The play Julius Caesar is Shakespeare's profound interpretation of the complex web of events that unfolded. It delves into the conspiracy that ultimately led to the assassination of Julius Caesar, the tumultuous events that followed this tragic act, and the final, desperate plight of the assassins themselves.

The theme underlying this story is truly universal. Wherever power is wielded, there will always be a plethora of individuals who will initially win the trust of the powerful and then, with shrewd calculation, betray them at the very first opportunity that presents itself. Since time immemorial, the insatiable greed for power has been one of the most common catalysts for treachery. When a person is consumed by the desire for power, they become all too eager to betray the trust that has been bestowed upon them. Such an individual can be easily manipulated into acting dishonestly.

The play was an absolute delight to experience. It was filled with a great deal of action and suspense that kept me on the edge of my seat. I chose to read the play while simultaneously listening to the audio book, which added an extra dimension to my enjoyment. The use of appropriate music to set the mood of the scenes and the distinct voicing of each character truly enhanced the overall experience.

Overall, I am extremely happy to have rediscovered the joy of this play. I had watched it as a child long ago, and that memory had deterred me from reading any Shakespearean tragedies for a significant period of time. However, I am now slowly finding my way back and beginning to appreciate the depth and beauty of Shakespeare's works once again.

Boo! It's such a pity that Brutus and Cassius didn't evolve from friends to lovers. They had this "old married couple" kind of dynamic, which was quite interesting. Cassius said, "You don't love me," and Brutus replied, "I don't like your faults." Then Cassius countered with, "A friend would never see those faults." Anyways, I'm on Team Caesar. He deserved to live. After all, who can forget that famous line, "Et tu, Brute?"

Now, let's talk about the ratings. The characters get a solid 5/5 stars. They are well-developed and complex. The plot, however, only earns a 3/5 stars. It has its moments but could have been more engaging. The ending is a bit of a letdown, scoring only 2/5 stars. On the bright side, the writing is excellent, getting a perfect 5/5 stars. Overall, I'd rate this 3.75/5 stars, rounded up.

Before reading, I didn't understand what everyone was complaining about. I actually like books assigned from school. Like this one, I had a feeling it was going to be good. Anyways, I predicted a 4-star rating.

mini thought summary!

Brutus and Cassius' relationship was full of potential but didn't pan out as hoped. Caesar's fate was a controversial topic. The ratings show a mixed bag of strengths and weaknesses in the play. The pre-read prediction was a positive one.

According to Shakespeare on-line, the 10 most famous quotes (with an added 11th) from JC Not-So-Superstar are presented as follows.

It's interesting to note that in #3, Shakespeare makes an error when he writes "We come to bury Caesar." In Caesar's era, Romans were cremated, so WS was reflecting Elizabethan England's preference for burying bodies rather than burning them. However, this is Shakespeare's style. Regardless of the setting, England, in a sense, is also the backdrop. At least for the Groundlings!

Re: #1: Only four months have an "ides": March, May, July, and October. You can be cautious or not; it makes no difference to me.

Re: #4: This quote put Greece back on the map after it was overshadowed by Rome. How many things in life are Greek to us, aside from salad? Many, indeed.

Re: #7: Some claim that John Green borrowed the title of his famous YA book from MacBeth, but we also see it here: The Fault in our Stars.

Re: #10: It's a great example of the rhetorical device, antithesis!

The quotes are as follows:

1. Beware the ides of March. (1.2.23), Soothsayer

2. Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Caesar! (3.1.77), Cæsar

3. Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Cæsar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with Caesar. (3.2.79-83), Antony

4. It was Greek to me. (1.2.289), Casca

5. Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once. (2.2.34), Cæsar

6. This was the noblest Roman of them all. (5.5.75), Antony

7. Men at some time are masters of their fates: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars But in ourselves, that we are underlings. (1.2.146-8), Cassius

8. This was the most unkindest cut of all. (3.2.193), Antony

9. Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the gods. (2.1.173), Brutus

10. Not that I loved Cæsar less, but that I loved Rome more. (3.2.23), Brutus

11. And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge, With Ate by his side come hot from hell, Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war, That this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial. (3.1.285-290), Antony

These quotes showcase the depth and complexity of Shakespeare's language and the enduring power of his works.

Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" is a play that delves deep into the complex web of human nature and morality. It presents a central question that remains unresolved: was it right to kill Caesar? The play's protagonists, Cassius, Brutus, and Mark Antony, all have their own motives and actions that make it difficult to determine who is truly in the right or wrong.

I could not say anything more beautiful in praise of Shakespeare as a human being than this: he believed in Brutus and did not cast one speck of suspicion upon this type of virtue.—Friedrich Nietzsche

Cassius, who persuades Brutus to act against Caesar, seems to be motivated by petty emotions such as envy and a bruised ego. His reasons for wanting Caesar dead are not based on any profound political philosophy but rather on personal slights. However, he is not an evil or malicious person.

Brutus, on the other hand, is presented as a man of principles, honor, and nobility. He is too good-hearted to question the motives of his friends and is easily persuaded by Cassius. His actions, though well-intentioned, are often rash and imprudent. He fails to consider the consequences of the assassination and is a poor judge of character.

Mark Antony, while initially seen as a villain who vows revenge, has redeeming qualities. His love for Caesar is shown to be genuine, and he is not insensitive to the virtues of Brutus. He fights for what he believes is right, even if his methods may be questionable.

In conclusion, "Julius Caesar" is a play that showcases Shakespeare's genius in portraying complex and imperfect characters. The play forces us to question our own moral judgments and understand that there are no easy answers in life. Shakespeare's ability to empathize with his characters and present them in a sympathetic light, despite their faults, is what makes his works so enduring and valuable.

“Julius Caesar” is an amazing play. It is the closest play to my heart among those I studied in college and all the plays I have read in general. Every time I read the line “Et tu, Brute?” my heart aches. The portrayal of the characters was very precise and beautiful, with their words, styles, and ways of convincing each other being on point. And Brutus remains one of the characters that I love and hate at the same time. He teaches me every time I read about him that it is impossible to control human beings like that. You can be frustrated with him, not understand him, not be able to imagine what is in his mind. And you should always be careful when making judgments and opinions until you understand the person in front of you, their motives, and their circumstances. Or, the hardest thing, put yourself in the same situation with the same circumstances. And maybe then you will be able to see that it is wrong and hate it, but at least you will understand and be able to empathize. I can't help but love and hate Brutus. Even though I was more inclined to the idea of hating him, I just couldn't. Because of that, I have read and reread it many times, and Brutus remains in my mind whenever I encounter a person or a problem and I see it from a different perspective. Even Cassius, whose character was terrifying with his words, ways, and convictions. I couldn't love him completely, but at least I understood him. Of course, this is aside from Antony's speech, which is remarkable for its beauty. The play is beautiful and enjoyable and is highly recommended. By the way, there are two things that I love the most and that I discovered after reading it and made me love it even more. First, the line “Et tu, Brute?” which is considered one of the simplest and most heinous acts of assassination in history. It was a painful and difficult moment when everyone he trusted one day gathered and agreed to kill him. That meeting when they all stabbed him. And the Caesar still stood, not falling despite all the stabs in his body. Until he saw his lifelong friend Brutus, Julius Caesar walked towards his friend, bleeding and with a look of hope and relief in his eyes, thinking that his lifelong friend was here to save him. He put his hand on his shoulder, waiting for his help, and then Brutus stabbed him. Here, the Caesar said his famous line: “Et tu, Brute?!” Then the Caesar died and fell. Brutus' stab was the fatal one, different from all the other stabs. He didn't stab him in his body but in his person, in his will, in his hopes. Here, the Caesar fell, content with the fall, knowing his defeat. As Gibran Khalil Gibran said, when the bullet hit my heart, I did not die, but I died when I saw who fired it. Second, the amazing performance of Muhammad Saad as Cassius. https://youtu.be/tAklJrvwqiU And the brilliant performance of Antony's terrifying speech. https://youtu.be/q89MLuLSJgk

Rereading it for a class I'm taking, I was truly astonished. It wasn't the tired, almost cliched, armchair statesman-like tale that I had dozed through in high school. Instead, it's actually a tightly wound, crackling, and suspenseful political thriller. It's far more compelling, dire, complex, and profound than I initially noticed.

