Difference Between Plutarch's and Shakespeare's Caesar
Julius Caesar was in a precarious situation. It could be interpreted that he deserved the fate that pursued him for ambition or some other reason, or that it was a cold murder for which he did not deserve. Both Shakespeare and
Plutarch wrote about Julius Caesar. Each tells the story a little differently.
Plutarchs version is more sympathetic to Caear's situation.
Shakespeare shows him to be an insensitive and conceited person thinking only of himself. This is shown by his reaction to Calpurnia's dream. After her description of her dream he says, "Caesar shall forth. The things that threatened me Ne'er looked but on my back; when they shall see the face of
Caesar, they are vanished." This attitude to a warning implying that he was given fair warning and his death was partially due to his over confidence. On the other hand Plutarch gives him a more sensitive reaction to the dream in saying, "Caesar himself, it seems was affected and by no means easy in his mind." Moreover, Plutarch's writings show the long string of coincidences almost as Fate were deeming it necessary for him to die, and that he had no control over it. "...the scene of the final struggle and of the assassination made it perfectly clear that some heavenly power was involved...directing that it" (the assassination) "should take place just here. For here stood a statue of
Pompey..." This stating that Caesar's murder was the deceased Pompey's revenge for he was killed by Caesar. Whereas, Shakespeare does not say anything about the statue and shows the same coincidences in the play as warnings to him that out of his own stupidity he did not take.
Lastly, after Caesar's death the Romans were enraged to revenge him at
“This, by his voice, should be a Montague. Fetch me my rapier, boy. What dares the slave come hither, cover’d with an antic face, To fleer and scorn at our solemnity? Now, by the stock and honour of my kin, To strike him dead I hold it not a sin.” (Shakespeare, page 54).
Plutarch's The Life of Crassus and Caesar. Plutarch presented history through biographical stories of the people that were important and influential during the time period he wished to address. However, after having read some of his work, one realizes that Plutarch inserts his own personal opinion and views of the people at hand into the factual documentation of their lives. For example, in The Life of Crassus, Plutarch expresses a general dislike and negative view of the man, but in The Life of Caesar he portrays the life through a lens of praise. It also seems that he uses his opinions of the people that he writes about to subtly extend moral lessons to the reader.
Arguably William Shakespeare’s great tragedy, and perhaps his greatest work overall, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is a gripping tale of betrayal, insanity, and grim horror that captures the imagination of the reader. This tragic play centers around the titular character, Hamlet, and his quest to kill his Uncle, Claudius. Although it sounds to the common ear to be merely a story of revenge, the play contains vivid characters that bring the play to shocking light for the reader or the viewer. Controversy is common in discussion of Hamlet due to the choices of the main character to reject his love, spare his traitorous uncle for a brief moment in the pursuit of a ruthless revenge, and the accidental killing of an innocent man, having mistaken him for the aforementioned uncle. These actions can be seen as mere plot devices, or sloppy writing on behalf of Shakespeare. They can also be seen as the literary genius that enriches Hamlet, depending on the point-of-view of the reader or the viewer. This essay will be an examination of the idea that, while these actions may not be genius, and they are in-fact simple plot devices, the actions taken by Hamlet in this play are deliberate, as the author intended them. Hamlet’s actions during this play, sparing his uncle and banishing his love, and also killing an innocent man, are a masterful portrayal of justified retribution turning into hate-driven revenge and its consequences.
that, in the belief of the time, would damn his soul. In fact, in one soliloquy in Act III,
does this by the fact Macbeth gets killed at the end of the play and
This section is integral to the play as a whole for two reasons: (1) it describes the beginning of the play’s climax, and (2) it is a key example proving that Hamlet’s “madness” is indeed a conscious ploy. It is generally agreed upon that the play-within-a-play is the climax of this play.
