A Poisoned Seed
New Member
SO I've just been trying to figure out how to approach this essay question for Julius Caesar and this is what I have come up with so far... this is just the Shakespeare section as i doubt anyone is interested in my related texts:
'If Shakespeare had been accurate in the naming of his play Julius Caesar, it would have seemed more aptly named ‘Brutus’. For Shakespeare, the main conflict of perspectives occurs within the character of Brutus himself – Brutus is enigmatic, portrayed both as the ambitious betrayer and the honourable man; butcher or sacrificer? Shakespeare uses the character of Brutus as the scales of the play, using Brutus’ naiveté and sincerity – him being the only character in the play whose motives are clear, if misguided – to weigh the conflict behind the assassination of Caesar.
Thus it is, that Brutus portrays in his character both the positive and negative lights in which Caesar’s assassination can be viewed. Brutus presents the idea of Caesar as ambitious, the dictator, but in the event of Caesar’s death Brutus is also the ‘butcher’, defined by Caesar’s last words:
‘Et tu, Brute? Then fall Caesar’
In Act 3, the forum scene, it would seem that the weight tips out of Brutus’ favour: just as Brutus is condemned as the murderer, so too does the mob’s view of the assassination label the act as betrayal. In this scene Shakespeare continues to accentuate Brutus’ sincerity (a clear contrast to Cassius and the conspirators) in Brutus’ appeal to the mob, as is seen in his nationalistic rhetorical questions:
‘Not that I love Caesar less, but that I love Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, or that Caesar had died, to live all free men?’
Inevitably, however, it is Caesar’s right-hand man Marc Antony who condemns Brutus. Here Shakespeare uses Antony as direct opposition to Brutus to characterise the other perspectives surrounding the assassination of Caesar. It is through Antony that Shakespeare portrays the act of Caesar’s assassination in itself, rather than the powerplay of motives behind the act. In the play, Shakespeare only describes Caesar’s death with three, rather antiseptic words:
‘They stab Caesar’.
But it is through Antony’s appeal to the mob that Shakespeare portrays the violence of the act, seeping the speech in emotive language and blood imagery, as is seen in the lines:
‘Look, in this place ran Caesars dagger through,
See what a rent the envious Casca made;
Through this the well-beloved Brutus stabbed...
Mark how the blood of Caesar followed.’
As a result of this, though the character of Antony is clearly manipulating the crowd – as seen in his subtle twisting of the connotations behind the word ‘honourable’ from good to terrible, as well as in his reading of the will – the violence of Caesar’s death, captured in the harsh verbs ‘rent’ and ‘stabbed’, quickly turns the mob against the conspirators and portrays Caesar as the noble victim. Caesar’s assassination becomes a ‘butcher’ and Brutus the murderer.
Nevertheless, Shakespeare comes to a final judgement in the event of Brutus’ death. In the play, Shakespeare embodies the conflicting perspectives around Caesar’s death in the physical conflict of the battle. Thus, in the event of Brutus’ suicide it seems that Shakespeare has tipped the scales completely, making the final statement that Brutus and the conspirators were wrong and were the unjust murderers of Caesar. Though Brutus is absolved by Antony after his death, his final words seem to clearly portray Shakespeare’s ruling on the event:
‘Caesar, now be still
I killed thee with half so good a will.’
Though Brutus was an honourable man, the assassination of Caesar was wrongfully done.'
I also had an argument prepared about the idea of Caesar as aarrogant or noble, why he deserved to die etc but I haven't figured out how to integrate it in yet
Anyway, feedback would be much appreciated
'If Shakespeare had been accurate in the naming of his play Julius Caesar, it would have seemed more aptly named ‘Brutus’. For Shakespeare, the main conflict of perspectives occurs within the character of Brutus himself – Brutus is enigmatic, portrayed both as the ambitious betrayer and the honourable man; butcher or sacrificer? Shakespeare uses the character of Brutus as the scales of the play, using Brutus’ naiveté and sincerity – him being the only character in the play whose motives are clear, if misguided – to weigh the conflict behind the assassination of Caesar.
Thus it is, that Brutus portrays in his character both the positive and negative lights in which Caesar’s assassination can be viewed. Brutus presents the idea of Caesar as ambitious, the dictator, but in the event of Caesar’s death Brutus is also the ‘butcher’, defined by Caesar’s last words:
‘Et tu, Brute? Then fall Caesar’
In Act 3, the forum scene, it would seem that the weight tips out of Brutus’ favour: just as Brutus is condemned as the murderer, so too does the mob’s view of the assassination label the act as betrayal. In this scene Shakespeare continues to accentuate Brutus’ sincerity (a clear contrast to Cassius and the conspirators) in Brutus’ appeal to the mob, as is seen in his nationalistic rhetorical questions:
‘Not that I love Caesar less, but that I love Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, or that Caesar had died, to live all free men?’
Inevitably, however, it is Caesar’s right-hand man Marc Antony who condemns Brutus. Here Shakespeare uses Antony as direct opposition to Brutus to characterise the other perspectives surrounding the assassination of Caesar. It is through Antony that Shakespeare portrays the act of Caesar’s assassination in itself, rather than the powerplay of motives behind the act. In the play, Shakespeare only describes Caesar’s death with three, rather antiseptic words:
‘They stab Caesar’.
But it is through Antony’s appeal to the mob that Shakespeare portrays the violence of the act, seeping the speech in emotive language and blood imagery, as is seen in the lines:
‘Look, in this place ran Caesars dagger through,
See what a rent the envious Casca made;
Through this the well-beloved Brutus stabbed...
Mark how the blood of Caesar followed.’
As a result of this, though the character of Antony is clearly manipulating the crowd – as seen in his subtle twisting of the connotations behind the word ‘honourable’ from good to terrible, as well as in his reading of the will – the violence of Caesar’s death, captured in the harsh verbs ‘rent’ and ‘stabbed’, quickly turns the mob against the conspirators and portrays Caesar as the noble victim. Caesar’s assassination becomes a ‘butcher’ and Brutus the murderer.
Nevertheless, Shakespeare comes to a final judgement in the event of Brutus’ death. In the play, Shakespeare embodies the conflicting perspectives around Caesar’s death in the physical conflict of the battle. Thus, in the event of Brutus’ suicide it seems that Shakespeare has tipped the scales completely, making the final statement that Brutus and the conspirators were wrong and were the unjust murderers of Caesar. Though Brutus is absolved by Antony after his death, his final words seem to clearly portray Shakespeare’s ruling on the event:
‘Caesar, now be still
I killed thee with half so good a will.’
Though Brutus was an honourable man, the assassination of Caesar was wrongfully done.'
I also had an argument prepared about the idea of Caesar as aarrogant or noble, why he deserved to die etc but I haven't figured out how to integrate it in yet
Anyway, feedback would be much appreciated