Julius Caesar

'You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!' This powerful exclamation expresses deep frustration and disappointment. It implies that the objects or people being referred to are completely unresponsive and lacking in any form of understanding or empathy. It's as if they are nothing more than mindless obstacles, incapable of perceiving the emotions or needs of others. This kind of statement might be made in a situation where someone has tried repeatedly to communicate or reason with others, only to be met with stubbornness or indifference. It highlights the sense of helplessness and futility that can arise when dealing with such unyielding entities. It serves as a reminder of the importance of being open and receptive to the experiences and perspectives of those around us, rather than remaining as unfeeling and unyielding as mere blocks or stones.

What is this play about? Is it truly about Julius Caesar, as the title implies? Well, he is assassinated halfway through the play and disappears (Act 3, scene 2). Granted, his ghost does reappear later on, but it is not of the caliber of Mozart’s (and Lorenzo da Ponte’s) commanding Commendatore. JC’s ghost exists only in Brutus’ mind as his conscience. For even if Brutus thinks that it is the ghost’s revenge to “turn our swords toward our own stomachs”, the only time the ghost speaks is to say “I am your evil spirit, Brutus”.

JC does not seem to have a huge stature anyway. His triumph celebrated at the beginning is not Rome’s but his very own, since his victory consists of having defeated Pompey’s sons, i.e. his personal enemies and not the enemies of Rome. We also see that his wife Calpurnia has little trouble in convincing him not to go to the Senate, and only a moment later Decius easily changes his mind again and persuades him to go nonetheless. When he subsequently preaches his own steeliness to the senators (“I could be well moved if I were as you... “), he is not believable. He just seems conceited.

So, no, I do not think it is about JC. Maybe the play is about Brutus, the most interesting of the characters and the one with the most lines. He is drawn into the plot by Cassius’s astuteness and tricks, and throughout the play we are reminded that he is acting with the good of Rome as his main objective. His famous soliloquy in Act II is a defense of the nobility of the act. But both his weakness in falling prey to Cassius’ conniving and the loss of empathy when he coldly dismisses the memories of his deceased and yet beloved wife (“No more, I pray you…”) detract from his being the prime candidate. No, in spite of Antony’s words at the end (“This was the noblest Roman of them all…”), he remains elusive.

Cassius's role is that of Best Supporting Actor. The play ends leaving the future eerily open. From history we know what happened next and the contemporary public must have also known it, but there is no hint in the play on which way Rome will go not even on what the alternatives are. Of course there are always the eternity themes that Shakespeare is so extraordinary at developing and with which his plays are always loaded, themes as Ambition, Loyalty, Omens and Destiny, etc… Analyses of these are well trodden. I will not venture in this fertile direction.

In previous readings I was approaching the plays by William Shakespeare as Classics existing in the historical vacuum of eternity. But in my current protracted reading of these works, it is the parallels of the plots with contemporary events or circumstances that are interesting me greatly. In 1599 when the play was first performed (possibly the first in the new Globe Theatre) Queen Elizabeth was 66 but looked and acted a lot older. She had lost a lot of her glamour and the icon-making machinery had begun. The boost that the triumph over the Spaniards had brought was eroding, and new problems with Ireland were coming to the limelight. The bitter rivalry between the Earl of Essex and Lord Burghley, and later with the son Robert Cecil, was keeping courtiers at bay. The secret services were increasing their control and pressure which only contributed to a greater feeling of terror. And meanwhile, there was still no clear heir to the throne. People must have felt rather itchy about the political instability and the uncertainty that the immediate future held.

Of course causality between events of the day and a play produced in any given period are hard to detect, let alone to prove. This is not a play-à-clef. But in choosing plots and devising how to develop them, Shakespeare must have known what would ring a bell in the minds of the public. If, when seeking entertainment, the Londoners were to choose a play over bear-biting, the play had to be engaging. The author's ability in verbalizing human passions by reminding everybody of their concerns is what makes these plays so very special. I see then Julius Caesar as a tragedy without a hero. And the open “what now?” with which it closes, can be better understood if we become aware of the insecurities with which contemporary audience were about to enter into the following century.

PS: Orson Welles put on a production in 1937 in which the setting was the contemporary Fascist and Nazi Europe (Caesar as Mussolini?). This is available as Audio. A GR friend recommended the modern film “Me and Orson Welles” in which it seems some of the OW original footage has been included. I have ordered this DVD but have not seen it yet. I can’t wait.

PPS: The film disappointingly does not include any original footage of the 1937 play, and is somewhat silly.

➳ 3.5 ⋆ ˚｡⋆୨୧˚

╰┈➤ “Caesar, now be still. I killed not thee with half so good a will.”

Some 3.5s I round up to a 4, but this one just felt like I should round it down to a 3, you know? Anyways, this play was good. I recognized a lot of quotes and saw where "The Fault in Our Stars" and "The Mortal Instruments" got their names (from this book!), so that was really fun (even though I've never read either one).

If I had half as much fun actually enjoying the story as I did shipping the characters, maybe it would have had a greater impact on me. But I did like the end! It isn't my favorite Shakespeare play that I've read. Here's my ranking:

➳ 1. "Twelfth Night"
➳ 2. "Romeo and Juliet"
➳ 3. "Much Ado About Nothing"
➳ 4. "Julius Caesar"
➳ 5. "Taming of the Shrew"

But anyways, I did enjoy it and I look forward to reading more Shakespeare soon!!


୧ ‧₊˚

The term "Caesar" or "Czar" does not mean emperor as commonly perceived. Instead, it is just the family name of the greatest dynasty of Roman emperors who ruled for 1,400 years until their family name came to mean "emperor" in the perception of our people as well.

Before the Caesars, Rome was governed as a republic. "Julius Caesar" (Caesar) tried to overthrow the power of the Senate and become emperor himself, but he was assassinated by the Senate.

After him, his adopted son "Octavian Caesar" took control of Rome and established a government based on the will of Julius Caesar, which lasted for 1,400 years and became the longest-lasting dynasty of monarchy in world history.

It is important to note that the concept of "Caesar" has evolved over time and has taken on different meanings in different historical contexts. In ancient Rome, the Caesars were powerful leaders who held significant political and military authority. However, the term has also been used in other cultures and historical periods to refer to rulers or leaders with similar levels of power and influence.

Overall, the history of the Caesars is a fascinating and complex topic that provides valuable insights into the political, social, and cultural development of ancient Rome and the wider world.

**"The Complexity of 'Julius Caesar': A Focus on Brutus"**

Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" is a play that delves into the intricate web of politics, power, and morality. While it might seem to be about Julius Caesar on the surface, a closer examination reveals that it is, in fact, about Brutus. The number of lines each character speaks is a telling factor. Caesar speaks only 151 lines, while Brutus has a substantial 722 lines. This shows the playwright's greater interest in Brutus.

The question of who is the good guy and who is the bad guy is not straightforward. Caesar is portrayed not as a tyrant but as a military leader who has risen to power. Cassius, on the other hand, is ambitious and the ringleader of the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar. Antony is Cassius' natural enemy and is fortunate that Brutus spares him during the assassination and allows him to give a funeral oration.

Brutus is a complex character. He is not evil but is driven by his moral principles and fears that Caesar may seize dictatorial power. His inner conflict is palpable throughout the play. Shakespeare portrays him as a man consumed by doubt but with laudable motives. He is also devoted to his wife, which is a unique aspect of his character on the Shakespearean stage.

My advice to anyone reading or watching the play is to pay closest attention to the words of Brutus. His character is an incredible psychological portrait that shows the consequences of taking action based on fear and doubt. The play is a tragedy not about Julius Caesar but about Brutus and his downfall.

And for Mark Antony, think not of him;
For he can do no more than Caesar's arm
When Caesar's head is off.



Photos added







bust of Brutus by Michelangelo



Who, or what, is this play about? What does "about" mean?



In some sense it must be about Julius Caesar. But is it about him as a man, a tyrant, a ruler? Or is it just "about" his assassination?



Rather than address these questions, let's look at it this way. It seems clear to me that the character in a play that talks more than anyone else is the character who most interests the playwright. And/or, the character who the play is "about".



In this play, that would not be Caesar. That would be Brutus.



At this site ( http://www.shakespeareswords.com/Spec... ) you can find, for all Shakespeare's plays, the number of lines that each character speaks. You can also get a downloadable document containing all the lines for any character you want.



Here we learn that Caesar speaks 151 lines; Antony, 329 lines; Cassius 507 lines; and Brutus 722 lines. So in this sense, Caesar is to Brutus as: Pompey is to Antony (Anthony and Cleopatra); as First Citizen is to Coriolanus; as Ross is to Macbeth; as Archbishop is to Falstaff (in Henry IV Part II – one of the small number of the Bard's plays where, like Julius Caesar, the title character is not the lead character); as Friar is to Benedick (Much Ado About Nothing); as Oliver is to Rosalind (As You Like It); as Horatio is to Hamlet; well, you get the point.



If you are the titular "star" of Julius Caesar, you have a part comparable to: Pompey, First Citizen, Ross, Archbishop, Friar, Oliver, Horatio. This isn't going to make your acting career.



who's the bad guy? who's the good guy?



It seems to me that Shakespeare, of the four "leading" characters, gives us:



Caesar as not a tyrant, not a man seeking to be made a God, but as simply a military leader who, through decisions he has made, has become the leader of Rome – and who obviously thinks he's up to the task.



Cassius as a man who reeks of ambition, is the ringleader of the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar, and wants to get rid of anyone (such as Antony) who might challenge him as the successor to the throne.



Antony as the natural enemy of Cassius, who is actually quite fortunate that Brutus insists not only that Antony not be killed during the assassination, but that Antony needs to be allowed to deliver a funeral oration ("Friends, Romans, countrymen …") for the dead man.



Then there's



Brutus



Is Brutus evil? a backstabber who has turned against one who trusts him? Caesar's last words are "Et tu, Brutus?" On the authority of Mary Beard SPQR, the Latin phrase is an invention of Shakespeare's.

As he fell, Caesar cried out in Greek to Brutus, 'You too, child', which was either a threat ('I'll get you, boy!') or a poignant regret for the disloyalty of a young friend (You too, my child?'), or even, as some suspicious contemporaries imagined, a final revelation that Brutus was, in fact, his victim's natural son and that this was not merely assassination but patricide.

Shakespeare surely intended the words as a "poignant regret", as a rebuke to a betrayer. But that doesn't make Brutus what Caesar here accuses him of. Brutus obviously has no desire to take power in Rome. As Shakespeare has cast the play, it is a tragedy not about Julius Caesar, but about Brutus.



I have no wish to delve deeply into this, quoting passage after passage, tying things together. Instead I'll point out a few things only. But here are references in the play that a reader needs to think about. These are all in the first three acts.


I.ii.37 "Cassius, be not deceived…"

I.ii.82 "I would not, Cassius, yet I love him well…"

I.ii.167 "… What you have said I will consider…"

II.i.10 "It must be by his death …"

II.i.51 "… Shall Rome stand under one man's awe? …"

II.i.62 "… Since Cassius first did whet me …"

II.i.114 "No, not an oath…"

II.i.161 "Our course will seem too bloody… "

II.i.288 "You are my true and honorable wife…"

II.i.302 "O ye Gods, Render me worthy…"

III.1.82 "People, and Senators, be not affrighted…"

III.i.98 "Fates, we will know your pleasures …"

III.i.103 "Grant that, and then is death a benefit…"

III.i.164 "O Antony, beg not your death of us… "

III.i.181 "And then we will deliver you the cause… "

III.i.223 "Or else were this a savage spectacle… "

III.ii.13 "Be Patient till the last…"

III.ii.48 "With this I depart…"

III.ii.60 "Good countrymen, let me depart alone…"




I saw the Chesapeake Shakespeare Company's production of the play in late October 2018.




  


Ron Heneghan played Brutus









The tragedy of Brutus is about his inner conflict between his moral principles, and his fears, perhaps exaggerated by his imagination, and certainly exaggerated by Cassius, that Caesar may be tempted to seize dictatorial power. These fears have been playing with Brutus even before the first act. When he is first addressed by Cassius, Brutus replies,



<>Cassius,

Be not deceived: if I have veil'd my look,

I turn the trouble of my countenance

Merely upon myself. Vexed I am

Of late with passions of some difference,

Conceptions only proper to myself…



As Cassius eggs him on, Brutus becomes uncomfortable with his words, asking if Cassius "would have me seek into myself / For that which is not in me?" He assures Cassius that he would not hold back from drastic action, "For let the gods so speed me as I love / The name of honor more than I fear death"; and agrees to meet with him again, closing with,



Till then, my noble friend, chew upon this:

Brutus had rather be a villager

Than to repute himself a son of Rome

Under these hard conditions as this time

Is like to lay upon us.



Brutus sees where things may lead, but though he is brave enough to follow the path, he has no enthusiasm to do so.



At the beginning of Act II Brutus, alone on stage, thinks aloud (thank goodness) that Caesar wants to be crowned (though Shakespeare goes out of his way to cast doubt on this), and tries to work out how the inherent uncertainties can lead to any decision to act. To me, Shakespeare is portraying Brutus as not trying to rationalize an action, but as attempting to prevent what he fears most, even though it cannot be foreseen as likely.



How might that change his nature, there's the question.

…

The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins

Remorse from power; and to speak truth of Caesar,

I have not known when his affections swayed

More than his reason…

[but this happens often, and…]

So Caesar may.

Then, lest he may, prevent …

Fashion it thus: that what he is, augmented,

Would run to these and these extremities.

And therefore think him as a serpent's egg

Which hatched would as his kind grow mischievous,

and kill him in the shell.



But that's enough of all this.



My advice to any sort of consumer of the play is to pay closest attention to the words of Brutus throughout. I found his character to be an incredible psychological portrait of a man consumed by doubt but driven by laudable motives, which cause him to take action leading inexorably to his downfall. (And incidentally, a man devoted to his wife, to a perhaps unique degree on the Shakespearean stage.)






. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Previous review: A Season in Hell

Random review: Oryx and Crake MaddAdam

Next review: Robert Frost - Critical Essays



Previous library review: As You Like It

Next library review: All's Well That Ends Well

**"Julius Caesar" by Shakespeare: A Comprehensive Analysis**

Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" is a remarkable work that delves into the complex themes of power, politics, and human nature.

The play begins with the question: "Would you rather have Caesar live and all die slaves to him, or would you have Caesar die and all live free men?" This sets the stage for the intense drama that follows.

Julius Caesar is a great conqueror, a dictator of Rome, and his name alone strikes fear in the hearts of many. Shakespeare's portrayal of Caesar is not entirely flattering. He shows Caesar as a man who has been given power without accountability, easily influenced by those around him.

The people of Rome also play a significant role in the play. Shakespeare presents them as a society of fools, easily swayed by emotions and words. They are quick to change their loyalties, sometimes siding with Caesar, sometimes with Brutus, and sometimes with Antony.

The theme of loyalty is explored through the relationship between Caesar and his friend Brutus. Caesar is betrayed by Brutus, one of his closest allies. This betrayal leads to Caesar's death and sets off a chain of events that plunge Rome into chaos.

The play also examines the concept of patriotism. All the characters in the play claim to love Rome and are willing to make sacrifices for it. However, their definitions of patriotism vary, and this leads to conflict and division.

In conclusion, "Julius Caesar" is a powerful play that offers insights into the human condition and the nature of power. It is a must-read for anyone interested in literature, history, or politics.

**Connections, Rhetoric, and Irony: The Magic of Tools for Understanding Shakespeare's Struggle**

Every time I write about the great literary works, I must remind myself: my child, be calm and don't rush to understand, as making mistakes is not bad. Of course, as always, we should not sacrifice the courage to understand out of fear of making mistakes.

Besides, having a quiet companion allows me to read Shakespeare, and I'm very happy about this.

Romeo and Juliet's review of this tragedy of Caesar and the attention it gives to the lost voices and the importance of women in Caesar's tragedy is very quiet and remarkable. You must, must read it. Between us, when I read Romeo and Juliet, I was inspired to take good time to write something with thought about this play :))

The good thing about a good companion is that it measures the impulse to do the right thing in a person's heart.

In this review, we try to introduce some tools that are useful for understanding Shakespeare; these tools are:

First, ambiguity and, of course, the idea of "the anxiety of influence" from Bloom. Here, "the problem of Shakespeare's sources" and Shakespeare's relationship with history are important (this aspect of Shakespeare is important for understanding Caesar's tragedy).

Second, there is a discussion in rhetoric. Just as the scene of the prophecy of the "three witches" in Macbeth is essential to me, the famous speech scene of "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears" by Antony in Caesar's tragedy is essential. For understanding speech and oratory, and especially the logic of ancient oratory, rhetoric is essential. I'll mention a little of the vocabulary of Gorgias, Aristotle's oratory, and a few other sources.

Third, there is a discussion of irony. Irony is one of the very essential and important concepts for me, and I very much want to know more about it. Certainly, there are many dialogues in "Caesar's Tragedy" where irony is necessary and important for understanding them (I didn't write this part anymore, it was already very difficult as it was. In the discussion of rhetoric, I mentioned a little about irony).

With these qualifications, let me say what this review is not: I don't want to talk about the whole work here (do you agree that it's not my blabbering?), I don't want to talk about the plot, I don't focus on characterizations, and many other things. This work is much more complex than what I thought. Here, I'm just trying to introduce a few tools so that we can better have our hands on the magic of the tool for understanding Shakespeare and use them sometimes.

Before entering the three main parts of the review, I'll talk about the first definition of the word "tragedy" that (according to Steiner in "The Death of Tragedy") entered the English language in the 14th century. Chaucer in "The Canterbury Tales" defined tragedy for the first time in English as follows:

Tragedy is a particular story,

that is remembered from the books of the past,

about that person who is at the peak of good fortune,

but then falls from that peak,

his deeds turn to darkness, and he ends with misfortune.

Is Caesar's tragedy anything but this? Maybe yes, maybe no!

Let's go to the first part: Ambiguity

The discussion of ambiguity is very extensive and profound, and here I don't want to go into details at all, but by relying on two sources and one additional source, aspects of the importance of "understanding ambiguity" in Shakespeare and especially the ambiguous matters of plays that have roots in historical sources will be discussed.

The first work that I will use is the sixth (sources) and seventh (history) chapters of "The Cambridge Introduction to Shakespeare (2007)" by Amos. The second work is "Ambiguity from Structuralism to Postmodernism (1395)" by Behman Namavolati (of course, I will use a lot from the first volume of the book "Ambiguity" by Graham Allen). The additional work is also the third and fifth chapters of the book "The Death of Tragedy" by George Steiner (if one day I can read this book as it should be, I will be very happy).

The place of discussion is simple: all texts are ambiguous; that is, whatever meaning a hermeneut may or may not have is in a network of neighboring and previous texts that is meaningful. Now, a particular type of thinker has paid attention to these intertextual relationships; Refater, Barthes, Bakhtin, Kristeva, and others have done essential work in this regard. Interestingly, for many of these friends, especially Harold Bloom, there has been a lot of emphasis on Shakespeare and his works (identifying Bloom's coordinates for understanding Shakespeare can be an interesting task).

Bloom was a critic of literary criticism who used the Freudian psychoanalysis and the Oedipus complex to formulate the "anxiety of influence," that literary works use each other. The matter is simple; whenever a text is written, it has a "deferredness" in itself, meaning that there are many texts before it that have influenced and shaped the deferred text in different ways. The problem is that the "poetic father" creates two opposite sides for the poet and the deferred poem: the first side is the imitation of the father, and the second side is the attempt to be original. Here, the issue of artistic creativity gains importance. According to Amos (2007), "the anxiety of creativity" is always important for us. That is, this creativity in the sense of being original is always important for us, and on the other hand, we know that the sources of the text and the intertextual relationships limit this creativity, preventing pure creativity in itself (of course, we know that if we look closely, perhaps any kind of creativity necessarily has a kind of collage nature of things that "exist," and there is no pure and absolute creativity, and it has roots in reality and experience. The discussion of creativity here is not at this high level of abstraction).

Now, how do these dualities cause intertextual literary creativity? It is by "violating" the previous literary work that the deferred literary work creates itself. It's very simple; we read the past texts, and with a new interpretation of them, we put forward a plan, and if our work succeeds, we put forward a new plan.

Now, what does this discussion have to do with Shakespeare?

Shakespeare learned the necessary skills in reading, the science of oratory (rhetoric), and such classical and traditional linguistic sciences in the grammar schools of his time, and we know that he was a follower of many works and writings in his era. The historical plot of the historical play "Caesar's Tragedy" comes from the historical text of the Greek historian Plutarch. But, for various reasons, including the narrative-dramatic attractions, Shakespeare has dealt with the text of Plutarch in great detail and has changed many important details of the text. For understanding these differences, the first chapter of the book "Rome and Rhetoric Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (2011)" by Gary Wills will be very useful (and I really don't want to explain here the details of the differences between the history of Plutarch and Shakespeare's play). Shakespeare's image of Caesar himself has a difference with the narrated history, and it is certain that the reader has a deep sympathy for the assassinated Caesar. The difference between the image of Brutus in Plutarch's text and Shakespeare's take on it in his play is also clear. Again, this creative relationship of Shakespeare with his historical base text is of great importance. These creative aspects cannot be summarized in changing the nature of the characters for the greater dramatic function of the tragedy. For example, anachronism (which has a specific definition in literature and has a significant difference with history) and many other literary hints and devices have also been achieved.

Now, Shakespeare's position as a great poet who is the "setter of rules and regulations" may escape from this method of criticism and set a new rule for understanding literature after himself; but as a reader, we have no choice but to call for and ask for help from these tools to understand Shakespeare. The phenomenological approach to Shakespeare, which really wants to be born from the fact that Shakespeare is great, makes the phenomenological encounter almost impossible for the reader; Shakespeare will be like a storm thrown on the head of the homeless reader. That is:

"In the encounter between Shakespeare and the critic [...] unlike anywhere else, it is the critic who is criticized by Shakespeare and not Shakespeare by the critic"!

So, if I want to summarize the totality of ambiguity for Shakespeare, it will be that like any writer and even more than many friends, understanding ambiguity for Shakespeare is not only possible but also necessary and essential. But Amos, Harold Bloom, Graham Allen, and Namavolati, who have understood it this way, have the story.