It delves into the themes of revolution, revolutionaries, and the price paid for watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. We encounter the restless, brittle, and inferiority-complex-ridden Cassius, with his "lean and hungry look," perhaps a cross between Lenin and one of the lesser figures in Dostoevsky's "Demons." Then there's the stoic (not in a capital "S" sense), noble, rational, idealistic, practical, pragmatic, and steady Brutus. His integrity and manly fortitude are challenged not only by his co-conspirators but also by his family, employees, and ultimately, himself. And let's not forget the pompous, regal Caesar who fails to know when to call it quits on the Ides of March, and the brutal, charismatic, and eloquent Marc Antony, who cleans house with great efficiency.

I don't make the observation with a smile that Julius Caesar seems to be one of those texts that suggest modern revolutions devour their young. However, I was struck by how vividly the drama of ideas and breakable characters unfolds here. One of the superficial lessons we might draw is that if you're going to commit violence in the name of liberty, patriotism, or Reason itself, you must ensure that your emotional, physical, and ideological affairs are in order. All too often, the grand sweep of incisive engagement means that the goal is ultimately achieved, success is within reach, but the fallout leads to sectarianism, opportunism, clashing egos that turn into clashing swords, and a mingled pool of blood with friends' corpses littering the smoking ground.

I don't think Julius Caesar is ultimately a reactionary text at all. It's quite interesting and significant to note that even though Brutus' forces are defeated on the battlefield and he meets a tragic end by his own hand, as if hoisted on his own petard, the finale presents a legitimate grievance (from Octavius and Antony, his new enemies, no less!) for someone who (in his own way) loved not wisely but too well.

I am happily surprised!

According to my previous reviews, I have always stated that I don't like theatre plays adapted into books. The reason is that I often struggle to understand the vocabulary as it can be too difficult for me. After all, it's a theatre play, not a regular book.

However, this particular play/book is an exception. I really liked it a lot. Despite being a theatre play, I thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish.

I was quite surprised that the title of this play wasn't completely about Julius Caesar. Although they do talk about him, there are other characters like Brutus and Cassius who have more significant roles. I should add that the dialogues are simple to understand. The story (or the book) isn't overly long, but it's just enough to make it very enjoyable. It's easy to follow the story and also become interested in the characters, which is essential for me when I read a book.

I wholeheartedly recommend it. Additionally, it's possible to take a look at the historical context regarding Julius Caesar, which is always important. The play and the book have both received my full approval.

Please provide the article that needs to be rewritten and expanded so that I can help you.

It has been quite some time since I last delved into the works of Shakespeare. The previous play of his that I read was Troilus and Cressida.

Recently, I decided to take a closer look at this play. It has a certain coldness to it. However, I concur with Harold Bloom when he remarks on the admirable depth of its characterizations and the power of its Brutus.

This play is indeed well-crafted. It manages to capture the rich depth of the Roman world in which the tumultuous events are set.

[Second review]:

Julius Caesar, the Roman play that followed Shakespeare's earlier forays into classical myth, stands apart from the rest of his works. It has surface simplicities in its poetic style, "chillier" emotions compared to the turbulent goriness of Titus Andronicus or the searing pain of the later great tragedies, and a relative absence of the bawdy and robust humor found in much of Shakespeare's other works. Critics like William Hazlitt and Samuel Johnson had a cold attitude towards the play. Yet, many readers, including myself, find Julius Caesar to be a highly sophisticated and "well-made" play. It sets the stage for greater Shakespearean triumphs and, on its own, serves as a wonderful portrait of power, rebellion, war, and government.

Part of the enduring strength of Julius Caesar, and the reason I found it so wonderful on my second reading, is, as Harold Bloom notes, that Shakespeare's stance towards Brutus, Cassius, and Caesar himself is very difficult to interpret. It is common to read in the play a strong disapproval of tyrannicide, a cynical portrait of populism and republicanism, and a preference for even absolute authority over chaos. However, despite the play showing the conspiracy as an ultimate failure that paves the way for Caesarism, and most of the conspirators (save for the high-minded Brutus) being motivated by envy and self-interest rather than a concern for Roman liberty, and the play following the tragic shape by giving the last moments to the establishers of order like Octavian, Shakespeare's dramatic artistry allows for a way to sympathize with even the tragic and fated conspirators. Although Harold Bloom tentatively argues that Caesar seems to be what Shakespeare sides with, I also see in Shakespeare a highly sympathetic portrait of the republican Brutus, who is the proto-Hamlet, the "first intellectual" in Shakespeare, and who, like Cleopatra, achieves a triumph by suicide.

