Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 September 7

= September 7 =

An odd scene in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
To me, there was a very odd scene in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. But, I assume that the author must have inserted it for some reason. I am referring to Act 2, Scene 1. Cassius enters Brutus's home (actually, his orchard) in the middle of the night. Cassius brought along his five other conspirators. This was their "big meeting" to get the conspiracy moving forward to assassinate Caesar the next day. (Actually, later on in the same day, since this scene occurs after midnight on March 15.) So, Cassius (and the five conspirators) arrive at Brutus's home. They all exchange minor pleasantries and introductions. Then, Cassius says to Brutus, "May I have a word with you? Let's go off to the side." And the two go off to the side and whisper. While they do so, the other five conspirators are left on stage with nothing to do, but to twiddle their thumbs. So, they start to make small talk and chit-chat. And, basically, they are talking about the stars in the sky; and which direction is which; and in which direction does the sun rise and/or set; etc. This starts at about Line 100; and ends at about Line 112. So, what is the purpose of this little scene? Why did Shakespeare inject this "throw away" scene here? Is there some "point" to the plot? Is there some reason that may relate to acting or staging, etc.? I assume he (Shakespeare) had some reason. Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it was just seen as the sort of thing conspirators would do, to whisper a few words to each other before a meeting.


 * Looking at different versions of the play, some  say it's Brutus and Cassius that whisper to each other, but others    just say "They whisper".  So it also seems possible to me that some editor decided to amplify the stage direction, which had meant that all the conspirators spoke in whispers, and got it wrong. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I guess that's an interesting theory.  But it doesn't seem to hold water.  Why would the other five conspirators be "whispering" about the stars, direction of the path of the sun, etc.?  There is nothing "secretive" about that conversation.  And it makes no logistical sense that five people would be whispering to each other.  While saying lines, out loud.   I think it's understood that the "they whisper" stage direction refers to Cassius and Brutus whispering to each other when they step aside (just after Cassius says to Brutus: "may I entreat a word with you?").    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)


 * And, even so, it's not the "whispering" that is the crux of my question. It's the reason/purpose of the "throw-away" conversation about the night sky that forms the gist of my question.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * We studied Julius Caesar at school as a set book for English Literature.  If I remember aright, the school textbook we were provided with was much shorter than the actual play, because this includes a long and rather bawdy soliloquy by a caretaker. 2A00:23C0:3213:B601:54B5:CAD6:13A5:3AB9 (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A long and rather bawdy soliloquy by a caretaker.  ... ? Are you thinking of Macbeth?  There is -- somewhat famously -- a long and rather bawdy soliloquy by a porter in Macbeth.  Nothing remotely close in Julius Caesar.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As you say, this leaves 5 actors on stage with nothing to do. Think of the staging rather than the actual writing (and remember that the texts of Shakespeare's plays, as we have them now, were compiled by the actors many years later). It would be weird to have 5 actors just standing around on the stage doing nothing, and it would probably also be distracting for the audience. Maybe it was even the actors who suggested it! But there are also lots of other references to stars in Julius Caesar so maybe Shakespeare planned it all along. "The fault is not in our stars", "constant as the Northern Star", for two famous lines. The scene in the orchard even starts with Brutus wondering what time it is by looking at the stars. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the thing. I assumed that it had more to do with the staging than the actual text and/or plot.  No one wants five actors standing on stage, twiddling their thumbs, doing nothing, while Brutus and Cassius are off to the side whispering.  So, I guess, Shakespeare had to throw in some idle chit-chat and small talk for the five conspirators to engage in.  But, if that's the case, why even have the Brutus/Cassius whispering scene to begin with?  Was it that important to advance the plot?  I dunno.  Maybe it emphasized the sinister ambience of the meeting?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Sinister ambience" was also why I wondered if the lot of them might have been intended to be whispering. But considering again, I don't think my guess makes sense.  If Cassius was whispering to everyone, presumably the next line would have been his. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The lines also set the time of the scene. Playgoers can't read a stage direction to know that the scene takes place before dawn on the Ides of March, but this dialog tells them. - Nunh-huh 18:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But, you have me confused.  What dialogue tells them?  The dialogue of the five conspirators discussing the stars and sun and moon and such?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They're not so much discussing stars/sun/moon as discussing where the sun will appear on the horizon at dawn. So that tells us it's before dawn. Lucius has told us the date (the Ides of March) one line before the conspirators arrive, but they remind us that it's now winter, and in two months it will be summer, when the dawn will break to the north, while the Capitol stands east. - Nunh-huh 20:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * OK. But didn't we know already that it was "in the middle of the night" through various other pieces of dialogue?  I think we had several references to that.  And then we know by Lucius that it is the Ides of March.  So, we (already) know that it is "the middle of the night" in which the next day is the planned assassination.  Is it important to know that it is "before dawn"?  If it's the middle of the night, that -- by definition -- is "before dawn".  So, I still don't see that the conversation of the five conspirators tells us anything that we didn't already know.  And, if I am understanding  your analysis correctly, you are saying that that is the purpose of their dialogue: to let us know that it is before dawn (which theater goers would otherwise not know while they watch the play).  But, I am contending that we already knew that (through many different references).    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a stretch, but if I were directing a production (something I have never done) of this play, I might be inclined to convey that the other five conspirators were talking more loudly about innocent matters so as to mask the seditious whispers of their leaders from any possible eavesdroppers. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.61.201 (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not really a "stretch". Actually, sounds very plausible and feasible.  Not a bad idea at all.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)


 * There are lots of things in plays that get said twice. - Nunh-huh 01:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course, things get said twice. But you had opined that the reason for the scene was to tell us something that we did not know.  I just opined that we already knew the info, to counter your argument that that was the purpose of the scene/dialogue.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There's some discussion of this here, though not very conclusive. Basically, March 15 ought to be a little before the equinox (more so than today, since Christmas was the winter solstice back then).  I would suppose that there is an allegorical meaning here: just as the direction of the dawn may be hard to guess, depending on the season, so the impact of the execution of a tyrant may be hard to predict. Wnt (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Very interesting pages from that book! Thanks!  I would have never found/seen that analysis on my own.  That is a good allegorical meaning that you have proposed, also.  Thanks!    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You give me too much credit. All I did was search "Here, as I point my sword, the Sun arises; Which is a great way growing on the South," and looked what came up.  I didn't even dig through all the results. Wnt (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. It is hard to do an "efficient" (or accurate) search when I type in specific quotes from a play, any play.  In the case of Shakespeare, I simply get a million results that give me the text of the play (as opposed to an analysis of that text).  Since Shakespeare is in the public domain, a lot of copies of the actual text are sitting out there on the Internet.  So, since there are far too many search results to wade through, I would not (and did not) find that interesting article that you found.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"If it was a snake it would have bit me" phenomenon
Is there a term in cognitive science for when you overlook something that should have been obvious, and which stands out easily once noticed? (As described by the American idiom "If it was a snake, it would have bit me.") It seems related to change blindness but I am wondering there's a term for this particular experience. 169.228.152.138 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not an American idiom, it's very common in South Africa too, in at least two languages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, to clarify, you mean it's not only an American idiom, as it is common in at least a few other places too. It certainly is an idiom in the USA and Canada. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Similar semi-simile: "Elephant in the room". 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E4D4:56ED:FF5A:EFBE (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Inattentional blindness is what lets things stay "hidden in plain sight". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks! 76.80.178.3 (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Snake? ...Snake...? SNAAAAKE! --47.138.161.183 (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)