What do you think Shakespeare was trying to get across to his readers in the late 1500s and early 1600s in regard to politics and power, especially if you understand that there was some political turmoil during this time in England?
(Shakespeare’s fellow playwrights, well versed in ancient Greek and Roman history, would very likely have detected parallels between Julius Caesar’s portrayal of the shift from republican to imperial Rome and the Elizabethan era’s trend toward consolidated monarchal power. In 1599, when the play was first performed, Queen Elizabeth I had sat on the throne for nearly forty years, enlarging her power at the expense of the aristocracy and the House of Commons. As she was then sixty-six years old, her reign seemed likely to end soon, yet she lacked any heirs (as did Julius Caesar). Many feared that her death would plunge England into the kind of chaos that had plagued England during the fifteenth-century Wars of the Roses. In an age when censorship would have limited direct commentary on these worries, Shakespeare could nevertheless use the story of Caesar to comment on the political situation of his day.)**
**Taken from Sparknotes
).What specific evidence supports your ideas? What messages can YOU take from the play that could apply to your own life?
Be sure to respond to two people this time!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
83 comments:
Dillon Holzheimer
Shakespeare had many reasons for writing this play. One of the reasons was to show that history repeats itself. The queen of England had no heirs and neither did Julius Caesar. He left the empire for anyone to get and that started a civil war. I think Shakespeare was predicting what was going to happen when the Queen was dead. He was trying to convey to the people to watch out and pay attention to what was going on. Another reason for writing the play was to show how power corrupts people. For example, Caesar was power hungry and he got stabbed 35 times in the chest by the people who lost their power to him. Antony was an obedient servant when Caesar was alive but became just as power hungry as Caesar when he was killed. For example, he tried to get rid of Lepidus so he would have one less person to share power with. Shakespeare was trying to say that power can make people act differently than they usually would. The final reason I think Shakespeare wrote this play was to show how people shouldn’t act. For example, Brutus was way to trusting and he got betrayed by Antony. Cassius was some-what paranoid and killed himself out of fear. Caesar was way to ambitious an got stabbed by his best friend. Shakespeare was trying to show what happens to people who act certain ways.
Joshua Tedder
I think that Shakespeare was trying to get across that your going to have some rulers who might not be the greatest but you have to learn to deal with it. He was saying that you can't just have a few people disagree and kill him, you have to have a majority agree to take actions. That's what started the civil war between Rome. Nobody agreed with the conspirators because they didn't say that they were going to do what they did. It just really surprised the people at what the conspirators did to Caesar. Rome could have ended up in pieces during the civil war just because a few people. The message was that you will have to deal with leaders unless the majority says to get rid of him.
I feel like Shakespeare was trying to convey that power corrupts and destroys- just as it did In the play, but I think he was trying to stress the fact that if they gave the monarch too much power that they would be left with a corrupt and possibly completely destroyed economy, and government. He was also trying to stress that if England didn’t want to end up in a civil war the people would check the power of the monarch. For instance in the play “Julius Caesar” Caesar is about to become Dictator for life but them is killed and he didn’t even have complete power yet but his memory still ended up causing a lot of problems for the Romans. The main message I took from this is that arrogance leads to hate from others and its very true the more you brag the more people dislike you, the more Caesar pronounced his power the madder the senators got, then he thought he was so good that he deserved complete power.
Joseph Espinoza
There are two main reasons as to why I believe Shakespeare wrote this play. One reason is that you may get some really bad leaders in the future. And that you need to just learn how to suck it up and just obey him. I don't think Shakespeare was making queen Elizabeth I look bad but he's just saying how there might be a worse ruler in the future and to just accept it. Another reason is that power can corrupt almost anyone who does not use it properly. Shakespeare could of said this so that the future ruler would understand that with all that power in his or her hands, they could lead to their own death and more.
Re: Mrs. Bentley
Dear Mrs. Bentley Sparknotes failed for a minute because Caesar did have and heir- Octavius- his nephew, although, however indirect it counts because Arthur I, Duke of Brittany was the nephew to the king and became king by succession(I looked it up).
Also
Re: Dillon
dear Dillon- I disagree I don't think Shakespeare wrote this play to explain how history repeats it’s self but for something a little deeper like that just like Queen Elizabeth, Julius Caesar was power hungry and unlike Elizabeth didn't live until he had full power- which in fact proves, that technically history didn't repeat itself.
Kayla Goodman
Since there was censorship, I believe Shakespeare wrote "Julius Caesar" to express his own worries to his audience. Since Queen Elizabeth I didn't have any heirs, Shakespeare showed his fear of governmental collapse by describing what happened to Caesar, who also had no heirs. In the play, after Caesar was murdered, Rome fell into a civil war. Both Caesar and Queen Elizabeth I were also aging, therefore, an heir was unlikely to appear. Shakespeare is also trying to get across that there is power in numbers. None of the conspirators would've murdered Caesar alone; it took a group to do that. In fact, the conspirators stabbed Caesar 35 times because of their madness for "justice." I believe that each character in "Julius Caesar" was also an example of a trait people should avoid. For instance, Cassius was cocky, Brutus was overly trusting, Caesar was power-hungry, and Antony gossiped about people behind their backs (when he wanted to get rid of Lepidus in ACT 4). Many of the characters died by committing suicide; therefore I think Shakespeare considers suicide a noble way to die. One message I’ve gathered from "Julius Caesar" is the fact that even when bad things happen, life still goes on. Antony didn't let anything stop him from avenging Caesar's death. Another message is that bad rulers/people come along, but murder is not the answer; we need to work it out as a whole.
