Julius Caesar (drama)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brutus and Caesar's ghost.

Julius Caesar ( Early Modern English The Tragedy of Iulius Cæsar ) is a tragedy by William Shakespeare . The work deals with the circumstances of the murder of Caesar and the fate of Brutus , the leader of the conspirators. It takes place in the city of Rome and in Philippi . Shakespeare has the narrated time of the plot, which actually took place between 44 and 42 BC. Chr. Played, concentrated on a few days. The main source was Plutarch's Greek biography of Julius Caesar in the translation by Thomas North from 1579. Most scholars believe that Shakespeare completed the work in 1599. The only authoritative text is the print edition in the "First Folio" of 1623; this text is of high quality from a bibliographical point of view. The work has an unusual two-peaked structure with the climax of the assassination of Caesar in the third act. In Elizabethan times there were many different "Caesar dramas", but Shakespeare's version was one of the most popular during his lifetime. In the period that followed, the work never disappeared from the theater's repertoire; it has a long tradition as school reading, especially in the USA and Germany, and has been filmed several times.

Overview

A major thematic focus of the piece is the clash of conflicting values ​​and concepts of order between the opposing political poles of republic on the one hand and empire or monarchical - tyrannical rule on the other. In this structure-forming area of ​​tension, the characters orientate themselves with varying degrees of determination to one side or the other. There are no comedy-like plot elements or comic interludes that are otherwise characteristic of a large part of Shakespeare's plays. What is also striking, with Caesar and Brutus as the main characters on an equal footing, is the unusual existence of two tragic heroes who shape the specific plot of this piece in a special way. While the plot in the first part of the drama, which focuses on the overthrow and murder of Caesar, essentially follows the model of the de-casibus tragedy, the dramatic events in the further course, in which Brutus is in the foreground as the tragic hero , which is subject to the more skillful acting Antony , primarily determined by a conflict of conscience and values, the classic pattern of which can already be found in the Antigone by Sophocles .

Accordingly, the tragedy has an unusual double-peaked structure, in the two strands of which there are different plot and motive correspondences. With the murder of Caesar (III.1) and the forum speeches (III.2) in the third act of the work, the dramatic climaxes are initially in the center of the first part; the death of the title hero is, however, both a catastrophe and a periphery of the plot: in the second part of the play, Caesar's tragedy is counterpointed by Brutus'. In this regard, the criticism has occasionally raised the accusation that Shakespeare's tragedy thus falls apart into two different parts. However, this is counteracted by the close connection of the central points of the work as intersections and pivots between two connected dramatic lines of development, which prevents the piece from breaking down into two independent dramatic parts.

Another peculiarity lies in the structure of the play: Compared to other tragedies, in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar the stage presence of the title character is greatly reduced. Even before the attack, the number of Caesar appearances was very sparingly distributed; he also dies in the middle of the drama and not just in the last act. Nevertheless, his name remains constantly present in the consciousness of the other characters even during his absence from the stage; In the second part, too, he continues to co-determine the dramatic events by living on in the actions or thoughts of both his followers and his opponents. Although he is no longer physically present on stage as a real figure, he is still effective as an imaginary quantity.

While in the first part of the drama the human weaknesses in the person of the ruler gradually become evident, his opponents and the conspirators simultaneously gain more and more support and persuasiveness. Paradoxically, however, the murder of Caesar and the victory of the conspirators lead to the fact that the essence of monarchical or tyrannical rule and thus the spirit of Caesar inevitably asserts itself, whereas Brutus and Cassius increasingly lose positions and integrity and ultimately atone for their deed by suicide.

action

Caesar is from the Civil War ( 49 - 45 V Chr., Returned). He enters a public square with his wife Calpurnia , Marcus Antonius , Marcus Brutus , Gaius Cassius and others. a. A fortune teller tells Caesar to beware of the Ides of March , but Caesar does not take the warning seriously. Brutus and Cassius talk about the people wanting to make Caesar king, they hear how Antonius offers Caesar the crown three times, but the latter refuses each time before he passes out in an epileptic fit. When Cassius later learns that the Roman senators want to elect Caesar as king the next day, he reveals that he had already organized resistance against Caesar. Caesar's closest confidante and friend Brutus is also concerned about the development. At first he was plagued by doubts, which he expressed in a self-talk in his ominous garden, lit by lightning and meteors. In the course of this self-talk, however, he finds a justification for the murder of his friend: the good of the community, which goes beyond personal loyalty. When Cassius and other conspirators visit him, they decide to kill Caesar the next day. Brutus takes the lead in the conspiracy. He decides that the consul Antonius must be spared, since the attack should only apply to the tyrant himself.

Calpurnia is plagued by nightmares in which she anticipated Caesar's assassination three times. She asks Caesar not to leave the house, who replies: “What can be avoided / That the mighty gods set themselves the goal?” ( “What can be avoided / Whose end is purposed by the mighty gods?” ). Only when Caesar learns that the augurs are recommending him to stay at home after an inspection of the bowels does he give in to Calpurnia's requests; but the co-conspirator Decius changes Caesar's mind again. On the way to the Capitol, Artemidorus wants to give him a letter with the warning to beware of Brutus and the other conspirators; but Caesar rejects the man. In the Capitol, Casca is the first to stab Caesar, followed by the other conspirators, and Brutus stabs last. Caesar dies in astonishment at Brutus' betrayal ("Et tu, Brute?", "Brutus, you too?"). The conspirators dip their arms in his blood.

