Category: Julius Caesar

Bang Bang the sound the walls mad when the Gaul’s tried to strike the noble romans your probably ordering how we got to this point in all started back in Rome at the den of the night when Julius Caesar and Marcus Crassus are ambushing the great Spartacus who is starting a rebellion against the Roman empire.

They were successful and Spartacus was killed Crassus Ordered his troops to crucify 6,00 of Spartacus works on the way to Rome one every 100 feet for 60 miles to witch Julius responds with “this is a waste of resources, we could put this to good use carrying out equipment and setting up camp couldn’t we make them our slaves they’re worthless to us dead.” Cassurs respond “They’re proof of what we did”.

With Spartacus defeat Crassurs hopes that is victory would allow him to gain political power back in Rome by being elected to the highest office in the land the consul. You see instead of being run by a king or and empire the Romans are governed by an elevted by a senate but ruleing over them was the consul. An official who wields more power than any other man in Rome. For Cesar supporting a future consul can put him on track to rise quickly within the government.

But Cressurs was not the only military leader with his sight for consul. 100 milies way there was another general is looking to steal the glory in the war against Spartacus his name was Pompey Magnus. “Spartacus rebellion has fallen” said Pompeys advisers “by whom” Pomeys responed “By Crassus army” “where are Spartacus troops” “all killed” “Tens of thousands of rebels and all of them have been killed by Crassus?” “some might have escaped” “order the scouts to track them down and finish them”. Pompey rounds up the slaves who escaped the battle and quickly kills them. He returned to Rome before Crassus and took all the credit. During Pompey party Crassus entered with Juilis Caesar and his troops he said to Pompey “what is this?” “what do you think it is? We’re celebrating Sparacus’ defeat” Pompey responded “At whose hands? Yours or mine?” “Crassus you look exhauseted, please,help yourself” “tell them or I will” the whole crowed looks at Pompey confused is to what Carssus is talking about. “I want to make an announcement” Pompey yelled to the crowd “I know were all here to celebrate my vitory over Spartacus and putting down a rebellion but I can’t take all the credit had it not been for Crassus and his men I might not have even been able to defeat Spartacus in battle” “ so please have a round of a appease to our guests” “I couldn’t have done it without there help”

“To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” by Sun Tzu. Julius Caesar was a great leader, as he fought through countless political problems he always found his way. Born into a senatorial, patrician family and was the nephew of a famous Roman general, Marius. His lineage helped him achieve what couldn’t have been done. “Julius Caesar, in full Gaius Julius Caesar, (born July 12/13, 100? BCE, Rome [Italy] — died March 15, 44 BCE, Rome), celebrated Roman general and statesman, the conqueror of Gaul (58–50 BCE), victor in the civil war of 49–45 BCE, and dictator (46– 44 BCE)” as written by Encyclopedia Britannica. Caesar was a great leader with an endless pit of courage, integrity and not forgetting a vision of the future. Caesar builds the very foundation of the Roman Empire with reforms that took a lot of courage to sprout.

Julius Caesar was always being bombarded with laws, vetoes or even attempts of sabatosh by the senate and of the higher ups. Compared to other leaders that would have already given up Caesar pushed through and thrived to the fullest. As in the article by Encyclopedia Britannica, “He found time in the year 46 BCE to reform the Roman calendar. In 45 BCE he enacted a law laying down a standard pattern for the constitutions of the municipia, which were by this time the units of local selfgovernment in most of the territory inhabited by Roman citizens. In 59 BCE Caesar had already resurrected the city of Capua, which the republican Roman regime more than 150 years earlier had deprived of its juridical corporate personality; he now resurrected the other two great cities, Carthage and Corinth, that his predecessors had destroyed.’ Julius changed the calendar to what we know today. With the calendar before Julius reform, politician or money thirsty people used it as a monopoly of money to control. Later in history July was a commemoration to Caesar. His view of his future was wide and open for him for the taking as he had a mind of no other ever.

Having a view of one’s future is having a ten-second advantage in a game. That chess players play in a game of probability of the opponent’s movement and strategy to overcome that move. Life is not easy, and we all lose sight in what to pursue, but Caesar didn’t lose sight of his. As to when his family territory was being taken over he went through with it in “Julius Caesar” by Britannica School, “In 47 BCE he fought a brief local war in northeastern Anatolia with Pharnaces, king of the Cimmerian Bosporus, who was trying to regain Pontus, the kingdom of his father, Mithridates. Caesar’s famous words, Veni, vidi, vici (“I came, I saw, I conquered”), are his own account of this campaign.” and in “ancient Rome” also by Britannica School “Gaius Julius Caesar, descended (as he insisted) from kings and gods, had shown talent and ambition in his youth: he opposed Sulla but without inviting punishment, married into the oligarchy but advocated popular causes, vocally defended Pompey’s interests while aiding Crassus in his intrigues and borrowing a fortune from him, flirted with Catiline but refused to dabble in revolution, then worked to save those whom Cicero executed.” As we all have visions that are high and might or small one, like gaining a bonus on your check. Life is short and we have to achieve what we mostly want and never let it go no matter what others say or if they oppose it.

We all have to achieve what we want and those achievements orientate us to what to do next. Caesar has a handful of victories as of defeats. In “Julius Caesar” by History.com Editors he had a good amount piling up one after another “The statesman and general Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.) expanded the Roman Republic through a series of battles across Europe before declaring himself dictator for life”, “but in the early 60s B.C. he launched his own successful political and military career”, “Rising rapidly, he campaigned successfully for the consulship in 60 B.C. and struck a deal with two of Rome’s leading figures, Pompey the Great and Crassus. Together the three of them became known as the First Triumvirate and controlled Rome throughout the 50s B.C.” and “In the summers of 55 and 54 B.C., Caesar sailed across the English Channel, thereby securing his northern flank along the Rhine in Gaul by precluding a Celtic attack from across the Channel, though Britain did not become a Roman province for another hundred years.”. Those achievements gave him the fame, respect and power to pursue his vision. As he all this fame the most crucial part to due to these achievements was his background and connections.

Gaius Julius Caesar was born as any human being was and is supposed to be born as, a warrior. Caesar has an uncle that was a general, a mother and father that were well known to the Roman Empire. As he grew older he had children that would later on help in negotiations between nations or in obtaining an agreement in a party. As in “Julius Caesar” by “Crassus — like Pompey, a former lieutenant of Sulla — had been one of the most active of Pompey’s obstructors so far. Only Caesar, on good terms with both, was in a position to reconcile them. Early in 59 BCE, Pompey sealed his alliance with Caesar by marrying Caesar’s only child, Julia. Caesar married Calpurnia, daughter of Lucius Piso, who became consul in 58 BCE.” As time pass by life is a unfair thoughts of judgment and illogical thoughts.

However, Gaius Julius Caesar gained too much power in so little time, as generals, scholars, senate and other people that spent most of their lives in gaining that position Caesar gained it in a matter of time that seems too short. As power can be gained in a battle of mischief or unrightful ways it is still possible to obtain it without it. Though with time Caesars luck is depleted to when he is stabbed by “friends”, old enemies and greedy politicians. Caesar had achievements that no other in that time has ever achieved and had a vision of obtaining what he wants as in a political way or in a dispute.

