Talk:Julius Caesar (play)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comment

" the first of Shakespeare's Roman plays (the other two being Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus)."

What happened to Titus Andronicus? Wasn't that both written before Julius Caesar and Roman?--Savant1984 07:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The play is notable for being the first of Shakespeare's five great tragedies, the others being Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Macbeth and King Lear.

What happened to Othello? And it's hard to justify Romeo & Juliet as amongst the usual canon of the "four greats". Mandel 20:24, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Shouldn't there be a plot summary in this article? Tom Stringham 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But no-one's written it yet. :( The Singing Badger 00:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I checked the versions from a few months ago, and there was a plot summary there. I restored it, because the editor gave no reason for deleting it. It was a non-registered user.

I'm pretty sure there shouldn't be a plot summary and an in detail summary. The in detail summary is poorly written, and I think the other version is sufficient. Do you guys think that we should keep the in detail version, and incorporate text from the other version into it, or just delete it? cøøkiə Ξ _(talk) 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm for deleting "In detail". Wiki-editors are often enough accused of writing too much like a magazine article as opposed to an encyc. This is the converse — written too much like a term paper. El Ingles 19:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree: in favour of removing the "in detail" section. AndyJones 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is somewhat disputed as to whether or not Marcus Brutus is the protagonist of the story. He has the most lines, but his life is not what the story revolves around. Some say Caesar is, even though he isn't in much of the play, it revolves around his life and death. Antony is also sometimes considered the protagonist.

wrong line

When it refers to "O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts," that is not Act III, scene ii, line 96. It is line 114. This should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.253.130.193 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Hats doublets and clocks

I believe the Romans had hats. They certainly had clocks e.g. water clocks and sun clocks (and tunics of all kinds) as well but I appreciate these are anachronisms in context.

Is it not a little odd that the article should start at anachronisms as if it was of utmost importance and note worthy, all Shakespeare has anachronisms it does not deserve its place in the opening and should be relocated.

User:no man 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Order of performance listings

Forgive me if this seems nitpicking to you, but: I was surprised to see that, under "Notable performances", "Screen Performances" comes before "Stage performances". This grates with me somewhat - the thing is, after all, a stage play, so if there is some sort of order-of-precedence issue then surely Stage would be first. To put films first seems to be putting the cart before the horse - they are a consequence, but not the thing itself.

I will be horrified it it turns out that there is some general wp rule about this which I have inadvertently broken - except that even if there is, it does not really work well for this particular case and others like it. So I propose to change the order. (In fact, on a quick look I see other plays where there is a separate subhead for "performance history" which is, naturally, *all* stage performances, then another subhead after that for adaptations which is divided into screen, musical, whatever ... that might be better. But for now I still think this minor order change is worth making.) 138.37.199.206 09:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I have done it, but I now see that there is something a little odd about having both "Performance history" and "Notable performances" next to each other with a mix of stage performances in each. One for another day/editor, I think, as my coffee break is finishing ... 138.37.199.206 09:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Homosocial?

Way too much of this article is given over to discussing whether in fact everyone in this play is, basically, gay. And, by extension, whether all politicians, soldiers, hell, all men are in fact gay. Aside from the validity of this viewpoint, and most people will think it is just cranky, it is one tiny, modish theory by a couple of obscure feminist academics who doubtless think every male friendship/partnership/companionship in literature and life is also "homosocial." I am sure communists, islamists, Confucians, Satanists and cobblers can all bring their particular viewpoint to the play, by applying their theories to the text and their matrices to their material. But this part of the article as it stands tells us absolutely nothing about the play. It is just a theory of life applied to a text, with gruesome, ridiculous results. In fact, is it a joke? Whatever, it will really mislead the reader if it is not cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.174.215 (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be taken out. Rather, I think that other interpretations need to be added to balance it out. Wrad (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would cut this as well. There are many theories about Julius Caesar and this seems a particularly niche one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.56.178 (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My view, FWIW is that this is worth keeping, although perhaps in a shorter form. I've workshopped the scenes between Brutus and Cassius (me as Cassius), and one of the difficulties of for an actor is getting a handle on this relationship. Wrad is right that this material would seem less outlandish if there was a lot more critical comment to balance it out. Perhaps the wikiproject will get to do a GA drive on this play at some point. In the meantime I have removed the opening sentence, which does seem nonsensical to me. AndyJones (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As a former actor who has played both parts, I say this is utter nonsense. --El Ingles (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you mean "is it utter nonsense" then I agree, however if you mean "is it exactly the sort of utter nonsense which academics talk about and take seriously to a sufficient degree to be worth noting in encylopedias" then I'm afraid I agree with that, too.