Tamara Price
I think that Shakespeare was trying to get across that power turns people bad. I think he thought that the leader needed less power and that a monarchy government was not good because the leader wanted entirely too much power. I think he could also be getting at history repeating itself because of Queen Elizabeth I, just like her Caesar has no heirs. I think he could also be getting at the fact that there could be not so great leaders in the future but some people like them and so you just kind of have to deal with it because sometimes taking control and getting rid of the problems can be bad. Like in the play if a bunch of people liked the leader and you thought he was bad for everyone else and killed him then a war could start. I think I can take the message: some things don’t always turn out for the better. I think this could relate to me because in life there are going to be things you hate and want to get rid of but if you happened to end it then it could make things even worse that before.
Tamara Price
Reply: Dillon Holzheimer
I didnt think about writing this play as to how people shouldn't act. I totally see where you are coming from and I should have included that because I don't know anybody who would want to act like such horrible people. Caesar should have been a better ruler and the conspirators should have thought about everyone else's feelings before they killed him.
Tamara Price
Reply to Emily:
I agree with your main message. I do think that arrogance leads to hate from others. I know I hate when people brag and it makes me dislike people, although it is a normal thing to do and most people do it. It may not always be true but it is very likely.
Alena Senf
Shakespeare seems to have been portraying many different messages in his plays, but in “Julies Caesar”, the main gist is that ambition and stubbornness can be your downfall. When people get to confident, they think they can’t and/or won’t make mistakes, but that’s impossible because no one is perfect. Caesar thought so highly of himself that he took no notice of all the signs that something bad was going to happen and that was his ultimate downfall. For example, in act 3 scene 1 lines 1-9, Caesar ignores the letter that Artimidorus tries to give him that list all the names of the conspirators.
I wonder if Shakespeare was trying to hint to the people of England that had ruled for too long, or he thought she was somehow ambitious or stubborn; showed some qualities that Caesar did in the play. Another point that Shakespeare could have been trying to make is that history CAN repeat itself. If the queen during that time period and Caesar had similar qualities, and they both didn’t have heirs, a warning is a likely reason for the play to be written.
The play “Julius Caesar” could apply to my life by warning me not to become too stubborn or ambitious, ambition can be good, but to much of it can result in a major downfall, maybe even death.
Alena Senf
Re: Tamara Price
I agree that power can corrupt people, but just because a few people in power were corrupted doesn't mean that everyone will be. Some people can be responsible, good leaders and those are the kind of rulers that the world wants, but most of the time power does corrupt, maybe not so visisbly, like Caesar though.
Alena Senf
Re: Josh Tedder
I agree that there will be some rulers that creates controversy among the people, and that what the conspirators did was irational and sudden. They should have decided with a larger group of people and listen to different perspectives before doing something so momentous as murdering Caesar.
Kayla Goodman
Re: Josh Tedder
I agree that people need to work as a whole to expel bad leaders. However, I do not think that people should just "deal with it." Even if the majority does not agree to get rid of a bad ruler, you can still advocate and stir up controversy about it to gather attention on the subject. I agree that murder was not the answer.
Kayla Goodman
Re: Emily Pilot
I agree with you that power tends to corrupt. However, I don't believe that is the case every time. Antoninus Pius during the Roman Empire, for example, was a good ruler. He kept the prosperity running in Rome.
Riley Farmer
Shakespeare’s main purpose for writing the play was to teach the audience that having a big ego never results in a good way. Caesar had a huge ego and it ended up getting him stabbed 35 times. He also was warned three times but he was to stubborn to think twice about them. Brutus also had a big ego, when he killed Caesar and Antony asked if he could speak at the funeral Brutus thought that it would be ok. Brutus thought it would be ok because he thought that everyone was going to love him for doing them a ‘favor’. But it ended up backfiring on him. Brutus thought that the battle would be won easily and didn’t think twice about it. But he was wrong and it scarred him and so he killed himself. Antony was the only one without a big ego, he planned and didn’t just assume everything would work his way. Because he was smart the play turned out in his favor.
Riley Farmer
Re:Joshua Tedder
I agree that there should be a consensus about the leader. A lot of people liked Julius Caesar and it wasnt right to just go and kill him because a few people didnt like him. Now if you dont like who is in office you just have to wait four years and then vote them out instead of killing them. It would anger me to if a leader I really liked was murdered.
Joshua Tedder
Reply to Dillon Holzheimer
I agree with Dillon because this play was written to show that history repeats. It justs repeats in different ways. And the play was written to show how people act. Caesar was way too ambitious.
