for The Tragedy of Noble Brutus edit2/29/2008 c1 
10K. Hopkins
Interesting essay, late republican rome is a personal interest of mine. You make some interesting points but Im not sure if your meant to be evaluating shakespeare's character of brutus or the historical brutus.
If its the real one there are several key inaccuaracies which will make the historically minded vary wary of this essay. First of all you mispelt the name of Gnaeus Pompey Magnus. Pompeii was the town that was destroyed in the first century by Vesuvius. Second, they were not fighting over a throne. Caesar held an appointed in the Republic as Dictator, and deliberately refused a crown, to point out that he had no intentions of being a King. There was no king in rome for hundreds of years. It was a factional power struggle between Senate factions.
Third, Caesar did not kill Pompey. Pompey fled to Egypt where a roman soldier stationed there and court eunuch's of the Pharaoh Ptolemy XI murdered them. Caesar is reported to have become enraged at the Pharaoh and wept for Pompey when he was showed the head to Caesar in hopes of appeasing him.
Brutus is more likely to be none other than a bastard son of Caesar. His mother was one of his former lovers, Caesar showed great respect and patronage for the boy and gave him clemency when he first fled with the Optimates faction and Pompey in the civil war.
The faction of Brutus did not have the people's interest in mind, and Brutus was a fool to not see it. Caesar improved their lot, as a leader of the Populares faction and self appointed heir to the legasy of Marius, he wooed them, provided them with food and fixed alot of chronic social problems in Rome. Rome was sick and Caesar improved it. When he was murdered it sank Rome back into decades of misery until his nephew Gaius Octavianus could repeat the process, defeat Marcus Antonius and as Princeps fix Rome.
Marcus Antonius (Antony) merely reminded the people in his speech that it was Caesar who alone went out the way to be the people's champion, it was he not only showed non stop clemency to his enemies unlike the tyrant Sulla, it was he who on several occaissions publicly refused a crown to become King, it was Caesar who secured Egypt and the grain supply and ended for good the Gaulic threat and brought glory to Rome. It was Brutus, who in the end condemned Rome to misery and it was him as the last to strike Caesar down to inflict the greatest feeling of heart break and betrayal. Shakespeare tells us his last words were 'Et tu, Brute?' Historical sources tell us it was more likely to have been in greek: 'you too, my child?'
If I were alive back then I would most certainly have backed the followers of Caesar.
10K. HopkinsInteresting essay, late republican rome is a personal interest of mine. You make some interesting points but Im not sure if your meant to be evaluating shakespeare's character of brutus or the historical brutus.
If its the real one there are several key inaccuaracies which will make the historically minded vary wary of this essay. First of all you mispelt the name of Gnaeus Pompey Magnus. Pompeii was the town that was destroyed in the first century by Vesuvius. Second, they were not fighting over a throne. Caesar held an appointed in the Republic as Dictator, and deliberately refused a crown, to point out that he had no intentions of being a King. There was no king in rome for hundreds of years. It was a factional power struggle between Senate factions.
Third, Caesar did not kill Pompey. Pompey fled to Egypt where a roman soldier stationed there and court eunuch's of the Pharaoh Ptolemy XI murdered them. Caesar is reported to have become enraged at the Pharaoh and wept for Pompey when he was showed the head to Caesar in hopes of appeasing him.
Brutus is more likely to be none other than a bastard son of Caesar. His mother was one of his former lovers, Caesar showed great respect and patronage for the boy and gave him clemency when he first fled with the Optimates faction and Pompey in the civil war.
The faction of Brutus did not have the people's interest in mind, and Brutus was a fool to not see it. Caesar improved their lot, as a leader of the Populares faction and self appointed heir to the legasy of Marius, he wooed them, provided them with food and fixed alot of chronic social problems in Rome. Rome was sick and Caesar improved it. When he was murdered it sank Rome back into decades of misery until his nephew Gaius Octavianus could repeat the process, defeat Marcus Antonius and as Princeps fix Rome.
Marcus Antonius (Antony) merely reminded the people in his speech that it was Caesar who alone went out the way to be the people's champion, it was he not only showed non stop clemency to his enemies unlike the tyrant Sulla, it was he who on several occaissions publicly refused a crown to become King, it was Caesar who secured Egypt and the grain supply and ended for good the Gaulic threat and brought glory to Rome. It was Brutus, who in the end condemned Rome to misery and it was him as the last to strike Caesar down to inflict the greatest feeling of heart break and betrayal. Shakespeare tells us his last words were 'Et tu, Brute?' Historical sources tell us it was more likely to have been in greek: 'you too, my child?'
If I were alive back then I would most certainly have backed the followers of Caesar.