Examples Of Duality In Julius Caesar

“Brutus did not know if he would go through with the murder” “How was he to kill a man he loved? A man who had loved him like a son and may even be his own true father”. Brutus doesn’t think he will be able to kill a man who he and all of Rome loves. Caesar was more like a god than he was a man. Admittedly, there are some people who believe that Caesar was to powerful and needed to be taken out.

Has Brutus truly justified the need to kill Caesar or has he simply rationalized it for himself? Brutus has multiple reasons that support him in joining the conspiracy to kill Julius Caesar. He did the right thing by joining the conspiracy because he’s loyal to the people of Rome. Brutus believes that Caesar will become full of himself once he’s in power and forget about the people. Lastly he thinks that Caesar is rude and arrogant towards others.

In Cassius’s speech to his brother he uses the method Ethos and establishes credibility and appeals to ethics or morals. One of the ways he does this is by saying that “[their] fathers say There was a Brutus once who would have brook’d The eternal devil” (Shakespeare 20-21). This shows that wiser people before them said that Brutus was strong and therefore, lends a hand towards Cassius’s argument that he should take action. Also by stating “I, as Aeneas, our great ancestor Did from the flames of troy upon his shoulder… Did I the tired Caesar” (Shakespeare 20-21).

Does his sense of patriotism really justify killing a friend and a major political leader? You may notice that Brutus isn't very sympathetic as he is defending what he did.     The dramatic character has a flaw. That flaw maybe one single word, but there can be many parts to that word. For Brutus there are many parts of his flaw that make him the dramatic character.

What— did one of us strike down the most powerful man in the world in order to support robbers? Should we now dirty our fingers with lowly bribes and sell the mighty offices that we hold for whatever gold we can get our hands on? I'd rather be a dog and howl at the moon that be that kind of Roman.” (Shakespeare 169) Brutus is painfully obvious (at least he is from Cassius’ point of view) when he confides to Cassius that he believes that Cassius wasnt as honest about what his intent and motives for killing Caesar were.

Brutus ‘believed’ that in order to keep Rome from falling to bits, that he had to make the hanus decision on whether or not to commit the deed. Which in the end you see that he did,in fact, murder him anyway. Although Brutus did comply, he didn't do it without feeling

This proves that he would be the best fit for the ruler of Rome because he is willing to make sacrifices to save his people and the men that fought beside him. The act of killing himself shows the level of honor and self-pride that Brutus has and proves he would be the best ruler for Rome. One might think this would make him unfit to be a ruler but truly brings out how much of a good fit he would be by showing he would do anything for his

The duality of Brutus and Cassius is strongly represented by their conflicting interests. Through their desperation

When he says this, Caesar’s hubris is evident and shows us that he thinks no one would dare harm him once they’ve seen his face. Because of his pride, Caesar chose to ignore Calpurnia’s

Argument In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, the conspirator Brutus seems like a sympathetic character to both the readers, the other characters in the play, and even himself. But his actions throughout the play show that he is in fact arrogant, disloyal, and downright dishonorable, despite the fact that he is called the “noblest” of the conspirators, or even any roman (5.5.68). In an article by Mildred E. Hartsock, entitled The Complexity of “Julius Caesar” she states that “Brutus, mistaken and doomed, never forfeits our sympathy, we are told. Are we, then, to admire cold-blooded murder with no clear-cut evidence for its necessity?

In their introductory scene a discussion is taking place about Caesar's claim to the throne. Through this discussion the audience learns a lot about Cassius and Brutus’s values . It is revealed that Brutus is an honorable man who believes in the general good of mankind. He states,  (1.2 84-89)“ What is it that you would impart to me?/ If it be aught toward the general good, / Set honour in one eye and death

At this point in the play, Brutus was making all of the decisions for the conspirators. He would not listen to Cassius when he should have. For example, if they would have killed Antony he would not have had to flee Rome, another thing he should have listened to is that Brutus should not have let Antony make a speech in act 3 scene 2 lines 73-105. Antony was able to use pathos during his speech to turn the people against the conspirators, while Brutus tried using logos. If Brutus would have used a different approach he would not have had the people turn against

Near the beginning of act II, Brutus has a soliloquy in which he is trying to decide whether joining the conspiracy is the right thing to do. He discusses reasons for why killing Caesar may be appropriate for the current situation of him being crowned king. Brutus also reveals his thoughts about some of Caesar’s behavior and what could happen (based on human nature) if he is given power. In the end, he decides to join with the conspiracy and kill Caesar.

Like most villains, Brutus took action before looking for the positive outcomes of Caesar's rule and had little to no hope in him when it came to becoming king. After killing Caesar, Brutus causes an uproar and chaos among the townspeople. The Romans were going crazy in confusion and rebellion as a result of Brutus’s actions, which can be explained in act 3 scene 3 when a townsperson states “To Brutus’, to Cassius’, burn all!” At this point in the play, the Romans are realizing what Brutus had caused and how he betrayed the people of

In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, masculinity is the gauge of Roman worthiness. The significance of the roles of women in the play can be incited from the two female characters namely, Calpurnia and Portia, who are instrumental and inferior in the world of men they have to live in. Despite their minor appearance in the play, the substantial presence of these women coerces as bearers of foreshadowing to intensify the calamities of the events their placidity shall succumb to, to capture the mediocre stereotypical perceptions of women, as well as to provide lucid insight on the personas of their celebrity husbands in their private lives. Shakespeare shows that subjectivity towards gender roles results in a flawed understanding of human emotion.