Act I

Julius Caesar 1.2 225-308
Silent Scenes
Shakespeare often constructs scenes in which significant events are repeated by actors, rather than performed for the audience. The silent enactment in act one, scene two, where Caesar refuses the crown, serves two purposes for the audience. First, we are required to imagine this scenario as a political construct- Antony, offering the crown, is Caesar’s right-hand man. The reader isn’t sure at this point in the action if Antony and Caesar have concocted this little drama as a political ploy, or if another motive should be considered. Second, we hear a biased accounting of the action from the narrator, in this case, Casca. The audience, upon witnessing Casca’s doubt, “he put it [the crown] by once: but, for all that, to my thinking, he would fain have had it”, must acknowledge the legitimacy of the concerns of those whom Cassius is manipulating (I.ii.229-203).
Additionally, the silent scene functions as a tool for characterization. We learn of Casca that he truly detests the commoners of Rome whom he describes as “rabblement” with “chapped hands”, “sweaty night caps”, and “stinking breath” (I.ii.235-237). As a Tribune elected to represent the common people, this snobbery characterizes Casca in so negative a manner that the reader is inclined to distrust everything he says. Casca’s dislike for the plebeians he is supposed to represent, he eloquently labels them “the common herd”, makes the reader question his moral character, and his motive for running for and accepting such a position (I.ii.254). Shakespeare does not want the audience to sympathize with this character; he wants us to dislike him, and we do so easily enough as Casca says, “because Caesar refused the crown that it had almost choked Caesar; for he swounded and fell down at it” in regard to Caesar’s epilepsy, admitting he “durst not laugh, for fear of opening my lips and receiving the bad air”, thus exposing his discriminatory bent in the face of Caesar’s epilepsy (I.ii.238-240). In the same section, Brutus appears impartial; of the three lines he speaks, two are questions he posits while gathering the facts he can from Casca’s tirade. The juxtaposition of the natures of Brutus and Casca allow the audience an object of contempt, and the hope that a character who appears as impartial as Brutus will not be swayed by someone who admits that, as he implies Caesar asked for death because he cannot have the crown, “an I had been a man of any occupation, if I would not have taken him at a word, I would I might go to hell among the rogues” (I.ii.257-259). However, Shakespeare is also setting us up. Casca, in the silent scene, cannot be misinterpreted. He hates Caesar, and he hates Romans, and if he had less to lose he would kill Caesar himself. The reader is, by design, left wondering what character flaw Brutus must have to hold council with men like Casca. 492 words

Share this:

Published by drnorton

100 thoughts on “ Act I ”

Julius Caesar act 1 scene 1 page 9-11. The beginning of Act 1 scene one describes the two sides which have come after the fall of Pompey. Certain characters still loyal to Pompey can be seen in scene in the play such as Flavius, Marullus. The reason for them belonging to Pompey was probably because Pompey provided a sense of dignity to them and gave them a proper honest role in society. With Caesar in power they feel that they have no use and no say in society. In addition to this, they feel threatened that Caesar may abuse his power and spread it among their class and society. Hence both of them plan to take down the images of Julius Caesar but what is their bigger plan? All they want to do is humiliate Caesar and make him feel like no one respects him. This will show how the people do not support him and maybe Flavius and his friend can cause Caesar to step down or even resign from his duty. A quote to support this would be ” So do you too, where you perceive them thick.
These growing feathers plucked from Caesar’s wing
Will make him fly an ordinary pitch,
Who else would soar above the view of men”. The quote shows that they believe Caesars ego has reached too high of a peak and needs to come down like a bird from the sky without feathers. As a result, their plan will go into effect and keep him low. A greater effect of this plan would be to keep Italy decentralized if their is no one ruler in charge and keep the city-states in place and maybe Flavius and Marallus can take over? In addition to this another quote to support this analysis would be “That Tiber trembled underneath her banks
To hear the replication of your sounds
Made in her concave shores?
And do you now put on your best attire?
And do you now cull out a holiday?
And do you now strew flowers in his way
That comes in triumph over Pompey’s blood?
Be gone!”. Marallus here can be seen as a conservative and does not like a new revolution or take over as a Caesar as a dictator and liberalism does not suit him. He believes everyone has just forgot about Pompey and that may just be because Pompey did not provide any rights to the lower and middle class families. Like Liked by 2 people

I like how you gave a reason as to why Flavius and Marullus were in favor of Pompey by highlighting how their status was affected by a shift in leadership. It is true that under Pompey they were able to express themselves and that with Caesar their voice will be suppressed. By analyzing the reason for their liking of Pompey, it can be said that the townspeople support Caesar as they have their best interest in mind too. This claim can further be supported as the play states that when Pompey was alive these same townspeople celebrated his achievements, and now with Caesar in charge, give him equal respect. The townspeople’s status is highlighted here as they are shown to be weak. They are not truly loyal to Pompey or Caesar, but they know that under the leader’s control they cannot do anything. Unlike Flavius and Marullus who were able to express themselves previously due to their position, these townspeople had no say before and still do not, so the wisest choice for them is to agree with whoever rules them to avoid problems. Like Like

Kendall Lippe says:

This was a really well worded response and your perspective on this scene sparks conversation. With Caesar in power society feels limited and therefore Pompey drives self expression and opens up room for new conversation about the extent of Caesars rule. As previously stated interfering with the autocratic rule can lead to major problems, and staying away from conflict will not only prevent group dispute but overall tension within Rome. The quotes in your response display how Caesar’s ego has reached its peak and negative consequences will soon follow. Flavius and Marullus both create tension during this scene and make the reader feel suspicious for the actions to come. Like Like

Kevin Sun says:

I agree that the characters Marullus and Flavius are not loyal to Caeser. They instead are resentful and jealous of Caesar’s new gain of power and want to remove him from that position. The characters liked Pompey more as a leader because they were able to voice their opinion and have more authority under him. By humiliating Caesar, Flavius and Marullus want to accomplish making Caeser step down from his position due to lack of support or confidence. Technically, they are not loyal to any leader but instead are temporarily loyal to those who give them a voice. I also like the description of Caesar flying like a bird because it is very representative of power and social status. Caesar represents the almighty bird gaining the liking of the townspeople while Flavius and Marullus represent those who want to shoot him down from the sky or his position of power. Like Like

I also believe that Act I shows the harboring resentment that the characters Flavius and Marullus have against Caesar. The two men resent the fact that Caesar is now in power and that the people of the city are cheering for Caesar. For example, Murullus becomes increasingly angry at a common man who says that he is not working in order to observe Caesar’s triumph. Murullus argues that Caesar is not as great as he seems, and his interaction with the common man walking past them serves two purposes. First, it shows the fickleness of people due to human nature. The townspeople praised Pompey while Pompey was in power and in all his glory. However, once Caesar rose to power, the townspeople are quick to praise Caesar without any questions. The people are seen to have no deep sense of loyalty. This shows that people are quick to like whoever offers them the most, as Caesar was a “ruler of the common people”. Murullus’ strong resentment also shows that not everyone can be happy when one person rises to power. I agree with your post in that the tribunes liked Pompey because he gave them a sense of dignity and offered them more than what Caesar gave them. They are threatened by Caesar’s presence and he cannot offer them what Pompey did for them. Thus, they resent Caesar and want to diminish his powers. Like Like

Estelle La
I agree, Marullus and Flavius show resentment to Caesar and are unloyal. Unlike Pompey, Caesar didn’t give citizen’s a voice and it angered and upset some civilians. This shows that these characters only favor those who give them an advantage. They don’t give complete loyalty to any one of the leaders. The townspeople are almost threatened by Caesar’s great power, which leads them to blindly follow and praise him. Therefore, this causes the townspeople to grow more resentment towards Caesar and foreshadows his future. Like Like

I agree with you that Marallus and Flavius feel like they have no say in society. I was confused about how they both contributed to the play, but now I understand their motives and reasoning behind wanting to overthrow Caesar from the throne. In Pompey, the two men had a role in society but under Caesar’s rule, they no longer felt the same, hence their combined efforts to take Caesar down. Like Like

In Act 1 Scene 1, an exchange between a cobbler, Marullus and Flavius took place on the topic of Pompey’s defeat and Caesar’s rule. This exchange exhibits the support Pompey received prior to Caesar’s rule. In this section, Marullus is expressing his disgust of the support the townspeople give to Caesar and accuses them of forgetting how good of a leader Pompey was. Analyzing this quote along with known background information on the play, we receive insight to what kind of supporters Pompey had. Pompey was generally appreciated by politicians and wealthy individuals. Caesar on the other hand was well received by the people and had popular opinion. This dialogue shows the disgust an individual who was most likely wealthy and involved in politics feels about those who supported Caesar and the townspeople’s ill-feeling towards Pompey, hence calling them “you worse than senseless things” (I.i.39). The distinction of opinion is clearly present and helps the readers gain insight about the characters values, beliefs, opinions, and social positioning. According to Marullus, the townspeople are ungrateful for forgetting all that Pompey did before they started to follow Caesar. The exchange between Casca and Cassius in Act 1 Scene 2 illustrates what happens to those who disapprove of Caesar’s rule. Due to the lack of support of Caesar during the prior exchange and disrespect they showed to Caesar by removing decorations on Caesar’s statues, Marullus and Flavius were “put to silence” (I.ii.297). This quote exhibits how much power Caesar received, and how those who disapproved of his rule were most likely put to death. The beginning of Caesar’s rule has presented challenges and distinct divisions between social classes due to loyalties to the former ruler Pompey, yet the power that Caesar and his supporters hold is evident since anyone who thinks otherwise of him is silenced. Like Like

