Essay About Julius Caesar And Shakespeare’S Play

Julius Caesar Draft
Julius Caesar Draft
Discuss what Shakespeare’s play ‘Julius Caesar’ has to say about the concept of Conflicting Perspectives.lolThe concept of conflicting perspectives is derived from diverging individual perspectives which are inevitably undermined by subjectivity, consequently altering the representation of issues and values. Indeed it is through these conflicting perspectives that complexities and depth of concerns are assiduously explored and ultimately a greater understanding of the issue is established. This is demonstrated in William Shakespeare’s 1599 play “Julius Caesar” through an analysis of the ambiguous nature of the representations of authorities as well as the contradictory agendas on the realities of the Roman political scene. It is through the realisation of the dichotomous nature of these conflicting perspectives that responders are able to attain a holistic understanding of the complexities of disparate ideas. The eponymous play “Julius Caesar” explores the various ideologies regarding individuals with influence and power through Shakespeare’s illustration of conflicting perspectives on Julius Caesar, subsequently resulting in a greater understanding of the intricacies of contrasting ideas. Caesar is depicted as a commanding yet egotistical figure, his arrogance and megalomania exemplified in the imperial third person self-references “Danger knows full well that Caesar is more dangerous than he,” The ideology of this ‘immortal’ status is further reinforced in “But I am constant as the northern star,” illustrating his hubristic self-deifying metaphorical comparison of himself through this celestial simile. In comparison, Cassius’ Epicurean viewpoint invokes criticism on Caesar’s power and influence which is epitomised in the ironical statement on the sardonic elevation of Caesar through the simile “like a Colossus,” Indeed Cassius’ true perspective on Caesar is exposed in the cumulative anecdotal reference describing Caesar “as a sick girl” ultimately demeaning Caesar’s ability and right to power and illustrating an altered perspective on Caesar’s autocracy. Brutus too elucidates a predisposed perspective on Caesar, subjective to his virtuous Stoic idealism. This is demonstrated in his statement at the funeral orations “not that I loved Caesar/ less, but that I loved Rome more,” the palindromic chiasmus emphasizing Brutus’ justification of the assassination of Caesar for ‘the good of Rome,’ It is through this parochial idealism that Brutus reconciles “with himself at war,” through the statement in his soliloquy “kill him in the shell,” The use of snake imagery emphasises need to restrain the possible abuse of power and ultimately underlines Brutus’ perspective on Caesar. The reliability of each differing representation is questionable as Shakespeare explicates that the ‘truth’ is unachievable through just one perspective. It is indeed through the disparate representations and conflicting perspectives which relay a whole spectrum of perceptions of Caesar, allowing the responder to create their own meaning and truth, accentuating the need for multiple viewpoints which concludes in a complex play and a greater understanding of the issues and ideas at hand.  Conflicting perspectives on the realities of the Roman political scene also provides responders with an enhanced perception of the complexities of differing ideas. This is particularly epitomised throughout two conflicting messages and modes of speeches by Marc Antony and Brutus through the funeral orations.  Brutus through mechanical idealism and rational logos portrayed in conventional prose pursues to force his representation of Caesar to the masses. Indeed Brutus’ mechanical justification for the assassination of Caesar is emphasised in the rhetorical question “Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live free men?”  The use of antithesis of freedom and servitude to elicit the crowds loyalty to traditional Roman republicanism and democracy temporarily administers support from the masses “Let Brutus be Caesar,”  This rationalization is further enforced in syllogism “as he was ambitious, I slew him” which delineates Brutus’ cold and logical perspective on the assassination of Caesar. The repetition of “Who is here?” in the rhetorical question throughout his oration attribute him epigrammatic and mechanical qualities. However Shakespeare’s use of conventional prose lacks structural variety and emotional impact, illustrating Brutus political naivety. In contrast however, Antony appeals towards the masses through pathos throughout his Machiavellian manipulation of his emotional and dramatic requisition which ultimately invokes a passionate response from the crowds. Antony’s initial response to physically remove himself from the stage denotes his presence amongst common men establishing a common bond between himself and the masses. This is reinforced with his address to them as “Friends, Romans, countrymen,” the asyndeton Invoking patriotism among commoners. This emotional appeal is epitomised through the elegant iambic pentameter “My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar” which subsequently adjures an emotive response from the crowd. The constant repetition of “honourable men,” in an ironic antistrophe reveals anything but honourable intentions of the assassination and instead serves to shake and undermine the audience’s faith in Brutus. Ultimately it is through this emotional appeal to the audience secured with the stagecraft of Caesar’s will and body which evoke enargeia, that cements this subjective representation of Caesar. Whilst conflicting perspectives provide different ways of looking at events some ways, especially those that demonstrate an awareness of the need for public support through the power of rhetoric will invariably be more successful especially in the arena of political life. These representations of the assassination of Caesar is ultimately thoroughly explored through these conflicting eulogies and consequently results in a greater understanding of differing ideas.