An important note on the above discussion is the relationship between translation and experiences and literary events with the nature of ambiguity. How a text is translated with what coordinates and qualities is in itself a strange and essential subject and has a lot of important implications, and it is obvious that it is a very detailed discussion that does not have its place here, but a few important points must be made here:

There is a discussion of French and German translations of Shakespeare. Steiner (1961) has discussed this topic in the fifth chapter of "The Death of Tragedy." It is important that Victor Hugo, Dumas, and the French Romantics in the late 19th century did not read Shakespeare in English and became acquainted with this English-language playwright through the popular translations of Pierre-Louis Turenne. But the Germans had a relationship with the French, and "in Germany and its literature, the role of Shakespeare was much more decisive than in France," and it is certain that the reason for this is the very good translations of Schlegel's works of Shakespeare into German. Maybe it's time to mention Harold Bloom again; Bloom really understands the influence of Shakespeare on German literature and especially Goethe in such a profound way that he sometimes makes wild and grand claims about this influence of Shakespeare and in his subtext, he specifies this matter of "the importance of translation" or reading Shakespeare in the original language.

From this discussion, I will move on to rhetoric in Caesar's tragedy:

For the discussion of rhetoric, the books "Rhetoric (2008)" by Jennifer Richards and "Oratory" by Peter Dixon (1971) will be used as sources from which I will extract the basic concepts. In this regard, I will briefly touch on the historical-philosophical roots of rhetoric. The vocabulary of Gorgias and Phaedrus from Plato will be introduced, and a little of the analytical possibilities of these two vocabularies for Shakespeare will be mentioned. In this regard, I will use the second chapter of the book "How to Read Plato" by Richard Kraut (2008). Finally, a part of the remaining texts of Cicero, which has the title "Exhortation" and is certainly related to rhetoric, will be considered (besides the historical importance of Cicero in rhetoric, Cicero, as one of the characters in the play "Caesar's Tragedy," who, despite his limited presence, has an essential importance and specific emphases from Shakespeare, will be emphasized).

Besides these, two chapters from the book "Rome and Rhetoric Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (2011)" by Gary Wills, which are the transcripts of Antony's speeches, will be used. These two chapters are related to the rhetorical aspects of the two essential speeches by Brutus and Antony in the third act of Caesar's tragedy. Finally, with the comparison of the rhetoric of Brutus and Antony's speeches in Steiner's book "The Death of Tragedy," I will conclude the discussion.

I hope I don't get lost in this text...

Rhetoric and the science of oratory in the ancient world and ancient politics are more important than what we can assume today (of course, many modern propaganda and media inductions are also understood under the umbrella of rhetoric). It's very simple; in rhetoric and the science of oratory, we want to define and teach conditions that, by relying on them, we can have the greatest "impact" on the crowd of people and inspire them towards a specific goal. In oratory, we seek to convince the crowd of people to guide them towards a collective action or shared belief. Eloquence, in the sense of "the art of speaking well / are bene disendi," is a verbal tool that will help us in this path. Cicero, in his treatise "Exhortation," spoke of the importance of the orator in the following way:

"Look at the amazing power of oratory that brings the listener to the height of pleasure and the judgment to the height of passion and plays a role in shaping the opinions and councils of the assembly. What is more noble, more magnificent, and more beautiful than this?"

Perhaps here the question of "the problem of deception" that lies dormant in the nature of politics will be asked. That is, doesn't Cicero know that with wars and the arts of oratory, a group can be deceived and led to the black work of the group? Of course not, Cicero was in the stream, but here I will go before the vocabulary of Gorgias and Phaedrus of Plato.

Plato dealt with the subject of oratory in the dialogues "Phaedrus" and "Gorgias" and a part of "The Republic." Socrates' [Plato's] view of the science of oratory in these dialogues is very negative, and it is certain that in Gorgias, one can observe the detailed aspects of Socrates' opposition to rhetoric. In Gorgias, Socrates, with his famous Socratic method, asks his interlocutors about their own conclusions and shows the weaknesses of their ideas that are in defense of rhetoric, but at least two things make the active reader of the dialogues question:

1. Why is it that among the characters in the dialogue (dialogue) of Gorgias, only Socrates goes up on the platform several times and delivers several "oratorical" speeches?

