Literary texts challenge audiences to question thematic concerns within. Thus, by presenting conflicting perspectives of various characters, events and situations in Julius Caesar, Shakespeare creates a political parable that warns his Elizabethan context of the devastating effects of the Machiavellian struggle for political dominance. Four centuries later, Michael Dobb’s political moral fable novel, House of Cards, and Rob Sitch’s television satire, The Hollowmen, also present conflicting perspectives to present similar thematic concerns, thus demonstrating the diachronic relevancy of Shakespeare. These texts have the moral responsibility to warn contemporaries of the danger of self serving ambition, vengeance and jealousy that lie behind a façade of integrity, tainting social order. In order to warn his audience of the dangers of creating false heroes, Shakespeare presents conflicting perspectives between the illusion of honour, and the private reality of Caesar, who believes himself to be the defender of Roman honour, tradition and democracy.
Cicero uses delectare as a form of speech that appeals to someone’s ethos, or character, for no other reason than to amuse the audience. Cicero’s use of comedy or humor holds two purposes. First, he seeks to loosen the tension among jurors and members of the court and secondly, to attempt to dull the charges brought against his client, Marcus Caelius. Cicero’s speech is especially concerned with the third style of rhetoric, or the ‘grand style’. Notably, Cicero’s ability to characterize his client, the prosecution and himself differentiates the, Pro Caelio from other lectures and marks his ability as one of Rome’s finest orators.
In Act III Scene II of Julius Caesar, Shakespeare composes essentially a war in rhetoric between the characters of Brutus and Mark Antony. Although for different purposes, both speeches given by Brutus and Mark Antony, pertaining to Caesar’s murder, contain poignant and skilled rhetoric in order to win over the citizens of Rome. Brutus bases his speech upon the appeal of ethos, being straight forward and honest with his audience, defending his ethical foundation. On the other hand, Antony’s speech is based upon the appeal of pathos and logos, delivering strong emotional and logical examples to support his argument, as well as dramatic effects with his use of striking pauses and props. Both orators use many combinations of rhetorical devices from Isocolon and Chiasmus to logical fallacies such as Ad Hominem, in order to influence the citizens of Rome into agreeing with their opinion of Caesar’s death.
* Select key scenes, soliloquies or monologues then deconstruct in detail for techniques and how they have been uses to reveal/expose/challenge/confront perspectives * Identify the conflict that surrounds Caesar and who constructs the conflict * Assess Brutus’ role and internal conflict * Assess Cassius’ revengeful and aggressive stance as a find suggest how he has been used as a foil to Antony or Brutus’ perspectives * How is Cassius’ anger and frustration and fear and need for regicide explored in the text? * Who argues against regicide and why? * Why are the perspectives of Caesar differing across the characters – as a man, as a leader, as a monarch – and how do these differ from Caesar’s own
The entire play is energized and wrapped around the power and outcome of persuasive strategies. Act 1, Scene 2 is just one of many excerpts that use such persuasive tactics when Cassius is persuading Brutus to take part in a conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar due his increasingly puffed up ego. Some of them being successful and some not: such as emotional appeal, flattery, attacks on the person, as well as the absence of loaded words. An example that proves to be quite obvious in the case of persuasive strategies is the presence of emotional appeal during this scene. Though to understand, we must first know the character of the person being persuaded while evaluating this strategy as it’s by nature a very personal oriented sort of persuasion.
Conflicting Perspectives Upon deeper examination of a text, the audience becomes aware of conflicting perspectives throughout many aspects of any texts. By presenting a subjective perspective, the manner an audience perceives an event, situation or personality can be shaped to evoke a fervently impassioned response in the audience. Using a variety of techniques and emotive representation, the composer establishes an empathetic and compassionate response with the audience by conveying a sense of integrity and authenticity, greatly impacting their beliefs, fears and desires. These concepts are shown in the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare published in 1623, President George W. Bush’s speech concerning the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 and the poems, Birthday Letters by Ted Hughes. Shakespeare keys into the senses of the audience by creating characters that have in-depth personalities.
Conflicting perspectives within texts challenge the audience’s perception of history by offering interesting and alternative viewpoints of personalities, events and situations. Through their careful choice of representation, composers explore the way such perspectives generate diverse and provocative insights into past events and people which alter the way we the audience understand these. William Shakespeare’s drama Julius Caesar and Spike Lee’s film Malcolm X both strongly represent the conflicting perspectives surrounding historically significant leaders and their infamous assassinations. In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare utilises the dramatic form to represent the differing opinions of Caesar, generating diverse insights into the public
Gabrielle Casey June 1, 2012 English 10 Honors Period 2 Persuasive Essay Language is a powerful and manipulated flow of words that captures the true and false emotions of people and objects. Through language we are able to use it to get whatever they want. In William Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, he uses persuasive language to capture the audience. Among all the characters in Julius Caesar, Calphurnia and Brutus persuasive in their own ways but Antony’s persuasive technique is what helped him be one of the rulers in the end. Even though women are seen as weak, Calphurnia has an effect on Julius Caesar.
‘At the heart of representation are acts of deliberate selection and emphasis.’ Does your prescribed text demonstrate this in relation to ‘Conflicting Perspectives’? Historical struggles of situations, events and personalities are often highlighted through the irrevocable selection of literary techniques and the emphasis on the important facts and circumstances and highlight the complex nature of conflicting perspectives. This is evident in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar through the event of the Luprecal Feast, the conflicting personalities in the situation of the funeral eulogies and the character perspectives of Cassius. The conflicting opinions of various personalities regarding a particular event lead to a deliberate emphasis on various
Reading first, Brutus enlightened the crowd of Rome’s oppressed fate under Caesar’s reign, and questioned, “…Who here is so vile that will not love his country?” (Julius Caesar Act III. sc iii. lines 23-24). Antony’s rhetorical question was better because he logically disproved Caesar’s kingly ambitions by stating a specific instance. Brutus evoked a feeling of patriotism in the crowd, which may have been more effective if he had spoken second.