Shakespeare Fans discussion

It's September!

I hope everyone had a great summer.

Scherzo is going to lead this discussion starting on September 15th. Here is the thread for us....

Who is in?

Looking forward to this reading. Shakespeare's plays with historical characters hold extra fascination for me because there are so many added layers to compare Shakespeare's choices to.

Candy, I so love Julius Ceasar that I'll try and look in, though as usual, no time to do it justice. Well, I've read it about four or five times, so hopefully... 'I shall find time, Cassius' (and he never does). One of my favourite quotes.

Lea, I double checked our email/pm and it was "All's Well" for you to be discussion leader, coming up.

I'm terribly sorry for any confusion....and I hope that is still good for you?

How wonderful to see you, Lucinda.

Scherzo, I am also looking forward to reading this.

YAY!!!

Thanks for the welcome, Candy.
I'm puzzled about 'All's Well'; as an 'All's Well' geek; I led a discussion on 'All's Well' in this group only a couple of years since; sadly, it wasn't well attended; but did I ever do some reading for it; had more time, in those days.

Thanks for the offer, Lea, I'm flattered, but sadly, lack of time these days precludes my geekish imput.
I was looking for the discussion in case any of the references might be handy for you, but it may have been archieved or something. I hope to call in, anyway.

I am IN! This will be my first time reading JC. Looking forward to it!

Some years back I started a thread called "Rome for dummies". It was meant quite light-heartedly. I don't know if the info in it might be useful for Julius Caesar ...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Thanks Martin. I find the thread interesting. There are so many characters in JC, I find myself looking back to keep everyone sorted. It is helpful to know about their system and specific jobs.

It's been a long time since I last read or saw Julius Caesar, but a couple of those scenes are indelible. I look forward to reading and discussing.

Friends, group members, countrymen, lend me your ears! It is time to read William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, starting on the Ides of September! Et tu, scherzo?

Welcome everyone!
Glad there's so much enthusiasm and playfulness.
I'm in Arizona, so may "arrive" later than some tomorrow. Jump right in with your comments and I'll catch up when the sun gets to this part of the world.

Shakespeare and many Elizabethans were very familiar with the lives of famous Romans and Roman history.

They could have known:

- that Julius Caesar was assassinated by 60 Senators in 44 BCE.
- that as Rome conquered more territory it had been compelled less than 50 years before to extend Roman citizenship and voting rights to Latin communities living too far from Rome to be controlled by its ingrained client patron relationships.
- that power politics and influential lineage played significant roles in Roman affairs.

- that Caesar excelled not only as a general and administrator, but also as a corrupt politician.
- that Caesar had defied the Senate's command to disband his legions and return to Rome to face trial or be declared an Enemy of the State.
- that Caesar had illegally led his legions across the Rubicon and marched on Rome in 49 BCE.
- that Caesar had initiated the civil war (49-45 BCE) that caused the deaths of thousands of Romans, including Pompey the Great.
- that Caesar had been declared Dictator for 10 years when he captured Rome in 47 BCE, then unprecedentedly Dictator for Life in February 44 BCE.

- that Caesar had packed the Senate with his supporters.
- that Cleopatra, Ptolemy XIV and Caesarion were visitors in Rome staying in one of Caesar's houses from the summer of 46 BCE until Caesar's death.

- that in 44 BCE a college of Lupercalian priests had been instituted in Caesar's honor in addition to the two traditional colleges honoring Romulus and Remus.

Act I Scene One

Shakespeare is a genius at selecting significant features of historical events and compressing timelines to tell long, complicated stories in a compelling few hours.

Historically, the events of Act I Scene One happened a couple of weeks before the feast of the Lupercalia.
Some plebeians crowned Caesar's statues.
The tribunes removed the crowns and rebuked those involved.
Others in the crowd (welcoming Caesar's entry into Rome from the Latin Festival on the Alban Mount) cheered the tribunes for protecting the Republic.
Caesar exiled the Tribunes which angered many Romans.

Shakespeare does his usual brilliant job of portraying the commoners as unique characters.

I enjoy the fun he has playing with the metaphors of cobbling soles.

