Debates of the cause of the Roman Civil War are numerous. Historian and author Erich S. Gruen, in his book The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, implicates the desire “to maintain dignitas” on the part of both Caesar’s opponents and Caesar himself as one of the primary catalysts to the strife. However, Aulus Hirtius, Caesar’s biographer and comrade, tells a different story. In chapter 8 of Caesar’s biography De Bello Gallico, Hirtius uses biased language to suggest that the events leading up to the Roman Civil War were primarily due to the puerile pride and emotions of Caesar's opponents, and to suggest that Caesar’s side was the more justified one, but neglects to recognize the similar pride of Caesar. The bias of Hirtius’ writing is …show more content…
Hirtius’ biased language and analysis of the situation is seen in his assessment of Marcellus' actions. He writes "Nam Marcellus, proximo anno, cum impugnaret Caesaris dignitatem contra legem Pompei et Crassi retullerat ante tempus ad senatum de Caesaris provinciis...discessionem" (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2) Hirtius attests that Marcellus wants the "Caesaris dignitatem" and acts – Hirtius implies – only on this one desire when he "rettulerat...ad senatum" a proposal that was "contra legem Pompei et Crassi" (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2). Hirtius includes something capricious and insubstantial –a desire for “dignitatem” – and something concrete –a “legem” – in the same sentence in order to establish a contrast; Caesar's side is the one with the enacted "legem" to support their actions, but his opponent Marcellus is the one with only desire for “dignitatem” to justify his actions (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2). Hirtius goes on to say that Marcellus "quaerebat" the "Caesaris dignitatem" (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2). Hirtius implies that it is this desire that drove Marcellus' actions, but concrete actions – like "legem Pompei et Crassi" (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2) – that characterized the people on Caesar's side. …show more content…
Hirtius writes, in reference to Marcellus being denied, that "Quibus non frangebantur animi inimicorum Caesaris sed admonebantur quo maiores pararent necessitates" (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2). One sees that it is the "animi inimicorum Caesaris" that drove Marcellus and others to reconsider their position and what they need to do: institute “necessitates” (Hirtius, De Bello Gallico, 8.53.2). It is their intangible, transitory “animi” that act as the catalyzing factor behind their actions, and by this point the reader should recognize that the “animi” of people – and their affiliations with others – are definitely subject to change: Curio – a proponent of Caesar himself – provides a nice example of this caprice (Boatwright, The Romans: Village to Empire). This subtext, whether Hirtius recognizes it or not, implicates Marcellus and his comrades as the guilty ones in this political arena: their actions are built on sand, based on pride rather than
For instance, Cassius said “I know where I will wear this dagger then. Cassius from bondage will deliver Cassius.” (Act 1, Scene 3, Line 92-93). Cassius’ quote is saying if the killing of Caesar does not occur he will kill himself. Cassius has no other compromise option, he is stating, if this one event doesn't occur he will have no other choice but to kill himself. Another example of cassius not compromising is when he said, “I have moved already some certain of the noblest-minded Romans to undergo with me an enterprise of honorable-dangerous consequence.” (Act 1, Scene 3, Line 126-129), meaning he has already convinced many noble Romans to carry out this dangerous and honorable deed. At this point the men he has gathered to help him with the killing of Caesar can not go back there is no possible way for them to compromise. Cassius decided not to compromise to do the right thing in many situations, therefore he was not very successful while leading.
Playwright, William Shakespeare, in the play Julius Caesar, utilizes many instances of rhetorical devices through the actions and speech of Caesar's right-hand man, Mark Antony. In the given excerpt, Antony demonstrates several of those rhetorical devices such as verbal irony, sarcasm, logos, ethos, and pathos which allows him to sway the plebeians. The central purpose of Mark Antony’s funeral speech is to persuade his audience into believing that Caesar had no ill intentions while manipulating the plebeians into starting a rebellion against their new enemies, Brutus and the conspirators.