Julius is memorable person that has changed a whole country and even gave it a stable foundation that it even went on after his death, also his reform changed the way we see a calendar that we use today in our everyday life. I ask you this, would you change what could be changed if you had a chance?

Introduction

The tragedy of Julius Caesar is a historical drama which is written by William Shakespeare in 1599. Its events are actually based on true events from Roman history. Shakespeare’s special fashion of tragedy includes a character whose poor alternatives motive his social downfall and ultimately bring about his very own death. Julius Caesar suits this description as Brutus’s selection to murder Caesar outcomes in his fall from social grace and his suicide. Other vital factors for a tragedy encompass catharsis (a launch and purging of emotions), supernatural factors like ghosts, Gods and magic, and comedic relief. While all these elements are important in a tragedy, we will communicate approximately the three most seen and identifiable tragic elements in Julius Caesar.

Text

‘Tragedy, branch of drama that treats in a serious and dignified style the sorrowful or terrible events encountered or caused by a heroic individual. By extension the term may be applied to other literary works, such as the novel.'[footnoteRef:1] [1: Richard B. Sewall and Leonard W. Conversi.’Tragedy’.Encyclopædia Britannica.Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. November 17, 2019.]

Caesar is given guidelines of what’s in store for him a couple of times, including through his wife, Calphurnia, who dreams about Caesar’s murder. Calphurnia goals that Caesar’s statue is bleeding, and Romans are bathing their arms in it (II, ii, 75-79) – a dream that proves to be pretty prophetic, not simplest metaphorically however also literally, because the conspirators do truely shower in Caesar’s blood, upon killing him. Therefore, Shakespeare makes it clear that the workings of fate play a giant part in the activities that therefore unfold.

It is indicated, thru his verbal exchange with Calphurnia, that he thinks that being the demigod he believes himself to be, he would be protected from anything fate has in store.

He states, “The things that threatened me/ Ne’er looked but on my back; when they shall see/ The face of Caesar, they are vanished,” (II, ii, 10-13).

“…For these predictions are to the world in general as to Caesar,” he tells Calphurnia (II, ii, 28-29)

Caesar holds an implicitly fatalistic view of the sector and human life. He says, “What can be avoided/ Whose end is purposed by the gods?” (II, ii, 26-27),

His lines also gave support to his fatalism:

Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,

It seems to me most strange that men should fear,

Seeing that death, a necessary end,

Will come when it was come. (II, ii, 34-37)

In Caesar’s case, it became his very own actions and arrogant nature that led to his fate.

As he decided to go to the senate and not stay at home. If he stayed at home he would’ve been able to prevent his unfortunate end, he wasn’t convinced with his fate and he didn’t think that it could be real which lead to his tragic end.

Brutus decides to sign up for the conspiracy towards Caesar as he is positive that with Caesar as its ruler, Rome’s fate will be destruction. Brutus is adamant that he’s going to do whatever in his power to trade the direction of this fate.

“Brutus had rather be a villager/ Than to repute himself a son of Rome/ Under these hard conditions as this time/ Is like to lay upon us,” (I, ii, 172-175).

He truly thinks that with the aid of killing Caesar, he can shop Rome from its destiny. Where Caesar believed himself to be immune from destiny, Brutus feels that he can manipulate destiny. However, this belief in his power over fate is shown after Caesar has been killed.

Brutus finds out that he cannot control the circumstances and he is now aware that the only way to his freedom is ”take the current when it serves.”

eventually he unearths himself subjecting to fate and by the point he commits suicide, he sees this cease as some thing inevitable – some thing that needed to happen because he killed Caeser

Brutus, “senses that this is no accident of defeat but the working of the destiny to which he committed himself long before,” (137).

Brutus eventually submitted to his fate that he has brought upon himself as he is feeling.

Cassius complete conviction is man’s capability to modify his own destiny is apparent proper from the beginning. In the speech in which he convinces Brutus to join the conspiracy, he dismisses the idea of blaming fate or destiny for what takes place on your life

He says:

Men at some time are masters of their fate:

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

But in ourselves, that we are underlings. (I, ii, 139-141)

This affirmation of his freedom from the workings of future does not trade even after the assassination of Caesar. Unlike Brutus, who sees suicide as subjection to fate, Cassius views this act of self-annihilation as exerting manipulate over his fate. Cassius tells Casca ‘no stony tower, nor walls of beaten brass’ can withstand the strength of spirit. that Cassius does, however, start to renowned future as greater influential than he used to just accept as real with it to be. But this is handiest half of of proper, as he says, Therefore, Cassius, in assessment to Brutus, does not give up his lifestyles happy of man’s powerlessness towards destiny.

Works Cited

1. Richard B. Sewall and Leonard W. Conversi.’ Tragedy’.Encyclopædia Britannica.Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. November 17, 2019.

Leaders whose names become remembered long after their death often had a great direct or indirect effect on the course of history. On first glance, Julius Caesar and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia are only superficially similar. However, at a closer examination, it is possible to see some important similarities and differences. This paper will provide background information on each of the leaders and then compare them to each other.

The Background

Julius Caesar is perhaps the most famous ruler in western history. He grew up during a time of instability in the Roman Republic and tried to gain entrance into the noble classes. After a number of missteps, Caesar found his way into Roman politics as a prosecuting advocate. Even in his early age, he showcased great skills of negotiation and military strategy when during his capture by pirates he managed to convince them to raise the ransom, only to later gather naval forces to get his revenge. Caesar later reaffirmed his military skills when Caesar fought against the king of Pontus. He quickly gained political power by aligning himself with various Roman politicians and was eventually elected as consul in 59 BC. His alliance with Marcus Licinius Crassus and Pompey became known as the First Triumvirate, which allowed him to further dominate his political opponents.

However, this relationship would not last forever, as Caesar gradually gained more military and political power, committing controversial military actions in Gaul and eventually Pompey. Despite the condemnation of Caesar from the upper classes of Rome, middle and lower classes saw his actions as inspiring and justified. When he crossed the river Rubicon in 49 BC, he committed an act of treason which eventually led to a short civil war that ended in his victory. When Caesar returned to Rome, he was made “dictator for life.” In his short time of rule, he increased the size of the senate, made it more representative of the Roman people, reformed the calendar, and the local governments (Stevenson, 2015). His reign did not last long, however, as he was assassinated by his political rivals in 44 BC. He was soon deified and was seen as a martyr (Strauss, 2015). His death resulted in a power struggle and eventual death of his assassins.

Tsar Nicholas II led a tragic life and was the last Tsar of Russia. He was born into the Romanov dynasty in 1868, which held important political positions not only as the rulers of Russia but had familial connections all over Europe. One of the defining moments of his life came when he was 13 years old. His grandfather Alexander II was assassinated by a revolutionary bomber, making his father ascended to the throne, and giving Nicholas II the position of the heir. He studied law and military strategy and spent three years in military service. He became Tsar after his father died of kidney failure at the age of 49. Nicholas II was not ready to be the Tsar and have not received proper education in politics. He married Princess Alexandra soon after. Their first four children were girls, leaving the Tsar without an heir. When a boy was eventually born, they named him Alexei. Unfortunately, he was diagnosed with hemophilia, leaving the parents in constant worry of his health.