Joshua Tedder
Reply to Emily Pilot
I agree becuase Caesar was gaining too much power and that could have killed the economy. If he was dictator for life who knows what he would have done. And the more you brag the more people hate you. Caesar said that he was constant. Caesar was too arrogant and would have destroyed Rome.
Nathan Leaphart
Comparing and drawing parallels between abstract or seemingly irrelevant stories is often used in literature, including Shakespeare. I do believe that Shakespeare did use this play for political purposes, because the government during his time closely resembled the one of the Romans so he can easily use one to represent the other. I also look at Shakespeare as almost an Antony. He is closer to the fickle-minded commoners than the queen, so if indeed he wanted to spread a political idea or warning through England, he would be able to easily. One parallel I drew between England in the Middle Ages and Rome was that the commoners were often pushed out of politics by the other branches of the government. Even being, politically speaking, worth nothing to the government, they were the majority. You want the majority on your side if you are trying to politically influence your country. One thing that most tyrants don't notice is that their spot is extremely venerable and that the commoners have a bigger influence on the government than you think, so Shakespeare could have had a major impact on the politics of the time. To conclude, to disguise his political idea from censorship, Shakespeare used a seemingly irrelevant example to explain his political ideas. Shakespeare was also close to his potential messengers, the commoners.
Another parallel I drew was the disregard of the House (Romans- the Senate, English- Parliament). Elizabeth, like most English monarchs, disbanded the Parliament. The House, in both instances, made no big influence on the leader’s decisions. This disregard of political helpers, showed a kind of confident, "I am always right", attitude that you don't want from an absolute leader. I think this attitude describes both Caesar and Brutus. Both thought that what they did was correct, and in Brutus's case, it wasn't. If the conspirators listened to Cassius the play wouldn't have ended like it did. This attitude could have also easily been credited to the Queen, who made many major decisions independently without political advising.
The last parallel I drew was that in an instance that an absolute ruler does control the country fairly well but then dies, it could throw the country into civil war. With all that power up for grabs, you need to be careful about who takes power.
To finalize my point, I think Shakespeare wrote the play to show what can happen if the people of a country allow a ruler to have absolute power. I think he warns common people to take more notice of politics, because being fickle like the plebeians can get you in trouble when somebody who doesn't need that power has it. He also shows that letting a person have that much power makes them cocky, and even when they die they can cause problems to the country (succession).
Shakespeare tries to get across that you need to take into consideration the opinions of people around you. He also condemns governments that consist of one major political leader and shows the problems it can cause, so he shows the importance of paying attention to your government. Both of these can be easily connected to my life. Considering that I live in a democracy, I need to pay attention to my government and pay my part in it, and that I should never be so confident in myself that I no longer consider other people's opinions anymore.
Nathan Leaphart
Reply to Josh Tedder:
I have disagree with you, I think revolts against your own government is a shot in the dark. It is different when people plan to revolt against a foreign power, the people you plan to revolt against are not right around the corner, and back then you could easily kill a messenger. However, when you are on the person's home turf, you have the disadvantage. It is inevitable that a non-supporter (like Artimidorus) will find out and report the threat, so time is of the essence. The leader of the conspiracy needs to go ahead and have an outline of plan before recruiting supporters. You don't have time to ask everyone in Rome what he or she thinks; you need to do it and hope it goes in your favor.
Nathan Leaphart
Reply to Joseph E.
I completely disagree with you, if you have a governmental problem you, as the citizen, has the right to expel a bad leader. That is not my idea, it was the founding fathers'. Let me put it in simple terms, if you spill milk and you don't clean it up, it causes problems for your house. It will stink it up your house, leave a sticky stain, and believe it or not it won't go away by itself. You need to clean it up as fast as possible. Milk: Government.
Hailey Newman
One point Shakespeare tried to get across to the readers was the fact that too much power can corrupt an individual. By having so much authority and being such a structural figure, people tend to know who is in charge and who makes all the decisions. No one could ever even think twice about back sassing someone of that kind of political power. For example, in Julius Caesar no one had the guts to speak their mind because of the fear of authority. Caesar was in charge and society knew they didn't have a chance to speak over his decisions. I also believe Shakespeare was on the verge of explaining how power works. During the Elizabethan era, the queen had a drastic future ahead of her considering there were no eligible heirs to the throne upon her death, as for Julius Caesar. Being in society at the time, I imagine that people went into panic mode considering their thoughts at the time would have been that their empire would fail if a leader couldn’t be brought forth. Elaborating on how power corrupts, Caesar had plenty of options to be the better man, but he set himself on a higher pedestal that everyone else. He was warned about the Ides of March, but he chose to wave it off and this led to the death of Caesar. Shakespeare, in my opinion, was using the play to explain his thought of the future events and to paraphrase how things happen and why. One example, during the holocaust stage Hitler was entitled as the man in charge, but through his fault the U.S. stepped in and he ended up committing suicide. He alone had too much power, which in return backfired and led to his downfall, as did Julius. Some messages that I could take from the play would be that friends are not always as they seem, and watch what you listen to because you never know what or who can influence you.
