Analysis of Julius Caesar Essay

The play, "Julius Caesar", by William Shakespeare, contained an entrancing plot, resulting in my group never wanting to put the play down and stop reading.Throughout the play, you'll find many motifs. Mainly, the bad events revolved around misread letters, or bad omens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Julius Caesar" should be considered good literature. The plot was captivating and made me want the story to continue. There was very good use of symbolism throughout the play, and the characters were very well developed. Overall, I find that these three are the most important characteristics of good literature, and "Julius Caesar" clearly contained them all.

The play, "Julius Caesar", by William Shakespeare, contained an entrancing plot, resulting in my group never wanting to put the play down and stop reading. As the plot progressed, we became more engrossed in what was happening. Initially, I enjoyed the beginning of the play, where most of the scene was explained and the importance of each character began to unravel. As Cassius turned against both of his friends, and Brutus did what he thought was right, I tried to take note of everything that was going on. Some things were harder to understand and required reading between the lines, such as how Cassius forged letters from the "disdained" public and placed them on the desk of Brutus for him to read. This is where the whole web of lies and deceit began. Cassius used Brutus as a pawn to get Caesar out of the throne by lying and making Brutus think that what he was doing was right. The conspirators then made a plan as to how they would kill Caesar, and Portia begged Brutus to tell her what was going on. However, he refused. Meanwhile, Caesar got ready to go to the Senate, after many protests from his wife about a dream she had. When he arrived there, each of the conspirators stabbed him once, and when he saw Brutus among them, he gave up his fight to live. Antony returns to find Caesar stabbed ruthlessly, and shakes hands with each of the murderers, and asks to speak at his funeral. However, when they leave, he vows that Caesar shall be avenged. At the funeral, after Brutus and Cassius spoke, Antony spoke of the glory and riches Caesar brought to Rome, eventually reading his will, which gives everything of his to the public. The public becomes furious that such a generous man was killed, and they turn on Brutus and Cassius, who were driven out of the city. Octavius, (Caesar's adopted son) arrives in Rome and joins forces with Antony and Lepidus, while Brutus and Cassius make their own army. Brutus is also having a hard time at this point with the fact that his wife, Portia, killed herself while he was away. That night, the ghost of Caesar speaks to Brutus saying that he will see Brutus on the battlefield. The next day, the two armies combat. During this combat, Cassius sees that the army is not doing well, and orders Pindarus to see how things are. Pindarus sees Cassius' best friend, Titinius, surrounded by yelling people, and assumed he was captured. Upon hearing this, Cassius killed himself, and Titinius returned, still encircled, only to prove that he was not captured, but being celebrated for a victory. Titinius saw Cassius dead and also killed himself. When Brutus' army loses, Brutus gives up and killed himself, thus, Caesar is avenged. It is apparent that this web of lies only contributed to the beauty of the story, which contributed to the audiences' enjoyment of the play. Personally, I believe that such a tangled web added to the story and made me want to know what happened next.

I believe that the author's use of motifs and symbolism added to the overall enjoyment of the play. A motif is "a recurrent thematic element in an artistic or literary work; a dominant theme or central idea." (www.dictionary.com). Throughout the play, you'll find many motifs. Mainly, the bad events revolved around misread letters, or bad omens. Right before the conspiracy started, as Brutus was in his house reading the complaints of the "public" truthfully from Cassius, the sky was dark and a thunderstorm began. Also, Shakespeare used a large amount of letters throughout the play, resulting in a situation where the audience knew something that the characters didn't. At first, Brutus took letters of complaints from the public and took them literally, allowing himself to develop a plan to do what he thought was right. By believing the letters, he gave Cassius power and further instilled himself as a pawn. And again, of the opposite affect, when Artemidorus handed a letter to Caesar on his way to the Senate informing him of the conspiracy. Julius refused to attend to his personal affairs with his duty as a role model, yet not quite a ruler. Thus, he took the letter, folded it up and put it away, so as not to read it until later, after the Senate meeting. In truth, the audience knew that Artemidorus was only trying to warn Caesar, and knew that he was going to die at that time. As I read this area, I wanted more than anything for Caesar to read the letter, for him to not die, and for him to find revenge against those who were going to attack him, because he was generous and shouldn't have died. Typically, the audience doesn't want Caesar to die and wants to warn him because he won't read the letter. There was also only symbol throughout the play. A symbol is "something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible." (www.dictionary.com). The only recurring thing I could find was that many of the characters seemed alike. Decius lead Caesar right into the hands of Brutus and Cassius, thus, he was just as low as they were. Lepidus joined forces with Octavious and Antony, just as Decius joined forces with Brutus and Cassius. The two wives are alike because both tried helping their husbands. Portia asked Brutus what was on his mind, and he declined to answer. Later, she killed herself after hearing of Octavius' and Antony's rise to power. Calpurnia tried helping her husband and didn't get very far either. She was mainly the bestower of an omen, which made her role very important. Casear, on the other hand, listened to his wife and was going go to stay home. However, he was convinced to go by the conspirators when they said that the Senate wanted to offer him the crown. It's rather clear that the omens, motifs, and symbolism throughout the play contributed to the overall literacy quality.

