Antony’s eulogy to the plebeians is used as a device to show Antony’s opinion of Caesar as a noble and worthy leader and contradict Brutus’s tyrannical classification. Brutus revolves his speech around Caesar’s ambitions and their damage to Rome. Contrastingly, Antony repetitively presents the rhetorical question, “Was this ambition” to the audience which refutes the core of Brutus’s argument and encourages the audience to question Brutus, helping Antony build up imagery of a faultless Caesar brutally murdered. Furthermore, Antony repetitively directs the audience towards the body of the murdered Caesar stating “what a rent the envious Casca made”. While this device may be devalued in the textual format of the play, when performed in the theatrical environment with effective props, it is highly confronting to the audience and further directs the
But due to Brutus being mislead and easily manipulated by Cassius, Brutus would be a more suitable leader to lead Post-Caesar Rome than Cassius, but not to convincingly lead the conspiracy against Caesar. But neither are able to lead the conspiracy and Rome as a whole. Both Cassius and Brutus are friends of Caesar, Brutus respects and loves Caesar but he believes that he would bring chaos to the state of Rome, in comparison to Cassius whom he despises out of jealously and resents the fact that Caesar shows him no favour and is clearly envious of Caesar's growing power and popularity. In the first Act of the play, Cassius was clearly trying to persuade Brutus into removing Caesar from power, but Brutus is uncertain to do so, as he loves Caesar out of respect. " I would not Cassius, yet I love him well..Set honour in one eye and death I'th' other And I will look on both indifferently.." This shows that Brutus is indecisive of Caesar and is unfazed by Cassius's attempt to manipulate him to conspire against Caesar.
Our perspectives of people are often reliant on other people’s own perspectives and opinions of someone. In Act 1, Scene 1 of Julius Caesar we are presented with two very different perspectives regarding the character of Caesar. We are given this sense of conflict in public opinion through the use of juxtaposition between the colloquial language of the ‘lower class’ plebs and the iambic pentameter of the ‘upper class’ tribunes. By this juxtaposition the audience is placed in a conflicted position as to what their perspectives are of Caesar – is he worthy of being celebrated? Or should “no images be hung with Caesar’s trophies”?
We do not have a homogeneous identity but that instead we have several contradictory selves.’ (p. xv) I will argue that these multiple identities are demonstrated in both White Noise ( ) by DeLillo as DeLillo’s characters have to change and adapt their identities in the face of danger during the Holocaust, and The Complete Maus ( ) by Spiegelman when Jack has to change his name to be taken seriously in his academic career and also because media and technology are shown to have an effect on characters thoughts and insecurities. This essay will also consider how ‘signifiers of culture’ are used to establish characters identity through stereotypes and representation, and I will demonstrate how the texts are a means for both Spiegelman and DeLillo to develop and construct their own insecurities of identity. Both authors use ‘signifiers of culture’ to explore identity. For example in White Noise, as the head of his department, Jack wears a gown, so when Eric Massingale see’s him off campus he says “I’ve never seen you off campus, Jack. You look different without your glasses and gown .
Another example of his imperfect syllogization is when he opposes the conspirators taking an oath on their resolution to assassinate Caesar. He persistently asseverates that if their cause - their motivation - is honorable and honest, then they need not swear. "Unto bad causes swear such creatures as men in doubt," he says. Yet the notion that their own cause might be corrupt does not occur to him. In consideration of this, Brutus appears increasingly benighted as he attempts to exonerate himself of guilt during the time preceding Caesar’s death.
Contradictions in Brutus’ Character The central theme of the play ‘Julius Caesar’, authored by the celebrated dramatist William Shakespeare, is the conspiracy against Caesar, his assassination and the subsequent civil war between the pro-Caesar faction and the anti-Caesar faction, that causes much blood shed in the country. This is the precise political background which is set for the play. Caesar’s rising power and his popularity among the plebeians is of much concern to the Roman nobility. While a section of them is jealous of him, Brutus is worried that Caesar will rule the country in a tyrannical manner depriving the liberty of the subject. He is thinking of the common good and not the personal convenience.
Knowledge is therefore caricatured by the act of belief in the dialogue between the characters in this play. The audience is the judge and jury; Shakespeare is the arbiter who mediates between the audience and the characters. The mediation takes the form of dramatic irony and proleptic irony. These theatrical and literary devices are used to expose the pervasive display of fallacy itself, which becomes a central motif. Shakespeare’s act of deploying fallacy takes the form of two things.
Upon his characterisation of the protagonist, Prospero, Shakespeare leaves various parallels between Prospero and himself through Prospero’s creation of the enigma that is the tempest. A parallel is also made apparent between Prospero and James the 1st in that they were both rulers by divine right and delved into peculiar philosophies. Shakespeare utilises the tempest as an allusion within an illusion. The political relevance of the tempest is very lucid; he addresses the political instability amongst the nobles of the play as a connotation to the current political problems in Jacobean England. The short terse sentences along various repetitions and imperatives serve to denote calamity in the ship.
→ He is unable to convince Brutus to give the command to get rid of Antony, along with Caesar, as Brutus’ words and rejection to the suggestion carry more weight, which are able to influence the rest of conspirators. “Yet I fear him;/ For in the ingrafted love he bears to Caesar -” This suggests that he realises and understands that Antony poses a threat of carrying out revenge for Caesar, even after the objective of killing Caesar is completed. However, his worries are not brought across to the conspirators as his words have no weight, and furthermore, his submissive character results in him not pursuing this worry. → “I wish we may. But yet have I a mind/That fears him much, and my misgiving still /Falls shrewdly to the purpose”, from this we can see how he still shows some signs of uneasiness about them giving Antony a chance but is still not able to bring his point across to Brutus and the other conspirators as they all reason with Brutus and later on even submits himself to accepting Antony and even trying to convince him to join them.
In what ways does the funeral oration scene (including the actual assassination) capture the differing perspectives of Antony, Brutus and Cassius? Comment on how Shakespeare represents this conflict. Antony Cassius – “I Wish we may. But yet have I a mind that fears him much, and my misgivings still falls shrewdly to the purpose.” Cassius understands that Antony is a devote subject of Caesar and he fears that he is scheming revenge or plotting against them. Cassius – “Will you be pricked in number of our friends?