Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare and The Life of Caesar, by Plutarch

Julius Caesar, a Roman general, dictator, and leader, is considered to be one of history 's most influential and powerful rulers to this day, in which his rise to power, conquest of Europe, and controversial downfall all remain to be told during modern days. The play Julius Caesar written by William Shakespeare, portrays the events leading up to Julius Caesar’s assassination, and how those who conspired against him banded together and plotted Caesar’s demise. Many of those conspirators assassinated Caesar due to his quick rise to absolute power, his “acts” of disrespect against the senate such as his failing to stand to receive the title of becoming a “god,” and pure jealousy and anger towards Caesar’s success and rule over the Roman empire. Caesar, an ambitious man, was able to conquer many lands and peoples for Rome through successful military campaigns in which he became one Rome’s best generals due to the amount of successful battles he had won and the amount of blood he had shed for Rome’s expansion. However, Caesar’s trait of ambitiousness would prove to be a double edged sword.

What does one think when the word blood is said? Death? Betrayal? Sadness? Blood is a prime example of imagery. Imagery paints a picture within the readers’ minds and puts them in the same situation that the sentence is portraying. Having imagery in a work, makes a reader more into the piece and involved. In The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, blood is a device most often symbolizing betrayal by the conspirators, the death of Julius Caesar, and foreshadowing the upcoming events through Mark Antony’s eyes.

In the play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, an honorable man, Brutus, is planning to overthrow the soon to be king, Julius Caesar. Brutus is persuaded by Cassius that Caesar is a liar, too ambitious, weak, and not fit to be Rome’s king. Brutus soon believed Cassius, and they and the conspirators made a plan to kill Caesar. After Caesar’s death, Brutus planned to justify his actions of killing Caesar at his funeral in his speech to the people. After Brutus’s speech, the citizens of Rome were all in agreement that Brutus did the right thing for Rome. Brutus then decides to allow Caesar’s best friend, Antony, to speak in honor of Caesar. Antony speaks, and he convinces the citizens that Brutus’s actions were unjust and turned the people against Brutus.

Being noble and honorable go hand-in-hand because of their similar connotations: respect given to someone who is admired for their good reputation, high moral standards, courage and honesty. Many characters showed such traits in Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare and Antigone by Sophocles (for example, Brutus being known as an "honorable man" even by his enemies), but of all the characters in both plays, Antigone's and Antony's acts of nobility are most prominent. While both Antigone and Antony exhibited noble characteristics, Antigone demonstrated the most honorable character due to her good intentions and integrity.

The Bible teaches love, compassion and generosity. Niccolo Machiavelli found the Bible’s lessons idealistic and unrealistic for leaders. Machiavelli wrote his book, The Prince, to show the ruling Meddici family that the world is not a fairy tale. Prior to Machiavelli writing The Prince, the majority of books depicted people as virtuous and ethical. However, The Prince is not the only work of literature that manifests Machiavellian techniques. William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar utilizes similar methods. As shown in Julius Caesar and The Prince, a leader who follows Machiavelli’s advice will accomplish their goals; if the leader does not adhere to Machiavelli’s recommendations, then the leader will not fulfill his aspiration.

Manipulation, the ability to alter one’s position, is almost seen as a professional sport in the play Julius Caesar. The play constantly conveys the emphasis on manipulation to the readers, and displays persuasion as the main rhetorical device. Many characters, such as Brutus, Caesar, and even the people of Rome, are influenced heavily by sources such as their close friends, or even skilled politicians. Throughout Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, the theme of manipulation is revealed through several instances, leading to detrimental occurrences in the story’s plot and clashes among the characters.

Decius claims that if cassius doesn't come to the senate house they’ll change their mind on crowning him. “The senate has decided to offer a crown to mighty Caesar today, If you send word that you will not come, their minds might change. Decius changes Caesar mind for going to the senate house, so , the conspirators can kill him. Caesar is also manipulative too, when trying to be crowned king of rome he refuses it as Casca says. “Well, they offered him a crown. And when it was offered he brushed it off to the side, like this”. Caesar refuses the crown so, the people will think of him as less ambitious. And the people will love him more. Caesar is being smart by refusing to take the crown because it makes the senates want to crown him even more. The characters are being quite smart by manipulating people to doing what they want them to