Based on your statements, it is evident that the Romans under Caesar are suppressed. They cannot speak out against their ruler, someone who is later thought to be near tyranny by his own people. But a question remains, concerning the common people: Does anyone know of this disposal? They may know that these certain people disappeared, however they may not know the method of killing said individuals. They may be thought of as traitors to Caesar and all other subsequent Romans, and enjoy the thought of them being dead. Though they were scheming, they certainly were not planning something as elaborate as an assassination plot to kill Caesar. This small act costed them their lives, and the citizens may not even know what had crossed their minds before their sentence. Like Like

It is then possible that the group of conspirators is not truly keeping in mind the benefit of the people; rather they are concerned with only themselves since Caesar seems like the better option for the general public. This raises the important argument if Caesar’s death was actually justified or if the group was merely manipulating their power and resources for personal gain. Like Like

Many conspirators, including Marullus and Flavius, spoke out against Caesar, but in this situation the result was death. After analysis, was the killing of Marullus and Flavius uncivilized and wrong? These protesters were against Caesar’s power and wanted to stop him before tyranny was established, but does this initial action (the killing of opposers) show that Caesar would have actually been a strict dictator in the future? In this case, looking forward, maybe the killing of Caesar was justified. The common people saw Pompey as overbearing and unjust towards the non-wealthy citizens and fought for their right to express their opinions and have a government support them. When they got what they wanted, they immediately showed support for Caesar but bashed supporters of Pompey. Is this not the same situation as it was under Pompey’s rule, but with roles reversed? This shows Caesar’s immense power, and because he killed opposers early on in his rule, Caesar may have actually become too powerful in the future, as predicted by the conspirators. Like Like

It is also important to note that Flavius and Marullus attempted to take down decorations that drastically exaggerated his victory. Caesar is very obviously a popular figure and thus anyone who dare speak against him is seen as radicalism. However when you are attempting to prevent foreshadowing repetition of power abuse, radicalism is justified. I agree that Caesar attempted to silence opposition and he would have become a tyrant. Like Liked by 1 person

Throughout the play, Caesar himself proves to be a very humble character, declining the crown numerous times. Although, in order to portray strong leadership skills, one must apply force at one point or another so the people can have a feeling of trust and protection. Therefore, the early killing of Marullus and Flavius does not justify Caesar as a manipulative and strict future dictator, but rather a confident protector of the people and a strong leader. Like Like

I agree with your statements in Act 1. I love that you compared the two leaders, Pompey and Caesar, because they were both differed in a variety of ways. Caesar was definitely well known by the people, however, Pompey was respected by the higher ranking individuals (Wealthy, Political, etc.). By examining their different leadership skills, we get a better understanding of what the citizens look for in a leader. Like Like

These statements make it apparent that no matter who was ruler, not all of the citizens would be content and happy. Like in today’s society, people in the play have different political views and understandings. However, in the play Caesar put to death those who disapproved. It opens the idea that the citizens opinions were made selfishly and not with the thought of who was actually a better ruler. Like Like

I agree with you on one main thing. To keep in power those rulers would do anything that would serve only them good and make sure that no other ruler has the ability to take their place. I would not say that the people are ungrateful but are more leaning to Caesar because of how much more he can give to the people than Pompey almost like a bribe. Both rulers were strong and supported yet when one dies one ruler always rises up to take place. Like Like

I agree with the previous statements on Caesar as a ruler. He was very popular with the people because of his humbleness. While he did kill those with different opinions, or anyone that spoke against him, this was very common at the time. That of course is not an excuse, but I think it shows a reason he did so. It also is important to note because the conspiritors were looking to have a better ruler, but Caesar proves himself more understanding and humble than other rulers of their time. So that brings up the question if the conspirators used the “ending of a tyranny” as a cover up for an alternative motive, such as getting power for themselves. Like Like

These statements heavily imply that all who disagreed with him were put to death. This is just not the case. Marullus and Flavius were disrespecting Ceasar by taking down his decorations. Shakespeare never went into depth about what silencing actually meant. There are three possibilities.
1. Execution
2. Torture
3. Tongues cut out
All were pretty gruesome, but this should be expected from the time period. Don’t disrespect the ruler. Like Like

Julius Caesar 1.1 32-80
Introduction of Liberals vs. Conservatives Conflict The beginning of the play opens on a somewhat lighthearted note as Flavius and Marullus question a carpenter and cobbler as to what they are doing at that period of time. This eventually leads to the reason for them being there. They are there to celebrate the return of Caesar. The text states,”‘Truly, sir, to wear out their shoes, to get myself into more work. But indeed, sir, we make holiday to see Caesar and to rejoice in his triumph’”(I.i.32-35). Here, we can see that the people of Rome actively support Caesar and his viewpoints. We would assume from here that most of Rome would be in support of Caesar then. However, it is clear in the following lines and in Flavius’ tone that Caesar is not loved by all. The author uses the introduction of the play as a way to show the main conflict of the story. The main conflict appears to be that people who were still in support of Pompey see Caesar as nothing more than a military figure and nobody to be looked up to, while the commoners of Rome celebrate Caesar and his actions. This conflict can be boiled down to conservatives versus liberals. The conservatives clearly seek to “conserve” the classic atmosphere of Rome and were in favor of Pompey’s way of rule. The liberals see new light in the form of Caesar and his conquests. We can see in the previous quote that commoners are portrayed as liberals here in the play. The conservatives include those like Flavius and Marullus; people who idolized Pompey and that for which he stood for. A quote that shows this states,”‘O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Rome, Knew you not Pompey? Many a time and oft Have you climbed up to walls and battlements, To towers and windows, yea, to chimney tops, Your infants in your arms, and there have sat The livelong day, with patient expectation, To see great Pompey pass the streets of Rome’”(I.i.41-47). This shows how the conservatives of Rome felt about the change of rule that is occurring during this act. Here, Marullus represents conservatives in Rome through his undying support of Pompey. Afterwards, the two conservative Romans then send the liberal commoners to the Tiber to “repent for their sins”. The author uses this moment to show the divide between the commoners and the Senate. The author shows that the conflict of conservatives versus liberals end up being the main conflict in Rome. Through the introduction, we learn that the conservatives have not treated the liberals of the country the correct way. As a retaliation, the commoners of Rome decided to support Caesar. This serves as the main plot device for the entirety of the play, from before the start of the play to the death of Caesar. Like Like

I definitely agree with this take on the power struggle that is seen in Act I. The struggle between the rich and middle-class that is seen in terms of support of Pompey vs Caesar is also seen mirrored even today in modern politics. Conservative decisions under massive scrutiny include practices, like tax breaks, where the rich benefit, but the majority of the people do not. These kinds of decisions are inferred to be seen under Pompey’s rule. Instead, the common people prefer a leader in their favor, Caesar. In terms of the liberal and conservative debate present in modern bipartisan politics, liberal supporters believe that the common people should come first (like Caesar), while conservative supporters are said to be in support of past traditions and practices (like Pompey). Like Like

I agree that a struggle for power is visible in Act 1 of the play. The struggle shown is relatable to politics of the modern era, showing that not many things have changed in the number of years that have gone by. I am able to infer that the decisions made happened under the rule of Pompey. However, the citizens of this era seem to want a leader that works in a way that benefits them. Like Like

Kevin Sun says:

One part of your response I agree with is the clear contrast between the opposing sides of the liberals and conservatives. While the original followers of Pompey are hesitant to listen to Caesar, the townspeople are open to his ideas because they were suppressed by the past leader. The past powers of authority such as Flavius would rather worship a cruel leader that could allow for him to have a voice. The conservative way of strict policies on the common people for their own benefits is similar to the corruption of governments of the present. Overall, the struggle between the townspeople is shown when they retaliate by supporting the fair leader Caesar. Like Like

The real question here is what are Marallus and Flavius their to celebrate? Sure in the text it says that but I believe they are celebratign Caesars downfall almost like a foreshadowing sequence. In addition to this, Conservatives the second Caesar came to power were wiped out or their party became more disapproved due to the rise of Liberalism in during that time. Liberalism appealed to more of the people because most of the people were commoners and as a result needed a ruler who could make their lives better. Like Like

While I do agree with your point that there is definitely a conflict between liberals and conservatives within Julius Caesar. I don’t necessarily believe that Shakespeare use Act 1 Scene 1 of the play to establish this specific conflict. I believe that in this scene Shakespeare establishes the fact that the Roman public (known as the plebeians) are very easy to influence, and that they are willing to change allegiances towards whoever is in power. As highlighted by Flavius and Marullus, the plebeians had originally supported Pompey during the Roman Civil War but are now in support of Caesar. I think the main reason for the switch in allegiance is that Roman Emperors have historically held near absolute power over the empire and that they generally used their power to silence anyone who opposed them. Because of this, I believe that Shakespeare used Act 1 Scene 1 of Julius Caesar to indirectly establish the amount of power Caesar obtains and also establish how easy it is for the plebeians to switch sides. Like Like

