floor is stabbing Caesar"
— I'm so very sorry for this review I regret it already
Blog | Goodreads| Twitter | Youtube
I really do love this play but I was also in it, with an Overly Large Yet Worth It Role, and at this point I have no energy to have thoughts on it, we'll talk about why I love this show and then we'll end with the long list of terrible memes
(also why the FUCK did I give this four stars. it's a five goodnight I love this underrated play)
WHY THIS PLAY IS FUCKING AWESOME
Okay, first of all, and no one else cares: it's pretty damn historically accurate as Shakespeare goes. And I'm a stressed Latin student. So that was nice to see.
It's also a really good play as characters go. Every character parallels around three other characters in interesting ways; Brutus especially is a foil to all of the other three leads. All the relationships between the characters are so interesting and heartbreaking.
This is also just one of the best-written plays I've ever read. I love how Shakespeare varies his meter for every character. Okay, example time: Brutus ends at least half his statements with weak endings rather than in typical Iambic Pentameter. Cool, right? Maybe it's not if you don't know what any of that meant. Nevermind. But my nerd ass loves it. Also, so much rhetoric. That assembly scene changed me as a person. You could write a freaking term paper on that scene and still not fully analyze the whole thing
And it's still a relevant story today!! This play has some really fucking relevant political commentary. There's actually a line in this play about how this bloody scene, this surprise betrayal, will be reenacted a thousand times over in the future, and it's maybe the most brilliant line of all time, ever. I love it. I can't believe we cut it.
Beyond all that, though, this is just one of the most narratively strong plays I've ever read. This is my favorite kind of tragedy. Every single character has sensical motivations!! There's no villain!! There's no fate as the villain!! Every bad thing that happens is the result of a character decision. I just really love this play narratively.
SOME MEMES, FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT
— I can't believe Brutus and Cassius are being chewed on by Satan in hell they didn't deserve this @Dante you take that shit back they were just trying to stop a fucking dictator good god
— comparing Caesar to Trump is unfair?? Caesar cared about poor people how is that comparable to our current president
— please just look at this
— add “bro” to every single line of The Tent SceneTM and it's 100% better trust me I Am A Scientist
— et tu, brote
— some people?? stab emperors?? to coup??
— Cassius every single time something goes wrong: time to die lmao
— au where this whole thing takes place on tumblr and Antony's speech is just a callout post and no one stays in their lane
— that Mean Girls version of the speech is really fucking accurate she even gets in "Brutus is just as cute as Caeser" and if that's not something Cassius would say I don't know what is
— sorry Shakespeare I really do love your work I don't only make memes about it
— and yet: holy fuck
(i'm really sorry)
— this play is literally Macbeth except less supernatural, more Roman, and more gay
— there's also this weird Romeo-and-Juliet esque triple suicide? in which a character who has never shown up before is suddenly Cassius' best friend and then they kill themselves and lie dead next to each other over a misunderstanding? it's weird
— and then Brutus comes in and dies too so... triple suicide? cool??
— I feel like I should mention that random new character is quite literally named Titty-nius
— Shakespeare, on his 1610 ao3 account: lmao let's write a crossover of Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth except... Roman au
— this play invented the bury your gays trope
— or maybe someone just yelled "the floor is stabbing Caesar"
— I'm so very sorry for this review I regret it already
Blog | Goodreads| Twitter | Youtube
July 10, 2025
This story can be seen as an example of a conflict in which everyone is both right and wrong. In the play, Julius Caesar and his supporters confront a group of conspirators, including Brutus, Cassius, and Casca. The plotters claim that they are acting out of love for Rome, not hatred for Caesar. They are convinced they are on the right side of history and see themselves as Rome's saviors.
The conspirators must defeat the incipient tyranny now or risk losing liberty for centuries. To use an anachronism, they have resorted to a preventive measure. Caesar, they believe, is preparing to assume absolute power, turning free citizens into slaves, though this has not yet happened.
One aspect of this multifaceted work speculates about the nature of power and leadership. The state mechanism and the human organism are compared.
To the opposing camp, led by Mark Antony and Octavius (the future emperor), Brutus and his allies are nothing more than traitors.
But are the conspirators sincere when they claim to be defending freedom from the battle-scarred Julius Caesar?
What constitutes sincerity? Is there only one kind and one degree?
The volatility of public opinion, often as fickle as clouds on a windy day, is brilliantly shown. Mark Antony's speech to the crowd of Roman citizens after Julius Caesar's assassination is a perfect example of manipulating mass consciousness. Just now, everyone seemed to agree with Brutus that violent deliverance from the "tyrant" Caesar was legitimate and necessary. But the public mood suddenly turns 180 degrees. The crowd is ready to believe Antony's masterfully constructed speech, in which he assures the people that they were despicably betrayed. An associate of the murdered Caesar begins each of his invectives by praising the offenders. He hides his antagonism under the mask of objectivity, giving everyone credit, and seemingly craving only justice. Every word of Antony's speech is full of venom and hits the target. It is a polished accusation wrapped in flattery that appeals to common sense. How could anyone not believe such an impartial speaker?
As a result, citizens are demanding that the treacherous criminals who dared to take Caesar from them be punished. According to Antony, Caesar was devoted to the well-being of the people around the clock.
The behavior of the Divine Julius immediately before his tragic death - his brief hesitation, which was quickly replaced by a determination to meet Fate - is dramatically conveyed. The augurs tell of the unfavorable signs hanging over the ruler's head. Calpurnia, Caesar's wife, implores her husband not to go to the Capitol that day. But she fails to persuade him. Caesar is not going to eschew the trappings of Fate.
Many of William Shakespeare's historical plays carried messages for his contemporaries. Through these stories, the playwright subtly addressed issues pertinent to his time. He often endowed the characters from the past with the traits of his contemporaries. Scholars have devoted many pages to searching for parallels and finding hidden messages in his texts. However, not all of the allusions that were discernible to the audience at the time are readable to us today. So, what can we say about the contemporary context behind "Julius Caesar"?
The year is 1599. Queen Elizabeth has been on the English throne for many years, but she has no heirs. Many apprehend that things may get worse after her death. They fear that the sectarian conflict between Catholics and Protestants will escalate. Attempts have been made on Elizabeth's life several times, justified on religious grounds. Around that time, a scandalous treatise by the Jesuit Juan Mariana appeared. Mariana argued that it is legitimate to remove a tyrant if it serves the "common good."
In his play set in ancient Rome, Shakespeare demonstrates that political murder does not yield the desired outcome. It may have the opposite effect in prospect. It was under Octavian, Caesar's successor, that the Roman Republic finally transformed into an empire.
Around 4.5 stars
The conspirators must defeat the incipient tyranny now or risk losing liberty for centuries. To use an anachronism, they have resorted to a preventive measure. Caesar, they believe, is preparing to assume absolute power, turning free citizens into slaves, though this has not yet happened.
One aspect of this multifaceted work speculates about the nature of power and leadership. The state mechanism and the human organism are compared.
To the opposing camp, led by Mark Antony and Octavius (the future emperor), Brutus and his allies are nothing more than traitors.
But are the conspirators sincere when they claim to be defending freedom from the battle-scarred Julius Caesar?
What constitutes sincerity? Is there only one kind and one degree?
The volatility of public opinion, often as fickle as clouds on a windy day, is brilliantly shown. Mark Antony's speech to the crowd of Roman citizens after Julius Caesar's assassination is a perfect example of manipulating mass consciousness. Just now, everyone seemed to agree with Brutus that violent deliverance from the "tyrant" Caesar was legitimate and necessary. But the public mood suddenly turns 180 degrees. The crowd is ready to believe Antony's masterfully constructed speech, in which he assures the people that they were despicably betrayed. An associate of the murdered Caesar begins each of his invectives by praising the offenders. He hides his antagonism under the mask of objectivity, giving everyone credit, and seemingly craving only justice. Every word of Antony's speech is full of venom and hits the target. It is a polished accusation wrapped in flattery that appeals to common sense. How could anyone not believe such an impartial speaker?
As a result, citizens are demanding that the treacherous criminals who dared to take Caesar from them be punished. According to Antony, Caesar was devoted to the well-being of the people around the clock.
The behavior of the Divine Julius immediately before his tragic death - his brief hesitation, which was quickly replaced by a determination to meet Fate - is dramatically conveyed. The augurs tell of the unfavorable signs hanging over the ruler's head. Calpurnia, Caesar's wife, implores her husband not to go to the Capitol that day. But she fails to persuade him. Caesar is not going to eschew the trappings of Fate.
Many of William Shakespeare's historical plays carried messages for his contemporaries. Through these stories, the playwright subtly addressed issues pertinent to his time. He often endowed the characters from the past with the traits of his contemporaries. Scholars have devoted many pages to searching for parallels and finding hidden messages in his texts. However, not all of the allusions that were discernible to the audience at the time are readable to us today. So, what can we say about the contemporary context behind "Julius Caesar"?
The year is 1599. Queen Elizabeth has been on the English throne for many years, but she has no heirs. Many apprehend that things may get worse after her death. They fear that the sectarian conflict between Catholics and Protestants will escalate. Attempts have been made on Elizabeth's life several times, justified on religious grounds. Around that time, a scandalous treatise by the Jesuit Juan Mariana appeared. Mariana argued that it is legitimate to remove a tyrant if it serves the "common good."
In his play set in ancient Rome, Shakespeare demonstrates that political murder does not yield the desired outcome. It may have the opposite effect in prospect. It was under Octavian, Caesar's successor, that the Roman Republic finally transformed into an empire.
Around 4.5 stars
August 26, 2023
Just when I thought I was beginning to 'get' Shakespeare along comes a 1 out of 12 in my opinion play, that is Julius Caesar! Harsh?
One of the playwright's Roman History set plays - this one centres around the moral dilemma that Brutus has on joining the Cassius led conspiracy to murder Julius Caesar supposedly for the good of Rome. Following Caesar's death, Rome is thrust into a period of civil war, and the republic the balancing the demands of honour, friendship and Rome itself! It sounds so good written like that, but I am afraid I just didn't get it or get Brutus' struggles in the language used. I can only apologise to purists - 1 out of 12, One Star, I had little idea of what was going on - read. Please note that I read this 19 years ago.
2006 read
One of the playwright's Roman History set plays - this one centres around the moral dilemma that Brutus has on joining the Cassius led conspiracy to murder Julius Caesar supposedly for the good of Rome. Following Caesar's death, Rome is thrust into a period of civil war, and the republic the balancing the demands of honour, friendship and Rome itself! It sounds so good written like that, but I am afraid I just didn't get it or get Brutus' struggles in the language used. I can only apologise to purists - 1 out of 12, One Star, I had little idea of what was going on - read. Please note that I read this 19 years ago.
2006 read
March 26, 2009
I once performed the whole of Mark Anthony's "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech on the steps outside the Great Hall in Trinity College, Cambridge, wearing a bedspread as a toga and with a bucket chained over my head. It's a long story. I think I still know the speech by heart.
February 12, 2018
"But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man…. "
Oh yes! So very, very, honourable was our dear Brutus…..
To think these two were once friends.
And Brutus is an honourable man…. "
Oh yes! So very, very, honourable was our dear Brutus…..
To think these two were once friends.
May 14, 2016
“Et tu, Brute?”
These lines have haunted audiences and readers for centuries, since The Bard first presented the play, believed to be in 1599, when Shakespeare would have been 35. Bringing to life scenes from Roman history, this tragedy, more than presenting a biography of the leader, instead forms a study in loyalty, honor, patriotism and friendship.
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar ...”
Antony’s speech has been memorized and recited by hundreds of thousands over the centuries and still stands as a testament to subtle revenge and stubborn leadership.
“Be patient till the last. Romans, countrymen, and lovers! Hear me for my cause, and be silent that you may hear. Believe me for mine honor, and have respect to mine honor that you may believe. Censure me in your wisdom, and awake your senses that you may the better judge. If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar’s, to him I say that Brutus' love to Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more”
Like Milton’s Satan, and Shakespeare’s Edmund from King Lear, the most interesting character in the play is the villain Brutus. But was he truly a villain? He was certainly written as a sympathetic antagonist. His conflicting thoughts on loyalty and honor form the most memorable elements of one of Shakespeare’s finest plays.
These lines have haunted audiences and readers for centuries, since The Bard first presented the play, believed to be in 1599, when Shakespeare would have been 35. Bringing to life scenes from Roman history, this tragedy, more than presenting a biography of the leader, instead forms a study in loyalty, honor, patriotism and friendship.
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar ...”
Antony’s speech has been memorized and recited by hundreds of thousands over the centuries and still stands as a testament to subtle revenge and stubborn leadership.
“Be patient till the last. Romans, countrymen, and lovers! Hear me for my cause, and be silent that you may hear. Believe me for mine honor, and have respect to mine honor that you may believe. Censure me in your wisdom, and awake your senses that you may the better judge. If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar’s, to him I say that Brutus' love to Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more”
Like Milton’s Satan, and Shakespeare’s Edmund from King Lear, the most interesting character in the play is the villain Brutus. But was he truly a villain? He was certainly written as a sympathetic antagonist. His conflicting thoughts on loyalty and honor form the most memorable elements of one of Shakespeare’s finest plays.
August 3, 2017
Book Review
In 1599, William Shakespeare published his famous tragic play, Julius Caesar. In this tragedy, he explores the effect of power and trust across many characters, those who have it and those who are hungry for it. Several memorable lines originate in this play, offering guidance on how to go about building a network of friends and an army of enemies. Most readers are familiar with the story of vengeance and betrayal when it comes to Julius Caeser, and this is the central theme in Shakespeare's play. How do you know when you can truly trust someone? What happens when hearsay changes someone's mind? Who do you turn to when you've been betrayed by someone you thought was trustworthy. These are persistent motifs across literature for hundreds of years. As one of the original literary works focusing on it, this classic has set a high standard for using one's words versus using your physical prowess to convince someone to do something they might not normally consider doing. There are a lot of strong images and passages to re-read in this play, each giving you different slices of life and hearty challenges to dissect. Of all Shakespeare's plays, I'd put this one towards the top of most analyzed. It's worth a read and teaches you a bit about history, too.
About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.
In 1599, William Shakespeare published his famous tragic play, Julius Caesar. In this tragedy, he explores the effect of power and trust across many characters, those who have it and those who are hungry for it. Several memorable lines originate in this play, offering guidance on how to go about building a network of friends and an army of enemies. Most readers are familiar with the story of vengeance and betrayal when it comes to Julius Caeser, and this is the central theme in Shakespeare's play. How do you know when you can truly trust someone? What happens when hearsay changes someone's mind? Who do you turn to when you've been betrayed by someone you thought was trustworthy. These are persistent motifs across literature for hundreds of years. As one of the original literary works focusing on it, this classic has set a high standard for using one's words versus using your physical prowess to convince someone to do something they might not normally consider doing. There are a lot of strong images and passages to re-read in this play, each giving you different slices of life and hearty challenges to dissect. Of all Shakespeare's plays, I'd put this one towards the top of most analyzed. It's worth a read and teaches you a bit about history, too.
About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.
August 18, 2022
حتي انت يا بروتس
اذن فليسقط قيصر
كم لخصت تلك الجملة الخالدة بكلماتها السبع وطأة الخيانة و ثِقل الغدر
يتآمر عدد من كبار روما علي اغتيال يوليوس
و يقنعوا بروتس ربيبه الأثير بمشاركتهم لصالح روما العام؛ و بالفعل يُغتال قيصر علي درجات مجلس الشيوخ؛ ليسقط تحت تمثال بومبي الذي قتله هو نفسه يوما ما
و يبرر المتامرون اغتياله بانه من اجل: التحرر من امبريالته و دكتاتوريته و طموحه الزايد
فيلقي مارك أنطوني خطبته موضحا ان قيصر اُغتيل غدراً لتبدأ الحرب الأهلية
يوليوس بطل مؤثر جدا فهو لم يظهر الا في اربع مشاهد من تراجيديا تحمل اسمه َو شكسبير لم يتعاطف معه بل ابرز غروره و ضيق افقه؛ و بالغ في ابراز حسن نية المتامرين و لقي حتفه في منتصف المسرحية
كثيرون يؤكدون ان المأساة مأساة بروتس و هو البطل الحقيقي المسرحية فهو الروماني الشريف النبيل الذي وقع في صراع نفسي حاد بعد اقتناعه بسمو اسباب المتامرون و هذا ادي ببلاده لحرب اهلية؛ و ادي به لمصير مؤسف
يوليوس قيصر يعتبرها النقاد اضعف حلقة في الثلاثية التاريخية الرومانية لشكسبير..
و لكنها كانت اولي المسرحيات التي ادرسها كاملة لشكسبير باللغة الإنجليزية القديمة؛
لذلك انحفرت صراعاتها في ذهني و وجدتني ممزقة مع بروتس في صراعه الإنساني القدري الخاسر؛ الذي قد يتكرر مع كل منا في مرحلة ما من حياتنا البائسة
و لكن فلنحاول ان نتجنب تبرير قسوتنا؛ لنتجنب سماع تلك الجملة الموجعة الاشهر
Et tu Brute?
اذن فليسقط قيصر
كم لخصت تلك الجملة الخالدة بكلماتها السبع وطأة الخيانة و ثِقل الغدر
يتآمر عدد من كبار روما علي اغتيال يوليوس
و يقنعوا بروتس ربيبه الأثير بمشاركتهم لصالح روما العام؛ و بالفعل يُغتال قيصر علي درجات مجلس الشيوخ؛ ليسقط تحت تمثال بومبي الذي قتله هو نفسه يوما ما
و يبرر المتامرون اغتياله بانه من اجل: التحرر من امبريالته و دكتاتوريته و طموحه الزايد
فيلقي مارك أنطوني خطبته موضحا ان قيصر اُغتيل غدراً لتبدأ الحرب الأهلية
يوليوس بطل مؤثر جدا فهو لم يظهر الا في اربع مشاهد من تراجيديا تحمل اسمه َو شكسبير لم يتعاطف معه بل ابرز غروره و ضيق افقه؛ و بالغ في ابراز حسن نية المتامرين و لقي حتفه في منتصف المسرحية
كثيرون يؤكدون ان المأساة مأساة بروتس و هو البطل الحقيقي المسرحية فهو الروماني الشريف النبيل الذي وقع في صراع نفسي حاد بعد اقتناعه بسمو اسباب المتامرون و هذا ادي ببلاده لحرب اهلية؛ و ادي به لمصير مؤسف
يوليوس قيصر يعتبرها النقاد اضعف حلقة في الثلاثية التاريخية الرومانية لشكسبير..
و لكنها كانت اولي المسرحيات التي ادرسها كاملة لشكسبير باللغة الإنجليزية القديمة؛
لذلك انحفرت صراعاتها في ذهني و وجدتني ممزقة مع بروتس في صراعه الإنساني القدري الخاسر؛ الذي قد يتكرر مع كل منا في مرحلة ما من حياتنا البائسة
و لكن فلنحاول ان نتجنب تبرير قسوتنا؛ لنتجنب سماع تلك الجملة الموجعة الاشهر
Et tu Brute?
October 15, 2019
What a terrible era in which idiots govern the blind.
Here's the plot: a demagogue threatens democracy and his own allies in the Senate have to decide whether to remove him. So you can see why the Public Theater's minds went to recent events when they staged Julius Caesar in Central Park. Their version, set in modern times and featuring a familiar-looking Caesar, has made some headlines, and I won't lie: the murder scene was disturbing to watch. Art often tries to be dangerous, but it rarely succeeds. This production, which we attended on its final weekend, felt dangerous.
no picture-taking was allowed so these are media images - you'll have to take my word for it that I was there
But "Alas," protesters outside, "Thou hast misconstrued everything." The knives are metaphors. We're talking about the dangers of tyranny here. The central question of the play is, were the conspirators right to remove Caesar? And Shakespeare, who, let's not forget, was paid by kings to play for kings, isn't exactly antiauthoritarian. You should not expect him to endorse kingslaying, and he doesn't.
