The Globe Theater, in which Shakespeare's troupe performed, was a very intelligently designed arena for his plays. The performing area, consisting of several tiers and sub-stages, had to be versatile enough to be used for any of Shakespeare's plays -- without changing the main structure. From reading a description of the structure, it seems to me that the structure fulfilled its purpose very well. One could argue that the rigid design of the structure could cramp Shakespeare's freedom of choosing a setting, but I think it actually granted him more freedom. If he were confined to choosing sets that were practical on a standard flat stage, many of the interior scenes (i.e. Act 4 Scene 3) and the scenes using multiple elevations (i.e. the Romeo and Juliet balcony scene) would be nearly impossible. With the structure at The Globe, Shakespeare had balconies, windows, a trap door, and several elevations on which he could depend.

Another important point to remember is the fact that plays in Shakespeare's time were performed using an enormous amount of symbolism, be it acted or in the set. For instance, there was an entire guide of hand motions and gestures used to indicate to the audience the behavior and thoughts of a character. On the sets, tapestries of the sun, moon, and stars symbolized heaven. Tapestries of virtually any outdoor scene could be placed outside the curtains of the platform stage. Audiences of the time were much less demanding about the realism in the play.

Nowadays, audiences expect an unparalleled degree of detail in both acting and settings. Whereas a hand touching the actor's chin once flawlessly indicated deep thought, today's actors have to dramatize excessively -- in both speech and movement -- to 'properly' convey the mood. Current Broadway sets, although on a much higher budget than those of Shakespeare's time, are astonishingly realistic. The set in Phantom of the Opera, for instance, has a scene (in which the Phantom rows a boat through a foggy body of water) that is almost tangible to those in the audience.

There is much of an academic debate over who the tragic hero of Julius Caesar truly is. In literature, a 'tragic hero' is a character of great importance and stature who is finally brought to downfall by a tragic flaw of his own personality or doing. The question in Julius Caesar is whether the tragic hero of the play is Caesar or Brutus. Some argue that it was Caesar who had the greatest stature and lost it all. Some refute that Brutus seems to be the focus of the play, both in his constant presence in the plot (he doesn't die till the end) and in his much greater characterization (supplemented by soliloquies -- of which Caesar has none). Then, of course, there is the title of the play. However, I would attribute that to Shakespeare's preference for something recognizable; anyone who knows anything about Rome will recognize the name "Julius Caesar".

I have no doubt that Brutus is the tragic hero of the play. I believe that the reason there is a debate over this is the fact that many of the debaters are very well-read and aware of Caesar's full history -- not just what is presented in the play. To those people, Caesar is a man who spent a lifetime gaining power and trying to satisfy his ambitious nature, only to lose it by pushing the tolerance of his accomplices too far. However, the debate is on the topic of the play itself, not the actual historic events. To someone such as myself, who read the play with very little prior knowledge of Caesar or Roman history, Caesar was a man of much lesser stature.

Obviously, I saw that Caesar was well-respected by the way he is treaded in Acts 1 and 2. I also gained the sense that he was an ambitious person (maybe too much so), but most of that sense came second-hand from the way that the conspirators spoke of him. Yet, when looking at the play as a whole (and only the play), I find that Caesar's presence is sparse -- certainly not enough to warrant being considered a "man of high rank or station in life". Until learning the true history of Caesar (from outside sources), I considered Brutus to be the character with the greatest achievement, and hence, the greatest downfall.

Brutus's involvement in the play is undeniably more important to the plot. Caesar's death midway serves (to the uninitiated reader) as merely a fulcrum upon which the plot turns to focus on the plights of a distraught Brutus. It is, after all, Brutus who gains the greatest characterization. His soliloquies, speeches, and dialogues with other characters give much greater insight to his internal struggle than any insight gained of Caesar. Also, one must remember that Shakespeare wrote the play using Plutarch's depictions of Caesar, Brutus, and Marc Antony as his sources for both characterization and historical detail. As Traditions In Literature states, "'The Life of Caesar' gave him much of the basic plot; 'The Life of Brutus' provided characterization." One would logically assume that the 'characterization' gained from a biography of Brutus would be more relevant to building Brutus's character than Caesar's. That provides very convincing support for the claim that Brutus is the more defined character, and hence, the most likely candidate for being the tragic hero.

