When he decides to side with the conspirators, was Brutus in possession of any solid evidence to convince him that Caesar would become a tyrant in the event of his being the dictator of Rome for life? To answer this question genuinely, it is necessary to examine his conduct in a broader perspective. This is what he confesses to himself: I have not known when his affections swayed More than his reason. But ’tis a common proof That lowliness is young ambition’s ladder, Act 2.i 20-22 If it is so, is it in conformity with his honour, integrity and sense of natural justice to conclude that the country can be saved only by killing his beloved friend? Considered from his own point of view, the
At Philippi, the armies of Brutus and Cassius are nearby. The armies of Octavius and Mark Antony are there, too, and expect Brutus and and Cassius to challenge them before their armies advance. Brutus and Cassius are filled with doubt and uncertainty so they approach to talk and Brutus asks for conciliation. 65. What does Cassius mean by the
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
When the soliloquy of Cassius in Act 1 Sc. 2 begins it is evident of Cassius’ Epicurean view and his evil desires and intention to use Brutus to murder Caesar, ‘Caesar doth bear me hard, but he loves Brutus…’ the contrast apparent in Cassius’ statement exemplifies that he uses this knowledge to his advantage to coordinate who he would influence to plot against Caesar. The use of rhetorical devices in Brutus’ soliloquy ‘Shall Rome stand under one man’s awe?’ targets Brutus’ fear of Caesar’s misuse of power and dictatorship further supplementing our understanding of the influence that Cassius had implanted onto Brutus, successfully being able to justify and solidify Brutus’ will to kill Caesar. Cassius twists Brutus’ patriotism towards Rome to motivate Brutus into thinking that Caesar’s intentions for the Roman Public would be used in ways that would lead to the fall of Rome. ‘Let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully…carve him as a dish fit for the gods’ the use of a metaphor reveals that his intentions are not to kill Caesar out of spite but instead with regret and considers Caesar as a person of a respectful status.
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”?
In Act 1 of The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Cassius, a noble Roman and acquaintance of Caesar's, uses persuasion techniques to persuade particularly Brutus into joining the conspiracy against Caesar. During scene 2, Cassius convinces Brutus that Caesar is not a good ruler, which shows Cassius is jealous of Caesar's overall rise to power. The tools of persuasion that Cassius uses are the following: he provides evidence, asks rhetorical questions, and gives false information. Cassius uses specific evidence to persuade Brutus that Caesar needs to be killed for the good of Rome. In order to do this, Cassius needs to persuade Brutus that Caesar is no better than any of them; consequently, Cassius criticizes Caesar's impression of immortality by telling Brutus a story of how one day he and Caesar went for a swim.
By locating its concern on the issues about morality and violence andexploring the limits of human cruelty Waiting for the Barbarians challenges humanityand imperialism in several ways. Presenting a psychoanalytic discussion of Waiting for the Barbarians this study focuses on the impact of fear in human psyche andimperialism’s self destructive power. How far fear and anxiety can go and how far members of society can follow a blind power is the main concern of this essay. AsCoetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians is an allegorical novel, this essay will try tointerpret the allegories created in relation to the tensions raised in the novel. The examination of the critiques raised in the book, may be broken down into thefollowing main components.
Shakespeare’s ‘King Lear’ reveals the consequences of change as a result of individual action within an Aristotelian concept and structure of tragedy. Lear’s violation of the natural order in the first scene “we have divided our kingdom in three” is a direct challenge to the Divine Right of Kings. This action reveals Lear’s hamartia of hubris which is reinforced throughout the drama. “Which of you shall doth love us most?” His abdication of the throne in order “to shake all cares and business from our age” and his treatment of Cordelia and Kent represent the most unnatural acts of injustice, unleashing strife and chaos on the world and unimaginable suffering .A traditional Aristotelian tragic hero, Lear undergoes dramatic transformation from a egotistical, autocratic ruler to “a very foolish old man”. The process of change can be challenging and can be achieved through a painful and erratic process to enlightenment and humility.
Mohsin Hamid, author of the ‘Reluctant Fundamentalist’ implicates the reader within his controversial novel, to consequently highlight through the modern reader’s predetermined judgments, the ramifications of simple a misunderstanding between two cultures. The reader’s own outlooks are heightened by the use of dramatic monologue, accelerating and intensifying the tension between the characters in the novel, but also between the reader and the author himself. Hamid concentrates primarily on the imperialism of the American society and the demise, embodied within his symbolic stereotypical characters: representing their part within the fallen American empire accordingly. The 2007 novel accentuates the diverse, peculiar and differentiating qualities each one of Hamid’s characters posses and how each one aids in foreshadowing the events leading up to the deterioration of the parasitic relationship between America and Pakistan, both symbolically and literally post 9/11. Historically America has been depicted as the superior nation, deeming surrounding countries as inadequate and inferior.
In consideration of this, Brutus appears increasingly benighted as he attempts to exonerate himself of guilt during the time preceding Caesar’s death. Brutus’ ignorance would lead us to believe that ambition is a capital crime. All through this play, the villainous act of murder is portrayed as mercy killing, while Caesar is sacrificed for the sake of his aspiration to control Rome. In conclusion, the