"As he was valiant," says Brutus, "I honor him. But as he was ambitious, I slew him." And how ambitious was he? Was Brutus right to fear for democracy? There's a key scene that answers that question. In it, Caesar, who "would not be a wolf / but that he sees the Romans are but sheep," is offered a crown, three times, and refuses it. The smartest person in Rome, Cicero, then gives a brilliant speech. And here's the funny (and quintessentially Shakespearean thing) about that scene: we don't see it. It's narrated to us by Casca, a conspirator, who tells us that he thinks Caesar was just holding out for a better crown. And that speech by Cicero? Well, it was in Greek. Casca didn't understand a word of it. The famous phrase, "It was Greek to me," represents Shakespeare allowing you to decide.
you're about two minutes from seeing this guy's junk
But whether he was a tyrant or not, certainly the result of his removal is chaos. No one wins. What happens after Caesar is another Caesar - Octavius, his adopted son, depicted in Central Park wearing (of course) a dorky flak jacket. He and Marc Antony go to war against the conspirators; Brutus and Cassius by the end nothing has really changed. Once Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army - we're talking about history here, not just Shakespeare - democracy in Rome never recovered. When you ask, "How can we protect democracy? Is it by taking extreme measures to remove the threat? Or should we hope our government can survive him on its own?" Shakespeare answers: if you're asking the question, you've already lost.
Bummer that we couldn't have watched this play a couple years ago, then. “How many ages hence," asks Cassius, "Shall this our lofty scene be acted over, / In states unborn and accents yet unknown!” and you're like I don't know, hopefully just one more?
Here's the plot: a demagogue threatens democracy and his own allies in the Senate have to decide whether to remove him. So you can see why the Public Theater's minds went to recent events when they staged Julius Caesar in Central Park. Their version, set in modern times and featuring a familiar-looking Caesar, has made some headlines, and I won't lie: the murder scene was disturbing to watch. Art often tries to be dangerous, but it rarely succeeds. This production, which we attended on its final weekend, felt dangerous.
no picture-taking was allowed so these are media images - you'll have to take my word for it that I was there
But "Alas," protesters outside, "Thou hast misconstrued everything." The knives are metaphors. We're talking about the dangers of tyranny here. The central question of the play is, were the conspirators right to remove Caesar? And Shakespeare, who, let's not forget, was paid by kings to play for kings, isn't exactly antiauthoritarian. You should not expect him to endorse kingslaying, and he doesn't.
"As he was valiant," says Brutus, "I honor him. But as he was ambitious, I slew him." And how ambitious was he? Was Brutus right to fear for democracy? There's a key scene that answers that question. In it, Caesar, who "would not be a wolf / but that he sees the Romans are but sheep," is offered a crown, three times, and refuses it. The smartest person in Rome, Cicero, then gives a brilliant speech. And here's the funny (and quintessentially Shakespearean thing) about that scene: we don't see it. It's narrated to us by Casca, a conspirator, who tells us that he thinks Caesar was just holding out for a better crown. And that speech by Cicero? Well, it was in Greek. Casca didn't understand a word of it. The famous phrase, "It was Greek to me," represents Shakespeare allowing you to decide.
you're about two minutes from seeing this guy's junk
But whether he was a tyrant or not, certainly the result of his removal is chaos. No one wins. What happens after Caesar is another Caesar - Octavius, his adopted son, depicted in Central Park wearing (of course) a dorky flak jacket. He and Marc Antony go to war against the conspirators; Brutus and Cassius by the end nothing has really changed. Once Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army - we're talking about history here, not just Shakespeare - democracy in Rome never recovered. When you ask, "How can we protect democracy? Is it by taking extreme measures to remove the threat? Or should we hope our government can survive him on its own?" Shakespeare answers: if you're asking the question, you've already lost.
Bummer that we couldn't have watched this play a couple years ago, then. “How many ages hence," asks Cassius, "Shall this our lofty scene be acted over, / In states unborn and accents yet unknown!” and you're like I don't know, hopefully just one more?
June 1, 2025
[Read in Spanish] -- [Reseña en español más abajo]
I am happily surprised! According to my previous reviews, I have always said that I don't like theatre plays adapted to books because I can't understand its vocabulary since it is too difficult for me... but oh well, it is a theatre play, not a book. However, this play/book is an exception. I liked it a lot anddespite being a theatre play, I completely enjoyed it from the beginning to the end.
I was surprised that this play's title was not 100% about Julius Caesar. Even is they talk about him, there are characters who have a bigger role, such as Brutus and Casius. I should add that the dialogues are simple to understand,the story (or book) is not long, but enough to be very enjoyable. It's easy to follow thestory and also get interested about the characters, which for me is essential when I read a book.
I totally recommend it, and as such, it is possible to have a look at the historical context regarding Julis Caesar, which is always important. The play and the book are completely approved by me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¡Estoy gratamente sorprendido! Acorde a mis críticas de libros anteriores, siempre he dicho que no me gustan las obras de teatro llevadas a libros porque no se entiende muy bien debido a que el vocabulario es distinto y bueno... mal que mal, es una obra de teatro, no un libro. Sin embargo, esta obra/libro es una excepción. Me gustó mucho, y a pesar de ser una obra teatral, la disfruté plenamente de principio a fin.
Me llamó la atención que el título de esta obra efectivamente no se tratara 100% de Julio César. Si bien se habla de él, hay personajes que tienen un rol mayor, como el caso de Bruto y Casio. Debo agregar que los diálogos son simples de entender, la historia (o el libro) no es larga, pero lo suficiente como para disfrutarlo a pleno. Es fácil seguir la historia y también meterse dentro de los personajes, lo que para mí es fundamental a la hora de leer un libro.
Lo recomiendo totalmente, y así también se le hecha un vistazo al contexto histórico de Julio César, que nunca está demás. Obra y libro totalmente aprobados.
I am happily surprised! According to my previous reviews, I have always said that I don't like theatre plays adapted to books because I can't understand its vocabulary since it is too difficult for me... but oh well, it is a theatre play, not a book. However, this play/book is an exception. I liked it a lot anddespite being a theatre play, I completely enjoyed it from the beginning to the end.
I was surprised that this play's title was not 100% about Julius Caesar. Even is they talk about him, there are characters who have a bigger role, such as Brutus and Casius. I should add that the dialogues are simple to understand,the story (or book) is not long, but enough to be very enjoyable. It's easy to follow thestory and also get interested about the characters, which for me is essential when I read a book.
I totally recommend it, and as such, it is possible to have a look at the historical context regarding Julis Caesar, which is always important. The play and the book are completely approved by me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¡Estoy gratamente sorprendido! Acorde a mis críticas de libros anteriores, siempre he dicho que no me gustan las obras de teatro llevadas a libros porque no se entiende muy bien debido a que el vocabulario es distinto y bueno... mal que mal, es una obra de teatro, no un libro. Sin embargo, esta obra/libro es una excepción. Me gustó mucho, y a pesar de ser una obra teatral, la disfruté plenamente de principio a fin.
Me llamó la atención que el título de esta obra efectivamente no se tratara 100% de Julio César. Si bien se habla de él, hay personajes que tienen un rol mayor, como el caso de Bruto y Casio. Debo agregar que los diálogos son simples de entender, la historia (o el libro) no es larga, pero lo suficiente como para disfrutarlo a pleno. Es fácil seguir la historia y también meterse dentro de los personajes, lo que para mí es fundamental a la hora de leer un libro.
Lo recomiendo totalmente, y así también se le hecha un vistazo al contexto histórico de Julio César, que nunca está demás. Obra y libro totalmente aprobados.
March 6, 2016
The juxtaposition that Shakespeare brings forward in this historical play, which resembles a tragedy in textual tonality and structure, is the double-edged facets, the private and the public, that coexist in Julius Caesar, the quintessential dictator.
The ruler’s weaknesses show unobstructed in his private life.
Irascible, proud and vulnerable to superstition, the Caesar ignores the voice of fate represented by the Soothsayer that tries to warn him against the surges of unrest that pervade in the fatidic 15th, the Ides of March, the date of his assassination.
But are the personal defects of the Caesar reason enough to murder him?
Do they really threaten the hegemony of the Roman Empire?
Or are the conspirators spurred by envy, or even, misled by their self-imposed sense of justice?
Can the tormentor become the victim?
The collision between high idealism and pragmatism, corruption and politics, reason and irrational expectations, and the recurrent theme of preordained fate versus free will sets the frame for the characters to unfold Shakespeare’s unyielding grasp of the ambiguity –or the twisted nature?- that defines human nature.
Brutus’ noble intentions prove to be nothing more than an unequivocal desire for power and validation. His urge to simplify events ignores the fact that both people and actions are never wholly right or wrong; that one should adapt to the countless tonalities of life, that one should sometimes suspend judgment.
Cassius’ ambition invalidates him as a valid, fair leader and Marc-Antony’s loyalty is but a dull reflection of the gullibility of the populace, an undistinguishable mass of fervent venerators that can easily be transformed into a barbarous mob.
Only Octavius complies with the unspoken requisites to become Julius’ successor. With a rather lukewarm temperament, he appears almost impersonal, detached and oblivious to emotional strife.
Is maybe Shakespeare implying that the popular man, the leader, is but a “Hollow Man”, a stuffed creature, whose public image serves to disguise his true personality? What is there to hide about mankind that can’t stand the glance of common citizens? Where is his true spirit left to wander about?
Shakespeare’s version of the downfall of Julius Caesar is a quiet, subversive text where there is little space for his usual puns, wordplay and fast witted dialogue. The somewhat direct style distinguishes this play from the others I have read, which might be an attempt to create a language that presents no barriers to understanding, transcends genre, narrative, context and challenges preconceived notions about history; and ultimately, about the person who unobtrusively stares back at us in the mirror every morning of our undistinguishable lives.
Words are glowing ambers that lead to ourselves, that lead us to merely being.
Caesar’s might be ancient history, but ours, which is his, and Shakespeare’s, is not.
“Remember us –if at all- not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.”
T.S. Eliot, “The Hollow Men”
The ruler’s weaknesses show unobstructed in his private life.
Irascible, proud and vulnerable to superstition, the Caesar ignores the voice of fate represented by the Soothsayer that tries to warn him against the surges of unrest that pervade in the fatidic 15th, the Ides of March, the date of his assassination.
But are the personal defects of the Caesar reason enough to murder him?
Do they really threaten the hegemony of the Roman Empire?
Or are the conspirators spurred by envy, or even, misled by their self-imposed sense of justice?
Can the tormentor become the victim?
The collision between high idealism and pragmatism, corruption and politics, reason and irrational expectations, and the recurrent theme of preordained fate versus free will sets the frame for the characters to unfold Shakespeare’s unyielding grasp of the ambiguity –or the twisted nature?- that defines human nature.
Brutus’ noble intentions prove to be nothing more than an unequivocal desire for power and validation. His urge to simplify events ignores the fact that both people and actions are never wholly right or wrong; that one should adapt to the countless tonalities of life, that one should sometimes suspend judgment.
Cassius’ ambition invalidates him as a valid, fair leader and Marc-Antony’s loyalty is but a dull reflection of the gullibility of the populace, an undistinguishable mass of fervent venerators that can easily be transformed into a barbarous mob.
Only Octavius complies with the unspoken requisites to become Julius’ successor. With a rather lukewarm temperament, he appears almost impersonal, detached and oblivious to emotional strife.
Is maybe Shakespeare implying that the popular man, the leader, is but a “Hollow Man”, a stuffed creature, whose public image serves to disguise his true personality? What is there to hide about mankind that can’t stand the glance of common citizens? Where is his true spirit left to wander about?
Shakespeare’s version of the downfall of Julius Caesar is a quiet, subversive text where there is little space for his usual puns, wordplay and fast witted dialogue. The somewhat direct style distinguishes this play from the others I have read, which might be an attempt to create a language that presents no barriers to understanding, transcends genre, narrative, context and challenges preconceived notions about history; and ultimately, about the person who unobtrusively stares back at us in the mirror every morning of our undistinguishable lives.
Words are glowing ambers that lead to ourselves, that lead us to merely being.
Caesar’s might be ancient history, but ours, which is his, and Shakespeare’s, is not.
“Remember us –if at all- not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.”
T.S. Eliot, “The Hollow Men”
April 30, 2022
È la prima volta che leggo un testo teatrale e, sinceramente, non pensavo che mi sarebbe piaciuto così tanto.
Siamo abituati a leggere solo una versione della storia dell'assassinio di Giulio Cesare ma Shakespeare ha preferito dare voce ai suoi cospiratori dove non tenta di giustificarli o di condannarli ma ce li fa conoscere come uomini, con i loro ideali, i loro valori ma anche con i loro difetti.
È un libro molto scorrevole e con un linguaggio non troppo complicato, la traduzione secondo me è anche abbastanza buona ma non essendo traduttrice non posso giudicarla con oggettività.
Ho apprezzato la numerosa mole di personaggi presenti, secondari e non.
Siamo abituati a leggere solo una versione della storia dell'assassinio di Giulio Cesare ma Shakespeare ha preferito dare voce ai suoi cospiratori dove non tenta di giustificarli o di condannarli ma ce li fa conoscere come uomini, con i loro ideali, i loro valori ma anche con i loro difetti.
È un libro molto scorrevole e con un linguaggio non troppo complicato, la traduzione secondo me è anche abbastanza buona ma non essendo traduttrice non posso giudicarla con oggettività.
Ho apprezzato la numerosa mole di personaggi presenti, secondari e non.
May 11, 2022
حتي انت يا بروتس
اذن فليسقط قيصر
كم لخصت تلك الجملة الخالدة بكلماتها السبع وطأة الخيانة و ثِقل الغدر
يتآمر عدد من كبار روما علي اغتيال يوليوس
و يقنعوا بروتس ربيبه الأثير بمشاركتهم لصالح روما العام؛ و بالفعل يُغتال قيصر علي درجات مجلس الشيوخ؛ ليسقط تحت تمثال بومبي الذي قتله هو نفسه يوما ما
و يبرر المتامرون اغتياله بانه من اجل: التحرر من امبريالته و دكتاتوريته و طموحه الزايد
فيلقي مارك أنطوني خطبته موضحا ان قيصر اُغتيل غدراً لتبدأ الحرب الأهلية
يوليوس بطل مؤثر جدا فهو لم يظهر الا في اربع مشاهد من تراجيديا تحمل اسمه َو شكسبير لم يتعاطف معه بل ابرز غروره و ضيق افقه؛ و بالغ في ابراز حسن نية المتامرين و لقي حتفه في منتصف المسرحية
كثيرون يؤكدون ان المأساة مأساة بروتس و هو البطل الحقيقي المسرحية فهو الروماني الشريف النبيل الذي وقع في صراع نفسي حاد بعد اقتناعه بسمو اسباب المتامرون و هذا ادي ببلاده لحرب اهلية؛ و ادي به لمصير مؤسف
يوليوس قيصر يعتبرها النقاد اضعف حلقة في الثلاثية التاريخية الرومانية لشكسبير..
و لكنها كانت اولي المسرحيات التي ادرسها كاملة لشكسبير باللغة الإنجليزية القديمة؛
لذلك انحفرت صراعاتها في ذهني و وجدتني ممزقة مع بروتس في صراعه الإنساني القدري الخاسر؛ الذي قد يتكرر مع كل منا في مرحلة ما من حياتنا البائسة
و لكن فلنحاول ان نتجنب تبرير قسوتنا ؛ لنتجنب سماع تلك الجملة الموجعة الاشهر
Et tu Brute?
اذن فليسقط قيصر
كم لخصت تلك الجملة الخالدة بكلماتها السبع وطأة الخيانة و ثِقل الغدر
يتآمر عدد من كبار روما علي اغتيال يوليوس
و يقنعوا بروتس ربيبه الأثير بمشاركتهم لصالح روما العام؛ و بالفعل يُغتال قيصر علي درجات مجلس الشيوخ؛ ليسقط تحت تمثال بومبي الذي قتله هو نفسه يوما ما
و يبرر المتامرون اغتياله بانه من اجل: التحرر من امبريالته و دكتاتوريته و طموحه الزايد
فيلقي مارك أنطوني خطبته موضحا ان قيصر اُغتيل غدراً لتبدأ الحرب الأهلية
يوليوس بطل مؤثر جدا فهو لم يظهر الا في اربع مشاهد من تراجيديا تحمل اسمه َو شكسبير لم يتعاطف معه بل ابرز غروره و ضيق افقه؛ و بالغ في ابراز حسن نية المتامرين و لقي حتفه في منتصف المسرحية
كثيرون يؤكدون ان المأساة مأساة بروتس و هو البطل الحقيقي المسرحية فهو الروماني الشريف النبيل الذي وقع في صراع نفسي حاد بعد اقتناعه بسمو اسباب المتامرون و هذا ادي ببلاده لحرب اهلية؛ و ادي به لمصير مؤسف
يوليوس قيصر يعتبرها النقاد اضعف حلقة في الثلاثية التاريخية الرومانية لشكسبير..
و لكنها كانت اولي المسرحيات التي ادرسها كاملة لشكسبير باللغة الإنجليزية القديمة؛
لذلك انحفرت صراعاتها في ذهني و وجدتني ممزقة مع بروتس في صراعه الإنساني القدري الخاسر؛ الذي قد يتكرر مع كل منا في مرحلة ما من حياتنا البائسة
و لكن فلنحاول ان نتجنب تبرير قسوتنا ؛ لنتجنب سماع تلك الجملة الموجعة الاشهر
Et tu Brute?
March 15, 2024
Julius Caesar’s tragedy is so closely bound up with that of his friend-turned-assassin Brutus that perhaps William Shakespeare should have titled this play Caesar and Brutus. His 1599 play’s title, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, draws the reader's or playgoer's focus to one of history’s truly seminal moments: Caesar’s assassination on March 15 (“the Ides of March”) in the year 44 B.C. Yet for all the title’s focus on Caesar alone, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is very much a twinned tragedy, with not one but two tragic heroes following the Aristotelian cycle of hubris (fatal character flaw), hamartia (fatal decision), and anagnorisis (the hero's after-the-fall recognition of their place in the cosmos). And it is a play that gains further resonance from considering the English historical context within which Shakespeare lived and wrote.
Virtually all the members of Shakespeare’s audience, whether educated or not, would know that Julius Caesar was a famous Roman general and politician who was assassinated. Accordingly, the play abounds with situational irony from its very beginnings, when a soothsayer tells Caesar, “Beware the Ides of March.” Caesar dismisses the soothsayer’s warnings – “He is a dreamer. Peace; let us leave him” – and 400 years’ worth of audiences have been shaking their heads ever since, as they witness Caesar’s refusal to listen to the soothsayer’s warnings.
Yet Caesar’s impending demise is not strictly a matter of one’s fate being set like stone and visible in the stars. Human action and choice have much to do with it as well. The Roman senator Gaius Cassius Longinus (hereafter simply “Cassius”), a leader of the nascent conspiracy against Caesar, seeks to persuade his brother-in-law and fellow senator Marcus Junius Brutus (hereafter simply “Brutus”) to join the conspiracy. As Brutus has an established reputation for honourable behaviour, Cassius knows that Brutus would be a most helpful addition to the conspiracy.
In his blandishments toward Brutus, Cassius sarcastically compares Caesar with the Colossus of Rhodes – “he doth bestride the narrow world/Like a Colossus” – and asks, “Upon what meat does this our Caesar feed/That he is grown so great?” For Cassius, the failure of Romans to rise up against Caesar's kingly pretension is a sign that the republic's old virtues are dying out: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,/But in ourselves, that we are underlings.” One senses at once that Cassius’ motives for wanting to assassinate Caesar are, at least in part, personal rather than “patriotic.”
It is a tense time in Rome; strange phenomena manifest themselves in the streets. Acclaimed by the people after all his military victories, Caesar seems poised to become king of a Roman Republic where “king” has been a dirty word ever since Tarquin the Proud, the last king of Rome, was deposed in 509 B.C. (and by an ancestor of Brutus at that). Caesar makes a show of refusing the crown, but not a very convincing one. In this menacing setting, wise people keep their own counsel. The great orator Cicero, whom the conspirators vainly hope to lure into their ranks, slyly dismisses both Caesar's denying-the-crown charade and the conspirators’ blandishments by speaking in Greek; and future conspirator Casca, evidently a unilingual Roman, can only say that "it was Greek to me."
Julius Caesar himself harbours some feelings of distrust toward Cassius, saying to his loyal lieutenant Mark Antony early in the play that “Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look” and adding, “Let me have men about me that are fat”. Yet he does not act on those feelings of distrust; rather, he spends much of the play concerned with living up to his public image for matchless courage. When he dismisses any talk of danger against himself by saying things like “Danger knows full well/That Caesar is more dangerous than he./We are two lions littered in one day,/And I the elder and more terrible”, or “Cowards die many times before their deaths;/The valiant never taste of death but once”, he may be saying what he thinks – or he could be acting in accordance with his public persona, saying what he knows he is expected to say. Roman society did not differentiate between the public and the private person, and Caesar seems only too aware that he must look, act, and sound like a Caesar at all times. His need to live up to his public persona eventually leads to his demise.