At Caesar's corpse, Antony shakes the bloody hands of the conspirators. But then he asks Caesar's ghost to forgive him for making peace with the conspirators. Contrary to the advice of Cassius, Brutus gives in to a request from Antony to be allowed to bring the body to the forum and speak there in front of the assembled crowd. According to Brutus' opening words, the people consider Caesar to be a tyrant and the deed to be justified. But then, in the presence of several conspirators, Antonius begins a fiery speech against Brutus, in which he cleverly stirs up the citizens. He first reminds the people that he offered Caesar the crown three times but refused Caesar three times, then weeps in front of the moved people and continues: “He was my friend, was just and loyal to me; / But Brutus says he was full of domination, / And Brutus is an honorable man. ”( " He was my friend, faithful and just to me: / But Brutus says he was ambitious; / And Brutus is an honorable man. " ). Then he presents Caesar's tattered cloak, then his body. With rhetorical skill and with reference to Caesar's achievements for Rome and his generous will, Antonius finally succeeds in inciting the people to revolt against the conspirators and to incite murder. Brutus and Cassius flee Rome.

Anthony meets in his house with Caesar's adopted son Octavian and Marcus Lepidus , who now rule Rome. You agree which opponents are to be eliminated. Meanwhile, Brutus and Cassius reportedly raise an army. In their camp near Sardis , there is a dispute between Brutus and Cassius, but they are reconciled again. Fortune turns against Brutus. It is reported that the procedure is in Rome mercilessly against the supporters of the conspiracy among the victims of proscription was also Cicero . He also has to hear the news of his wife Portia's suicide . During the night Caesar's ghost appears to him and announces that he will see him again at Philippi , where the battle against Antony and Octavian is to take place. In the battle, Antony's troops defeat those of Cassius, who thereupon lets his servant kill himself because he thinks the battle is lost. Brutus' forces oppose Octavian's, but ultimately they are wiped out by the opposing forces. Brutus asks one of his men to hold the sword and rushes inside. Antonius gives an apotheotic speech to Brutus, in which he describes him as the only unselfish participant in the conspiracy against Caesar.

Literary templates and cultural references

Shakespeare relied mainly on Plutarch's parallel lives ( Bioi paralleloi ), which he had in the translation of Sir Thomas North from 1579 (2nd edition 1595). North himself did not use the original Greek text for his translation, but a French version by Jacques Amyot from 1559.

In Plutarch's parallel biographies , the events surrounding Caesar's assassination are presented by three different main characters with different emphases. At the same time, Plutarch already has numerous anecdotal and scenic descriptions as well as detailed character images that Shakespeare was able to take up for a dramatization without having to invent many additional plot elements or characters. It is not uncommon for him to take over entire sentences from North's English original with only minor adjustments or changes, almost literally. His achievement as a dramatist consists primarily of carefully selecting the material from the extensive template and skillfully combining it into an artfully arranged, multi-layered and dramatically dense plot. While the events before Caesar's assassination stretch in the source for months, Shakespeare condenses the historically divergent events into a closed, fast-paced and dramatically tense plot that only covers one day and one night.

He builds individual references in the template into entire scenes and individualizes the historical persons. In doing so, he adopts corresponding approaches to characterize Plutarch, but deepens them and reinforces their contradictions in order to make the relationships between the characters more exciting. For example, he contrasts Caesar's statesmanlike size with his human weaknesses or inadequacies and shows Brutus not only in his cool, stoic, relaxed attitude as a politician, but also in private, lyrical moments. He supplements Plutarch's drawing of Mark Antony as an opportunistic power politician with a humanly real and deep bond with Caesar. Shakespeare also invents the forum speeches (III.2) and creates one of the most rhetorically effective and polished political speeches in world literature with the demagogic funeral speech of Mark Antony. At the same time he gathers the processes after Caesar's murder in order to condense them into a few moving, dramatic scenes.

The Elizabethans were familiar with Caesar as a figure from didactic representations such as the Mirror for Magistrates from 1587 or Elyot's The Governor from 1531 as well as from various neo-Latin or French Caesar dramas, some of which were also available in an English version, for example Cornélie (1574) by Jacques Garnier, the Translated into English by Thomas Kyd in 1594 . In contrast to Shakespeare, these Caesar dramas, which are under the influence of Seneca , show their hero without any weaknesses as a bombastic Hercules figure. In the anonymous drama Caesar's Revenge (1606), which cannot be precisely dated in terms of its genesis and may possibly be attributed to the Vorshakespearian theater, the material is adapted to the conventions of the Elizabethan revenge tragedy . In addition, a number of other Caesar dramas probably existed in the Elizabethan theater, which have no longer survived. From today's perspective it can no longer be determined with sufficient certainty which of these dramas or older versions Shakespeare was familiar with; However, it can be assumed that Shakespeare was very likely to know the stage tradition of the time of portraying the fall of Caesar.

In terms of cultural history, the image of Caesar that existed during the Renaissance was entirely contradictory. Depending on the point of view or political location, Caesar could be seen both as the founder of the Roman Empire and ruler by the grace of God as well as a usurper or tyrant; accordingly Brutus was considered either a regicide and traitor or a republican freedom hero.