This condition led the pair to become involved with a monk by the name of Rasputin who supposedly kept the child healthy. Rasputin was a controversial figure with great power over the royal couple (Wortman, 2013). This association brought a lot of bad publicity to the Tsar’s image as a ruler. It only worsened however as Tsar experienced a great defeat in the Russo-Japanese war (White, 2016). Tsar Nicholas II was much too conservative for the political climate of his day. The middle and lower classes had little power and securities, while the nobility held say over everything. Violent pogroms against the Jewish populations and brutal responses to peaceful demonstrations have eventually made the public see Tsar as the enemy. Tsar Nicholas II attempted to quell the tension by creating an elected Duma but still opposed reform. His great losses in World War I brought the wrath of the people upon him and led to a revolution. He abdicated and in 1918 was executed along with all members of his family by the Bolsheviks (Chamberlin, 2014). In 2008 he and his family were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church and are currently worshiped as martyrs.

Comparison

Both men were leaders at the turning points in history. The assassination of Caesar led to the transition of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, while the execution of Nicholas II was one of the first major events of the Bolshevik Revolution. Both Caesar and Nicholas II became martyrs after their death and have a modern following. However, their lives are almost a negative reflection of each other. Nicholas II did not have a great ambition to rule and was woefully unprepared for it. On the other hand, Caesar was an extremely ambitious leader who was prepared to rule since a young age. Nicholas II was a poor strategist and his lack of military prowess led to great losses and civil unrest, while Caesar’s victories have gained him a great admiration of middle and lower classes. Even their deaths were orchestrated by the opposite classes. Caesar was assassinated by political rivals who mostly represented the Roman nobility, while Nicholas II was executed by people representing the lower classes.

Conclusion

Both Caesar and Nicholas II met a tragic end. Their histories may be the opposites of each other, but their place in history is similar. Neither of them is likely to be forgotten in the future.

Introduction

Aristotle, a well known and generally recognized dramatic tragedies pioneer, highlighted his vision of the true tragic hero which can be analyzed through the work ‘Julius Caesar’ by William Shakespeare. The story is considered to be a masterpiece of the world literature disclosing the era of ambitious political leader and his strategies on the way of becoming dictator. The author raised the theme of tragic hero embodying it in such characters as Marcus Brutus and Cassius; he reflected such features as braveness, nobility, desire to become a leader and bring prosperity being the characteristics of the tragedy hero in Accordance with Aristotle’s description.

Body

Aristotle described the tragic hero a noble character whose flaw leads him to complete fall. Marcus Brutus in Shakespeare’s play reflects all the features of the tragic hero; being a noble character and displaying hamartia Marcus Brutus gets in the difficult situation beyond his control which leads the character to death. Having a reverse fortune Brutus had to make difficult choice being under the pressure of uncontrolled forces.

The character was presented as the only conspirator striving to kill Caesar in order to bring prosperity and success to Rome. His tragic death in the battle was caused by the character’s inability to control the enemy and save the state from destruction. The analysis of the character’s presentation in Shakespeare’s play proves the embodiment of the true tragic hero described by Aristotle in his theory.

Comparing the character of Brutus with that of Cassius, it is necessary to underline the fact the features of tragic hero are reflected only in the leader analyzed above. In accordance with Aristotle’s vision, the hero is to experience one tragic fall because of the unexpected flow and uncontrolled forces. Cassius is considered to be the most evil politician forming his strategies based on personal revenge. His envy and hatred to Caesar made the character experience grave mistakes and follow wrong path in the way to prosperity.

‘I was born free as Caesar; so were you. We both have fed a well and we can both endure the winter’s cold a well a he.’ (Shakespeare, 2008)

The features embodied in Cassius do not allow calling him a true tragic hero as he was constantly experiencing downfalls and only his jealousy led him to death.

Conclusion

Comparative analysis of Marcus Brutus and Cassius has shown that Shakespeare reflected the features of the true tragic hero only in Brutus meeting all the points described by Aristotle in his theory. Nobility, braveness and resistance made Brutus a hero of the dramatic tragedy inspiring the readers through the epoch of Rome Empire and great politicians’ disclosure.

Introduction

Julius Caesar, a renowned Roman general and statesman, played a significant role in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. However, his rise to power was met with both admiration and opposition. This essay will critically analyze the factors that contributed to Julius Caesar’s downfall, exploring the political, personal, and societal circumstances that ultimately led to his demise.

I. Ambition and Consolidation of Power

One of the primary factors that led to Julius Caesar’s downfall was his ambition and the consolidation of power. Caesar’s military victories and his increasing influence over the Senate raised concerns among his political rivals. His bold reforms and disregard for traditional political norms created an atmosphere of fear and suspicion among the ruling elite, who feared the erosion of the Republic’s institutions. Caesar’s quest for absolute power and his attempts to bypass checks and balances ultimately alienated many influential figures and laid the groundwork for his downfall.

II. The Senate and the Fear of Tyranny

The actions and reforms undertaken by Julius Caesar fueled the fear of tyranny within the Senate. Caesar’s accumulation of power and his decision to declare himself dictator perpetuo (dictator in perpetuity) alarmed the senators, who perceived his actions as a threat to the traditional republican principles they held dear. The Senate, composed of influential and ambitious individuals, conspired against Caesar, viewing him as a potential tyrant. This fear of autocracy motivated conspirators like Brutus and Cassius to plot his assassination, leading to his tragic downfall.

III. Opposition from the Aristocracy and Pompey’s Supporters

Julius Caesar’s alliance with Pompey, a prominent general, brought him both military support and political leverage. However, after Pompey’s death, tensions arose between Caesar and the supporters of Pompey. Many powerful aristocrats and senators, who had aligned themselves with Pompey, viewed Caesar’s rise to power as a threat to their own interests and influence. They resented Caesar’s dominance and sought to restore the authority of the Senate. This opposition culminated in the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar, as these individuals sought to preserve the traditional power structure of the Roman Republic.

IV. Public Perception and Popularity

While Julius Caesar enjoyed popularity among the common people due to his military successes and social reforms, his growing power and perceived arrogance also generated resentment. Many Romans viewed Caesar’s actions as an affront to the principles of the Republic and believed that he was becoming increasingly dictatorial. This growing discontent, combined with the manipulations of his political rivals, contributed to a decline in Caesar’s public support. The conspirators capitalized on this sentiment, presenting themselves as defenders of the Republic and the people’s liberties.

V. The Ides of March and the Assassination Plot

The most critical event that led to Julius Caesar’s downfall was the assassination plot orchestrated by a group of senators, including Brutus and Cassius, on the Ides of March in 44 BCE. The conspirators justified their actions as an act of preserving the Republic and protecting its institutions from Caesar’s perceived tyranny. The assassination not only ended Caesar’s life but also sparked a chain of events that plunged Rome into a power struggle and ultimately led to the end of the Roman Republic.

