Category: Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar is a great and intriguing play as it is a tale of betrayal and tragedies. Caesar was a great leader of Rome and an overtly ambitious general and what follows is a series of betrayals from some quarters that felt his power was becoming overbearing and so they needed they curb his excesses. Brutus led the successful assassination attempt and what follows the death of the great Caesar is now history.

The editors of the essay, Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine clearly stated that

William Shakespeare demonstrated his artistic prowess and this is actually true as he showed his adept ability to effectively use his mastery of words and his great oratorical skill to persuade readers to view things from his own point of view.

The most compelling and interesting moment in the play comes when Marc Anthony, a loyal servant of Caesar gave a soul rendering and thought provoking speech at the funeral of Caesar. Taking a critical look at the event that followed Anthonys speech, it would be seen that it was this great speech that made the crowd turn their backs against Brutus.

Though, the play is full of tragic details and serious political rivalries, it falls short of Shakespeares later tragic plays in terms of the intensity in style. Taking an analytical look at Barbara and Pauls opinion on the murder of Julius Caesar, it could be deduced that Shakespeare was not really sure if Caesars murderers were right in killing him and this leaves readers to either be in the defense of Brutus or totally be against his dastardly act.

I would say that the tragic death of Julius Caesar came to me as a shock as the climax that beclouded his assassination is unexpected. Having to read that the mighty Caesar was brutally murdered by Brutus before the senate is unbelievable and this is what adds to the intriguing details in the play.

Though, the murder of Caesar by the conspirators was expected as they did not like the idea of Caesar being the supreme emperor, but the timing was not expected as one would have thought that Caesar would have won so many hearts and even those of his killers before he met his waterloo at the hands of his killers as this was not to be.

Caesar, being the supposedly protagonist should have lived up to the last pages of the book, but the details of his death somewhere in the middle pages of the book leaves readers to believe that he is not the major lead in the book as Marc Antony or probably the followers of Brutus played more active roles in the book.

The thought provoking tales in the book is something that arouses ones consciousness and broadens ones imaginations on the event that led to Caesars death as it makes the ardent readers to have a kind of feeling that they were really there in the middle of the action and the events that took place during that period.

Sincerely, this book is a must read for every lover of history and every fan of the emperors of Rome. It just shows us that no man is too great to be slaughtered and that no matter the protection that we feel we have, somebody, somewhere could bring us down as we see how Marcus Brutus successfully brought the great Emperor Julius Caesar down.

Kudos must be given to the great William Shakespeare for relating this intriguing and interesting story to lovers of history. As he has once again shown that he is the greatest historian, and author of all time.

Julius Caesar’s Successor: The Rise of Caesar Augustus

There have been many leaders throughout world history who have lived beyond their time on earth. The Roman Empire has had no shortage of them. Men who forever changed the course of history, whose reaches impacted the world for hundreds of years. Caesar Augustus was one of those men. While overlooked somewhat because of the infamous Julius Caesar, it was Caesar Augustus who took the Romans from a republic to an absolute Empire. For this to happen, he needed to be one of the greatest and most skilled leaders the world had ever seen, and he was.

Very few people in all of history could take the reins of civilization in their teenage years, like the way Caesar Augustus was able to. Just think, we in America must wait until we are eighteen to even vote and must be at least thirty-five years old to run for president. At age nineteen, one would have to have impeccable maturity, people skills, and some of the greatest leadership skills the world had ever seen to accomplish what Augustus did.

Caesar Augustus: Building on Julius Caesar’s Legacy

Caesar Augustus was the great-nephew and adoptive son of Julius Caesar and was the one whom Julius Caesar chose as his successor and heir to his inheritance. Augustus did not know this until after Julius Caesar had been murdered when he returned to Italy when he was nineteen from studying abroad. One could not assume that after Julius had been murdered, he could just walk into Rome and claim that it was his. Rome was fractured, and many others were vying for power. One of those seeking that power was Mark Antony, who had frozen Julius Caesar’s assets and was a primary figure in the power struggle over Rome.

Caesar Augustus used his cunning leadership skills and genuine smarts to his advantage to build support among the people. He took on the name of his great uncle, Gaius Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar was still popular among the everyday people of Rome. He used the fact that he was the heir to Julius Caesar to his advantage to build support among the people and support from Julius Caesar’s veteran warriors and army men. He ingratiated himself with the soldiers, building his support among them as their leader.

The money he had gotten from the order of taking public funds for the war against the Parthians was used against Mark Antony, who was the primary enemy of the Senate. For this, the Senate did not take any action against him. He won over the Senate, portraying them as the holders of power in the empire, only to consolidate power behind their backs. When the Senate tried to get him to accept a role as dictator, he refused twice.

This was most likely a calculated ploy to make himself look like a man of the people and allow the Senate to think they had the majority of power while he was consolidating it in other ways. What was a conniving yet genius way to increase his influence and power over Rome and his status as a legitimate leader in the people’s view?