Similarly, Brutus puts his public self before his private self; he talks himself into becoming an assassin by persuading himself that he can do so in a manner that will be congruent with his well-known reputation for honourable behaviour. Reminding himself that “I know no personal cause to spurn at [Caesar]”, Brutus states that saving the Roman Republic "must be by [Caesar’s] death." Considering (as Cassius has taken pains to remind him) that his ancestor, another Brutus, dethroned the last king of Rome 500 years before, Brutus succumbs to his own form of hubris or fatal pride that leads him to a moment of fatal decision or hamartia. Once he joins with the conspirators, he has set himself in a path that will lead him to destruction.
On the same sort of path to self-destruction walks Julius Caesar, who turns down repeated chances to avoid his premature demise. A soothsayer tells Caesar, not once but twice, “Beware the Ides of March.” Caesar disregards him; like Cassandra at Troy, and Teiresias with Oedipus and Creon in Sophocles’ plays, the soothsayer’s fate is to know the sad future and not really be able to do anything about it. Calpurnia, kneeling before Caesar, relates to him her dreams of a statue of Caesar bleeding from a hundred wounds; but when one of the assassination plotters suggests that Caesar’s failure to appear before the Senate will make Caesar seem afraid, Calpurnia’s pleas are in vain. And then there is Artemidorus of Cnidos, a Greek rhetorician, who knows of the plot and desperately tries to give a letter of warning to Caesar before Caesar enters the Forum;, Caesar refuses the letter, and walks on toward his bloody fate.
The conspirators lay hands upon Caesar in front of the Capitol, begging pardon for an exiled Roman nobleman. Caesar refuses their pleas, speaking of himself in the third person (as is his wont): “Know: Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause/Will he be satisfied.” On that note, the assassins draw their weapons. Shakespeare’s dying Caesar looks to Brutus and says, “Et tu, Brutè? [You, too, Brutus?] – Then fall Caesar!” In fact, Shakespeare’s education in Stratford-upon-Avon involved Latin translations of Greek texts. What Caesar actually said was, “καὶ σὺ, τέκνον;” – "Kai su, teknon?" or “Even you, my son?” in Greek, the language of court and diplomacy and educated people. No matter. It is still one of the most moving death scenes in literature.
With Caesar dead, the true moral nature of this act of assassination begins to reveal itself. The popular Roman philosophical schools of the time, like Epicurian and Stoic philosophy, all emphasized balance; and the way in which the conspirators have lost their moral balance shows through clearly when Brutus urges his fellow assassins to join him in bathing their arms, up to the elbows, in the blood of the murdered Caesar – in order to show the Roman people that everything’s fine and this was a perfectly reasonable thing to do! Really? Really?
As the conspirators do Caesar’s bidding, bathing their hands and swords in Caesar’s blood, Cassius muses: “How many ages hence/Shall this our lofty scene be acted over/In states unborn and accents yet unknown!” Brutus agrees – “How many times shall Caesar bleed in sport”. Imagining themselves as the stars of a play, Brutus and Cassius have clearly lost all sense of balance and proportion – even if they are correct that Caesar’s death shall “be acted over” many times – including in cinema, with actors like Charlton Heston, James Mason, Marlon Brando, John Gielgud, Greer Garson, Deborah Kerr, Jason Robards, Robert Vaughn, Richard Chamberlain, Diana Rigg, and Christopher Lee (who makes an impressive Artemidorus).
When Mark Antony finds the conspirators with the body of Caesar, he is filled with outrage at the murder of his friend. Yet he is surrounded by armed conspirators, and he knows that if he is to outlive the Ides of March, he must play his cards carefully. He expresses a certain measure of astonishment that Caesar can lie dead like other men – “O mighty Caesar, dost thou lie so low?/Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils/Shrunk to this little measure?”
Antony’s affection for his dead friend and mentor comes through clearly as he addresses the corpse of Caesar, saying, “Thou art the ruins of the noblest man/That ever lived in the tide of times.” Yet he persuades the assassins that he recognizes the necessity of what they have done; and only when he is alone does he make clear that he wants to see the assassins punished, imagining that the spirit of the murdered Caesar will “Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war”. To cry “Havoc,” in those times, meant a declaration of no quarter, of war to the knife. It is a grim prophecy of the bloody events that will soon unfold.
The conspirators hope to bring about a peaceful transition of power. Brutus addresses the distressed plebeians of Rome, speaking to the crowd in accordance with his public image as a man of principle, whose commitment to the ideals of republican government is genuine led him to the act of assassination. “Romans, countrymen, and lovers,” he begins, “hear me for my cause.” He assures his listeners that he acted strictly out of principle; it was “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.”
So far, from the conspirators’ point of view, so good; but then Mark Antony flips the script. Antony, Caesar’s loyal lieutenant, has so successfully concealed his true emotions at Caesar’s death that Brutus unwisely allows him to address the crowd of plebeians. Once again, fatal pride on Brutus’ part – assuming that he can read Antony’s character – leads toward a fatal decision that will contribute toward his downfall.
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears”, Antony says to the crowd. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him./The evil that men do lives after them;/The good is oft interred with their bones.” Yet praise Caesar is exactly what Antony does. In response to the charges that Caesar was acting out of an ambition to be a king of Rome, Antony points out Caesar’s repeated acts of generosity toward the Roman people, and suggests that “Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.” He weeps as he declares that if any Roman fails to mourn for Caesar, then “O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,/And men have lost their reason.” The crowd starts to turn away from Brutus’ point of view, and toward Antony’s.
Having shifted the tactical balance of power in terms of popularity before the Roman people, Antony then, rhetorically speaking, goes in for the kill. He holds up Caesar’s bloodied robes, pointing out where each conspirator’s blade pierced Caesar’s body, and particularly where Brutus struck Caesar with “the most unkindest cut of all.” Sarcastically, Antony reminds the crowd over and over again that if Brutus sanctioned this act of assassination, it must somehow be okay, because “Brutus is an honourable man.” It is an inspired bit of demagoguery, and it works; by the time Antony is done, the crowd of plebeians who had been acclaiming the conspirators are instead calling for their heads.
From that point, it is a short journey toward yet another Roman civil war – Brutus and Cassius lead one side; Antony, the future emperor Octavian, and Lepidus lead the other. In a classic Shakespearean pattern, violence with a target leads to untargeted violence in which innocents die. The conspirators are divided by their own differences, and their side lurches toward defeat. Brutus can declare that “There is a tide in the affairs of men/Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune”; but it is clear enough that the tides of fortune have turned against Brutus’ and Cassius’ side – even before the ghost of Caesar appears to Brutus, identifies himself as “Thy evil spirit, Brutus”, and assures Brutus that “thou shalt see me at Philippi.”
At the end, Brutus knows that his dream of restoring the republic through violence has failed. Hearing of the suicide of a fellow leader of his own side, he reflects that “O Julius Caesar, thou art mighty yet;/Thy spirit walks abroad and turns our swords/In our own proper entrails.” His beloved wife Portia – who, earlier in the play, knelt before Brutus as Calpurnia knelt before Caesar, in another linkage between the characters of Caesar and Brutus – has taken her own life, and in a particularly horrifying way.
For Brutus, there is only the cold comfort of recalling the loyalty of fallen allies, along with the expression of a hope that “I shall have glory by this losing day/More than Octavius and Mark Antony/By this vile conquest shall attain unto.” Running himself upon his own sword, Brutus dies with the words, “Caesar, now be still./I killed not thee with half so good a will.”
And once Brutus has taken his own life, it is left to Antony, his erstwhile adversary, to speak generously of Brutus in death: “This was the noblest Roman of them all…/His life was gentle, and the elements/So mixed in him that nature might stand up/And say to all the world, ‘This was a man.’”
These are fine words, to be sure; but the thoughtful reader of Julius Caesar is more likely to be troubled than assured by the play’s resolution. For one thing, the reader remembers the insults that Antony and Brutus hurled at one another before the battle of Philippi – a recollection that makes Antony’s noble words of tribute seem more calculated than spontaneous. One also recalls seeing Antony with his fellow triumvirs, Octavian and Lepidus, making up death lists for after their victory, even throwing their own relatives under the proverbial chariot wheels if another triumvir wants it. And of course, one knows that within twelve years after their shared victory at Philippi, Antony and Octavian will be enemies in a civil war of their own, and Antony will follow Brutus’ path toward defeat and suicide – a tale told on the stage by Shakespeare, in his later play Antony and Cleopatra. Beyond the resolution of the troubles chronicled in this play, there are only more troubles ahead.
How did the English audiences of Shakespeare’s time respond to Julius Caesar? They did not worry about having a republic, of course; England was (and is) a monarchy, and proud of it. But they would have had decided feelings about assassination plots hatched by self-appointed avengers. English history was full of such game-of-thrones stratagems, as Shakespeare had dramatized in ten history plays – and all of those plots had brought with them some degree of death and destruction, and had destabilized the realm.
When Elizabeth Tudor succeeded to the English throne, she did so through the established, peaceful process - not through conspiracy, and not by spilling the blood of her predecessors. Once she had become Queen of England, she ruled for 45 years with wisdom and justice, ushering in what is still known as England’s “Golden Age” – and she did so while surviving four assassination plots and three assassination attempts. Shakespeare’s English audience would no doubt have seen the assassination plotters of Julius Caesar as a group of self-deluded fools, arrogantly moving their country toward anarchy and tyranny.
And how does one read Julius Caesar nowadays, here in the United States of America – or Civitates Foederatae Americae, as the Romans would have called it? After all, we are one of those “states unborn”, with “accents yet unknown”, that Cassius speaks of after the assassination. As with the Roman Republic that ended not long after the murder of Caesar, the U.S.A. is a republic whose people are proud of having retained a republican form of government for a period of centuries.
And our republic has its own sad history of assassination – of 46 U.S. presidents, four have died at the hands of assassins, two others have been wounded in assassination attempts, and thirteen others have been the subject of assassination plots that fortunately never came to fruition. Americans know only too well the fear and instability that attend the violent death of a head of state – something that makes Julius Caesar all too contemporary. It brings history and tragedy together like no other Shakespeare play.
Virtually all the members of Shakespeare’s audience, whether educated or not, would know that Julius Caesar was a famous Roman general and politician who was assassinated. Accordingly, the play abounds with situational irony from its very beginnings, when a soothsayer tells Caesar, “Beware the Ides of March.” Caesar dismisses the soothsayer’s warnings – “He is a dreamer. Peace; let us leave him” – and 400 years’ worth of audiences have been shaking their heads ever since, as they witness Caesar’s refusal to listen to the soothsayer’s warnings.
Yet Caesar’s impending demise is not strictly a matter of one’s fate being set like stone and visible in the stars. Human action and choice have much to do with it as well. The Roman senator Gaius Cassius Longinus (hereafter simply “Cassius”), a leader of the nascent conspiracy against Caesar, seeks to persuade his brother-in-law and fellow senator Marcus Junius Brutus (hereafter simply “Brutus”) to join the conspiracy. As Brutus has an established reputation for honourable behaviour, Cassius knows that Brutus would be a most helpful addition to the conspiracy.
In his blandishments toward Brutus, Cassius sarcastically compares Caesar with the Colossus of Rhodes – “he doth bestride the narrow world/Like a Colossus” – and asks, “Upon what meat does this our Caesar feed/That he is grown so great?” For Cassius, the failure of Romans to rise up against Caesar's kingly pretension is a sign that the republic's old virtues are dying out: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,/But in ourselves, that we are underlings.” One senses at once that Cassius’ motives for wanting to assassinate Caesar are, at least in part, personal rather than “patriotic.”
It is a tense time in Rome; strange phenomena manifest themselves in the streets. Acclaimed by the people after all his military victories, Caesar seems poised to become king of a Roman Republic where “king” has been a dirty word ever since Tarquin the Proud, the last king of Rome, was deposed in 509 B.C. (and by an ancestor of Brutus at that). Caesar makes a show of refusing the crown, but not a very convincing one. In this menacing setting, wise people keep their own counsel. The great orator Cicero, whom the conspirators vainly hope to lure into their ranks, slyly dismisses both Caesar's denying-the-crown charade and the conspirators’ blandishments by speaking in Greek; and future conspirator Casca, evidently a unilingual Roman, can only say that "it was Greek to me."
Julius Caesar himself harbours some feelings of distrust toward Cassius, saying to his loyal lieutenant Mark Antony early in the play that “Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look” and adding, “Let me have men about me that are fat”. Yet he does not act on those feelings of distrust; rather, he spends much of the play concerned with living up to his public image for matchless courage. When he dismisses any talk of danger against himself by saying things like “Danger knows full well/That Caesar is more dangerous than he./We are two lions littered in one day,/And I the elder and more terrible”, or “Cowards die many times before their deaths;/The valiant never taste of death but once”, he may be saying what he thinks – or he could be acting in accordance with his public persona, saying what he knows he is expected to say. Roman society did not differentiate between the public and the private person, and Caesar seems only too aware that he must look, act, and sound like a Caesar at all times. His need to live up to his public persona eventually leads to his demise.
Similarly, Brutus puts his public self before his private self; he talks himself into becoming an assassin by persuading himself that he can do so in a manner that will be congruent with his well-known reputation for honourable behaviour. Reminding himself that “I know no personal cause to spurn at [Caesar]”, Brutus states that saving the Roman Republic "must be by [Caesar’s] death." Considering (as Cassius has taken pains to remind him) that his ancestor, another Brutus, dethroned the last king of Rome 500 years before, Brutus succumbs to his own form of hubris or fatal pride that leads him to a moment of fatal decision or hamartia. Once he joins with the conspirators, he has set himself in a path that will lead him to destruction.
On the same sort of path to self-destruction walks Julius Caesar, who turns down repeated chances to avoid his premature demise. A soothsayer tells Caesar, not once but twice, “Beware the Ides of March.” Caesar disregards him; like Cassandra at Troy, and Teiresias with Oedipus and Creon in Sophocles’ plays, the soothsayer’s fate is to know the sad future and not really be able to do anything about it. Calpurnia, kneeling before Caesar, relates to him her dreams of a statue of Caesar bleeding from a hundred wounds; but when one of the assassination plotters suggests that Caesar’s failure to appear before the Senate will make Caesar seem afraid, Calpurnia’s pleas are in vain. And then there is Artemidorus of Cnidos, a Greek rhetorician, who knows of the plot and desperately tries to give a letter of warning to Caesar before Caesar enters the Forum;, Caesar refuses the letter, and walks on toward his bloody fate.
The conspirators lay hands upon Caesar in front of the Capitol, begging pardon for an exiled Roman nobleman. Caesar refuses their pleas, speaking of himself in the third person (as is his wont): “Know: Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause/Will he be satisfied.” On that note, the assassins draw their weapons. Shakespeare’s dying Caesar looks to Brutus and says, “Et tu, Brutè? [You, too, Brutus?] – Then fall Caesar!” In fact, Shakespeare’s education in Stratford-upon-Avon involved Latin translations of Greek texts. What Caesar actually said was, “καὶ σὺ, τέκνον;” – "Kai su, teknon?" or “Even you, my son?” in Greek, the language of court and diplomacy and educated people. No matter. It is still one of the most moving death scenes in literature.
With Caesar dead, the true moral nature of this act of assassination begins to reveal itself. The popular Roman philosophical schools of the time, like Epicurian and Stoic philosophy, all emphasized balance; and the way in which the conspirators have lost their moral balance shows through clearly when Brutus urges his fellow assassins to join him in bathing their arms, up to the elbows, in the blood of the murdered Caesar – in order to show the Roman people that everything’s fine and this was a perfectly reasonable thing to do! Really? Really?
As the conspirators do Caesar’s bidding, bathing their hands and swords in Caesar’s blood, Cassius muses: “How many ages hence/Shall this our lofty scene be acted over/In states unborn and accents yet unknown!” Brutus agrees – “How many times shall Caesar bleed in sport”. Imagining themselves as the stars of a play, Brutus and Cassius have clearly lost all sense of balance and proportion – even if they are correct that Caesar’s death shall “be acted over” many times – including in cinema, with actors like Charlton Heston, James Mason, Marlon Brando, John Gielgud, Greer Garson, Deborah Kerr, Jason Robards, Robert Vaughn, Richard Chamberlain, Diana Rigg, and Christopher Lee (who makes an impressive Artemidorus).
When Mark Antony finds the conspirators with the body of Caesar, he is filled with outrage at the murder of his friend. Yet he is surrounded by armed conspirators, and he knows that if he is to outlive the Ides of March, he must play his cards carefully. He expresses a certain measure of astonishment that Caesar can lie dead like other men – “O mighty Caesar, dost thou lie so low?/Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils/Shrunk to this little measure?”
Antony’s affection for his dead friend and mentor comes through clearly as he addresses the corpse of Caesar, saying, “Thou art the ruins of the noblest man/That ever lived in the tide of times.” Yet he persuades the assassins that he recognizes the necessity of what they have done; and only when he is alone does he make clear that he wants to see the assassins punished, imagining that the spirit of the murdered Caesar will “Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war”. To cry “Havoc,” in those times, meant a declaration of no quarter, of war to the knife. It is a grim prophecy of the bloody events that will soon unfold.
The conspirators hope to bring about a peaceful transition of power. Brutus addresses the distressed plebeians of Rome, speaking to the crowd in accordance with his public image as a man of principle, whose commitment to the ideals of republican government is genuine led him to the act of assassination. “Romans, countrymen, and lovers,” he begins, “hear me for my cause.” He assures his listeners that he acted strictly out of principle; it was “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.”
So far, from the conspirators’ point of view, so good; but then Mark Antony flips the script. Antony, Caesar’s loyal lieutenant, has so successfully concealed his true emotions at Caesar’s death that Brutus unwisely allows him to address the crowd of plebeians. Once again, fatal pride on Brutus’ part – assuming that he can read Antony’s character – leads toward a fatal decision that will contribute toward his downfall.
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears”, Antony says to the crowd. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him./The evil that men do lives after them;/The good is oft interred with their bones.” Yet praise Caesar is exactly what Antony does. In response to the charges that Caesar was acting out of an ambition to be a king of Rome, Antony points out Caesar’s repeated acts of generosity toward the Roman people, and suggests that “Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.” He weeps as he declares that if any Roman fails to mourn for Caesar, then “O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,/And men have lost their reason.” The crowd starts to turn away from Brutus’ point of view, and toward Antony’s.
Having shifted the tactical balance of power in terms of popularity before the Roman people, Antony then, rhetorically speaking, goes in for the kill. He holds up Caesar’s bloodied robes, pointing out where each conspirator’s blade pierced Caesar’s body, and particularly where Brutus struck Caesar with “the most unkindest cut of all.” Sarcastically, Antony reminds the crowd over and over again that if Brutus sanctioned this act of assassination, it must somehow be okay, because “Brutus is an honourable man.” It is an inspired bit of demagoguery, and it works; by the time Antony is done, the crowd of plebeians who had been acclaiming the conspirators are instead calling for their heads.
From that point, it is a short journey toward yet another Roman civil war – Brutus and Cassius lead one side; Antony, the future emperor Octavian, and Lepidus lead the other. In a classic Shakespearean pattern, violence with a target leads to untargeted violence in which innocents die. The conspirators are divided by their own differences, and their side lurches toward defeat. Brutus can declare that “There is a tide in the affairs of men/Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune”; but it is clear enough that the tides of fortune have turned against Brutus’ and Cassius’ side – even before the ghost of Caesar appears to Brutus, identifies himself as “Thy evil spirit, Brutus”, and assures Brutus that “thou shalt see me at Philippi.”
At the end, Brutus knows that his dream of restoring the republic through violence has failed. Hearing of the suicide of a fellow leader of his own side, he reflects that “O Julius Caesar, thou art mighty yet;/Thy spirit walks abroad and turns our swords/In our own proper entrails.” His beloved wife Portia – who, earlier in the play, knelt before Brutus as Calpurnia knelt before Caesar, in another linkage between the characters of Caesar and Brutus – has taken her own life, and in a particularly horrifying way.
For Brutus, there is only the cold comfort of recalling the loyalty of fallen allies, along with the expression of a hope that “I shall have glory by this losing day/More than Octavius and Mark Antony/By this vile conquest shall attain unto.” Running himself upon his own sword, Brutus dies with the words, “Caesar, now be still./I killed not thee with half so good a will.”
