Julius Caesar is a tragedy, rather than a history, because the tragic hero Brutus was the only conspirator that acted in true loyalty to Rome, and he is killed.
I'd expand on what Miles said by saying that Brutus is not the only tragic character here. In fact, most of these characters are tragic in their own way. Caesar is tragic in his overconfidence, Cassius in his jealousy, Brutus in his split mind. Therefore, it's a tragedy because all the characters are flawed.
There's another, better point that separates this from a history, but I can't really discuss that until we're a little further into it. Suffice to say, "Julius Caesar" deals more with the aftermath of it's big historical event than it does the actual event.
I agree with the fact that everyone is tragic in their own way and that all have their flaws. The tragic hero Brutus dies, since he is a main person, it becomes a tragedy rather than a history. They pretty much summed it up as best you can!
I disagree that the play is tragic because everyone has a "tragic" flaw. Using that logic you could say that many of Shakespeare's plays are "tragic". Take "Much Ado About Nothing", almost everyone has an important flaw(s) in it. Why wouldn't it be a tragedy? You could even say "As You Like It" is a tragedy technically using that logic.
Julius Caesar is a tragedy because Brutus, although mislead, was the only character that acted in true honor and loyalty to Rome.
(I know I'm reading The Tempest, but I couldn't help but chime in)
What is key to notice about what Aidan said is that it's a tragedy in part because everyone has a tragic flaw. The important part of that is that their flaw is a tragic one, not just a flaw. It's true that in a play like Much Ado nearly everyone has an "important flaw" but those flaws often contribute to the plot content of the comedy and lead to the inevitable marriage.
(Absent on Wednesday) I agree with Aidan and Austin - each of the main characters is essentially flawed, transforming the play into a tragedy as soon as Cassius starts stirring up conspirators despite the obvious 'signs' nature is providing against it. The play is named after Caesar, and it is true that he has a tragic flaw in his overconfidence, but it seems that Brutus may also turn out to be a tragic hero because he has his downfall as soon as Cassius turns him against Caesar. Also, something else I noticed - the wives. Both Calphurnia and Portia seem so strong in their entreaties to their husbands, but are eventually turned away. Their concerns are definitely valid (Portia has some brilliant words to say on that in scene 3). What is Shakespeare trying to say through them in the wider course of the play?
I may just me grasping at straws here, but I see a huge connecting theme of emotions getting the best of people. Cassius's emotions lead him to getting his fellow senators to murder Cesar, Antony's emotions lead to a mass civil strife far worse that the actual murder. The emotions of the plebeians lead them to make rash and foolish decisions, such as in act three, scene three, where they attack an innocent poet, mistaking him for a senator and conspirator who shares the poet's name. Caesar himself has this problem, as his emotions lead him to brashly ignore the countless warnings people he's been given. And yet, in the middle of all these heated emotions is Brutus, a coldly logical stoic. Is this to separate Brutus from the rest, priming him for the role of the tragic hero?
What is Cassius's motivation? It doesn't seem to be straight desire for power, and he never really gives a clear appropriate explanation (his initial explanation seems like a cover up for something much deeper). What sort of person do each of you really think Cassius is? Personally, I don't think that Cassius knows who Cassius really is; he seems like a sort-of evolved form of the schoolyard bully- all over the place, with no good reason. Start tearing apart my logic in three... two... one... go!
I'm not exactly sure what Cassius' motivation is, but that's something really interesting to think about...I don't really have any sort of conclusion on it yet, though, Aidan. I like your logic! The imagery in this play is so evocative and beautiful. What is the real significance of the recurring symbols like the lioness and the repeated references to stars and the cosmos? Is it to show that the universe is off-balance?
After finishing the play, I feel like I can more accurately answer the second part of Fergie's initial question: Brutus is the tragic hero of the play because, as Antony says, he was the only of the characters who acted out of nobility and honor, and yet he suffers the same fate as his fellow conspirators, who acted out of paranoia and jealousy. Even if he had survived, he would live in misery, as he is brutally punished for his crimes. But I think the biggest reason he's the tragic hero is not that these things are inevitable, but that he is fully aware that they are. He knows that nothing good can come of his actions after the murder has been committed, but he also knows that he has to pull onwards, for if he were to stop, he would effectively make his situation worse by becoming enemies with both sides of the conflict. So onward he goes, knowing that he is essentially doomed, but also knowing that he has no choice.