In Act 1 Scene 1 of Julius Caesar, Flavius, Murellus, and a cobbler are talking about Caesar and his recent victory in battle over his arch rival Pompey. Murellus scolds the other men for their disloyalty towards their old leader Pompey and tells the men to “pray to the gods to intermit the plague / That needs must light on this ingratitude” (I,i,53-54). The way Flavius and Murellus treat the cobbler shows that in this time, laborers were seen as lower-class as Murellus sees the cobbler’s transition to supporting Caesar as forgetfulness. Also, in this scene, Flavius and Murellus’ concern about Caesar’s quick rise to power represents the consolidation of power in Europe as many absolute monarchies were being established.Eventually, Caesar assumed dictatorial power and changed Rome from a republic to an empire. Flavius and Murellus’ interest in the public opinion also foreshadows the struggle for power that occurs later in the book and shows that the leaders will have to win the public favor. In Act 1 Scene 2 of Julius Caesar, Caesar tells Antony that he feels threatened by men who look like Cassius because he is a man who thinks too much and is therefore dangerous to Caesar. When Caesar is talking about Cassius, he says, “He loves no plays. / As thou dost Anthony: he hears no music. / Seldom he smiles, and smiles in such a sort / As if he mocked himself, and scorned his spirit / That could be moved to smile at anything” (I,ii,204-208). This quote depicts Cassius as a public man without a suggestion of a private life. Caesar says a man like this makes him feel uncomfortable. In reality, Cassius is trying to overthrow Caesar and attempts to persuade Brutus towards the end of this scene. He aims at Brutus’ weakest point: Brutus’ concern for Rome’s well-being. Brutus, with inflexible ideas, is persuaded by Cassius, who has made himself able to survive politically by abandoning his sense of honor. Like Like

I liked the point you made about the social classes in Rome because I believe it develops the characters and the conflict in the story as certain classes will side with Caesar while others will side with Pompey. It becomes apparent that Caesar feels easily threatened by those in power, like Cassius, because they are not as easily manipulated. This will create a divide between those who rely on Caesar and those who prefer the independence of Pompey, and serve as the central political conflict in the play. Like Like

I agree that Brutus is easily swayed by the thought of Caesar turning corrupt as he gains access to additional power. Brutus truly only believes this is the best available outcome for his country. It makes Brutus easy to manipulate to do the planning and unsavory work of Cassius. As you stated earlier, Caesar was aware of Cassius and other plans he might have, but would probably not keep close tags on Brutus, believing him to be a friend. Cassius was clever in that respect, to choose someone Caesar would not worry about, in order to bring Caesar’s downfall and death. Like Like

Yes I agree that Marallus and Flavius show much more than the commoners ideas; as you said they show the foreshadowing that will happen later on in the book. Caesar I would say would probably just be a dictator not a absolute monarchy cause he had a lot of say in the government and was not just a superficial person in charge. And Cassius also had alot of say as the senate. By analyzing Brutus one can tell of the problems he is ought to bring because of Rome being his 1st family while humans his 2nd shows devotion and Nationalism. On the other hand, he can be easily manipulated for the benefit of the state and as a result Cassius targets the honorable man. Like Like

Act One of Julius Caesar shows the crowd’s loyalty to Caesar. Although they once used to celebrate Pompey’s victories, now they honor Caesar’s defeat of Pompey. This act demonstrates that Caesar’s popularity is soaring through the roof, and he influences all the people around him. An example of this rise of influence is during Elizabeth period where the English were concerned about separation of powers. This advance in power threatened the power of the established system. This is what Flavius and Murellus were concerned about, they did not like seeing Caesar having so many effects on the crowd. Caesar started to gain many supporters, and more supporters means more power. The increase in power was Shakespeare’s description of what was happening politically before the play/tragedy was written.
Flavius and Murellus are noted for being very worried about Caesar’s power and they are even punished for removing the decorations from the statues of Caesar. In the text, “Wherefore rejoice? What conquest brings he home?” (Act 1 Scene 1 Julius Caesar). Murellus attempts to diminish Caesar’s significance by suggesting that Caesar did not bring anything home. He did not defeat any empires or conquer any countries so he did not add to the glory of Rome.
The reader can assume that these men feel slightly threatened by having Caesar with so much power. The two men do not like the idea of Caesar having absolute power and they believe that the people have forgotten about the great city of Pompey. They try to decrease Caesar’s power by destroying the decorations that were supposed to celebrate him. The text states, ““These growing feathers plucked from Caesar’s wing / Will make him fly an ordinary pitch” (Act 1 Scene 1 Julius Caesar). The growing feathers are the increase in power and the favor of the crowd which will make him a normal man if they are taken from him. Flavius and Murellus want to embarrass Caesar because they think this will make Caesar believe that no one respects him. Like Like

I do agree with your conclusion that supporters of Pompey, like Marullus and Flavius, were against Caesar and fearful of his growing power. Although Caesar’s supporters, and even some readers, are wholeheartedly against Pompey, stating his rule was unfair and unjustified, Caesar’s actions in this act show that maybe Caesar is gaining too much power as predicted by conspirators. Later in the act, Flavius and Marullus are killed, inferring the reason is because of their opposition to Caesar. Does this killing support the notion that Caesar is becoming too powerful, and that Caesar will actually become like a dictator in the future? While this event alone does fully justify the killing of Caesar, future actions by the new ruler may prove that the minority of opposers were actually right in their beliefs. Like Like

Edit: While this event alone does NOT fully justify the killing of Caesar, future actions by the new ruler may prove that the minority of opposers were actually right in their beliefs. Like Like

I fully agree with your justification on why Flavius and Marullus disrespect Caesar. I also think that it brings to light the reasons on why his peers dislike him as the story advances. Brutus and others also realize the power Caesar has gained and feel as though they must put a stop to it before a dictatorship is put in place. The struggle for power is a common theme in the play and although this is no excuse to kill someone, it provides insight to how the characters were thinking and feeling. Like Like

An interesting character dynamic that I would like to be answered and your post briefly touched on is the true reason for why Flavius and Murellus dislike Julius Caesar. The commonly regurgitated reason is that they fear how much power he holds and want to control his influence, but this does not fully explain why the two have a problem with Julius Caesar specifically instead of the position of dictator or emperor itself. What is it about Julius Caesar’s path to leadership and actions during said leadership that worry Flavius and Murellus? You suggested that Caesar’s lack of success in regards to conquering means he did not add glory to Rome. Perhaps his great charisma has earned him popularity and lionization that Flavius and Murellus do not feel is warranted. I would also propose that perhaps Caesar’s unorthodox rise to power instead of the traditional inheritance of the throne through the bloodline may have brought out some opposition from Roman citizens that are used to its tradition. Like Like

During their revolt, Merullius and Flavius decide to remove the party decorations set up in celebration of Julius Caesar and his defeat of Pompey’s son. They remember back to the time when they celebrated Pompey’s return as they did with Caesar and are surprised at how fast the people lost their loyalty. I think the reason these two acted in this way was because of their fear of Julius’s power. From previous knowledge, we know their government used to consist of both of them, but after a disagreement, Julius killed Pompey in battle. Julius now returns in a chariot from a battle where he killed Pompey’s son to make sure Pompey’s family couldn’t come after him. Merullius and Flavius recognized Caesar’s actions as an attempt to maintain his absolute power. I think their actions result from their fear of Caesar becoming a tyrant. They fear the levels he will reach to continue his rule. They saw how quickly he turned against and killed his partner ruler, and fear he wouldn’t hesitate to turn against his people or become a tyrant. To revolt against Caesar, they make a plan to remove all of Caesar’s return decorations to prevent him from becoming too proud of himself. Flavius states on page 1, “Go you down that way toward the Capitol; disrobe the images, If you do find them deck’d with ceremonies” and later “let no images be hung with Caesar’s trophies” (Shakespeare 1-2, act 1 scene 1). They decide to humiliate the image of Caesar by ruining the pictures and creating a negative image of him. I think they decide to do this in the hope that it will reduce Casar’s pride and prevent or at least prolong his attempt to overthrow the republic. They fear he will become an absolute king and a tyrant, and take these measures to try to prevent it. Like Like

Removing decorations put up for someone’s return, I agree, definitely demonstrates dislike towards them and can be taken as an attempt to ruin their image. Merullius and Flavius are not happy with Caesar’s fame and therefore try to defame him. This behavior slightly relates to the modern concept of bullying due to jealousy, in schools today. A bully makes his/her target a person who he/she does not want to see happy or successful. The bully is bothered by the “victim’s” high-standing image and tries to get rid of it through lies and manipulation hoping it will decrease the “victim’s” self- esteem and status. In today’s time, this happens through rumors being spread in person and on social media. Flavius and Merullius have the same motive for taking down Caesar’s decorations as they are lying about the town’s true feelings. When Caesar will see that there are no decorations, his self- esteem will be low compared to when seeing how much the townspeople actually like him. Coming back from a heroic victory, as viewed so by some people, a person expects to have a grand welcome, and Caesar not receiving one ruins his image as a hero. Like Like

Kevin Sun says:

This response truly shows what extent leaders can go to in order to gain absolute power and control. Caesar chooses to return in a chariot from a battle with Pompey’s son to display his authority over others and shows his pride and ego. Recognizing this Marullus and Flavius decide to take down the decorations, an act truly showing their intention of removing Caesar’s role and to stop him from being a tyrant. Caesar’s actions really define what type of person he is, showing his thirst and desire for power. He is willing to possibly sacrifice his comrades for the sake of gaining power and authority. Fear is also created in Flavius and Marullus which I agree with you. This causes them to take drastic measures even though it may seem like a small hint or measures even though it may seem like a small hint or foreshadowing towards future actions. Like Like

Taking down decorations set up for someone else, shows the amount of hatred and dislike Merullius and Flavius have towards Caesar, even when Caesar is coming home from a major victory. Before Caesar defeated Pompey’s son, Caesar was on the side of Pompey, and now there is no loyalty left. Taking down the decorations, is a way for Merullius and Flavius to stop Caesar from becoming a tyrant, and are attempting to control him, because they can sense Caesar need for power and desire to be on top. I agree with you when you say that Merullius and Flavius actions come from fear of Caesar’s power. They want to keep Caesar in check because he turned on his partner without much thought. By taking down the decorations, they hope to reduce Caesar’s pride, and want Caesar to feel less like a tyrant. Like Like