Conclusion

Julius Caesar’s downfall was the culmination of various political, personal, and societal factors. His ambitious pursuit of power, the fear of tyranny among the Senate, opposition from influential aristocrats, declining public support, and the assassination plot all played significant roles in his ultimate demise. Caesar’s downfall serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the delicate balance between individual ambition and the preservation of democratic institutions. It also demonstrates the complex dynamics of power and the consequences of consolidating authority without regard for the established political order.

If one knows nothing about the Egyptian Queen Cleopatra, then watching this film will help one understand of her and her life. The film Cleopatra has been noted as one of Hollywood’s best accurate representations of her. Therefore, if someone wanted to know about the life of Cleopatra, they would get a clear and good understanding by watching this film. For instance, before I watched this film, I did not know anything about her or her life. After watching this film, I learned a lot about Cleopatra, and two of the main characters, Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. First, I will be discussing the romances of Cleopatra. She married two of her brothers, Ptolemy XII and Ptolemy XIV. “Cleopatra was married to her brother and co-ruler Ptolemy XIII. In 48 BC, Ptolemy tried to overthrow his sister, forcing her to flee to Syria and Egypt.” (“10 Facts about Cleopatra.” History Hit.) Cleopatra’s romances with her brothers were not stated in the film Cleopatra.

Only her romances between Julius Caesar and Mark Antony were noted in the film. Her relationship with Julius Caesar started when she wanted to regain her throne, and knowing that she needed Caesar’s help, she demanded him to help her. Once Cleopatra was crowned as the Queen of Egypt, she dreamt of ruling the world with Caesar. They became lovers and married, and Cleopatra became pregnant with their son, Caesarion. In 44 BCE, Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March in Rome. This led Cleopatra to return to Egypt with her son. Three years later after Caesar’s death, Mark Antony defeated and killed Brutus and Cassius, two of the men that murdered Caesar, at the Battle of Philippi. Antony plans on attacking Parthia, but he needs money and supplies, so he asks Cleopatra. At first, she declined his offer, but later met him on her royal barge in Tarsus. They began their love affair later that night, and he followed her to Egypt, leaving behind his wife Fulvia and their children. The film does not mention Fulvia or none of their kids. When Antony returned to Rome, Cleopatra gave birth to twins, Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene. Their children were also not mentioned in the film. After returning to Rome, Fulvia died, so Antony married Octavia, Octavian’s sister, in order to show loyalty to Octavian. This upset Cleopatra, and in the film, Antony needed more funds from her in exchange for some of his territories.

They forgive each other, and Antony marries Cleopatra, while he divorces Octavia. Cleopatra gives birth to their other son, Ptolemy Philadelphos, who is also not mentioned in the film. Secondly, I will be discussing the battles in the film and the battles that happened in reality. There were a few battles in the film Cleopatra, but only the Battle of Philippi and the Battle of Actium was the most significant. The Battle of Philippi took place in 42 BC, after the assassination of Julius Caesar, fought by Antony, Octavian, and Marcus Lepidus. “Caesar loyalists Mark Antony, Octavian Caesar, and Marcus Lepidus formed a triumvirate. They seized control of Rome and the empire’s western provinces, then set off to defeat Caesar’s killers, Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius, who had joined with other opponents of Caesar in raising the eastern provinces of the empire.” (Matthews, Rupert.) The film captures the celebration after the battle is over. The Battle of Actium took place in 31 BC, and it was fought between Octavian with the Romans and Antony with the Egyptians. In the film, the battle happened because Octavian read Antony’s will to the Roman senate, and it was revealed that Antony wished to be buried in Egypt once he died. The Romans turned against Antony and declared war against him and Egypt. “Antony followed Cleopatra’s advice to recruit the fleet. He drew up his ships outside the bay with Cleopatra’s army behind. Troops on each side were trying to outflank the other until Cleopatra took her Egyptian troops and left the battle.

Antony then stopped fighting and left the battle with a few ships that managed to follow Cleopatra. The remainder of his fleet became discouraged and surrendered to Octavian, and Antony’s land forces surrendered one week later.” (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. (2018). Battle of Actium | ancient Roman history.)The film depicted this battle accurately, as Antony’s soldiers were very upset that he left them for Cleopatra. The film showed that Antony was depressed because of this, and barely spoke to anyone, including Cleopatra. Next, I will be discussing the deaths of Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, and Mark Antony. In the film, Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC on the Ides of March. He was appointed dictator for life, but he wanted more. He wanted to be king of Rome, but Rome did not have an official ruler. Cleopatra told Caesar to accept the offer of being ruler over some other cities, but Caesar did not want to accept it. The Romans heard that Caesar wanted to be king over Rome, and they did not like that. “The night before Caesar’s assassination, the senate tells Brutus he must “save Rome from Caesar.” The senate says they will call Caesar “king” everywhere except for the city of Rome. Caesar says that, as dictator of Rome, he recently appointed senators who will be on his side for voting. But he does not know that the same night, the senate plots to murder him.

The next morning, Caesar’s wife, Calpurnia, has a dream that he was killed and murdered, and Cleopatra is also nervous about him going to the Senate. Caesar doesn’t listen to them and goes to the senate and is murdered by them. His body is burned in a bonfire in front of the senate building, where many citizens started surrounding.” (Hollywood and History: Cleopatra (1963) – Classical Studies.) The death of Mark Antony happened in 30 BC. In the film, Octavian wants to battle Antony and Cleopatra convinces him to finish fighting Octavian. He does so, but the night before the battle, Antony’s troops abandon him and Rufio kills himself. He surrendered to Octavian and made his way back to Egypt. Apollodorus, a loyal follower of Cleopatra, did not think that Antony was worthy of her, and told Antony that Cleopatra killed herself. Antony then stabbed himself with his sword. While he was dying, Apollodorus told him that he lied and that Cleopatra was still alive. He took Antony to Cleopatra’s tomb, where she was waiting for Antony to return. Antony later dies in her arms, and Octavian, with his army, marches into Egypt. He and his army found Apollodorus’ body, noting that he drank poison, and killed himself. Octavian found out that Antony is dead and that Cleopatra was in her tomb. He goes into her tomb and tells her that he will allow her to rule Egypt as a Roman province as long as she accompanies him to Rome. She declines his offer at first, but she sees her son Caesarion’s ring on Octavian’s finger, noting that he is dead, so she accepts his offer. Octavian told her not to kill or harm herself, and she pledges on the life of her son that she will not. When he leaves, she tells her servants in coded language to help her kill herself. She tells one of her servants to bring her a tablet to write on to write a message for Octavian.