I think Aidan hits on a very good point here: Brutus' self-awareness. The tragic hero must always come to a point of self-awareness and rising above the chaos around him, and Brutus does exactly that after seeing Caesar's ghost and those around him committing suicide. His character is so strong in this because he is a stoic, which is so interesting to me: he is the only one who was never involved in the conspiracy for personal reasons, rather getting involved for ideas of 'public good.' However, he knows that he must pay for his actions but has to push on anyway. Something I also was wondering about Act 4 - Portia's death is something which Brutus just kind of brushes away. It seems to have been an underlying cause in the spat between Brutus and Cassius, but when openly asked about it by Messala, Brutus just kind of shrugs off the thought of Portia. Is this just because he is a stoic?
Also, as far as Act 5 goes, what is the significance of it being Cassius' birthday on the day of battle? I understand him speaking of other omens as ominous imagery runs throughout the play, but a birthday seems to not fit unless birthdays meant something bad in that culture. It is also interesting to me how Caesar continues to influence those who have killed him long after his death. Each suicide is supposedly spurred on by his spirit, fully revenging itself.
Acts 2 and 3 really have some great imagery, not only the lioness, and the stars and cosmos, but Calpurnia's dream of Caesar's statue streamed with blood and the conspirators bathing their hands and swords in his blood. I also liked when Calpurnia describes the omens to Caesar in (2.2.18-26). The images are really powerful and give some depth to the play as far as making it a little bit less dry. Also, when Caesar refused to read the letter from Artemidorus about the conspiracy, why didn't Artemidorus say what it regarded?
I think Cassius isn't very sure on what his own wants are. He doesn't seem to have a direct motivation other than to have power over Caesar. Cassius seems to be a confused person, but at the same time, he gives people the impression that he knows what he wants and knows what he is going to do once he gets whatever that is. I agree with the schoolyard bully comparison!
I think that Cassius is a little unstable, however I think that he does have a reasonable motivation. His loyalty to the democratic system is what causes him to plan Caesar's downfall. It's not even that Cassius wants power so much as he just wants Caesar to not have absolute power. The force of democracy drives him in a way that is almost patriotic. That is why this play, for me, is comparable to the American Revolution.
I would also like to point out the similarities between Cassius and Iago. They have a strong desire to overthrow power and use manipulation to attain this, but what is it that makes them different? Could these two be considered character foils although they are from different plays?
I disagree entirely with this play being listed as a tragedy as opposed to a history. If only for the amount of the text that is exposition, which is quite a large sum. I agree with Miles' idea that just becaue there are tragic flaws doesn't mean that the play is a tragedy. By that logic then you may as well call Richard II a tragedy as well. The fine line between history and tragedy would have to be defined by the historical accuracy. As this play is very historically accurate (perhaps the drama was played up slightly, but we'll never know), I would feel inclinde to catagorize it as a history. Therefore, I disagree with the Shakespeare nerds who established it as a tragedy. Cry about it.
Well I agree with Josh pertaining to agreeing with me, but the main point I am trying to get across is that the flaws, "tragic" as they may be, are probably not the reason for why Julius Caesar is a tragedy. I only disagree with the logic of "tragically" described flaws transforming the play into a tragedy. I do agree that Julius Caesar is a tragedy, but I don't think it is just because of the tragic hero. What could other options be for what separates it from a history? I personally think that there is something we are missing and I will chime back into this topic when I have an idea.
1. The extreme weather and other phenomenon can't just be coincidence. With the events going on it plays symbolically, but it is a bit too superstitious to me for Julius Caesar. We have been told that Shakespeare does everything for a reason, at least I hope we were. Did Shakespeare hope to mingle it in to add some spice to the play since it is so dry? It fits, but is that why he put it in?
2. Why doesn't Caesar look at the letter that Artemidorus tried to give him? Is Caesar just not curious or is he trying to avoid the inevitable?
Cassius and Brutus begin to argue about their different opinions and Brutus fears that their bond is breaking, even after they "forgive" each other. Is this an indicator that they were never meant to be friends and Cassius just used him? Also, Brutus sees the Ghost of Caesar in the night. Why is this added? Why not just see the ghost on the battlefield?
When Titinius is captured Cassius asks Pindarus to kill him. Cassius' forces have been defeated, but Brutus' forces have won their battle, yet Cassius asks for death. Is Cassius just a coward or can he not live with the shame and actions he has committed and brought about himself? But then Titinius is still alive and he sees Cassius' body and then he kills himself. The characters seem so willing to die. Perhaps they simply cannot accept what has happened and what they did. It seems weird that they kill themselves when they are weak, because I have heard that it takes a lot of strength to kill yourself, but I guess no one knows. How could they if they are dead.
Julius Caesar is a tragedy, rather than a history, because the tragic hero Brutus was the only conspirator that acted in true loyalty to Rome, and he is killed.
ReplyDeleteI'd expand on what Miles said by saying that Brutus is not the only tragic character here. In fact, most of these characters are tragic in their own way. Caesar is tragic in his overconfidence, Cassius in his jealousy, Brutus in his split mind. Therefore, it's a tragedy because all the characters are flawed.