I agree with you, by fearing Caesar’s power, Merullius and Flavius try to portray a negative image of Caesar in order to cool down his ego. This clearly demonstrates the complex politics going on in Act 1 as Caesar’s previous exploits of ruthlessness and cold politics resemble how he would do anything to keep absolute power. This then leads to them fearing Cesaer’s coldbloodedness in the safety of their own. In this case, both Merullius and Flavius revert to their instincts of self-preservation as Caesar appears as a threat to their political power especially after as you mentioned how he killed not only his rival Pompey but his son too to remain in power. To Merullius and Flavis drastic measured had to be taken in order to stop the rising tyrant. Like Like

This is a very valid point and it can almost be used as a justification for tragic death of Caesar if we were to look at the overall picture. Not only do I agree that Merullius and Flavius were acting out of fear, but I also believe that other characters too, such as Brutus and other conspirators were also acting out of fear which can be seen as one of the reasons why they began plotting Caesar’s murder to begin with. While some of the conspirators, such as Cassius, were solely committing the crime for their own personal gain, the others were most likely just as afraid or worried about how Caesar would abuse his power had he taken the crown for Rome. The context you provided helps establish this fear, as you demonstrated how quick Caesar was to kill both Pompey and his son to maintain and establish his power. Like Like

I loved your point of view and how you explained the reasoning behind Merullius and Flavius removing decorations placed for Caesar. Your response helped me envision what was the thought process behind even just the undecorating of the city along with how they viewed Caesar after the defeat of Pompey as someone who could easily backstab and control the Roman empire as a tyrant. The play opening with two Romans talking about their distaste with Caesar help strengthen, and in a way foreshadow, his death soon to come. This reasoning helped explain how Merullius and Flavius were able to justify their place in the death of Caesar or even just the removal of something as simple as decorations in an attempt to make Caesar doubt himself as leader. Like Like

The conversation between Cassius and Brutus in Act I Scene II about the time Cassius saved Caesar from drowning can lead the reader to believe that Cassius is jealous of Caesar and that is why he is trying to plot his murder. When Cassius tells the story, he starts by describing Caesar and himself as equals, as well as including Brutus in an attempt to persuade him to his cause. The play states, “I was born free as Caesar; so were you;/ We both have fed as well, and we can both/ Endure the winter’s cold as well as he… (lines 104-106). These comments help to set up Cassius’ viewpoint of Caesar as an ordinary Roman citizen that does not deserve the power he is about to receive, especially not when he does not receive the same. In addition, Cassius continues, “And this man/ Is now become a god, and Cassius is a wretched creature that must bend his body/ If Caesar carelessly but nod at him” (lines 123-125). This opinions illustrates the motives of Cassius as he attempts to sway Brutus into thinking the same way by continuing to describe Caesar in a demeaning, belittling way. Cassius uses phrases like “lose his luster”, “this god did shake”, and his “coward lips” as he continues to elaborate on his story that is now spiraling into a tangent. However, this tangent is interrupted by shouting and we never hear what Brutus has to say in response to this rant as he instead comments on the shouts instead. I believe this is a plot device used by Shakespeare to create a one sided argument as Cassius continues to persuade Brutus, or the audience, since he does not give the reader any other point of view at this time. Cassius is power-hungry and needs the help of Brutus in order to gain the power he desires. It is clear that Cassius believes he is an equal to Caesar and resents the fact that he is popular and treated like a “god” and he is not. When Caesar is crowned, Cassius will be another Roman citizen and Caesar will have significantly more power, a fact that Cassius refuses to accept. Like Like

I love how you explain that Cassius actions and what he says is a foreshadowing of his plan to betray Caesar. I agree with you that the authors indirect characterization of Cassius shows his jealousy, but I also think it shows his anger and want to prove Caesar as unfit as a ruler. Most things Cassius say is a small stab at Caesar’s reputation, which is all he can do until he can eventually actually stab him. Cassius uses a lot of degrading and negative phrases, not only to prove Caesar’s weakness, but to deceive those around him. Through his cunning words he is eventually able to convince Brutus to help murder his best friend, Caesar. I also love how you mention the ordinary Roman citizen. This simple character represents the bond Caesar and the people have, and the inferior relationship between Cassius and the people. I think this is why Cassius turned to Brutus to betray Caesar, because he knew he could never win the hearts of the people and achieve the role as a solitary ruler with Caesar still around. Like Like

I agree that in Act 1- Scene 2, Cassius is developed as a character and like you mentioned, his jealousy and intentions are revealed by his consistent attempts of persuading Brutus. It should also be noted that this section provides insight on Brutus as a significant character in the play. At this point in the play, Brutus is Caesar’s loyal friend and is treated as such by Caesar, so evidently it will be difficult for Brutus to turn against him. Brutus not siding with Cassius shows how he values loyalty in friendship, but the dialogue between them also illustrates how the state of the government is important for him, as well. Cassius especially brings up the point that Caesar will be crowned because a crown is associated with royalty and monarchy which their government is not. Knowing Brutus’s care for the government, Cassius wants Brutus to question where his loyalty is at: his friend or the Republic. Like Like

I agree completely with your analysis and particularly like how you concluded that the lack of response from Brutus was a literary device that helped the reader in viewing the argument as one sided. You are correct in saying that this entire tirade from Cassius is aiding in the set up of Caesar’s eventual downfall. I think that Shakespeare used this particular speech to reveal Cassius’ motivations for his eventual plans, but wanted to be sure that it was made clear Brutus didn’t condone and even necessarily recognize the slandering of Caesar which was occurring. In order to keep Brutus separate from Cassius’ beliefs without separating him from the situation all together, he listened to the rant without responding to, or agreeing with, it in any way. I also strongly agree with the notion this indirectly characterized Cassius through revealing his motivations, future plans, and feelings about Caesar, someone who up to this point in the story has only been recognized as respectable and a war hero. Cassius’ obvious hate for someone who seems honorable displays his jealousy and reveals his bad character like few other things could. Like Like

I agree with your explanation about the development of Cassius as a character. I definitely believe this is Shakespeare’s use of foreshadowing to when Cassius will betray Caesar. Cassius is basically following Caesar’s every move, waiting for him to mess up so that he can prove Caesar as an inadequate leader. Cassius is insanely jealous of Caesar and desires most that he can attain more power. He already acknowledges that they are “equals” when in reality, are not. This shows Cassius’s aspiration for power, foreshadowing that he will do anything to attain any sort of power that would place him at a higher ranking than Caesar. Like Like

Estelle La.
I completely agree with your analysis. Cassius is clearly shown as a jealous character who is envious of Caesar’s power. He uses many harsh and negative words to describe Caesar to Brutus. Cassius wants to turn everyone against Caesar, and he starts with his best friend. He does this to damage Caesar’s reputation among citizens and to turn Brutus against his best friend. This foreshadows that Cassius plays a big part of Caesar’s death. This form of indirect characterization proves Cassius’ desire for power and his feelings about Caesar. Like Like

Describing Cassius’ actions and how they foreshadow his plan to betray Caesar was an important part of Act I and shows how jealous he is of Caesar. His main reason for saying this was show that Caesar is not a good leader and that the world would be better off if Caesar were murdered. Cassius uses many derogatory sentences towards Caesar, and attempts to make Brutus see the same way. I agree with you when you say that Shakespeare used more of one- sided argument tactic, as Cassius is trying to get Brutus on his side. Cassius wants the power and does not want to be just a Roman citizen. Like Like

This is a very interesting analysis Allison! When I first read this interaction between the men, I interpreted the beginning of Cassius’ story as an attempt to put himself on the same pedestal that Caesar was on. I did not really think about how it could have been Cassius trying to bring Caesar down to his level by projecting his insecurities unto him. Do you think it could have been a mix of both? I also think it is interesting how you brought up that Cassius being interrupted could have been a ploy by Shakespeare to increase doubts about Caesar. The fact that Brutus does not really get to respond also kind of forces the audience into only being able to analyze and interpret what Cassius said as there was a lack of a rebuttal. Like Like

I agree that Cassius’ characteristics and opinions such as his jealousy towards Caesar’s position are greatly evident throughout this scene. The conversation between Brutus and Cassius in Act I Scene II is approximately the first time we see how much of a dislike Cassius has towards Caesar. When reading this scene, I also noticed how although the conversation brings forward Cassius’ negative opinions, the readers are left to imagine what Brutus’ feelings are due to his lack of response. The idea that this may indicate a “one-sided argument” is well constructed, and displays how Brutus may have contradicting opinions. We, as readers, are also aware of Brutus and Caesar’s long (and supposedly loyal) friendship which aids in the audience’s understanding of why Brutus did not respond nor agree with any of Cassius’ statements. As Cassius continuously describes Caesar in a demeaning way, the overall idea that this scene serves as a foundation for Caesar’s murder plot is definitely an agreeable statement. Like Like