Dating

The creation of the piece is generally dated to 1599. In the catalog raisonné Palladis Tamina by Francis Meres, published a year earlier and registered for printing in the Stationers' Register on September 7, 1598 , Julius Caesar is not yet included in the list of Shakespeare's works known at the time. The first evidence of an early performance of the piece can be found in an entry in the diary of the young Basel doctor Thomas Platter , who traveled to London in the fall of 1599. On September 21, 1599, Platter describes his impressions of a performance of the work he attended, presumably in the newly built Globe Theater :

“On the 21st of September after lunch, about two hours ago, I drove across the water with my company, saw the tragedy of the first Keyser Julio Caesare with no risk of 15 people acting artfully in the streüwinen roof house; At the end of the comedy they danced very gracefully according to their usage, ye two dressed in man's and two in women's clothes, wonderfully with each other. "

May have been Julius Caesar even the Globe Theater was completed in late summer 1599 written by Shakespeare for the inauguration. The number of people named by Platter relates to the 15 male actors who were able to cope with over 40 roles as actors on the stage.

Text history

First folio edition 1623

The first printing of the piece was registered in the Stationers' Register on November 8, 1623 by Edward Blount and Isaac Jaggard, along with fifteen other works, and appeared in the first folio edition of 1623. This exceptionally well-printed first edition by Julius Caesar , with hardly any errors or has problematic passages, is generally regarded as very reliable and provides the sole authoritative text basis for today's editions. Since the text of the first print version is already divided into files and the information relevant for a theatrical performance, such as stage directions or the names of the speakers, has been edited with great care, it can be assumed with great certainty that the first print was a theater manuscript, either the prompt book or an exact one Copy of it, was the basis. The other folio prints from 1632, 1663 and 1685 go back to the text of the first printed edition and have no more independent text authority than the numerous later four- high editions in the 1680s and 1690s.

At a relevant point, however, various Shakespeare researchers see signs of a text interference or a text revision in the first folio edition. The two successive versions of the account of Portia's suicide in the fourth act (IV, ii, 199–247) are obviously mutually exclusive; however, the handwritten template for the first folio probably must have included both versions. This apparently inconsistent double treatment of Portia's death in the fourth act is sometimes viewed as a corruption of the original text. The majority of today's editors, however, see the initial version of the news of Portia's suicide in the first folio text as a dramatically superior version, which Shakespeare himself presumably added or authorized later in the manuscript as an improvement.

Genre and historical context

As the first of Shakespeare's Roman dramas, the piece, which lies between the histories and the great tragedies, occupies a particularly prominent position in Shakespeare's oeuvre . Julius Caesar connects the question of the reasons and effects of political action with the histories: Shakespeare directs the point of view beyond the personal fate of his main characters to the area of ​​the public-political life they influence, which in turn retrospectively provides the impulses and motivations for the provides the characters' own actions. In addition, in Julius Caesar , Shakespeare depicts character-related motifs, internal conflicts and personal decision-making processes as well as tragic human developments and fateful entanglements that are central to the group of subsequent tragedies. The work thus represents a turning point in the entire Shakespeare canon with the turning away from English history to essential questions of human and basic sensitivities and existence.

Similar to Hamlet , King Lear and Macbeth , Shakespeare's interest in the consciousness process of his main characters, here Brutus, is already clear in this Roman drama. The play shows not only the internal conflict of conscience and the process of the slowly maturing decision to sacrifice one's closest personal friend for the common good, but also the fateful effects of his deed: he and his co-conspirators succumb to Antonius and Octavian and are ultimately killed by them driven. His naive idealism, his republican convictions and his love of freedom lead Brutus to the erroneous assumption that he could determine the future fate of Rome at the cost of murder; in fact, his act tragically only opens the way for Octavian as future Princeps Augustus or first Roman emperor.

This makes Julius Caesar not only a political play, but also a character tragedy. This intermediate position is also reflected in the dramaturgy of the play: the dramatic climax with Caesar's murder is prepared with tension in the first part with numerous retarding moments ; after Caesar's death a deep turning point follows and the fate of the civil war cannot be averted after Mark Anton's incendiary speech.

Criticism and interpretation

Like hardly any other Shakespeare drama, Julius Caesar polarized critics and interpreters well into the 20th century by taking sides either for Caesar as the title character and protagonist or for Brutus as his antagonist.

The respective sympathy with one of these two main characters was usually linked to a corresponding political evaluation. Shakespeare's Caesar was seen either as a tyrant or as a martyr, his opponent Brutus either as a liberator or as a common murderer. This classic antagonism in the interpretation of the piece shaped the widespread editions of the work for a long time. For example, while J. Dover Wilson, editor of the New Cambridge Shakespeare, characterized Caesar as a monstrous tyrant, Brutus, on the other hand, as a noble hero (xiii, xxi-ii, xxv), TS Dorsch, the editor of the Arden edition , rated Brutus as both naive and arrogant Idealists and, in return, emphasized Caesar's greatness.

Because of such contradictory evaluations and assessments of the main characters and the actual statement associated the drama classified Ernest Schanzer in the mid-1950s the work as so-called "problem play" ( problem-play ) a.

In addition, the research and criticism also posed the fundamental question of the actual main character and the appropriateness of the title. For a long time the almost unanimous view of the critics and scholars, the play deals not with the tragedy of Caesar but that of Brutus. The reason given was that the title character only appeared in three of 18 scenes and only had a very limited text portion of the entire piece. While Brutus speaks 720 lines according to the concordance and has a text share of around 27.8%, Caesar's share is limited to 150 lines, which corresponds to a text share of 5.8%.

