Toulmin Analysis Of Brutus In Act II Scene I Of Julius Caesar

Brutus’s motivations behind the death of Caesar is clearly evident in his speech after the assassination. Throughout his speech, Brutus relies on reason and logical rationale and syllogisms to explain the reasons behind the assassination “If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free man? /as he was ambitious, I slew him”. These strong and emotive words demonstrate Brutus strong love for Rome. Thus it can be said that, although Shakespeare presents various perceptions towards Julius Caesar, the composer’s bias is not negated.

In Roman history, some elite men held certain values that they felt strong enough to take their life in order to defend it. In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, there are certain characters portrayed to show how a person’s values or ideas can change their behavior and influence some significant decisions. The protagonist of the play, Marcus Brutus, supports this thought by having an idealistic view on the world and by showing his patriotism toward Rome. In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Shakespeare uses Brutus as an honorable, idealistic man in order to show the depth that a high-class Roman man will go through in order to defend his honor.

In William Shakespeare's play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, two speeches are given to the people of Rome about Caesar's death. In Act 3, Scene 2 of this play Brutus and Antony both try to sway the minds of the Romans toward their views. Brutus tried to make the people believe he killed Caesar for a noble cause. Antony tried to persuade the people that the conspirators committed an act of brutality toward Caesar and were traitors. The effectiveness and ineffectiveness of both Antony's and Brutus's speech to the people are conveyed through tone and rhetorical devices.

Brutus in William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar In 'Julius Caesar', Shakespeare intended us to see Brutus as 'noble'. I wish to review his actions, and the motivating factors behind those actions. I intend to prove that Brutus had a strong and well-grounded character. He had good intentions, however, he made one fatal mistake and that was his downfall. When learn that Brutus is dedicated to the public, when Brutus decides Caesar must die, because he fears his ambition, this comes as a big shock to the Shakespearian audience as well as the modern day audience.

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.

Shakespeare shows how power and the prospect of power changes people through the character of Brutus. Brutus’ attitude changes as he acquires power and detects the possibility of being powerful. Originally, everything Brutus does is for the good of the people and Rome itself. He recognizes that he has “no personal cause to spurn at [Caesar]” (I.I.11); however, he considers doing it “for the general” (I.I.12). Power has not yet changed Brutus’ attitude; he still focuses on the good of Rome as a whole and not just gaining power for himself. As the play continues, Brutus’ ongoing internal struggle of whether or not he should kill Caesar ends when he decides to kill him. He wants to kill him in a very specific way so that the people hate Caesar rather

Additionally, Brutus presents a series of rhetorical questions that have no grounds to persuade the audience. He asks, “Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman?” Here he makes it clear that one who does not understand the reason behind Caesar’s necessary death should not be considered a Roman. But, the audience, once again, does not have reason to acknowledge this statement as Brutus does not have sufficient evidence that the murder was, in fact, a necessity.

The topic of leadership in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar has been discussed and argued ever since the play was written. The most prevalent discussion of leadership in the play revolves around Shakespeare’s tragic hero, Marcus Brutus, and the cause of his downfall. According to Shakespeare critic James Bundy, “Brutus... is a man whose affections sway more than his reason, in whom there is this tragic confederacy of passion and imagination against reason” (qtd. in Palmer 402). Ernest Shanzer, however, says that Brutus is “by no means devoid of political shrewdness and practical wisdom”, but he is a “bad judge of character” (Shanzer 1). Although both critics’ descriptions of Brutus have merit, Brutus’ shortcoming, as well as the success of the opposing leader, Mark Antony, is more accurately explained using the observations of Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince. In this book Machiavelli outlines the characteristics of a successful leader. When using The Prince as a lens to read Julius Caesar, the correlation between a leader’s Machiavellianism and their success becomes very apparent. Marcus Brutus is undoubtedly an honorable and respectable man, but his morality prevents him from adhering to Machiavelli’s principles. Due to his lack of princely virtues, Brutus is doomed to fail, while Antony, a much more Machiavellian prince, successfully seizes power.