Cleopatra tells her servants that she wants to be dressed in the dress of gold, which was the same dress that Antony first saw her. She tells her servants to bring her something to eat, and she also tells them to take the message to Octavian but tells them to wait. Once the message gets to Octavian, he and his guards burst into her tomb and find her dead and dressed in gold. One of her servants is dead, while the other servant is still dressing Cleopatra, while she is dying. She dies and Octavian and his troops see the asp that killed her moving across the floor. Next, I will be comparing the scenery and setting of the film to the actual locations in reality. The film takes place between 48 BC and 31 BC, in Alexandria, Egypt, and Rome. The film actually was filmed between the years 1960 and 1963. “London’s Pinewood Studios in London, England was used to look like Alexandria, Egypt, in the film. But later, poor weather caused the outdoor set buildings to peel. Twelve million dollars later, the sets were taken down and rebuilt at Rome’s Cinecittà Studios. Thousands of workmen and artists were recruited to re-envision Cleopatra’s world. They built and decorated golden carved walls, majestic temples, and massive statues of mythological creatures.” (Nast, Condé. “The Set Designs of ‘Cleopatra,’ Elizabeth Taylor’s Classic Movie.”) Much of the scenery of the film was made precisely and accurately based on Queen Cleopatra, the Egyptians and Romans, and the exact places where the film was taking place.

The film was not actually shot in Egypt, but it was filmed between Egypt and Rome. The filming locations were the Tabernas Desert in Spain, Cabo de Gata in Spain, London in England, Malibu in California, Anzio in Italy, Alcazaba of Almeria in Spain, Ischia in Italy, and Rome in Italy. (“Cleopatra (1963) – IMDb.”) Now, I am going to be discussing the appearance of Cleopatra in the film and reality. Cleopatra is said to be well-known for her beauty and appearance. In the film Cleopatra, actress Elizabeth Taylor portrayed the Egyptian Queen Cleopatra. Elizabeth Taylor was one of Hollywood’s most beautiful actresses in the 1950s and 1960s, and her beauty was one of the reasons why she was picked to portray Cleopatra. “There are some artifacts that show what Cleopatra’s appearance may have been like. One of the most important artifacts is a marble bust dating to the third quarter of the 1st century BC. Her face is framed by parts of curly hair, and the rest of her hair is arranged in a “melon” style and styled into a bun behind her head. Her eyes are almond-shaped, and her features reflected her intelligence and charm. On another bust, her features are generally soft and her lips full. Her nose is missing, but the space where her nose was on the face suggests that it was large.” (Wallenfeldt, Jeff.) In the film, Cleopatra wore many different styled wigs and makeup.

She had braided wigs, short wigs, straight bob wigs, and many more. “Greek biographer Plutarch, writing about a century after Cleopatra’s death, presented a less beautiful picture of her: ‘For her beauty, as we are told, was in itself not altogether incomparable, nor such as to strike those who saw her.” He was quick to note Cleopatra’s “irresistible charm,” persuasiveness, sweet voice, and stimulating presence. (”Wallenfeldt, Jeff.)The rest of the characters in the film were mostly played by Caucasian actors and actresses. The African-American actors and actresses played servants for Cleopatra, and they would dance and performed for Cleopatra and the citizens of Egypt and Rome. Next, I will be discussing the costumes of that the Egyptians and Romans wore in the film versus reality. In the film, Cleopatra wore many different outfits. She had many different colors, styles, wigs, and headpieces. “According to Robert LaVine, “to achieve historical accuracy for the film, research for the outfits was done from early Egyptian bas-reliefs, tomb paintings, and sculptures.”Cleopatra had many outfits, and a few of the clothing that she was portrayed to wear in the film were strap gowns, the royal haik, and the kalasiris. The Egyptians in the movie wore gold and had many outfits also. Cleopatra had many different wigs, which was one of the main fashion statements in the film. Cleopatra had many different wigs, which was one of the main fashion statements in the film. “Cleopatra’s wigs and headdresses are very important elements of the costuming in this film. The first wig she wore is a shoulder-length pageboy with short bangs. The second one falls in three layers to her shoulders.

Later in the film, the wigs grow more complicated, and they were accessorized with decorative golden beads and headdresses laid on top.” (Font, Lourdes). Overall, the film depicted the costumes of Cleopatra very well. The rich Egyptians in Cleopatra wore similar costumes to Cleopatra. “Working-class men wore loincloths or short kilts, as well as long shirt-like garments tied with a sash at the waist. Kilts were made from a rectangular piece of linen that was folded around the body and tied at the waist. Wealthy men wore knee-length shirts, loincloths, or kilts and adorned themselves with jewelry – a string of beads, armlets, and bracelets. Working-class women wore full-length wraparound gowns and close-fitting sheaths. Elite women amplified their appearance with make-up, earrings, bracelets, and necklaces. Both men and women wore sandals made of papyrus.” (History Museum. “Egyptian Civilization – Daily Life – Clothing and Adornment.”) The website also states, “When royalty was portrayed in statues, temple carvings, and wall paintings, it was the beauty and self-confidence of the subject that was conveyed. Egyptian men had slim bodies, broad shoulders, and muscular arms and legs, and the women had flat stomachs, small waists, and rounded busts. Both wore formal clothing and jewelry, and they stood tall with their heads held high. The men and women in Egypt wore hairpieces and wigs. Arranged into braids and strands, they were often long and heavy. They also may have been worn at ceremonial celebrations.” (History Museum. “Egyptian Civilization – Daily Life – Clothing and Adornment.”) However, the Romans dressed somewhat differently than the Egyptians.

In the film, I noticed that the Romans wore many burgundy and white costumes. Men generally wore white or off-white colored clothing. “There were certain colors or markings that showed the status of a man. Women wore white clothing until they were married. Once married, they wore clothing in a variety of colors. Men’s clothing included the tunic, the toga, and cloaks. The tunic was like a long shirt and a belt was used about the waist to keep it tight. The toga was worn by upper-class men outside the home or on formal occasions. Togas were very heavy and uncomfortable. Roman men also wore a wide variety of cloaks to stay warm in bad weather. Roman women’s clothing included the tunic, the stola, and cloaks. The tunic was the primary piece of clothing worn by peasants and unmarried women. The women’s tunic was typically longer than the men’s. The stola was the traditional form of clothing worn by married Roman women. It was a long pleated dress held on by belts. It could also be decorated with ribbons and colors. Like the men, women wore cloaks on top of their clothes in cold or bad weather. The palla was a typical cloak worn over the stola and fastened with brooches.” (“Ancient Rome for Kids: Clothing and Fashion.” Ducksters.com, 2019.)The website also states, “Hairstyles changed throughout the history of Ancient Rome. Typical artwork from the middle to late stages of the Roman Republic shows men having fairly short hair and being clean-shaven. This changed somewhat during the Roman Empire when beards and curly hair were in fashion. Women’s hairstyles varied widely. Wealthy women had their hair curled, pinned into place, plaited in the back, or put into a bun.” (“Ancient Rome for Kids: Clothing and Fashion.” Ducksters.com, 2019.) Lastly, I will be discussing some ways that the film Cleopatra would have been better if it were a more accurate representation of the life of the Egyptian Queen Cleopatra. Like I stated earlier, Cleopatra is Hollywood’s best representation of the Egyptian Queen Cleopatra. The film included some of the best actors and actresses of the 1960s.

