Julius Caesar: Lesson 3: Thought Questions: Question 6 (Week 7)

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears." Thus begins one of the most famous speeches in the history of literature. Mark Antony begins his tactical and well-oriented manipulation of the crowd with the first of many sarcastic remarks: "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.". He's only started speaking, and he's already saying the exact opposite of what he means! Then, he moves on to the topic of Caesar's ambition. He seems to start or end every point with "But Brutus says he was ambitious, And Brutus is an honorable man." This is the equivalent of saying "Well, what actually happened is one thing, but Brutus' word is far more important. What you see with your own eyes, counts for something, but if Brutus says the opposite, that makes it so, for Brutus is an honorable man." Antony points out how Caesar brought so many captives back to Rome, how he wept along with the poverty stricken, and how he turned down the crown not once, not twice, but three times. After pointing out Caesar's positive traits and dispelling the negative ones, he plants the seeds of doubt by saying "You all loved him once, and not without reason. Then what reason holds you back from mourning him now?", then excuses himself for a moment, possibly to regain his composure, but more likely to give the crowd time to think about what he has said, turning it over in their minds, and discussing it between themselves. Then he continues his speech, stirring up rage against the the conspirators. But let's go back a moment, back to the first part of the speech, the part inspiring love for Caesar, and to an extent, himself. Speaking the exact opposite of what one means seems to be a rather roundabout way to get one's point across. It appears that it would only confuse, but by the speech's end his meaning becomes crystal clear. Was it convincing? Take a look at the play: before Antony spoke, the crowd was shouting "Live, Brutus! Live, live!" and "Give him a statue with his ancestors!", while after Antony spoke, every last plebeian cried "Revenge! Let’s go after them! Seek! Burn! Set fire! Kill! Slay! Leave no traitors alive!" I think that the play speaks for itself.

 

 -McKinley :D

Julius Caesar: Lesson 2: Reiview Questions: Question 5 (Week 6)

Brutus decides to join the conspiracy, easily swayed by Cassius' forged letters. Brutus justifies his action on a "better safe than sorry!" policy, comparing Caesar to a poisonous adder, thinking it better to destroy the egg on the mere possibility that the fully grown serpent could come return one day to harm him. Soon, his fellow conspirators arrive. As they discuss whether or not to assassinate Mark Antony along with Caesar, "Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius, To cut the head off and then hack the limbs, Like wrath in death and envy afterwards, For Antony is but a limb of Caesar. Let us be sacrificers but not butchers, Caius." Brutus seems to contradict what brought him here in the first place! He overlooks the potential threat of Mark Antony, neglecting to crush the egg of what is perhaps an even more deadly beast. Cunning Cassius sees the truth, but agrees with Brutus to stay in his favor. This brings up some shocking similarities with Caesar. He too, was duped, flattered, and manipulated by the conspirators. He too, ignored the potential threat of  Calpurnia's dream, and the Oracle's warnings. And like Brutus', these mistakes would come back to bite him.

 

 -McKinley :D

The Missing Comments

I've been posting comments on "Steph's Blog" (http://stephaniesshakespeare.blogspot.com/), but they still haven't showed up! Maybe it's some kind of technical error or something. Any ideas? Any and all comments would be helpful.

 -McKinley :D

Julius Caesar: Lesson 1: Review Questions: Question 2 (Week 5)

Shakespeare's play mostly revolves around a group of conspirators, their plot against Caesar, and the unforeseen aftereffects of this plot. Although it is up for debate which characters are to be considered "The Main Characters", in my personal opinion the main characters in said play are as follows:

Julius Caesar
Despite the fact the play bears his name, Brutus has over four times as many lines as Caesar. On top of that, the title character dies relatively early in the play. On the other hand, the focus of the other characters often is trained upon Caesar.

Antony
An absolutely loyal friend of Caesar, he remains true to him until the bitter end, and fights for him even after his death.

Octavius
Caesar's adopted son, he returns from abroad halfway through the play to find his father killed. He then joins Antony to avenge Caesar. After the conflict, he succeeds his father.

Brutus
Pity "poor Brutus", torn between his love for Caesar, and his love for Rome. He greatly respects and admires Caesar, but believes his assassination could greatly benefit Rome. Brutus is a rare breed: an honest politician! The others simply envy Caesar, but Brutus actually has other people's best interests at heart. However, the other conspirators exploit Brutus's honesty and easily manipulate him.

Cassius
Shrewd and sly, "Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look." He is jealous of Caesar's power, and will get rid of anything- and anyone- that gets in his way. He uses subtle flattery and forged letters to sway Brutus to his point of view, and eventually succeeds in his attempts to  assassinate Caesar.

These characters are often in the spotlight, or "the focus of the play", and for that reason, they have secured their spots as the "Main Characters" in my mind. They tie the play together, giving it direction and feeling. They intrigue us, repulse us, and win our admiration. These are the characters that, despite their every word being scripted, have so much personality and make Shakespeare's play a timeless work of art.

P.S. After finishing my post I look over it, unsatisfied at my work. Nothing I can do will scratch that itch to make it just right. Is this normal? What can I do? Any and all comments would be welcome.

 -McKinley :D

HenryV: Lesson 4: Review Questions: Question 10

The play ends alluding to a wedding of great ceremony, "Prepare we for our marriage; on which day, My Lord of Burgundy, we’ll take your oath...", quickly followed by the Chorus' apologies for the play, "Thus far with rough and all-unable pen our bending author hath pursued the story", his praise for Henry, "Small time, but in that small most greatly lived this star of England." Then, after touching on Henry VI and making one last apology, the Chorus exits, the curtains are drawn, and the play ends. What does this say about Shakespeare's view of Henry V? The answer seems clear to me; through the Chorus, he emphasizes the achievements of Henry, "Fortune made his sword, By which the world’s best garden be achieved and of it left his son imperial lord." If he was still alive today, I believe Shakespeare would probably put to rest any ideas about a double meaning to "The Mirror of all Christian Kings". In my humble opinion, Shakespeare simply meant it in the first sense, seeing Henry as a reformed low-life who became a great man of God.

P.S. Sorry, but I won't be able to make it to co-op this coming Friday.

Henry V: Review Questions: Question 6

"Upon the king! Let us our lives, our souls, our debts, our careful wives, our children, and our sins lay on the king! We must bear all," Henry laments. He's obviously feeling the crushing weight of  responsibility that comes with such a high position. The only advantage of such a position, he claims, is ceremony; something he cannot see the value of.  It cannot cure disease, its abilities are only of ritual. Just wearing a crown, holding a scepter, or being preceded by a title gives no real power, he argues. Beneath the ceremony he's just an average man, a life he wishes he could have. He would exchange his life and the responsibility that comes with it, for the hard, grueling life of a peasant. In conclusion, it is made explicitly clear that the ultimate difference between commoner and king is, in fact, ceremony. It's the only thing making Henry different from any other man, and in his eyes, the power of ceremony is no power at all!

Henry V: Lesson 2: Review Questions: Question 10

Just before an attack, Henry tells his troops to "... imitate the action of a tiger: Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favored rage, then lend the eye a terrible aspect...", and so on. He's basically telling his men to be fierce and threatening, perhaps trying to boost morale, or make it seem as if his army is more powerful then it actually is. Or perhaps, he's just trying to frighten the enemy into surrendering in order to win the battle without spilling a single drop of blood! This seems like a "sound Christian advice"; after all, no one is hurt, just a peaceful surrender. However, this is a classic example of "The End Justifies the Means" philosophy, something that's definitely not Christ-approved. In fact, this command to inspire fear in the French is just the opposite! I believe that Henry was war-crazed and thirsty for blood. This speech was simply given to inspire his troops and instill in them the same blood lust that came upon Henry.