I am puzzled by the Tribune's insistence that it's not a holiday. Marullus says: "You know it is the feast of Lupercal."

The "diadem" incident did occur before the Lupercal. The January Latin Festival was not an official Roman festival.
Perhaps Shakespeare originally wrote Scene One as a separate event and decided later to compress scenes one and two into a single day?

The Tribunes always strike me as overbearing and bullying.

I learned some Roman history long, long ago and I always think that Tribunes were elected by the plebeians, as they were earlier in the Republic.

One of Caesar's dictatorial acts was to cancel elections and appoint the Tribunes (and Consuls, etc.).

I've probably said too much?

Hope there's something here for someone to comment on.

In that opening scene, Shakespeare could have just had Flavius and Marullus discussing their views of Caesar, but he uses the cobbler to sharpen and intensify their positions and inject some humor into the confrontation. Such clever exposition.

Christine wrote: "Thanks Martin. I find the thread interesting. There are so many characters in JC, I find myself looking back to keep everyone sorted. It is helpful to know about their system and specific jobs."


I keep going back to double check on all the characters too! Glad I'm not the only one.

Lea wrote: ""I keep going back to double check on all the characters too! Glad I'm not the only one ..."

Plus there are two Cinnas, two Marcuses, two Brutases hehe :)

scherzo♫ wrote: "I've probably said too much?"

Not at all Scherzo! As a first time reader of this play I am getting a lot out of this background information, thanks!

Caesar strikes me as a typical politician. Some love him and some hate him. Here in (Crook County) Illinois we have a habit of sending our governors to jail. There is hate and sympathy alike for them.

Although the history is fascinating, I wonder how much Shakespeare expected his audience to know of it? What did the groundlings know of these historical events and characters? Or was the play their education?

Alex wrote: "Although the history is fascinating, I wonder how much Shakespeare expected his audience to know of it? What did the groundlings know of these historical events and characters? Or was the play thei..."

Shakespeare wrote so many history plays, and they were popular, so I am assuming that even if the groundlings had not been educated, the plays themselves must have been entertaining enough to sustain them.

But how many of those history plays were commissioned by the nobles to celebrate or encourage certain ideas?

Alex wrote: "Although the history is fascinating, I wonder how much Shakespeare expected his audience to know of it? What did the groundlings know of these historical events and characters? Or was the play thei..."

The members of the audience who attended a school similar to Shakespeare's would have been familiar with Roman history. They would have started school at age six or seven and learned basic reading and writing skills in English. The primary language of learning was Latin focused on the study of Latin authors like Seneca, Cicero, Ovid, Virgil and Horace.

Cicero was a contemporary of Caesar, living from 107 to 43 BCE. He wrote hundreds of letters arguing in support of the Republic, including letters to Antony and Cassius.

There's a list of books generally used in grammar schools close to Shakespeare's timeframe here:
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/bio...

That list includes Caesar in the list of authors. Caesar authored books on the Gallic Wars and the Civil War.

Alex wrote: "Although the history is fascinating,...

Or was the play their education? ..."

Members of the audience who had not attended school may have learned some Roman history from the play.

Shakespeare's genius is the use of plot/story/history to explore humanity--the character of the characters. What kind of person does this? How do they feel? What are they thinking? How do other people respond?

Shakespeare's plays stick in the memory much longer than other recountings of the same events.

Destiny wrote: "But how many of those history plays were commissioned by the nobles to celebrate or encourage certain ideas?"

Maybe someone else knows the answer to this question.

I do know that supporters of the Earl of Essex commissioned Shakespeare's company to perform Richard II six years after it was originally staged. I have never read of a play that was dedicated to a noble, like Shakespeare's poetry.

Not that they were dedicated to a noble, but that a play might encourage support of a rulers (Elizabeth I or James I) actions or reign. I know I have also read of certain plays being likely done for Elizabeth I's specific pleasure, so a lot of what Shakespeare did may have had specific political reasoning, Julius Caesar included. Not to say that he did not give them his own special artistic flare, of course. ;)

scherzo♫ wrote: "Destiny wrote: "But how many of those history plays were commissioned by the nobles to celebrate or encourage certain ideas?"