I agree that Cassius, although he saved Ceasar, believes he is more superior than Ceasar is, therefore, he would have killed Ceasar for his own selfish reason. I also agree that the comments help set up the Cassius backstory and the reason why he killed Ceasar. When Ceaser says something to Antony, Brutus interprets this the wrong way, which have been one of the reasons he wanted to destroy Ceaser as well. Cassius also takes small steps to persuade everyone around him that Ceaser is a bad person to take a larger step in ruining Ceaser’s reputation. When he gets Brutus in his plans, the reader can see Cassius has his own agenda. I believe Cassius hopes to ignite jealousy in Brutus in turn for power. I also agree that Cassius will be another normal citizen and I think it is good that you mentioned that because while Cassius is doing everything in his power to gain more power, but at the end of the day he does not want to accept this fact and wants to find an easier way to gain this power in which he resorts to his evil ways. Like Like

Shakespeare uses direct and indirect characterization in his writings to create more mystery and depth in his characters. In Julius Caesar Act 1 Scene 1, two characters, Flavius and Murellus, are introduced while they derisively order a common cobble worker to get back to work. When the cobble worker replies to Flavius and Murellus stating that he is on holiday in order to celebrate Caesar’s triumph, an argument arises due to their disagreement in values. In this scene, the two men are portrayed as very strict and aggravated. However, there is no specific quote that states these traits about the characters. These personality traits can be inferred by the reader by listening to the way the men talk and how they act. Later in this scene, Flavius and Murellus begin to question the commoner’s values. They continue by saying, “Wherefore rejoice? What conquest brings he home? What tributaries follow him to Rome/To grace in captive bonds his chariot wheels? You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things/O you hard hearts, you cruèl men of Rome/Knew you not Pompey?” (lines 32-37). Flavius and Murellus are getting upset in this scene and arguing with the commoner because they believe that Caesar is not fit to rule. In this quote, the tone and word choice used also helps indirectly characterize the men as strict and aggravated. The reader can see the passion and respect the men have for Pompey by the way they speak of it. Flavius and Murellus also show traits of bravery in the ways they speak out for what they believe in. The characterization Shakespeare uses creates more depth in the characters regarding their beliefs, personality, and overall values. The depth created in the characters also causes the way they act to have a deeper underlying meaning. Like Like

I disagree that the characterization in Shakespeare’s work creates mystery around the characters. Your evidence only serves to explain more about the characters rather than explain how it creates mystery. In the case of Flavius and Marullus, I would argue that their attitude is largely a result of their position in society as they stand quite high hierarchically as evidenced by their positions as tribunes in the government. Their attitudes may also be a result of this as the power they have likely gives them justification for the condescending attitude towards the commoners. This belief in their superiority helps to develop their society as they discuss the fickleness of the commoner’s political beliefs. Like Like

I agree with your point that Shakespeare uses these quotes to build depth to the character and not a mysterious tone, but the character’s opinions may be rooted in more than hierarchy alone. It may also be very well rooted in their personal experiences in war or the governmental system. It is inferred that these people are commoners as well, maybe their opinion is also dependent on the level of education they have received. I also agree with your justification as to why they may have been condescending; power is definitely an important theme portrayed throughout the play. Like Like

I love how you stated that Shakespeare uses direct and indirect characterization because it shows us readers how the author portrayed this story. I wish you used more detail to describe each individual scene because if I had never read this story before I wouldn’t understand the full context of this act. Overall I think you did a fabulous job and I believe you fully stated your point, I also enjoyed how you described the tone and word choice of each quote you told the audience traits about the play which can help the readers understand more of the play they are reading. Like Like

I agree that Shakespeare uses some mystery to characterize characters. but the quotes you used do not provide valid evidence for how he does it or how the reader determines the tone is mysterious. I feel that you could have used more detail and explain how the quotes you used relate back to the topic. Even though you talked about the toe and word choice you did not include how he uses mystery but instead you went off topic and talked about direct and indirect characterization. I think if your main topic was direct and indirect characterization your post would have been great. Like Like

Julius Caesar 1.1 1-80
Sungjune Park 7th period 3/15/2019
Loyalty
In Act 1 of Julius Caesar, the play opens up in the busy streets of Rome with 2 characters, Marullus and Flavius. As these tribunes are walking the streets, they see a few commoners rushing about clad in “thy best apparel”. They are stopped by the tribunes who ask them what they are doing out on a work day, in which the commoners reply they are going to “see caesar and celebrate his triumph”(I.i.1-50). In this scene, the commoners attitudes towards Pompey’s defeat portrays how loyalty for rulers can easily be won or lost among the citizens. Just as the citizens are waiting to celebrate Caesar’s victory over Pompey, it has not been long since they have done the same for Pompey himself. This first scene sets up a theme of betrayal early on in the play and foreshadows weak loyalty not only within the citizens, but also within the tribunes. This disloyalty from the tribunes is towards Caesar, which is shown at the end of scene 1 when Marullus and Flavius remove the gifts around caesar’s statue and mention that Caesar should be brought low in order to keep him in check. Flavius, when discussing Caesar and how they should deal with him, uses a discouraging metaphor, comparing Caesar to a thriving bird with feathers plucked, “These growing feathers plucked from Caesar’s wing,” (I.i.77) The way this scene ends leaves a dark and ominous mood of anxiety, makes the audience fear a little for Caesar and his safety, and suggests the tribunes intend to harm Caesar. Also, the reader is inclined to favor the citizens, as they support the protagonist, and not the tribunes, or any government official in that case, because of their distrust in the protagonist, Caesar. From Act 1 we can learn that loyalty is strong for rulers who have the right amount of power. For Pompey, he did not have enough power to keep his empire and defeat Caesar. On the other hand, tribunes, government officials, and military officers feared Caesar’s excessive power. Loyalty for both these rulers eventually crumbled. Like Like

I agree with your view on the early establishment of betrayal in the story. As the focal point of the story is the senators turning on caesar, The first scene does effectively parallel future betrayal. The play takes place over just three days and in that time, the loyalties of the senators shifts from friendship and support to taking his life. The citizen’s change of heart about Pompey is similar. The fact that loyalty is derived from fear of power is also a good point. I noticed that in your post, you referred to Caesar as the protagonist of the story and I would have to disagree. Although his name is in the title, he experiences little growth in the story and isn’t necessarily as important to the plot as Brutus. Your commentary on the aspects of loyalty in the scene however are very effective, well done. Like Like

I like to think that the entire play just revolves around different types of betrayal. The 1st scene introduces the betrayal that follows through the rest of the play. I would argue that Cassius is the most sly of them all. He was able to convince Brutus to kill Caesar and support their movement while still making it sound like what Brutus’ is doing is for Caesar’s good. However, I disagree with your statement that says that loyalty is strong to the rulers who have the right amount of power. Caesar, arguably, was the most powerful man in Rome. However, Cassius and his friends were able to turn many of the senators against him, nonetheless. Like Like

I love how you discuss the people’s love for Caesar and the role loyalty overall plays in the play. I agree that the people’s loyalty to Caesar is what truly gives him power and strikes fear in his future betrayers. But, I also think loyalty plays a larger role. As we see the devotion of the betrayers to things of the world a new side to loyalty is displayed. We see Casca and his loyalty to power. This extreme faithfulness to power is what drives him to kill Caesar. Similarly, Brutus’ intense allegiance to Caesar is what allows him to be so easily tricked. In Brutus’ case, his loyalty brings him to believe he needs to save Caesar from himself and his potential of turning into a tyrant, but this fierce loyalty only leads to betrayal. I think this is why the quote creates such an ominous mood, because even though loyalty has such a positive connotation, in this play it is a negative motivator. Like Like

Julius Caesar
1.2 87-138
Introduction to the Antagonists In Scene 2 the reader meets Caesar and his entourage for the first time, as well as the main antagonist of the play, Cassius. During his conversation with Brutus, the readers have a glimpse into his personality, as well as the foreshadowing of Caesar’s death. As well as being the leader of a conspiracy and insurgency against Carsar, Cassius serves as Brutus’s foil; Cassius is cunning and manipulative, while Brutus is loyal (to a fault), and is often on the receiving end of manipulation. As presented in lines 98 & 99, I know that virtue to be in you, Brutus, as well as I do know your outward favor.” Here Cassius is attempting to tun Brutus by “honoring” him with flattery. Cassius believes that he will cause Brutus to believe that the both of them are stronger than Caesar, who is also losing his own honor, as presented in lines 118-124, “Caesar cried “Help me, Cassius, or I sink!”
I, as Aeneas, our great ancestor,
Did from the flames of Troy upon his shoulder the old Anchises bear, so from the waves of Tiber did I the tired Caesar. And this man is now become a god, and Cassius is a wretched creature.” As for Brutus, he has now been shown to be conflicted, as he loves Caesar like a brother, yet now believes Caesar to be tyrannical after Cassius’s speech. Still Brutus wishes to stay by Caesar’s side, “I would not, Cassius, yet I love him well”(I.i.89). Thus, Brutus and Cassius are shown to be foils, as their personalities are polar opposites. Brutus is loyal and compassionate, while Cassius is backstabing and cunning, thus revealing another construct of Shakespeare hidden in the play. Like Like

That is actually a very valid point that I had not noticed before. The fact that Brutus did not want to originally betray Caesar is very much so overlooked because in life most people think it was all Brutus. Like Like

The relationship that Shakespeare is developing around Brutus and Cassius is remarkable. As you stated, they are foils where Brutus is loyal to Caesar while Cassius is a backstabbing schemer. Cassius is becoming similar to what one would call a parasite that is feeding worries and fears into Brutus’s mind. Even with these opposite personalities, together they become the trigger that creates the imminent death of Caesar. Similar to what was stated, Brutus’s extreme loyalty to his friend, Caesar, is revealed to the readers to where most can conclude what the tragic flaw that is represented in Brutus’s character. Thus, Cassius can use this flaw that is so intricately linked to Brutus’s character to create the rising action to the climax of Caesar’s death. The use of flattery stated above by Cassius is just a simple way to deceive Brutus into consulting with the likes of Cassius. In the end, with these two completely different personalities, Shakespeare indeed develops a unique relationship between these two characters that is one of the most critical aspects of this play. Like Like

