Antony gives several other examples of the exact reasons why Caesar isn’t guilty, but this is most impactful one because the people personally saw Caesar rejecting the crown therefore making it a testimony of Caesar that he could never have the traits of always trying to add to his power since he
In Shakespeare’s, Julius Caesar, he portrays the conflict man vs self by informing people that it is human nature to make decisions based on other people’s points of view. He does this by using rhetoric, logos, and pathos to make one character or group persuaded by a single person or multiple people. Persuasion is used throughout the novel to entice a character to agree with another character. For example, Brutus does not want to kill Caesar, even though he does not want him to become king, but his other friends attempt to persuade him into believing that murdering one of his closest comrades is a good idea. Brutus tries to convince the conspirators why killing Caesar is wrong as well.
“Rhetoric, which is the use of language to inform or persuade, is very good in shaping public opinion. We are very easily fooled by language and how it is used by others” (Comfort). This quote by Ray Comfort describes how rhetoric can be used to persuade people by words alone. Marc Antony and Brutus both used many cases of rhetoric throughout William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar. Each of them tried their best to persuade the audience to choose their side.
Thy lover, Artemidorus.” (2.3.1-9) This evidence further proves that Artemidorus was trying to warn Caesar of the conspirators by waiting for Caesar to pass by so he can give him the letter. If only Caesar has received Artemidorus’s letter, he may have still lived. Throughout Act II, fate was displayed in many prophecies and omens that Caesar encountered.
When Caesar talks to Antony about who people should fear, Caesar said, “Would he were fatter! But I fear him not. Yet if my name were liable to fear, I do not know the man I should avoid so soon as that spare Cassius. He reads much. He is a great observer, and he looks quite through the deeds of men” (1.2.199-204)
Brutus, does not have the arrogant stubbornness of Caesar, rather he makes authoritative decisions without regard to other opinions. His unwillingness to compromise can be seen in the why he assumes command and makes decisions once becoming a member of the conspirators. Immediately after enlisting in the conspiracy Brutus, who was not elected leader, aggressively takes command of the conspiracy and makes a series of decisions despite differing opinions from every other member of the group. In Act II Scene 1, the conspiracy gathers together to plot their attack on Caesar, and Brutus immediately takes command. The group asks if they should swear an oath, have Cicero join the conspiracy, or kill Mark Antony.
“‘The fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. ‘Brutus,’ and ‘Caesar.’ What should be in that ‘Caesar’?” (Julius Caesar 1.2) Cassius uses charisma to manipulate Brutus in this particular scene by using comparisons to show Brutus that Caesar is as equal as everyone around him and that he has his own faults. This is very important because this shows Brutus that Caesar is not as incredible as he sounds.
Throughout the story, Brutus was one of the few characters that understood the way power could change a man. He feared that Caesar would become a tyrant with all his new power and that Rome would suffer from his rule. He states this multiple times in the story. During Caesar’s funeral, Brutus states “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more,” (JC 3.2.23). It is clear to see here that Brutus was justified in killing Caesar because his intentions are good.
“Into what dangers would you lead me, Cassius, that you would have me seek into myself for that which is not me?” (I.II.68-69). In the play Julius Caesar by Shakespeare there are many characters that can be compared and contrasted; two of those characters are Brutus and Cassius. Brutus and Cassius both have quite a few similarities as well as their differences. One of the few similarities that both these characters share is that both were involved in the assassination of Caesar; the difference between these two is their personalities.
“There is something wrong with your character if opportunity controls your loyalty.” -Sean Simmons. Many times people have different understandings about loyalty. This is clearly shown in the Shakespearean play Julius Caesar. Brutus thought he was being loyal to Rome, even though great sacrifices had to be made.
A counterclaim that is encountered with this subject may be describing how Shakespeare 's work is outdated and how the stories were just stories. These points are not important to the argument because they are not valid against the claims of how Shakespeare can give the present day a view of the past, and how he still affects many people today. In conclusion, I believe that reading Shakespeare today should still be allowed in education. Shakespeare permits the present day to perceive life from the past, his work still affects people and peoples opinions today, and his work is a strong basis of what other literate professionals reference
Despite the play being named after him, Julius Caesar is not the protagonist or the main concentration of the story, instead focusing on the assassination of Caesar. In doing, so Shakespeare does not allow the audience to verify claims made about Caesar. Instead his arrogance, fragility, and ambition are neither explicitly confirmed or denied. However, actions speak louder than words, and Caesar’s actions only demonstrate how noble he is. One such action takes place early in the story when Caesar refuses the crown not only once, but thrice.
All throughout history we have seen numerous assassinations of heads of state. Most of these assassinations can trace their cause to a disagreement with a certain person or group of people. While we can say that assassinations such as Abraham Lincoln’s was not justified for it was dealt at the hands of a man who was enraged at the President’s idea to allow African Americans to vote, the case is different in Julius Caesar. Here, we see a man in a position to become an extremely powerful ruler of Rome and once he is assassinated the question becomes: was it justified? I believe that the assassination of a head of state can be justified, specifically in reference of Julius Caesar, because of Caesar’s greed, his selfishness, and the danger that he poses to Rome.
How would you persuade the common people to support the correct cause? During this time in Act 3 of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, Caesar was recently assassinated by Brutus and other conspirators. Brutus first delivered a speech to try and gain people on his side, and Antony followed. Antony's speech was the most effective because he appeals to the peoples emotions and uses evidence. The first reason why Antony's speech was the most effective was because it appealed to the audience's emotions.
Antony’s funeral oration is one of the most important speeches in Julius Caesar. Antony is the most skillful speaker because of his ability to turn a mass of uneducated plebeians once faithful towards the conspirators completely against them with emotional appeals. In Antony’s speech, one of his uses of emotional appeals is to create a kind and friendly relationship with plebeians. At the beginning of his discourse, he uses a synecdoche and asyndeton with his appeal.