What is the significance of events in act 1, scene 1, lines 36-80 of Julius Caesar?

Act 1, scene 1, lines 36–80 demonstrates the growing tensions in Rome during the late Republican period, in the wake of civil war. Murellus and Flavius chastise the plebeians they encounter who are taking the day off work to witness Caesar triumph through the streets of Rome.

Murellus is incensed that the common people, who once lined the streets of Rome to witness Pompey's triumphs, are now just as eager to witness Caesar's triumph against him. It is particularly bitter since not only did Pompey die a disgraceful death, having been assassinated in Egypt, but also the triumph (a Roman celebration of any general who successfully led troops to victory in service of the state) is celebrating a victory in a civil war, not a foreign conquest.

In this way, Shakespeare portrays the Roman masses as fickle, supporting whoever happens to be in power and thus capable of providing them with entertainment regardless of their moral character. This scene similarly works to foreshadow Caesar as the kind of leader who would host a public triumph in his own honor, even when his victory has come at the cost of many Roman lives and the life of his once close friend Pompey.

What is the significance of events in act 1, scene 2, lines 42–187 of Julius Caesar?

Act 1, scene 2, lines 42–187 of Julius Caesar contain a long discussion between Brutus and Cassius. As they are talking, they hear a noise outside, which Brutus thinks may signify that the people have decided to crown Caesar as their king. This leads Cassius to the point he wished to raise with Brutus. He establishes that Brutus, although he is Caesar's friend, is committed to preserving the republic and does not want to see his friend crowned king. He then makes two eloquent speeches, the first on Caesar's human frailty, the second on the godlike status he now enjoys among the people of Rome. Cassius suggests that the popularity of Caesar is destroying the Roman Republic, which an ancestor of Brutus founded nearly five hundred years before.

Although Cassius does not, at this stage, recruit Brutus into his conspiracy to assassinate Caesar, Brutus does promise to think about what he has said. This is of great significance, since the conspirators need Brutus for the prestige of his name and his reputation as a man of honor. It is at this point in the play that the conspirators take the first decisive step towards involving Brutus in their plan. His objections are the most important hurdle they need to surmount in order to make the killing of Caesar a viable proposition.

What event in Act 1, Scene 3 of Julius Caesar advances the conspiracy plot?

At the end of Act 1, Scene 3 in Julius Caesar, Cassius sends letters to Brutus by way of Cinna. Cassius forged these letters to make them seem as if they were written by Roman citizens who do not want Caesar to use his power to rule Rome. This scene is a significant one, because the letters ultimately prove to be the catalyst that drive Brutus to forsake his friendship with Caesar to protect Rome's republic. More importantly, once Brutus reads the letters and resolves to join the conspiracy plotting against Caesar, we learn an important fact about his character: ultimately, he is driven by his noble desire to protect Rome, rather than by private ambition. As such, Brutus becomes a tragic figure, whose rigid sense of honor and naive gullibility lead him to accept the forged letters without question, join the conspiracy, and ultimately take his own life at the end of the play. Thus, this short moment in Act 1, Scene 3 can be seen as the driving force behind much of the play's later drama. 

What is the significance of Act 1, Scene 3, lines 71-135 in Julius Caesar?

Act 1, scene 3, lines 71–135 in Julius Caesar is a significant passage because the audience sees the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar taking shape and becoming a reality with impressive speed. Cassius has already gained the attention of Brutus, who is to be the key figure in the conspiracy. In this passage, he convinces Casca. Although Casca is not such an important recruit to the cause as Brutus, Cassius shows his effectiveness both as a leader and as an orator in this passage and demonstrates his ability to manipulate every circumstance to serve his purpose. He even interprets the storm as a portent to show that the heavens are warning of Caesar's death, and at the same time he uses the intemperate weather as an analogy for Caesar's despotic power.

In speaking to Casca, Cassius appeals to his pride, denigrating Caesar and in the process making those who allow themselves to be subordinated to him appear even more feeble. He contrasts his own indifference to danger with the carefulness he ascribes to Casca. This dialogue reveals Cassius as a highly effective politician, one who is unsurpassed in eloquence except, crucially, by Antony. It becomes clear in this scene that the plot against Caesar is effectively and capably led and has a realistic chance of success.