I never thought of Cassius and Brutus being each other’s foils until your post and it is a very good point. Cassius’ master ability to persuade and manipulate is polar opposite from Brutus’ loving and sensitive demeanor. Brutus’ ability to be persuaded so easily by his foil shows exactly how opposite the two are from each other. Cassius and Brutus being foils of each other start many fights between the two which causes tension in scenes. Like Like

Nice inference, it’s genius how Shakespeare constructs a rising conflict in such a subtle way. As you mentioned, the interaction of two polar opposite character types clashes, creating mixed emotions for a confused Brutus and a frustrated Cassius. I see this as not only building conflict but larger concepts of innocence vs. cruelty, loyalty vs backstabbing, and other valid points you mentioned. Like Like

There are also many other important characters introduced like Mark Antony. Mark Antony is quite different than Brutus and Cassius, and Antony is also a close confidant of Caesar, but was not a conspirator in his killing. Antony finds Caesar and not ambitious like all of the others do. He is strong in t​he areas where Brutus is weak, and all of these things are also what makes him a target of Brutus and Cassius. Like Like

I agree that Brutus did not want to betray Caesar in the first place. It was Cassius’s manipulation that led to him backstabbing Caesar. Cassius is the polar opposite of Brutus, which is why I think he could manipulate Brutus so well. I saw the foreshadowing of Caesar’s death from the first act as well, his own friends were conspiring against him. The envy, added with his obvious pride showed that it would ultimately lead to his downfall. Caesar’s character however in the first at is shown to be very headstrong, although he is physically weak. Which makes me wonder how he got his reputation in the first place. Like Like

Julius Caesar
1.2 87-138
Introduction to the Antagonists In Scene 2 the reader meets Caesar and his entourage for the first time, as well as the main antagonist of the play, Cassius. During his conversation with Brutus, the readers have a glimpse into his personality, as well as the foreshadowing of Caesar’s death. As well as being the leader of a conspiracy and insurgency against Carsar, Cassius serves as Brutus’s foil; Cassius is cunning and manipulative, while Brutus is loyal (to a fault), and is often on the receiving end of manipulation. As presented in lines 98 & 99, I know that virtue to be in you, Brutus, as well as I do know your outward favor.” Here Cassius is attempting to tun Brutus by “honoring” him with flattery. Cassius believes that he will cause Brutus to believe that the both of them are stronger than Caesar, who is also losing his own honor, as presented in lines 118-124, “Caesar cried “Help me, Cassius, or I sink!”
I, as Aeneas, our great ancestor,
Did from the flames of Troy upon his shoulder the old Anchises bear, so from the waves of Tiber did I the tired Caesar. And this man is now become a god, and Cassius is a wretched creature.” As for Brutus, he has now been shown to be conflicted, as he loves Caesar like a brother, yet now believes Caesar to be tyrannical after Cassius’s speech. Still Brutus wishes to stay by Caesar’s side, “I would not, Cassius, yet I love him well”(I.i.89). Thus, Brutus and Cassius are shown to be foils, as their personalities are polar opposites. Brutus is loyal and compassionate, while Cassius is backstabing and cunning, thus revealing another construct of Shakespeare hidden in the play. Like Like

Julius Caesar 1.3 Page 7
At the beginning of act one scene 3, Casca is concerned by the weather and when he asks Cicero why he has not shown concern, Cicero asks him, “Why, saw you anything more wonderful” which is asking if he saw something that indicates that it is an omen from the Gods. Casca explains that he has seen many strange sights, including fire dropping from the sky, a common slave’s left hand on fire, and a lion in the Capitol, which he thinks are bad omens. These supernatural events are seen as a sign or warning of Caesar’s death that has yet to come and it also has raised the question of whether fate has made it inevitable. The signs that are encountered seem to be interpreted wrong by the characters. The night is full of omens, but no one portrays them accurately. Cassius believes that they signify the danger that could come to the state if Caesar was crowned, while they actually warn of the destruction that Cassius himself threatens. Meanwhile, Cassius uses misleading letters to win Brutus over for his cause; he knows that Brutus will never question the authenticity of the letters and take them for what they are worth. Cassius also suggests that this weather is in comparison to Caesar by saying, “Most like this dreadful night…” and he also proposes that the omens are signs from the gods of “some monstrous state” and that state is the Rome that Caesar would like to establish. It seems that these omens have definite meanings to the audience because they know that Julius Caesar will be murdered. The characters, in contrast, do not know what will happen and that is the reason for the crazy ideas and connections they have been trying to make. Like Like

I agree with your statement that the abnormal weather that took place in Rome in Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” had different effects on different characters. Casca, one of the conspirators and the first to stab Caesar on the Ides of March, seems to have seen many different visual beings, including a lion, flaming men, ghostly women, and a night owl. Cassius, in deep contrast, seems to nearly enjoy the weather, and the fact that Shakespeare included this feeling in contrast to Casca’s (or who a person would expect to relate to after those visions) makes the statement that Cassius is separated greatly is clear. I also like your interpretation of the weather as a foreshadowing for Caesar’s death, which I believe to be correct. I did not think that Cassius thought that the danger resembles Caesar in power, when the event could really signify the danger the conspirators yield to Rome. That was an excellent observation and a great point. Like Like

I love how you explained how even though they all saw or heard about the same signs, they interpreted it differently. I think Shakespeare uses this to give the reader a quick peek into each characters intentions. Just from this seen we can see how much Cassius dislikes Caesar. Cassius uses comparisons and small digs at Caesar such as “most like this dreadful night” throughout the book. This is his way of tearing down Caesar on top of his large acts of betrayal. Casca, another betrayer, because worried by these signs and relays the things he saw to Cassius. Both of these men, interpret the omens as a negative reflection of Caesar’s rule. In reality they are their to foreshadow Caesar’s death, making me believe the characters saw what they wanted to see. I believe these characters used the happenings of nature to prove their own arguments or suspicions. Like Like

Shakespeare’s imagery is something that we can see clearly in the first act of Julius Caesar. In the beginning, we’re treated to a beautiful scenery of Rome with vivid description of the scenery. We’re introduced to the first characters in the story, Flavius or MARULLUS
, who mainly serve no purpose other than to introduce us to the plot of the story. Next, we are introduced to Caesar, the main character of the story, along with his 2 closest friends Cassius and Brutus. In this scene, we are introduced to the first example of foreshadowing in the play, with the Soothsayer belting out the infamous phrase, “Beware the ides of March” While Caesar dismisses these claims, the forewarning is almost immediately proven true by Cassius and Brutus’ short conversation after Caesar leaves. This sets the theme of the motions that will begin to take place and the eventual death of Julius Caesar. Like Like

I agree with this response, however, there were more things that were going on in this as well with such as the parade and celebration of Ceaser not through admiration but rather by fear. Flavius and Marullus also despised Ceaser and tried to take down the scarves from statues of Ceaser leading to their demise. Furthermore, you can elaborate on the conversation between Cassius and Brutus by showing the reasons why they are not pleased with Ceaser such as how he might become a power-hungry tyrant. Like Like

UPDATE OF THE POST: Shakespeare’s imagery is something that we can see clearly in the first act of Julius Caesar. In the beginning, we’re treated to a beautiful scenery of Rome with vivid description of the scenery. We’re introduced to the first characters in the story, Flavius or marullus, who mainly serve no purpose other than to introduce us to the plot of the story, but describe the characters in depth, as we will see later. Shakespeare’s imagery can be seen in the beginning of the play, in flavius’ description of Caesar. “These growing feathers plucked from Caesar’s wing
Will make him fly an ordinary pitch,
Who else would soar above the view of men
And keep us all in servile fearfulness.”(1.1)
This description of Caesar is extremely powerful, as it foreshadows the events of the play. The quote represents how the citizens feel about Caesar’s rise to dictatorship and how he forced the citizens to view him as a god. This begins the courses of actions that come into play. When Cassius and Brutus stabbed Caesar, the citizens didn’t doubt their intentions, because they already knew Caesar’s feelings of power Hungriness and strive to become a godly figure or icon. However, it should be noted that Caesar attempted to be a good leader, someone who his people could look up to. Another theme represented in this Act is that of Fate. In this act, we explicitly see the Soothsayer telling Caesar to “Beware the ides of March” but Caesar simply ignores it, while his wife Calphurnia has a different opinion. This shows the control that fate has over Rome during this time period, and it makes sense logically as well. Roman mythology places Fate on a pedestal, including beliefs about how a person’s life is conjured and determined before they are even born, or how Gods control the weather. Overall, the themes expressed in act I of Julius Caesar carry on the plot to the next level and encourages the reader to keep reading. Like Like