In addition to this characteristic of Cassius, he also has a devious nature. This attribute allows him to invent informed manipulative plans to eliminate his opponents. For instance, after saying his farewells to Brutus, he gives a soliloquy that reveals his idea of throwing writings of different handwritings in Brutus’ windows “as if they came from several citizens” all of which “tending to the great opinion that Rome holds of his name, wherein obscurely Caesar’s ambition shall be glancéd at” (Shakespeare I. ii. 306-309). Since Brutus and Cassius have been friends for a long period of time, Cassius holds an abundance of knowledge pertaining to his values--in this case being his honor and desire to please Rome’s citizens. This undermining plot Cassius has devised is based on an informed opinion of the most effective way to subvert Caesar’s authority, and because of the valid observations made of Brutus by Cassius, the likelihood that this clever scheme will be carried out successfully should make Caesar concerned about the intentions of his judicial
...for success, he robs his audience of the right to make certain determinations about characters such as Tarquin Superbus and Romulus because of his bias toward the motivation behind their actions. Livy’s The Rise of Rome was a grand effort and an amazing undertaking. Cataloguing the years of Roman history consolidated rumor and legend into fact, creating a model for Rome to follow. Livy’s only error in this vast undertaking was in imprinting his own conception of morality and justice onto his work, an error that pulls the reader away from active thought and engaging debate. In doing so, Livy may have helped solidify a better Rome, but it would have been a Rome with less of a conception of why certain things are just, and more of a flat, basely concluded concept of justice.
Brutus’ tragic flaw was his perception that all men were identical to him in their motives. This factored allowed his decisions to be easily influenced by others whose motives were devious. Cassius was able to convince Brutus to join the conspiracy because Brutus thought the only reason behind the conspiracy was to prevent one man from becoming “Rex.” He allowed Antony’s speech to occur because he was sure that Antony was motivated by the same “honor” which motivated himself.
"On my way out, I was even going to shake his [the policeman's] hand, but just in time, I remembered that I had killed a man." Part 2, Chapter 1, pg. 64
In Shakespeare’s play, the conspirators are not justified because of their selfish motives. During the beginning of the play, Cassius is depicted as covetous when he tries to convince Casca to join the conspirators by speaking poorly of Caesar. “What trash is Rome, what rubbish and what offal, when it serves for the base matter to illuminate so vile a thing as Caesar” (I.II.108-110). Using a disgusted pattern of diction, Shakespeare helps to convey a bitter tone when Cassius states, “trash”, “rubbish” and “offal” to express his belief that Rome will become a terrible place when Caesar rules. Also, the fact that Cassius says, “a thing”, to describe Caesar shows how disrespectful he is, portraying his revolting attitude as a bad motive. This language characterizes Cassius as jealous and greedy of Caesar’s power,
Tacitus tells us in the introduction to his Annales that his intent is to “relate a little about Augustus, Tiberius, et cetera” and to in fact do so “sine ira et studio” -- without bitterness or bias.1 Experience, however, tells us that this aim is rarely executed, and that we must be all the more suspicious when it is stated outright. Throughout the Annales, Tacitus rather gives the impression that his lack of bias is evidenced by his evenhanded application of bitterness to all his subjects. But is this really the case? While Tacitus tends to apply his sarcastic wit universally – to barbarian and Roman alike – this is not necessarily evidence of lack of bias. Taking the destruction of Mona and Boudicca's revolt (roughly 14.28-37) as a case study, it is evident that through epic allusion, deliberate diction, and careful choice of episodes related, Tacitus reveals his opinion that the Roman war machine first makes rebels by unjust governance, and then punishes them.