Joking aside, how about we just reduce the idea to a sentence or two? AndyJones (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that. I just re-read that whole section and LOLd at the sentence It signifies both his actual will as well as his will (chastity) that kept him from coming at the conspirators' request. Really, that's too funny for serious work such as we're supposed to be creating. --El Ingles (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I plan to go over the section and rewrite it to tone down the idea that "this is the only way to interpret the play". Wrad (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll take a look when you've done it. AndyJones (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I did it. I gave it a copy-edit and toned it down a bit to make it clear that this is just one, specific way of viewing the play. Wrad (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

This was moved from my talk page, but I accidentally moved it to Talk:Julius Caesar. I have it in the right place now. Sorry. Cowardly Lion (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this comment from my talk page, as it's related directly to the edits to the article, so really belongs here. It means if others have an opinion, they can weigh in. I hope Smatprt doesn't mind. (I'll reply shortly.) Cowardly Lion (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't mind!Smatprt (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

JC changes

Hi again - I thought some of the info you deleted was pretty interesting - and I have always been against deleting content without first asking for a source or attempting a rewrite. I also think the rewrite is a bit rough. Are we sure that what Platter saw was Shakespeare's play, for example? "Scholars have decided" is also a bit questionable - perhaps "Scholars have suggested"? Also not sure if being close to something in vocabulary can be called a "fact" - how do we define "close to"? Okay - I'm babbling again and "close to" annoying. Tah for now.Smatprt (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IS THIS THREAD IN THE RIGHT PLACE? Or should it be at Julius Caesar (play)? AndyJones (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How stupid of me!! I'll move it there. Feel free to remove the thread from here, if appropriate. Sorry for sending your post on such a long and roundabout journey, Smatprt! Cowardly Lion (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, replying now. The edit in question were this one. If people disagree with my removal, then of course, put it back. I agree some of what I deleted was quite interesting, though I didn't find it fascinating! I just felt it wasn't well sourced and wasn't the best possible evidence, and there was enough without it. Are we sure that what Platter saw was Shakespeare's play? Well, I'm not, because I haven't seen exactly what Platter wrote. But the scholars whose books I consulted didn't seem to have any doubt. I don't mind "scholars have suggested", although note that I used "probable" for the date, which is less dogmatic. Can you think of a better word than "fact"? I've no problem with changing it. Cheers. Cowardly Lion (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

JC play in the future

• It seems JC is still popular in the 24th century-see [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.70 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Brutus

In this article, [[Brutus]] is directed to both Decimus Junius Brutus and Marcus Junius Brutus in different places. These are different people. Which is it?--Mmmready 19:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Marcus Junius Brutus is the correct man. However, why did you enclose Brutus in the <nowiki> tag? vedant (talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget there are two different characters in the play with Brutus as the surname--TimothyJacobson (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

History or fiction?

How much of this play is based on history, and how much is just Shakespeare's story? Could someone please do a section comparing the play to the actual event? For example, did Cassius actually have to persuade Brutus? Were any of the omens of Caesar's death real?was Brutus in fact a friend of Caesar's? And so on. Thanks. Twilight Realm 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Nice to see no Roman History experts have visited the article in nine months. :s 71.9.133.139 11:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I think a page should be added re all the characters (like there is for Hamlet etc). ie a page for the Shakespearean Brutus etc, and the character of Caesar, rather than just links to the characters in history who Shakespeare based them on--TimothyJacobson (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

The article states under the "protagonist" heading that "The general conclusion among critics is that Brutus is in fact the protagonist of the play Julius Caesar, although some have tried to prove otherwise." This is not cited. Is it original research? 64.140.248.31 (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the above sentence (starting "the article states..." was me, but I forgot to sign in, hence it was unsigned--TimothyJacobson (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that if you forget to sign a Talk page comment you can go back yourself and add the {{unsigned}} template. For the above example, that would be something like {{unsigned|TimothyJacobson|19:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)}}. And you can also go back and refactor your own talk page comments so long as it doesn't create any confusion (i.e. either nobody has responded to you yet, or you take pains when refactoring to not change anything already replied to, etc.). --Xover (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thanks--TimothyJacobson (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This "gender studies" nonsense

The analysis of the play presented under the title "gender studies approaches" makes so little sense to me that I wonder if the whole thing isn't an elaborate spoof. Anybody know if Barbara Parker is a real person, and whether she actually believes that knife wounds are like vaginas? If so, should this encyclopedia be giving credence to that belief? Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it took an anonymous user 75.26.44.112 to take the bold step with that nonsense. I hope it never gets restored. --El Ingles (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a hoax. [2] Wrad (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: page moved back to previous title as requested because move was not uncontroversial, without prejudice to reopening discussion. Station1 (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

---

The Tragedy of Julius Cæsar → Julius Caesar (play) — [According to numerous discussions by members of the WikiProject Shakespeare, the plays of Shakespeare should be listed by their common (best known) names. A recent user, unaware of this consensus, recently retitled this article to the title used in the First Folio. Unfortunately, this good faith edit goes against the consensus of project editors.] --Smatprt (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Confusing inconsistency