Julius Caesar is very simply written in contrast to many of Shakespeare's other works. As the prompt states, he "tried to create a spare, dry, 'simple' or austere Roman world." Also indicated by the prompt, this shows that Shakespeare realized that he did not have to include excessive literary allusions to make the impression of Rome. Instead, he settled on a Rome that was more digestible by the common man. The simplicity of the writing in the play is clearly intentional, as Shakespeare's other works show he is quite capable of writing in a more complex manner.

From my own experience in reading the play the first time, I found the simple style comforting. There are very few long speeches and soliloquies, which makes the plot (and the ideas it bears with it) much easier to take in. Perhaps this was Shakespeare's intention… To make the story so easily comprehensible that the majority of the audience will go home with the desired message -- instead of going home confused. Indeed, this would be the clever sort of action I'd expect. Since Shakespeare had, by the time he wrote Julius Caesar, already established a name for himself, he would have been more concerned with putting to use his talents instead of merely showing them off. By writing Julius Caesar for the common man, he could be sure that his objective was reached, and he got to show off quite a bit of talent in the process … After all, for a "simply written" play, Julius Caesar is a masterpiece.

There are many cliches that could apply to Brutus after conspiring against and murdering Caesar. Among them might be: "Biting off more than he can chew", "Jumping out of the pot and into the fire", and "Not looking before he leaped". No matter what you call it, assassinating Caesar was a mistake he would never be able to amend. Until Caesar was lost, Brutus had no perception of how critical Caesar's skills were to the Roman empire. The tactics and attitude that seemed so horribly unjust to Brutus turned out, in the end, to be the very stitching holding Rome together. Caesar had to die for Brutus to see the full scope of his political bearing.

Unfortunately, Brutus was completely unprepared for the weight that he would be expected to bear once Rome lost its great leader. When all was done, it was Brutus's overconfidence that condemned him to being the focus of mobs, riots, and even a political siege by Antony. The mistake Brutus made in killing Caesar was his tragic error. If there must be a tragic hero, I'm convinced it is Brutus, but his greatest 'flaw' was not a flaw at all -- it was one unthinkable error that led to his downfall. Certainly, if one were to argue that the tragic hero was Caesar, the tragic flaw would be his personality (see Journal 1), but for Brutus, there isn't so much of a personality problem as an tendency to make poor decisions.

I admit, I had very little knowledge of the history of Rome and/or Caesar's reign before studying the play. In fact, the extent of what I knew was that he favored a crown of some sort of fern, invented an excellent salad dressing, got killed (I knew that from seeing a little cartoon on the back of a bottle of Newman's Own Caesar dressing), and was one of the greatest leaders in human history. As it turned out, the crown thing was useless and Caesar salad was invented in the early 1900's. That left me with two key points of knowledge: Caesar was a great leader and he was murdered.

I find it interesting that I somehow knew that Caesar was a name bound to a sense of prestige, honor, and supremacy. While I can't speak for the point of view of a German, Slavonic, or Islamic person and their respective 'supreme names', I can say that my American prior knowledge of the name 'Caesar' was one of respect. As a bit of an experiment, I posed the question to my five-year-old brother, "What is the first picture that pops in your head when you hear me say 'Julius Caesar'?". The response, much to my dismay, was: "Something that Julie is doing." Maybe he'll know more about Caesar once he finished kindergarten J .

The pandemonium that stems from political unrest is unmatched. As H.G. Wells states in The Outline of History, one of the greatest frustrations is for a population to want change, but have no means of pursuing it. In a world where each is equal to another, there exists no man to stand up and lead the mob. Unfortunately for humans, mankind always prefers safety in numbers. Without someone to lead, the masses will meander aimlessly.

That is what was happening prior to Lucius Junius Brutus's interference in Rome. By leading the people, he drove out the Tarquin kings, allowing for the republic — the government of the masses — to exist. Rome was begging for a man like L.J. Brutus to lead them to their goal, and the great city that prospered afterwards was the product of his efforts.