2. If you look closely, essential wars are also used by Socrates to influence his interlocutors, and one of the most famous of these is the Socratic irony of feigning ignorance.

Now, what happens when Plato has learned the science of oratory against it (one of the famous things about Plato is his explicit enmity with rhetoric), but the martyr of the path of philosophy, Socrates, delivers rhetorical speeches in several places? The discussion becomes even more difficult when Plato, in the speech of the characters in his dialogues, speaks of the influence of Socrates' speeches. In Gorgias, these "commendations" are more implicitly expressed as sarcasm and invective (in general, the relationship between the characters in Gorgias is found to be against Socrates). But in the discussion, it becomes interesting that Phaedrus directly, explicitly, and more wholeheartedly praises "Socrates' art of oratory"; so what happened? The enemy of rhetoric, his hero in the dialogues, Socrates, has been depicted in such a way that he is an artist in oratory and has long speeches?

Now, here the discussion of the mixture between Plato/Socrates' opposition to the Sophists and the mixture of this claim with Plato's total stance towards rhetoric comes up, which it is not the task of this text to examine this matter, and here I just wanted to consider some general aspects of the relationship between rhetoric and Plato. In the continuation, the understanding of the duality of Plato-Aristotle and the historical effect of Aristotle's rhetoric/oratory will enter the picture, which will not be the focus of attention in this text.

But the final and important point is that the goal of oratory is very important for Plato (this importance of the goal is more clearly expressed in Phaedrus or Gorgias). That is, if the oratory is delivered for the purpose of achieving justice and expressing the truth, it is of noble value, and if it is for the deception of the crowd and such things, it will be base. As Cicero said in the previous text:

"The able orator can defend the oppressed, extend his help to the sick, show the way of salvation to those who need it, relieve the tormented from their pain, and rise up to defend the rights of the citizens..."

Finally, Cicero believes in the success of an orator in influencing a large number of people to rise up for the achievement of their rights and such things.

What does all this detail of rhetoric have to do with? In my opinion, the speeches of Brutus and Antony in one of the most essential dramatic parts of Caesar's tragedy, which is the third act, make attention to rhetorical matters essential. The previous part of this text should be read more in this context to understand the rhetoric.

Next, based on Gary Wills' book (2011), I will compare the speeches of Brutus and Antony briefly.

Brutus' speech, which is delivered before Antony's, is always overshadowed by Antony's speech, but even to understand the greatness and astonishing nature of Antony's speech, we must analyze Brutus' speech.

It is clear that Brutus has an advantage in rhetoric and uses rhetorical devices such as:

1. Chiasmus (structure: A - B - B - A): In this technique, a claim is made, then a defense of that claim is made, the defense is repeated again just in another way, and finally, the initial claim is repeated in another way. This technique is used to better register in the listener's memory, have an impact due to repetition, add beauty to the speech, and emphasize specific topics.

We see this structure at the beginning of Brutus' speech:

"Hear me for my cause,

and be silent that you may hear.

Believe me for mine honor,

and have respect to mine honor that you may believe.

Censure me in your wisdom,

and awake your senses that you may the better judge."

As you

I want to be like Julius Caesar

who died in the act of his own drama. Julius Caesar was a remarkable figure in history. He was a great military leader, a shrewd politician, and a man of great charisma. His life was filled with excitement, adventure, and power.

I am drawn to his story because of his courage and determination. He was not afraid to take risks and pursue his goals, even in the face of great opposition.

Like Caesar, I want to make a name for myself in the world. I want to be remembered for my achievements and my contributions. I believe that with hard work and perseverance, I can achieve great things, just like he did.

However, I also recognize that there are many challenges and obstacles that I will have to overcome. But I am ready to face them head-on and do whatever it takes to succeed.

So, I will continue to study and learn, to improve my skills and knowledge, and to prepare myself for the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead.

And maybe, just maybe, one day I will be able to look back on my life and say that I was like Julius Caesar, a great and memorable figure.