In conclusion, there are main factors that caused the demolition of the Roman Republic. A senate that grew and changed and ultimately turned on themselves. A military that expansion that led to winning the battles of the Roman enemies but loss of men and loyalty to senate. Generals who, although have different views of Roman government but join forces and then battle themselves. You have senators that are not supporting their fellow senators.
Julius Caesar Marc Antony in Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar was murdered by Brutus despite Brutus’s allegations of Caesar’s quest for dictatorship status and supports his argument by manipulating the people’s emotions. Antony’s purpose is for the people to mourn for their lost leader through Brutus’s lies so that they would seek revenge on him. Antony speaks in a driven but sarcastic tone for the citizens of Rome. Marc Antony persuaded the people using pathos, ethos, and logos. In regards to their leaders murder, the Romans turned against the senate, there for Antony’s speech was more persuading than Brutus’s.
He commits murder and puts his entire kingdom in danger. Still, many of his evil acts are committed while he is under the influence of the Weird Sisters and Lady Macbeth, who are often considered to be the true villains of the play. At the end of the play, Macbeth realizes the evil he has committed and seems to feel sorrow for such. Because of this realization Macbeth is often viewed as a tragic hero, for tragic heroes almost always recognize the errors they have committed by the end of their stories and seek, in some manner, to atone for them. Macbeth is indeed a bit too complex to be categorised as a villain or a hero.
A particular actor is what draws audiences to watch a Shakespeare performance. Even if the actor displays emotion realistically, it takes more skill to bring life to an inanimate puppet. Chikamatsu may share close similarities with Shakespeare in plot and poetically written language, but Chikamatsu will leave a lasting
Sacrifices for Honor Joseph Campbell stated, “A hero is someone who has given his life to something bigger than oneself.” In William Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus is established as a tragic hero due to his idealistic and sensible qualities. His need to preserve an honor allows him to possess a mindset that favors the best of others. This mindset triggers his fall under cynical circumstances that are beyond what is expected to happen. By outlining Brutus’s tragedy, it is indicated that his seemingly ignoble decisions are genuinely intended to create changes for the Romans. As a tragic hero, Brutus maintains noble intentions throughout the play.
His comedy is so great that he is able to transcend normal societal rules; Elizabethan England was an incredibly hierarchal society in which absolute respect ought to be shown to those in power, and yet although he is a servant, the Fool’s humorous nature seems to exempt him from the expectation of respectfulness. The Fool is not present after Act 3, and his absence removes the comic relief of the play and plunges it into more serious,
Though they both deal with the same concept that he who hold great power is not far from or is already corrupted they are both presented in different ways. In both text power drives the plots in a way that creates high amounts of tension and suspense that keeps the audience intrigued. Both writers; Orwell and Shakespeare, use contrast between characters and inner conflict in very different ways. This is used in order to support the tension and suspense that was created. For example in the play Macbeth we are aware of Macbeth’s inner conflict which results in us (the audience) to sympathise with him.
Even in similar circumstances, Hamlet has a different approach than the other two foil characters to his father’s death. Although Hamlet and Laertes share several characteristics, their attitudes differ greatly. Laertes actions are purely guided by his feelings, while Hamlet’s only by his mind. Proof of this is when Hamlet apologizes to Laertes and he accepts the apology but then clarifies that in terms of honor he isn’t satisfied. "I am satisfied in nature, / Whose motive, in this case, should stir me most / To my revenge: but in my terms of honour / I stand aloof" Act V sc.
Guildenstern’s sympathetic needs are often confused with his sense of anger and wickedness. He appears to be on the good side of Hamlet, but only because he is plotting with former friend, Rosencrantz.
It is interesting that a story may contain two foiled characters existing in such a bleak contrast to each other and yet sharing similar events. In William Shakespeare’s tragic masterpiece of Hamlet, the foils are played by Hamlet and Laertes. Hamlet is the contemplative one, and would often think rather than act; Laertes is quite the contrary, having his inhibitions guide him to acting rather than thinking, the impulse buyer of Shakespearean literature. While these characters may differ significantly, their actions and reactions to the death of their fathers, their ultimate downfall, and their alternative methods of action and contemplation prove that while different, much of their character is parallel. The simplest comparison to make is