Hailey Newman
Re: Emily Pilot
I agree with the fact that they were scared about the economy being destroyed, but I also want to argue the fact that arrogance doesn't always lead to that because no matter who you are people may view you differently. Hitler was one person that some thought highly of, but others saw him as an evil dictator.
Re: Joshua Tedder
I agree with what you're saying how you don't always agree with people, but you learn to deal with it. People in power may think one idea is best for the community, but you may think likewise and see things differently.
I think he was trying to get across to his readers, that political powers in that day were ruined . They were twisted, that politics were twisted back in his day, && that the readers needed to stand up for their beliefs in order to what was best for themselves .
- Megan Jumer
Marcus Weeks
I think that Shakespeare was trying to get across that having to much power is not good for you all the time. You can get a hot head and think everything that you say is right. Shakespeare was also trying to say that not having enough power can be bad for you to. Then you become to not like the person who has power for no reason just because you think that you can do better than them. When that happens you become angry. When Cassius persuaded Brutus to think that the people thought he could do better by giving him the fake letters was when Brutus started to not like Caesar. That is an example of not having power and thinking you can do better. That could happen to anybody because if you are on a sports team and a player is playing more than you and you think that you can do better then you start to not like that person and hope that they do bad so you can get what you want. That is what Shakespeare was trying to get across is that having to much power and not having enough power can be bad at the same time.
Marcus Weeks
In Reply to Dillon Holzheimer
I think that is true about history repeating itself but Shakespeare meant a lot more for that play than that. He was not trying to get people to notice that. i agree with you the most about power corrupts because I think that is what Shakespeare was proabaly trying to get across the most.
Marcus Weeks
In Reply to Joshua Tedder
Shakespeare was trying to say that but the play was not all about having to deal with bad rulers. I think that most of the play was to show what power can do to you and not having enough can do to you. i don't think that having a bad ruler is what started the civil war in rome. I think it was all about power.
Ayanna Wigfall
I think that William Shakespeare was trying to compare Queen Elizabeth I and Caesar because, Caesar and Queen Elizabeth I are somewhat similar and different. It is more that Caesar wants what Queen Elizabeth I has. During that time period Queen Elizabeth had already served almost forty years for England. Caesar wanted to have all power and rule till he died. Queen Elizabeth didn’t have many heirs, neither did Caesar. I think Shakespeare was trying to get across that he was worried about what was going to happen when the queen died. Who would the people choose to rule next? Just like in the play. I think Shakespeare was just overall relating the Queen and Caesar to each other because, they both had similarities and differences that were somewhat the same.
Ayanna Wigfall
Re: Joseph Espinoza
I disagree with one of your reasons on why Shakespeare wrote the play. I disagree with your first reason because; in the play there were no sign that Caesar was a bad ruler because the people adored Caesar except for the conspirators.
One point Shakespeare was trying to get across was to show how power can in a way blind side people's morals. Power can change a person and having too much power can go to your head and cause you to lose yourself. Caesar became power hungry once everyone began to worship him his head literally grew about 20 times larger. He believed he was invincible and that nothing could touch him. I mean why shouldn't he the commoners treated him like a god. I think Caesar lost himself on his rise to power he really had no set morals or standards anymore; he said what the people wanted to hear. He pretty much did everything in his power to get more power. Caesar was a power addict, he was so blindsided by all the power he wasn't even able to notice that his own friends were planning out his death. Along with Queen Elizabeth, Caesar also had no heirs and they were both put to death because they had too much power. In a way I think Shakespeare is trying to show that in the world were always going to have ups and downs, but in the end everything will be okay. I mean once Caesar was killed the town was in complete chaos but in the end everything turned out okay. I know a lot of people might have died in the war but the town didn't fall apart. Sure people might have over reacted and went a little crazy after Antony's speech but all the really wanted was a peace of mind and some revenge. Like when JFK was assassinated the world went crazy everyone was upset but in the end we moved forward and grew stronger. The vice president took over and after a while things went back to normal. Shakespeare showed me that life isn't perfect sometimes you’re going to fall and get hurt, but in the end everything is going to be okay once you pick yourself back up again. This play also showed me that having too much power is not necessarily a good thing and it can change a person.
Ayanna Wigfall
Re: Tamara Price
I agree that Shakespeare was trying to get across that if a leader has too much power they to tend to want more of it. I agree that ruler should have power but not too much because if they do the will crave power till they have complete power over everything and everyone. I also agree with that Shakespeare was kind of rewriting history because, both Queen Elizabeth I and Caesar had similarities.
RE: Tamara Price
I agree with your part about we aren't always going to have good leaders in the world. We all have are going to have people who like us and people who don't, it's a part of life. I don't really think your message goes along with the play I think you should just say that in life is always going to have its ups and downs.
RE: Hailey Newman
I agree with you on your part about how power corrupts people. However I don't think the characters in the play didn't have any guts to question him, I truely think everyone (besides the conspirators) loved Caesar and repected him. He could have told the commoners to carry him everywhere and I think they would have. They weren't scared of him they were just clueless and only saw the good in Caesar they thought he was incredible.
Carter Tetanich
I think that Shakespeare was trying to say many things. One thing is that he wanted to show what was happening in England at this time. England was also in turmoil and if Queen Elizabeth was killed many said England would turn to chaos. I also think that Shakespeare was sending a warning to Queen Elizabeth. I think this because Queen Elizabeth at the time has sat on the throne for 40 years and if she was to become to power crazy than she may be murdered just like Caesar was. I also think that s Shakespeare wrote this play to show people how not to act. Caesar was power hungry and he was killed for that reason. Brutus was way to trusting and ended up paying for by letting Antony speak at the funeral (Act III scene 2).
Carter Tetanich
RE: Riley Farmer
even though that was the main problem for Caesar don't think that is the message Shakespeare was trying to show. I think Shakespeare's message was if take action then you netter be able to defend yourself.
RE: Joshua Tedder
I agree that you can't just go around killing people because you think they will not make a good leader. But if the conspirators would have said what they were going to kill Caesar they definitely would've ben caught and never had this opportunity again.
Patrick Price
I think that Shakespeare wrote the play for many reasons. I think that he was trying to show that people don't get satisfied very easily like Caesar and Queen Elizabeth. They both kept wanting more power. I also think that he might have been predicting what could happen to Queen Elizabeth. One of the main messages I could take from the play would be to stick your guns like with the decision to kill Antony, that wound up being a horrible mistake!
Patrick Price
I think that Shakespeare wrote the play for many reasons. I think that he was trying to show that people don't get satisfied very easily like Caesar and Queen Elizabeth. They both kept wanting more power. I also think that he might have been predicting what could happen to Queen Elizabeth. One of the main messages I could take from the play would be to stick your guns like with the decision to kill Antony, that wound up being a horrible mistake!
Shakespear wrote this play for many reasons. One of them, was to try to get the people of England to question why they were living under the queens rule. Another was to prove that things could be done about bad leaders. The last reason was to show people that taking the wrong actions leads to consequenses.
Will Overton
Shakespear wrote this play for many reasons. One of them, was to try to get the people of England to question why they were living under the queens rule. Another was to prove that things could be done about bad leaders. The last reason was to show people that taking the wrong actions leads to consequenses.
Sorry I didn't put my name on the previous comment.
Will Overton
Re: Josh Tedder
I disagree that the majority of the people have to agree to change something. One person can change the world if given the right opportunity, and the ambition.
Will Overton
Re: Joseph Espinoza
I disagree that you have to "suck it up" and take a bad leader. Bad leaders destroy the organization or the country they lead. Later on in Rome's history, many bad leaders greatly hurt Rome, and ultimmately lead to its downfall.
Laken May
Shakespeare was trying to show how different opinions in society could conflict one another and cause a greater outcome than originally planned. In the beginning, the conspirators only planned to assassinate Caesar and let Roman rule continue with its natural order; but obviously that wasn’t the case. A war spurred because of a disagreement in the ruling class and several people died because of their need to satisfy their own egotistical desires. It is important that we learn to look at how our actions will greater affect things that we normally wouldn’t consider. My mom always tells me to think of what I say before I say it and that applies here (in a less extreme case) because sometimes when we blurt things out in the spur of the moment we often don’t consider how it will affect anything else besides that very moment in time, but most things have a snowball effect that can get nastier and nastier.
to Dillon Holzheimer:
I liked how you pointed out that Caesar could have been implying that history repeats itself. Thats a good point and i never really thought about tnhat until reading your post. I wish you would have elaborated on your thought a little more though so that I could have gotten a more thorough understanding of your thoughts.
Laken May
Riley Farmer:
You said that the smarter side of an argument usually wins and I completely agree with you. Whenever I argue with my sister, normally whoever knows more about what they're saying wins the arguement. Good point. (:
Laken May
Caitlyn Taylor
As everyone has mentioned, Shakespeare most likely had a lot of different ideas in mind when he wrote the play. What he was trying to get across to the people in the 1500s and 1600s probably isnt much different than the message we got from it today, besides using a lot of different terms. I think that Shakespeare was mostly trying to show how power corrupts and can affect and even ruin a society. I think this play had a good lesson behind it. It shows you that you should never abuse the power that you have because the effect could be much worse than you thought. Also, this play could shows you that being a good leader doesn't necessarily mean being in control of everything, but that while it's important you think for yourself and don't make decisions just because of what others tell you to do, you need to listen to their ideas and try to make a good decision that benefits everyone and not just yourself as well. Julius Caesar was like Queen Elizabeth I and in this play of Julius Caesar it basically explains how things from the past will happen again and that bad leaders will come along but killing them won't do anything but lead to chaos. Shakespeare does a good job getting all of these points across and it makes you think of how society and everything is today.
Caitlyn Taylor
Re Dillion Holzheimer:
I definitley agree with you. I think your right when you say Shakespeare was trying to warn people about what could happen and to pay attention to whats going on. I didn't really think about it that way when I read it, but it does make a lot of sense.