The film would have been better if they included all of Cleopatra’s children. The film only included Caesarion, Cleopatra, and Caesar’s child. She had other children with Antony, but they were not discussed in the film. The film is also a little over-dramatic, and it somewhat lacked reality and passion. But overall, the film discussed the summary of Cleopatra’s life once Julius Caesar came to Egypt and her life with Mark Antony. “Cleopatra was the most expensive film ever upon its release. With an original budget of $2 million, location changes, a new director, and other complications caused the budget to expand to $44 million (Cyrino 139). The film featured an “all-star” cast, which drew in viewers. Mankiewicz wanted to use the history behind Cleopatra’s story to create a strong central character, who greatly influenced two very strong, prominent men. Another important factor that added to the glamour and luxury of the expensive film was the costumes and set pieces, which won the film an academy award. These set another record due to their cost: 30 wigs for Cleopatra and 125 pieces of jewelry totaling $130,000 (Cyrino 141). The extras in the battle scenes for Pharsalus, Philippi, and Actium had 26,000 costumes that cost half a million dollars, palm trees were flown in from California, and the fanciful barge Cleopatra sails in to meet Antony cost $250,000. The wealth of Egypt was reflected through these costumes and set pieces; they showcase the wealth and opulence Cleopatra possessed and lived in.” (“Hollywood and History: Cleopatra (1963) – Classical Studies. –Blogs.dickinson.edu.”) The film Cleopatra was not 100% accurate, but it was and still is the most accurate and the most popular film about Queen Cleopatra, so if one knows nothing about the Egyptian Queen Cleopatra, then watching this film will help them understand her and her life better.

Wittingly or unwittingly chooses to do what is wrong. Despite the good qualities of being brave, imaginative, and noble, the tragic figure commits a primal wrong and the innocent deaths that follow are the direct result of the wrong choices made. Discuss whether this view of tragedy is held out by the play.

Julius Caesar is a historical play written by William Shakespeare. It’s called Julius Caesar, but it’s about Marcus Brutus, our tragic hero. It tells the story of Brutus’ part and life from the beginning, when they plot to assassinate Caesar, to the finish, when Brutus kills himself after realizing he made a mistake. This essay examines how Brutus’ bad judgments contributed to his demise. This essay focuses on the concept of tragedy and demonstrates that the play follows the viewpoint that tragedy begins when a person of exceptional qualities, whether intentionally or unintentionally, chooses to do the wrong thing.

The tragedy is a sub-genre of drama that focuses on the mournful or horrible circumstances that a hero encounters or causes. That hero always has a flaw that leads to his demise. In tragedy, characters are always of high societal standing. It always ends in death (Piostrowska, 2020;5)

Our hero is Marcus Brutus, a roman politician. He was a man of integrity, honor, and trustworthiness. Moral and ethical principles governed his every action. Despite his outstanding traits, he made a bad judgment that contradicted his values, believing he was saving Rome while he was doing the opposite. Like all tragic heroes, he also had a tragic flaw, he was a bad judge of character. His flaw led him to his downfall.

His most egregious error was assassinating Caesar. His main motivation for assassinating Caesar was that he was ‘too ambitious.’ He was afraid that as Caesar’s popularity grew, they might become Caesar’s subjects. He saw himself as Rome’s salvation.

Another blunder was putting faith in Cassius and Mark Antony. Cassius enticed Brutus with forgeries of letters (act 1 scene 2). He manipulated Brutus into thinking that they all had the same aim in mind: to save Rome. Brutus misjudged Mark Antony. He assumed the man was harmless in the absence of Caesar, not realizing that Antony was seeking vengeance for Caesar’s death. Antony convinced the people of Rome that Brutus and his conspirators were murderers. (act 3:scene 2)

Lastly, waging a war in Philippi without an army was the ultimate mistake that made him realize his flaws, but it was already too late (act 5, scene 4).

To begin with, Brutus willingly assisted in the assassination of Caesar. He admired Caesar, but he preferred Rome. He was a guy who was guided by his ethics and morals, but he was so enamored of Rome that he went against his ideals. He had no personal animosity for Caesar, but he questioned if Caesar would change once he was king. He agreed to assassinate Caesar because he does not want his beloved Rome to be headed by a tyrant because power, without a doubt, breeds tyranny. They plan to assassinate Caesar with the help of his conspirators, stating that his life is a necessary sacrifice to save Rome (act 2, scene1). Brutus assassinated Caesar on purpose, with the goal of saving Rome from dictatorship.

Secondly, Brutus put his faith in Mark Antony and Cassius unwittingly. Our tragic hero had a personality flaw that contributed to his demise (Piotrowska, 2020;4). Amongst his exceptional qualities, Brutus was also naive. Frequently misread people’s personalities, believing that everyone was honest, trustworthy, and well-intentioned like him. Cassius was Brutus’ total opposite. He was dishonest and deceptive, and one of his best qualities was his ability to discern a person’s genuine intentions. He observed Brutus’ flaws and realized that if his strategy was to succeed, he needed Brutus on his side. He despised Caesar, but he envied his authority, which was enough for him to assassinate Caesar. Cassius was able to easily sway Brutus. Brutus trusted Cassius, not knowing that the man had his own motives.

Furthermore, he trusted Mark Antony. Even though Cassius warned him that Mark Antony would avenge his leader’s death, he trusted Antony and permitted him to live. He thought Antony couldn’t act on his own without Caesar, so he misjudged him. He was the first to speak during Caesar’s funeral, imploring the public to heed to him because he is noble and honorable, and stating that Caesar’s death was for Rome’s welfare. He gave Antony the opportunity to speak. How could he have faith in someone who had been betrayed? Caesar was a man Antony adored. Antony portrayed Brutus and his conspirators as brutal assassins by convincing the mob that Caesar was a good man and displaying Caesar’s generous will. The assassination, on the other hand, provided Antony with an opportunity to take control. Antony accomplished this by turning the mob against the conspirators and the Senate through his address at Caesar’s funeral (act 3; scene 2)

Finally, Brutus wittingly committed suicide. When he saw how they were fighting and losing the battle, he wanted to die. After seeing Caesar’s ghost, the night before, he decided it was time for him to die. He requested Strato to hold the sword for him since he preferred to return to Rome as a corpse rather than be Antony’s prisoner, so he rushed into it and killed himself (act 5; scene 5). Although the tragic hero finally recognizes his errors, it is too late; suicide was his only option (Piotrowska, 2020:4).

Brutus bears full responsibility for his own death as well as the deaths of others as a result of his acts. Perhaps Caesar would have been the best leader Rome has ever had if he hadn’t dismissed Caesar’s character based on the presumption that he would be a tyrant. He should have told Caesar of the conspirators’ plans to avoid all the unneeded bloodshed. Brutus did not save Rome by assassinating Caesar; rather, he provided an opening for other vicious tyrants (Mark Antony and Octavius) to assume power. Brutus clearly aimed for more than he could achieve, and his goal to save Rome was a failure. Caesar`s death was thus a curse upon Rome, rather than a sacrifice to redeem it.

It is clear that the play is based on the idea of tragedy. It begins when Brutus intentionally or unintentionally, chooses to do the wrong thing. Despite his good traits, Brutus committed a primal wrong by assassinating Caesar. Because of Caesar’s death, the innocent perishes in civil conflicts, and tyranny prevails in Rome.

