“Julius Caesar”, a play by William Shakespeare, constantly is unclear about who is in the right and provokes ambiguity, yet sometimes, it evokes deep pathos and divides the audience into two parts based on the audience’s personality. There were many choices to be made in the text; most of the important one’s , such as Caesar’s, are decisions that can swing in both directions. This also applies to the first scene of Caesar’s triumph. On the contrary, the moving speeches of Brutus and Antony at Caesar’s funeral will divide the audience into two. Without emotions, most events are ambiguous, but as sentiments allow the text to connect more personally with the audience, a rift is created within it.
But the safety of the commonwealth must not be too often allowed to be risked on one man. As long as you, O Catiline, plotted against me while I was the consul elect, I defended myself not with a public guard, but by my own private diligence. When, in the next consular comitia, you wished to slay me when I was actually consul, and your competitors also, in the Campus Martius, (Cicero, Catilinarian I, V)
5. The third plebeian’s cry of “Let him be Caesar,” (3.2.52) is ironic because, while the people do not know of the truth being the conspiracy, the goal was to take out Caesar, not replace him. While their quest seems successful, the true hardships have yet to begin.
Expository Essay The decisions that one man makes can determine the length of life. Rome has many people that have the characteristics to be great leaders. Antony is a manipulative man, Brutus is an honorable man, and Octavius is a quiet strength. All three men would do an excellent job in leading Rome. Antony is a manipulative man. This is shown throughout the play in several cases, but most prominently at Caesar’s funeral. “I thrice presented him a kingly crown which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?” (III, ii, 96-96). Antony is very cleaver in the way that he presents his case to the people. He uses rhetorical questioning to show the people that Caesar was in fact not ambitious.
Throughout the Pro Archia Poeta Oratio, Cicero employs many elements in his speech to convince the jurors in the trial of Archias’ innocence in regard to his citizenship and his contributions to Roman society. He achieves this not through brash accusations or bragging of his own character, but by through epideixis, or praising speech, as he praises the ability of the jurors, Archias’ tale of glory, his character, and his contributions to the Roman empire. Throughout his speech, Cicero uses epideictic rhetoric to interweave elements of pathos, ethos, and logos to convince the jurors of Archias’ legal, and expected, status of citizenship.
The following questions will help you to prepare for your eventual test over “Julius Caesar”. While I will not be collecting this, it is on you to make sure that you are answering the questions as we go. Your test will be taken directly from this study guide.
William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar is one of his most monumental plays that cover Julius Caesar’s death and the fallout after it. He got the material for this play from a Greek writing called the Life of Julius Caesar. This was actually a famous biography written by Plutarch in the first century, I was later translated by Sir Thomas North in 1579. Published in 1599 this play is assumed to be the first to be ever preformed in the famous Globe Theater, it was a smash success that moved audiences. This play has stood the test of time being regarded as a timeless masterpiece and work of perfection. Shakespeare did this by displaying deep moving characters, vibrant and astounding settings, and intriguing points of view in Julius Caesar.
Caesar spoke these lines, explaining why he denied the conspirators’ wish to pardon the banishment of Metellus’ brother (Cimber). He explained, confidently, how if he was anyone else, he would’ve accepted their wish. Nonetheless, since he was way better, nothing could’ve changed his mind. However, every point he had made in this paragraph of his was false. William Shakespeare- writer of the play- used certain diction and metaphors to assist us to an understanding of Caesar’s selfish personality. This scene is the key to mastering the type of personality that Caesar held.
Julius Caesar is an historical tragedy, written by Shakespeare in 1599. Set in ancient Rome it depicts the rise and fall of an emperor and a time of vast political change. Presenting a tale of manipulation and a struggle for power Shakespeare uses the uses the art of the orator and rhetoric to describe key moments in Rome’s history. Structurally central to the play is Act III, scene 2, as it is at this pivotal moment, after the conspiracy and assassination of Caesar that the battle for power begins.
In the midst of the Trojan war, King Agamemnon is distraught after his loss of Chryseis. As a form of compensation, Agamemnon demands that Achilles forfeit his war prize: Briseis, princess of Lyrnessus. Unhappy with this course of action, Achilles withdraws from the war. Generals, trusted advisors, soldiers, and healers under King Agamemnon’s rule deliver deliberate speeches and debate as to if and why Agamemnon should keep or return Briseis to Achilles for his return. Speaker 1, who spoke in favor of Agamemnon keeping Briseis, incorporates all three rhetorical appeals and adopts a commanding tone of voice in order to persuade the soldiers to continue battling despite the loss of Achilles. In contrast, Speaker 14, who was opposed to Agamemnon keeping Briseis, explores pathos and demonstrates the effectiveness of repetition while directly addressing Agamemnon.
In Shakespeare’s well thought out piece of enchanting literary rhetoric, Julius Caesar, Shakespeare suggests that rhetoric alters reality. This position may be most evident in Brutus’ speech designed to convince the plebeians that Rome’s future
But, as he was ambitious, I slew him” (III, ii, 3-5), Brutus proclaims. This main argument of Brutus fully allows the audience to comprehend the reasoning for their valiant leader’s murder, by applying to logos: effectively turning the audience’s favor towards Brutus’s morales. Brutus closes his argument with a series of rhetorical questions, “Who is here so base that would be a bondman? If any, speak—for him have I offended. Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If any, speak—for him have I offended. Who is here so vile that will not love his country?” (III, ii, 10-14) Through his brilliant composition, Brutus was able to persuade and somewhat manipulate his audience to the point where they attempt to replace Caesar with Brutus, “Let him be Caesar!” (III, ii, 2), a lone Plebeian stated. However, we soon learn of a fault in this seemingly perfect speech of
Brutus, in Act II Scene I of William Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, delivers an intrinsically-directed speech regarding the future of Caesar’s reign. He contemplates within himself what possible solutions there are in event of a downturn in Caesar’s attitude towards power, concluding that the only method of maintaining Rome’s greatness is to kill Caesar. In Brutus’ speech, he claims that, upon the occurrence of a difference arising in Caesar’s separation of power and compassion, Caesar must die in favor of the Roman people. Furthermore, the claim made by Brutus is classified as a claim of policy due to the fact that Brutus asserts that a change has to be made. This claim is qualified by Brutus’ use of the word “must” in the statement, “it must be by his death;” the connotation of “must” leaves very little room for doubt. Brutus asserts with the use of the aforementioned word his complete security in the validity of Caesar’s killing. However, this claim is not founded on sufficiently concrete evidence that a deed such as murdering the king may be carried out.
During the second debate, the major question discussed during this debate is the question of whether Julius Caesar should be assassinated and what would be the effects of assassinated the leader of the current Roman republic. Julius Caesar is the self-proclaimed “dictator for life” and that has upset many of the Roman citizens. During the debate, there were strong arguments made by both teams. These arguments use strong logos, ethos, and pathos to convey their arguments on the decision to assassinate Julius Caesar. The gladiators all made strong claims that Caesar should be assassinated based upon their fear that he will become a tyrant and too powerful for the Roman republic to be able to still function as a republic. However, the imperators
The Civil War, consisting in large part of Caesar’s own account of the conflict between himself and Pompey, explores the origins of the war, the manner in which it was carried out, and most importantly the role of pivotal figures on both sides of the struggle. Prior to his records ending and supplementation by military officers, Caesar makes a case for his involvement in and perhaps triggering of the war, one which would transform the social and political landscape of the Roman empire as battles and campaigns were waged from Spain to Italy, Africa to Asia Minor. Caesar walks a fine line between historian, strategist and orator as he attempts to record historical events, martial decisions, and persuade an audience respectively. Despite his efforts to remain impartial, as evidenced by his admission that “the Pompeians were winning” at Dyrrachium, Caesar consistently presents himself as a charismatic and skilled general and leader, jeopardizing the integrity of the text as objective material and allowing it to be a propagandist account of sorts. Ultimately, Caesar uses anecdotal evidence, the presentation of his personal thoughts, and juxtaposition with his opposition to paint his side of the war in a positive and just light.