Caitlyn Taylor
Re Joesph Espinoza:
I don't really agree with that. I don't think that this is saying that when you have a bad leader that you should just suck it up and obey him. I think it more shows how you need to find other ways to fix it or simply that too much power can never be good. If most people would just obey a bad leader anyway, it could cause a lot of problems in the society because a leader can't be right with what he thinks all the time no matter how much power he has. And, making him happy compared to everyone he's ruling over doesn't make any sense because the point of a ruler is to keep everything in order and to try to keep a majority of the people happy not to make the ruler happy and let him do whatever he wants.
Haven Hendrix
I belive Shakespeare was trying to tell the crowd to watch for power hundry people they might srt out with good intentions but more power can lead to a obsession with tring to gain more. Also Politicians have away of persuading a crowd into believeing what they say is the truth. The comparison of Julius Caesar to Queen Elizabeth is right on the money. THey both had a lot of power with no one behind them to gain it if they were to perrish. The fear of war and chaos was a likely fear sinc often history repeats itself and many times in the past when a person with a lot of power dies chaos does happen.
Caitlin Herron
I think Shakespeare was trying to show how power and authority can corrupt you and even society. I think Shakespeare was trying to get the people to think about society and what would happen if they had given the queen too much power or if they gave another authority figure too much power. I think he saw how they reacted to not knowing if they were to have a queen and was trying to show the effects that would happen if they had given the queen or if they gave a new authority too much power. Many people relied on the queen for everything and thought it would be the end if they didn’t have a queen, but Shakespeare was showing what they were doing to the queen and what would happen in further situations if they gave the wrong person all the power. Caesar and The Queen are somewhat opposite. Caesar had all the power and chose not to do good by it! The Queen had power but she helped others and did not let the power go to her head and she didn’t think she was better than anyone. Therefor I think he was trying to show society how if they had another leader giving that person all the power could be bad for society.
Caitlin Herron
RE: Marcus Weeks
I agree that having too much power can make you become a hot head. I think it blinds you and makes you not see or care for what others say or think! I never thought about that he was saying having too much power can be bad for! That is true; people say they can do better than politicians and leaders today.
RE: Hailey Newman
I agree with the fact that too much power can corrupt someone. We saw that with Brutus in the play. Also I can see why you compared Hitler and Caesar, Hitler and Caesar had the power and were not using it morally. Hitler finally had someone to intervene with his tyranny, Caesar never had anyone to try and stop him they just killed him. It’s kind of sad that people let power get to them like that!
Maggie smith
I think one reason that Shakespeare had to right this play was to show people how to express their true feelings. And also that history repeats itself. Over the next decades after shakespeare wrote this play, many presidents and rulers have been assinated because the people wernt fond of them or they didn't like the way they ruled. I think the message that Shakespeare is trying to come across is to really just speak out or act upon what you believe in.
RE:Emily Pilot
I agree cOnpletly with your comment. I think if they hadent killed Caesar then, well, these people who though he was the greatest thing in humanity wOuld probley have seen that all he was was a big tyrant who really cared about them but was to powed hungry to notice
Morgan Shumpert
Personlly, I think that Shakespeare was trying to say 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. I think this because at the beginning it showed Caesar gaining all of this power and ruling over the people with an "iron fist" where whatever he said goes and no questions about it. Then we have Brutus who after killing Caesar became more powerful they thought he was better than everyone else. This is shown when he is giving the speech at Caesar's funeral and he is trying to persuade the people to agree with his wrong doing. Cassius also shows these characteristics when he is talking to his fellow conspirators and is deciding who they should let join in on their plan to kill Caesar.
Morgan Shumpert
Reply to Tamara Price:
I agree with the fact that you said history repeats itself and i think that is a really good point to make. I also agree with what you said about things dont always turn out for the best because I think that is a really important lesson that people need to learn throughout their life.
Morgan Shumpert....cont.
adding on the what I have already said I wanted to add that the lesson I can take from this tragedy is that you should contemplate on your decision before you take action because your action could cause other things to go wrong which leads to turmoil in the end.
Reply to Laken May:
I completely agree with what you are saying but I never really thought about that aspect of the play. It brings new light to the entire play when you think about how the words of some of the conpirators and Antony really impact small things.
Catalina Zavala
I think that Shakespeare was trying to make the people understand that the Roman government wasn't perfect, there were flaws that needed to be fixed for it to be more at peace. The leaders should have less power, or they might turn out for the worse, possibly a tyrant. Obviously, that's what the conspirators feared, for Caesar to become a tyrant. Shakespeare might also want people to know, maybe, the betrayal, and deceiving in order to get what a person wants in the government. Again, the conspirators like foxes slyly produced a plan to kill Caesar. Another reason is probably to make the people realize how numskulled the commoners were, easily brainwashed. From this play, I understand that people aren't always as they seem. Like how Caesar viewed Brutus, as his friend and staying loyal to Caesar. Oh, but how easily Cassius fooled Brutus, and turned against his own friend and his leader. Antony wasn't seen as a threat at first, but in the end, he was the only one who succeeded.
Catalina Zavala
Reply to Tamara Price:
Well, not all the people who have rand power turn bad, of course. But I see where you're coming, the monarchy type government did sort of make the leader seem like he/she had all the power.