ReplyDeleteThere's another, better point that separates this from a history, but I can't really discuss that until we're a little further into it. Suffice to say, "Julius Caesar" deals more with the aftermath of it's big historical event than it does the actual event.
I agree with the fact that everyone is tragic in their own way and that all have their flaws. The tragic hero Brutus dies, since he is a main person, it becomes a tragedy rather than a history. They pretty much summed it up as best you can!
ReplyDeleteI disagree that the play is tragic because everyone has a "tragic" flaw. Using that logic you could say that many of Shakespeare's plays are "tragic". Take "Much Ado About Nothing", almost everyone has an important flaw(s) in it. Why wouldn't it be a tragedy? You could even say "As You Like It" is a tragedy technically using that logic.
ReplyDeleteJulius Caesar is a tragedy because Brutus, although mislead, was the only character that acted in true honor and loyalty to Rome.
(I know I'm reading The Tempest, but I couldn't help but chime in)
ReplyDeleteWhat is key to notice about what Aidan said is that it's a tragedy in part because everyone has a tragic flaw. The important part of that is that their flaw is a tragic one, not just a flaw. It's true that in a play like Much Ado nearly everyone has an "important flaw" but those flaws often contribute to the plot content of the comedy and lead to the inevitable marriage.
(Absent on Wednesday)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aidan and Austin - each of the main characters is essentially flawed, transforming the play into a tragedy as soon as Cassius starts stirring up conspirators despite the obvious 'signs' nature is providing against it. The play is named after Caesar, and it is true that he has a tragic flaw in his overconfidence, but it seems that Brutus may also turn out to be a tragic hero because he has his downfall as soon as Cassius turns him against Caesar.
Also, something else I noticed - the wives. Both Calphurnia and Portia seem so strong in their entreaties to their husbands, but are eventually turned away. Their concerns are definitely valid (Portia has some brilliant words to say on that in scene 3). What is Shakespeare trying to say through them in the wider course of the play?
I may just me grasping at straws here, but I see a huge connecting theme of emotions getting the best of people. Cassius's emotions lead him to getting his fellow senators to murder Cesar, Antony's emotions lead to a mass civil strife far worse that the actual murder. The emotions of the plebeians lead them to make rash and foolish decisions, such as in act three, scene three, where they attack an innocent poet, mistaking him for a senator and conspirator who shares the poet's name. Caesar himself has this problem, as his emotions lead him to brashly ignore the countless warnings people he's been given. And yet, in the middle of all these heated emotions is Brutus, a coldly logical stoic. Is this to separate Brutus from the rest, priming him for the role of the tragic hero?
ReplyDeleteGood conversation folks. I would like you to look at the imagery - what symbols do you see recurring and why?
ReplyDeleteREMEMBER EVERYONE - AT LEAST ONE BLOG PER ACT:)
ReplyDeleteWhat is Cassius's motivation? It doesn't seem to be straight desire for power, and he never really gives a clear appropriate explanation (his initial explanation seems like a cover up for something much deeper). What sort of person do each of you really think Cassius is? Personally, I don't think that Cassius knows who Cassius really is; he seems like a sort-of evolved form of the schoolyard bully- all over the place, with no good reason. Start tearing apart my logic in three... two... one... go!
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly sure what Cassius' motivation is, but that's something really interesting to think about...I don't really have any sort of conclusion on it yet, though, Aidan. I like your logic!
ReplyDeleteThe imagery in this play is so evocative and beautiful. What is the real significance of the recurring symbols like the lioness and the repeated references to stars and the cosmos? Is it to show that the universe is off-balance?
After finishing the play, I feel like I can more accurately answer the second part of Fergie's initial question: Brutus is the tragic hero of the play because, as Antony says, he was the only of the characters who acted out of nobility and honor, and yet he suffers the same fate as his fellow conspirators, who acted out of paranoia and jealousy. Even if he had survived, he would live in misery, as he is brutally punished for his crimes. But I think the biggest reason he's the tragic hero is not that these things are inevitable, but that he is fully aware that they are. He knows that nothing good can come of his actions after the murder has been committed, but he also knows that he has to pull onwards, for if he were to stop, he would effectively make his situation worse by becoming enemies with both sides of the conflict. So onward he goes, knowing that he is essentially doomed, but also knowing that he has no choice.
ReplyDeleteI think Aidan hits on a very good point here: Brutus' self-awareness. The tragic hero must always come to a point of self-awareness and rising above the chaos around him, and Brutus does exactly that after seeing Caesar's ghost and those around him committing suicide. His character is so strong in this because he is a stoic, which is so interesting to me: he is the only one who was never involved in the conspiracy for personal reasons, rather getting involved for ideas of 'public good.' However, he knows that he must pay for his actions but has to push on anyway.
