Caesar rebelled against the Republic, while Pompey was the general appointed to defend the Republic and Caesar fought and defeated Pompey who died. JC came back to Rome and was heaped with titles by the Senate, perhaps as a way of appeasement to their conquerer's vanity and need for power and perhaps also to make JC a marked man. Accepting all those titles would set JC up for deadly envy.

Anyway, JC was the rebel who defeated the Republic. Pompey's sons were still actively fighting for the Republic. JC went to Spain and defeated the sons at Munda and eventually the two sons of Pompey were killed. This is where Shakespeare's JC picks up the story in Act 1 with JC's triumphal return from Munda.

From this chain of events we can see that JC conquered the Roman Republic and not barbarians of other countries. He didn't bring prizes to Rome as Pompey had in his conquering of other countries and that's why the Tribunes called the citizens ungrateful.

I think the background of the Civil War andMunda must have been commonly known in Shakespeare's time because a lot of the audience's understanding comes from knowing the history. (I simplified the history tremendously for brevity's sake.) Back later for more....

Marvelle

From what I understand of the Lupercali Festival, connected with Rome's legendary founders Romulus and Remus, there were two collegia of Luperci (priests) until JC set up a third one in 44 BC with Antony at its head. From 51.1911encyclopedia.org: "In the front of the Porta Romana, on the western side of the Palantine hill, close to the Ficus Ruminalis and the Casa Romuli, was the cave of the Lupercus; in it, according to the legend, the she-wolf had suckled the twins....(During the festival, the Luperci cut thongs from the skins of sacrificed animals and) ran in two bands round the walls of the old Palantine city, the line of which was marked with stones, striking the people who crowded near. A blow from the thong prevented sterility in women. These thongs were called februa, the festival Februatio, and the day dies februatus (februare = to purify); hence the name of the month February, the last of the old Roman year. The object of the festival was, by expiation and purification, to secure the fruitfulness of the land, the increase of the flocks and the prosperity of the whole people."

I note a compression in time in Shakespeare's JC. The Lupercalia Festival, with the priests running in the street with thongs, was celebrated on Feb 15 while Mar 15 marks the death of JC. Is JC's death and the aftermath an ironic contrast to the Lupercalia? Or does the comparison depend on a person's political and social viewpoint?

The Circus Maximus is like an oblong racetrack. Certainly there were chariot races held there and gladiator fights. I also read where JC actually flooded the interior of Circus Maximus, at one time, to recreate a naval battle. These grand spectacles are an older version of football and other modern sports, television/movies, and our own internet -- entertain the populace and keep them happy and diverted from serious concerns of the day?

Meg, thanks for the information from the Folger edition, that Shakespeare's audience would know the history. I have the Folger too but need to read the explanatory notes, introduction and essay.

I agree, Maryal, there's a lot of comedy in 1.1 -- the cobbler being 'impertinent' and not wearing his class-designating uniform is quite upsetting to the Tribunes consumed with the idea of status and civil order. Not knowing a man's occupation and place in society is anarchy to Roman society.

Yet the Tribunes -- judges whose duty is to protect the rights of the people -- are part of the ruling class who have brought this anarchy upon themselves by neglecting the people. The Circus Maximus is only a temporary distraction and doesn't materially benefit the people.

Question 1B "what dramatic purpose is served by this scene?" I believe it sets the stage for the rest of the play. The Plebians are inconstant (first they cheer for Pompey and then for Pompey's conquerer) as well as dangerous in the lack of concern for the Roman Republic's social order. The ruling class, as represented by the Tribunes, have no concern for the good of the people. Add to this combustible mix, the newly erected statues of JC intended to suggest to the common people JC's status as a demigod, garlanded and crowned. This is a mirror image of JC's revolt against the Republic and a slap in the face to the Republicans. The entire scene brings to the forefront the causes of the civil strife that follows and the responsibility of all the parties.

Marvelle

Antony, as a Luperci priest, ran the boundary of Rome and it was as a Luperci priest that he offered the crown to JC who refused it reluctantly. I do believe that JC put Antony up to his gesture to test the waters of the populace considering the legendary historic beginnings of the Lupercalia. But it also paved the way for other 'usurpers' like Cassius and Brutus. The Lupercalia Festival and crown is another foreshadowing then of what's to come in Shakepeare's play.

Marvelle

From www.geocities.com/caesarkevin, some of the honors that the Senate heaped upon JC which I feel made him a marked man:

After returning to Rome following the defeat of the Republic at Pharsalus in Greece (and Pompey's death) the Senate granted a 40 day thanksgiving and "the right to appear in triumph on a chariot drawn by white horses and be accompanied by all Lictors of his current and prior dictatorships. Also the right to sit in a Curule chair with the consuls in the Senate and the right to speak first. Other grants were the right to start all races at the Circus Maximus, and a statue on the Capitol facing the god Jupiter. Another was the power of Overseer of all citizens for 3 years. This was basically a Censorship but twice as long and with more power. But the most important decree was the power of a Dictator for 10 successive years...."

(Then JC left for Spain to battle the last of the Republican army and he defeated Pompey's sons, and before his return the Senate gave him other honours including) "one that allowed him to wear special triumphal clothing on all public occasions, along with the golden laurel crown of victor....Caesar was also allowed to use the title Imperator in front of his name for the rest of his life."

The Senate further "decreed that an ivory statue of Caesar be carried in public at religious processions at games, along with the statues of the gods. Another statue of Caesar was set up in the temple of Quirinus with the inspection 'To the Invincible God.' The god Quirinus seems to be the way the Romans worshipped the Deified king Romulus...(The new statue of JC on the capital joined eight existing statues of which) were seven statues of the Roman Kings, and another of the first Consul Lucius Junius Brutus. Caesar's statue was set up next to this one."

Upon Caesar's return to Rome, following his victory over the last of the Republican army the Senate granted him the title of Liberator and a temple to Liberty was to be built in his honor...(The Senate) let Caesar be voted consul for the next ten years. He (could) hold any office he wanted (and he could) appoint half of all magistrates. But all who ran for office needed his approval....Caesar began to wear the red shoes that were worn by the kings of Alba, hundreds of years before."

"Other honors that Caesar received.... a tribe of the tribal assembly (was to be) named after him. His birthday (July 13th) was to be a national holiday. The month of Quintillius was to be named after Caesar. A priesthood was named specifically for him and his family."

These were honors that JC accepted following his defeat of the Republican forces. JC -- the successful rebel -- saw his power increasing by leaps and bounds. I think that for most of the nobility the resentment and hatred was for the diminishment of their own power. Since they saw themselves as the Republic, rather than the 'mender of bad soles,' they felt the Republic was lost -- stolen by Caesar. The ridiculous amount of honors bestowed upon Caesar was a death sentence, for each honor and Caesar's acceptance of each honor targeted him as an aspiring Emperor.