And once Brutus has taken his own life, it is left to Antony, his erstwhile adversary, to speak generously of Brutus in death: “This was the noblest Roman of them all…/His life was gentle, and the elements/So mixed in him that nature might stand up/And say to all the world, ‘This was a man.’”
These are fine words, to be sure; but the thoughtful reader of Julius Caesar is more likely to be troubled than assured by the play’s resolution. For one thing, the reader remembers the insults that Antony and Brutus hurled at one another before the battle of Philippi – a recollection that makes Antony’s noble words of tribute seem more calculated than spontaneous. One also recalls seeing Antony with his fellow triumvirs, Octavian and Lepidus, making up death lists for after their victory, even throwing their own relatives under the proverbial chariot wheels if another triumvir wants it. And of course, one knows that within twelve years after their shared victory at Philippi, Antony and Octavian will be enemies in a civil war of their own, and Antony will follow Brutus’ path toward defeat and suicide – a tale told on the stage by Shakespeare, in his later play Antony and Cleopatra. Beyond the resolution of the troubles chronicled in this play, there are only more troubles ahead.
How did the English audiences of Shakespeare’s time respond to Julius Caesar? They did not worry about having a republic, of course; England was (and is) a monarchy, and proud of it. But they would have had decided feelings about assassination plots hatched by self-appointed avengers. English history was full of such game-of-thrones stratagems, as Shakespeare had dramatized in ten history plays – and all of those plots had brought with them some degree of death and destruction, and had destabilized the realm.
When Elizabeth Tudor succeeded to the English throne, she did so through the established, peaceful process - not through conspiracy, and not by spilling the blood of her predecessors. Once she had become Queen of England, she ruled for 45 years with wisdom and justice, ushering in what is still known as England’s “Golden Age” – and she did so while surviving four assassination plots and three assassination attempts. Shakespeare’s English audience would no doubt have seen the assassination plotters of Julius Caesar as a group of self-deluded fools, arrogantly moving their country toward anarchy and tyranny.
And how does one read Julius Caesar nowadays, here in the United States of America – or Civitates Foederatae Americae, as the Romans would have called it? After all, we are one of those “states unborn”, with “accents yet unknown”, that Cassius speaks of after the assassination. As with the Roman Republic that ended not long after the murder of Caesar, the U.S.A. is a republic whose people are proud of having retained a republican form of government for a period of centuries.
And our republic has its own sad history of assassination – of 46 U.S. presidents, four have died at the hands of assassins, two others have been wounded in assassination attempts, and thirteen others have been the subject of assassination plots that fortunately never came to fruition. Americans know only too well the fear and instability that attend the violent death of a head of state – something that makes Julius Caesar all too contemporary. It brings history and tragedy together like no other Shakespeare play.
March 9, 2024
Ни у кого, пожалуй, не вызовет сомнений, что несмотря на то, что пьеса названа «Юлий Цезарь» и посвящена она его убийству, главным героем является Брут. Основной конфликт зиждется на подозрениях в узурпации власти Юлием Цезарем, для предотвращения чего был замышлен заговор, в котором участвовал преданный друг Цезаря, Брут. Пьеса не заканчивается смертью Цезаря.
Брут объясняет народу мотивы своего участия в убийстве:
«…почему Брут восстал против Цезаря, то вот мой ответ: не потому, что я любил Цезаря меньше, но потому, что я любил Рим больше. Что вы предпочли бы: чтоб Цезарь был жив, а вы умерли рабами, или чтобы Цезарь был мертв и вы все жили свободными людьми? Цезарь любил меня, и я его оплакиваю; он был удачлив, и я радовался этому; за доблести я чтил его; но он был властолюбив, и я убил его. За его любовь – слезы; за его удачи – радость; за его доблести – почет; за его властолюбие – смерть. Кто здесь настолько низок, чтобы желать стать рабом? Если такой найдется, пусть говорит, – я оскорбил его. Кто здесь настолько одичал, что не хочет быть римлянином? Если такой найдется, пусть говорит, – я оскорбил его. Кто здесь настолько гнусен, что не хочет любить свое отечество? Если такой найдется, пусть говорит, – я оскорбил его. Я жду ответа.
В С Е
Такого нет, Брут, нет.
Б Р У Т
Значит, я никого не оскорбил. Я поступил с Цезарем так, как вы поступили бы с Брутом. Причина его смерти записана в свитках Капитолия; слава его не умалена в том, в чем он был достоин, и вина его не преуменьшена в том, за что он поплатился смертью.
Входит А Н Т О Н И Й и другие с телом Цезаря.
Вот его тело, оплакиваемое Марком Антонием, который, хотя и непричастен к его убийству, но выиграет от этого – он будет жить в республике. В таком же выигрыше будет и любой из вас. С этим я ухожу, – и так же, как я поразил моего лучшего друга для блага Рима, так сохраню я этот кинжал для себя, если моей отчизне потребуется моя смерть.»
Антоний в манипулятивных целях подвергает сомнению властолюбие Цезаря:
«Стон бедняка услыша, Цезарь плакал,
А властолюбье жестче и черствей;
Но Брут назвал его властолюбивым,
А Брут весьма достойный человек.
Вы видели, во время Луперкалий
Я трижды подносил ему корону,
И трижды он отверг – из властолюбья?
Но Брут назвал его властолюбивым,
А Брут весьма достойный человек.»
Зачитав завещание, согласно которому имущество передается народу Рима, и, рассказав об изумлении Цезаря, увидевшего Брута, своего фаворита, с кинжалом, Антоний направляет гнев толпы против республиканцев, и когда все уходят, он удовлетворенно говорит:
«А Н Т О Н И Й
Я на ноги тебя поставил, смута!
Иди любым путем.»
В сцене 1 Акта IV триумвиры Антоний, Октавий и Лепид отмечают тех, кого должно убить, в том числе брата Лепида и сына сестры Антония, делают они это совершенно без колебаний, как будто это совершенно обычное дело и люди, посторонние им. Когда Лепид уходит, Антоний замечает:
«Вот жалкий, недостойный человек.
Ему бы на посылках быть, а он,
Когда мы натрое разделим мир,
Получит третью часть?»
Мы видим, как он умело направил гнев толпы против Брута, он сторговался с Лепидом об убиении сына своей сестры против брата Лепида и за его спиной называет его жалким, недостойным человеком. Он выглядит здесь негодяем. Позже мы узнаем, что сто (а по источникам Брута семьдесят) сенаторов были внесены в проскрипционные списки и были убиты.
Тем временем, Брут в лагере ссорится с Кассием из-за взяточничества последнего:
«Разве кто из нас,
Сразивших мужа первого на свете
За покровительство разбою, станет
Себя пятнать позорным лихоимством
И продавать величье нашей чести
За хлам ничтожный, липнущий к рукам?»
Образ Кассия довольно сложный. У него недостатков и достоинств примерно поровну. Шекспир не делает республиканцев сплошь идеальными героями, они полны противоречий.
Брут дважды видит призрак Цезаря, и понимает неотвратимость смерти, смерть жены Порции также не добавляет ему воли жить. Тем не менее, он встречается на поле брани с противниками.
Потерпев поражение, он кончает с собой.
«Брут лишь самим собою побежден.
Никто его убийством не прославлен...»
Его поступок вынудил его врага Антония признать:
А Н Т О Н И Й
Он римлянин был самый благородный
Все заговорщики, кроме него,
Из зависти лишь Цезаря убили,
А он один – из честных побуждений,
Из ревности к общественному благу.
Прекрасна жизнь его, и все стихии
Так в нем соединились, что природа
Могла б сказать: «Он человеком был!»
Брут олицетворяет собой идеал республиканца, он приверженец стоической философии, для него принципы свободы важнее всего, и признавая заслуги Цезаря, он идет на его убийство, из-за возможной узурпации им власти – он любил Рим больше Цезаря. Антоний же умелый политик, желавший после воцарения Цезаря, стать вторым человеком, он злейший враг республики. Но он умен, чтобы не признать достоинство Брута. Трагизм пьесы в том, что борьба с единовластием и за республиканские идеалы потерпела поражение и после смерти Цезаря.
Брут объясняет народу мотивы своего участия в убийстве:
«…почему Брут восстал против Цезаря, то вот мой ответ: не потому, что я любил Цезаря меньше, но потому, что я любил Рим больше. Что вы предпочли бы: чтоб Цезарь был жив, а вы умерли рабами, или чтобы Цезарь был мертв и вы все жили свободными людьми? Цезарь любил меня, и я его оплакиваю; он был удачлив, и я радовался этому; за доблести я чтил его; но он был властолюбив, и я убил его. За его любовь – слезы; за его удачи – радость; за его доблести – почет; за его властолюбие – смерть. Кто здесь настолько низок, чтобы желать стать рабом? Если такой найдется, пусть говорит, – я оскорбил его. Кто здесь настолько одичал, что не хочет быть римлянином? Если такой найдется, пусть говорит, – я оскорбил его. Кто здесь настолько гнусен, что не хочет любить свое отечество? Если такой найдется, пусть говорит, – я оскорбил его. Я жду ответа.
В С Е
Такого нет, Брут, нет.
Б Р У Т
Значит, я никого не оскорбил. Я поступил с Цезарем так, как вы поступили бы с Брутом. Причина его смерти записана в свитках Капитолия; слава его не умалена в том, в чем он был достоин, и вина его не преуменьшена в том, за что он поплатился смертью.
Входит А Н Т О Н И Й и другие с телом Цезаря.
Вот его тело, оплакиваемое Марком Антонием, который, хотя и непричастен к его убийству, но выиграет от этого – он будет жить в республике. В таком же выигрыше будет и любой из вас. С этим я ухожу, – и так же, как я поразил моего лучшего друга для блага Рима, так сохраню я этот кинжал для себя, если моей отчизне потребуется моя смерть.»
Антоний в манипулятивных целях подвергает сомнению властолюбие Цезаря:
«Стон бедняка услыша, Цезарь плакал,
А властолюбье жестче и черствей;
Но Брут назвал его властолюбивым,
А Брут весьма достойный человек.
Вы видели, во время Луперкалий
Я трижды подносил ему корону,
И трижды он отверг – из властолюбья?
Но Брут назвал его властолюбивым,
А Брут весьма достойный человек.»
Зачитав завещание, согласно которому имущество передается народу Рима, и, рассказав об изумлении Цезаря, увидевшего Брута, своего фаворита, с кинжалом, Антоний направляет гнев толпы против республиканцев, и когда все уходят, он удовлетворенно говорит:
«А Н Т О Н И Й
Я на ноги тебя поставил, смута!
Иди любым путем.»
В сцене 1 Акта IV триумвиры Антоний, Октавий и Лепид отмечают тех, кого должно убить, в том числе брата Лепида и сына сестры Антония, делают они это совершенно без колебаний, как будто это совершенно обычное дело и люди, посторонние им. Когда Лепид уходит, Антоний замечает:
«Вот жалкий, недостойный человек.
Ему бы на посылках быть, а он,
Когда мы натрое разделим мир,
Получит третью часть?»
Мы видим, как он умело направил гнев толпы против Брута, он сторговался с Лепидом об убиении сына своей сестры против брата Лепида и за его спиной называет его жалким, недостойным человеком. Он выглядит здесь негодяем. Позже мы узнаем, что сто (а по источникам Брута семьдесят) сенаторов были внесены в проскрипционные списки и были убиты.
Тем временем, Брут в лагере ссорится с Кассием из-за взяточничества последнего:
«Разве кто из нас,
Сразивших мужа первого на свете
За покровительство разбою, станет
Себя пятнать позорным лихоимством
И продавать величье нашей чести
За хлам ничтожный, липнущий к рукам?»
Образ Кассия довольно сложный. У него недостатков и достоинств примерно поровну. Шекспир не делает республиканцев сплошь идеальными героями, они полны противоречий.
Брут дважды видит призрак Цезаря, и понимает неотвратимость смерти, смерть жены Порции также не добавляет ему воли жить. Тем не менее, он встречается на поле брани с противниками.
Потерпев поражение, он кончает с собой.
«Брут лишь самим собою побежден.
Никто его убийством не прославлен...»
Его поступок вынудил его врага Антония признать:
А Н Т О Н И Й
Он римлянин был самый благородный
Все заговорщики, кроме него,
Из зависти лишь Цезаря убили,
А он один – из честных побуждений,
Из ревности к общественному благу.
Прекрасна жизнь его, и все стихии
Так в нем соединились, что природа
Могла б сказать: «Он человеком был!»
Брут олицетворяет собой идеал республиканца, он приверженец стоической философии, для него принципы свободы важнее всего, и признавая заслуги Цезаря, он идет на его убийство, из-за возможной узурпации им власти – он любил Рим больше Цезаря. Антоний же умелый политик, желавший после воцарения Цезаря, стать вторым человеком, он злейший враг республики. Но он умен, чтобы не признать достоинство Брута. Трагизм пьесы в том, что борьба с единовластием и за республиканские идеалы потерпела поражение и после смерти Цезаря.
January 27, 2018
basically: bros loving each others, deciding to kill their greatest bro and ending up going on a bro war.
July 27, 2017
“What a terrible era in which idiots govern the blind.”
― William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 1
Julius Caesar was one of my first Shakespeare loves. I remember in Jr High memorizing (and I still can remember most of it) Mark Anthony's eulogy to Caesar ("Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears..." It was powerful and was an early indicator for me of language's potential energy. Within those lines there were several messages, foreshadowing, etc. It turned me onto both Shakespeare and the Classics. I'm now coming back to Julius Caesar 25+ years later. Hopefully a bit more mature. With a bit more body hair. Certainly, with more experience with Shakespeare, the Classics, and politics and the original JC. I've now read considerably Livy, Edward Gibbon, Suetonius, and probably most importantly Plutarch. But even with all of this 'source' material, the play itself still seems to capture the imagination in ways that history (both modern and ancient) can't. Shakespeare can tease out and nuance things (obviously made up) that gives live to Brutus, Caesar, Anthony.
It was ironic too that I was reading Julius Caesar right after (unplanned) the June controversy with the New York Public Theatre's production where they used a Trump-like character to play the part of Julius Caesar. The brouhaha could easily have been predicted. The closer our contemporary leaders become to actual tyrants, the harder it becomes for their supporters to digest their images being used to portray an assassinated Julius Caesar. The closer we edge to the end of the Republic, the more relevant and less popular Julius Caesar will be with those in tyrannical camps.
It all holds up. It still feels relevant and even a bit dangerous.
Favorite Lines:
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” (Act 1, Scene 2)
"But, for my own part, it was Greek to me.” (Act 1, Scene 2)
“...for the eye sees not itself,
but by reflection, by some other things.” (Act 1, Scene 2)
“Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.” (Act 2, Scene 2)
“Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!” (Act 3, Scene 1)
“Of your philosophy you make no use,
If you give place to accidental evils.” (Act 4, Scene 3)
― William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 1
Julius Caesar was one of my first Shakespeare loves. I remember in Jr High memorizing (and I still can remember most of it) Mark Anthony's eulogy to Caesar ("Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears..." It was powerful and was an early indicator for me of language's potential energy. Within those lines there were several messages, foreshadowing, etc. It turned me onto both Shakespeare and the Classics. I'm now coming back to Julius Caesar 25+ years later. Hopefully a bit more mature. With a bit more body hair. Certainly, with more experience with Shakespeare, the Classics, and politics and the original JC. I've now read considerably Livy, Edward Gibbon, Suetonius, and probably most importantly Plutarch. But even with all of this 'source' material, the play itself still seems to capture the imagination in ways that history (both modern and ancient) can't. Shakespeare can tease out and nuance things (obviously made up) that gives live to Brutus, Caesar, Anthony.
It was ironic too that I was reading Julius Caesar right after (unplanned) the June controversy with the New York Public Theatre's production where they used a Trump-like character to play the part of Julius Caesar. The brouhaha could easily have been predicted. The closer our contemporary leaders become to actual tyrants, the harder it becomes for their supporters to digest their images being used to portray an assassinated Julius Caesar. The closer we edge to the end of the Republic, the more relevant and less popular Julius Caesar will be with those in tyrannical camps.
It all holds up. It still feels relevant and even a bit dangerous.
Favorite Lines:
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” (Act 1, Scene 2)
"But, for my own part, it was Greek to me.” (Act 1, Scene 2)
“...for the eye sees not itself,
but by reflection, by some other things.” (Act 1, Scene 2)
“Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.” (Act 2, Scene 2)
“Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!” (Act 3, Scene 1)
“Of your philosophy you make no use,
If you give place to accidental evils.” (Act 4, Scene 3)
January 12, 2021
~3 stars~
TW/CW: suicide, death, violence
***read for school***
It was good. Not my favorite or really my thing, but I enjoyed it better than Macbeth. Listening to it while reading it helped, but all the assignments I had to do and still have yet to finish, and the daunting essay I have to write next week do not. It's about who I think is the most tragical hero, Brutus or Caeser. Quite frankly I think it's neither, so I suppose I just have to lie my way through the essay.
I thought it was very thought provoking in different areas, and that Shakespeare did a great job with this one writing wise. The fact that Caesar himself was not a bigger part of it, I did not like. He died too early for me to even care about him, but to be fair, I equally didn't care about the other characters either. Overall, I think having read it over a long period of time, and having read it for school may have ruined some of the experience I may have had, but discussing it with others also enhanced it. I like this book enough, but wouldn't re-read it, but I do look forward to picking up more Shakespeare in the future.
____
Pre-reading thoughts
(November 18 2020)
I haven't started reading this, but I did have to do some research on Ceaser and here is a fun fact:
He is a major prick. He was kindnapped by pirates, and asked them to raise the ransom higher because it was "too low", and he thought he really was that important. He threatened to crucify them if they didn't. They thought it was joke. After he was released he came back and did just as he promised. I already hate him, and I barely know anything about him. He sounds insufferable smh.
---
(Nov 9 2020)
imagine this:
Today is the first day of the quarter
You have all new classes
You log into the online class bcuz Ms. 'Rona decided she wanted to be the MC
Your teacher has assigned this book in the first few minutes
You are now being forced to read a book you never really had any intention of reading
You groan because the chances are you won't like it
Because school ruines everything
anyways I will be reading this soon I guess
TW/CW: suicide, death, violence
***read for school***
It was good. Not my favorite or really my thing, but I enjoyed it better than Macbeth. Listening to it while reading it helped, but all the assignments I had to do and still have yet to finish, and the daunting essay I have to write next week do not. It's about who I think is the most tragical hero, Brutus or Caeser. Quite frankly I think it's neither, so I suppose I just have to lie my way through the essay.
I thought it was very thought provoking in different areas, and that Shakespeare did a great job with this one writing wise. The fact that Caesar himself was not a bigger part of it, I did not like. He died too early for me to even care about him, but to be fair, I equally didn't care about the other characters either. Overall, I think having read it over a long period of time, and having read it for school may have ruined some of the experience I may have had, but discussing it with others also enhanced it. I like this book enough, but wouldn't re-read it, but I do look forward to picking up more Shakespeare in the future.
____
Pre-reading thoughts
(November 18 2020)
I haven't started reading this, but I did have to do some research on Ceaser and here is a fun fact:
He is a major prick. He was kindnapped by pirates, and asked them to raise the ransom higher because it was "too low", and he thought he really was that important. He threatened to crucify them if they didn't. They thought it was joke. After he was released he came back and did just as he promised. I already hate him, and I barely know anything about him. He sounds insufferable smh.
---
(Nov 9 2020)
imagine this:
Today is the first day of the quarter
You have all new classes
You log into the online class bcuz Ms. 'Rona decided she wanted to be the MC
Your teacher has assigned this book in the first few minutes
You are now being forced to read a book you never really had any intention of reading
You groan because the chances are you won't like it
Because school ruines everything
anyways I will be reading this soon I guess
January 29, 2019
The party on the streets of Rome provides the context: Julius Caesar's power is becoming close to absolute. The crowds love Caesar. The dissenters who stand on the outskirts of this party see few options to check Caesar's power. These differing perspectives from the opening of William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar gives it a nuance that belies the simple story of Brutus's betrayal. Very intriguing and enjoyable! This is probably one of the most famous of Shakespeare's plays which I'd never read. There were many familiar quotes (which I'd heard before, but had not tied to this specific play; see below). While I don't think it's among his very best, Shakespeare's mastery of language is in full force. 4.25 stars.
Beware the Ides of March.
(Soothsayer, Act 1 Scene 2)
Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
(Cassius, Act 1 Scene 2)
But, for mine own part, it was Greek to me.