Maybe someone else knows the answer to this question.

I do know that ..."

I heard somewhere that The Merry Wives of Windsor was requested by Queen Elizabeth (I'm hesitant to use the word commissioned, but same sort of thing). She loved Falstaff so much she begged Shakespeare to write another play with him in it.

I just read Merry Wives of Windsor, and I heard the same thing. I am pretty sure I read somewhere that some of the histories were done specifically to please her as well, due to them being about her family.

I will have to look back over my notes on Julius Caesar and see if I find anything about motives for the play. However, my original point was just that the history plays (and some of the others) may have been done for reasons other than just "the people are entertained by them."

Destiny wrote: "Not that they were dedicated to a noble, but that a play might encourage support of a rulers (Elizabeth I or James I) actions or reign..."

I think this is true. I was very curious about 'MacBeth' -- I wondered how Shakespeare got away with such a thing -- a play about the killing of a Scottish king when a Scottish king was not only reigning, but also the biggest supporter of Shakespeare's company! (King's Men) So I did a bit of research and it seems James I loved MacBeth because it suited his political 'anti-witch agenda' of the time. Similarly, I am sure Elizabeth had influence, and as Scherzo stated, the Earl of Essex revived Richard II right before his rebellion. (I even read the Elizabeth was quoted as saying "I AM Richard II.")

I suppose it was like any other political agenda influencing the art of the time.

Hey, here is something fun I found on Wiki -- since we just finished Hamlet a while ago, you guys might like this :)

JULIUS CAESAR Cultural References:

One of the earliest cultural references to the play came in Shakespeare's own Hamlet. Prince Hamlet asks Polonius about his career as a thespian at university, Polonius replies "I did enact Julius Caesar. I was killed i' th' Capitol. Brutus killed me." This is a likely meta-reference, as Richard Burbage is generally accepted to have played leading men Brutus and Hamlet, and the older John Heminges to have played Caesar and Polonius.

This also from Wiki regarding politics of the time:

Historicism:

Maria Wyke has written that the play reflects the general anxiety of Elizabethan England over succession of leadership. At the time of its creation and first performance, Queen Elizabeth, a strong ruler, was elderly and had refused to name a successor, leading to worries that a civil war similar to that of Rome might break out after her death.

Christine wrote: "Destiny wrote: "Not that they were dedicated to a noble, but that a play might encourage support of a rulers (Elizabeth I or James I) actions or reign..."

I think this is true. I was very curious ..."

Macbeth was also about the consequences of regicide as opposed to encouraging it.

Perhaps the Tribunes' grumbling about the plebes wandering around "Upon a labouring day without the sign of your profession" addressed an Elizabethan concern?

Destiny wrote: "Christine wrote: "Destiny wrote: "Not ...

...Macbeth was also about the consequences of regicide as opposed to encouraging it."

Shakespeare's plays usually showed that any kind of rebellion was disastrous. Some of the characters in the English history plays say the War of the Roses and Richard III's "tyranny" were England's punishment for Richard II's regicide.

Marullus' "Wherefore rejoice?" speech in Act I Scene one has several implications:

It points out Caesar's claiming his civil war victories as "triumphs" which particularly annoyed Romans who had lost family members who fought against Caesar. Triumphs traditionally meant conquest of non-Romans.

It points out the fickleness of crowds which is a recurrent theme throughout the plays. The same people who had cheered Pompey a few months ago, now cheered his enemy.

(I had another point, but it's escaped my brain.)

Act I Scene 2

Shakespeare used the Lupercal superstition about the runners' touch influencing women's fertility to create the scene between Caesar and Calpurnia. Peter Saccio sees Shakespeare using this incident to contrast a facet of powerlessness in Caesar's personal life against the display of Caesar's power in front of the crowd.

Historically, Caesar had a daughter Julia by his first wife. Julia was married to Pompey and died in childbirth. Caesar had proposed that the Senate legitimize Caesarion, his son by Cleopatra (not that blatantly, something like any children he ever sired).