The same scenario happened again before Caesar's reign, which I think gave him the leg-up on becoming the respected leader he was. Without the masses supporting him, Caesar's effort to rule would have fallen on deaf ears. Once he proved his power in the senate and on the battlefield, I think he had gained the critical property that the preceding "rulers" strove for: the love of the people. That unwavering backing must have given Caesar the leverage to get done what needed to be done — and he knew it. Why else would he have tried so hard to please the masses?

Caesar knew that for him to succeed, he needed to keep those he governed on his side. That support allowed him the great army that he needed, the backing for the changes he wanted, and the guarantee that his position in office would not be compromised. Even in death, Caesar gave all that he could to the people that loved him — showing, one last time, his love in return.

In the impoverished village in the Alps, where Caesar said that he would "…rather be the first man here than the second in Rome", I think he saw that the people of the village, despite its degradation, were willing to truly respect their leader. In Rome, only a man who proved his eloquence, and his skill in battle and leadership would be respected as a ruler. Caesar, being the ambitious, arrogant man he was, would never stand to be the lesser man at anything. Even if his nearest competition were a lowly villager, Caesar knew (all too well) the glory of being on top.

I think there was another factor at play in making that statement as well. Perhaps Caesar was hinting at the idea that being the second man in Rome is quite a dubious honor. With the rulers of the time being the way they were (often arrogant, demanding, and pushy), maybe being the second man guaranteed that you would be stepped on more than respected.

Analyzing the quote even deeper reveals another interesting possibility. Maybe Caesar, who was very used to being #1, was referring to Rome under his own rule. Perhaps he was considering, for a moment, the life of someone who had to serve below him. I doubt this would be Antony, but maybe someone that is not thoroughly discussed in the play, or not at all, whom Caesar realized, for a fleeting moment, has a job that is anything but desirable.

Reading the statistics on Caesar's accomplishments, especially in comparison to other "great" rulers of his time, is striking in the sense that I finally realized how much strength Caesar had. I am left to wonder, though… What would a person with Caesar's mind do in the world today? Would he become another Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin? Or would he bring the political prowess needed to commence a new era of peace for the world?

Undoubtedly, he would have the same drive to be the best, which would probably inspire him to take the place of "the most powerful man in the world": The President of the United States. "Caesar for President!", read the campaign banners. What a sight that would be! Assuming that he made his way to the top of the political hierarchy (and hence received the bonus of being the Commander in Chief of the US Army), I wonder if he would make as great a difference as he did in Rome. It is possible that the checks and balances of our government would keep him at bay. Then again, those checks are enforced by real people… and Caesar always had a knack for influencing people. Maybe he would find that the only way to keep everyone else happy enough to give him some leeway would be to please them with the greatest PR on the planet: the drive for world peace. Undoubtedly, Caesar had the skills necessary to pull off such a feat, and when complimented by the speed of today's communication and the respect of the US as a world power, I think a modern-day Caesar could really make a difference.

"Caesar for President!", reads the banner. Well, he's got my vote.

Caesar was always a man of class. He pardoned those who fought against him, repaired the statues of his predecessor, and chose to risk his life rather than appear in fear of death. I believe that Caesar did such things in a constant effort to win the admiration of all those around him. Once he had this admiration, he always used his supporters to back him on the plans and engagements that strengthened the empire.

In the play, however, Shakespeare does not make Caesar come off as the classy man that he must have been. In Act one, Caesar appears more of a pompous j_rk than anything else. The way he treats the Soothsayer, for example, is nothing short of the kind of attitude I'd see a teenage jock display when he's trying to impress a girl. Surely, in that instance, Caesar was trying to maintain the image that he had no concern for the petty ramblings of a peasant. That image would then impress all of the other villagers by making them all think they were above the foolish Soothsayer.

Yet, how great a mind does it take to consider the idea that the way he treated the Soothsayer could be a smaller display of an overall antipathy for peasants? Why wouldn't the Shakespeare's commoners see that if Caesar can so easily show his dislike of one peasant, he carries a dislike for the masses as a whole? With the way Shakespeare portrays Caesar in the play, such a scenario would have happened. I think that Shakespeare did a poor job of representing the charm that the real Caesar would have had. I understand that to knock the Bard is quite a daring deed, but after reading some of what Plutarch wrote, the image of Caesar that I gained from the first two acts of the play was inaccurate in the sense that he strove to please the people — not smite them.

