Shakespeare Read-Alongs discussion

Hey Kit, I'm done! Message me here when you're ready! :))) but no stress, take as much time as you need!

kit wrote: "i've just finished act 2 so i'll try to finish the play today or tomorrow!!!"

yaay :DD can't wait!

Hey Kit,

unfortunately, I am super sick and I spent the last two days, and I'm not feeling my greatest, so my thoughts will be extremely jumbled and random. I hope I'll make sense. ;) Also, I haven't read any secondary literature to „Julius Caesar“ (because sick, duh :D) and so I might be way off with some of my analysis. :D

So, first of all, I have to say that I found this play only mediocre. I will never be one of my favorites, but it was definitely decent enough. I feel like I would have profited had I know the real story behind Caesar and his emperorship (is that even a word? Lol), because knowing next to nothing about the Ancient Romans, I really struggled to keep up with the plot.

I mean just in the beginning. I totally didn't get why Caesar was about to get coronated? Wasn't he already an emperor? Like I'm pretty sure he was an important ruler for years before he got stabbed to death. :D And in this play, it seemed like, when he had his victory over Pompeii and came back to Rome, people wanted to coronate him, he rejected the crown thrice (why the fuck did he do that tho???? like take that crown) and then the next day he got stabbed in the back. What a tale. :D

Next off, I think it's really interesting to think about who the real protagonist of this play is. I mean Caesar is the titular character, but honestly I didn't see him as the protagonist at all. He had very few lines, and then he died at the beginning of the third Act. However, I think it's also a little strange to assume that Brutus is the protagonist, because somehow everything comes back to Caesar, and the plot is motivated by Cassius' hatred towards him... Overall I felt like we had a lot of characters who were all kind of similarly important.

But due to the fact that no character got developed really deeply (and the historic nature of the play) I actually didn't care about any of the characters (expect one, but we'll talk about her later)... Caesar was such a self-conceited ass... that it actually got quite funny reading about him, I mean when he just completely ignored his wife and every other person who warned him that he'll get stabbed on the Ides of March, I was just like BITCH HAD IT COMING. I didn't feel sorry for him at all. I actually really liked the murdering scene, because I lowkey knew about the very famous sentence „Et tu, Bruti?“ and I will totally use it from now on when someone is a backstabbing bitch in my life.

I really wanted more insight into the relationship between Caesar and Brutus. I mean, was Brutus really his illegitemate son, or is that just one of those weird rumours that has no historic foundations whatsoever?? :D Same, with Cassius and Brutus relationship, because OMG the gay subtext was just brilliant in this play, and I really want them to be gay in real life. I remember reading somewhere that the Greeks really embraced homosexuality, but the Romans heavily rejected it... so I think their relationship is probably unlikely... which is sad. But then it really makes me wonder why Shakespeare decided to corporate it in this story???

I think Mark Antony was one of the better characters, even tho the name „Antony“ seems so motherfucking modern. O.o I totally preferred it when the other characters refered to him as „Antonius“. :D I really liked his „Friends, Romans, Countrymen“-speech, because that was just fucking savage. The way he just refuted Brutus arguments was just wonderful, and I loved how salty he was, whenever he said „And he sure is an honorable men“ I fucking hollored so loudly. :D

So, in general I found the female representation to be quite shit in this play. I think there are only two women... Caesar's wife (Calphurnia – what kind of name is this?) and Portia (ma baaaaeeee). Okay, I found Calphurnia to be quite useless. Sure, she warned Caesar, but she was basically just there to move her husband's plot along, and wasn't really an established character of her own, so I don't have a lot of thoughts regarding her...

BUT PORTIA. I love her. I don't know but I really liked that one fucking scene (such an injustice to her character... ARRRGHH) she had with Brutus, where she was just like „yo Brutus, my hubby, I know something weighing on your mind, and I deserve to know, and it will be better if you share this with me“ - like yesss, please! And then when she knelt before him, Brutus was just like „Kneel not, gentle Portia“ and my life was kinda complete. And how clear she was at the end, where she was like, if you don't confide in you, I am not your wife, merely a „harlot“ (as you know English is not my native tongue, but I'm pretty sure that means „bitch“, right?). And I was just like, oh wow, Portia speaking some harsh truths here.