Brutus is trying to justify to himself that killing Julius Caesar is the right thing to do for the good of Rome, because Caesar could become very dangerous if allowed to gain power by becoming king. His argument incorporates ethos, pathos, and logos to justify the necessity of Caesar’s death for the Roman people. Brutus establishes his credibility through ethos by stating: “I know no personal cause to spurn at him/ But for the general” (2.1.11-12). His claim demonstrates his moral righteousness and trustworthiness by explaining that he has no personal reasons for hating Caesar, and his sentiments are for the best interest of the Roman people. Brutus further argues the logical progression of ambition
Both were respected men amongst the commoners of Rome, especially Brutus, and both held much power, as they were both senators. As that power came into question, however, the revelation of the complex components of friendship began to occur. As Cassius began to fear the loss of his own power, Brutus became a pawn in Cassius’ scheme to uphold his authority. This is directly shown during Brutus and Cassius’ private conversation when Cassius states, “Brutus, and Caesar: what should be in that Caesar? Why should that name be sounded more than yours? Write them together, yours is as fair a name” (JC 1.2.148-150). Although not explicitly stated, Cassius in attempting to persuade Brutus into rising to power. By complimenting and praising his name, Cassius is directly trying to influence Brutus He figures that if Brutus is in power, then he will keep his power because they are both friends, unlike if Caesar was in power. Although, Cassius is the main contributor to the situation, this situation directly shows one of the many aspects of friendship prevalent in the daily interactions of Brutus, which is the idea that in a friendship, one can be used in order for the other to achieve what it is they want. In this situation, Brutus is being used by Cassius in order to gain what he wants, which is power. Within human connection, this idea is very common, as friends are taken advantage of quite often. This is no different from Brutus’ relationship with Cassius, which shows a relevant and frequent element of companionship. Another aspect of friendship prevalent within the the relationship between Brutus and Cassius is the aspect of argument and resolution. While the two are hidden from public view far away from the city, Brutus becomes trapped in an argument with Cassius over his questionable actions, and it quickly escalates into potentially violent situation involving
In the beginning of the Book Cassius uses anecdotes of Caesar’s weakness and faults, argumentum ad antiquatum, and ethos on Brutus to persuade him to join the conspiracy to kill Caesar, this works on Brutus and shows that anyone, even people as stoic as Brutus, can be persuaded by appealing to their motivations. Cassius, a very suspicious character thru ought the play tells Brutus to “be not jealous on me” (827), in the quote he tells Brutus to not be suspicious of him because he is just a friend who genuinely cares. Cassius does this to put himself on Brutus’ side and not seem like a distant person, this allows him to criticize Caesar and suggest that he is a bad influence on Rome which appeals to Brutus’ desire to keeping Rome safe. After setting himself up as a friend to Brutus, Cassius uses harsh anecdotes on the weakness of Caesar to show that he isn’t fit to rule Rome. Cassius recollects on a time when he and Caesar went swimming in the river Tiber and Caesar screamed “Help me, Cassius or I sink” (828) to de...
The idea of ignorance, and the belief of a false faith, turns this noble man into a vulgar grave, with virtuous notions. Brutus’ ignorance creates an expectation that develops a path that leads him awry. When Brutus mentions, “I would not love Cassius; yet I love him well” (1.2.81-88 ), he portrays his internal conflict. Brutus depicts the struggle between Cassius’ acquisitions and Caesar’s actions.
Decius uses flattery and persuasion when speaking to Brutus. Decius is an active member of the Conspirators so he is very motivated into getting Caesar to go to the Senate House. The first thing that Decius says when he walks into Caesar's house is "Caesar, all hail! Good morrow, worthy Caesar" (II, ii, 30). Decius also goes on and calls Caesar "most mighty". Decius is already on Caesar's good side. After catching up on Calpurnia's dream, he uses his quick wit to distort Calpurnia's foreshadowing dream by saying it is "misinterpreted". He explains that the dream "Signifies that from (Caesar) Rome shall suck/Reviving blood, and that great men shall press/for tinctures, stains, relics, and cognizance" (II, ii, 31). Caesar seems to be amazed by this version of the interpretation; in fact, he likes this version a lot better mainly because Decius uses so much flattery.
Brutus’ leadership and compassion for others make him a popular figure amongst the Roman people, and it is his reputation that establishes him as an influential individual. For example, despite the fact that Brutus loves Caesar like a brother, he warily joins the conspiracy to assassinate him. He does this because he believes that Caesar’s ambition would become tyranny and that Caesar’s death is a necessary evil in order to preserve the liberties of the Roman people. In his own words Brutus claims, “It must be by his death; and for my part, I know no personal cause to spurn at him, but for the general.”(Act 2, Scene 1, Page 1116). In addition, Brutus takes the reins of authority from Cassius and becomes the leader of the conspiracy. He gains this prerogative because of his convincing tongue and powerful influence. His leadership is evidenced when he begins to challenge Cassius’ ideas. When Cassius asks the conspirators to “swear our resolution”(Act 2...
Why would a title be a name of a fairly minor character? Yes Julius Caesar was a character of major power, but he was killed off in Act 3! The title should include Marcus Brutus, seeing as he is the actual main character. He was the one who was in the play a vast majority and made a very big impact on the plot!