ReplyDeleteSomething I also was wondering about Act 4 - Portia's death is something which Brutus just kind of brushes away. It seems to have been an underlying cause in the spat between Brutus and Cassius, but when openly asked about it by Messala, Brutus just kind of shrugs off the thought of Portia. Is this just because he is a stoic?
Also, as far as Act 5 goes, what is the significance of it being Cassius' birthday on the day of battle? I understand him speaking of other omens as ominous imagery runs throughout the play, but a birthday seems to not fit unless birthdays meant something bad in that culture.
ReplyDeleteIt is also interesting to me how Caesar continues to influence those who have killed him long after his death. Each suicide is supposedly spurred on by his spirit, fully revenging itself.
Acts 2 and 3 really have some great imagery, not only the lioness, and the stars and cosmos, but Calpurnia's dream of Caesar's statue streamed with blood and the conspirators bathing their hands and swords in his blood. I also liked when Calpurnia describes the omens to Caesar in (2.2.18-26). The images are really powerful and give some depth to the play as far as making it a little bit less dry. Also, when Caesar refused to read the letter from Artemidorus about the conspiracy, why didn't Artemidorus say what it regarded?
ReplyDeleteI think Cassius isn't very sure on what his own wants are. He doesn't seem to have a direct motivation other than to have power over Caesar. Cassius seems to be a confused person, but at the same time, he gives people the impression that he knows what he wants and knows what he is going to do once he gets whatever that is. I agree with the schoolyard bully comparison!
ReplyDeleteI think that Cassius is a little unstable, however I think that he does have a reasonable motivation. His loyalty to the democratic system is what causes him to plan Caesar's downfall. It's not even that Cassius wants power so much as he just wants Caesar to not have absolute power. The force of democracy drives him in a way that is almost patriotic. That is why this play, for me, is comparable to the American Revolution.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to point out the similarities between Cassius and Iago. They have a strong desire to overthrow power and use manipulation to attain this, but what is it that makes them different? Could these two be considered character foils although they are from different plays?
I disagree entirely with this play being listed as a tragedy as opposed to a history. If only for the amount of the text that is exposition, which is quite a large sum. I agree with Miles' idea that just becaue there are tragic flaws doesn't mean that the play is a tragedy. By that logic then you may as well call Richard II a tragedy as well. The fine line between history and tragedy would have to be defined by the historical accuracy. As this play is very historically accurate (perhaps the drama was played up slightly, but we'll never know), I would feel inclinde to catagorize it as a history. Therefore, I disagree with the Shakespeare nerds who established it as a tragedy. Cry about it.
ReplyDeleteWell I agree with Josh pertaining to agreeing with me, but the main point I am trying to get across is that the flaws, "tragic" as they may be, are probably not the reason for why Julius Caesar is a tragedy. I only disagree with the logic of "tragically" described flaws transforming the play into a tragedy. I do agree that Julius Caesar is a tragedy, but I don't think it is just because of the tragic hero. What could other options be for what separates it from a history? I personally think that there is something we are missing and I will chime back into this topic when I have an idea.
ReplyDeleteFor Act 3 I had a few discussion points.
ReplyDelete1. The extreme weather and other phenomenon can't just be coincidence. With the events going on it plays symbolically, but it is a bit too superstitious to me for Julius Caesar. We have been told that Shakespeare does everything for a reason, at least I hope we were. Did Shakespeare hope to mingle it in to add some spice to the play since it is so dry? It fits, but is that why he put it in?
2. Why doesn't Caesar look at the letter that Artemidorus tried to give him? Is Caesar just not curious or is he trying to avoid the inevitable?
Act 4
ReplyDeleteCassius and Brutus begin to argue about their different opinions and Brutus fears that their bond is breaking, even after they "forgive" each other. Is this an indicator that they were never meant to be friends and Cassius just used him? Also, Brutus sees the Ghost of Caesar in the night. Why is this added? Why not just see the ghost on the battlefield?
Act 5
ReplyDeleteWhen Titinius is captured Cassius asks Pindarus to kill him. Cassius' forces have been defeated, but Brutus' forces have won their battle, yet Cassius asks for death. Is Cassius just a coward or can he not live with the shame and actions he has committed and brought about himself? But then Titinius is still alive and he sees Cassius' body and then he kills himself. The characters seem so willing to die. Perhaps they simply cannot accept what has happened and what they did. It seems weird that they kill themselves when they are weak, because I have heard that it takes a lot of strength to kill yourself, but I guess no one knows. How could they if they are dead.
Remember - one blog per act.
ReplyDeleteOK folks - every blogpost after this is worth half points
ReplyDelete