The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare is an intimate portrayal of the famed assassination of Julius Caesar and the complex inner workings of the men who committed the crime. In one particularly revealing scene, two of the men closest to Caesar, one a conspirator in his murder and one his second-in command, give orations for the deceased. Despite being simple in appearance, these two speeches do much of the work in developing and exposing the two characters in question. Though both have a love for Caesar, Mark Antony's is mixed with a selfish desire for power, while Brutus' is pure in nature, brought to a screeching halt by his overpowering stoicism. These starkly-contrasted personalities influence the whole of the play, leading to its tragic-but-inevitable end.
murder to cover up another one. His plan to get rid of Hamlet seems to be logical and
William Shakespeare's Hamlet is a play that tells of a young man, Hamlet, who wanted revenge for the death of his father. After speaking with his father's spirit, Hamlet was led to believe that the person who murdered his father was his uncle, Claudius. Claudius kills his brother mainly because of jealousy, the crown, the queen and a hatred of his brother. Therefore Claudius is guilty of the murder of his brother.
William Shakespeare’s Hamlet presents a hero who hesitates to avenge his dead father when given the opportunity – what should be his judgment? This paper examines the decision from various points of view.
Hamlet’s curiosity caused him to not only suspect his mother, but also kill poor Polonius. He believed Gertrude was an accomplice in the murder of his father.Hamlet has violent outbursts towards his mother. His anger increased as Gertrude misinterpreted the situation. She believed that she was in danger of being assaulted and therefore cries out for help. Hamlet, who was full of rage, runs his dagger through the arras and kills Polonius, mistaking him for Claudius. "O me, what hast tho done/Nay, I know not. Is it the king?" (III-iv.27-28) Hamlet's passion was furiously aroused, and his words to his mother grew increasingly bitter and sharp. His words acted like daggers that shattered Gertrude's peace of mind. "Nay, but to live in the rank sweat of an enseamed bed, stewed in corruption, honeying and making love over the nasty sty.
that he is dead. This brings a sense of dramatic irony to the play, as
Hamlet contemplates death and suicide - what Hamlet wants to do and the fear of the consequences of his actions, “O, that this too solid flesh would melt, / Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!/ Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd/ His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! (I. ii. 129 – 132).We receive the image of suicide as a juxtaposition between the desire for death in contrast with a desire to live, “To be or not to be – that is the question” (III.i.56). Almost from Hamlet’s first appearance, we reveal a major underlying concept in the tragedy, the contrast of death and morality made evident through the sonic opposition between in and out, order and disorder. Both soliloquies exemplify a man, bewildered and wracked by inconsolable grief - desiring revenge – however, unable to know how to go about responding to what has happened. Hamlet is not simply suicidal, nor is he simply melancholic to his father’s murder. Rather the language of the play alludes to a man but driven to desperation, philosophically posing the conundrum of wanting to leave his life behind while possessing the respon...
The situations where Hamlet unexpectedly acts were not relevant to his task, such as the murder of Polonius. During the play rehearsal, Hamlet is shocked by the emotion poured out by the actor over Hecuba, whom doesn’t even exist. Hamlet, whose father was murdered, does not have as near the passion that actor had. Hamlet criticizes himself, saying, “A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak/ Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause,/ And can say nothing” (Shakespeare 2.2 578-580). Hamlet calls himself a coward for not doing anything to avenge his father, but rather just staying depressed and weep all day. According to Bradley, “Hamlet was restrained by conscience or a mural scruple; he could not satisfy himself that it was right to avenge his father” (Bradley 4). Hamlet is aware of his constant delays, but still cannot ready himself to kill Claudius because of the excuses he continuously makes up. After criticizing himself, Hamlet sets up a plan that only prolongs his chance of killing Claudius. Hamlet says, “The play’s the thing/ Wherin I’ll catch the conscience of the King” (Shakespeare 2.2 616-617). Hamlet creates a play that reenacts a specific scene, which resembles Claudius murdering his father. Hamlet wants to see Claudius’s reaction to the scene, and confirm his guilty reaction. According to Eliot, “The delay in revenge is unexplained on grounds of necessity or expediency;
In the tragedy of Hamlet Shakespeare does not concern himself with the question whether blood-revenge is justified or not; it is raised only once and very late by the protagonist (v,ii,63-70) and never seriously considered. The dramatic and psychological situation rather than the moral issue is what seems to have attracted Shakespeare, and he chose to develop it, in spite of the hard-to-digest and at times a little obscure, elements it might involve [. . .] . (118-19)