And that Shakespeare just killed her off OFFSTAGE is the biggest disgrace to her character. Like, I wanted this play to be about her, and about how she left Brutus' sorry ass. Like ARRGHHH – I know wishful thinking. ;)

Apart from that, there is nothing that springs to mind at the moment... Hmmm... maybe the scene of Caesar's funeral, where Brutus and Mark Antony held their eulogies. I was wondering if that was some sort of social commentary on Shakespeare's part??? Because he showed very clearly how „stupid“ the audience is (they basically went with whomever was talking) and how mob rule can be very dangerous? But I'm really not sure...


Okay, this was very exhausting to write. I am going to sink into my next 10 hour sleep coma. :D I can't wait to hear of your thoughts tho. :)))

OHHH I KNOW WHAT I FORGOT TO TALK ABOUT. THE FUCKING SUICIDES??? Like there were so many of them???? Can't the Bard chill for a second? :D Or did all of these people really kill themselves? My favorite scene was really when both Cassius and Brutus just ran into a fucking sword. Like, talk about going out with a bang....

The entire suicide situation just reminded me of "13 Reasons Why" - I really need to write an adaption from Brutus' POV where he sends out tapes to all of the characters involved in this tragedy. :D

Is it okay if I join in?

Tommy wrote: "Is it okay if I join in?"

Yes of course, the more, the merrier. :)

kit wrote: "don't worry about it!!! i hope you feel better soon!!

i feel the same way about the play, i think it would've been better to read up on the historical events surrounding this play before actually ..."

Thank you so much, Kit, I'm already feeling a lot more human today. :D

Yeah, I'm pretty sure as well that Caesar has had a lot of power in Rome before his execution (because otherwise the plot and him being a „threat“ would be quite ridiculous). I read a little bit about Caesar since yesterday and apparently he had unmatched military power (also the reason why he was able to defeat Pompey), and he won the resulting Civil war which enabled him to control the government. He was then proclaimed „dictator in perpetuity“ (which makes me wonder why it was fucking necessary to make him „king“ in the first place??? because the dictator title seems much more savage/powerful to me)...

Oh my God, I don't know how I could forget about Cinna the Poet. He was such a cool character, I agree... I honestly feel so bad about how he died... I really think it plays into the idea that mob rule is bad and that the plebs is very rash in their decision... it's very similar to their reaction to the two eulogies... both times they don't seem like the brightest people. ;)))

And those comics are just the best thing ever! Thank you so much for sharing them. I laughed so hard!!! And they also reminded me of something that I forgot to mention before: Was I the only one who actually thought that Caesar was sterile and Calphurnia probs very healthy??? I mean Caesar was such an asshole, and soooo in love with himself and his greatness, that it probably didn't even pop into his head that he might have been the sterile one? I know that it's not based on historic facts (I'm pretty sure that the real Caesar had children???? but oh well, my history knowledge is bad), but I'm just seeing it in the context of the play, which differs from the reality quite a bit. ;)

And I'm glad that you appreciated Portia as well... And yes, I agree that her death would have been hard to portray on stage :D but I mean in „The Winter's Tale“ we have things such as „exit, pursued by a bear“, so don't say it's impossible. ;)))) I am very conflicted over Portia's death in general, just because she seems to have killed herself (like every friggin character in this play) because she was depressed? And she was depressed because her husband ignored her??? That's not really a feminist/empowering statement at all... I really feel like she deserved better!!!!

Imma read the introduction to the play (in my edition) today, and if I spot something interesting, I will definitely let you know. :))

Hey Kit,

no problem. School comes first. ;) Good luck with your paper!

Yeah, I read that about Queen Elizabeth as well.

In the play, the empire also suffered from a sharp division between citizens, who were represented in the senate, and the increasingly underrepresented plebeian masses. There was this fear that if Caesar became absolute ruler, that he would enslave Roman citizens. So the play is definitely a portrayal of the shift from republican to imperial Rome and the Elizabethan era's trend toward consolidated monarchal power. In 1599 Queen Elizabeth I had sat on the throne for nearly 40 years, enlarging her power at the expense of the aristocracy and the House of Common. Due to her advanced age, her reign seemed likely to end soon, yet she lacked any heirs (just like Caesar). Many feared her death would plunge England into chaos. So yep, this was probably Shakespeare's form of social commentary, which was heavily censored at the time, but within a play it had been perfectly acceptable. ;)

And did you know it's Shakespeare's shortest play? That's kinda funny! I swear it seemed longer to me than eg. „A Midsummer Night's Dream“. ;)

Upon reflecting on the play I was wondering about the omens and supernatural events. I mean most characters in the play neglect the omens (dead men walking), nightmares (Calphurnia's vision) and warnings (the Soothsayer's advice to Caesar) and supernatural events (Brutus, when he is visited by Caesar's ghost). I'm not sure about the belief system in the 16th century, but nowadays to believe in omens is generally considered a bad/childish thing to do, and therefore the character Julius Caesar seems (at least to me) a lot more modern to me than for example his wife.

However the lack of superstitiousness is what essentially brings the doom unto all of these characters. And Shakespeare makes it very clear that some being – fate, the Gods whatever – is at hand, so that everything plays out accordingly. So I am a little confused what Shakespeare's message was supposed to be to his contemporaries??? Was it really along the lines of „trust the omens etc.“ or more the lite version (:D) „trust your gut, listen to yo wife“? :D I think it's an interesting part of the play, because especially the ghost of Caesar was such a ridiculous character and the entire scene seemed so ridiculous to me... :D

In general I couldn't find much about this play? It doesn't seem to be a scholar's favorite, and so good analyses or discussions of it are hard to find. It's probably really straight-forward with not many hidden themes.

leynes wrote: "Tommy wrote: "Is it okay if I join in?"

Yes of course, the more, the merrier. :)"

Thanks.

What did you all think about the senators' preemptive murder/crime? Did you think it was honorable? I mean, is it right to kill in order to prevent something that might happen, like if Julius Caesar lived he might have become an emperor?

Personally, it's still a crime in my opinion. The old adage saying that two wrongs doesn't mean a right, applies to this one. There is no end result yet.

I don't think it was honorable, and at the same time I don't think the senators were doing something to prevent a bad thing from happening. Remember, these senators are oligarchs. These aristocratic senators, non-elective oligarchy numbered around 600. All men of wealth and determined foreign policies and controlled the purse strings of the Republic and deployment of army units and army commanders. They appointed provincial governors. These oligarchs are self appointed, self-selected... not voted.

The best known and most populare leader in ancient Rome is Julius Caesar. He sent many unemployed proletarians to repair ancient cities and colonies, thus creating jobs for the regular and poor people. He directed large land holders to have at least one-third of freedmen working in their lands instead of just slaves. One third of his work forece had to be free labor instead of slave labor. It reduced unemployment and crime. In an attempt to secure affordable housing for poor tenants, Caesar remitted a whole year's rent to moderate and low dwellings. He also increased duties and taxes on luxuries imports. That was to encourage local Italian industries, and to make the rich pay something to the state for the obscenely lavish lifestyle they are enjoying. He evicted from the senate all those who are associated with provincial plunder. He eased the burden of the debtor class by allowing repayment of debts at lower pre war taxes. If only we could get banks to do that today.

Tommy wrote: "What did you all think about the senators' preemptive murder/crime? Did you think it was honorable? I mean, is it right to kill in order to prevent something that might happen, like if Julius Caesa..."

That's an interesting question you raised. And I think in order to answer it I would judge Brutus apart from the other senators... It's very clear that Cassius and the rest of the bunch are just power hungry oligarchs, they don't care about Rome, they're simply afraid that, when Caesar will rise higher in power, they will lose their influences... and so they decide to stab him in the back... Totally not cool. ;) And thus not honorable at all.

However, Brutus' case is (in my opinion) a little tougher to judge, because Shakespeare makes it very clear that Brutus loves Caesar, he has a high opinion of him and is very hesitant to engage in Cassius' scheming... He is only convinced by Cassius (and Casca, I think?) when they tell him that the future of Rome is at play. I am not familiar with the political and social situation at the time, but judging from the play, Brutus really geniunely thought that by killing Caesar, he would help Rome become more democratic and not head into a monarchy.

The points you made about what a good and social ruler Caesar really was are totally interesting. Thank you for providing that insight, because, as I said before, I don't have a lot of historic knowledge. I think that, eventually, empires are bound to fall. That's the way of the world. And so I don't think that Caesar could have prevented that (which totally doesn't mean that he deserved to die). In general, I thought the murder was extremely nasty and cowardly done!