DISTINCTION OF SHAKESPEARS JULIUS CAESAR AND real life Prior to examination of the main differences between the events of one of Shakespeares tragedies, Julius Caesar, and those of a realistic life, it must not be forgotten that Shakespeare wrote his plays for their performance rather than the actual publication. Hence, the play-writing itself, was just means for making money. It is most probable that the majority of the of the parts of the content (which are about to be criticized in the following essay for their inconsistency with real life), were very essential for the play in order to maximize the popularity of the play and therefore maximize the profits make, which was one of Shakespeares main goals. In real life the plot of Julius Caesar could be compared to never ending competition for power in the head office of any large firm of todays world. As it appears the behavior as such, is a fundamental part of the human nature, and criticizing the actions of Cassius would probably be inappropriate. However, the methods which Cassius chooses in order to achieve his goal is something that will instantly seize readers attention. The very fact that the murder of Caesar was done by plotters gathering around him and brutally stabbing him twenty four times, shows how unprofessional Cassiuss plan was.
The Essay on Shakespeares Julius Caesar
The era of Julius Caesar was a time when many peoples feelings toward the government began to change. This was one of the first times in Roman history when people began to question the power of their ruler. In the play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, we see a brief picture of this Roman life during the time of the First Triumvirate. In this snap shot, many unfortunate things ...
The incidents which take place in real life, at the same increasingly high level of political importance would probably be planned for an extremely long time and carried out with high accuracy. For example, it would be much more beneficial for Cassius to make the death of Caesar look like an accident, because then he would not have to speak to the Roman public and proclaim himself what later on turned out to be a hated murderer. Bruthuss speech to the people is another part of this play that seems unrealistic to the views of a modern individual. This action of admitting to the people that he is responsible for Caesars death (death of a man who was one time greeted with honors and offered a crown of the kingdom), might be hard for the reader to see how Brutus expected to win the crowds favoritism (it is hard to imagine the assassin of J.F.Kennedy, confirm the entire nation about the positive aspects of his act).
Nevertheless, the public in this play seems like nothing more than a mere gang of brainwashed hooligans, who go around raging and killing innocent people (i.e. killing of Cinna, in Act III, Scene 3).
Therefore Shakespeare has gone over the board, when he portrait the public as being just a tool for easy manipulation for those who seek leadership at the top of the social status pyramid.
Perhaps, the lives of great Roman politics was something that Jacobean audiences mostly focused on while observing this play at the Shakespearean theater, omitting these flaws in the plot of this play. Although, as time passed by, and an extraordinary improvements were made in educating an average Western individual, it is doubtful that an exact copy of the J. Caesars plot for a film would earn broad audience, high ratings, and most definitely not tremendous profits, much like it did four hundred years ago.