Two things that gall me the most out of all the honors -- and they are actually minor ones -- are Caesar wearing red shoes and his ironic title of Liberator.

Marvelle

Marvelle

Shakespeare's JC is amazingly true to Plutarch's Lives and is one of the most historically accurate of all his plays.

One fault of Shakespeare's JC is that he cannot hear out of his left ear and he had Antony step to his right side so they could converse. This implies that JC did not listen to everyone, but relies only on his inner circle for opinions. He no longer felt the need to convince anyone -- or hear arguments and opinions -- prior to/and after making decisions or orders.

While with Cassius, Casca congratulates him on being able to hear and identify his voice in the dark which implies that Cassius listens to all (even though he may disagree with what is said). And Cassius shows us this when he adjusts his arguments to Brutus and Casca based on what he heard them say and how they felt. In that way he was a superb manipulator. Caesar acted as if he was above such two-way conversations.

Marvelle

I feel the tragedy is about the Country as well as Brutus. I saw two movies on "Julius Caesar" and found that Brutus was the axis around which the play revolved. Neither movie had a really satisfactory Brutus who is, after all, hard to portray with all that silent thinking going on and his outward control of emotions.

Marvelle

Of a noble Roman family already famous for its civil and military services to Rome.

He first appears in 53 BC as one of the commanders in the army of Marcus Crassus when Crassus is defeated by the Parthians in Mesopotamia.

There were questions about Cassius' actions at Carrhae -

• his partisans said that Cassius had seen that Crassus was already defeated and therefore declined to throw away the lives of more Roman troops
• his detractors said that he stood by, keeping his forces out of the battle, and let Crassus go down to ignominious defeat, capture, and execution
• conspiracy theorists guessed that he had accepted promises of future preference and held back to let the Parthians clear Crassus from the path of Pompey -- or of Caesar.

Cassius reorganized the soldiers who escaped at Carrhae under his own command and won against the Parthians the next year.

Cassius then established a power base in Syria. This base allowed him to extort money from anyone who wished to trade in his area which enabled him to increase his wealth.

Cassius was appointed Tribune in 49 BC. He sided with Pompey and the corrupt "republican" Senate against Julius Caesar, and he was Pompey's naval commander off Sicily in the civil war. Cassius was on Pompey's side when Pompey was lost the battle of Pharsalus in Thessaly (Greece) in 48 BC, but, shortly after Ptolemy delivered Pompey's head, Caesar forgave Cassius and made him a legate.

After Caesar's pardon, which also extended to many others among Pompey's former allies, Cassius became part of the opposition that became deeply involved in "republican" causes in Rome. Those who conspired against Caesar claimed to want a return to the republic but the real goal was to thwart the mercantile, monetary, and civil/military service reforms proposed by Julius Caesar.

In my Modern Library copy of Plutarch's Lives, Plutarch mentions that Crassus' forces, fighting the Parthians, went in different directions in an attempt to reach safety and that Cassius and his troops reached Syria. But I didn't find any hint of scandal in Plutarch's reporting of the fatal campaign of Crassus. (671)

Plutarch mentions the slight given to Cassius when Brutus received a highly regarded apointment instead of Cassius. And Cassius was "a man of fierce disposition, and one that out of private malice, rather than love of the public, hated Caesar, not the tyrant, continually fired and stirred (Brutus) up....among other reasons on which he grounded his quarrel against Caesar , the loss of his lions which he'd procured...in Megara (which Caesar seized for himself. The lions were let loose when Megara was just taken and they) tore apart a great many unarmed persons...." (1190-1)

"And that, some say, was the chief provocation that stirred up Cassius to conspire against Caesar; but they were much in the wrong. For Cassius had from his youth a natural hatred and rancour against the whole race of tyrants...(and young Cassius had boxed the ears of the son of Sylla the tyrant) on his boasting himself amongst the boys, and extolling the sovereign power of his father....(Cassius, in the presence of the adult Pompey, told Sylla's son) 'dare to seak those words that provoked me, that I may strike you again as I did before.' Such was the disposition of Cassius." (1191)

"Men generally reckoned Cassius a very expert soldier, but of a harsh and angry nature, and one that desired to command rather by fear than love, though, on the other side, among his familiar acquaintance he would easily give way to jesting and play the buffoon." (1203)

_________________________________________

Ginny, I think Cassius' story of saving a drowning Caesar from the Tiber River is an allegory/parable and Cassius didn't intend for Brutus to take it otherwise? And I think Brutus understood, as well as Shakespeare's audience, familiar as they were with the then common art of oral story-telling.

Marvelle

P.S. It was Brutus who convinced Caesar to pardon Cassius.

I do however agree with anneof avolon and MEG.  Do we really need this much bloody information to kick back, (or stand up as Maryal says) and enjoy the richness of Wm. Shakespeares brilliant plays?  Does it matter that JC  valued his soldiers, was a skilled equestrian with grand powers of endurance?  Do we care that he went on to break engagement of his daughter and formed alliances with others?  Is it relevant that he lost his mother (who hasn't?)daughter and his grandchild to gaffaw at the double entendres presented by Willie?

On the flip side we have JC who bribed, lied, took prisoners, reorganized the state, reformed the calendar and administered justice with concientiousness?  NOPE!  It doesn't matter.  Some are leaders, others followers and there is the good, bad and the ugly in each of us as well as JC, Brutus and Cassius.  So---oooo ,I can't make up my mind which side to choose, perhaps for the first time in my life I'll be a fence sitter, although the idea of being brutally stabbed 20 some times has no appeal to me. Maybe I'll stick with Jan, in the Plebian corner.

I'd suggest to those who don't want to read Plutarch or posts that discuss the background -- please don't. Just pass by such information and allow people to post as they feel.

There are different ways of reading and enjoying which is exciting and invigorating to me. I learn a lot from seeing the many ways a text is read. Some ways are quite quite quite different from mine but I accept the differences and expect the same for myself? There's plenty of room at SN for all our perspectives.

Marvelle

"For once, upon a raw and gusty day, the troubled Tiber chafing with her shores, Caesar said to me, 'Dar'st thou, Cassius, now leap in with me into this angry flood and swim to yonder point?' Upon the word, accoutered as I was, I plunged in and bade him to follow, so indeed he did. The torrent roared, and we did buffet it with lusty sinews, throwing it aside and stemming it with hearts of controversy. But ere we could arrive the point proposed, Caesar cried 'Help me, Cassius, or I sink!' I, as Aeneas, our great ancestor, did from the flames of Troy upon his shoulder the old Anchises bear, so from the waves of Tiber did I the tired Caesar."