The first major speech of Brutus, tormented, thoughtful, complicated, and powerful, establishes Shakespeare's transformation of Plutarch's noble Roman into a richly conceived and lively character that prepares the way for Hamlet and Macbeth.

Brutus: It must be by his death, and for my part
I know no personal cause to spurn at him,
But for the general. They say he would be crowned.
How that might change the nature, there’s the question.
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder,
And that craves wary walking. Crown him?—that,—
And then, I grant, we put a sting in him,
That at his will he may do danger with.
Th’ abuse of greatness is when it disjoins
Remorse from power; and, to speak truth of Caesar,
I have not known when his affections sway’d
More than his reason. But ‘tis a common proof,
That lowliness is young ambition’s ladder,
Where to the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round,
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend. So Caesar may;
Then lest he may, prevent. And since the quarrel
Will bear no colour for the thing he is,
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, hatch’d, would, as his kind, grow mischievous,
And kill him in the shell.

Shakespeare, borrowing from Plutarch and using his native imagination, also gives Brutus an uncanny awareness of the connection between personal torment and political unease.

Between the acting of a dreadful thing
And the first motion, all the interim is
Like a phantasma, or a hideous dream:
The genius and the mortal instruments
Are then in council; and the state of man,
Like to a little kingdom, suffers then
The nature of an insurrection.

It is also Brutus who, like Hamlet and Macbeth, is vouchsafed to see the spirit of Caesar. However, like his counterpart in Plutarch, Brutus shows a resigned acceptance that he will see the spirit at Philippi again.

Shakespeare, even when presenting the assassination, further complicates matters by showing Caesar as a denier of requests at the moment he is killed. He also shows the assassins bathing themselves in blood as if to sacralize their actions, and depicts Caesar dying at the foot of Pompey, as if his death is the universe's retribution against him. It is something like this that makes Julius Caesar, as some critics recognize, a "problem" play in which questions of judgment and moral and ethical evaluation are highly complicated. This complication is present in how signs are read and how misunderstanding and misinterpretation lead to dangerous consequences: Brutus' and the assassins' calculations lead to the very thing they wanted to stop, Caesar's sense of pride and his being misled by an interpretation of an omen lead to his death, and misunderstanding leads to the death of the innocent Cinna the poet ("Kill him for his bad verses").

Part of the power of Julius Caesar, of course, lies in the power of its poetry and speech, which have the ability to move, present, and show. In speech, there is also coded the language and imagery of theater and presentation. Caesar's killing is imagined as an act that will lead to representation. Antony's great speech ("Friends, Romans, countrymen"), Caesar's musings on cowardice and valor in response to death, Cassius' presentation of Caesar as a Colossus, and Antony's closing eulogy for Brutus all show the way that words and speech can present perspectives on other people. It is through words that Cassius brings Brutus into the conspiracy, it is through words that Antony incites the mob and becomes a lord of chaos, and it is through words that the events are expressed and portrayed.

In addition, theater seems to be a motivating image throughout all of Shakespeare's Roman plays. Whether it is shown in the theatrical and gruesome revenge of Titus against his enemies in Titus Andronicus, or Cleopatra's theatrically staged and near-elaborate suicide in Antony and Cleopatra, the spectacle of battle in Coriolanus, and of course the muted but present spectacle in Julius Caesar, with the assassination, the violence, and the political forces at work on stage.

I returned to Julius Caesar out of a love for Greco-Roman classical literature. As scholars have recognized, Shakespeare may not have been the classicist that Ben Jonson was, but he used the classical sources he had with literary vigor and imagination. In Titus Andronicus, he provides a pastiche of various Roman periods to show the uneasy existence of barbarism at the heart of civilization; in Julius Caesar, he meditates on the tragic course of humanity in history; in Coriolanus, he deals with the ability (or inability) of a hero to exist in "society" and the need for the hero; and in Antony and Cleopatra, he portrays a highly imaginative vision of love and power in coexistence and tension with each other. In all of these plays, Shakespeare shows various levels of poetic and dramatic skill: in Titus Andronicus, he gives us soaring purplish rhetoric set to grim Marlovian spectacle; in Julius Caesar, the poetry is powerful yet "classical" in its clarity; in Coriolanus, the late Shakespeare rhythms give us a jagged and harsh sound that fits the harsh world and tenor of the play; and in Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare does all kinds of things with language, setting the exotic and exuberant language of Cleopatra and Antony with its delight and energy against the disciplined and "official" language of the Roman and imperial domain.