Despite isolated opposing opinions, however, there is consensus in current research that Shakespeare rightly chose Caesar as the title figure. The concordance shows that Caesar's name is mentioned 219 times in the drama, but that of Brutus only 134 times. Caesar is killed after only a few appearances in the first part of the drama, but the fixation on the title character continues even after his murder in the entire second part of the play. In the third act, for example, Caesar's corpse lies around 430 lines long on the stage and Caesar himself reappears in the form of his spirit. The last words of Cassius in his suicide are also addressed to the murdered Caesar (5.3.45-46) and Brutus dies completely under the spell of Caesar (5.5.50-51). The focus of Shakespeare's drama is therefore less the person of Caesar as a human than as a myth, as can also be illustrated using these statistical data. From today's point of view, the dramatic irony is particularly evident in the fact that the title character receives her immortal greatness through her physical death and that the intentions of the conspirators are thus turned into their opposite. Brutus only killed Caesar as a physical person, but his spirit becomes all the more powerful through the murder. Paradoxically, the dead Caesar plays a far more influential role in Shakespeare's work than the living one before; this is particularly evident in Antony's eloquent funeral speech.

Just as historians are divided on the political significance of the real historical Julius Caesar , so do critics and literary scholars as to the portrayal of his role in Shakespeare's drama. For some critics, Julius Caesar is a “ republican ” play that justifies tyrannicide . Others see it as a monarchist drama that condemns rebellion against a ruler. Accordingly, the play is occasionally rated either as an indication of Shakespeare's critical attitude towards Elizabethan absolutism or as a testimony to his orthodox political views. The view that has prevailed is that Julius Caesar, with his ambiguities, evokes ambivalent reactions from the audience. Neither Caesar nor Brutus are designed as completely positive or thoroughly negative figures; Shakespeare was not interested in identifying the audience with either Brutus or Caesar.

The Caesar material has always been politically explosive, as it was often used as a historical example in the discussion about the legality or reprehensibility of tyrannicide. In the Renaissance there was a heated argument about the right to resist . More recently, it is assumed by Shakespeare researchers that Shakespeare participates in this dispute with his play by showing the political and ethical problems of tyranny and resistance to it.

The long controversy surrounding the play, which began at the beginning of the criticism of the work in the 18th century and has continued into the present, is essentially the unchanged question of the actual tragedy of the play, that of Caesar or Brutus. The problem framework of the questions and the complexity of the answers have changed historically. In the 18th and 19th centuries, alongside the question of the actual tragic hero, the question was also to what extent Shakespeare's work with its plot structure and its distribution of guilt and atonement corresponded to the classic poetic norms of tragedy. This search for a binding norm of tragedy is considered outdated in today's debate; the originally simple, but never unanimously resolved question of the tragic main character of the drama and its character integrity is usually discussed in more detail in the more recent debate.

While in the initial criticism either Caesar or mostly Brutus was one-sidedly heroized as a tragic protagonist and classified as a character without flaws and weaknesses, today both characters in the play are seen equally as contradicting, deliberately ambivalent characters, to whom Shakespeare has a depth that cannot be explored : Brutus, for example, from today's perspective is no longer viewed one-dimensionally as an irreproachable, honest idealist and patriot who only cares about the common good, but also as vain and self-righteous and interpreted as naive, imprudent or even instinctless in his political mistakes.

The negative character image of Caesar, drawn in the past by entire generations of critics, from William Hazlitt to J. Dover Wilson, has been put into perspective in the recent discussion. From the human weaknesses of Caesar addressed in the drama, such as his hubris or lust for power and ambition, his physical weakness and boasting or even his superstition, an intended negative view of Shakespeare is no longer simply read out in more recent interpretations ; instead, reference is also made to the more engaging traits in his design of Julius Caesar, which should save the recipient from putting Shakespeare's figure into a simple type scheme. In this context, Caesar's knowledge of human nature , his sense of justice, his affability , but also his qualities as a ruler are indicated. In addition, reference is made to the distortions in Caesar's negative view of the drama, which are due to the partiality of the respective observer figures. The multiple refraction of the dramatic perspective deliberately shifts the central characters into a twilight that leads to unanswered questions at crucial points and thus prevents a simple pseudo-solution for the viewer.

Performance history

Julius Caesar enjoys continued popularity with the public with his classic theme. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the play was mainly staged as a brutus drama in historical staging. In more recent times, on the other hand, there has been a tendency away from historicizing performance practice. Instead, after the political experiences of the 20th century in the shadow of the world wars, current references are often made by portraying the eponymous hero as a fascist dictator and the actors appearing in modern clothes. The now famous New York production of Orson Welles from 1937 was particularly groundbreaking for this tendency towards an updated staging of the drama. Whether a portrayal as a fascist dictator does justice to the title character is, however, controversial.

A version of Julius Caesar, probably based on the Shakespearian original, was performed by traveling English comedians and actors on German stages for the first time in several cities from 1626 onwards . The first demonstrable performance of Julius Caesar on German soil took place in Dresden in 1626. In Germany, like other dramas by Thomas Kyd , Christopher Marlowe or Shakespeare , the play was probably initially performed by English traveling actors in their own language, whereby it was less about the dialogues than about the spectacle. In the succession of these English comedians, German traveling actors came into possession of corresponding German versions of the original. Several performances by Julius Caesar are documented between 1650 and 1660 .

The independent German reception of Shakespeare began in 1741 with a translation of the drama in Alexandrians by Kaspar Wilhelm von Borcke . The Borcke translation, which was considered to be the first complete translation of a Shakespearean stage work into German, was soon followed by the prose translations by Christoph Martin Wieland as part of the eight-volume edition of his intended complete translation of all of Shakespeare's works between 1762 and 1766, as well as those by Johann Joachim Eschenburg in his Twelve volumes of the complete prose translation published between 1775 and 1777. The blank verse transmission of 16 Shakespeare dramas (including Julius Caesar ) by August Wilhelm Schlegel , which appeared between 1797 and 1801 and was completed between 1825 and 1833 under the direction of Ludwig Tieck , then acquired particular importance .

The first performance of the work in German took place in Mannheim in 1785 ; the prose version was played by Wieland. In 1803 the work was staged in Weimar under Goethe's direction . This performance was based on Schlegel's translation, which soon caught on on German stages. The later productions in the 19th and 20th centuries by actors and directors such as E. Possart , A. Bassermann (1917) and W. Krauss (1941) as well as F. Kortner (1955) took opposing paths, especially in the portrayal of the main characters and demonstrated the wide scope of interpretation of the piece in a very impressive way. Since the 1970s, the work has only been performed comparatively rarely in German-speaking countries, possibly also due to the ideological susceptibility of its interpretations.

Adaptations

The earliest film adaptations of the Shakespeare play date from 1908 and 1911. They are an American (directors J. Stuart Blackton and William V. Ranous ) a British-Portuguese (director Frank R. Benson ) silent film production . With Julius Caesar , a well-known film adaptation by Joseph L. Mankiewicz was made in 1953 with Marlon Brando as Mark Anton, James Mason as Brutus and John Gielgud as Cassius. Charlton Heston played Mark Antony twice: in David Bradley's film adaptation from 1950 and in Stuart Burge's Julius Caesar version from 1970. In 2012 the brothers Paolo and Vittorio Taviani filmed the drama under the title Caesar Must Die in a mixture of feature and documentary film . All roles were performed by Italian prison inmates; the mostly black and white film shows how the play is being performed in the Rebibbia prison. In 1946, 1956 and 1962 radio plays in the Federal Republic were produced under the direction of Cläre Schimmel , Helmut Brennicke and Friedhelm Ortmann .

swell

  • Plutarch: The biography of Julius Caesar. In: Frank Günther (Ed.): William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. Bilingual edition. dtv, Munich 1998, ISBN 3-423-12490-3 , pp. 282-295 (excerpt from the translation by Plutarch: Große Greeks und Römer. Munich 1960).
  • Plutarch: The Life of Julius Caesar. and The Life of Marcus Brutus. In: Marvin Spevack (ed.): William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004, ISBN 0-521-53513-1 , pp. 178-207 (excerpt from Sir Thomas North's translation of 1579).

Text output

Total expenditure

  • Charlton Hinman, Peter WM Blayney (Ed.): The Norton Facsimile. The First Folio of Shakespeare. Based on the Folios in the Folger Library Collection. 2nd Edition. WW Norton, New York 1996, ISBN 0-393-03985-4 .
  • John Jowett, William Montgomery, Gary Taylor, and Stanley Wells (Eds.): The Oxford Shakespeare. The Complete Works. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005, ISBN 978-0-199-267-187
  • Jonathan Bate , Eric Rasmussen (Eds.): William Shakespeare Complete Works. The RSC Shakespeare , Macmillan Publishers 2008, ISBN 978-0-230-20095-1

English

  • David Daniell (Ed.): William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. The Arden Shakespeare. Thompson Learning, London 1998, 2006, ISBN 1-903436-21-4 .
  • AR Humphreys (Ed.): William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1984, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953612-2 .
  • Marvin Spevack (Ed.): William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1988, 2003, ISBN 0-521-53513-1 .

German, bilingual

  • Frank Günther (Ed.): William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. Bilingual edition. dtv, Munich 1998, ISBN 3-423-12490-3 .
  • Dietrich Klose (ed.): William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. Reclam, Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-15-009816-5 .
  • Thomas Pughe (Ed.): William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. English-German study edition. Stauffenburg Verlag, Tübingen 1986, ISBN 3-86057-544-9 .

literature

Introductions

  • Harold Bloom: Shakespeare. The invention of the human. Berlin Verlag, Berlin 2000, ISBN 3-8270-0325-3 , pp. 165–84.
  • Anthony Davies: Julius Caesar In: Michael Dobson, Stanley Wells (Eds.): The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001, ISBN 0-19-280614-9 , pp. 229-232. (Second Edition 2015, ISBN 978-0-19-870873-5 , pp. 202–275.)
  • Hans-Dieter Gelfert: William Shakespeare in his time. CH Beck Verlag, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65919-5 , pp. 299-302.
  • Werner von Koppenfels: Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare-Handbuch. Time, man, work, posterity. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , pp. 501-508.
  • Ulrich Suerbaum : The Shakespeare Guide. Reclam, Ditzingen 2006, ISBN 3-15-017663-8 , 3rd, rev. Edition 2015, ISBN 978-3-15-020395-8 , pp. 318–327.