People go through difficult situations in life and while some may want to give up by committing suicide, most choose to struggle through life because the consequences of death are unknown and might be too great. In the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare, the main protagonist Hamlet, after finding out that his father was murdered by his uncle, must avenge his death, and in the process of doing so, goes insane according to the people around him. Both of Hamlet’s soliloquies in (1.2.129) “O that this too sullied flesh would melt..” and (3.1.57) “To be or not to be, that is the question…” relate to this key idea. In the first soliloquy, Hamlet is in absolute disbelief and disgust as he witnesses Claudius announcing his marriage to Gertrude. The entire situation is unbearable to witness because Hamlet’s mother is marrying his dead father’s brother, that too so quickly as his father has not been dead for very long, it all seemed too surreal. In the second soliloquy, quite possibly his most famous soliloquy, Hamlet is wandering around contemplating whether death is an easier option or if it is nobler to suffer through all the terrible things fate has thrown at him. This soliloquy gives a deeper outlook on death itself as Hamlet continuously tries to decide on whether one option is better than the other or he’d receive the same outcome from both options as he believes that nothing is going his way. Hamlet’s soliloquy that is said in Act 3 scene 1 closely relates to the theme that death is inevitable, in other words, no matter what we try to do to avoid imminent death, it is unknown and unavoidable as we have no power over death because, throughout the play, Hamlet comes to terms that everyone is destined to “return to dust”.

Before the first soliloquy is said, King Claudius delivers a speech to his courtiers stating his recent marriage to Gertrude. Claudius claims that he mourns his brother’s death, but has chosen to become king to stabilize Denmark. Claudius questions Hamlet and wonders “why the clouds still hang upon him” (1.2.66). Claudius says that every son loses their fathers at some point in their life and that Hamlet is ultimately showing an unmanly side to him for continuing to grieve over his father’s death and reminds him that he is next in line for the throne that Claudius now is bestowed upon. With this in mind, King Claudius tells Hamlet that he does not want Hamlet to go to school in Wittenberg, but only agrees to stay for his mother’s sake. This leads to Claudius deciding to celebrate with festivities as everyone in the room leaves except Hamlet which is when he delivers his soliloquy. His first soliloquy makes it obvious that he is depressed and is considering suicide, he says that he wishes he was dead and that his body would just melt away. He has lost interest in everything that used to give him pleasure and is contemplating suicide, but he is somehow stopped because he simply cannot just “disappear”. He also cleverly brings out the fact that God has forbidden him to act on his wishes to die and turn into “nothing”. Hamlet feels betrayed, he does not understand why his mother would remarry so quickly, especially after his father’s recent death, or rather, murder. This soliloquy relates to the theme because Hamlet contemplates suicide and he underestimates death itself. He believes that death is nothing but a word and that he can just end his life without possibly suffering any consequences. He feels as if he has power over death, he thinks he could just commit suicide which shows that he thinks he can end his life whenever he wants. Rather than thinking that death will soon come for everyone no matter what, he thinks that he can control death as if he’s the superior one.

Before the second soliloquy that is said by Hamlet, Claudius, and Polonius come up with a plan to figure out why Hamlet has been acting too strange. Polonius suggests using Ophelia as bait as he believes Hamlet is mad because of his love for Ophelia. The plan is to hide and see what will happen after Hamlet sees Ophelia walking around as Polonius instructs Ophelia to walk around pretending as if she is reading a book. Hearing Hamlet approach, everyone disperses so that Hamlet can privately speak to Ophelia. During the soliloquy, Hamlet is evidently in his most melancholy and depressed state as he ponders between living and death. He is wondering whether it is more noble and righteous to suffer and face all the cruel and terrible things that he believes were thrown at him by fate and unwelcoming circumstances, or to fight them off, and, in doing so, end things completely. This relates to the theme because Hamlet believes that with life, there is a lack of power. Everyone around him is deceiving him and playing with his mind as if he were some fool with no control over himself. However, death in his eyes, is immensely empowering because compared to life, where others are controlling you, killing oneself is a way of taking action, opposing, and by doing so, therefore “defeating the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” (3.1.58) His entire philosophical way of thinking about the topic of death shows his deeper understanding of it in a way. Compared to his soliloquy in (1.2.129), he shows no demeaning ignorance towards dying as much as he does towards living. He comes to an understanding that death, is something desirable, it is a perfect closure to all the pain and suffering, but it is still a great unknown and could be way worse than life itself. So rather than claiming that killing himself will be best for himself and that he can choose when to do so, he ponders the nature of death to achieve a deeper understanding. He decides to face his problems rather than face the uncertainty of death and the afterlife. This is where Hamlet fully understands that death is imminent and unavoidable, he learns that death will make its way to him as it does to everyone and that it isn’t exactly a choice. “Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, And thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er with the pal cast of thought.” (3.1.85)

In the first soliloquy, the atmosphere in the Danish court is full of energy to get rid of the mournful aura while Hamlet somehow manages to surround the atmosphere with melancholy. The tone in the scene is extremely tense, but it does shift from being very pleasant to tense which is caused by Hamlet. When Claudius and Gertrude speak to Hamlet it seems as if Hamlet is fine, but in Hamlet’s point of view, everything has lost its worth. Hamlet’s soliloquy dives into betrayal disloyalty, and a demeaning view of living. The tone drastically changes as shown in his soliloquy. Shakespeare does use a metaphor when Hamlet says that he wishes to disappear, “o, that this too solid flesh would melt, thaw and resolve itself into dew.” (1.2.129) The imagery that is used to describe both Claudius and Gertrude’s relationship is unapproving and quite dark. “Fie won’t ah fie! Tis an unweeded garden that grows to seed. Things rank and gross in nature possess it merely.” (1.2.135) In this particular quote from the soliloquy, Hamlet uses a metaphor where he compares the world to an unweeded garden that produces things “rank and gross in nature”. “So excellent a king, that was to this Hyperion to a satyr.” (1.2.140) Hamlet uses an allusion to compare his father whom he thinks is excellent to his deceitful uncle. In the second soliloquy, Hamlet uses a metaphor where he compares slings and arrows to life’s problems. “The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles…” (3.1.60) Hamlet uses allusion when he sees Ophelia, “The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons, be all my sins remembered.” (3.1.90) Imagery is also used in this soliloquy, “to die, to sleep- no more and by a sleep to say we end the heartache and the thousand natural shocks…)” (3.1.62) Hamlet compares death to sleep because when we are asleep, we don’t think unless we dream. Shakespeare’s many uses of figurative language in these two soliloquies give a deeper understanding of the theme.