In conclusion, Julius Caesar is one of the best artworks. It stands on its own as a wonderful thing and as a foundation for greater wonders to come. Because of Julius Caesar, Shakespeare tapped into something that would bring forth Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra. All of these plays are greater in scope, resonance, poetry, drama, and action than Julius Caesar. Yet Julius Caesar has endured for so long, I think, because its concerns never went away, and its imagination is truly wonderful.

Julius Caesar's tragedy is intertwined with that of Brutus, his friend-turned-assassin. Shakespeare's play, "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar," focuses on Caesar's assassination on March 15, 44 B.C. However, it is a dual tragedy with two tragic heroes following the Aristotelian cycle. The play gains resonance from the English historical context.

Shakespeare's audience knew of Caesar's assassination, and the play is filled with situational irony from the start. Caesar dismisses the soothsayer's warning, "Beware the Ides of March." Meanwhile, Cassius persuades Brutus to join the conspiracy against Caesar, comparing him to the Colossus of Rhodes.

Rome is in a tense state, with strange phenomena in the streets. Caesar seems set to become king, a dirty word since the deposition of Tarquin the Proud. Caesar refuses the crown, but not convincingly. Cicero and Casca respond to the situation in different ways.

Caesar distrusts Cassius but doesn't act on it. He is more concerned with maintaining his public image of courage. Similarly, Brutus puts his public self before his private self, convincing himself that assassinating Caesar is for the good of the Roman Republic.

Both Caesar and Brutus ignore warnings and opportunities to avoid their fates. The conspirators assassinate Caesar, and the true moral nature of their act is revealed. They lose their moral balance, and Mark Antony, Caesar's loyal lieutenant, takes advantage of the situation.

Antony persuades the crowd to turn against the conspirators, leading to another Roman civil war. Brutus and Cassius are defeated, and Brutus realizes his dream of restoring the republic through violence has failed. He takes his own life, and Antony speaks generously of him in death.

The play's resolution leaves the reader troubled. Antony's words of tribute seem calculated, and the cycle of violence continues. English audiences in Shakespeare's time would have seen the assassination plotters as self-deluded fools. Today, in the United States, with its own history of assassination, "Julius Caesar" remains relevant, bringing history and tragedy together.

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!

This is a play that delves deep into the realm of possibilities and showcases how we justify our actions. It also reveals how we are influenced by our love for a good narrative, especially one with a memorable refrain. I first encountered this play decades ago during my high school days. At that time, I had a desire to analyze it at the university in relation to Nietzsche's ideas. However, my professor, with great wisdom, advised me against such an endeavor. As a result, what I retained of the play was mainly through my numerous viewings of the 1953 adaptation, where Marlon Brando portrayed Marcus Antony. Although the film was faithful to the original to some extent, it overlooked a significant portion of the internal turmoil within Brutus and Portia, which are crucial elements in the play. We are left with the image of thirty-three mortal wounds, a funeral oration that has endured through the ages, and ultimately, a failed conspiracy. The questions that linger are: Was the assassination noble? Is Brutus truly an honorable man?

I believe I have shared a memory from the time when I first read the play. There was a scuffle that broke out at the playground where I spent most of my after-school hours playing basketball. The fight soon became divided along racial lines, and I stood there, feeling more indifferent and confused than anything else. One of the black guys pointed at me and asked, "What about Jon?" Another guy, who happened to be in my English class, said, "Nah, man, he's all right, he's Cinna the poet." This incident added a new layer of complexity to my understanding of the play and its themes.

It is the first time that I read a theatrical text and, to be honest, I didn't think I would like it so much. We are accustomed to reading only one version of the story of the assassination of Julius Caesar, but Shakespeare preferred to give a voice to his conspirators. Here, he doesn't try to justify them or condemn them, but makes us know them as men, with their ideals, their values, but also with their flaws. It is a very smooth-flowing book and with a not-too-complicated language. The translation, in my opinion, is also quite good, but since I'm not a translator, I can't judge it objectively. I appreciated the numerous number of characters present, both secondary and not. Each character has its own unique personality and role in the story, which makes the reading even more interesting and engaging.