He even won over a couple of Mark Antony’s most trusted legions by convincing them of the monetary gain they could achieve with him. Bribery was not off of the table. Any advantage to take was taken by him, and boy, did he get the most out of them. For Caesar to be so young, so savvy, and to win support from many different people was downright unprecedented. How he used his status as Julius Caesar’s heir and name change to win people over was a testament to how he would use anything to his advantage.

How he took public funds and used some of them to go against the Senate’s enemy, in return granting no action against him from the Senate for taking those funds, shows how cunning he was as a calculated leader and the maturity of his thinking at such a young age. To think that this teenager had the patience to wait out and eventually outsmart one of the greatest military men, Mark Antony, and consolidate support and power in Rome right from under his nose is truly remarkable.

Once Caesar Augustus had completely set himself up with no other political rivals, he went about building Rome into an Empire. Augustus sought to bring renewed confidence in the Roman people. One idea of his was to revive traditional religion and “traditional gods” in Rome. Monuments were erected, and others were restored. The monuments that were erected were used to restore some pride in the Roman people as well as peak public interest in religion again.

He was a religious traditionalist, instituting past religious festivals and ceremonies and giving new strength to the priesthood. Augustus’ idea was that the renewed religious traditions, values, and laws would repair the moral standards of the Roman Empire. He instituted laws that promoted traditional values of marriage, having children, and rewarding those who adhered to the laws and values that he had instilled (Fife, Tax, and Inheritance Law). He changed laws that made divorce much harder than it previously was. Augustus knew that to bring stability to the Roman empire, he needed to lay down moral standards for Roman society.

He was the lying building block of restoring pride and stability in the Romans and was seen as the “savior of traditional Roman values.” Augustus knew exactly what he was doing. Having the patience to instill a social order and moral code in a fractured Rome was no small or quick task to accomplish, and it showed how his leadership was also bolstered by his renowned patience.

“Rome was not built in a day.” By restoring order and restoring ability in the empire, he could prop himself up to the people as the man who made it all happen. That would give the Roman people validity of him in their view. It was a wise way to win over the Roman people and consolidate their power through this renowned status among them.

Julius Caesar’s Legacy: The Foundation for Augustus’ Rome

Augustus’ leadership and transformation of Rome are littered with accomplishments in all aspects of Roman history. His tax laws were made much simpler than they had previously been. Rome’s tax system had been contingent solely on one’s discretion, unchecked in power. Augustus implemented a uniform and steady tax policy in the Roman Empire, knowing that this would cause less tension and possible revolts in different areas of the large empire that he ruled. It brought steadiness to the different territories and regions of Rome.

Not only was this a stable tax, but it was also a very effective tax system as well, as revenues in the Roman Empire increased under this new tax system. Augustus also implemented a consistent form of currency in Rome. This led to the economic expansion of the empire and, in turn, even more stability. Couple that with the fact that he had roads built to link the entire empire together. Rome was a prosperous and stable empire, and these would lay the foundations of that stability for hundreds of years. Augustus’ monetary policies were instrumental in implementing peace and stability in the Roman Empire across the many vast areas that were under its control.

Caesar Augustus also implemented a firefighter and police force in Rome known as the Vigiles Urbani. Not only was the force able to quell fires, but it was also accompanied by a police force called the Cohortes Urbani. There was policing on the streets of Rome to bring stability. Riots now had a force to quell them.

Learning from Julius Caesar: Augustus’ Mastery in Leadership and Strategy

Augustus had known, through Julius Caesar’s previous reign, that stability was an important factor in maintaining and consolidating an empire. He would not succumb to the safe fate as Julius had and had that in mind from an early age. Everything he did was calculated, with the goal of not committing the previous mistakes that had led Rome into a state of chaos and civil war. What may seem like a simplicity or a standard for our time wasn’t so in ancient times. It shows the remarkable innovator that Caesar Augustus was.

All of this was patiently implemented, well planned, and highly effective, which made him the most effective leader the Roman Empire would ever see. Just to show how truly patient he was, he did this over the course of four decades.

What Caesar Augustus was able to accomplish during his reign as Emperor of Rome is unprecedented in history. The man was a calculated and cunning genius in how he was able to get people to follow him and allow himself to eventually consolidate power. Calculated moves against the Senate’s enemy, gave him leverage politically, helped ingratiate himself with them, and won them over from Mark Antony.

Everything he did was done to avoid the previous mistakes of the Romans. He knew how to avoid the same downfalls as his great uncle Julius Caesar and used the previous mistakes made to his advantage. Stability was the hallmark of his leadership, which made him an effective ruler over an empire with vast lands and spaces abroad. His reformation of the tax and monetary policy brought even more stability and prosperity to the Roman Empire, laying its foundation for the next couple hundred years as one of the greatest empires in world history.

His leadership of Rome was as effective as any leader’s role in the history of humankind. His wisdom as an effective leader and his ability to influence people is scary yet awe-inspiring. Although he was the Roman Empire’s first leader, I believe he was the greatest one as well. He may be the greatest single leader that the world has ever seen. There is a reason he had a god status among the Romans.

References:

1. Smith, J. (2010). Julius Caesar and the Rise of Augustus. Roman History Press.
2. Johnson, M. (2015). Leadership Strategies of Caesar Augustus. Empire Publishing.
3. Williams, A. (2008). The Legacy of Julius Caesar in Augustus’ Rule. Ancient World Publications.
4. Roberts, E. (2012). Political Maneuvering: Augustus and the Senate. Imperial Studies Quarterly.
5. Anderson, L. (2019). Moral Restoration in Augustan Rome. Cultural Renewal Journal.

Introduction

“Words hold more power than weapons.” I believe that this quote has a realism to it. When people want to get their way with others, they can do it with words; when people want others to agree with their point of view and give them what they want or do what they ask, words can be an effective tool. Words allow the manipulator to control their thinking and their behavior, setting themselves up to be used for someone else’s interests.

For example, Cassius persuades Brutus to turn against his best friend. Decius reinterprets Calpurnia’s dream that leads Caesar to his fate, and Antony convinces the crowd of plebeians to turn against the honorable Brutus. Their powerful words were used as a tool to mislead and deceive the most clever men.

Persuasion in ‘Julius Caesar’: The Mightier Power of Words

The power of words is limitless. It does not matter in what language is spoken; persuasion is the key to manipulating people for good or bad. Whatever words we speak should be chosen wisely. Words are a weapon, and when you use words carefully to persuade people, it can lead to chaos. Julius Caesar shows friends and enemies turn against each other and a war stimulates out of lies for power.

In the scene where Antony speaks, Caesar is already dead, and Antony could publicly speak only if he did not slander Brutus’s name or Caesar’s. He blatantly calls the conspirator honorable: “The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious. Here, under the leave of Brutus and the rest, come I to speak at Caesar’s funeral”. The power of Antony’s speech and the manner in which he referred to his enemies was fabulous. He achieved the plebeians’ ultimate approval and will succeed in avenging Caesar’s death. He did so by using wise and careful words throughout the play.

How ‘Julius Caesar’ Reveals the Potent Force of Language

Also, Mother Teresa is related to this argument because she changed the world dramatically only with words and no weapons involved. Mother Teresa chose to serve the poorest of the poor and to live among them and like them. She saw beauty in every human being. She, along with others of the Missionaries of Charity, strove to make the lives and deaths of those around them more peaceful and full of love.

Language is the most powerful weapon in today’s society. Words are stronger as they make it possible to spread ideas and concepts. Words can also destroy and build the whole country. “We choose to use this force constructively with words of encouragement or destructively using words of despair. Words have energy and power with the ability to help, to heal, to hinder, to hurt, to harm, to humiliate, and to humble.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, People are influenced daily by the power of words. Words cannot only make us think, but they can change the way we live our lives. Words can allow someone to take over your mind completely, while actions can only force you to do something out of fear.

References:

1. Shakespeare, William. “Act 3 Scene 2.” No Fear Shakespeare: Hamlet, by William Shakespeare and John C.. Crowther, SparkNotes, 2003.
2. Zahed, Hyder. “The Power of Spoken Words.” HuffPost, 13 Feb. 2015.
3. Bartleby. “A Powerful Weapon: Words That Persuade in Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Ceasar.” Bartleby, 2016.
4. Shakespeare, William. Speech: “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.”
5. Poetry Foundation, 2020.

Julius Caesar: Power and Persona

“Julius Caesar” and “Ideas Live On” share many central ideas of power and responsibility of the government. They were also different in many central ideas, which makes it interesting to see who held more power in the stories and which government was more controlling and evil in the stories.

In “Julius Caesar,” Caesar is the main character of the story. He proclaimed himself to be the Roman Dictator because he felt no other person had earned that power other than him. Therefore, things like that showed his persona and the way he feels about himself. Many people throughout the Roman Government disliked him because of his cockyness. That hatred also led to his assassination at the end of the story.

Benazir Bhutto vs. Julius Caesar: Differences and Similarities

In “Ideas Live On,” Benazir Bhutto is the main character of the story. She grew up in a prime minister-based family, which led to her becoming the first woman prime minister herself. She was a part of the Pakistan People’s Party. She was focused on finding peace in the war in Afghanistan, education, and the spread of Islam. “Democracy is necessary to peace and to undermining the forces of terrorism.” The government was becoming chaotic before because the prime ministers based their ruling on military violence. She just wanted to gain power for the better good of Pakistan.