(Casca, Act 1 Scene 2)
Cowards die many times before their deaths,
The valiant never taste of death but once.
(Caesar, Act 2 Scene 2)
Et tu, Brute?—Then fall, Caesar.
(Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1)
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
(Antony, Act 3 Scene 1)
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.
(Antony, Act 3, Scene 2)
Beware the Ides of March.
(Soothsayer, Act 1 Scene 2)
Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
(Cassius, Act 1 Scene 2)
But, for mine own part, it was Greek to me.
(Casca, Act 1 Scene 2)
Cowards die many times before their deaths,
The valiant never taste of death but once.
(Caesar, Act 2 Scene 2)
Et tu, Brute?—Then fall, Caesar.
(Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1)
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
(Antony, Act 3 Scene 1)
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.
(Antony, Act 3, Scene 2)
March 27, 2025
ریویوو برای بازخوانی دوم:
در نمایش جولیوس سزار، مردان توطئه میکنند، تصمیم میگیرند و خون میریزند. اما در حاشیه این صحنه پر از خون و خنجر، زنانی ایستادهاند که حقیقت را پیش از همه دیدهاند—و صدایشان در میان هیاهوی قدرت، خفه شده است.
این یک داستان کهن و تکراری ست. زنان همیشه دیدهاند، هشدار دادهاند، فهمیدهاند، اما هرگز در تصمیمگیریها جایی نداشتهاند. تاریخ پر از مردانی است که دنیا را به نابودی کشاندهاند، چون به کلماتی که از دهان زنان بیرون میآمد، تنها به چشم زمزمههایی بیاهمیت نگاه کردهاند. اگر کالپورنیا شنیده میشد، سزار زنده میماند. اگر پورشیا جدی گرفته میشد، شاید تاریخ تغییر میکرد.
تراژدی قیصر تنها یک نمایشنامه نیست. این تصویری از جهانی است که هنوز هم زنان را نادیده میگیرد، که هشدارهایشان را تا زمانی که دیر نشده، نمیشنود.
و اکنون پرسش اساسی اینجاست: تا کی قرار است جهان به بهای نادیده گرفتن صدای زنان، سقوط کند؟
از شما دعوت میکنم با خواندن مرور زیر، همراه من به تراژدی قیصر از منظری دیگر_زاویه دید زنان نمایشنامه _ نگاه کنید، و انعکاس صداهای ناشنیده شدهی شخصیت های کمفروغ، اما مهم این تراژدی باشید.
...........
"زنان فراموششده تراژدی جولیوس سزار" یا "چه کسی صدای کالپورنیا و پورشیا را شنید؟"
وقتی نام جولیوس سزار شکسپیر به زبان میآید، ذهنها اغلب مردان پرهیاهوی روم را به خاطر میآورند؛ سزار با تاج افتخارش، بروتوس با خنجر پنهانش، کاسیوس با توطئههای زیرکانهاش و آنتونی با هوش و بلاغتاش. این نمایشنامه، که در قلب خود راوی تراژدی قدرت و خیانت است، بهندرت از منظر شخصیتهایی دیده شده که در سایه این مردان ایستادهاند، یعنی زنان. کالپورنیا، همسر سزار، و پورشیا، همسر بروتوس، اغلب بهعنوان حاشیههایی گذرا در تحلیلها و گفتگوها نادیده گرفته میشوند. اما آیا این بیتوجهی عادلانه است؟ آیا شکسپیر، این قصهگوی بزرگ انسانیت، در خلق این زنان صرفاً به دنبال پرکردن صحنه بوده، یا چیزی عمیقتر در میان است؟ در این ریویو، میخواهم نوری بر این شخصیتهای بهظاهر کمرنگ بیاندازم و نشان دهم که صدای کالپورنیا و پورشیا، اگرچه در هیاهوی روم باستان گم شده، اما حامل پیامی است که هنوز هم میتوان طنیناش را شنید.
● کالپورنیا، زنی که فریادش در برابر غرور نشنیده ماند.
کالپورنیا اولین بار در پرده دوم، صحنه اول وارد میشود، نه با شکوه و جلال یک ملکه، بلکه با ترس و التماسهای یک همسر. او از سزار میخواهد که به سنا نرود، چرا که رویاهایش پر از شومبینی است. «سزار، من هیچوقت به فالها اعتقاد نداشتم، اما حالا میترسم» (پرده دوم، صحنه دوم)؛ این جملات ساده اما پرمعنا، کالپورنیا را از یک همسر منفعل به یک پیشگو تبدیل میکند، کسی که نه از سر خرافات، بلکه از سر شهود انسانی، فاجعه را پیشبینی میکند. رویاهایش پر از تصاویر هولناک است، رویاهایی چون مجسمه سزار که از آن خون میجوشد، و رومیهایی که دستهایشان را در این خون شستوشو میدهند. شکسپیر با این تصویرسازی، کالپورنیا را به صدای عقل در برابر طوفان غرور سزار بدل میکند. اما این تنها بخشی از داستان اوست. کالپورنیا نهتنها یک پیشگو، بلکه زنی است که در عمق رابطهاش با سزار، شکنندگی و انسانیت او را میبیند. او سزار را نه بهعنوان یک فرمانروای شکستناپذیر، بلکه بهعنوان شوهری مینگرد که در معرض خطر است. این نگاه انسانی، او را از یک شخصیت صرفاً نمادین به زنی تبدیل میکند که عشق و ترسش او را به حرکت وا میدارد.
اما سزار در مقابل چه میکند؟ او این هشدار را با تمسخر رد میکند و میگوید «ترسوها پیش از مرگ بارها میمیرند، اما شجاعان فقط یکبار طعم مرگ را میچشند» (پرده دوم، صحنه دوم). این پاسخ، که یکی از معروفترین دیالوگهای نمایشنامه است، نهتنها غرور سزار را نشان میدهد، بلکه ناتوانی کالپورنیا در نفوذ به دنیای مردانه او را هم برجسته میکند. اینجا شکسپیر یک پارادوکس ظریف خلق میکند؛ کالپورنیا، که بهدرستی آینده را میبیند، در جهانی محکوم به سکوت است که فقط به شمشیر و سخنرانی گوش میدهد. آیا این تقصیر کالپورنیاست که صدایش شنیده نشد، یا تقصیر فرهنگی که زنان را به حاشیه رانده بود؟
برای درک بهتر این نادیدهگرفتن، باید به زمینه تاریخی و فرهنگی روم باستان نگاهی بیاندازیم. در جامعه روم، زنان، حتی زنان اشرافی مانند کالپورنیا، از مشارکت مستقیم در سیاست محروم بودند. آنها حق رأی نداشتند، نمیتوانستند در سنا سخن بگویند و اغلب بهعنوان ابزارهایی برای اتحاد سیاسی از طریق ازدواج دیده میشدند. با این حال، نفوذ غیرمستقیم زنان در پشت پرده نادیدهگرفتنی نبود. تاریخنگاران رومی مانند تاسیتوس و سوئتونیوس گزارشهایی از همسران اشرافی دارند که با مشاوره و هشدارهایشان بر شوهرانشان تأثیر میگذاشتند، هرچند این تأثیر بهندرت علنی میشد. کالپورنیا در این چارچوب، تجسمی از این نقش سنتی اما محدود است. او نمیتواند سزار را در میدان عمومی همراهی کند، اما در خلوت، تلاش میکند با تکیه بر رابطهی شخصیاش، او را از ورود به مسیر فاجعه بازدارد. شکسپیر با آگاهی از این محدودیتها، کالپورنیا را بهعنوان یک پل بین دنیای خصوصی و عمومی قرار میدهد؛ زنی که در خانه فریاد میزند، اما در سنا شنیده نمیشود. این تضاد، نهتنها به شخصیت او عمق میبخشد، بلکه نقدی ظریف به جامعه روم وارد میکند که صدای زنان را تنها در صورتی میشنود که با خواستههای مردان همراستا باشد.
بیایید لحظهای تأمل کنیم. اگر سزار به حرف کالپورنیا گوش داده بود، آیا تراژدی رخ نمیداد؟ شاید این سؤال بیش از حد سادهانگارانه به نظر برسد، اما شکسپیر با قرار دادن کالپورنیا در این موقعیت، ما را وادار میکند که به نقش نادیدهگرفتهشده زنان در تصمیمگیریهای بزرگ فکر کنیم. کالپورنیا نه تنها همسر سزار، بلکه آینهای از وجدان اوست که از نگاه کردن به وی سر باز میزند. در جهانی که پیشگوییها و فالها جدی گرفته میشوند؛ مثل هشدار فالگیری که هشدار میدهد «از ایدس مارس بترس»، چرا صدای کالپورنیا، که از دل عشق و نگرانی برمیآید، نادیده گرفته میشود؟ شاید شکسپیر میخواهد بگوید که در هیاهوی قدرت، اولین قربانیان صداهای خاموشی هستند که حقیقت را فریاد میزنند. اما این تنها بخشی از نقش او نیست. کالپورنیا همچنین به ما نشان میدهد که چگونه عشق و ترس میتوانند به یک شهود قدرتمند تبدیل شوند. رویاهایش صرفاً کابوسهای یک زن هراسان نیستند؛ آنها بازتابی از آشوب درونی سزار و جامعهای هستند که او رهبریاش میکند. در این معنا، کالپورنیا نهتنها وجدان سزار، بلکه وجدان کل روم است، و نادیده گرفتن او، نادیده گرفتن انسانیت در برابر جاهطلبی است.
شکسپیر با خلق کالپورنیا، ما را به این پرسش وا میدارد که آیا او صرفاً یک قربانی منفعل است یا یک قهرمان تراژیک در مقیاس کوچک؟ برخلاف سزار که با غرور به سوی مرگ میرود، کالپورنیا با فروتنی و آگاهی تلاش میکند سرنوشت را تغییر دهد. این تلاش، هرچند ناکام میماند، او را به شخصیتی پیچیدهتر از یک همسر نگران تبدیل میکند. او در سکوتش، فریادی دارد که تا پایان نمایشنامه طنینانداز میشود، فریادی که اگر شنیده میشد، شاید تاریخ روم را جور دیگری رقم میزد.
● پورشیا، مجروحِ زخمهایی که از زخم خنجر عمیقترند.
در سوی دیگر داستان، پورشیا، همسر بروتوس، ایستاده است، زنی که نه با رویاهایش، بلکه با اراده و جسارتش ما را به خود میخواند. او در پرده دوم، صحنه اول، از بروتوس میخواهد که راز آشوب درونیاش را با او در میان بگذارد، آنجا که میگوید «من فقط پورشیا نیستم، بلکه همسر توام... آیا من از اسرار تو جدا شدهام؟» (پرده دوم، صحنه اول). این درخواست، که با شجاعت و صراحت بیان میشود، پورشیا را از یک شخصیت فرعی به یک نیروی محرک تبدیل میکند. او حتی برای اثبات وفاداری و قدرت خود، زخمی بر رانش وارد میکند و میگوید: «من این را تحمل کردهام، آیا نمیتوانم رازهایت را هم تحمل کنم؟»
این لحظه، که اغلب در سایه توطئه اصلی گم میشود، یکی از قدرتمندترین تصاویر نمایشنامه است. پورشیا با این عمل، نهتنها خود را همتراز مردان قرار میدهد، بلکه بهنوعی از بروتوس پیشی میگیرد. بروتوس، که بعداً خنجر را بر سزار فرو میکند، در اینجا در برابر زنی ایستاده که پیشتر زخم را بر خود پذیرفته است. این لحظه نشان میدهد که پورشیا درک عمیقی از مفهوم فداکاری دارد، فداکاریای که بعداً بروتوس با کشتن سزار به شکل دیگری نشان میدهد. اما تفاوت اینجاست که زخم پورشیا از سر عشق و وفاداری است، در حالی که خنجر بروتوس از سر خیانت و ایدئولوژی. شکسپیر با این پارادوکس، پورشیا را بهعنوان یک آینه اخلاقی برای بروتوس قرار میدهد.
شکسپیر با این صحنه، پورشیا را به نمادی از فداکاری و مقاومت بدل میکند، اما این مقاومت در برابر چه چیزی است؟ نه دشمن خارجی، بلکه دیوار سکوت و بیاعتمادی که بروتوس بین خود و او کشیده. با این حال، پاسخ بروتوس به این شجاعت چیست؟ او ابتدا تسلیم میشود و قول میدهد که رازش را بگوید، اما درست در همین لحظه، ورود کاسیوس و دیگر توطئهگران، گفتگو را قطع میکند. پورشیا بار دیگر به حاشیه رانده میشود، نه بهخاطر ضعف خودش، بلکه بهخاطر جهانی که برای صدای او جایی ندارد.
یک زاویه جالب دیگر، مرگ پورشیاست. در پرده چهارم، صحنه سوم، بروتوس به کاسیوس میگوید که پورشیا با بلعیدن آتش خودکشی کرده، چون غم دوری بروتوس و شکست روم را تاب نیاورد. این مرگ، که بهصورت گذرا ذکر میشود، پر از ابهام میباشد. آیا پورشیا واقعاً از سر ضعف خودکشی کرد، یا این عملی اعتراضی بود؟ بلعیدن آتش، که روشی غیرمعمول و دردناک است، میتواند نمادی از خشم و ناامیدی باشد، فریادی خاموش علیه جهانی که صدای او را نشنید. پورشیا، که در زندگی سعی کرد با زخم و التماس شنیده بشود، در مرگش هم با انتخابی جسورانه، آخرین حرف خود را زد. شکسپیر با این پایان، پورشیا را به یک تراژدی در دل تراژدی بزرگتر تبدیل میکند. مرگ او گواهی تلخ بر این انزواست. آیا پورشیا قربانی توطئه بروتوس شد، یا قربانی ناتوانیاش در تلاش برای شنیده شدن؟ شکسپیر این پرسش را بیپاسخ میگذارد، اما همین سکوت، خود فریادی بلند است.
● زنان در برابر مردان
کالپورنیا و پورشیا، هرچند در ظاهر نقشهای متفاوتی دارند، در یک نقطه مشترکند؛ آنها صدای عقل و انسانیتاند در جهانی که بهسوی نابودی میرود. کالپورنیا با شهودش سعی میکند سزار را از مرگ نجات دهد، و پورشیا با شجاعتش میخواهد بروتوس را از فروپاشی درونی حفظ کند. اما هر دو شکست میخورند، نه بهخاطر ناتوانی خودشان، بلکه بهخاطر سیستمی که گوشهایش را به روی آنها بسته است. در روم باستان، زنان حق مشارکت مستقیم در سیاست را نداشتند، اما شکسپیر نشان میدهد که تأثیر میتواند غیرمستقیم اما عمیق باشد. کالپورنیا و پورشیا، هرچند از صحنه اصلی قدرت (سنا و میدان جنگ) دورند، در واقع نگهبانان اخلاق و انسانیتاند. این پارادوکس که زنان هم ضعیف دیده میشوند و هم قدرتمند عمل میکنند، یکی از شاهکارهای شکسپیر است که با زیرکی همیشگیاش، نقدی ظریف به جامعه مردسالار روم وارد میکند، نقدی که فراتر از زمان خودش میرود و به عصر ما هم میرسد.
در بسیاری از تحلیلهای سنتی، جولیوس سزار بهعنوان داستان سقوط یک امپراتور یا خیانت یک دوست خوانده میشود. اما اگر از زاویه کالپورنیا و پورشیا نگاه کنیم، این نمایشنامه تبدیل به روایتی از صداهای گمشده میشود. شکسپیر با خلق این زنان، ما را به چالش میکشد که بپرسیم: اگر این صداها شنیده میشدند، آیا تاریخ روم (یا حتی تاریخ خودمان) جور دیگری رقم میخورد؟ کالپورنیا و پورشیا به ما یادآوری میکنند که در هر تراژدی، چیزی بیش از قهرمانان روی صحنه قربانی میشود، چیزی از جنس وجدان، عشق، و انسانیت.
● چرا این زنان فراموش شدهاند؟
شاید بپرسید چرا این شخصیتها در تحلیلها و اقتباسها کمرنگ ماندهاند. پاسخ ساده است: جولیوس سزار داستان شمشیر و تاج است، و در این روایت پرهیاهو، صدای آرام زنان بهسختی شنیده میشود. اما این کمرنگی، انتخاب شکسپیر نیست، بلکه انتخاب ماست. ما، خوانندگان و تماشاگران، اغلب جذب درام بزرگتر میشویم و فراموش میکنیم که شکسپیر، در زیر لایههای اصلی، داستانهای کوچکتر اما عمیقی هم بافته است.
کالپورنیا و پورشیا قهرمانان کلاسیک نیستند. آنها نه سخنرانیهای پرشور دارند، نه شمشیر به دست میگیرند. اما قدرت آنها در همین سادگی است. در رویاهایی که حقیقت را فاش میکنند، در زخمهایی که وفاداری را فریاد میزنند. شکسپیر با این شخصیتها به ما میگوید که گاهی بزرگترین شجاعت، نه در میدان جنگ، بلکه در تلاش برای شنیده شدن است.
● امروز چه میشنویم؟
اگر جولیوس سزار را امروز بخوانیم، کالپورنیا و پورشیا بیش از همیشه معنا پیدا میکنند. در جهانی که هنوز هم صداهای بسیاری در سایه قدرت گم میشوند، این زنان به ما یادآوری میکنند که گوش دادن به حاشیهها گاهی مهمتر از تماشای مرکز است. کالپورنیا میتوانست سزار را نجات دهد، پورشیا میتوانست بروتوس را از سقوط اخلاقی بازدارد، اما هیچکدام شنیده نشدند. این شکست آنها نیست، شکست ماست.
در نمایشنامه تراژدی ژولیوس سزار نقش زنان_ کالپورنیا (همسر سزار) و پورشیا (همسر بروتوس)_ از نظر حضور کمّی در صحنهها محدود، اما از نظر کیفی دارای اهمیت بسیار است. اما چگونه؟
● اهمیت و تأثیر در پیشبرد تراژدی
بُعد انسانی و تضاد در شخصیتها: زنان در این نمایشنامه بهعنوان صداهای عقل، وجدان و احساسات عمل میکنند که در تضاد با دنیای مردانه سیاست، قدرت و خشونت قرار دارند. این تضاد، تراژدی را از یک روایت صرفاً سیاسی به یک درام عمیقاً انسانی تبدیل میکند.
● پیشگویی و سرنوشت: کالپورنیا و پیشگوییهایش به مضمون سرنوشت و ناتوانی انسان در فرار از آن اشاره دارند که یکی از ستونهای اصلی تراژدی است.
● تأثیر بر شخصیتهای اصلی: هر دو زن بر تصمیمگیریها و حالات روانی سزار و بروتوس اثر میگذارند، حتی اگر این تأثیر در نهایت نادیده گرفته شود یا به شکست منجر شود.
○ آیا میتوان نقش آنها را در نمایشنامه حذف کرد؟
از نظر ساختاری، بله، میتوان نمایشنامه را بدون حضور مستقیم این شخصیتها بازنویسی کرد، زیرا خط اصلی داستان (توطئه علیه سزار، قتل او و پیامدهای آن) به شخصیتهای مرد وابسته است. اما حذف آنها تأثیرات زیر را به دنبال خواهد داشت:
° کاهش عمق عاطفی: بدون کالپورنیا و پورشیا، جنبههای شخصی و آسیبپذیر سزار و بروتوس کمتر برجسته میشود و تراژدی به یک رویداد سیاسی صرف تقلیل مییابد.
° ضعف در تمهای تراژیک: مضامین سرنوشت، غرور و فروپاشی درونی بدون حضور این زنان که بهعنوان آینهای برای انعکاس ضعفهای قهرمانان عمل میکنند، کمرنگتر میشوند.
° از دست رفتن تعادل جنسیتی نمادین: حضور زنان، هرچند محدود، تعادلی نمادین در برابر دنیای مردانه روم ایجاد میکند و حذف آنها این تعادل را بر هم میزند.
شکسپیر با گنجاندن این شخصیتها، حتی در نقشهای حاشیهای، نشان میدهد که تراژدی نه تنها در میدان نبرد یا سنا، بلکه در روابط انسانی و درونی نیز ریشه دارد.
در پایان این سفر به قلب تراژدی جولیوس سزار، کالپورنیا و پورشیا نهتنها صداهای گمشدهی روم باستان، بلکه فانوسهایی برای ما در امروزند. آنها به ما میآموزند که حتی در سایههای سنگین قدرت، شجاعت شنیدن و فریاد زدن حقیقت میتواند جهانی را دگرگون کند. پس بیایید گوشهایمان را به روی صداهای خاموش باز کنیم و با الهام از این زنان فراموششده، خودمان را به شنیدن و شنیده شدن متعهد سازیم؛ شاید اینبار، تراژدی به امید بدل شود.