If you'll look at the bold and italicized words:

"After the theatres re-opened at the start of the Restoration era, the play was revived by Thomas Killigrew's King's Company in 1672. Charles Hart initially played Brutus, as did Thomas Betterton in later productions. Julius Caesar was one of the very few Shakespearean plays that was not adapted during the Restoration period or the eighteenth century.[14]

Could someone fix this? Bananaclasic (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the "Free" links to the text are fairly spammy

I click on the free links and some of them are littered with ads and some even have popups. The navigation is not easy either. Could we pare down the list of links a bit? Perhaps limiting it to non-profit sites?DavidRF (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

error in article

"the fault, dear Brutus" - this seems to be in Act 1 Scene 2. see the link [3] Eiler7 (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Pompey's Curia

Where it lists discrepancies between the play and the real events it says Caesar was killed on the Capitol as opposed to Pompey’s Curia. Then in parentheses it says "Pompey’s House". The Curia is not his house, it’s a theatre. And does Pompey even have a house at this point? He has been dead for some time now....

Jesta510 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Curia is not a theatre, it's a Senate House or meeting hall. It's part of the complex that Pompey's theatre was also part of.

Tony Keen2 (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No Humorous Lines?

"It is also notable for being the only Shakespeare play which contains not a single overtly humorous line."

I am not sure if this is true. In the first scene the banter between Flavius, Marullus, the Carpenter, and the Cobbler appears to be overtly humorous. The Cobbler's work-related puns are intended to be humorous:

Cobbler: I can mend you.

Marullus: What mean'st thou by that? Mend me, thou saucy fellow!

Cobbler: Why, sir, cobble you.

Flavius: Thou art a cobbler, art thou?

Cobbler: Truly, sir, all that I live by is with the awl.

I might add that I thought a line in Act IV, Scene I was a great one-line put down. Octavius tells Anthony, while discussing who will rule post-Caesar Rome, that Lepidus is "a tried and valiant soldier." Anthony replies "So is my horse...". Crash Pad Dad, 9/7/06

Ha ha! Thumbs up! DavidForthoffer (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The section re the direction of the Sun (whilst Cassius & Brutus are having a chat) is quite funny too--TimothyJacobson (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Does he really say "then fall Caesar" in the play?

While reading the synopsis another possibility arose to me. Perhaps Shakespeare didn't deviate from the famous line that was really said, "Et tu Brute", but rather, the words "then fall Caesar" were Shakespeare's notes to the actor, telling him to fall after being "stabbed". Later this was mistakenly included in Caesar's dialogue! But if it were dialogue, it probably should have been "then I shall fall", in the first person, as Caesar himself is the one speaking. Something to ponder....Darkkelf99 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Darkkelf99

That's a very interesting theory about the line ("Then fall Caesar.") actually being a stage direction. I had never considered that. And it's a very real possibility. Nonetheless, Caesar quite often referred to himself in the third person. (Example: "Caesar shall forth!"; Act 2; Scene 2; Line 10). This was a device that Shakespeare used to demonstrate how highly Caesar thought of himself. Or so I read somewhere. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the analysis that I read.

Increasingly and markedly in these scenes, Caesar refers to himself in the third person, especially when he speaks of his lack of fear ("Yet Caesar shall go forth, for these predictions / Are to the world in general as to Caesar" [II.ii.28–29]). Tragically, he no longer sees the difference between his powerful public image and his vulnerable human body. Even at home in his dressing gown, far from the senators and crowds whose respect he craves, he assumes the persona of "Caesar", the great man who knows no fear. Caesar has displayed a measure of humility in turning down the crown the day before, but this humility has evaporated by the time he enters into his third-person self-commentary and hastens to the Senate to accept the crown at last.

Perhaps this behavior partially confirms the conspirators' charges: Caesar does seem to long for power and would like to hold the crown; he really might become a tyrant if given the opportunity. Whether this speculation constitutes reason sufficient to kill him is debatable. Indeed, it seems possible that the faults that the conspirators — with the possible exception of Brutus — see in Caesar are viewed through the veil of their own ambition: they oppose his kingship not because he would make a poor leader, but because his leadership would preclude their own. In explaining the noble deed to be performed to Ligarius, Brutus describes it as "a piece of work that will make sick men whole." Ligarius responds, "But are not some whole that we must make sick?" (II.i.326–327). Whereas Brutus's primary concern is the well-being of the people, Ligarius's is with bringing down those above him.

Source: [4]. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julius Caesar (play). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402101642/http://read.libripass.com/william_shakespeare-julius_caesar.htm to http://read.libripass.com/william_shakespeare-julius_caesar.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"Jules César" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jules César. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Jules César until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)