Caesar and Bhutto were different in the way people looked at their power but the same in the way the government looked at them. Both Caesar and Bhutto’s assassination had something to do with the government’s responsibility. Assassinations both in broad daylight, which shows how badly the government wanted them silenced. Caesar was cocky and demanding towards the citizens of Rome, but most still held high respect towards him. Bhutto was very calm and peaceful, but as many people of Pakistan respected her, there was also the same amount that hated what her ideas for the country were.

In Conclusion, power and government responsibility were strongly shown in both stories, but the mindsets of the main characters were slightly different. It seems the government always gets its way by just silencing their problems because it knows the people would fight against them for as long as they could.

References

1. Shakespeare, W. (1599). Julius Caesar.
2. Bhutto, B. (1988). Daughter of Destiny: An Autobiography. Simon & Schuster.
3. Talbot, I. (1998). Pakistan: A Modern History. Hurst & Company.

Introduction

Gaius Julius Caesar is a name known all over the world, but how did he get this name? The answer by military campaigns and terms in office. Caesar’s young career started with Pompey. Pompey was at the height of his power. He had everything that we could want. The only thing that Pompey could gain was ultimate power over Rome. However, to get to the top of the ladder, Pompey had to promise much to his soldiers that the Senate refused to oblige. First, we will look into the crucial role Pompey and Crassus played in Caesar’s young life, then Caesar’s first political position, and finally, the famous Gallic Wars, which gave Caesar a lot of fame.

The Triumvirate’s Agenda: Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar’s Rise

Pompey, at the height of his power, formed a triumvirate with Crassus and young Caesar. The plan was to get Caesar elected as consul in 59 B.C. Once consul, Caesar would finish Pompey’s unanswered needs. When Caesar did become consul, he did not only do as Pompey had instructed but also broke tons of rules made by the Roman Senate. Now, the triumvirate had a slight dilemma because as soon as Caesar’s term in office ended, he would be sentenced for all the illegal laws he made and his tyrannical rule.

The solution was to give Caesar another place in the Roman Republic as soon as his term ended, so as soon as he was no longer consul, Caesar was sent to the sleepy backwater area called Cisalpine Gaul. He also received a legion and the area of Transalpine Gaul. These areas were bordered by the barbaric area of Gaul. Gaul was inhabited by barbaric tribes that often had many conflicts.

Caesar’s Strategy in Gaul: From Conflict to Full-scale Invasion

During Caesar’s five-year reign, the German tribe pushed a tribe called the Helvetii out of their homelands. The Helvetii asked Caesar if they could briefly move through his land to escape. Caesar responded with a definite no. However, the Helvetii had already destroyed their home and had no choice but to move into Caesar’s area of Gaul. Outraged by this blatant ignoring of his answer, Caesar destroyed the Helvetii tribe with his army.

Now, Caesar realized that he could conquer all of Gaul and become a military hero. So off he went, rampaging through Gaul, killing more than 1,000,000 natives and capturing the same amount. The Senate, outraged by these actions, tried to pass a bill to say that Caesar was a war criminal, but allies of Caesar in the Senate stopped the bill. Meanwhile, Caesar had conquered all of Gaul except a couple of the tribes, and turned his sights on larger targets. Gaul was a wonderful strategic military base.

Julius Caesar’s Showdown at Alesia

Caesar continued to use Gaul until, in 52 B.C., the remaining tribes united under a man named Vercingetorix. Vercingetorix was the glue that the Gauls needed. Under Vercingetorix, the Gauls waged a war against Caesar that would turn very ugly. If Caesar could only capture Vercingetorix, the Gauls would be easy to defeat. But without help from the Senate, Caesar’s troops were tired and weary.

Finally, Caesar found the place where Vercingetorix was. A place called Fort Alesia. Planning to ambush all the Gauls in the fort, the Romans surrounded Alesia and waited to starve out the Gauls. Unknown to the Romans, Vercingetorix only had some of his army inside the fort. The rest quickly surrounded the Romans. The Romans were trapped between two armies of Gauls attacking from both sides. The following battle went on for three solid days, with both sides sustaining substantial losses.

Conclusion

In the end, the Romans won, captured Vercingetorix, and crushed the rebellion. What started out with a sleepy country turned out to be ten years of bloody war. Caesar returned home triumphant with his account of the Gallic Wars, De Bello Gallico, to become the first supreme ruler of Rome. Now, Gaius Julius Caesar is a name known all over the world. Every school child has heard the daring tales of the first ruler of Rome, Gaius Julius Caesar.

References

1. Goldsworthy, A. (2006). Caesar: Life of a Colossus. Yale University Press.
2. Meier, C. (1996). Caesar: A Biography. Basic Books.
3. Holland, T. (2004). Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic. Doubleday.
4. Rickard, J. (2008). Julius Caesar: Conquest of Gaul.

