Talk:Julius Caesar (play)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia's Elizabethan theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Julius Caesar (play) is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

" 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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)