Edition comments

  • Marvin Spevack (Ed.): William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004, ISBN 0-521-53513-1 , pp. 1-71.
  • Frank Günther (Ed.): William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. Bilingual edition. dtv, Munich 1998, ISBN 3-423-12490-3 , pp. 209-233.
  • Kurt Tetzeli von Rosador: From the benefit and disadvantage of Julius Caesar for thought and life. In: Frank Günther (Ed.): William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. Bilingual edition. dtv, Munich 1998, ISBN 3-423-12490-3 , pp. 296-314.

Monographs

  • Hansjürgen Blinn: Shakespeare reception. The discussion about Shakespeare in Germany . 2 volumes. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin 1982, ISBN 3-503-01673-2 and 1988, ISBN 3-503-02272-4 .
  • Michael Hanke: Julius Caesar. In: Interpretations - Shakespeare's Dramas. Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, new edition 2010, ISBN 978-3-15-017513-2 , pp. 183-206.
  • To Honorable Man: Rhetorical discourse analysis of Marc Anton's speech in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar". In: Jan CL König: About the power of speech. Strategies of political eloquence in literature and everyday life. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht unipress, Göttingen 2011, ISBN 978-3-89971-862-1 , pp. 321-368.
  • Robert S. Miola: Julius Caesar and the tyrannicide debate. In: Renaissance Quarterly. 38: 271-289 (1985).
  • Jens Mittelbach: The art of contradiction. Ambiguity as a representation principle in Shakespeare's "Henry V" and "Julius Caesar". WVT Wiss. Verlag, Trier 2003, ISBN 3-88476-581-7 .
  • Wolfgang G. Müller: The political speech in Shakespeare . Narr, Tübingen 1979, ISBN 3-87808-512-5 .
  • John Ripley: Julius Caesar on Stage in England and America, 1599–1973 . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge u. a. 1980, ISBN 0-521-22781-X .
  • Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor: William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1987, ISBN 0-393-31667-X , pp. 386-391.
  • Horst Zander: Julius Caesar . Volume 7 of Sonja Fielitz's ed. Series Shakespeare and No End . Kamp Verlag, Bochum 2006, ISBN 3-89709-388-X .

Web links

Wikisource: The Tragedy of Julius Caesar  - Sources and full texts (English)
Commons : Julius Caesar (Drama)  - Collection of images, videos and audio files