What is the significance of Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 27-112 in Julius Caesar?

In act 2, scene 2, lines 27–112 of Julius Caesar, Calpurnia, Caesar's wife, has just told her husband of all the strange portents that have recently occurred in Rome which seem to suggest that he is in danger. Caesar regards it as cowardly to stay at home because of such signs, but he has consulted the augurers (priests or soothsayers) as to what he should do. A servant brings their answer, echoing Calpurnia's advice that Caesar is in danger and should remain at home.

Caesar agrees to stay away from the Senate, and when Decius Brutus comes to escort him there, Caesar commands him to say that Caesar will not come. However, Decius manages to persuade Caesar both that there is no danger and that the senators will think he is afraid if he does not attend.

This is a significant section of the play for several reasons. Most importantly, it establishes the signs that fate is against Caesar on that day, foreshadowing his death. It also shows Caesar challenging fate and deciding to ignore the advice of both his wife and the augurers. Finally, it reveals Caesar's strange and contradictory nature. He is too proud to lie and say that he is unwell, but he is also too anxious about his reputation to endure the possibility that the senators might think he is afraid. For all his stubbornness, he is easily manipulated by Decius, and it is his vanity that proves to be his greatest vulnerability.

What is the function of Act 2, Scene 3 in Julius Caesar?

Act 2, scene 3 present Artemidorus, a teacher and a friend of some of the conspirators, writing a letter to warn Caesar that he will be betrayed by friends. Artemidorus goes on to list the conspirators, even those who have just joined the cause.

There are several purposes for this scene. First, it turns up the dramatic tension. The audience sees that there is a chance for Caesar to be saved. However, the wording of Artemidorus' letter combined with what we have seen of Caesar's character makes it clear that Caesar will not get the letter in time.

Another function is somewhat lost on modern audiences. Many times during plays in Shakespeare's time, people would leave in the middle of the play or would be distracted playing cards, making bets, etc, etc. Shakespeare often puts in a simple summary scene in order for those who may have missed something to recap.

What is the dramatic significance of Act 2, Scene 3 in Julius Caesar?

In this scene, Artemidorus reads aloud a letter that he plans to present to Caesar. The letter provides a warning to Caesar about the plot against him, and even includes the names of some of the conspirators. He warns Caesar that if he "best not immortal," to be very cautious. He acknowledges the possibility that his letter may be in vain, but says that if the conspirators are successful, "the Fates with traitors do contrive."

There is some dramatic irony in the scene, because one scene earlier, Caesar has tried to dismiss Calpurnia and his priests when they fear that something bad is about to happen. He allows himself to be persuaded by Decius Brutus, one of the men Artemidorus warns him about, to leave his house and attend the Senate.

Later, the scene provides considerable drama, as Caesar declines to read the letter from Artemidorus. He favors his pride ahead of the concern of the man urgently handing him the letter on his way to the Senate. Caesar believes his most loyal supporter to be mad, so he does not read the letter that may have saved his life. He proceeds to the Senate, where he is assassinated by the conspirators named in the letter.

This dramatic turn of events raises the question, common in Shakespeare's tragedies, whether Caesar is in fact fated to die. Shakespeare raises the question of whether his arrogance and hubris brought about his demise.

What is the significance of line 130 in act 3, scene 1 of Julius Caesar?

It's one of my favourite moments in all of Shakespeare, though that's not its significance in any wider dramatic sense! After Caesar has been assassinated, the conspirators are bathing their arms in Caesar's blood. Cassius suddenly realises what an epic moment this is:

CASSIUS
How many ages hence
Shall this our lofty scene be acted over
In states unborn and accents yet unknown!
BRUTUS
How many times shall Caesar bleed in sport...
CASSIUS
So oft as that shall be,
So often shall the knot of us be call'd
The men that gave their country liberty.

Cassius imagines his own - and the conspiracy's - actions being renacted by plays later: obviously, quite an ironic thing for Shakespeare to wrote, bearing in mind that "Julius Caesar" is a play written about a true event. So you have a real event imagining itself as a play set within a play written about a real event!