Hey, I just realized that Shakespeare has Cassius start his story along the lines of 'once upon a time.'

As the Tiber was humanized into the spirit of Rome and its people by the speeches of the tribunes Marullus and Flavius, so too does Cassius use the Tiber to signify Rome. The turbulent waters that Caesar invites Cassius to swim and from which Caesar needs rescuing would be the state of Rome -- Caesar plunges in beyond his ability.

Caesar dared Cassius to swim with him which alludes, I believe, to the pardon granted by Caesar and then his appointment of Cassius to a post within Caesar's government.

Cassius is trying to persaude Brutus that:

Cassius said this was a story about honor. He asks why Caesar should be ruler when he is no better man than he, and he implies with his story that Caesar is a weaker man (weaker in body and judgment). Honor to a Roman I believe is high public esteem; fame; glory; evidence of distinction. If I'm right about the definition then the story about honor is saying that Caesar hasn't earned his honor except through the efforts of men such as Brutus and Cassius. Cassius therefore implies that he -- and Brutus too -- deserves honor.

Perhaps someone can sort this meaning out better than I've been able.

Marvelle

Yes I appreciate your thoughts but ... aren't we all wonderfully different in our approaches? I gladly -- joyfully -- accept your right to approach Shakespeare's JC your way and I expect to be given the same respect? I learn from others.

Shakespeare's JC follows Plutarch's Lives, which is linked in the heading. If the historical JC confuses you then bypass the historical bits. It's really that easy.

Please understand that I won't keep restating my position or responding to others about this subject since I feel that, after a certain period, it takes away from the discussion.

While I try to find points in a post to which I can respond positively, I may very well bypass other points. Many good points I don't respond to merely for lack of time on my part. There's only so much I can take into my pea-brain!

Thanks Meg for mentioning the flaring new indicator in the middle column for new questions. I missed that!

Marvelle

Barbara, you've expressed your thoughts so clearly. I like the idea of shared leadership and would also add shared responsibility. I believe that Shakespeare has managed to give us characters of many dimensions who have good/bad traits in each.

Fear and arrogance reside together in Caesar. He was an old man by then, he'd driven his frail body beyond its limits for too many years and his speeches in Shakespeare intimate that he realizes his death will come rather sooner than later.

BaBi gave us the very substantial reasons for having the offered crown offstage. Shakespeare also is able to say much in few words and he overlays the offered crown/kingship with Cassius and Brutus discussing the very issue of The Man Who Would Be King, their conversation mixing with the cries of the crowd. Then Casca reports what he saw and heard which is another overlay of the offered crown. From these we experience firsthand the origins of Rome's alliances, conflicts and civil strife that will play out in Julius Caesar.

One interesting note is that it's Casca alone, not Cassius, who calls the common folk such names as tag-rag and it's Casca who says that the third time Caesar reluctantly refused the crown

Shakespeare is brilliant in showing us Casca's particular prejudices.

Casca also reports in that same Act 1.2 that "Marullus and Flavius, for pulling scarves off Caesar's images, are put to silence." So Caesar either imprisoned them or threw them out of office which would be an example of his arrogance in assuming an emperor's role as if the Republic were truly dead. President Bush isn't allowed -- yet, and hopefully never -- to take such actions against dissenting voices.

After Casca leaves, Brutus complains that he's grown to be a 'blunt fellow' and Cassius replies that Casca's still a lively person "However he puts on this tardy form. This rudeness is a sauce to his good wit, which gives men stomach to digest his words with better appetite."

From this I gather that Cassius is saying 'look beyond Casca's show of stupidity.' Casca is in many ways a Roman equivalent of the Fool who through his entertainment is able to impart otherwise unwelcome and stinging truths as he sees them (such as Lear's Fool). Still, Casca's prejudices are hard to take but then I would be one of the rabblement, clapping my chopped hands.

Marvelle

Oftentimes I leave final assumptions unsaid in my posts because I think they're so obvious but I decided to go back to Casca whose rude Fool exterior is used to impart information. For the time being I'm trying to understand what the characters are saying and doing and my judgments of those characters will have to wait a while.

I believe that Casca's real message was that Caesar was testing the waters of the Tiber/crown, that he wanted the crown, and that the common folk would accept him as the emperor.

That's Casca's basic truth which he covered up with a lot of nonsense, Fool that he is. What Casca says underlines the fears of the ruling class like Brutus and Cassius who prefer to have the power in their hands.

Marvelle

Meg, you're summing up is wonderfully extensive. I'll touch on a couple of points.

I think the gratitude example you mentioned, of Caesar with the crowd at the Circus Maximus, is an additional one if Ginny is keeping track.

-- I looked but didn't find where Cassius lied to Brutus or Casca.

-- Cassius doesn't blame fate but quite the opposite. He says the 'fault...is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.' Fate (aka stars) is not the fault, according to Cassius, but 'ourselves'.

-- The swimming story wasn't actually a swiming story at all. The swim never happened literally, nor did Cassius play false. He prefaced the story with "the subject of my story is honor" and begins it with a fairytale-like "For once, upon a raw and gusty day" -- Shakespeare's deliberate near-echoing of 'once upon a time.' With this opening there'd be no mistaking allegory for literal facts nor was Cassius misleading Brutus. The Tiber is the spirit of Rome and it's people, an idea that Shakespeare carefully set up in the earlier speeches of Marullus and Flavius. This setup showed that the Tiber was commonly considered in Ancient Rome to signify the country's soul. Cassius' story is an allegory.

-- Marullus and Flavius were put to silence but that doesn't mean death, rather imprisoned or stripped on their offices. I think the greatest punishment for them would be to lose their positions. JC -- he of the liberal clemency -- would not have dictated a death sentence especially so close to receiving the coveted crown.

John, your look at Cassius brings up Cassius intelligence and his ability to listen to others. Listening is something Caesar didn't do except for his inside followers. Cassius would recognize that such limited hearing would be dangerous.

Caesar's and Cassius' flaws are tragic ones, as are Brutus' flaws. We're seeing some good traits in Cassius (listening, adaptability) and many bad traits. Caesar was ambitious. Ambition was an admired and necessary trait for the nobility, yet Caesar went too far. I don't think Cassius was ambitious so much as envious and he hated tyrants.

Honor was not 'right action' but was defined by Romans, IMO, as public esteem. It isn't what I'd consider a modern definition of honor.

Marvelle

Question 2A

Cassius speaks with Brutus and says he will be Brutus' looking glass so that Brutus may see himself.

What does Cassius reveal about himself? He is saying that he's a steadfast friend; he doesn't fawn over or praise just anyone; he doesn't gossip about his friends (discrete); and he is choosy about his friends.

What of Brutus is revealed in Cassius' glass? Brutus is honorable; he's as good a man as Caesar, probably the better man and stronger; he comes from a noble family; his ancestor is the man who overthrew a tyrant and who is thus renowned and honored for his action.

What one part of Cassius' speech seems to appeal to Brutus the most? The mention of Brutus' ancestor, the Liberator Brutus. "O, you and I have heard our fathers say there was a Brutus once that would have brooked th' eternal devil to keep his state in Rome as easily as a king." (Act 1.2, lines 167-170)

Does Brutus seem to have a weakness? If so, what is it? I'd say his weakness is his blind confidence in his own honor/virtue. The belief he has that since he is an honorable man, therefore whatever action he takes will be honorable and just. I can see the vanity of such an outlook.

Was Cassius' speech enough to bring Brutus over to the conspirators? No. Brutus says he'll consider the argument but he offers Cassius hope by saying that he'd already considered such things under the weight of a tyrant.

More on Question 2B...

Marvelle

Are you convinced that Brutus is operating from a position of honor? Is anything he does dishonorable? What are his apparent considerations or deliberations? What's his biggest hang up? What should be his biggest hangup? No, I'm not convinced, but Brutus convinces himself that all his actions have to be honorable because he is, after all, Brutus with all his moral rightousness. His deliberations are meant to reason what is the honorable course of action, but 'Brutus' emotions' will make the fatal decision even though he calls the decision-maker 'his reason'. His biggest hangup was being seen as honorable. What should have been his biggest hangup was questioning if his murdering Caesar was moral.

What appears to motivate Cassius the most? He's proud and convinced of his own self-worth. This leads to envy of the more successful JC.

What evidence does either Cassius or Brutus give of Caesar's fault or "ambition"? Caesar's staging of the offering of the crown and JC's reluctant refusal of the crown is the prime example. JC's strange eruptions (such as waging civil war) in order to gain even greater power and which caused the death of thousands of Romans. Caesar had killed the sons of Pompey the Great, a fellow Roman, rather than warring with outsiders, thus making the waters of the Tiber (Rome's spirit) turbulent and displacing civil order. That men such as Cassius must bend their bodies if Caesar so much as nods at them as if JC thought himself a god.

________________________________________

Some afterthoughts to Question 2A:

I think Cassius reveals himself as being a lonely man. He also reveals that he has a sincere affection and respect for Brutus. Cassius, from having listened to Brutus and knowing him, decides to send false letters to Brutus from 'admirers' of Brutus the Liberator, asking that this Brutus take action. This will be the final winning strategy in convincing Brutus to join the conspirators. That's basically what I found in Act 1 regarding Question 2.

Marvelle

Marvelle

I am glad That my weak words have provoked this much strong Reaction from Brutus

...you don't have any mirrors that would show Your inner qualities to you,

What danger ... to search inside myself

Since you know you cannot see yourself... Things about yourself which you don't yet realize.

Put honor on one side and death on the other, And I will face either one; For let the gods give me good fortune only if I love The name of honor more than I fear death.

... what you have just said is true about you,... as well as I know your outward appearance...honor is what I want to talk about. I don't know what you and other people Think about life, but just for myself, I would rather die than live to be In awe of someone no better than I am. I was born as free as Caesar, so were you;

"Brutus" and "Caesar." What is so special about the name "Caesar"? Why should that name be spoken more than yours? Write them together: your name looks just as good. Say them, yours sounds as good.

Rome, you have lost all your noble people!

O, you and I have heard our fathers say That there was once a man named Brutus who would have tolerated The eternal devil ruling Rome As easily as he would a king.

Brutus would rather be a villager Than to repesent himself as a son of Rome Under the difficult conditions that this time in history Is likely to put on us.

I am glad That my weak words have provoked this much strong Reaction from Brutus

Brutus, you are noble; but I see Your honorable nature can be manipulated Into something not quite so honorable.

Ginger

Barbara, thanks for adding the quotes (my posts were so long due to the questions that I was afraid to add many of the quotes). What a team we are!

The overarching thought for Question #2 that I hadn't addressed directly is "The persuasion of Brutus by Cassius has to be one of the most powerful scenes in all literature, but IS it the conquest of evil over idealism?" My answer would be 'no.' I don't see Cassius or Brutus as either wholly evil or idealistic.

Cassius has the unique characteristic of a good politician of being able to perceive the true motives of men. He doesn't persaude anyone to do anything that they didn't want to do. Cassius gave Brutus reasons to do, with seeming Honor, what Brutus already wanted to do. The delay with Brutus is that after the murder he still needs to have public esteem (also known as 'Roman Honor).

This is such a political play isn't it? Manipulation/persuasion doesn't reside only with Cassius. Remember that Caesar is manipulating the Countrymen/common folk by having his statues festooned with garlands as if he were already a god and emperor; and he orchestrated the offered crown at Circus Maximus (which held 250,000 onlookers -- as good in Ancient Rome as todays TV spot in promoting a politician!) JC was making widespread reforms that would persuade the Countrymen to appreciate him even more. JC had overthrown a very flawed Republic and was manipulating the common folk for their support so he could be Emperor and God. JC was the original spin doctor in this tragedy.

Imagine what it'd be like if our Presidents and Prime Ministers declared themselves Gods and Emperors. Suddenly life's opportunities would be radically diminished. In Rome, where every noble's duty is to be Sisyphus and ambitiously pursue more and more glory for himself and family, this diminishment would be catastrophic. This is what Cassius and Brutus face. Their way of life is being destroyed.

Certainly the nobles, and JC is also a noble, helped create this state of affairs....this monstrous state. Too much greed and ambition and too little thought for their Countrymen.

Shakespeare explores leadership, responsibility, and persuasion.

When answering Question 2 yesterday, it helped me flesh out Brutus and Cassius in my mind. I assumed Brutus was idealistic but realized he deceived himself about himself. I was very surprised when looking closely at Cassius to see his aching loneliness. He was courting Brutus to be his friend as much as he courted him to be a co-conspirator.

Marvelle

Symboic meaning for numbers

Hecate rules over the great crossroads of life, Birth, Puberty, Marriage, Menopause, Old Age and Death- as well as Rebirth beyond.

Hecate or Hekate is the representation of three worlds, the Heavens, the Earth and the Underworld; having rule over all.