Individual evidence

  1. See Hans-Dieter Gelfert : William Shakespeare in his time . Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65919-5 , p. 299.
  2. Cf. Werner von Koppenfels : Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , p. 503. See also Hans-Dieter Gelfert : William Shakespeare in his time . Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65919-5 , p. 299 ff. In this context, Gelfert also refers to the work as a whole "corresponding to the subject's classical rigor". Cf. also Ulrich Suerbaum : The Shakespeare Guide. Reclam, Ditzingen 2006, ISBN 3-15-017663-8 . (3rd, revised edition 2015, ISBN 978-3-15-020395-8 ), p. 324 f. According to Suerbaum, the analysis and evaluation of the play must not be based on a binding norm of tragedy; According to his interpretation, the murder of Caesar is by no means a break in the dramaturgical structure of the play. See also Horst Zander: Julius Caesar . Volume 7 of Sonja Fielitz's ed. Series Shakespeare and No End . Kamp Verlag, Bochum 2006, ISBN 3-89709-388-X , p. 63 f. According to Zander, the work is by no means divided into two different parts, even with regard to the dramatic irony. According to Zander, the actual dramatic development is linear: it shows the rise of Caesar first in a physical, then in a spiritual-mythical sense. The counterpoint to this development is the declining line of development of Brutus, who after his initial appearance as a hero of integrity then increasingly dismantles himself.
  3. Cf. Ulrich Suerbaum : The Shakespeare Guide. Reclam, Ditzingen 2006, ISBN 3-15-017663-8 . (3rd, revised edition 2015, ISBN 978-3-15-020395-8 ), p. 325, and Werner von Koppenfels : Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , p. 503.
  4. Cf. Werner von Koppenfels : Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , p. 503. See also Hans-Dieter Gelfert : William Shakespeare in his time . Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65919-5 , pp. 299-302.
  5. Cf. AR Humphreys introduction to the edition published by him Oxford edition: William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar . Oxford Shakespeare. Edited by AR Humphreys. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1984, Reissued 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953612-2 , Introduction, p. 8 f. See also Michael Hanke: Julius Caesar. In: Interpretations - Shakespeare's Dramas. Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-15-017513-5 , p. 183 f. and Ulrich Suerbaum : The Shakespeare Guide. Reclam, Ditzingen 2006, ISBN 3-15-017663-8 . (3rd, rev. Edition 2015, ISBN 978-3-15-020395-8 ), p. 321 f. However, Suerbaum dates the first edition of the translation by Sir Thomas North to 1578.
  6. Cf. Werner von Koppenfels : Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , pp. 501-503. See also Ulrich Suerbaum : The Shakespeare Guide. Reclam, Ditzingen 2006, ISBN 3-15-017663-8 . (3rd, rev. Edition 2015, ISBN 978-3-15-020395-8 ), p. 321 f., And details on the individual takeovers and changes AR Humphrey's introduction to the Oxford edition he edited: William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar . Oxford Shakespeare. Edited by AR Humphreys. OUP 1984, Reissued 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953612-2 , Introduction, pp. 8-28. Cf. also in particular the remarks by Michael Hanke on the design of Antonius' funeral speech: Julius Caesar. In: Interpretations - Shakespeare's Dramas. Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-15-017513-5 , p. 185.
  7. Cf. Werner von Koppenfels : Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , p. 501 f. See also AR Humphrey's introduction to the Oxford edition he edited: William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar . Oxford Shakespeare. Edited by AR Humphreys. OUP 1984, Reissued 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953612-2 , Introduction, pp. 24–28 and pp. 38 ff.
  8. Cf. Werner von Koppenfels : Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , p. 501. See also AR Humphrey's introduction to the Oxford edition he edited: William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar . Oxford Shakespeare. Edited by AR Humphreys. OUP 1984, Reissued 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953612-2 , Introduction, p. 38 ff.
  9. Cf. Werner von Koppenfels : Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , p. 501. Likewise Michael Hanke: Julius Caesar. In: Interpretations - Shakespeare's Dramas. Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-15-017513-5 , p. 183. Likewise Ulrich Suerbaum : Der Shakespeare-Führer. Reclam, Ditzingen 2006, ISBN 3-15-017663-8 . (3rd, rev. Edition 2015, ISBN 978-3-15-020395-8 ), p. 321. For the objection raised by Ernest Schanzer that Platter's report could possibly also refer to the performance of a play by the competing Admiral's Men in the same referring to the thatched Rose Theater , there is no evidence; In Henslowe's records there are no references to a similar piece in the repertoire for this year. See Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor: William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford 1987, reprinted Norton 1997, p. 121.
  10. ^ Frank Günther (ed.): William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. Bilingual edition. dtv, Munich 1998, p. 211.
  11. See Horst Zander: Julius Caesar . Volume 7 of Sonja Fielitz's ed. Series Shakespeare and No End . Kamp Verlag, Bochum 2006, ISBN 3-89709-388-X , p. 52f. See also Werner von Koppenfels: Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , p. 501. See also AR Humphrey's introduction to the Oxford edition published by him: William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar . Oxford Shakespeare. Edited by AR Humphreys. OUP 1984, Reissued 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953612-2 , Introduction, p. 1, and Michael Hanke: Julius Caesar. In: Interpretations - Shakespeare's Dramas. Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-15-017513-5 , p. 183.
  12. See Stanley Wells , Gary Taylor : William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1987, ISBN 0-393-31667-X , p. 386, and Michael Dobson and Stanley Wells: The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Second edition. OUP 2015, ISBN 978-0-19-870873-5 , p. 272 ​​and AR Humphrey's introduction to the Oxford edition he edited: William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar . Oxford Shakespeare. Edited by AR Humphreys. OUP 1984, Reissued 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953612-2 , Introduction, p. 72 ff. Also Werner von Koppenfels : Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , p. 501, and Ulrich Suerbaum : The Shakespeare Guide. Reclam, Ditzingen 2006, ISBN 3-15-017663-8 . (3rd, revised edition 2015, ISBN 978-3-15-020395-8 ), p. 322.
  13. Cf. AR Humphrey's introduction to the Oxford edition published by him: William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar . Oxford Shakespeare. Edited by AR Humphreys. OUP 1984, Reissued 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953612-2 , Introduction, p. 72 ff. See also Ulrich Suerbaum : Der Shakespeare-Führer. Reclam, Ditzingen 2006, ISBN 3-15-017663-8 . (3rd, revised edition 2015, ISBN 978-3-15-020395-8 ), p. 322.