Brutus uses a proud tone conveyed by many literary devices to convince the audience that Caesar's murder was justified. Brutus asks, "Would you rather, Caesar were living, and you all die slaves, than that Caesar were dead, so you all live freeman" (Shakespeare 3.2.20-22). Brutus tries to persuade the audience that Caesar's murder was justified through the use of a rhetorical question and a hyperbole. He tells the audience if Caesar was not killed, Caesar could have become a dictator, and the people would have been oppressed. This persuasive question gives the Roman citizens time to contemplate what Brutus is saying, and prompts them to visualize the

In William Shakespeare’s tragic play Julius Caesar, the protagonist, Brutus, conspires against and successfully kills Caesar; to only find the city he loves in chaos and mutiny from his actions. Brutus in the eyes of many people was a noble and honorable man who loved and adored the city of Rome, and no person thought more of this than Caesar. To Caesar, Brutus was the son he never had, and his love of Brutus was known, therefore the thought of Brutus betraying him was absurd. However, imagine if not only Brutus did not love Caesar, but he hated him. If that was the situation in the Julius Caesar, the play would then change drastically, with almost every quote from Brutus changing. If this is the case, Brutus’ hatred of Caesar and love of

In William Shakespeare’s tragedy Julius Caesar, the character of Marcus Brutus is tasked with making a difficult choice: either kill one of his most beloved friends, or risk the corruption and downfall of Rome. Though Brutus acknowledges the ethical and moral concerns of his actions, he commits to the conspiracy against Caesar, and carries it out with conviction. The question, however, is whether or not Brutus’ actions are justifiable from an objective point of view. Unlike most other political assassinations, Brutus isn’t a hysterical stranger distraught with the target, but a close ally, and trusted friend. Brutus justifies his own doings by convincing himself and others that they’re sacrificing, not murder Caesar, and acting not out

The opposing side says that Brutus was wrong when he joined the conspiracy. Others say that he should not have joined because the conspirators never gave Caesar a chance. However, if they had done so and he became unstoppable what could the risks have been? Caesar could have become a tyrant and uncontrollable leader. With no one to cease his rule, the Roman Empire would have been destroyed. Therefore, Caesar should never be given the chance to come to power as a king of the Roman Empire.

Brutus, a conflicted senator obsessed with his civic duty, convinces the people of Rome that his motives in killing Caesar were just and noble by rhetoric. Brutus is the only conspirator to have impersonal motives in killing Caesar. In fact, his motives are trying to find the best solution for Rome, and in the end, he must make the hard choice of killing his best friend for his homeland. As early as Brutus’ conversation with Cassius in Act I, Brutus exhibits this deep love and respect for Rome and how this love is conflicting with his love for his friend, Caesar: “[P]oor Brutus, with himself at war, / Forgets the shows of love to other men” (I.ii.51-52). Brutus brings up this internal conflict again when he tells the crowds that although he did love Caesar, he loved Rome and its people more. After Brutus’ murder of Caesar, he realizes that the issue of the public opinion of Rome is of the utmost importance. Because of this love for Rome, Brutus uses rhetoric to persuade these plebeians to approve of him and his cause. When Cassius warns Brutus about “how much the people will be moved / By that which [Marc Antony] will utter[!]” (III.i.252-253), Brutus tells Cassius that letting Marc Antony speak “shall advantage us more than do us wrong” (III.i.261). In these cases, Brutus demonstrates his awareness of

At the start of the timelessly classic play, Julius Caesar was in the final stages of parlaying his military prowess and growing cult of personality into enthronement as the long absent autocrat of Rome. His brother-in-arms, Marcus Brutus, after fighting at Caesar’s side for so long, was forced to weigh his loyalty to Caesar against his loyalty to Rome, setting the stage for the troubling events to come. As Caesar’s divine right to rule and infallibility were trumpeted throughout Rome, others were not so convinced of his purity and worthiness. Cassius, a dissident Senator, opened Brutus’ eyes to the circumstances unfolding before them and to what could be lost should Caesar take the throne. Cassius voiced his opposition strongly, saying: