/lit/ - Literature

>judging an act by context rather than by the act itself

He lived up to his family name and faced true life consequences.

>>6713193
>Not accounting for both

>>6713190
>The best thing I could say in honour of Shakespeare, the man, is that he believed in Brutus, and cast not a shadow of suspicion on the kind of virtue which Brutus represents! It is to him that Shakespeare consecrated his best tragedy. It is at present still called by a wrong name, to him, and to the most terrible essence of lofty morality. Independence of soul! that is the question at issue! No sacrifice can be too great there : one must be able to sacrifice to it even one's dearest friend, although he be the grandest of men, the ornament of the world, the genius without peer, if one really loves freedom as the freedom of great souls, and if this freedom be threatened by him : it is thus that Shakespeare must have felt! The elevation in which he places Caesar is the most exquisite honour he could confer upon Brutus ; it is thus only that he lifts into vastness the inner problem of his hero, and similarly the strength of soul which could cut this knot! And was it actually political freedom that impelled the poet to sympathy with Brutus, and made him the accomplice of Brutus? Or was political freedom merely a symbol for something inexpressible? Do we perhaps stand before some sombre event or adventure of the poet's own soul, which has remained unknown, and of which he only cared to speak symbolically? What is all of Hamlet's melancholy in comparison with the melancholy of Brutus! and perhaps Shakespeare also knew this, as he knew the other, by experience! Perhaps he also had his dark hour and his bad angel, just as Brutus had them! But whatever similarities and secret relationships of that kind there may have been, Shakespeare cast himself on the ground and unworthy and alien in presence of the aspect and virtue of Brutus : he has inscribed the testimony thereof in the tragedy itself. He has twice brought in a poet in it, and twice heaped upon him such an impatient and extreme contempt, that it sounds like a cry - like the cry of self contempt.

Vaguely related to the OP: I'm shit at English, but I want to read Shakeyspear. Should I just dive in and struggle through the 16th century English, or try and find some kind of recording of a play(I heard it works better when performed) and watch that?

>>6713306
read the original text with a translation, then go see the play.

>>6713293
Fuck off.

>>6713190
lel

>>6713528
meant for >>6713193

>>6713193

bump

>>6713358

Cicero was a putz, he's the definition of "talked a good game". He idolized Brutus because Brutus had the nuts to do to Caesar what he could only order to be done to Catilina. Brutus was a loan shark and a optimate, he is not the sort of person anyone in a modern western democracy should idolize -- though he'd probably fit right in with the modern political class.

>>6713190
Patriot to the republic. Gave too little too late. A tragic figure.

>>6713883
Dante's a putz.

Hard call. If Augustus hadn't come about we'd probably be less forgiving of him.

Between Cassius and Brutus there seemed to be an odd kind of Strangers On A Train vibe, like a more martial rendering of Romeo and Juliet.

It's surprising when remain loyal, but it's not surprising that their overheated brain betrays them.

http://youtu.be/ZQAjAv6GS6o

http://youtu.be/ZQAjAv6GS6o

Dante has medieval reasons for placing him in Hell. The imperial image of Caesar was loaded with a lot of shit to people in the Middle Ages. He was a quintessentially virtuous ruler and man. Brutus wasn't seen as much more than the traitor who had stabbed him. It wasn't a great philosophical or political decision to place him in Hell and it didn't surprise anyone.

In the Renaissance, when republicanism is all the rage in Florence, a big part of being a good republican and also a good Florentine became finding a way to rehabilitate Dante's seeming support of tyranny and dislike of republicanism (basically by sophistry). Fundamentally the guy was just writing before anyone gave a fuck about Roman republicanism. The sympathy we still have for "democracy" throughout history hadn't come around yet.

>>6713306
I think a live rendition will sometimes leave you struggling to understand things said three lines ago, while the actors are already racing onward. I think that'd be the case even for native speakers who haven't had much experience with Shakespeare. The English is really only difficult because it sometimes plays with clauses and grammar in ways that are technically fine but archaic in practice. Same with vocabulary, lots of archaic and unfamiliar usage of certain terms.

With a really well-annotated version (maybe a newer one that even over-annotates), I don't think you'd have any significant problem if you just took it a bit slow and logic'ed everything out as you go. Maybe even get a Simple English version that they recommend to half-retard undergrads these days and use it as a reference for when you're totally stumped. And listen to good performances on Youtube if you're having trouble getting the meter.

>Why, let the stricken deer go weep,
>The hart ungalled play;
>For some must watch, while some must sleep:
>So runs the world away.

Most native English speakers aren't going to understand this worth shit without annotation. Even college students.

Lu Brutus is my favorite Disney villain.