What's absolutely key to this moment is the fact that Cassius thinks that history will look upon them with unambiguous smiles: they will be "the men that gave their country liberty". Yet, in Shakespeare's day, and now - that isn't true. "Julius Caesar" never tells us whether the assassination was a good or a bad thing: and modern commentators disagree about whether Caesar needed to be killed. For me, the significance is simple: it's one confident angle on what is really a horribly interpretable situation.  

The context of these words of Cassius in "Julius Caesar" is after the assassination of Caesar.  Brutus suggests that all the assassins "bathe" their hands in the blood of Caesar up the the elbow and besmear their swords; then, they should walk out "even to the market place," waving their arms over their heads crying, "Peace, freedom, and liberty!"

As they stoop to wipe the blood of the fallen ruler upon their arms, Brutus asks them to imagine how many times this act will be recreated in plays, and Cassius responds that the act will be replayed as long as he and the other assassins are lauded as the men who freed Rome from tyranny ("The mean that gave their country liberty").

Ironically, their hopes of being considered the men who freed Rome from tyranny is extremely short-lived as Antony in beautiful rhetoric sways the crowd against the conspirators in his oration.  For, Antony turns and berates them and their "liberating gesture":

Who else must be let blood, who else is rank/If I myself, there is no hour so fit/As Caesar's death's hour, nor no instrument/Of half that worth as those your swords, made rich/With the most noble blood of all this world

Was Act 3, Scene 3 of Julius Caesar necessary?

Shakespeare derived all his information for writing Julius Caesar from three short biographies by the Roman historian Plutarch, translated into English from a French translation of the original Latin. They were "The Life of Julius Caesar," "The Life of Brutus," and "The Life of Antony." Near the end of "The Life of Julius Caesar," Plutarch tells about how

There was a certain Cinna, however, one of the friends of Caesar, who chanced, as they say, to have seen during the previous night a strange vision. He dreamed, that is, that he was invited to supper by Caesar, and that when he excused himself, Caesar led him along by the hand, although he did not wish to go, but resisted.

Plutarch goes on to tell how this Cinna was mistaken by the rioting  mob for one of the conspirators who was also named Cinna, and how

...the crowd rushed upon him and tore him in pieces among them. This more than anything else made Brutus and Cassius afraid, and not many days afterwards they withdrew from the city. What they did and suffered before they died, has been told in the Life of Brutus.

Shakespeare, who was also director and producer of the play, as well as one of the owners of the theater, had to employ many extras for this particular production because of the great importance of the scene in which Antony's marvelous funeral speech turns the commoners against the conspirators. No doubt, since he was paying all these extras, Shakespeare decided to make some further use of them, and not just have them sitting around backstage doing nothing except getting in everybody's way. So he not only included Act 3, Scene 3 to utilize these hired extras, but he also wrote an opening scene in which he could use them as well. No doubt he also used some or all of them as soldiers at the battle of Philippi.

In Act 1, Scene 1, Marullus and Flavius confront a crowd of men described as "certain Commoners" and drive them off the streets, berating them for their adulation of Julius Caesar. For example, Marullus says:

You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!
O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Rome,
Knew you not Pompey?

Act 3, Scene 3 is not really necessary. Shakespeare is using it because he found it in Plutarch, because it seems interesting, because it gives a concrete illustration of the rioting induced by Antony's speech, and because it is a way for Shakespeare to get additional work out of a group of extras. Having a lot of men on the stage probably helps to create an impression of seeing the crowded ancient city of Rome, the capital of the known world.

Shakespeare often wrote scenes to create extra work for actors he had to pay anyway. For instance, the actor who plays Caesar appears again as his own ghost in Act 4, Scene 3. Shakespeare got this anecdote about Caesar's ghost from Plutarch too. And in Macbeth, the supporting actor who plays the important role of Banquo is killed off early in the play, but he is brought back as his own ghost at the coronation banquet and again when Macbeth consults the three witches in Act 4, Scene 1. The boy actor who plays Calpurnia in Julius Caesar probably also plays Portia, wearing a different-colored wig, and he may later play Brutus's servant Lucius later on.

What is the significance of act 4, scene 3, lines 22–29 in Julius Caesar?

In these lines, Brutus says the following to Cassius: