Hey guys, I hope you all are enjoying Caesar as much as I am. Below is a posting for you to comment on...
Literary critic T.S. Dorsch said that Caesar makes "such extravagant expressions of arrogance that all sympathy for him is alienated, and the action of the assassins is for the moment almost accepted as justifiable."
What do you think?
Lit Terms 2
5 years ago
14 comments:
Caesar was indeed very arrogant throughout the portions of the play in which he appeared. However, I disagree that it made killing him acceptable and erased any sympathy. Yes, he was arrogant but he wasn't cruel or murdering millions of people.
I mean if Hitler hadn't murdered Jews and was just arrogant no one would have tried to kill him. Arrogance is a character flaw, not a justifiable reason for assassinating him.
Megan D. 3rd
To me, I didn't feel Caesar was outrageously arrogant. Yes at times he appeared that way, but other times you wonder, "How can this man be viewed as a threat?" I definitely disagree that his display of arrogance made murdering him acceptable and just. Also, I do not think that all sympathy was erased. When reading the play, i know i personally felt sympathetic to see some of Caesar's closest friends stab him in the back... literally. I know where this writer is coming from, but i do not believe they are completely accurate in what they say.
-Chad Voytik a.k.a *SeaVoyager*
What T.S Dorsch is saying is that since Caesar was arrogant it was acceptable for them to kill him. I am going to have to disagree just because Ceasar was arrogant does not give them a reason to kill him. Alot of people these days show some form of arrogance and if we killed them for that alot of people would be dead. Ceasar didn't kill anyone or hurt anyone, and when Antony offered him the crown three times he refused, so was Ceasar really a bad guy? who knows. That still does not give the assasinants a reason to kill him besides as Brutus put it, it was better for the people of Rome.
Ali S. 4th period
In my opinion, Caesar did seem pretty arrogant. Even though he didn't take the crown, he still wanted to be king very badly and let his family continue ruling. I don't see too much wrong with this, I mean who wouldn't want to be king; as long as it would've benefited Rome. Which I doubt it would've. But the results of them killing him were not good, and killing someone just because they are arrogant isn't right.
Robert P.
So the critic is saying that Caesar is so power-hungry that all feeling for him is unfriendly, and the action of the murderers is accepted as the right thing to do? I know that Caesar wanted to be the king and all, but he shouldn't have been killed for it. But I guess I understand the assassins' point of view, too. They wanted to kill him for the good of the people of Rome. Not that they didn't like the guy...they wanted to make it better for the people.
I think that the critic isn't right because there a bunch of people out there who have overbearing pride, but we don't kill them now, do we???
-Stella K. 3rd
I'm going to have to agree that Caesar was very arrogant and I can see why the conspirators did what they did. For example, in Act II Scene II, Caesar portrays some of this arrogance when he claims that he is more dangerous than fear. I think Caesar was a good man but he was too caught up in wanting his family to rule forever and not to what was best for his country or it's future.
- Callie S. 4th period
In my opinion Caesar was not arrogant. Even if Caesar was arrogant it didn't give anyone the right to kill him. Anyone who wanted to be king would have acted the same way he did. Antony offered him the crown three times and he refused it all three times. He wanted to be king, but he wanted everyone to want that to. So will they know if Caesar was a good guy? Nobody knows now because the assasinants didn't give him a chance.
Leanne I. 4th period
Caesar was arrogant, and I felt no pity when he died. It was just a death. It meant nothing emotionally to me, as the reader. Do I think that someone should be murdered for arrogance? No, of course not. However, as a character, he lost the support of the audience. He was warned several times and had every opportunity to avoid his demise, but he refused to listen. As a person, I don’t believe he should’ve been killed. When I look at him as simply a character in a plot, he had it coming.
Though Caesar was very ignorant indeed, I don't necessarily agree with this quote. When T.S. Dorsch says "the actions of the assassins is for the moment almost accepted as justifiable", and pretty much says the conspirators were right in killing Caesar just for his arrogance, I don't believe he's right. Though Caesar may of had some not very likable qualities, and don't think that justifies his assassination.
Ryanne W., 3rd period
I took me awhile to really get the gist of how arrogant Caesar really was. In act 2 scene 2 he tells Calphurnia how her dream applies to everyone in the world but him because he is so "amazing". Also how he said the gods are wrong because they said that he shouldn't go out because the beast didn't have a heart when the priest sacrificed it. I think his own arrogance led him to his death. I'm kind of glad that he got killed because it certainly brought an end to his arrogance. To me it was very justifiable.
SABRINA!
4th period
I do not believe Caesar was arrogant at all. If you sit and think of adjectives that go with the word king, you normally think of arrogant. I think anybody who wanted to be king would be arrogant, because obviously they think they are better than everyone else. I think that if he was so arrogant he would have taken the crown and would have not wanted what the people wanted.
~ Mary Kathryn Sargent 3rd period
I think Caesar was somewhat arrogant. He thought that he should be king and seemed to keep wanting more power. If they hadn't have killed him, I'm sure it would have become a problem in the future but, I think they could have dealt with it a differnet way than just killing him. Also, when you think about it, a good leader should have confidence in himself so I don't think I fully agree, but, I do see both sides.
Callie B. 4th
Caesar is an ever-changing figure, he's generous and greedy, noble and selfish. I believe William S. was trying to give the audience room to understand Brutus' reasons and so that way the play can go on but then he shows us Caesar's human side again in Anthony's speech when he talks about Caesar's will and remembers what he did for everyone. The critic says he is arrogant as if that's all he is and by doing that he is just ignoring an important point in the play; Julius Caesar wasn't all bad.
I agree that Caesar was very arrogant and sometimes extremely full of himself. I do not think, though, that his faults made the actions of his murderers acceptable. If someone does something wrong, no matter how many people it affects, I do not think that it is right for other people to judge them. In this case, they judged him by killing him. By doing so, they created fault in themselves. Who is supposed to punish the conspirators since they committed murder? As long as people think they can justify other people's actions and mistakes, the cycle will never end. I don't think that Caesar's personal flaw could be used by them as a concrete excuse for claiming his life since no one is perfect.
Becky H.
3rd Period
Post a Comment