Michael Ende once said, “When it comes to controlling human beings, there is no better instrument than lies. Because you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts.” This quote describes Cassius down to a T. Once people shared their susceptible beliefs, they were able to be molded like putty to his liking. He is a liar, but an excellent one at that; he always knows how to use half-truths to get him exactly what he wants. In this case, he wants to be a person of a higher ranking. He is jealous that Caesar had more power, and his envy leads him to manipulate people in order to get what Caesar has. Manipulation is his strength and no one else has the savvy for deception quite like he does. It leads him to a tragic end, but not before he is able to take down others with his manipulative attribute. The play begins with Cassius manipulating Brutus to join the conspiracy, in which he is conspiring to kill Caesar, and ends with him dying in order to right his wrongs. Everything in between is manipulation after manipulation. Whether he is convincing himself of one thing, or persuading someone else of another, Cassius digs his own grave from the start. He convinces himself that he is nothing, and Caesar is everything, but he wants their names to have equal value. Cassius has every reason to kill him, and every plan laid out perfectly. What he does not count on are the repercussions of his actions. In William Shakespeare’s play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Cassius’s manipulative trait is his tragic flaw that eventually leads to his downfall, because his jealousy motivates him to manipulate.

One of the techniques used by Cassius is the use of pathos, or emotional appeal. Being that Caesar has grown very popular/powerful around Rome, Cassius explains that if they continue to let him rule, they’ll only succeed in becoming

In his speech to the Romans, Brutus makes Caesar look like a terrible person and an even worse ruler. Brutus appeals to the Romans’ Ethical thinking when he says “who,though he had no hand in his death, shall receive benefit of his dying, a place in the commonwealth as which of you shall not?,”. Basically, Brutus is saying even if you didn't help kill Caesar you will be getting good out of it. In order to get them to believe that murdering him

Cassius, a longtime acquaintance of Caesar did not like the Fact that Caesar was becoming too powerful, he then sent false letter to Brutus’ house tricking him into the assassination. Brutus felt that Caesars’s power would not be for the good of Rome so he went along with the assassination. This goes to show that Brutus felt Rome would be better off without him. Brutus also says,” it’s not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” From this quote we can see that Brutus loved Caesar but not as much as did his home

Manipulation has been occurring for centuries, from the times of Shakespeare to the twenty first century. Manipulation is a very common theme in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Many characters are influencing others to make them think and feel a certain way. Manipulation still happens today and played an important role during the Holocaust in the 1940’s. Manipulation is directly related to power.

Although, Cassius himself was power hungry, he did what he believed was best for the city and the citizens within. Caesar dominated Cassius’s thoughts in life and death even being brought us as leverage in Cassius’s quarrel with Brutus. “Strike, as thou didst at Caesar. For I know/ When thou didst hate him worst, thou lovedst him better/Than ever thou lovedst Cassius.”

Manipulation embellishes many chaotic attributes of Rome. Shakespeare uses manipulation to lead the story on and make it more interesting on key moments. Many of the characters, for instance Brutus, Caesar, and the people of Rome, were manipulated at least one time, whether it was by close friends or not. The legislators use manipulation to convince other citizens to oblige with the conspirators plans. Through Decius’s coercing Caesar, Cassius planting fake letters, and persuading the public, Shakespeare explores the negative effects of manipulation.

“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.” – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. What does circumstantial evidence have to do with a speech, you may ask? In a manner of speaking, everything, for the evidence maketh the speech. In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, a long-winded Marc Antony had the wiles to manipulate a large plebian crowd to mutiny during Caesar’s funeral, using only simple words that were cleverly twisted to prove his point. Before humans learned the concept of applying “reasonable doubt” to each and every scenario, Antony had a surefire way of winning over the citizens. But as we evolved and have become more knowledgeable, a speech like that would evoke demanding yells of, “Where’s the proof?” As the gaping holes of logic are made clear in Antony’s funeral oration, we begin to see what sorts of artifices made his speech so cunning; its use of circumstantial evidence applied in the correct context, its largely emotional pleas, and its desperate engagement of the citizens by telling them what they want to hear. In this way, Marc Antony is nothing more than a demagogue, and his respective speech is nothing more than a series of words that subject the plebian crowd to sheer demagoguery.