“If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar’s to him I say that Brutus’ love to Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer, not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” Although many people in Rome were happy that Caesar had died, Brutus still loved Caesar and promised to himself that their friendship will never die. Another reason why Brutus was not right to join the conspiracy is because Cassius had convinced Brutus that Caesar was going to make himself a monarch and turned him against his own friend by manipulating him and making Brutus the one to kill Caesar. Brutus’ flaws that he has as a character got the best of him and made it easy for Cassius to use him for the killing of Caesar.
A particular character, Brutus, from a Shakespearean play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, is quite intriguing. Brutus is a companion of Julius Caesar, but is quickly pulled into the conspiracy plot to kill Julius Caesar. Throughout the play, Brutus sticks to his moral ethics closely. Moreover, Brutus affirms, “For let the gods so speed me, as I love the name of honor more than I fear death” (1.2.88-89). In this quote, Brutus is saying that honor is the most important thing to him.
While the first societies were built by man, the rules of every society since have have dictated the actions and beliefs of each individual. In the Roman Society presented in William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, Julius Caesar is on the verge of being crowned king, and some of his fellow Romans are none too pleased with this. Julius Caesar takes place in ancient Rome in 44 b.c. At this time, Rome was the center of a large empire, but their society had its fair share of problems. Their society gives much of the wealth and power to a select few people while many power-hungry men vie to be absolute leaders.
The Character Brutus In the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, Brutus is a character that has the most difficult decision in the play. To disobey his loyalty to Caesar, or to disobey his loyalty to Rome. At first we all believe that Brutus is a good guy and wouldn’t turn his back on Caesar.
Shakespeare in his time was viewed as a historian, that is why it can be seen that his play has such a historical appeal to it. His facts for the most part, are facts, and what he fictionalizes doesn't impact that history that has already occurred. He demonstrates intimate conflicts between the characters and really brings the reader in full circle to the events of the time of the play. In William Shakespeare's the Tragedy of Julius Caesar, manipulation is used in oratory, drives wills, and is seen in specific characters as a perspective for the political and social settings of Caesar’s Rome.
Although the influence that the power of free will possesses can immensely affect the fate of an individual, fate can also be predestined. Throughout the play, characters demonstrate their own views on the effect of free will through their actions, thoughts, and words. In an attempt to change the fate of the Roman Empire, the conspiracy chooses to utilize their free will by murdering the widely beloved leader of Rome. However, due to the outcome of the play, it can be questioned if their costly actions were all in vain. Incidents that are decided by free will and others that are already underway are prominent within The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare, and greatly affect the denouement of the play.
In the play Julius Caesar, there are many different speeches made by many different characters. The two that give the best examples of rhetoric are those made by Brutus and Mark Antony. They are both on two different ends of the spectrum and are completely different though. Mark Antony Is an amazing speaker, he knows how to talk to a crowd and get them to join him in his endeavors. While Brutus is the exact opposite, he is not a very good speaker and has trouble getting the people on his side.
Rhetorical Differences The reason Brutus failed to continue to have the citizens of Rome persuaded is simplified in this quote by Robert A Heinlein: “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.” Brutus failed while Antony succeeded because Brutus relied on logic whereas Antony relied on the emotions of the people. Despite the fact that Antony did it for the wrong reasons, he obviously was more skilled in rhetoric than Brutus.
The Better Speech “A speech should not be just be a sharing of information, but a sharing of yourself.” This quote by Ralph Archbold is relevant in Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar when Brutus and Antony spoke to the people of Rome, after Caesar’s death. Although Brutus was an honorable man, his speech did not get the outcome he wanted. Antony was very cunning, concise and used pathos to influence the people of Rome. Overall, Antony knew beforehand how to manipulate the crowd with his speech more than Brutus.
In the play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar one of the main characters Caesar is killed in Scene 3 act 2.Then Brutus and Antony both give speeches about how bad they feel. Brutus gives a good speech by using all three of the rhetorical appeals to persuade the crowd to want to listen to what he say by using logos,ethos,pathos to his advantage. Brutus gives a better speech that draws the audience attention,Antony not as much. Therefor here are some very valid points on why Brutus’s speech used the Rhetorical Appeals better.
Many people believe that Brutus’s actions greatly affected the development of the play, Julius Caesar. They also debate on what motivated him to make those choices in contrast to what motivations Cassius had. Brutus was not correct in joining the conspiracy against Caesar, he was manipulated into joining by Cassius. His motivations were pure, while Cassius was fueled by greed and yearning for money and power. Most agree that Brutus’s motivations were very noble, which could be considered the opposite of Cassius’s.
How do politics affect relationships? A quote from Thomas Jefferson states, “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend” (Jefferson). Thomas Jefferson asserts that differences in opinions, in this case politics, should not affect personal relationships. However, this may prove true in some cases, politics can have both negative and positive effects on relationships.