When the Hecate Woman (or Man) consciously integrates the Shadow and owns that Power, then that one can act as a light for those who are attempting to part the veil and who can help us bring together those lost parts of the self, long forgotten. Hecate is our personal link to those archetypes dwelling deep within the collective unconscious

THE MOIRAI were personifications of the inescapable destiny of man. They assigned to every person his or her fate or share in the scheme of things.

THE ERINYES (Furiae Dirae) were UNDERWORLD GODDESSES of vengeance and retribution (especially for the crimes of children against their parents). They were born from the blood of Ouranos' castration at the hands of his son Kronos and for this crime they gave their full support to Zeus as the agent of his father's downfall.

When I described how Brutus appeared in Cassius' glass, this was Cassius telling Brutus how he appeared to others, which isn't necessarily what I may feel about Brutus.

Ginny, yes illness or weakness had a negative impact on how a Roman was seen and JC would not have faked an epileptic seizure. I accumulated a number of books on Rome to try to understand the politics and life and here is some of what I found in Daily Life in Ancient Rome by Florence Dupont (Blackwell 1989):

Ginny, thanks for the hint about the Preference button and the number of messages I can read to a page. It helped tremendously!

Marvelle

Turning to the text, Casca says; "Yes, by heaven, it was."

Just as we can pull out of Cassius spoken words, other meanings that set Brutus up, we can look at that technique in other characters.

Also the crown that Antony offers is a coronet (which is smaller than a crown) and Casca laughs seeing a joke in Caesar refusing the 'coronet' as does Cassius when he says Caesar does not have the falling sickness and both he and Casca have the falling sickness.

Caesar must have played the crowd well since in what appeared to be out of anger that the crowd cheered his not accepting the coronet he offers his throat to them to be cut. He covers his faux pas when he gets up from his affected falling sickness and Casca suggests the nearby women would still praise him even if Caesar had stabbed their mothers.

After all this hooray Caesar is unhappy speaking Greek -

"Marullus and Flavius, for pulling decorations off Caesar's statues, are put to silence." My translation said, "put to death."

Than opening scene III we have Casca speaking of angering the gods which can be taken as a forewarning of actions to be or it can be a case of the gods angry that a mere human wants to elevate himself to the status of a god.

"Either there is a civil war in heaven, Or else the world, too disrespectful of the gods, Makes them angry enough to destroy it."

Julius Caesar provided the model for the official cult of Augustus . The people called Caesar "god" and honored him as such in his lifetime. A statue was dedicated to him in the temple of Quirinus in 45 BC with the words "To the invincible god." Before his death he had his own temple under the name "Jupiter Julius"; this was the first step in establishing the cult, by honoring a living hero according to the Greek...after his death...he was transferred to the number of the gods. The senate and people declared him a god and during the celebration in honor of the divus Julius the appearance of a comet was taken as proof that his soul had been received into the number of the immortals.

Plutarch says they were "displaced" according to the heading link and my copy of Plutarch. Apparently the actual tribunes Marullus and Flavius had pulled the decorations from the statues and arrested those who'd put them up and a crowd followed them in the streets and cheered and called them 'Brutus.' Plutarch link:

Marvelle

I think, Barb, that Caesar started to believe his own PR.

I would not have fared well in Ancient Rome. I'd be afraid to admit to a cold because of their belief that illness of body reflects a corrupt soul. I'm not corrupt Countrymen, I just have a cold! Thank goodness we don't have that as a common belief anymore.

With the constant treadmill of ambition and the rigid social structure and rules and superstitions --- no, I wouldn't have done well there. We may have some similar problems today but not as severe?

Marvelle

  During the nine years of Caesars command and  successes he met with adverse fortune but three times in all, Seutonius tells us.

I don't know John if this was a post-ictal response that Julius had or not.  Who is to say wheteher it was a feigned seizure?  I've seen some pretty convincing "feigned" seizures in a lifetime of neuro nursing.  However, in Julius'es day, these attacks were considered sufficient cause for the postponement of elections, or other public business. Maybe he had had enough glory with his ill health and really didn't want to be crowned.

Wasn't it said that perhaps JC was planning on leaving Italy anyway?

 I always remember being impressed that Caesar did not indulge in the "orgiastic" and drunken parties so prevelant during these times.  He drank very little wine not even his enemies denied. There is a saying of Marcus Cato that Caesar was the only man who undertook to overthrow the state when sober.

What of poor ole Spurrina, the soothsayer, should Caesar have had him beheaded for the admonition?  Would he have believed he would be next to "meet his Waterloo" after witnessing the king bird being devoured, while holding the sprig of laurel?  What could he have done about his dreams, another protend?  He knew!  He knew!  He knew that his time was limited yet he entered the senate in defiance of these omens.  Well, so would I have done that.  Go Caesar.  Heck the Ides of March are coming anyway!

Cassius is able to perceive men's true motives so all he had to do with Brutus was flatter him and reinforce what Brutus was already thinking.

Cassius shouldn't be taken literally. His nose is always stuck in a book according to Caesar. He uses all the literary techniques of allegory, metaphor, simile etc. He never intended to be taken literally by the other characters when using literary techniques to make a point, and the other characters knew enough not to take him literally.

I wonder why Shakespeare seems to have chosen Cassius to be the poetic character to an extreme? And Brutus is the literal one who speaks dryly (reason) rather than poetry? I know that the real Brutus was writing a history so he was more interested in facts and non-fiction. (Antony will come along next week and we'll see how he speaks.)

The storm I believe to be an indication of Nature's omen of what's to come as well as the inner state of man; this was a common belief in Ancient Rome and still prevalent in Shakespeare's time -- and still exists in our own time. (Remember King Lear in the storm?)

When Cassius says he bares his chest to lightning, he's really saying that he faces the danger and civil strife; he doesn't shy away from it. And this would show the directness and combative side of Cassius? Casca, on the other hand, is terrified of the strife and is more indirect in his actions? I'll have to re-read for my own interest, how Cicero reacted to the storm.

Marvelle

I think her name was Jeanne Dixon. Can't have wondering to long as I know how that is.

The quiz is actually a part of the first link but I thought I'd make the quiz handier for fun.

Marvelle

_____________________________________________

Here are some links on Shakespeare to pick and choose from, if you like any:

The above 2 are both from "Talking to William Shakespeare" and are like the "Ask Caesar" link in the heading.

On the first link, you can read questions and answers given on Julius Caesar and also ask your own questions which will be answered by William (expect a little delay in the answer).

On the second link, click on the yellow BROWSE button, and when the next page comes up click on whatever section you're interested in, such as "Shakespeare's Life," or "Shakespeare's World" to see the Q&A there. And you can ask questions!

__________________________________________

Here are the rest of the links on Shakespeare:

Marvelle

When I first read the play as a young student I thought Brutus was an idealist and a hero and Cassius was the villain who tempted Brutus to murder. I was surprised on re-reading the play to see qualities in Cassius and Brutus that I hadn't noticed before.

I'd said in an earlier post that I didn't think Brutus was idealistic and that he deceived himself. IMO Brutus is constantly haunted by his own ghost of Lucius Brutus, by the public recognition of THAT Brutus' name and Cassius' reminders. Romans were competitive and ambitious and Brutus had to scale not the heights of a Caesar but the heights of his own ancestor.

Brutus is considered honorable because of his ancestor but he needs to make his mark to keep that status he hasn't yet earned. This is what drives Brutus -- can we call it ambition, is this the right word, when it's this desire for immortality or making a name for oneself? It certainly isn't honor or ideals or love of the Republic.

Cassius gives Brutus his vows as a friend in Act 1, ii, lines 77-4 which tells me the qualities Cassius claims but also the qualities that Brutus doesn't have -- honesty and loyalty. Brutus is Caesar's friend, Cassius never pretends to this, yet Brutus is considring murdering his friend Caesar.

I'll return later with more coherent thoughts.

Marvelle

Marvelle

Marvelle

FONTINUS, I believe the lever that works for Cassius in persuading Brutus is the mention of -- you guessed it -- THAT Brutus the Liberator. Once Cassius realized Brutus' thoughts and his sensitivity to THAT other Brutus, he gets the idea for the fake letters which Brutus uses to convince himself that the assassination will be Honorable (Honor being public esteem to a Roman).

Caesar was ambitious but it's a career ladder that one can't step away from with Honor. And where did Caesar have to go once he was Dictator for Life? Emperor? God? Noble Romans were ambitious and the more they succeeded they more they had to strive. How utterly exhausting! No wonder Cassius felt sorry for Caesar even while he pursued his ambitions and plotted to assassinate Caesar. He didn't like him, hated him even and blamed him for the dying Republic, but he understood the drive of ambition in all Romans. It's a dog eat dog world, and if a man can best another to advantage, he has an obligation to do so. Goodness, there are so many people in the world who still practice that philosophy!

"...why should Caesar be a tyrant, then? Poor man, I know he would not be a wolf but that he sees the Romans are but sheep...." (Cassius, Act 1 iii, lines 106-

Marvelle

You are welcome. I know how it is to have a thought in ones mind and how much it can bother a person.

I saw two commercial movies of JC as I've mentioned before. Brutus is obviously a difficult part and the success of the play/movie, I think, depends on the actor who portrays Brutus more than any other character. But Shakespeare gives us many characters from which to choose our favorites.

Hi, GINGER! What do you think of Brutus or Cassius or Caesar? What about being "noble" -- what is meant by "noble" as mentioned in JC? Is Brutus noble? Is Cassius or Caesar? I'm still stuck on finding a definition for "noble."

Marvelle

Marvelle

• There is probable merit to my perspective
• Is the character acting within my definition of customary behavior, is the character acting in an orderly fashion given the circumstances.
• My perspective may not be accurate.
• There is some coherence, if not merit to the other person's perspective who is posting here.
• Both of us have something to learn from this story and each other therefore, I could alter my view of this character.
• The character's conflicts may be the result of other separate commitments they each hold, including commitments we are not always able to pull immediately out of the text but that we can learn more about this time in history or the family background of the character to better understand the conflict.
• Contradiction is evident in most characters and the way we each understand the character is based on our own experiences in life.
• Contradiction can be a source of our learning and possibly we should look for contradiction in these characters and then see how they resolve their contradictions.
• on and on...I am sure we could all add a few more...

"If praise makes a person famous, then those who recieve praise are famous...In my opinion, therefore, if there is anything to be said for nobility, it lies only in the necessity imposed on the nobility to carry on the virtues of their ancestors." Boethius Book 3 Prose 6

Marvelle

Hi there I am not ignoring you just have nothing to say at this time except that I am enjoying all the posts.

JAN, hope you're feeling better? I also changed my opinion of Caesar while reading & thinking about this play.

____________________________________
START OF HISTORY

Caesar gave so much to Rome; he conquered the Gauls; brought great wealth to Rome; was instigating land reforms, adding Gauls to the Senate, extending Roman citizenship to lands within the empire, etc etc. Before he crossed the Rubicon with his army, he'd offered a number of compromises which Pompey and the Senate refused and Caesar felt he had no other choice. Did you know that generals financed and used their armies commonly as a power base, so Caesar did nothing untoward in that way?

END OF HISTORY
____________________________________

I too agree that the conspirators didn't seem to have a plan for a future government or leader. Did they expect that the Republic would just snap back into place without any leader?

JAN asks "What makes everyone so certain that this is the absolutely right thing to do?" That's the million dollar question about murder and violence and revenge. BARB, asked something similar. Do we see anyone in the play question the morality of assassination? Was that ever an issue in Rome?

I found this quote in Everitt's Cicero: "The Romans were tough, aggressive and, to reverse von Clausewitz, inclined to see politics as a continuation of war by others means." (9)

Marvelle

...change often comes with a heavy price, regardless of how desirable the final outcome is, and the outcome was indeed utopian in nature.

This is the Roman system: it takes 3 generations of achievement for the empire to grant nobility to a family and only one generation to destroy their honors and title of nobles.

I'd still like to hear anyone's definition of noble -- I'd already offered mine -- and how Brutus fits that definition, if he does.

In the meantime I'll check out the other questions that followed the nobility question in Page II of Act 1.

Marvelle

Marvelle

Someone who has true fellowship among men based upon a concern that is universal; Not the private interests of the individual but rather the goals of humanity during even difficult and dangerous tasks.

Someone not striving for any special advantage for himself but working unselfishly to bring about general unity and peace between people.

Someone who believes the great goals of mankind are achieved only through each following his own path, without a 'neediness' to want what they think is the solution to materialize but rather, they trust, with humility, that what is to be learned in life will rise to the top. Therefore, they possess a perseverance toward keeping on the path of what is good and beautiful without a set of rules. In otherwords they are in tune with themselves without forcing their values on others nor do they watch others with their inner eye for signs of approval or rejection.

Someone who acts with patience till there is a clarity, a breakthrough showing the details, a perception that enables the creative energy of all those involved to be developed.

Someone who breaks the chain of decadent social attitudes passed from a preceding generation, not by justifying their behavior which manifests in their acting in reaction, by pressing forward to make a good impression or defending themselves in an effort to improve the situation but, by holding to the potential for good within themselves and others.