Caesar's great blunder was his allowing his ambition to get too far. His passion for becoming a complete ruler (i.e. a king or an emperor) was his one shortcoming. I am surprised that a man of his intelligence and foresight did not see that he had built the confidence of the masses on the pretense that he was the ideal ruler — the one ruler that could take charge without becoming power-hungry. Caesar could not have seen that, for if he did, he would have realized that to pursue a position of complete power would be to completely betray the trust of the Romans. The people of Rome knew all too well the consequences of having a power-hungry man at the throne — or having a throne at all. The legacy of the abolishment of the monarchy was one that all Romans, including Caesar, held dear, but he almost reestablished it himself!

Sadly, for Caesar to fail to see the consequence of pursuing absolute power led to his downfall. I suppose it's human nature, for even someone with the foresight of Caesar became blinded by the glory of power. So blinded was he that Caesar did not anticipate others using the distaste of the masses against him. The Conspirators jumped at the chance, but Caesar hadn't the slightest idea of the danger he was in. Even until the last dagger, that of Brutus, fell to his flesh, Caesar was still surprised that he was not invincible. I find it somewhat depressing that even when I judge humanity by one of its greatest, I still find that we are so easily corrupted.

When I read Romeo and Juliet last year, my class discussed the differences between acting the play and seeing it on film. We discussed how subtleties, such as Juliet's hand reanimating when Romeo had turned his back thinking she was dead, can appear so dramatic on film, but go unnoticed on stage. To please an audience of thousands, actions on the stage must be deliberately and excessively portrayed. Apparently, in Shakespeare's time, the difference was even greater. Actors of the day did not have the benefits of lighting, elaborate scenery and effects, and sound systems to assist the performance. In order to bring the ideas of the play across to the people in the higher balconies or farther rows, distinct gestures were necessary.

The flip side of that is the skill it took just to be a member of the audience! One had to be able to decipher the gestures, motions, expressions, and probably faint speech of a play just to gain the full breadth of the performance. I would have to say that I prefer the days when a stirring sound track, skilled cinematography, and special effects make film performances as potent as they are. Then again, the raw text of the play is the most artistic of all. From reading my second Shakespeare piece (that being Julius Caesar), I found that, with the proper imagination, a play can be just as powerful on paper as on the screen or the stage. Even more to the point, I found in reading Romeo and Juliet that I preferred to have the text before me in order to grasp all of the lines of the movie, especially the puns that pervade Shakespeare's work.

As Shakespeare portrays him, Marcus Brutus is pathetically manipulated by the very two men of whom he thinks he is in control. Cassius, whom Brutus thought he was conning into supporting the conspiracy, shows late in the play that he has Brutus wrapped around his finger. Although Cassius submits to Brutus's push for the (fatal) military movement in Act 4, one can not deny the fact that early on, Cassius guides Brutus from the sidelines, maintaining his impression that he is in control. I don't know how valid this manipulation is in comparison with Plutarch's accounts, but true or not, Shakespeare wanted to make this point obvious. Shakespeare is showing, through Brutus, how easy it is to be manipulated when you are overly confident — a lesson useful to anyone in the audience. This may have been another case of Shakespeare making a political statement about his time through the politics in the play, but even if it was, the lesson applies to anyone.

In my own life (as short and sheltered as it is), I have already experienced the agony of falling into the hands of others by virtue of my own overconfidence. Most recently, I had an experience in managing my website which falls into the same territory. I manage the organization with the help of two other 15-year-olds — one in Virginia and one in California. I founded the organization, and felt for a long time that I had an unwavering power over the two assistants, but the one in Virginia took me by surprise. He knew that I was blind from confidence, and right under my nose, he set up a rival organization using the ideas and members that I had used to found the original group. While all this would seem petty to the uninitiated, the political war between two 15-year-old boys when money is at stake (the more popular organization gets more advertising money) is quite fierce. Had I kept my wits about me and maintained the cautious, industrious attitude I had when I started the group, none of it would have ever happened. I'm sure that as I get older, the magnitude of the consequences from this same lesson will increase greatly. For Brutus, playing into Octavious's hands cost him his life, his honor, and the empire he could have had.