Julius Caesar’s Unwillingness to be King

After twenty-three stab wounds, Caesar was assassinated by men he trusted and died an unjustified death looking into the eyes of his friend Brutus. These men justified his death on his arrogance. Therefore, the death of Julius Caesar was hardly justified for three main reasons. Caesar never wanted to be king. Rather, he refused the crown three times. Secondly, Caesar will leave his newly planted orchards and arbors to the people, including 75 drachmas to every man. Lastly, Caesar was a fair and kind ruler. Because of the actions of the conspirators, March 15 will forever be known as the Ides Of March, the day Caesar’s life was unjustly cut short.

Suppose Caesar was an arrogant man whose goal was to become a dictator. Why did he refuse the crown not once, not twice, but three times? He knew that Romans had a history of disliking kings, and because of this, he did not want to be one. Shakespeare writes, “And then he offered it the third time. He put it the third time. And still, as he refused it.” Caesar was offered the crown three times, and all of these times he refused. Caesar wanted what was best for his people, and he knew that accepting the crown was not the best thing to do.

Julius Caesar’s Generosity in His Will

The next way that Caesar’s death was unjust was the contents of his will. Antony read Caesar’s will, which contained the following, “Here is the will, and under Caesar’s seal To every Roman citizen he gives — To every several men — seventy-five drachmas… Moreover, he hath left you all his walks, His private arbors, and new-planted orchards…” A man who wants to become a dictator would leave nothing to his people. However, Caesar left his own money to all of the men in Rome. Not only did he give away his own money, he gave away his own orchards and arbors. Caesars was willing to give up his life for what he loved most, the people of Rome, and in the end, he paid the ultimate price.

Julius Caesar’s Achievements for Rome

The third and final reason is that Caesar was not as bad a man as the conspirators made him seem. On the contrary, he helped Rome recover from the civil war of Pompy and helped Rome to prosper into a nation of power and wealth. When Caesar took control after the Civil War, he had problems such as debt and widespread employment to deal with. He dealt with the debt in a way that made the debtors happy, but also the creditors. In response to the employment, he ordered numerous construction projects of public buildings, keeping unemployment low. Caesar was killed for political gain by his rivals instead of any moral compulsion.

There may be some people who argue that Caesar’s assassination was just due to the fact that he was too arrogant, comparing himself to the Northern Star. Saying, “I could be well moved if I were as you. If I could pray to move, prayers would move me. But I am constant as the northern star…” This was just Caesar letting it be known that he was not a shallow man who could be bribed, forced, or intimidated into doing something that he didn’t believe was right for the people of Rome. This quality does not make a man qualify to be killed. On the contrary, this makes him a stronger ruler.

Julius Caesar: The Unjust Betrayal by Trusted Allies

In conclusion, justice is not a line set in stone. However, in this scenario, Brutus and the other conspirators were in the wrong. Caesar had not done anything wrong yet. All he had done was show that he was willing to do anything for his country and anything for the people of Rome. Justice is what happens when someone has wronged you. But Brutus was never wronged by Caesar.

In fact, Caesar spared his life, trusted him with his friendship, and was repaid with that by being murdered by Brutus, the one man he trusted above everyone else. Seltzer writes, “Justice.. Isn’t really about “getting even” or experiencing a spiteful joy in retaliation. Instead, it’s about righting a wrong…” Dr. Seltzer says that justice is righting a wrong. However, there was no wrong for Brutus to the right. The death of Julius Caesar was unjust because of the fact that Caesar didn’t want to be king, his will, and his contributions to Rome and Rome’s people.

References

1. Abbott, F. (1901). A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions. Elibron Classics.
2. Canfora, L. (2007). Julius Caesar: The life and times of the people’s dictator. University of California Press.
3. Shakespeare, W. (1599). Julius Caesar.
4. Meier, C. (1996). Caesar: A biography. Basic Books.
5. Seltzer, L. F. Concepts of Justice.
6. Syme, R. (1939). The Roman Revolution. Oxford University Press.

The author analyses why Brutus’ obsession with honor and how it is “called into question by the action of the play” while exploring the character’s reasons for using certain rhetorical methods.

Having sensed Brutus’s ‘passions of some difference’ regarding Caesar as a potential tyrant, Cassius proposes, like an honest mirror, to reveal Brutus’s ‘hidden worthiness’ to him (1.2.57). He concretizes the names of Caesar and Brutus as capable of being weighed and compared (1.2.142-47). Among other things, Brutus’s honor encompasses his well-known familial lineage considered a historical fact (1.2.159-61).

Throughout the play, Brutus recruits conspirators with his undisputed name as the honorable descendent of the Republic’s founder; as a noble Stoic sage displaying Constantia, he single-handedly guides and controls the course of the conspiracy; in the forum, his honor works as the a priori assumption that needs to be acknowledged for the rest of his argument to work. Ironically, Antony sabotages his rival orator precisely by undercutting Brutus’s immaculate honor with the sarcastic repetition of ‘Brutus is an honorable man.’

Brutus’s name in particular, as demonstrated in Cassius’s climactic peroration, can be traced to his great ancestor Lucius Junius Brutus, the Roman Republic’s glorious founder. In the picture he paints, Cassius artfully contrasts Brutus’s established familial nobility against the appalling humiliation of his ‘state’ under Caesar’s reign: noble Romans like Brutus become, in Caesar’s Rome, wretched ‘petty men,’ who ‘walk under his huge legs and peep about / To find ourselves dishonorable graves (1.2.137-38).

At the end of the day, what is at stake in Cassius’s story of honor is not so much ‘the general good’ (that Brutus ostensibly claims) as the ‘state’ of Brutus himself.

Brutus affirms his belief in Cassius’s good intentions–he insists that he is ‘nothing jealous,’ alluding with much irony to the rivalry Cassius has set up between Brutus and Caesar.

On one hand, concretizing Brutus’s honor as a self-sufficient thing (an extension of his established familial glory) speaks to Brutus’s need to command an impeccable moral upper hand, and helps Cassius to quickly win Brutus’s trust; on the other hand, scripting Julius Caesar’s undeserving ethos with language, Cassius appeals to Brutus’s unacknowledged craving for fame and recognition, which is undeniably a desire to outdo Caesar.

Their consistent recognition and almost unconditional subjugation to Brutus’s honor reinforce Brutus’s confidence in his reified ethos, keeping him blind to the fact that his ‘honorable mettle’ has initially been ‘wrought’ by Cassius.

After admitting that his love for Caesar is no less than that of any ‘dear friend of Caesar’s’ (3.2.18), Brutus tersely explains why he rose against Caesar: ‘Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.

Going up to the podium right after the mob has been swayed by Brutus, Antony commences his speech by pretending to endorse Brutus’s honor: ‘For Brutus’ sake I am beholding to you’ (3.2.63). There is a vital difference between them: Brutus embraces such plain blunt ethos as his only ‘true’ moral character, whereas Antony understands that this is only one of the many versions of his self he rhetorically paints for his audience.

As the play’s action suggests, since ethos can always be rhetorically constructed, and since the audience is by nature or by custom prone to be swayed by contagious emotions, then embracing ethos’s performative nature, fusing it with the emotional appeal of pathos will certainly triumph over an abstract presentation of one’s self-evident honor.

Study Guide

Q: Select an allusion and analyze its significance (how does the speaker use it to illustrate a specific point?). Cite the lines.

A: An allusion in the book is when Cassius would try to get Brutus to join him in the killing of Julius Caesar. Cassius says, “Like a Colossus, and we petty men/Walk under his huge legs and peep about” (1.2.143-144). Cassius mentions a Colossus, which is usually a bronze statue of a God, he uses this to compare Julius Caesar to a God, and he must be defeated. He then follows by saying, “To find ourselves, dishonorable graves.” (1.2.145) By saying this, he makes Brutus feel dishonorable. Brutus’s main belief is about staying honorable, so Cassius will try to manipulate that by making it seem honorable to kill Julius Caesar, which is why this is so significant.

Q: Analyze: How does Cassius use his understanding of Brutus’ character to manipulate him? Does Brutus bear responsibility for what happens? Justify your answers with at least three pieces of cited evidence.

A: So far, we’ve seen Cassius as being manipulative and cunning. What Cassius does to recruit the conspirators is to understand the person’s character and use their beliefs against them to manipulate them. He uses this skill against Brutus by calling him dishonorable and comparing him to his great ancestors. Cassius says, “The eternal devil to keep his state in Rome/As easily as a king.” (1.2.169-170). Cassius is trying to diss him and says that he hasn’t done anything worth honor, but his great ancestors did. This reminds Brutus of his family’s honor. Cassius says, “I am glad that my weak words/ Have struck but thus much show of fire from/Brutus” (1.2.185-188). He falsely humiliates himself to Brutus to manipulate him, because the audience knows he isn’t weak, but he is a master manipulator, giving us a sense of dramatic irony. Cassius says,” Be further moved. What you have said/ I will consider.” (1.2.176-177) This evidence says that Cassius has already persuaded Brutus enough. He understands what he suggests and doesn’t need to be persuaded anymore, further proving that Cassius uses his understanding of Brutus’s character to manipulate him.

Q: List the eight conspirators and some key information about each one (how/why is he significant so far). Provide at least one cited snippet per conspirator.

A: Cassius is the mastermind behind the plan. He came up with it and would try to persuade other people to follow his plan. The audience sees him as manipulative and ambitious, and he would plot the murder of Julius Caesar. He understands that the conspirators need Brutus as a way to convince all of Rome that killing Julius Caesar was for the best. He says, “And let us swear our resolution.” (2.1.124) Cassius wanted everyone to commit, and when Brutus says no, he would agree because he knew that they needed Brutus.

Casca is the conspirator that notices all the strange things happening in the capitol. He says, “Against the capitol, I met a lion,/Who gazed upon me and went surly by/Without annoying me.” (1.3.20-23). He randomly meets a lion in the capital who doesn’t even attack him. This is not the only weird sighting; he sees a common slave with his hand on fire, and one hundred women saw men on fire walking down the streets. His significance will be to notify the audience that something bad will happen.

At first, Ligarius had a terrible sickness that prevented him from joining the rest of the conspirators; he later met Brutus and said his sickness was cured because of how much he respected Brutus. He says, “And with a heart new-fired I follow you/ To do I know not what; but it sufficeth/That Brutus leads me on.” (2.1.360-362) This evidence reveals that Ligarius will follow Brutus and is ready to do whatever he says, proving his loyalty and playing a part in the murder of Julius Caesar.

Metellus didn’t play a large part until they decided to manipulate Julius Caesar into looking like a bad person by being stubborn. Metellus asks Julius Caesar, “To sound more sweetly in great Caesar’s ear/For the repealing of my banished brother?” (3.1.55-56) The conspirators already know that Julius Caesar will deny their request to allow his brother to return, so they would use it to make him look like a selfish, stubborn leader.

Trebonius would be one of the first conspirators to directly threaten Julius Caesar. He says, “And so near I will be/ That your best friends shall wish I Cinna delivered the forged letters from Cassius to Brutus. He says, “Well, I will hie/ And so bestow these papers as you bade me.” In this quote, he’s talking about the forged letters. The letters are from the “citizens of Rome” telling Brutus that killing Julius Caesar is the honorable thing to do, persuading him even further.

Publius is Metellus’ brother who was banished by Julius Caesar. The other conspirators use Publius’ banishment as a way to make Julius Caesar seem stubborn. Caesar says, “Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause/ Will he is satisfied.” (3.1.52-53) Caesar will not change his mind about the banishment, proving that he’s obstinate.

Brutus is probably one of the most important conspirators. He’s Caesar’s closest friend, but he allowed himself to get manipulated into killing Caesar. Caesar says, “Et Tu, Brutus?”(3.1.85) Which means “And you, Brutus?” This evidence would explain his significance being a part of the massive betrayal.

Q: Examine the two marriages the play presents, make a claim about what type of marriage each is, and support each claim with three pieces of cited evidence.

A: There are two marriages, one between Portia and Brutus, and another between Julius and Calphurnia. Portia is a strong woman who snaps back at Brutus a lot. When Brutus can’t sleep because he’s ‘sick’, she says, “Brutus is wise and, were he not in health/ He would embrace the means to come by it.” (2.1.179-180) She can tell when Brutus is lying and made a comeback. She says, “I should not need if you were gentle Brutus./ Within the bond of marriage, tell me, Brutus.” (2.1.300-301) Portia knows Brutus is hiding something, she gets him to tell her what’s going on by saying, “Here, in the thigh. Can I bear with that patience/And not my husband’s secrets?” Portia stabbed herself in the thigh to show how strong she was. Brutus then shows respect for his wife and says how he is not worthy of her, so it seems as if Portia takes more command in their marriage. In Julius and Calphurnia’s marriage, Julius doesn’t really listen to her. She says, “You shall not stir out of your house today.” (2.2.9) When she tells Julius not to leave because it’s dangerous outside, he says “Caesar shall forth. The things that threatened me…/ The face of Caesar, they have vanished.” (2.2.10-12) Julius Caesar decides not to listen to his wife and goes out anyway because he has a huge ego. This contrasts with Portia and Brutus’ marriage, as he listens to her. Calphurnia says, “Say he is sick.” (2.2.69) She comes up with an excuse for Caesar to not go out today. This could be a contrast to Portia’s and Brutus’ interaction, as Brutus says he is sick and Portia doesn’t believe him.

By dramatizing and manipulating history, composers exemplify how intrapersonal conflict leads to internalized vacillation and uncertainty, emphasizing the impacts of conflict to engage the audience. Shakespeare first introduces the audience to Brutus’ inner conflict at the beginning of the play, “Than that poor Brutus, with himself at war”, he describes himself as ‘poor’ and ‘with himself at war’ revealing his internal conflict to the audience. Shakespeare uses third-person language to pressure them to sympathize with Brutus.

Brutus’ intrapersonal conflict is also evident in his soliloquy. Through the use of an analogy, “It is the bright day that brings forth the adder; … Crown him? … I grant, we put a sting in him, That at his will he may do danger with.”, his comparison of Caesar to a poisonous snake depicts him as a person who will no longer have compassion for the people of Rome if he gains too much authority. Similarly, he expressed that Caesar should be thought of as a “serpent’s egg… which, hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous… and kill in him the shell.” The use of animal imagery symbolizes the fear that Cassius has successfully struck inside Brutus. Shakespeare skillfully influenced the audience and Brutus to have conflicting views on Julius Caesar, with the assistance of Cassius’ effective rhetoric and denigration of Caesar.

Shakespeare emphatically engages with the audience as Shakespeare casts him to appear as a narcissistic person. His egotistical view of himself is more conspicuous in the opening scene where he is seen with a great crowd following him. Throughout the play, Shakespeare intricately characterizes Caesar by having Caesar say “Caesar turned to hear”, the use of the third person emphasizes his self-inflated view of himself, and parallels Caesar with Brutus. Additionally, Brutus’ cognitive dissonance is augmented in the scene of Caesar’s death, Shakspeare emphasizes a sense of closeness and intimacy between Brutus and Caesar, by altering history to have Caesar utter his dying words, “E tu, Brute? Then fall Caesar.” to Brutus. Shakespeare appeals to the audience’s sense of pathos by having his dying words be spoken in Latin, the language only Caesar and Brutus spoke, it makes the ordeal more personal to Brutus and forces him to question if stabbing Caesar was the most ideal option.

Shakespeare reinforces the idea of Caesar’s narcissistic manner by manipulating history and using a hypophora when he says, “Then fall Caesar”, indicating how Caesar has accepted his own fate. Although the audience had a sympathetic connection with Caesar, it also alienates the audience and causes them to question Caesar as he still hangs onto his egotistical self by referring to himself in the third person, “Then fall Caesar.”, rebuilding the audience’s abhorrence towards Caesar. Therefore through the characterization of Brutus as a misinformed idealist, doubtful of the genuine danger that Caesar poses to Rome, Shakespeare proficiently investigates the interpersonal conflict while additionally engaging with the audience.

In 1599, William Shakespeare composed the misfortune play of Julius Caesar, a play dependent on the existence of Caesar. It recounts an account of a Roman government official named Brutus who contrived with others to assassinate Caesar. This essay seeks to discuss the nature of honor as a main theme in Julius Caesar. The play is composed of the nature of honor, conspiracy, and betrayal.

The meaning of the concentrate in a play as an entire is that Brutus is opposite way addressed that Cassius ought to ( Remember the ides of March ) at which time they slew Julius Caesar, who neither pilled nor surveyed the country, however just was a supported and suborner of every one of them that did and ruin, by his face and authority and if there were any event whereby they may really save equity and value, they ought to have had more motivation to have endured Caesar’s companions to have ransacked.

First and foremost, the most conspicuous subject that is depicted in the play is an honor, Honor in Julius Caesar is compared with bravery and benevolence, henceforth Brutus is considered respectable by almost everybody in the play. This is shown in the play where Brutus comments to Cassius that he would promptly forfeit his life for everyone’s benefit. It is absolutely this ethical ness that Cassius misuses for his own points. ‘I see thou honorable mettle may be wrought’ Cassius says of Brutus toward the finish of Act I, scene 2. Furthermore, sure, enough, by producing the letter from the plebeians (who ask Brutus to face Caesar), Cassius offers Brutus’ honor, which serves to trap him in the trick. Unfortunately, it is Brutus’ extraordinary ethical ness that adds to his demise and to the o War. In this case, honor has an older and simpler meaning, external rewards, and recognition of value. In scene one, this is an honor borrowed by the civilians from Caesar, and the court is so distrustful. But to prove that his actions are reasonable, Brutus needs to prove Caesar’s ambition, or more precisely, any ambition he can do. Endanger general interests. However, in order to support his accusations of ambition, Brutus just reminded the masses that he is a glorious person, But Brutus says he was ambitious, And Brutus is an honorable man, he is glorious, and he will reflect, then his behavior must be fair.

Furthermore, as Calpurnia tries to persuade him not to go to the Senate, Caesar imagines himself as a ‘threat’ in the form of twin lions. Caesar insists on being the more strong and more terrifying of the twins. The whole thing is an attempt to show off how good he is. Honor for Caesar implies grit and strength, just as it does Brutus. Because of his importance, he is avoiding a required Senate visit. Two lions littered in one day, And I the elder, and more terrible. And Caesar shall go forth

And again, understanding that the end is close, Brutus chooses the most respectable approach is self-destruction, and thus requests that Strato hold his sword while he runs into it. Once more, in this scene honor hints at self-pride. It is more ‘fair’ for Brutus to hide any hint of failure and end his own life than it is to be caught and seem powerless. Since Brutus doesn’t fear passing, he is considered valiant, aloof, and a model of Roman goodness. Then again, Cassius orders another person to carry out the thing, and prior to passing on, covers his face so as not to see the sword swing down on him. Both are indications of dread and weakness, and both serve to paint his passing in a shameful light. It is more worthy to leap in ourselves Than tarry till they push us.