Someone who is comfortable with modest advances, who is not restless trying to escape from lowliness, poverty or family reputation. No, not that they accept lowliness, poverty, or a family reputation but someone who is not pushing others out of the way in order to assure a swift flight forward but rather realizes it takes more than a singular effort to make change. Someone who brings others along with the change.

Someone who avoids the dangers of power and influence but who embraces their responsibility to nourish others, who is modest in spite of the merit conferred on them by others.

In funerals for a very honored noble, actors in the procession wore the funerary masks of the ancestors and the dead man & acted the parts. Casts made from the faces preceded the bier with the corpse whose face was covered.

There were many customs to assure that the deceased was properly laid to rest, would have a good Afterlife, and would not return to haunt the living. The customs were also intended to reflect the deceased's place in the family and the continued importance of the living family.

Marvelle

Cassisus says he is noble and Brutus is noble and I think it's important that Shakespeare put that into the play. It indicates the inherited nobility. Perhaps the conflict within Brutus was his fear that he couldn't achieve at the level of THAT other Brutus and yet there was the need for his family line to keep the title and status and all its perks of noble.

Brutus wasn't a military hero though, although Cassius was and Cassius had many years of experience in the military. Shakespeare would know this through his readings.

According to Plutarch, our Brutus -- whose ghostly ancestor THAT Brutus the Libertor's honors preceded him everywhere he went -- our Brutus went to Pharsalus to join Pompey. Pharsalus was the site of Pompey's final defeat with Caesar the victor. When Brutus arrived at the camp, Pompey greeted him with open arms and didn't seem to mind that Brutus spent the majority of his time within the camp, where he read and wrote. Brutus spent very little time on the field of battle and Caesar had given orders that his men were not to harm Brutus at any cost. So Brutus was in this protective bubble, even during the short period he was on the battlefield, whether by virtue of his mother, once a lover of Caesar's, or the revered memory of THAT other Brutus.

Ater the defeat of Pompey at Pharsalus, Brutus made his way by night into a nearby settlement and immediately wrote to Caesar who pardoned Brutus and asked him to join him which Brutus did.

As Everitt writes in Cicero, that according to Plutarch, "he [Brutus] turned collaborator .... he advised Caesar that Pompey would flee to Egypt... Up to this point in his life, [Brutus] actions seemed to be governed by self-interest." (220-1)

Shakespeare would know this from the sources available to him; he'd read Plutarch at the very least. Brutus hadn't accomplished anything up to this stage of his life to keep the noble title in his family; Brutus needed to do something.

Marvelle

Ginny so thats a Toga, GEE I have seen lots of them just did not know the name of them. Wish I had gone to Minnesota instead of being a scardie cat.

Ginger just a wave as passing thru learning so much from Your posts.

Ginger

Just so.

Marvelle

I think some people can be persuaded to abandon ideals since perfection is difficult, if not impossible, to attain. Can a man be persuaded to turn against his friend if its for a noble cause? Since Butus' noble ideal or model was Brutus the Liberator, he would be following his ideal by joining in the conspiracy.

I don't think turning against friend Caesar and joining a murder conspiracy is the same as turning in your child to the police for wrong doing. There are degrees of responsibility and seriousness between the two acts. Turning in your child to the police may stop wrong-doing and help your child before they commit some serious crime. Murder is a crime against another human being, outside of society and justice, and which cannot be erased and which can cause more violence.

Marvelle

"The chain stretched from the foot of God's throne to the meanest of inanimate objects. Every speck of creation was a link in the chain..." page 26. "The chain is also a ladder." page 28.

They looked to the stars (astrology) to see what was to occur, thus they looked to the heavenss to God and to the stars.

Marvelle

Marvelle

"O, he sits high in all the people's hearts 
                       And that which would appear offence in us 
                       His countenance, like richest alchemy, 
                       Will change to virtue and to worthiness." 

Marvelle

There are a lot of recent posts with some great points and I need to take time to read & understand them. Back later....

Marvelle

Marvelle

WHAT????  She bears a voluntarily inflicted  wound?  Hellllooo Portia, dear, that's called sado-masochism.  Was it a tatoo?????

Allow me to ask a question that troubled me when I watched the movie also in  Act II - scene I .  WHY does Shakespeare make such a big production of Lucius bringing the bloody candle to his master?  Is it that Brutus trusts this lad to his secrets?  Does he expect him to listen as he yammers on about Caesar's conduct?  Is he introduced here to perform a major role  or just someone to remind us about the approaching Ides?

Brutus says "he'll never follow any thing that other men begin," and says not to tell him the secret.  NOW-- all of the sudden after he says that Casca and Cassius change their mind in midstream.

"then leave him out; Indeed he's not fit" they proclaim.<HR>
Is Brutus saying that Cicero can NOT be controlled by another man, that he will not follow their orders nor their commands?  Hmmm interesting isn't it that that should bother Brutus ?  POWER!!!  Could he fear Cicero's leadership abilities being superior to his own?  OR-- does he conspire plotting to become the dominant leader?

Now they go for beloved, shrewd Mark Antony & Brutus admonishes the conspirators that it will seem too bloody!  Now that's a joke, stab a guy 23 times and it's not too bloody.
How 'bout we stab Caesar 12 times and MA only 11 times.  There that's less bloody now, Brutus.

Marvelle

Problems don’t go away if they are ignored instead they grow nasty.
Difficulty is only fear - muster and dispatch quickly what is feared, because freedom from fear is our power center.

OK this is what first Cassuis and then gradually the remaining group appear to be doing - dispatching quickly what they fear to regain their power center. They seem to be doing this before it grows nasty.

We actually fear the fear, so we try not to even admit it exists.

Does this explain the reluctance Brutus had in discussing or acting on his fear until Cassius opens the subject. Are all the characters coming to terms in Scene III and Act II with their fear of their fear over the outcome of their action versus their fear of feeling their fear of Caesar’s emotional behavior transformed to his style of leadership. Is this play showing us the process going from an emotional decision (Brutus loves Caesar) to a logical decision as we compare the thought out logic (Cassius). The plan as compared to Caesar’s emotional outbursts.

Without creating a tight bond, actions taken can be worse than taking no action at all.

And so they each must bond with this plan of action and Brutus seems to be talking himself into making that bond.

Effort will be wasted if it empowers resistance and resentment.

They appear to be assuring themselves that their effort will not be wasted by screening out anyone they suspect would offer resistance or resentment.

If you’re going to do it, bond with all your heart regardless of the circumstances. If you have no interest in bonding, then there is no reason to go through the motion.

Is this understanding of winning (They were all soldiers and know the pitfalls of not burning their bridges behind them) the reason we are not hearing a discussion over the morality of what they are planning?

Is the reason Brutus is not swayed to hear Portia because he knows she may loosen his bond with this group and their proposed action - this link gives us a clue to the concept that Portia,

Early Romans believed that they (women) succeeded to rule the world through moral excellence and their women served to inspire men to their duty or to show the way themselves.

If Brutus listens to Portia he would be enlightened, as the candle represents enlightenment and is inside his house - inside his body, his heart, his person, could be described as inside his house - Portia comes to him with her self-inflicted wounded thigh (symbol of creative power, procreation and strength as the skull and cross bones represents the two vital sources of power- head and loins)

Fear of lose is abandoning an accurate view of yourself - it brings on a shame attack. A shame attack is believing you are in-capable, limited, in-competent, trivial. Feeling in-adequate is trivializing yourself.

Another fear - this one says more to me about both Caesar who fears loss, a man who has spent his life climbing the ladder of success - and Brutus who feels he 'needs' to assure his family continues as a 'Noble' family. If Caesar is going to be gone regardless what Brutus does he realizes he needs to ingratiate himself with the others who will determine his status in the "member-only country club" of Nobles.

This fear of loss they all share - the loss of freedom under a king like Caesar is showing us how in-capable and limited they are feeling about taking on Caesar 'if' he were their king. They have trivialized their view of themselves as moral citizens of Rome and replaced it as warrior Romans believing they must rid themselves of a pestilence on Rome, a kingdom under an emotional tyrant Caesar.

We become whatever we practice most.

Brutus had not practiced intrigue, He appears to have played in life by creating friends where as Cassius reads and observes others therefore Cassius can see the foibles of men. Casca as a good servant would gather news and continues to gather news for the group.

JAN, we agree on much in this play. Brutus has to self-deceive; he can't ask if any murder is morally justified. This is what gets me the most about Brutus and anyone who justifies their immoral acts saying it's for an 'honorable' cause.

"It's horror is obscured by it's aesthetics." Nice, JONATHAN.

The concept of fear in JC is interesting, BARB. Is every Roman driven by fear because their society is based on the drive to achieve in some public form?

________________________________________

Question 7: What is the reason Brutus gives for rejecting Cicero as a conspirator? Does his reason support or detract from the 'honor' of the enterprise?

Brutus rejected Cicero following Metellus speech that Cicero's

First, Brutus doesn't want to share the stage of 'honor' with Cicero. Brutus wants his name and his ancestor to be the only lustre for the enterprise. (Brutus envys Cicero? Is jealous of his personally earned reputation?) Certainly Cassius doesn't claim it, nor Casca or the others. And Brutus only wants men who will follow his lead for he's decided on that role for himself which he shows in his decision making. Brutus' reasons detract from the 'honor' of the conspirators.

This is where Cassius shows his understanding and acceptance of Brutus' nature and purpose. Cassius who originally wanted Cicero, supports Brutus' rejection of Cicero, even though it isn't a practical decision.

Marvelle

Marvelle

I brought up the religious sacrifice issue of the conspirators meeting because the entire scene is performed as a ritual by Brutus. His greeting each person individually and his talk of Caesar as a sacrifice for the gods. That's why the priest-hoods apply I think as foreshadowing by Shakespeare for Act 3.

KYLIE, you all have made important points, like "Brutus must have thought about not liking Caesar before, or he wouldn't change so quickly from a friend to a murderer." It is a drastic, violent change isn't it? And this: "Maybe Portia needed to prove something, like how brave she was, or noble." I think that's important. Brutus doesn't listen to Portia or pay much attention to her? Unlike Caesar and Calpurnia. Does Brutus listen to anyone?

I hope Robert gets well soon!

GINNY, I never got around to saying how much I liked the picture of Brutus' garden that was in the previous set of questions. I could see the conspirators lurking about there in the orchard/garden. And now in the new questions we have a lovely painting of the fateful crossing of the Rubicon by Caesar. It's wonderful and amazing, the number of images you've found for us to enjoy; and I'm enjoying!

Marvelle

Did you note that in the garden scene Brutus rejected every proposal from the others -- Cicero as conspirator because he can't follow what others began, taking an oath, Antony's death?

Will be back later to respond to Act 2 ii.

Marvelle

Now, one of my favorite quotes is read by Artemidorus:

                                If youread this, O Caesar, thou mayest live;
                               If not, the Fates with traitor do contrive.  "
 

 

don't you love that? Read what I have read and face your conspirators; If NOT... (well beware....)

Marvelle

Marvelle

Marvelle

Previously I tried to answer the question about stains, tinctures, and relics without getting to complex. Was I clear before that the warning was in the image of violent, bloody death suffered by martyrs? I do feel there were other reasons that Caesar went to the Senate.

HISTORY: We know the real Caesar went about with a group of professional bodyguards and that he'd heard warnings of a conspiracy that even named Cassius and Brutus. He knew his life was threatened and yet he dismissed his bodyguards and went to the Senate.
END HISTORY

Shakespeare's Caesar is an old man, worn out by his service to his country as a soldier and politician, frail and given to seizures. He'd fulfilled his obligations to Rome and, in the normal course of things, he'd be able to retire from public life and live in the countryside. Caesar, however, can't retire because who was strong enough to succeed him and cope with a dangerously weak government? Would chaos reign if Caesar retired to the countryside?

These issues are what I think Shakespeare's Caesar is facing. So he holds on and yet he becomes 'careless' by letting his bodyguards go, by showing interest in the crown (deliberately tempting fate?), by having close to him men of the opposition. I wouldn't say Shakespeare's Caesar had a death wish but he knew he was boxed into his current role and for once he was in the hands of fate.

I felt a change in my response to Caesar from sympathy for his tender regard for his wife and his gracious host to his 'friends' who wish to accompany him to the Senate; to a feeling of distance when he exhibited arrogance. Did he recognize the warning in Decius' words and in the group of friends anxious to take him to the Senate and was he then preparing for the inevitable? Caesar was a warrior and not a coward and could he have seen this as a better end?

ANNE, I think Shakespeare shows us an arrogant Caesar in this scene and the next so that the audience will be shocked by the later downfall. He did that with Lear as well with first a proud Lear and then a humbled Lear. In any case, Caesar becomes even more arrogant as he walks to the Senate and sits in front of the assembly and we, the audience, know what awaits him but cannot warn him. We have that insider information as the audience so are deliberately pulled in two directions by Shakespeare and that adds to the tension of the play and the, to me, ultimate horror of what is coming.

In re-reading my post I've seen I've made a muddle but I'll have to let it stand as is.

Marvelle

Marvelle

Marvelle