Catalina Zavala
Reply to Maggie Smith:
I totally agree with you, I think that maybe one of the reasons that he wrote this play is because of all the government betrayal. All presidents at once in their life, have people hate them and plotting to kill them.
Dillon Holzheimer
Reply to :Emily Pilot
Caesar was also a very stubborn person. Because he would not Metellus Cimber back to Rome, that gave the conspirators another reason to kill Caesar. I think that if he did allow Cimber to return to Rome, then the conspirators might have had second thoughts about killing him.
Dillon Holzheimer
Reply to: Alena Senf
I don’t believe that the play is just about ambition. Caesar was many other things than just ambitious. He was blind, naïve, and stuck-up as well. If he was none of these things then Caesar wouldn’t have been killed as quick as he did. But, if he wasn’t killed then there would be no play.
Morgan Mims
I think that Shakespeare was trying to show people that if you are too power hungry, it will catch up to you in the end. Like in Caesar's case he was very power hungry and he ended up getting murdered. I also think that Shakespeare was trying to show people what aould happen to you if you abused your authority. Caesar was diliked by some of the people of Rome because he was power hungry.
jr nava
i think that shakespeare is trying to tell us that back in his time, many people were power-hungry and that they'd join the goverment just to have more power. that they didnt join cause they cared but because they just wanted to gain more power
I think Shakespeare was trying to get across that your hard and fast decisions are not always the best but also I believe that he was trying to say that things are not always as they seem and some things you need to take your time and think about things before making a decision. He is also trying to say that total power corrupts the minds of people and eventually leads to their down fall and don’t underestimate the power of words emotions and persuasions. I can take the message that people no matter how innocent they look can always come back and hurt you. So you need to be careful who you entrust this information to and what you trust people with.
Re:Emily Pilot
I agree with you Emily because power does corrupt and destroy but also can you say that the reason that Caesar was killed was for power. I do not believe that neither Brutus nor Cassius wanted the power that Caesar had. I believe that they thought that they were saving the people from slavery not from achieving there own selfish goals by overcoming power
Re: Dillon Holzheimer
I don’t totally disagree with you but I also don’t totally agree I don’t think that he was trying to say that history repeats itself because there is no proof that this type of thing happened before Julius Caesar so how could he know if history repeated itself we know it happens now in 2011 but I mean Shakespeare wouldn’t have know back then that history would repeat itself no one knows what the future holds
Joseph Espinoza
Re: Emily Pilot
I would agree with you when you say the reason Shakespeare wrote this play is to convey that power corrupts and to destroy an economy. Because I feel that power could corrupt even the most nice of men and turn them into tyrants.
Joseph Espinoza
Re: Joshua Tedder
I completely agree with you when you said you have to deal with it when you get bad leaders. I know that the Romans where going for a democracy, but I just don't think they are their yet, and Caesar took advantage of this and tried to bring back dictatorship.
Joseph Espinoza
Re: Nathan Leaphart's Re:Joseph Espinoza
Thank you for comparing the roman government to milk for me, that really cleared things up.
Alexis Ricard
Re: Tamara Price
I agree with what you are saying completly. Just because one person doesn't like someone that doesn't give them the right to kill that person. I also agree with the fact about a monarchy. When one person is in charge they become power-thirsty, so I believe that power should always be shared.
Alexis Ricard
Re: Cathy Zavala
I think what you said about the commoners was a good point. I didn't think of that before, other than in class. Well, I didn't think about that as a reason for Shakespeare to write the play. I liked how you compared the conspirators to foxes, also. That was very clever and a good simile. About your main point though, I think that there are flaws in every set of government and excpecially the Roman one at the time. I totally agree on people fearing tyrants also. I didn't think about that until I read your blog but it was a good point.
Alexis Ricard
I think that Shakespeare was trying to get across to his readers that power isn’t everything, and with power comes responsibilities. I know that’s an old saying but it comes to play in perfectly with Shakespeare’s point. Caesar had a lot of power in Rome’s government and economy, and obviously wanted more, but look where that got him. He had pretty much everything he could need and instead lost it all because of greed. He took his own responsibilities for being selfish lost everything he had, including his life. I think I can take this message and reply it to myself. I will admit that a lot of times I am greedy and selfish, even though that’s not the right thing to do. From this play I can see that I could end up suffering big for those actions and I probably need to double think before I do something just for myself next time.
Josh Swearingen
Since there was political turmoil in England during the time Shakespeare wrote this play, I think that meassage he was trying to get across was that he was for the political party, because in the play he showed how Brutus (Being the noble man he was) was deamed a traitor, even though he was an honorable man. I think what he was saying that even if the most noble man in England went against the government, he was a traitor to his countrymen. During our time period, i think that there's a different outlook, that if we go against the government, people will support you if the government is corrupt.
Josh Swearingen in response to Patrick Price
I agree that Shakespeare had many reason for writing this play, but i disagree that he was trying to predict what would happen to the queen at that time. I think Shakespeare was predicting what would happen to a person who tried to go against tbe government. He did this by killing off Brutus in the script, even though he was noble.