...............
این دومین نمایشنامه از شکسپیر هستش که با امیرحسین همخوانی میکنم، نمایشنامه قبلی مکبث بود که هردو همخوانی، تجربه هایی به شدت پربار، آموزنده، خلاق و جذاب بودن. جدن امیدوارم امیرحسین هم به اندازه من مشتاق شکسپیر بعدی باشه :))
مثل همخوانی قبل، نمایشنامه رو با نسخه فارسی شروع کردیم، اینبار ترجمه رو خوندیم. بعد نسخه نو_فیر_شکسپیر رو خوندیم. من اقتباس سینمایی "سزار باید بمیرد" Caesar Must Die 2012 رو دیدم که بسسسسیار از دیدنش کیف کردم (مرسی مسعود برای معرفی) و بازم مثل همیشه و کاری که برای همه کتابهای مهمی که میخونم انجام میدم، صد میلیون تا مقاله و تحقیق و متن و ریویوو و یادداشت خوندم تا به فهم کاملی از اثر دست پیدا کنم. در آخر هم ۳ تا از افسانه های معروف (شایعه) درمورد شکسپیر رو از کتاب 30 Great Myths About Shakespeare گلچین کردم که این پایین مینویسم (شایعات فرد رو من مینویسم و زوج هارو امیرحسین)؛ بخش بانمک برنامه اس مثلا :)
خلاصه که ممنونم ریویوو رو میخونید. امیدوارم اگه تراژدی قیصر رو تاالان نخوندید، باعث بشه زودتر برید سراغش.
...........
30 Great Myths About Shakespeare
نوشته لوری مگوایر و اِما اسمیت
افسانه شماره ۵: "شکسپیر هرگز سفر نکرد"
این باور که ویلیام شکسپیر هرگز از زادگاهش یا لندن دورتر نرفت، موضوعیه که اغلب مطرح میشه، اما شواهد قطعی برای تأیید یا ردش کمه. کتاب به این نکته اشاره میکنه که شکسپیر، برخلاف تصور برخی، نیازی به سفرهای دور و دراز نداشت تا آثاری با عمق جغرافیایی و فرهنگی خلق کنه. نمایشنامههایی چون تاجر ونیزی (با توصیف ونیز) یا اُتلو (با اشاره به قبرس) نشاندهنده آگاهی اون از مکانهای دوردست هستن، اما این دانش به احتمال زیاد از مطالعه کتابها، گفتگو با مسافران، و منابع مکتوبی مانند سفرنامهها یا ترجمههای لاتین به دست آمده. شکسپیر در لندن، که در زمان او مرکز تجارت و تبادل فرهنگی بود، فرصت کافی برای شنیدن روایتهایی از سراسر جهان داشته. باید بدونید سفر نکردن شکسپیر نه تنها نقطه ضعف نبوده، بلکه نشاندهنده قدرت تخیل و مهارت اون در بهرهگیری از منابع موجود هستش. با این حال، هیچ سندی مبنی بر سفر او به خارج از انگلستان وجود نداره، و این افسانه تا حدی میتونه درست باشه.
افسانه شماره ۷: "شکسپیر کاتولیک بود"
این افسانه از گمانهزنیهایی درباره دین شکسپیر سرچشمه میگیره، بهویژه با توجه به دوران پرتنش مذهبی انگلستان در عصر الیزابت که پروتستانتیسم غالب بوده و کاتولیکها تحت فشار قرار داشتن. کتاب به این موضوع میپردازه که برخی شواهد غیرمستقیم—مثل کاتولیک بودن احتمالی پدرش، جان شکسپیر، یا اشارههایی به آیینهای کاتولیک در آثاری مثل هملت (مثل بحث درباره برزخ)—این فرضیه رو تقویت کردن. با این حال، هیچ مدرک محکمی وجود نداره که نشان بده شکسپیر بهطور مخفیانه کاتولیک بوده یا به این آیین پایبند مونده. در واقع، اون در کلیسای پروتستان ازدواج کرده، فرزندانش رو اونجا غسل تعمید داده، و با همان آیین دفن شده. ممکنه که شکسپیر، به عنوان یک نمایشنامهنویس حرفهای، احتمالاً از درگیر شدن آشکار در مناقشات مذهبی پرهیز میکرده تا از عواقب سیاسی و اجتماعی در امان بمونه.
افسانه شماره ۹: "تراژدیهای شکسپیر جدیتر از کمدیهای او هستند"
این تصور که تراژدیهای شکسپیر ( هملت، مکبث یا جولیوس سزار) از نظر هنری یا مضمونی عمیقتر و جدیتر از کمدیهاش ( رؤیای شب نیمهتابستان یا هر طور که بخواهی) هستن، دیدگاهی رایج اما قابل نقده. کتاب استدلال میکنه که این تمایز بیش از حد سادهانگارانه اس. کمدیهای شکسپیر، هرچند با طنز و پایان خوش همراهن، پر از لایههای پیچیده اجتماعی، سیاسی و فلسفی هستن که به همون اندازه تراژدیها تأملبرانگیزن. برای مثال، در تاجر ونیزی، مسائل تبعیض نژادی و عدالت مطرح میشه. از طرف دیگه، تراژدیها هم گاهی عناصر طنز تلخ یا موقعیتهای غیرمنتظره دارن—مثل سخنان طعنهآمیز نگهبان توی مکبث. بهرحال مسخصه شکسپیر در هر دو ژانر، مهارت یکسانی در کاوش روان انسان و جامعه به کار برده، و برتری دادن تراژدی بر کمدی بیشتر نتیجه سلیقه مخاطبان مدرن هستش تا نیت یا توانایی شکسپیر. این افسانه، در واقع، درک نادرستی از تنوع و غنای آثار شکسپیر رو نشون میده.
در نمایش جولیوس سزار، مردان توطئه میکنند، تصمیم میگیرند و خون میریزند. اما در حاشیه این صحنه پر از خون و خنجر، زنانی ایستادهاند که حقیقت را پیش از همه دیدهاند—و صدایشان در میان هیاهوی قدرت، خفه شده است.
این یک داستان کهن و تکراری ست. زنان همیشه دیدهاند، هشدار دادهاند، فهمیدهاند، اما هرگز در تصمیمگیریها جایی نداشتهاند. تاریخ پر از مردانی است که دنیا را به نابودی کشاندهاند، چون به کلماتی که از دهان زنان بیرون میآمد، تنها به چشم زمزمههایی بیاهمیت نگاه کردهاند. اگر کالپورنیا شنیده میشد، سزار زنده میماند. اگر پورشیا جدی گرفته میشد، شاید تاریخ تغییر میکرد.
تراژدی قیصر تنها یک نمایشنامه نیست. این تصویری از جهانی است که هنوز هم زنان را نادیده میگیرد، که هشدارهایشان را تا زمانی که دیر نشده، نمیشنود.
و اکنون پرسش اساسی اینجاست: تا کی قرار است جهان به بهای نادیده گرفتن صدای زنان، سقوط کند؟
از شما دعوت میکنم با خواندن مرور زیر، همراه من به تراژدی قیصر از منظری دیگر_زاویه دید زنان نمایشنامه _ نگاه کنید، و انعکاس صداهای ناشنیده شدهی شخصیت های کمفروغ، اما مهم این تراژدی باشید.
...........
"زنان فراموششده تراژدی جولیوس سزار" یا "چه کسی صدای کالپورنیا و پورشیا را شنید؟"
وقتی نام جولیوس سزار شکسپیر به زبان میآید، ذهنها اغلب مردان پرهیاهوی روم را به خاطر میآورند؛ سزار با تاج افتخارش، بروتوس با خنجر پنهانش، کاسیوس با توطئههای زیرکانهاش و آنتونی با هوش و بلاغتاش. این نمایشنامه، که در قلب خود راوی تراژدی قدرت و خیانت است، بهندرت از منظر شخصیتهایی دیده شده که در سایه این مردان ایستادهاند، یعنی زنان. کالپورنیا، همسر سزار، و پورشیا، همسر بروتوس، اغلب بهعنوان حاشیههایی گذرا در تحلیلها و گفتگوها نادیده گرفته میشوند. اما آیا این بیتوجهی عادلانه است؟ آیا شکسپیر، این قصهگوی بزرگ انسانیت، در خلق این زنان صرفاً به دنبال پرکردن صحنه بوده، یا چیزی عمیقتر در میان است؟ در این ریویو، میخواهم نوری بر این شخصیتهای بهظاهر کمرنگ بیاندازم و نشان دهم که صدای کالپورنیا و پورشیا، اگرچه در هیاهوی روم باستان گم شده، اما حامل پیامی است که هنوز هم میتوان طنیناش را شنید.
● کالپورنیا، زنی که فریادش در برابر غرور نشنیده ماند.
کالپورنیا اولین بار در پرده دوم، صحنه اول وارد میشود، نه با شکوه و جلال یک ملکه، بلکه با ترس و التماسهای یک همسر. او از سزار میخواهد که به سنا نرود، چرا که رویاهایش پر از شومبینی است. «سزار، من هیچوقت به فالها اعتقاد نداشتم، اما حالا میترسم» (پرده دوم، صحنه دوم)؛ این جملات ساده اما پرمعنا، کالپورنیا را از یک همسر منفعل به یک پیشگو تبدیل میکند، کسی که نه از سر خرافات، بلکه از سر شهود انسانی، فاجعه را پیشبینی میکند. رویاهایش پر از تصاویر هولناک است، رویاهایی چون مجسمه سزار که از آن خون میجوشد، و رومیهایی که دستهایشان را در این خون شستوشو میدهند. شکسپیر با این تصویرسازی، کالپورنیا را به صدای عقل در برابر طوفان غرور سزار بدل میکند. اما این تنها بخشی از داستان اوست. کالپورنیا نهتنها یک پیشگو، بلکه زنی است که در عمق رابطهاش با سزار، شکنندگی و انسانیت او را میبیند. او سزار را نه بهعنوان یک فرمانروای شکستناپذیر، بلکه بهعنوان شوهری مینگرد که در معرض خطر است. این نگاه انسانی، او را از یک شخصیت صرفاً نمادین به زنی تبدیل میکند که عشق و ترسش او را به حرکت وا میدارد.
اما سزار در مقابل چه میکند؟ او این هشدار را با تمسخر رد میکند و میگوید «ترسوها پیش از مرگ بارها میمیرند، اما شجاعان فقط یکبار طعم مرگ را میچشند» (پرده دوم، صحنه دوم). این پاسخ، که یکی از معروفترین دیالوگهای نمایشنامه است، نهتنها غرور سزار را نشان میدهد، بلکه ناتوانی کالپورنیا در نفوذ به دنیای مردانه او را هم برجسته میکند. اینجا شکسپیر یک پارادوکس ظریف خلق میکند؛ کالپورنیا، که بهدرستی آینده را میبیند، در جهانی محکوم به سکوت است که فقط به شمشیر و سخنرانی گوش میدهد. آیا این تقصیر کالپورنیاست که صدایش شنیده نشد، یا تقصیر فرهنگی که زنان را به حاشیه رانده بود؟
برای درک بهتر این نادیدهگرفتن، باید به زمینه تاریخی و فرهنگی روم باستان نگاهی بیاندازیم. در جامعه روم، زنان، حتی زنان اشرافی مانند کالپورنیا، از مشارکت مستقیم در سیاست محروم بودند. آنها حق رأی نداشتند، نمیتوانستند در سنا سخن بگویند و اغلب بهعنوان ابزارهایی برای اتحاد سیاسی از طریق ازدواج دیده میشدند. با این حال، نفوذ غیرمستقیم زنان در پشت پرده نادیدهگرفتنی نبود. تاریخنگاران رومی مانند تاسیتوس و سوئتونیوس گزارشهایی از همسران اشرافی دارند که با مشاوره و هشدارهایشان بر شوهرانشان تأثیر میگذاشتند، هرچند این تأثیر بهندرت علنی میشد. کالپورنیا در این چارچوب، تجسمی از این نقش سنتی اما محدود است. او نمیتواند سزار را در میدان عمومی همراهی کند، اما در خلوت، تلاش میکند با تکیه بر رابطهی شخصیاش، او را از ورود به مسیر فاجعه بازدارد. شکسپیر با آگاهی از این محدودیتها، کالپورنیا را بهعنوان یک پل بین دنیای خصوصی و عمومی قرار میدهد؛ زنی که در خانه فریاد میزند، اما در سنا شنیده نمیشود. این تضاد، نهتنها به شخصیت او عمق میبخشد، بلکه نقدی ظریف به جامعه روم وارد میکند که صدای زنان را تنها در صورتی میشنود که با خواستههای مردان همراستا باشد.
بیایید لحظهای تأمل کنیم. اگر سزار به حرف کالپورنیا گوش داده بود، آیا تراژدی رخ نمیداد؟ شاید این سؤال بیش از حد سادهانگارانه به نظر برسد، اما شکسپیر با قرار دادن کالپورنیا در این موقعیت، ما را وادار میکند که به نقش نادیدهگرفتهشده زنان در تصمیمگیریهای بزرگ فکر کنیم. کالپورنیا نه تنها همسر سزار، بلکه آینهای از وجدان اوست که از نگاه کردن به وی سر باز میزند. در جهانی که پیشگوییها و فالها جدی گرفته میشوند؛ مثل هشدار فالگیری که هشدار میدهد «از ایدس مارس بترس»، چرا صدای کالپورنیا، که از دل عشق و نگرانی برمیآید، نادیده گرفته میشود؟ شاید شکسپیر میخواهد بگوید که در هیاهوی قدرت، اولین قربانیان صداهای خاموشی هستند که حقیقت را فریاد میزنند. اما این تنها بخشی از نقش او نیست. کالپورنیا همچنین به ما نشان میدهد که چگونه عشق و ترس میتوانند به یک شهود قدرتمند تبدیل شوند. رویاهایش صرفاً کابوسهای یک زن هراسان نیستند؛ آنها بازتابی از آشوب درونی سزار و جامعهای هستند که او رهبریاش میکند. در این معنا، کالپورنیا نهتنها وجدان سزار، بلکه وجدان کل روم است، و نادیده گرفتن او، نادیده گرفتن انسانیت در برابر جاهطلبی است.
شکسپیر با خلق کالپورنیا، ما را به این پرسش وا میدارد که آیا او صرفاً یک قربانی منفعل است یا یک قهرمان تراژیک در مقیاس کوچک؟ برخلاف سزار که با غرور به سوی مرگ میرود، کالپورنیا با فروتنی و آگاهی تلاش میکند سرنوشت را تغییر دهد. این تلاش، هرچند ناکام میماند، او را به شخصیتی پیچیدهتر از یک همسر نگران تبدیل میکند. او در سکوتش، فریادی دارد که تا پایان نمایشنامه طنینانداز میشود، فریادی که اگر شنیده میشد، شاید تاریخ روم را جور دیگری رقم میزد.
● پورشیا، مجروحِ زخمهایی که از زخم خنجر عمیقترند.
در سوی دیگر داستان، پورشیا، همسر بروتوس، ایستاده است، زنی که نه با رویاهایش، بلکه با اراده و جسارتش ما را به خود میخواند. او در پرده دوم، صحنه اول، از بروتوس میخواهد که راز آشوب درونیاش را با او در میان بگذارد، آنجا که میگوید «من فقط پورشیا نیستم، بلکه همسر توام... آیا من از اسرار تو جدا شدهام؟» (پرده دوم، صحنه اول). این درخواست، که با شجاعت و صراحت بیان میشود، پورشیا را از یک شخصیت فرعی به یک نیروی محرک تبدیل میکند. او حتی برای اثبات وفاداری و قدرت خود، زخمی بر رانش وارد میکند و میگوید: «من این را تحمل کردهام، آیا نمیتوانم رازهایت را هم تحمل کنم؟»
این لحظه، که اغلب در سایه توطئه اصلی گم میشود، یکی از قدرتمندترین تصاویر نمایشنامه است. پورشیا با این عمل، نهتنها خود را همتراز مردان قرار میدهد، بلکه بهنوعی از بروتوس پیشی میگیرد. بروتوس، که بعداً خنجر را بر سزار فرو میکند، در اینجا در برابر زنی ایستاده که پیشتر زخم را بر خود پذیرفته است. این لحظه نشان میدهد که پورشیا درک عمیقی از مفهوم فداکاری دارد، فداکاریای که بعداً بروتوس با کشتن سزار به شکل دیگری نشان میدهد. اما تفاوت اینجاست که زخم پورشیا از سر عشق و وفاداری است، در حالی که خنجر بروتوس از سر خیانت و ایدئولوژی. شکسپیر با این پارادوکس، پورشیا را بهعنوان یک آینه اخلاقی برای بروتوس قرار میدهد.
شکسپیر با این صحنه، پورشیا را به نمادی از فداکاری و مقاومت بدل میکند، اما این مقاومت در برابر چه چیزی است؟ نه دشمن خارجی، بلکه دیوار سکوت و بیاعتمادی که بروتوس بین خود و او کشیده. با این حال، پاسخ بروتوس به این شجاعت چیست؟ او ابتدا تسلیم میشود و قول میدهد که رازش را بگوید، اما درست در همین لحظه، ورود کاسیوس و دیگر توطئهگران، گفتگو را قطع میکند. پورشیا بار دیگر به حاشیه رانده میشود، نه بهخاطر ضعف خودش، بلکه بهخاطر جهانی که برای صدای او جایی ندارد.
یک زاویه جالب دیگر، مرگ پورشیاست. در پرده چهارم، صحنه سوم، بروتوس به کاسیوس میگوید که پورشیا با بلعیدن آتش خودکشی کرده، چون غم دوری بروتوس و شکست روم را تاب نیاورد. این مرگ، که بهصورت گذرا ذکر میشود، پر از ابهام میباشد. آیا پورشیا واقعاً از سر ضعف خودکشی کرد، یا این عملی اعتراضی بود؟ بلعیدن آتش، که روشی غیرمعمول و دردناک است، میتواند نمادی از خشم و ناامیدی باشد، فریادی خاموش علیه جهانی که صدای او را نشنید. پورشیا، که در زندگی سعی کرد با زخم و التماس شنیده بشود، در مرگش هم با انتخابی جسورانه، آخرین حرف خود را زد. شکسپیر با این پایان، پورشیا را به یک تراژدی در دل تراژدی بزرگتر تبدیل میکند. مرگ او گواهی تلخ بر این انزواست. آیا پورشیا قربانی توطئه بروتوس شد، یا قربانی ناتوانیاش در تلاش برای شنیده شدن؟ شکسپیر این پرسش را بیپاسخ میگذارد، اما همین سکوت، خود فریادی بلند است.
● زنان در برابر مردان
کالپورنیا و پورشیا، هرچند در ظاهر نقشهای متفاوتی دارند، در یک نقطه مشترکند؛ آنها صدای عقل و انسانیتاند در جهانی که بهسوی نابودی میرود. کالپورنیا با شهودش سعی میکند سزار را از مرگ نجات دهد، و پورشیا با شجاعتش میخواهد بروتوس را از فروپاشی درونی حفظ کند. اما هر دو شکست میخورند، نه بهخاطر ناتوانی خودشان، بلکه بهخاطر سیستمی که گوشهایش را به روی آنها بسته است. در روم باستان، زنان حق مشارکت مستقیم در سیاست را نداشتند، اما شکسپیر نشان میدهد که تأثیر میتواند غیرمستقیم اما عمیق باشد. کالپورنیا و پورشیا، هرچند از صحنه اصلی قدرت (سنا و میدان جنگ) دورند، در واقع نگهبانان اخلاق و انسانیتاند. این پارادوکس که زنان هم ضعیف دیده میشوند و هم قدرتمند عمل میکنند، یکی از شاهکارهای شکسپیر است که با زیرکی همیشگیاش، نقدی ظریف به جامعه مردسالار روم وارد میکند، نقدی که فراتر از زمان خودش میرود و به عصر ما هم میرسد.