  14. Cf. Werner von Koppenfels : Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , p. 501. See also AR Humphrey's introduction to the Oxford edition he edited: William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar . Oxford Shakespeare. Edited by AR Humphreys. OUP 1984, Reissued 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953612-2 , Introduction, p. 78 f. Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, on the other hand, do not assume a text revision and do not regard the two versions of Portia's death as a textual inconsistency, but as an expression of the inconsistent character and behavior of Brutus in his reactions to the two reports of death, on the one hand a friend ( Cassius), on the other hand to a relatively stranger (Messala). See Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor: William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1987, ISBN 0-393-31667-X , p. 387. See also Horst Zander: Julius Caesar. Volume 7 of Sonja Fielitz's ed. Series Shakespeare and No End. Kamp Verlag, Bochum 2006, ISBN 3-89709-388-X , p. 28. Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen also see the double mention of the death of Portia not necessarily as a discrepancy in the text, but rather interpret it as a stage-effective repeated test of stoic composure in Brutus's reactions. See Jonathan Bate, Eric Rasmussen (Eds.): William Shakespeare Complete Works. Macmillan Publishers 2008, ISBN 978-0-230-20095-1 , p. 1804.
  15. See Michael Hanke: Julius Caesar. In: Interpretations - Shakespeare's Dramas. Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-15-017513-5 , p. 184 f. See also AR Humphrey's introduction to the Oxford edition he edited: William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. Oxford Shakespeare. Edited by AR Humphreys. OUP 1984, Reissued 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953612-2 , Introduction, p. 6 ff. See also Horst Zander: Julius Caesar . Volume 7 of Sonja Fielitz's ed. Series Shakespeare and No End . Kamp Verlag, Bochum 2006, ISBN 3-89709-388-X , p. 23 f. and 53 ff.
  16. See Michael Hanke: Julius Caesar. In: Interpretations - Shakespeare's Dramas. Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-15-017513-5 , p. 184 f. See also Horst Zander: Julius Caesar . Volume 7 of Sonja Fielitz's ed. Series Shakespeare and No End . Kamp Verlag, Bochum 2006, ISBN 3-89709-388-X , p. 23 f. and 53 ff. Zander also points out that in Julius Caesar for the first time a more modern image of man predominates, while in Shakespeare's earlier plays the older medieval ideas clearly dominate and the dramatic figures are more closely based on the schematic types of morality. Although Caesar, as a dramatic figure, with some restrictions, still shows traits of the older character type, according to Zander, the figure of Brutus can be seen as the forerunner of the later "mature" characters of Shakespeare such as Macbeth or Hamlet. In current research, Julius Caesar is therefore, as in the folio edition, not assigned to histories or historical dramas, but is generally classified as tragedy.
  17. See Horst Zander: Julius Caesar . Volume 7 of Sonja Fielitz's ed. Series Shakespeare and No End . Kamp Verlag, Bochum 2006, ISBN 3-89709-388-X , p. 24 f. See also Ernest Schanzer: The Problem Plays of Shakespeare. A Study of Julius Caesar, Measure for Measure, Antony and Cleopatra. Schocken Books, New York 1963, pp. 6 and 10 ff., Available online at Internet Archive at [1] , accessed on January 29, 2016. See also Schanzer's first version of his fundamental revision of the previous Shakespeare criticism, which he wrote in 1955 published under the title The Problem of Julius Caesar in: Shakespeare Quarterly , Vol. 6, No. 3 (Summer, 1955), pp. 297-308, available online at JSTOR under [2] .
  18. See Horst Zander: Julius Caesar . Volume 7 of Sonja Fielitz's ed. Series Shakespeare and No End . Kamp Verlag, Bochum 2006, ISBN 3-89709-388-X , p. 24 f. and 61-63. See also Ernest Schanzer: The Problem Plays of Shakespeare. A Study of Julius Caesar, Measure for Measure, Antony and Cleopatra. Schocken Books, New York 1963, pp. 6 and 10 ff., Available online at Internet Archive at [3] , accessed on January 29, 2016. See also Schanzer's first version of his fundamental revision of the previous Shakespeare criticism, which he wrote in 1955 published under the title The Problem of Julius Caesar in: Shakespeare Quarterly , Vol. 6, No. 3 (Summer, 1955), pp. 297-308, available online at JSTOR under [4] .
  19. See Ernest Schanzer: The Problem Plays of Shakespeare. A Study of Julius Caesar, Measure for Measure, Antony and Cleopatra. Schocken Books, New York 1963, p. 70 and detailed spec. Pp. 10 ff., Pp. 25–36, pp. 46–56, p. 65 ff., Accessible online at the Internet Archive at [5] , accessed on January 29, 2016. See also Schanzer's first version of his fundamental revision of the previous Shakespeare criticism, which he published in 1955 under the title The Problem of Julius Caesar in: Shakespeare Quarterly , Vol. 6, no. 3 (Summer, 1955), pp. 297-308, available online at JSTOR under [6] . In his groundbreaking monograph, Schanzer for the first time opposes the apodictic speculations about the character integrity of the two central characters in the play, as if Shakespeare had conceived them entirely in the old tradition of morality as representatives of good and bad, and shows in detail the differentiated and ambivalent direction of Shakespeare's sympathy with regard to the two main characters. See also Michael Hanke: Julius Caesar. In: Interpretations - Shakespeare's Dramas. Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, new edition 2010, ISBN 978-3-15-017513-2 , p. 187 f.
  20. Cf. Ulrich Suerbaum : The Shakespeare Guide. Reclam, Ditzingen 2006, ISBN 3-15-017663-8 . (3rd, rev. Edition 2015, ISBN 978-3-15-020395-8 ), pp. 324–327. See also Werner von Koppenfels : Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , esp. Pp. 503-506, and Michael Hanke: Julius Caesar. In: Interpretations - Shakespeare's Dramas. Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, new edition 2010, ISBN 978-3-15-017513-2 , esp.p. 188, 190 f., 193, 196 f. and 203.
  21. Cf. Werner von Koppenfels : Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , p. 507. See also AR Humphrey's introduction to the Oxford edition published by him: William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar . Oxford Shakespeare. Edited by AR Humphreys. OUP 1984, Reissued 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953612-2 , Introduction, pp. 63 and 65-72, as well as Ulrich Suerbaum : Der Shakespeare-Führer. Reclam, Ditzingen 2006, ISBN 3-15-017663-8 . (3rd, rev. Edition 2015, ISBN 978-3-15-020395-8 ), p. 327, and Marvin Spevack (ed.): William Shakespeare: Julius Caesar. New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1988, 2003, ISBN 0-521-53513-1 , pp. 32, 34 and 38 ff.
  22. See Horst Zander: Julius Caesar . Volume 7 of Sonja Fielitz's ed. Series Shakespeare and No End . Kamp Verlag, Bochum 2006, ISBN 3-89709-388-X , p. 30. See also Simon Williams: Shakespeare on the German Stage. Volume I: 1586-1914. Cambridge University Press 2004, ISBN 0-521-61193-8 , p. 34. Cf. also historically the portrayal of Emil Herz: English actors and English drama at the time of Shakespeare in Germany. Voss Verlag, Hamburg / Leipzig 1903, p 66, online on Internet Archive accessible [7] , accessed on 29 January 2016th
  23. Cf. Werner von Koppenfels : Julius Caesar. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , p. 507 f. See also Horst Zander: Julius Caesar . Volume 7 of Sonja Fielitz's ed. Series Shakespeare and No End . Kamp Verlag, Bochum 2006, ISBN 3-89709-388-X , p. 30 ff.