Also, I would not have enjoyed the play if I hadn't fully understood the characters and their intentions. I also like to be able to relate to the characters. Overall, it is understood that Julius Caesar is a main character, who was on the verge of becoming the ruler of Rome. He declined the crown three times, which showed that he wasn't greedy for power. He showed weakness physically as he had seizures of fits afterwards. He never saw that his friends were conspiring against him, and didn't listen to his wife's dreams, though he considered them. The entire time, any omens he received didn't bother him, because he believe he was meant to be ruler. It was also apparent that he was very generous and giving to the public. When they read his will, they found that he had given each citizen a sum of his money and made his garden public, which is rather generous of him. Brutus is the main character, and one of the "tragic heroes" of this play. He pretended to be Caesar's friend, but was worried that he would be the fall of the Roman empire and turn over the government if he ruled. His devotion to the Roman republic and to his morals clash and provide most of the problems from the very beginning. On one hand, he wants to help the Roman republic and prevent Caesar from becoming a ruler. However, his morals lead him to overlook the danger of Antony, and he allowed Antony to live. In truth, Antony was their downfall. He also allowed him to speak at the funeral, at which Antony changed the public's mind about the conspirators and turned them against both Brutus and Cassius, driving them out of the city. Brutus also refused to go so low as to commit to deceit, and acted only with morals in mind. Antony was the complete opposite of Brutus. Where Brutus couldn't rule, Antony could, and it made Brutus incredibly jealous of him. Again, Antony was the son of Julius, which benefited him more. Antony proved to be very manipulative and was on everyone's side throughout the entirety of the play. When Caesar was killed, he shook hands with the conspirators, which made them allow him to live and talk at the funeral. He then explained the plot to the public, and got them to turn against Brutus and Cassius. Lastly, Cassius drove the events of the play without anyone realizing it, except for the audience. Cassius pretended to be friends with Caesar, and only later proved to be his downfall. He used Brutus' case of action as a pawn and manipulated him to kill Caesar by sending the forged letters. On the other hand, Cassius lacks the incentive to do such acts himself, and used Brutus to lead the whole thing. Overall, the characters contributed a lot to the play. Looking back at when I was reading the play, I found that I tried to put myself in the shoes of the main characters on both sides, and while it was difficult to relate to the different characters, I understood where they were coming from. Caesar wanted to do what's best for Rome, and wasn't greedy or power-hungry like other rulers. Brutus also wanted to do what's best for Rome, but wanted to do so in a civil way. He didn't realize that what he was doing wasn't what the people wanted. Antony wanted to merely avenge Caesar out of respect and love, and Cassius was power-hungry and manipulative. In any case, I could understand each situation and how the characters felt.

The plot, the symbolism entwined, and the diversity and roles of each character play a very important part to the effect the play has. If these three characteristics are not included in a story or play, I do not understand the full context, nor am I interested in it. Overall, I find that these three are the most important characteristics of good literature, and "Julius Caesar" clearly contained them all.