In act one scene one of the play Julius Caesar, the people of Rome are celebrating Caesar’s return from killing Pompey and his son. This strikes me as odd because as Marullus said “O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Rome, Knew you not Pompey?….And do you now cull out a holiday? And do you now strew flowers in his way That comes in triumph over Pompey’s blood?”(lines 41-42, 54-56) These people changed their loyalty almost as fast as Caesar did which leaves me wondering whether this was meant as a foreshadowing of Brutus’s betrayal. I would also think that celebrating the man who just killed HALF of your government system would be very disrespectful so i side with Marullus and Flavius on this one. But at the same time to do not think that killing anyone when they haven’t shown any real sign of tyranny yet is okay, because it most definitely is not. But however I do agree with taking down the decorations because that is an act that shows everyone how disrespectful they are being and it is also a way to get a message across to Caesar without physically harming him. I believe Flavius and Marullus will probably join the rebellion against Caesar though because of what hey said in lines 77-80, “These growing feathers plucked from Caesar’s wing Will make him fly an ordinary pitch, Who else would soar above the view of men And keep us all in servile fearfulness. If I were these men and i were in their situation I also might be a little afraid, but at the same time they have no proof of him being a tyrant. I sort of feel bad for Caesar but at the same time you have to wonder where his head was at when he decided to kill the only other man in the government, especially if Pompey was a beloved man. Like Like

I agree that the members of this society do not appear to be loyal to their leaders. I would assume they would show more resistance and loyalty to their previous leaders but it might be caused by fear. Rather than unloyalty, their submission to Caesar might be caused by fear for their life. Like Like

I agree that Caesar and the Romans celebration of the murder of Pompey is uncalled for and pretty cruel. To me the murder of Pompey and how they relish in his death is foreshadowing ahead to the eventual murder of Caesar and how they will play his death of as a celebration as well. I’m curious as to whether or not they will be able to convince others Caesars death was a good thing like Pompey’s death was. My overall prediction is that things will not go the same way especially as Casca discusses his visions of men with burning hands and a lion in the city later in the first act. It seems they’re building up to Caesar’s death being a catalyst for a war, or worse. Like Like

I agree that the celebration of the death of Pompey exemplifies the lack of honor people hold for their leaders and their quick betrayal. This further portrays the disloyalty the members of the society had for the leaders. I agree that this was a foreshadowing for the betrayal that would occur with Caesar, however the lack of presence of loyalty was driven by fear and the members were power hungry . Since Marullus and Flavius were the ones who remained some what loyal to Pompey after his death, I believe that this portrays how the other citizens and members are afraid of Caesar and the power he is capable of holding. I do agree that the taking down of the decorations was reasonable as it shows the honor Marullus and Flavius held for Pompey. Like Like

Like the others I agree that the celebration of Pompey’s death is terrible. It also shows how little respect Romans have for there leaders who run their society. I agree when you said that the cabinet members changed there loyalty so quickly. It makes you wonder if Romans really cared about people in government at all. Like Like

I actually didn’t realize until you brought it up about the change in the people’s loyalty can foreshadow Brutus’ betrayal. I would have thought the people would mourn for the previous leader a little. However, because the play starts in the middle of events and we are not given lots of background knowledge, it is kinda hard to tell if the people were being unloyal. The past leaders could have been cruel and they are celebrating the hope that Caesar will be a better leader than Pompey. Like Like

I agree that Pompey’s death was at random but his death was necessary to begin the downfall of Caesar, and the parade feeds into his pride which is a tragic flaw of his that leads to his death. And yes many people did not stay true to their leaders but much of this comes from fear and looking out for their own life. Like Like

I believe that they were surprised by Pompey’s death, but the fear that Caesar had planted in them caused them to be loyal and not question what he did. This also foreshadows how the Senate would soon be fed up with Caesar’s decision and then lead to them planning his death. This portrays the lack of dishonesty and lack of respect they had to their leader Caeser. Like Like

I also agree with what Marullus said about how cruel and unjust it is to change sides and loyalties so quickly, but the people are not totally at fault because fear is a very powerful tool that can change people or make them do things they thought impossible before. As readers, we think the people of this place are so cruel, but if we put ourselves in their shoes, then we can see how they went from praising Pompey to celebrating his death since they want to side with the winning side so they do not die or are persecuted. Like Like

The play opens with act 1 scene 1 with Flavius, commoners, and Marullus. They are talking about ordering the commoners to return home and get back to work. In the text is states, “What, know you not, / Being mechanical, you ought not walk / Upon a labouring day without the sign / Of your profession?” (I.i.2–5). Marullus is talking to a cobbler about his profession but the cobbler quickly gets mad at him for it. Flavius asks him why is he not working and the cobbler reply’s that he is on vacation. In scene 2 Caesar enters they play he is in a public square with Antony, Calpurnia, Brutus, Portia, Decius, Cicero, Cassius, Casca, and a Soothsayer; there is also Flavius and Murellus. Antony, loves ceazar and is dressed to celebrate the feast day, he is getting ready for the speech. Caesar urges him to touch Calpurnia, Caesar’s wife, since Roman superstition holds that the touch of a ceremonial runner will cure barrenness. Antony agrees, declaring that whatever Caesar says is certain to become fact. This overall act introduced all of the characters and where they stand in the play. We also get a glimpse of Caesar’s fate. Like Like

Brutus in the play is shown to be a humble, noble and honest man. He is the preferred ruler according to many people because of these traits. people say that Rome can still be saved from the predicted tyranny of Ceasar if Brutus who is considered the lost “breed of noble bloods” because of his honorability takes control instead . He is believed to be a good fit over Ceasar because he is also very loyal to Rome, this can be understood in the conversation between him and Cassius when he says “There was a Brutus once that would have book’d the eternal devil to keep his state in Rome “. This statement allows the reader to understand Brutus’s loyalty because the quote implies that he will do anything for Rome like the old Brutus. but along with his honorability, Brutus is also a gullible person. He is tricked easily into believing that Ceasar is his equal and a bad person without seeing any evidence. For example when Cassius said that ” I was born free as Caesar…” it makes Brutus feel as though he is his equal and more honorable because he did not need to be saved from drowning like Caesar , the only issue is these words come from Cassius who will say anything to get Brutus to agree and partake in the killing of Caesar. Then after this Brutus starts to think that Caesar is really a tyrant, he thinks this because cases told him the story about how Ceasar was reaching for the crown and wanted the power, after believing this it lead Brutis to think that Caesar’s ambitions need to be looked at. Thanks to Cassius’s conversation with him he starts to believe he is his equal and that Cassius is not fit to be king. Then with the persuasion from Cassius, he agrees that he could take over in place of Caesar. At this point, he does not want to kill Caesar but after hearing Cassius’s story he comes to the conclusion that Caesar might be power hungry, this causes him to think about caesars motives and whether he is a tyrant like in the rumors he has been hearing. due to him being gullible he follows what others tell him and does things based off information he has been fed to deceive him, that is why Brutus is a humble and gullible man. Like Like

I think you make a very interesting point when you point out how Brutus is presented as a gullible man. In general, one would hope that their leader wouldn’t portray such childish characteristics that leave them vulnerable to manipulation, but after reading your argument I began to consider how gullibility is a common theme between the Roman leaders in Julius Caesar. Caesar himself, who is often referred to as a honorable and worthy leader, is also portrayed in this light when Decius convinces Caesar to go to senate against his wife’s wishes. I think it’s odd that both Caesar and Brutus, along with many other people are openly portrayed as easily manipulable people, a quality generally not sought out in leaders. However it also helps to humanize the main characters in the play who seem like fearless warriors for a majority of their time, and thus makes them significantly more relate-able. Like Like

I agree with how Brutus is a loyal and honest man. Though Brutus faces a major conflict between his loyalty to his friend and his loyalty to his country. Although Brutus’ relationship with Caesar is strong, his relationship with the people of Rome is stronger. Brutus loves Julius Caesar as a friend but does not want anyone to become so powerful that they are able to become a dictator over the people of Rome. Like Like

Brutus is truly an honorable man who puts the well-being of Rome before his personal relationships. While his gullibility is the root of his betrayal, Brutus is so easily swayed by Cassius because of his love for Rome. Despite his personal relationship with Caesar, Brutus believes he must sacrifice this for the sake of a fair government and free society. Like Like

I think the claim that Brutus was the public’s desired ruler is not accurate. It was rather something Cassius said to him in hopes that he leads the rebellion against his friend and actual beloved ruler Caesar. I believe the whole conversation between Cassius and Brutus is an unreliable depiction of the public’s views because Cassius only wants Brutus to feel more deserving of the position. Cassius’ depiction of the public’s opinions is inaccurate to make Brutus believe in a lie. The rest of the actions, as you stated, are all caused by the initial motivation provided by Cassius’ lies. The choice of quotes was very accurate in depicting the situation between the two characters, showing Brutus’ gradual development toward tyranny. Like Like

I agree with your statement of how Brutus displays honorability and nobility through his actions. At first, Brutus’ main intention and goal is to put the city of Rome before all. He develops a strong a relationship with the Roman society, and he is a well wisher for this city. However, I believe his morality and true principles come to play when he uses manipulation as a form of unifying the Roman society. Does one really deserve the title of of being noble and honorable if his methods of reasoning were dishonest and immoral? Although Brutus has indeed showed aspects of his nobility to the public, there is a boundary between doing something right and doing something wrong for a good purpose. Like Like

I agree with your analysis, as Brutus is an honorable man that is fiercely loyal to his position and country. Due to him putting his allegiance to the country and its people before his personal relationships, this makes him an easily manipulated target. Although Brutus was a very close friend of Julius, his opinions on Caesar are exploited by Cassius into believing that his power has the strong potential to become so great that Caesar would eventually become the dictator of Rome. Like Like

I agree with your statement that Brutus is an honorable man, however he seems to have a lapse in judgement rather than being a gullible person. I think Brutus is faced more with the choice of if he should be loyal and support whatever his friend says, or if he should do what is best for the rest of the community. I think that once Brutus understood what Caesar stood for, and what his motives were, he wasn’t gullible in plotting to kill Caesar, I believe that Brutus was more strongly opinionated against what Caesar was saying, and did not want his ambitions to come true. Like Like