Josh Swearinen in response to Tamara
I completely agree with you that Shakespeare was setting an example for the people that power does corrupt. I also think that he was showing and example to the people of England by showing them how corrupt leaders, cause people to become angry, and the causes and effects of peoples actions towards their governments.
Matthew Kilgore
I think that Shakespeare is trying to show that people are very suspicious and they don't judge well. If they think that you're a bad leader they will try to prevent you from having power. Brutus and the conspirators stopped Caesar from being able to show what he could do as leader. Caesar didn't even have a chance to really be in charge and before he did the conspirators judged that he was not fit for the role of leader and they killed him. The more power Caesar had the more people started to dislike him and envy him.
Matthew Kilgore
I completely agree with Joshua Redder and the majority does have to agree with people on public decisions. That is why many people took action against the conspirators and started the war.
Matthew Kilgore
I also agree with Joseph Espinoza and you should just deal with the leader you have at the time because there is no telling what might come next. It might be ten times worse and it may be ten times better.
Monecia Bryant
I think that Shakespeare had many different reasons for writing The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, but I believe that one reason was to show the difference in being selfish and selfless. To me Caesar was the example of people who are selfish. He wanted, wanted, and wanted, and didn’t care about what the other people of Rome thought even though they were the ones who got him to where he is. Right before Caesar was murdered Metellus ask Caesar if his banished brother can come back to Rome and Caesar, without a second thought says no without hearing any reason why he should let Metellus’s brother come back. Here I think that Caesar is only thinking of himself and not what others desire. One person I consider to be selfless is Antony. Whenever Caesar was killed Antony thought about the people of Rome and what was in their best interest, not his. He knew that because the conspirators had killed Caesar that it would result in a civil war and all he wanted to do was get Rome back together again as one.
Monecia Bryant reply to Joseph Espinoza
I disagree with you on how you like if we have a bad leader we should "suck it up". I know for a fact that if something is going on that I don't agree with or think is the correct way to do something, I'm not just going to sit there and let it happen and not try and stop it or question it. We have the right to express our concerns that we have about the government, because the government works for us, we don't work for the government. So if we have an issue with the way they are handling things, then it's our job to try and tell them how to fix it. If we don’t do that then nothing would get done and we would just be settling for less than what we deserve.
Monecia Bryant reply to Nathan Leaphart
I like what you said about how the government is like spilled milk. That explains things in a clear and very easy way for people to understand what can happen if we don't do our job as citizens.
Jessica Veronee
The reason that Shakespeare wrote the play Julius Caesar was to show people that all leaders are not always affectionate to their people and too much power can in fact lead to tyranny. Shakespeare feared that since Queen Elizabeth I had no heirs, an individual with no real compassion for Rome would become dictator and things would all corrupt and a war start. Shakespeare was showing his audience what tyranny and too much power can do to a person and the play was sort of a warning for them. Politics always have the most power and can make the most drastic changes so those are the ones you have to look out for. In Julius Caesar, Caesar got too big headed and his power got into his head and he made himself higher than the others. An example of this is when Caesar says that he is "as constant as the Northern Star" stating that he is the brightest and the best and he never changes his mind, which is a false statement because throughout the play he constantly changes his mind. From this play I concluded that I should never let people take advantage of me and to never give people too much power over me.
Jessica Veronee
To: Emily
I am on the same page as you. I feel that Shakespeare was indeed trying to convey that power corrupts and destroys. The whole play was based on that conclusion and I feel that in everyday life we can see that that statement is true. Think about jocks and popular people who play sports or are rich aren't they usually the people who "run the school"? Their ego is a usually larger than the rest of the regulars in the school. That type of behavior makes me lose respect for them and have a negative opinion towards them like you said "arrogance leads to hate from others and it’s very true the more you brag the more people dislike you."
Jessica Veronee
to: Carter T.
I disagree with one of your analysis of the play. "I also think that Shakespeare was sending a warning to Queen Elizabeth. I think this because Queen Elizabeth at the time has sat on the throne for 40 years and if she was to become to power crazy than she may be murdered just like Caesar was." I think that Shakespeare was just using her as an example saying that she had no heirs not saying that she had too much power that she miss used it. I do agree with your comment though on saying I also think that s Shakespeare wrote this play to show people how not to act. I think people were naware of this behavior and they didn't know how to handle it.
I think that Shakespeare's point for Julius Caesar was for us to learn to not just make false impressions like it turned out to be. Some examples are when we are listening to Mark Antony's speech to the people kinda proved that Caesar really did nothing but ended up dying just because a few senators thought that he was going to become power hungry. I can use this to kinda let things play out and not just jump to conclusions.
My coder is trying to convince me to move to .net from PHP.
I have always disliked the idea because of the costs.
But he's tryiong none the less. I've been using Movable-type
on several websites for about a year and am concerned about switching to another platform.
I have heard excellent things about blogengine.
net. Is there a way I can import all my wordpress content into it?
Any help would be really appreciated!
Here is my webpage: vigrx pills
Post a Comment