در بسیاری از تحلیلهای سنتی، جولیوس سزار بهعنوان داستان سقوط یک امپراتور یا خیانت یک دوست خوانده میشود. اما اگر از زاویه کالپورنیا و پورشیا نگاه کنیم، این نمایشنامه تبدیل به روایتی از صداهای گمشده میشود. شکسپیر با خلق این زنان، ما را به چالش میکشد که بپرسیم: اگر این صداها شنیده میشدند، آیا تاریخ روم (یا حتی تاریخ خودمان) جور دیگری رقم میخورد؟ کالپورنیا و پورشیا به ما یادآوری میکنند که در هر تراژدی، چیزی بیش از قهرمانان روی صحنه قربانی میشود، چیزی از جنس وجدان، عشق، و انسانیت.
● چرا این زنان فراموش شدهاند؟
شاید بپرسید چرا این شخصیتها در تحلیلها و اقتباسها کمرنگ ماندهاند. پاسخ ساده است: جولیوس سزار داستان شمشیر و تاج است، و در این روایت پرهیاهو، صدای آرام زنان بهسختی شنیده میشود. اما این کمرنگی، انتخاب شکسپیر نیست، بلکه انتخاب ماست. ما، خوانندگان و تماشاگران، اغلب جذب درام بزرگتر میشویم و فراموش میکنیم که شکسپیر، در زیر لایههای اصلی، داستانهای کوچکتر اما عمیقی هم بافته است.
کالپورنیا و پورشیا قهرمانان کلاسیک نیستند. آنها نه سخنرانیهای پرشور دارند، نه شمشیر به دست میگیرند. اما قدرت آنها در همین سادگی است. در رویاهایی که حقیقت را فاش میکنند، در زخمهایی که وفاداری را فریاد میزنند. شکسپیر با این شخصیتها به ما میگوید که گاهی بزرگترین شجاعت، نه در میدان جنگ، بلکه در تلاش برای شنیده شدن است.
● امروز چه میشنویم؟
اگر جولیوس سزار را امروز بخوانیم، کالپورنیا و پورشیا بیش از همیشه معنا پیدا میکنند. در جهانی که هنوز هم صداهای بسیاری در سایه قدرت گم میشوند، این زنان به ما یادآوری میکنند که گوش دادن به حاشیهها گاهی مهمتر از تماشای مرکز است. کالپورنیا میتوانست سزار را نجات دهد، پورشیا میتوانست بروتوس را از سقوط اخلاقی بازدارد، اما هیچکدام شنیده نشدند. این شکست آنها نیست، شکست ماست.
در نمایشنامه تراژدی ژولیوس سزار نقش زنان_ کالپورنیا (همسر سزار) و پورشیا (همسر بروتوس)_ از نظر حضور کمّی در صحنهها محدود، اما از نظر کیفی دارای اهمیت بسیار است. اما چگونه؟
● اهمیت و تأثیر در پیشبرد تراژدی
بُعد انسانی و تضاد در شخصیتها: زنان در این نمایشنامه بهعنوان صداهای عقل، وجدان و احساسات عمل میکنند که در تضاد با دنیای مردانه سیاست، قدرت و خشونت قرار دارند. این تضاد، تراژدی را از یک روایت صرفاً سیاسی به یک درام عمیقاً انسانی تبدیل میکند.
● پیشگویی و سرنوشت: کالپورنیا و پیشگوییهایش به مضمون سرنوشت و ناتوانی انسان در فرار از آن اشاره دارند که یکی از ستونهای اصلی تراژدی است.
● تأثیر بر شخصیتهای اصلی: هر دو زن بر تصمیمگیریها و حالات روانی سزار و بروتوس اثر میگذارند، حتی اگر این تأثیر در نهایت نادیده گرفته شود یا به شکست منجر شود.
○ آیا میتوان نقش آنها را در نمایشنامه حذف کرد؟
از نظر ساختاری، بله، میتوان نمایشنامه را بدون حضور مستقیم این شخصیتها بازنویسی کرد، زیرا خط اصلی داستان (توطئه علیه سزار، قتل او و پیامدهای آن) به شخصیتهای مرد وابسته است. اما حذف آنها تأثیرات زیر را به دنبال خواهد داشت:
° کاهش عمق عاطفی: بدون کالپورنیا و پورشیا، جنبههای شخصی و آسیبپذیر سزار و بروتوس کمتر برجسته میشود و تراژدی به یک رویداد سیاسی صرف تقلیل مییابد.
° ضعف در تمهای تراژیک: مضامین سرنوشت، غرور و فروپاشی درونی بدون حضور این زنان که بهعنوان آینهای برای انعکاس ضعفهای قهرمانان عمل میکنند، کمرنگتر میشوند.
° از دست رفتن تعادل جنسیتی نمادین: حضور زنان، هرچند محدود، تعادلی نمادین در برابر دنیای مردانه روم ایجاد میکند و حذف آنها این تعادل را بر هم میزند.
شکسپیر با گنجاندن این شخصیتها، حتی در نقشهای حاشیهای، نشان میدهد که تراژدی نه تنها در میدان نبرد یا سنا، بلکه در روابط انسانی و درونی نیز ریشه دارد.
در پایان این سفر به قلب تراژدی جولیوس سزار، کالپورنیا و پورشیا نهتنها صداهای گمشدهی روم باستان، بلکه فانوسهایی برای ما در امروزند. آنها به ما میآموزند که حتی در سایههای سنگین قدرت، شجاعت شنیدن و فریاد زدن حقیقت میتواند جهانی را دگرگون کند. پس بیایید گوشهایمان را به روی صداهای خاموش باز کنیم و با الهام از این زنان فراموششده، خودمان را به شنیدن و شنیده شدن متعهد سازیم؛ شاید اینبار، تراژدی به امید بدل شود.
...............
این دومین نمایشنامه از شکسپیر هستش که با امیرحسین همخوانی میکنم، نمایشنامه قبلی مکبث بود که هردو همخوانی، تجربه هایی به شدت پربار، آموزنده، خلاق و جذاب بودن. جدن امیدوارم امیرحسین هم به اندازه من مشتاق شکسپیر بعدی باشه :))
مثل همخوانی قبل، نمایشنامه رو با نسخه فارسی شروع کردیم، اینبار ترجمه رو خوندیم. بعد نسخه نو_فیر_شکسپیر رو خوندیم. من اقتباس سینمایی "سزار باید بمیرد" Caesar Must Die 2012 رو دیدم که بسسسسیار از دیدنش کیف کردم (مرسی مسعود برای معرفی) و بازم مثل همیشه و کاری که برای همه کتابهای مهمی که میخونم انجام میدم، صد میلیون تا مقاله و تحقیق و متن و ریویوو و یادداشت خوندم تا به فهم کاملی از اثر دست پیدا کنم. در آخر هم ۳ تا از افسانه های معروف (شایعه) درمورد شکسپیر رو از کتاب 30 Great Myths About Shakespeare گلچین کردم که این پایین مینویسم (شایعات فرد رو من مینویسم و زوج هارو امیرحسین)؛ بخش بانمک برنامه اس مثلا :)
خلاصه که ممنونم ریویوو رو میخونید. امیدوارم اگه تراژدی قیصر رو تاالان نخوندید، باعث بشه زودتر برید سراغش.
...........
30 Great Myths About Shakespeare
نوشته لوری مگوایر و اِما اسمیت
افسانه شماره ۵: "شکسپیر هرگز سفر نکرد"
این باور که ویلیام شکسپیر هرگز از زادگاهش یا لندن دورتر نرفت، موضوعیه که اغلب مطرح میشه، اما شواهد قطعی برای تأیید یا ردش کمه. کتاب به این نکته اشاره میکنه که شکسپیر، برخلاف تصور برخی، نیازی به سفرهای دور و دراز نداشت تا آثاری با عمق جغرافیایی و فرهنگی خلق کنه. نمایشنامههایی چون تاجر ونیزی (با توصیف ونیز) یا اُتلو (با اشاره به قبرس) نشاندهنده آگاهی اون از مکانهای دوردست هستن، اما این دانش به احتمال زیاد از مطالعه کتابها، گفتگو با مسافران، و منابع مکتوبی مانند سفرنامهها یا ترجمههای لاتین به دست آمده. شکسپیر در لندن، که در زمان او مرکز تجارت و تبادل فرهنگی بود، فرصت کافی برای شنیدن روایتهایی از سراسر جهان داشته. باید بدونید سفر نکردن شکسپیر نه تنها نقطه ضعف نبوده، بلکه نشاندهنده قدرت تخیل و مهارت اون در بهرهگیری از منابع موجود هستش. با این حال، هیچ سندی مبنی بر سفر او به خارج از انگلستان وجود نداره، و این افسانه تا حدی میتونه درست باشه.
افسانه شماره ۷: "شکسپیر کاتولیک بود"
این افسانه از گمانهزنیهایی درباره دین شکسپیر سرچشمه میگیره، بهویژه با توجه به دوران پرتنش مذهبی انگلستان در عصر الیزابت که پروتستانتیسم غالب بوده و کاتولیکها تحت فشار قرار داشتن. کتاب به این موضوع میپردازه که برخی شواهد غیرمستقیم—مثل کاتولیک بودن احتمالی پدرش، جان شکسپیر، یا اشارههایی به آیینهای کاتولیک در آثاری مثل هملت (مثل بحث درباره برزخ)—این فرضیه رو تقویت کردن. با این حال، هیچ مدرک محکمی وجود نداره که نشان بده شکسپیر بهطور مخفیانه کاتولیک بوده یا به این آیین پایبند مونده. در واقع، اون در کلیسای پروتستان ازدواج کرده، فرزندانش رو اونجا غسل تعمید داده، و با همان آیین دفن شده. ممکنه که شکسپیر، به عنوان یک نمایشنامهنویس حرفهای، احتمالاً از درگیر شدن آشکار در مناقشات مذهبی پرهیز میکرده تا از عواقب سیاسی و اجتماعی در امان بمونه.
افسانه شماره ۹: "تراژدیهای شکسپیر جدیتر از کمدیهای او هستند"
این تصور که تراژدیهای شکسپیر ( هملت، مکبث یا جولیوس سزار) از نظر هنری یا مضمونی عمیقتر و جدیتر از کمدیهاش ( رؤیای شب نیمهتابستان یا هر طور که بخواهی) هستن، دیدگاهی رایج اما قابل نقده. کتاب استدلال میکنه که این تمایز بیش از حد سادهانگارانه اس. کمدیهای شکسپیر، هرچند با طنز و پایان خوش همراهن، پر از لایههای پیچیده اجتماعی، سیاسی و فلسفی هستن که به همون اندازه تراژدیها تأملبرانگیزن. برای مثال، در تاجر ونیزی، مسائل تبعیض نژادی و عدالت مطرح میشه. از طرف دیگه، تراژدیها هم گاهی عناصر طنز تلخ یا موقعیتهای غیرمنتظره دارن—مثل سخنان طعنهآمیز نگهبان توی مکبث. بهرحال مسخصه شکسپیر در هر دو ژانر، مهارت یکسانی در کاوش روان انسان و جامعه به کار برده، و برتری دادن تراژدی بر کمدی بیشتر نتیجه سلیقه مخاطبان مدرن هستش تا نیت یا توانایی شکسپیر. این افسانه، در واقع، درک نادرستی از تنوع و غنای آثار شکسپیر رو نشون میده.
April 14, 2017
To celebrate William Shakespeare on his birthday in April, I'll be studying three of the Bard's plays which I've not yet seen. My Shakespeare plan is to locate a staging of the play, listening to and watching it on my Macbook while I follow along to as much as of the original text as is incorporated in the production. Later, I read the entire play in the modern English version. A good friend I've had since high school recommended this system to me and I think this has been a very good system for delighting the mind in Shakespeare. This month, I plan to dive into three of Shakespeare's political dramas.
Scholars estimate that Julius Caesar was written in 1599 and was probably one of the first plays to be performed at the Globe Theatre in Southwark, which began construction in January of that year. Sir Thomas North's translation of Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans by Plutarch provided Shakespeare with much material, not only his dramatization of Caesar's assassination in 44 B.C., but most of the playwright's Roman based plays. Shakespeare took great liberties with history, condensing three years of battle into six days, expanding the roles of Portia and Calpurnia and putting his own words into the mouths of the historic figures.
The staging I chose was the BBC Television Shakespeare production from 1979 starring Charles Gray as Caesar, Richard Pasco as Brutus and Keith Mitchell as Marc Antony. There were no familiar faces to me in the cast, but they acquit themselves well, particularly David Collings as Cassius. The set design and movement for the first two thirds of the production were rich and invigorating. As for the play, I was not very compelled. Much of it felt like I was checking a box off, or worse, completing an assignment for school. The major attribute of Julius Caesar is Shakespeare's atom-splitting dialogue, some of which has transcended centuries.
Act one, Scene 2. SOOTHSAYER: Beware the ides of March.
Act one, Scene 2. CASSIUS: Men at some time are masters of their fates: the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. Brutus and Caesar: what should be that 'Caesar'? Why should that name be sounded more than yours?
Act one, Scene 2. CASCA: It was Greek to me.
Act three, Scene 1. CAESAR: Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Caesar!
Act three, Scene 1. ANTONY: And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge, with Ate by his side come hot from hell, shall in these confines with a monarch's voice cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war, that this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial.
Act three, Scene 2. ANTONY: Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar.
Act four, Scene 1. ANTONY: Octavius, I have seen more days than you. And though we lay these honours on this man, to ease ourselves of divers sland'rous loads, he shall but bear them as the ass bears gold, to groan and sweat under the business, either lead or driven, as we point the way. And having brought our treasure where we will, then take we down his load, and turn him off, like to the empty ass, to shake his ears and graze in commons.
Julius Caesar chronicles the plot of eight Roman senators, instigated by the lean and hungry Cassius and fronted by the stoic orator Brutus, to murder the populist Julius Caesar, who the Roman senate is preparing to crown as king. There are a few exciting parallels to recent events in the U.S., with men of honorable intentions conspiring against a leader in the name of freedom, when really, they're envious of his popularity and fearful of his mandate to change things. Shakespeare also demonstrates the fickleness of the public to hail Caesar as a champion one moment and curse him as a tyrant the next, based on what's trending in the Forum.
There are two female roles in the play: Brutus' wife Portia and Caesar's wife Calpurnia. They're almost the same part, wary of the danger to their powerful husbands and not wanting them to leave the house. Of course, neither Brutus or Caesar pay any attention, going to capitol and getting their fool selves killed, ultimately. I was compelled here or there by Shakespeare's facility with witty dialogue, particularly the opening scene of the play featuring Roman rabble marching to hail great Caesar, but the play is hardly funny considering the subject matter. The last third drags with asinine battle involving characters I never felt compelled with emotionally.
Joe's Current Ranking of Shakespeare Plays (From Most to Least Favorite):
1) Hamlet
2) Much Ado About Nothing
3) Twelfth Night
4) As You Like It
5) Macbeth
6) The Merchant of Venice
7) A Midsummer Night's Dream
8) Othello
9) Julius Caesar
10) King Lear
11) Romeo and Juliet
12) The Taming of the Shrew
13) The Tempest
Scholars estimate that Julius Caesar was written in 1599 and was probably one of the first plays to be performed at the Globe Theatre in Southwark, which began construction in January of that year. Sir Thomas North's translation of Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans by Plutarch provided Shakespeare with much material, not only his dramatization of Caesar's assassination in 44 B.C., but most of the playwright's Roman based plays. Shakespeare took great liberties with history, condensing three years of battle into six days, expanding the roles of Portia and Calpurnia and putting his own words into the mouths of the historic figures.
The staging I chose was the BBC Television Shakespeare production from 1979 starring Charles Gray as Caesar, Richard Pasco as Brutus and Keith Mitchell as Marc Antony. There were no familiar faces to me in the cast, but they acquit themselves well, particularly David Collings as Cassius. The set design and movement for the first two thirds of the production were rich and invigorating. As for the play, I was not very compelled. Much of it felt like I was checking a box off, or worse, completing an assignment for school. The major attribute of Julius Caesar is Shakespeare's atom-splitting dialogue, some of which has transcended centuries.
Act one, Scene 2. SOOTHSAYER: Beware the ides of March.
Act one, Scene 2. CASSIUS: Men at some time are masters of their fates: the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. Brutus and Caesar: what should be that 'Caesar'? Why should that name be sounded more than yours?
Act one, Scene 2. CASCA: It was Greek to me.
Act three, Scene 1. CAESAR: Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Caesar!
Act three, Scene 1. ANTONY: And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge, with Ate by his side come hot from hell, shall in these confines with a monarch's voice cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war, that this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial.
Act three, Scene 2. ANTONY: Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar.
Act four, Scene 1. ANTONY: Octavius, I have seen more days than you. And though we lay these honours on this man, to ease ourselves of divers sland'rous loads, he shall but bear them as the ass bears gold, to groan and sweat under the business, either lead or driven, as we point the way. And having brought our treasure where we will, then take we down his load, and turn him off, like to the empty ass, to shake his ears and graze in commons.
Julius Caesar chronicles the plot of eight Roman senators, instigated by the lean and hungry Cassius and fronted by the stoic orator Brutus, to murder the populist Julius Caesar, who the Roman senate is preparing to crown as king. There are a few exciting parallels to recent events in the U.S., with men of honorable intentions conspiring against a leader in the name of freedom, when really, they're envious of his popularity and fearful of his mandate to change things. Shakespeare also demonstrates the fickleness of the public to hail Caesar as a champion one moment and curse him as a tyrant the next, based on what's trending in the Forum.
There are two female roles in the play: Brutus' wife Portia and Caesar's wife Calpurnia. They're almost the same part, wary of the danger to their powerful husbands and not wanting them to leave the house. Of course, neither Brutus or Caesar pay any attention, going to capitol and getting their fool selves killed, ultimately. I was compelled here or there by Shakespeare's facility with witty dialogue, particularly the opening scene of the play featuring Roman rabble marching to hail great Caesar, but the play is hardly funny considering the subject matter. The last third drags with asinine battle involving characters I never felt compelled with emotionally.
Joe's Current Ranking of Shakespeare Plays (From Most to Least Favorite):
1) Hamlet
2) Much Ado About Nothing
3) Twelfth Night
4) As You Like It
5) Macbeth
6) The Merchant of Venice
7) A Midsummer Night's Dream
8) Othello
9) Julius Caesar
10) King Lear
11) Romeo and Juliet
12) The Taming of the Shrew
13) The Tempest
March 30, 2013
What is this play about? Is it about Julius Caesar, as the title says? Well, he is assassinated half way through the play and disappears (Act 3, scene 2). Granted, his ghost reappears later on, but it is not the ghost of the caliber of Mozart’s (and Lorenzo da Ponte’s) commanding Commendatore. JC’s ghost exists only in Brutus mind as his conscience. For even if Brutus thinks that it is the ghost’s revenge to “turn our swords toward our own stomachs”, the only time the ghost speaks is to say “I am your evil spirit, Brutus”.
JC does not seem to have a huge stature anyway. His triumph celebrated at the beginning is not Rome’s but his very own, since his victory consists of having defeated Pompey’s sons, i.e. his personal enemies and not the enemies of Rome. We also see that his wife Calpurnia has little trouble in convincing him not to go to the Senate, and only a moment later Decius easily changes his mind again and persuades him to go nonetheless. When he subsequently preaches his own steeliness to the senators (“I could be well moved if I were as you... “), he is not believable. He just seems conceited.
So, no, I do not think it is about JC.
May be the play is about Brutus, the most interesting of the characters and the one with the most lines. He is drawn into the plot by Cassius’s astuteness and tricks, and throughout the play we are reminded that he is acting with the good of Rome as his main objective. His famous soliloquy in Act II is a defense of the nobility of the act. But both his weakness in falling prey to Cassius conniving and the loss of empathy when he coldly dismisses the memories of his deceased and yet beloved wife (“No more, I pray you…”) detract from his being the prime candidate. No, in spite of Antony’s words at the end (“This was the noblest Roman of them all…”), he remains elusive.
Cassius's role is that of Best Supporting Actor.
The play ends leaving the future eerily open. From history we know what happened next and the cotemporary public must have also known it, but there is no hint in the play on which way Rome will go not even on what the alternatives are.
Of course there are always the eternity themes that Shakespeare is so extraordinary at developing and with which his plays are always loaded, themes as Ambition, Loyalty, Omens and Destiny, etc… Analyses of these are well trodden.
I will not venture in this fertile direction.
In previous readings I was approaching the plays by William Shakespeare as Classics existing in the historical vacuum of eternity. But in my current protracted reading of these works, it is the parallels of the plots with contemporary events or circumstances that are interesting me greatly.
In 1599 when the play was first performed (possibly the first in the new Globe Theatre) Queen Elizabeth was 66 but looked and acted a lot older. She had lost a lot of her glamour and the icon-making machinery had begun. The boost that the triumph over the Spaniards had brought was eroding, and new problems with Ireland were coming to the limelight. The bitter rivalry between the Earl of Essex and Lord Burghley, and later with the son Robert Cecil, was keeping courtiers at bay. The secret services were increasing their control and pressure which only contributed to a greater feeling of terror. And meanwhile, there was still no clear heir to the throne. People must have felt rather itchy about the political instability and the uncertainty that the immediate future held.
Of course causality between events of the day and a play produced in any given period are hard to detect, let alone to prove. This is not a play-à-clef. But in choosing plots and devising how to develop them, Shakespeare must have known what would ring a bell in the minds of the public. If, when seeking entertainment, the Londoners were to choose a play over bear-biting, the play had to be engaging. The author's ability in verbalizing human passions by reminding everybody of their concerns is what makes these plays so very special.
I see then Julius Caesar as a tragedy without a hero. And the open “what now?” with which it closes, can be better understood if we become aware of the insecurities with which contemporary audience were about to enter into the following century.
PS: Orson Welles put on a production in 1937 in which the setting was the contemporary Fascist and Nazi Europe (Caesar as Mussolini?). This is available as Audio. A GR friend recommended the modern film “Me and Orson Welles” in which it seems some of the OW original footage has been included. I have ordered this DVD but have not seen it yet. I can’t wait.
PPS: The film disappointingly does not include any original footage of the 1937 play, and is somewhat silly.
JC does not seem to have a huge stature anyway. His triumph celebrated at the beginning is not Rome’s but his very own, since his victory consists of having defeated Pompey’s sons, i.e. his personal enemies and not the enemies of Rome. We also see that his wife Calpurnia has little trouble in convincing him not to go to the Senate, and only a moment later Decius easily changes his mind again and persuades him to go nonetheless. When he subsequently preaches his own steeliness to the senators (“I could be well moved if I were as you... “), he is not believable. He just seems conceited.
So, no, I do not think it is about JC.
May be the play is about Brutus, the most interesting of the characters and the one with the most lines. He is drawn into the plot by Cassius’s astuteness and tricks, and throughout the play we are reminded that he is acting with the good of Rome as his main objective. His famous soliloquy in Act II is a defense of the nobility of the act. But both his weakness in falling prey to Cassius conniving and the loss of empathy when he coldly dismisses the memories of his deceased and yet beloved wife (“No more, I pray you…”) detract from his being the prime candidate. No, in spite of Antony’s words at the end (“This was the noblest Roman of them all…”), he remains elusive.
Cassius's role is that of Best Supporting Actor.
The play ends leaving the future eerily open. From history we know what happened next and the cotemporary public must have also known it, but there is no hint in the play on which way Rome will go not even on what the alternatives are.
Of course there are always the eternity themes that Shakespeare is so extraordinary at developing and with which his plays are always loaded, themes as Ambition, Loyalty, Omens and Destiny, etc… Analyses of these are well trodden.
I will not venture in this fertile direction.
In previous readings I was approaching the plays by William Shakespeare as Classics existing in the historical vacuum of eternity. But in my current protracted reading of these works, it is the parallels of the plots with contemporary events or circumstances that are interesting me greatly.
In 1599 when the play was first performed (possibly the first in the new Globe Theatre) Queen Elizabeth was 66 but looked and acted a lot older. She had lost a lot of her glamour and the icon-making machinery had begun. The boost that the triumph over the Spaniards had brought was eroding, and new problems with Ireland were coming to the limelight. The bitter rivalry between the Earl of Essex and Lord Burghley, and later with the son Robert Cecil, was keeping courtiers at bay. The secret services were increasing their control and pressure which only contributed to a greater feeling of terror. And meanwhile, there was still no clear heir to the throne. People must have felt rather itchy about the political instability and the uncertainty that the immediate future held.
Of course causality between events of the day and a play produced in any given period are hard to detect, let alone to prove. This is not a play-à-clef. But in choosing plots and devising how to develop them, Shakespeare must have known what would ring a bell in the minds of the public. If, when seeking entertainment, the Londoners were to choose a play over bear-biting, the play had to be engaging. The author's ability in verbalizing human passions by reminding everybody of their concerns is what makes these plays so very special.
I see then Julius Caesar as a tragedy without a hero. And the open “what now?” with which it closes, can be better understood if we become aware of the insecurities with which contemporary audience were about to enter into the following century.
PS: Orson Welles put on a production in 1937 in which the setting was the contemporary Fascist and Nazi Europe (Caesar as Mussolini?). This is available as Audio. A GR friend recommended the modern film “Me and Orson Welles” in which it seems some of the OW original footage has been included. I have ordered this DVD but have not seen it yet. I can’t wait.
PPS: The film disappointingly does not include any original footage of the 1937 play, and is somewhat silly.
March 11, 2017
أَفَكُنــتُـم تُفَـضِّـلــون أَن يَعيشَ قَيْـــصَر , وَأن ��َـموتُــوا جَمــيعاً عبيـــداً له , على أَن يَــمُـــوت قَيْصَـــــر , وأن تعيـــشُـوا جَميــعاً رِجَالــاً أَحــرارا ؟
شكسبير , يا عم شكسبير .
ماذا تفعل بي بالله عليك ؟
أنّى لكَ بهذه القدرة أن تكتب وتحلل وتشرح أكثر الاشياء تعقيداً , ثم تجمعها في باقة مميزة من الكلام الفصيح والشاعريّ الجميل ؟ ...
يوليوس قيصر , ايقاع اسمه بنفسه على اذن السامع مهيب ! فكيف بأن تعلم سيرة حياته وبطولاته ؟
قيصر هذا , هو الغازي الكبير , ودكتاتور روما الشهير ,
يُقارن هذا الانسان بجنكيز خان ونابليون وهتلر ,
ففي أوروبا , كان اسمه وحده كافٍ لاسكات عويل الأطفال , وكان في قلوب أعدائه رهبة منه عظيمة .
وكيف لا ؟ وهو غازي بلاد البريتون
ومحطم رؤوس بلاد الغال :
ودكتاتور روما !
إنّه باختصار :
قَيْـــــصَر ~ عَظيــــمُ الرُّوم
*****************
هذه المسرحية تعَدّ من أوائل ما كتب شكسبير من المسرحيات , فبعد انتهائه من كتابة تاريخ ملوك أوروبا (هتري وريتشارد والملك جون) ,
جاء بترجمة لكتاب "السّير" لبلوتارك والذي هو من تراجم يوليوس قيصر , ثم حولها مع كثير من التصرّف الى مادة مسرحية متشرّبة لكثير من الافكار .
ومن أبرز ما فعله شكسبير وفيه تتجلّى عبقريته هو انتقائه للمادة المتوفرة في المصدر , وفيما أضافه من مخيّلته وقولبته للأحداث بطريقته الشكسبيرية ,
مستخدما نفس التقنيات في تصوير الأحداث كالتي استخدمها في "مكبث" مثلا ..
وبالنسبة لي , فإن تحليل المسرحية والحديث عنها يجب أن يأتي على 3 فقرات :
وهي :
- الانسان (الشعب)
- الملك (قيصر)
- الوطن (روما)
فلنبدأ :D :
1 ~ الانسان
وجهة نظر شكسبير على الانسان في مسرحيته , هي نظرة الى "الاجتماع او التجمع الانساني " وليس على الانسان كفرد .
فذكر الانسان في المسرحية لم يأت الى في القسم الثاني منها , بعد موت قيصر , وهو الذي يمثل شعب روما الماشي مع التيار .
يصوّر لنا شكسبير الشعب بأنهم مجتمع مع الأغبياء , الذين يتأثرون بالعواطف أيما تأثر ,
والذين تحركهم الكلمات فقط يمينا وشمالا , فتارة مع قيصر وتارة مع بروتي وتارة مع أنطونيو ,
وهي وجهة نظر -بلا شك- قريبة من الحقيقة , فقد تحدّث لوبون عنها كثير الحديث في "سيكولوجية الجماهير" , وما زلت أذكر قول الكاتب الرومانيّ
(نيجروزي)
عن الجماهير حين نُعِتوا ب " الاغبياء" قال : " إنهم أغبياء , ولكنهم كُـثر " , وهذا جدّ صحيح .
لذلا أولى شكسبير أهمية كبيرة لهم في مجرى الأحداث على مر الرواية .
فبدونهم , لا معنى لقيصر , ولا لغيره ...
2 ~ الملك
لم يُحسن شكسبير تصوير قيصر , ولا أنصح لقارئ هذه المسرحية أن يتخذها كأساس تاريخي ,
فإن قيصر هنا , هو رجل أُعطى السلطة بغير حساب , يسهل التحكم فيه , زوجته تقول شيئا فيطيعها ,
وصديقه يقول شيئا فيخالف زوجته ويطيعه , وصوّره شكسبير على أنه متصنّع الشجاعة لا متلبّس لها .
فحين تنبأه زوجته أنه ميت وهي حلمت بذلك ,
يصرخ ويقول لها : " الجُبَنـاءُ يَمُـوتُونَ مِرَاراً قَـبلَ مَوْتِهـم , أمّا الشّـجْعَانُ فَلا يَذوقُـونَ طَعــمَ المَوْتِ إِلّا مَرَّةً واحِــدَة "
وعند قوله لهذه المقولة , تذكرت فورا قول ساراماغو :
“نقول إننا بخير حتى لو كنا نحتضر. وهذا متعارف عليه بأنه استجماع للشجاعة،وهي ظاهرة لم تعرف إلا لدى البشر.”
ولكن قيصر صوّر بطفولة قوله هذا , ولا ضير ...
********
في جولجوثا , صُلب يهوذا الاسخريوطي ,
وفي ساحة واترلو , ترك الجنود الحرب وخانوا نابليون ,
وفي قصر روما , هجم الأخ على أخوه ,
فما الرابط بين القصص الثلاثة ؟
الرابط هو شيء واحد , تفسّره مقولة " احذر من صديقك ألف مرة " , يوليوس قيصر الذي أجبر أوروبا على الركوع تحت قدميه ,
قتل من أعز اصدقائه , بروتس , وخلدت كلمته العظيمة قبل موته بلحظات تخليدا عظيما .
حين قال :
Ettu, Brute?
" حتى أنت , بروتس ؟ "
لذلك , ترتفع قيمة هذه المسرحية ليس فقط كونها مسرحية جيدة التكوين , بل لأنها مخلّدة لاحدى أعظم اللحظات في التاريخ , وخاصة الروماني .
3~ الوطن
روما ! أيْ روما العزيزة !
ما كنتِ , وما كانت هيئتك ؟
هل انت ساحرة فأصبح قتل قيصر هيّن للبشر ؟ أم أنك كنت أساسا وهميا لتبرير قتله ؟
اعلموا يا اصدقاء , أن روما هي سبب كل المشاكل في المسرحية ,
واعلموا أيضا أنها كانت الرابط الوحيد بين كل الشخصيات , فلو اختلف كل الشخصيات , يبقى اتفاقهُمُ هلى شيء واحد ,
ألا وهو حبّ روما والتضحية لها
ان السيوف التي قتلت قيصر , كانت باسم روما .
وان الارض التي قتل فيها قيصر , هي ارض روما ,
وان الدم الذي سال من قيصر أو من عدوه , كانوا بلون روما ,
وهكذا : روما روما روما ....
هكذا , أرض روما هي أرض النزاع والحب .
وتبقى الكلمة التي قالها بروتس قبل انتحاره :
رومــــا !
*********
سأختم بسرعة :
ان لم تقرأ مسرحية "يوليوس قيصر " لشكسبير ,
فأنصحك أن تقرا مسرحية "يوليوس قيصر" لشكسبير :D
تم بحمد الله
شكسبير , يا عم شكسبير .
ماذا تفعل بي بالله عليك ؟
أنّى لكَ بهذه القدرة أن تكتب وتحلل وتشرح أكثر الاشياء تعقيداً , ثم تجمعها في باقة مميزة من الكلام الفصيح والشاعريّ الجميل ؟ ...
يوليوس قيصر , ايقاع اسمه بنفسه على اذن السامع مهيب ! فكيف بأن تعلم سيرة حياته وبطولاته ؟
قيصر هذا , هو الغازي الكبير , ودكتاتور روما الشهير ,
يُقارن هذا الانسان بجنكيز خان ونابليون وهتلر ,
ففي أوروبا , كان اسمه وحده كافٍ لاسكات عويل الأطفال , وكان في قلوب أعدائه رهبة منه عظيمة .
وكيف لا ؟ وهو غازي بلاد البريتون
ومحطم رؤوس بلاد الغال :
ودكتاتور روما !
إنّه باختصار :
قَيْـــــصَر ~ عَظيــــمُ الرُّوم
*****************
هذه المسرحية تعَدّ من أوائل ما كتب شكسبير من المسرحيات , فبعد انتهائه من كتابة تاريخ ملوك أوروبا (هتري وريتشارد والملك جون) ,
جاء بترجمة لكتاب "السّير" لبلوتارك والذي هو من تراجم يوليوس قيصر , ثم حولها مع كثير من التصرّف الى مادة مسرحية متشرّبة لكثير من الافكار .
ومن أبرز ما فعله شكسبير وفيه تتجلّى عبقريته هو انتقائه للمادة المتوفرة في المصدر , وفيما أضافه من مخيّلته وقولبته للأحداث بطريقته الشكسبيرية ,
مستخدما نفس التقنيات في تصوير الأحداث كالتي استخدمها في "مكبث" مثلا ..
وبالنسبة لي , فإن تحليل المسرحية والحديث عنها يجب أن يأتي على 3 فقرات :
وهي :
- الانسان (الشعب)
- الملك (قيصر)
- الوطن (روما)
فلنبدأ :D :
1 ~ الانسان
وجهة نظر شكسبير على الانسان في مسرحيته , هي نظرة الى "الاجتماع او التجمع الانساني " وليس على الانسان كفرد .
فذكر الانسان في المسرحية لم يأت الى في القسم الثاني منها , بعد موت قيصر , وهو الذي يمثل شعب روما الماشي مع التيار .
يصوّر لنا شكسبير الشعب بأنهم مجتمع مع الأغبياء , الذين يتأثرون بالعواطف أيما تأثر ,
والذين تحركهم الكلمات فقط يمينا وشمالا , فتارة مع قيصر وتارة مع بروتي وتارة مع أنطونيو ,
وهي وجهة نظر -بلا شك- قريبة من الحقيقة , فقد تحدّث لوبون عنها كثير الحديث في "سيكولوجية الجماهير" , وما زلت أذكر قول الكاتب الرومانيّ
(نيجروزي)
عن الجماهير حين نُعِتوا ب " الاغبياء" قال : " إنهم أغبياء , ولكنهم كُـثر " , وهذا جدّ صحيح .
لذلا أولى شكسبير أهمية كبيرة لهم في مجرى الأحداث على مر الرواية .
فبدونهم , لا معنى لقيصر , ولا لغيره ...
2 ~ الملك
لم يُحسن شكسبير تصوير قيصر , ولا أنصح لقارئ هذه المسرحية أن يتخذها كأساس تاريخي ,
فإن قيصر هنا , هو رجل أُعطى السلطة بغير حساب , يسهل التحكم فيه , زوجته تقول شيئا فيطيعها ,
وصديقه يقول شيئا فيخالف زوجته ويطيعه , وصوّره شكسبير على أنه متصنّع الشجاعة لا متلبّس لها .
فحين تنبأه زوجته أنه ميت وهي حلمت بذلك ,
يصرخ ويقول لها : " الجُبَنـاءُ يَمُـوتُونَ مِرَاراً قَـبلَ مَوْتِهـم , أمّا الشّـجْعَانُ فَلا يَذوقُـونَ طَعــمَ المَوْتِ إِلّا مَرَّةً واحِــدَة "
وعند قوله لهذه المقولة , تذكرت فورا قول ساراماغو :
“نقول إننا بخير حتى لو كنا نحتضر. وهذا متعارف عليه بأنه استجماع للشجاعة،وهي ظاهرة لم تعرف إلا لدى البشر.”
ولكن قيصر صوّر بطفولة قوله هذا , ولا ضير ...
********
في جولجوثا , صُلب يهوذا الاسخريوطي ,
وفي ساحة واترلو , ترك الجنود الحرب وخانوا نابليون ,
وفي قصر روما , هجم الأخ على أخوه ,
فما الرابط بين القصص الثلاثة ؟
الرابط هو شيء واحد , تفسّره مقولة " احذر من صديقك ألف مرة " , يوليوس قيصر الذي أجبر أوروبا على الركوع تحت قدميه ,
قتل من أعز اصدقائه , بروتس , وخلدت كلمته العظيمة قبل موته بلحظات تخليدا عظيما .
حين قال :
Ettu, Brute?
" حتى أنت , بروتس ؟ "
لذلك , ترتفع قيمة هذه المسرحية ليس فقط كونها مسرحية جيدة التكوين , بل لأنها مخلّدة لاحدى أعظم اللحظات في التاريخ , وخاصة الروماني .
3~ الوطن
روما ! أيْ روما العزيزة !
ما كنتِ , وما كانت هيئتك ؟
هل انت ساحرة فأصبح قتل قيصر هيّن للبشر ؟ أم أنك كنت أساسا وهميا لتبرير قتله ؟
اعلموا يا اصدقاء , أن روما هي سبب كل المشاكل في المسرحية ,
واعلموا أيضا أنها كانت الرابط الوحيد بين كل الشخصيات , فلو اختلف كل الشخصيات , يبقى اتفاقهُمُ هلى شيء واحد ,
ألا وهو حبّ روما والتضحية لها
ان السيوف التي قتلت قيصر , كانت باسم روما .
وان الارض التي قتل فيها قيصر , هي ارض روما ,
وان الدم الذي سال من قيصر أو من عدوه , كانوا بلون روما ,
وهكذا : روما روما روما ....
هكذا , أرض روما هي أرض النزاع والحب .
وتبقى الكلمة التي قالها بروتس قبل انتحاره :
رومــــا !
*********
سأختم بسرعة :
ان لم تقرأ مسرحية "يوليوس قيصر " لشكسبير ,
فأنصحك أن تقرا مسرحية "يوليوس قيصر" لشكسبير :D
تم بحمد الله
April 6, 2022
Et tu Brutus. Then fall Caesar.
Whether or not Julius Caesar ever spoke these words, they contain a wealth of meaning like the rest of Shakespeare’s extraordinary play. Even if Cicero is speaking Greek, and for the hapless Casca, “but those that understood him smiled at
one another and shook their heads; but, for mine own
part, it was Greek to me,” even for readers more than four centuries later, the Bard still speaks directly to us about pride and arrogance, about hope and despair, and about the struggle of one man, Brutus, against his conscience trying to justify what he though was a righteous murder. However, this is Shakespeare, and the murder of a monarch never,ever goes well. Brutus was dumb to not also kill Antony, to let Antony speak after him and to meet Antony on the field of battle at Philippi. For my money, this is one of Shakespeare’s most straightforward narratives, one which many Americans and Europeans learned at school. The epic performances of Charlton Heston and Marlon Brando both playing Antony and haranguing the crowd with “Brutus is an honorable man” still haunt us today. When we think of the dreams and innocence that died when Kennedy was assassinated, we can try to approach the pathos that Shakespeare captures in this moment.
Truly worth reading again (and again.)
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
Whether or not Julius Caesar ever spoke these words, they contain a wealth of meaning like the rest of Shakespeare’s extraordinary play. Even if Cicero is speaking Greek, and for the hapless Casca, “but those that understood him smiled at
one another and shook their heads; but, for mine own
part, it was Greek to me,” even for readers more than four centuries later, the Bard still speaks directly to us about pride and arrogance, about hope and despair, and about the struggle of one man, Brutus, against his conscience trying to justify what he though was a righteous murder. However, this is Shakespeare, and the murder of a monarch never,ever goes well. Brutus was dumb to not also kill Antony, to let Antony speak after him and to meet Antony on the field of battle at Philippi. For my money, this is one of Shakespeare’s most straightforward narratives, one which many Americans and Europeans learned at school. The epic performances of Charlton Heston and Marlon Brando both playing Antony and haranguing the crowd with “Brutus is an honorable man” still haunt us today. When we think of the dreams and innocence that died when Kennedy was assassinated, we can try to approach the pathos that Shakespeare captures in this moment.
Truly worth reading again (and again.)
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
Displaying 1 - 30 of 8,160 reviews