Both soliloquies relate to the theme that death is inevitable, as it is unknown and unavoidable since we have no power over death. The first soliloquy has Hamlet wishing to kill himself after he witnesses the announcement of the marriage of his mother and his uncle after his father’s death. He shows his disgust and feels betrayed by his mother, and because of this overwhelming feeling of melancholy and anger, he thinks about killing himself right then and there after everyone leaves the Danish Court. The second soliloquy has Hamlet showing a deeper acknowledgment of death, which will make its way to him in due time when fate decides on it, and that he is merely a human, he has no power over death. There is a huge development in his way of approaching the topic of death as he goes from being ignorant and demeaning to being understanding. Throughout the play, Hamlet comes to terms that everyone is destined to “return to dust”. His fear of “what may come” is resolved with his understanding that death should not be spoken of lightly and that it is a part of life. Even prominent figures such as Julius Caesar, who was mentioned in the play are merely just humans in the face of death. “A little ere the mightiest Julius fell, the graves stood tenantless and the sheeted dead did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets…” (1.1.114) Caesar’s death shows foreshadowing as it can be connected to Claudius’s death at the end of the play. The fall of Rome is also correlated to the fall of Denmark. Horatio’s mentioning of Caesar is a hyperbole because, in Act 1 Scene 1, he believes the ghost of Hamlet’s father resembles an omen like that foretelling the fall of Julius. The foreshadowing of Polonius is also represented by another mention of Julius Caesar by the great and deceitful Polonius himself. “I did enact Julius Caesar. I was killed i’ th’ Capitol. Brutus killed me.” (3.2.95) The referencing of Julius Caesar is an allusion as he can be compared to both the fall of Claudius and Polonius. When Hamlet sees Yorick’s skull (symbolism), he can see death’s vengeance, he can visualize it. Yorick is lively and is mostly positive from what Hamlet says while Hamlet is melancholy and wishes to die, yet Yorick himself is the one that is dead. This helps Hamlet understand the deeper meaning of death as he learns that all mankind will be consumed by death at some point in their life whether they desire it or not. “Alas poor Yorick! I knew him. Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy. He hath borne me on his back a thousand times, and no, how abhorred in my imagination it is!” (5.1.168) There is no doubt that the second soliloquy is the better choice because that relates to the major theme of the play.

When someone thinks about ancient Rome and political powers within the society, many people will acknowledge the first Roman emperor, Augustus. However, very few people truly contemplate who the man was before he took on the infamous name.

He was born on September 23, 63 BC in the city of Rome with the official name Gaius Octavius but was sometimes referred to as Thurinus (Southern 1). Without any sound evidence, it can only be speculated as to why he later dropped ties to the name Thurinus and stuck to that of his father, Gaius Octavius. One may hazard to say that the young man changed his title because the name already had a rather successful career attached to it due to his biological father rising within the political ranks. He may have seen it as a way to gain more standing within the Roman government.

Octavius’ family origins are rather obscure. They originated from a Volscian town about twenty-five miles southeast of Rome, called Velitrae. The Octavii were wealthy equestrians, and bankers, and were considered local aristocracy, a distinguished family in the town (Shotter 1-2). Due to the close bonds the Octavii had with the location, there is very little doubt that Gaius was raised in the town for some time; some even accused that he was born in Velitrae. Octavius was brought up in a family of five; he had two sisters by the names of Octavia Major and Minor and his parents Gaius Octavius and his second wife, Atia (Southern 1-2).

The union to Atia, daughter of Marcus Atius Balbus of Africa and Julia (Canfora 245), was a political marriage due to her being the niece of Julius Caesar, who was just a rising politician at the time. The connections gained from the union furthered the elder Octavius’ career. His vocation evolved with each title he gained. The roles of military tribune, quaestor, plebian aedile (Southern 2), and praetor were all fulfilled by Octavius by the time Thurinus was two years old in 61 BC (Galinsky 5). However, he passed, rather suddenly, shortly after returning from Macedonia, where he was acting proconsul from 60 to 59 BC (Edmondson 1). During the fatherless period that lasted around two to three years, Octavius was taught by his mother. Atia was later united with Lucius Marcius Philippus in another political marriage, in either 57 or 56 BC (Southern 3-4).

Growing up, Octavius was constantly around politically driven people. This is a result of being the product of a politically driven marriage as well as being in the middle of the era that is now considered the “Fall of the Republic”, a period where Romans failed to agree to the rules of their “political game” (Flower 136). As he went through the years, he would have heard many names and opinions that were associated with the Roman political environment. With that being said, it is not unlikely that he was cultivated to become a well-to-do government spearhead. With that politically aware atmospheric homelife coupled with his continued education in oratory, both Latin and Greek (Southern 4), Octavius was being shaped into the perfect person to someday take power in Rome. He even went through the rite of toga virilis, a ceremony where those around eighteen lay down their togas that symbolize their youth and officially enrolled as adult Roman citizens, on October 18, 48 BC at the tender age of fifteen (12).

Julius Caesar played a fairly large role early in Octavius’ life. He was raised on stories of his great-uncle’s achievements and victories. It is wholly possible that Gaius Octavius grew up with more knowledge about a family member that he had not met until he was a teenager than his father (Southern 4). This was a factor that later helped him due to Caesar taking Octavius under his wing. His first public appearance, that we know of, is when he gave a eulogy for his grandmother, Julia, the younger sister of Caesar. He later went to shoulder many titles throughout this short nineteen-year long period, including being co-opted into a priesthood, the pontificate (Levick 4-5), named praefectus urbi during the Friae Latinae celebration (Southern 14), and later magister equitum (20).

Throughout his life, Octavius was regularly in ill health. He had numerous opportunities to accompany Julius Caesar on his expeditions, but his sickness always held him back. One occurrence was right before the voyage to Africa during Caesar’s Civil War, an expedition to fight the Pompeians (Southern 14). Another incident was right before Caesar’s expedition to Spain commenced. Octavius was said to be so sick that at one point Caesar jumped from his table and ran to be by his bedridden great-nephew (16). His illness cleared with enough time for him to leave for Spain, in hopes of catching up with Caesar. Unfortunately, he did not arrive until after the battle of Munda had been fought and won. However, Octavius took the time on the way back from Spain to converse and learn from Caesar (17).

Once Octavius, Caesar, and the army returned to Rome, Caesar established his ten-year dictatorship; this eventually extended to a lifelong dictatorship on February 15, 44 BC (Goldsworthy 78). As this progressed, Octavius continued to learn and show his charismatic and politically geared side. Shortly after their homecoming, Caesar sent Octavius to Apollonia to further his education in military service, politics, and the art of government (Southern 4 & 20). Due to the fact that Octavius was a sickly being, he was not able to gather the necessary military involvement that was needed to further his career in the political world. So he helped train the troops that were posted in Apollonia with him, therefore meeting the prerequisite (20).

While in Apollonia, Octavius received a tragic message through a slave owned by his mother. He had to go back to Rome. Why? The dictator was gone. The man who took him under his wing, who cared about him more than most people understood, the man that he had more knowledge of than his father was no longer breathing. On March 15, 44 BC, Julius Caesar had been assassinated (Southern 20-21).

Bibliography

1. Canfora, Luciano. Julius Caesar: The People’s Dictator. Edinburgh University Press, 2007.
2. Edmondson, Jonathan. Augustus. Edinburgh University Press, 2009.
3. Flower, Harriet I. Roman Republics. Princeton University Press, 2010.
4. Galinsky, Karl. Augustus: Introduction to the Life of an Emperor. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
5. Goldsworthy, Adrian. Caesars Civil War 49-44 BC. Taylor and Francis, 2003.
6. Levick, Barbara. Augustus: Image and Reality. Routledge, 2010.
7. Shotter, David. Augustus Caesar. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2005.
8. Southern, Pat. Augustus. Routledge, 1998.