The power of fear is only limited only to one’s imagination. It can transform any calm and collective man into insanity. However, it has been a basic instinct in humankind since the beginning of history. It has protected us from potentially dangerous situations and is a path for motivation. Whether if it is fear of death, failure, or betrayal, fear is a potent theme that is intricately linked to Julius Caesar’s fate. Fortunately, Caesar is a powerful ruler who would never let the clutches of fear diminish himself. He even states in scene 2 that “I rather tell thee what is to be feared than what I fear; for always I am Caesar.” (Shakespeare 27). Such fearlessness and willpower have made him a daring yet successful leader for his people. However, he is not ignorant nor foolish, for he truly understands the potential dangers found within his kingdom. One example is a manipulative schemer, Cassius. Caesar states that “[Cassius] reads much, [Cassius] is a great observer, and he looks quite through the deeds of men… and therefore are they very dangerous.” (Shakespeare 27). Having a wealth of knowledge and little to no morals, Cassius has been deemed a sly fox to readers and Caesar. In the readers’ point of view, they know that Cassius plans to control Brutus and trick him into killing Caesar. Even though Caesar knows not of Cassius’s intentions, Caesar believes that fear of Cassius is unnecessary and thus, develops no countermeasures. Finally, when Caesar is warned about the ides of March by a soothsayer, he gives no reaction except replying “[The Soothsayer] is a dreamer. Let us leave him. Pass.” (Shakespeare 15). The reader knows that the ides of March is the day that Caesar is betrayed and assassinated. However, Caesar’s extreme fearlessness plays out to be his downfall in the prevention of such an event. Fear of death and betrayal, although not pleasant, has kept effectively kept people alive, but Caesar’s lack of fear only sealed his fate. Like Like

This is a good statement. It’s ironic that most of the time in the real world people are brought down by having too much fear for their own good while Caesars lack of fear ends up being a catalyst in his death. For example, even though the human body makes veterans and others who’ve faced death experience PTSD as a warning to be consistently alert for danger, it draws them to insanity and restlessness. But in Caesar’s case, he is brought down by his dismissal of fear. His own Achilles heal was something most other people can only dream of. Like Like

It is quite interesting how bravery and a lack of fear are often what society associated with a powerful ruler, yet that is exactly what brought Caesar’s downfall. Many of the most “powerful” leaders in history such as Alexander the Great are often thought to have lacked fear. Their bravery and willingness to take risks, fight wars, and not back down lead them to dominations. However, fear is an essential instinct that is responsible for keeping countless people alive. Self-preservation is critical and, although fearless, Caesar would have done well to keep it in the forefront of his mind. Like Like

I love this concept of trying to find the balance of fear and fearlessness. On one hand, fear can hold the character back and let them be seen as a coward, but fearlessness can portray bravery and lead the character to walk into their own down fall. For Caesar, sadly, it was not just his down fall but his death. I think Shakespeare loves showing two opposing sides that are very black and white. He uses this opposition as a way to create conflict and disputes. It also leaves the reader questioning which side is superior. I also believes this pushes an underlying theme of finding a balance and not simply being one sided. This can be seen in the extreme opposites of loyalties to the no fear and fearful concepts, where neither sides win in the end. Shakespeare’s tragedies can only be so tragic cause neither side succeeds. Like Like

Fear is indeed a powerful and essential instinct for the survival of humans. In Act I, Shakespeare’s portrayal of Caesar’s lack of fear is exceedingly ironic. One of the defining characteristics of a great leader in Roman mythology and history is one who is fearless and well liked by the gods. Shakespeare portrays Caesar as a ruler who is fearless but to the point that he thinks himself above the gods. Caesar’s arrogant decision to ignore both a primal instinct and a message from the gods seals his fate in the fate driven world Shakespeare has created. Like Like

This is a very interesting interpretation of the theme of fear. I agree with you on that fear can be both advantageous and disadvantageous to individuals. Fear has allowed Caesar to be a respected, powerful figure to the common people, but it has also led to his downfall of a death which could have easily been prevented. I believe that this theme sends out a general message to the readers warning them of the enormous power fear holds and its ability to transform the calmest and the most average person into someone insane. This reminds me of a real-life example where social anxiety can drive some people insane. Many people of all ages from high-schoolers to adults fear what others think of them or how they judge them, and this drive can make them insane. Like Like

Julius Caesar 1.3 Page 7
At the beginning of act one scene 3, Casca is concerned by the weather and when he asks Cicero why he has not shown concern, Cicero asks him, “Why, saw you anything more wonderful” which is asking if he saw something that indicates that it is an omen from the Gods. Casca explains that he has seen many strange sights, including fire dropping from the sky, a common slave’s left hand on fire, and a lion in the Capitol, which he thinks are bad omens. These supernatural events are seen as a sign or warning of Caesar’s death that has yet to come and it also has raised the question of whether fate has made it inevitable. The signs that are encountered seem to be interpreted wrong by the characters. The night is full of omens, but no one portrays them accurately. Cassius believes that they signify the danger that could come to the state if Caesar was crowned, while they actually warn of the destruction that Cassius himself threatens. Meanwhile, Cassius uses misleading letters to win Brutus over for his cause; he knows that Brutus will never question the authenticity of the letters and take them for what they are worth. Cassius also suggests that this weather is in comparison to Caesar by saying, “Most like this dreadful night…” and he also proposes that the omens are signs from the gods of “some monstrous state” and that state is the Rome that Caesar would like to establish. It seems that these omens have definite meanings to the audience because they know that Julius Caesar will be murdered. The characters, in contrast, do not know what will happen and that is the reason for the crazy ideas and connections they have been trying to make. Like Like

Cole Melvin says:

In Act 1 of Julius Caesar, Shakespeare begins the play with a scene of Marullus and Flavius inquiring as to why the plebeians are celebrating in the streets, to which the response is a celebration for Emperor Julius Caesar and his recent military victory over the sons of Pompey the Great. The two men are displeased with the news, showing previous loyalty to Pompey, and force the crowd to disperse before plotting to remove the decorations put up for the event.
“Many a time and oft Have you climb’d up to walls and battlements, To towers and windows, yea, to chimney-tops, Your infants in your arms, and there have sat The livelong day, with patient expectation, To see great Pompey pass the streets of Rome?” In the above quotation taken from Marullus, it can be observed that he bears loyalty still to Pompey succeeding his death, as he scolds the commoners for such disloyalty, their departure representing the dissatisfaction that builds resentment of Caesar and give some small reason for others to be convinced of his tyranny. Scene Two introduces Julius Caesar himself, speaking to Calpurnia, his wife, and Mark Antony, during the celebration of Lupercalia, which Caesar tells is believed to grant a woman fertility. Indirectly, he reveals his lack of a proper offspring, and therefore Rome without a proper heir, which Shakespeare includes to foreshadow the issues Rome should face upon the sudden death of their emperor. The inception of both resentment in some of the public and the incomplete line of imperial succession sets the stage for the possible crises which could befall the empire later in the play. This is the first evidence that Rome faces challenges internally, as the public is easily swayed by the compliments given to Pompey upon celebration of his defeat. It is from these dialogues that the readers receive the opportunity to view both perspectives of emotions towards Caesar, and forces them to pick a side in the conflict. On one hand, no, Caesar has not thus contributed to the empire as a whole, having not expanded the territories, and in his latest military victory vanquished the descendants of a figure who commanded loyalty from the citizens of Rome. On the other hand, no action of his thus far into the play seriously warrants a rebellion against him, and sympathy may even be deserved as one may wonder how Caesar is to continue without inheritance to the rule of Rome by a son. Like Like

Julius Caesar
Act 1 Scene 1
The scene as well as the play opens with two tribunes, Flavius and Murellus commenting on how the public quickly switched from supporting the victories of their previous ruler, Pompey, to now greatly supporting the defeat of Pompey by Caesar. This demonstrates the growing party that favors Caesar and his rise to an apparent tyrannical rule. “It is no matter. Let no images / Be hung with Caesar’s trophies. I’ll about / And drive away the vulgar from the streets. / So do you too, where you perceive them thick” (Shakespeare 70). Flavius and Murellus attempts to remove the decoration on Caesar’s statue, which they are later punished for doing. Later in the scene, Murellus confronts a cobbler and attempts to decrease the significance of Caesar’s victory over Pompey. The characters view the cobbler as nothing more than a mere individual of the lower class. However, the cobbler is considered a ‘Shakespearean Character’ as he utilizes numerous puns and humor, stating, “all that I live by is with the awl. I meddle / with no tradesman’s matters, nor women’s matters” (I.i.21–22). Flavius approaches him and questions why he doesn’t have his work tools on him. This signifies the perspective of Flavius as he believes that one’s occupation can only mean that they are only good at that type of work. Murellus also assumes that the cobbler is unintelligent yet he himself is the one that misunderstands his answers. Furthermore, Caesar’s exponential rise to power and growing support is similar to the consolidation of power in Europe during the Elizabethan age. During this era, the growing absolutistic governments threatened the stability of the initial english democratic system, decreasing the influence of many nobles and higher class individuals. Caesar’s victory affected Rome’s change from republic to an absolute empire, and Shakespeare’s portrayal of the possibility of Caesar’s presumption of oppressive power can be viewed as a remark upon the slow move toward centralization of intensity that was occurring in Europe. Overall, the first scene of Act one depicts the strengthening of Caesar’s rule and his inevitable role as a leader. Like Like