As a side note, the Romulus-Remus-Caesar Lupercalia was celebrated for about 500 years following Caesar's death. Pope Gelasius I replaced it with St. Valentine's Day.

Cassius was married to Brutus' sister. He was an excellent soldier who had saved thousands of his comrades is one of Rome's worst military disasters.

Historically, Cassius was the one who was avoiding Brutus. He was jealous that Caesar had appointed Brutus to be the chief city judge and a future Consul. Caesar openly favored Brutus since Brutus' mother was once Caesar's mistress.

I wonder what difference it would make if Cassius' speech about Caesar's weaknesses and humanness addressed the Senate's proclamation that Caesar was a god?

Shakespeare seems to be toning down Cassius' rashness and hotheadedness, especially compared to Hotspur in Henry IV.

scherzo♫ wrote: "It points out the fickleness of crowds which is a recurrent theme throughout the plays...."

Yes, and crowds to this day are fickle. I am wondering how Caesar's victories benefitted the people -- surely they must have to evoke such national pride.

It is similar today. The politician who does the most advertizing (true or false) gets the most votes.

Sorry I didn't comment for a couple of days -- busy weekend. Will be back shortly with thoughts on Act I Scene 3.

There are several lines in Act 1 Scene 2 that remind me of Sonnet 113, which begins

Since I left you, mine eye is in my mind;
And that which governs me to go about
Doth part his function, and is partly blind,

Cassius asks Brutus if he can see his own face, and Brutus replies," no Cassius; for the eye sees not itself, But by reflection, by some other things. Cassis then says, "And it is very much lamented , Brutus, That you have no such mirrors as will turn Your hidden worthiness into your eye..." Cassius finishes this passage by saying "... Many of the best respect in Rome ... Have wished that noble Brutus has his [Caesar's) eyes." This last sentence puzzles me a bit. Is Cassius saying that Brutus should be empowered, or is he alluding to an aspect of Caesar's political vision?

Hi Alex, that's what I really enjoy about reading Shakespeare: the way what he says in one place ripples through recollections of many other places.

Cassius' speech in full:

'Tis just;
And it is very much lamented, Brutus,
That you have no such mirrors as will turn
Your hidden worthiness into your eye,
That you might see your shadow. I have heard,
Where many of the best respect in Rome,
Except immortal Caesar, speaking of Brutus,
And groaning underneath this age's yoke,
Have wished that noble Brutus had his eyes.

To me, Cassius is saying that many of the most respected Romans (except Caesar) have wished that Brutus saw himself as they see him -- a protector of the Republic.

Brutus' status in Rome derived from his ancestor who was famous for overthrowing the tyrant king in the 5th century BCE. Cassius is using the most potent lever in Brutus' psychology to win his support for Caesar's assassination.

Act I Scene 3
A violent storm and wondrous oddities as nature reflects the "strange-disposed time" among men.

Shakespeare has it both ways: the violent storm as seen in many of his plays and yet Cicero says:

But men may construe things after their fashion,
Clean from the purpose of the things themselves.

Perfect setting for Cassius' incendiary speeches and to display his personality.

Cassius' brick-through-the-window ploy is based on historical fact. A further attempt to persuade Brutus that many Romans expect him to emulate his ancestor and save the Republic from tyranny.

Be you content: good Cinna, take this paper,
And look you lay it in the praetor's chair,
Where Brutus may but find it; and throw this
In at his window; set this up with wax
Upon old Brutus' statue:
...
Come, Casca, you and I will yet ere day
See Brutus at his house: three parts of him
Is ours already, and the man entire
Upon the next encounter yields him ours.

Monday-morning quarterbacking two thousand years later, I marvel that Brutus paid attention to such "spam."

Happy first day of autumn to everyone!

So Act I introduced the key players. Shakespeare does not show or relate historical background. He does not mention that the Senate had already proclaimed Caesar dictator for life and divine. The Tribunes remind some Romans that Caesar's Civil War killed Pompey and other Romans.

We've heard many shouts for Caesar to be king and heard Cassius's passionate protest that Caesar is merely a man who's no better than anyone else, especially not better than Cassius. Caesar is reported to have declined the crown reluctantly.

At this point, whose side are you on?