Contextual influence , How has the text’s context caused these two similar texts to have different perspectives? What do these links teach us?
The emerging Renaissance Humanist principles in Elizabethan England and Italy respectively, largely influenced the politics, power structure and thus the authors of Shakespeare and Prince.
Both Julius Caesar and Prince criticise the Renaissance humanist idea that men are created in the image of god. Rather than portraying men as pinnacle of virtue, the texts emphasise the selfish benefit seeking desire of men.
Julius Caesar’s criticism of men is represented in the shift of crowd from Brutus’s side to Antony’s side. This is seen in the crowd’s declaration “Live Brutus!” where the exclamation highlights the crowd’s fervent support for Brutus’s murder of Caesar. However, immediately following Antony’s eulogy and temptation of “seventy five drachmas”, this support shifts to “burn the house of Brutus”. This sudden shift from life to violent death-like imagery highlights the wicked irrationality and changeability of people. It warns the aristocracies that are gaining power through the populace such as the populist reformer Lord Essex of the unreliable temperament of people.
In the same manner,
…show more content…
After Octavius and Antony usurped Rome, the republic was overturned into a monarchy which is influenced by Renaissance thought that it led to the ruin of Rome. This is foreshadowed in the repeated motif of “fall” emphasised in the final act, the Battle of Phillipi, through the metaphor, “the sun of Rome is set” symbolising the end of the Roman empire. Shakespeare uses the fall of Rome as a dire depiction of England’s future, to address the looming threat of Elizabeth I’s death and the consequent civil war to fill that power vacuum. It warns against the rising ambition of the aristocracy houses to seize
Shakespeare’s complex play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar contains several tragic heroes; a tragic hero holds high political or social esteem yet possesses an obvious character flaw. This discernible hubris undoubtedly causes the character’s demise or a severe forfeiture, which forces the character to undergo an unfeigned moment of enlightenment and shear reconciliation. Brutus, one of these tragic heroes, is a devout friend of the great Julius Caesar, that is, until he makes many execrable decisions he will soon regret; he becomes involved in a plot to kill the omniscient ruler of Rome during 44 B.C. After committing the crime, Mark Antony, an avid, passionate follower of Caesar, is left alive under Brutus’s orders to take his revenge on the villains who killed his beloved Caesar. After Antony turns a rioting Rome on him and wages war against him and the conspirators, Brutus falls by his own hand, turning the very sword he slaughtered Caesar with against himself. Brutus is unquestionably the tragic hero in this play because he has an innumerable amount of character flaws, he falls because of these flaws, and then comes to grips with them as he bleeds on the planes of Philippi.
Although Charlemagne and Julius Caesar lived very different lives; they had some similarities. Caesar was an important military leader who ruled as a Consul during the Roman Empire. Caesar wasn’t afraid to get what he wanted. He wanted control of Gaul and when Pompey told him to leave; he came back and defeated him. Charlemagne was also very focused on military conquests.
Mark Antony’s speech, whose aim is to counter Brutus’ speech, enlightens the crowd on the unjust murder of Caesar. Though he never directly communicates to the crowd of his feeling towards the conspirators, Antony was able to effectively convey to the crowd, through the use of verbal irony and other stylistic devices/techniques in his speech, his true views of the assassination. Moreover, Antony was able to shrewdly emphasize his belief of the undeserved assassination of Caesar through the wide use of epiphoral and anaphoral structure in his speech. Antony emphasizes the wrongdoings of Brutus and Cassius through the ingenious use of the epistrophe along with verbal irony as he notes that “I should do Brutus wrong, and Cassius wrong” (III, ii, 125). Moreover, he stresses the importance of punishi...
Throughout the play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, the audience constantly sees Brutus, an honorable man, go against his own beliefs because of men filled with hatred and jealousy. Brutus
The most predominate and important aspect In the play Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare are the speeches given to the Roman citizens by Brutus and Antony, the two main charaters, following the death of Caesar. Brutus and Antony both spoke to the crowd,using the same rhetorical devices to express their thoughts. Both speakers used the three classical appeals employed in the speeches: ethos, which is an appeal to credibility; pathos, which is an appeal to the emotion of the audience; and logos, which is an appeal to the content and arrangement of the argument itself. Even though both speeches have the same structure Antony’s speech is significantly more effective than Brutus’s.
In the account, “The Assassination of Julius Caesar”, written by Marcus Brutus, does not much speak on Caesar himself but by the will of so many whom conspired against him gives the impression that Caesar was seen by the majority as a “selfish dictator”. Although is seems as though he was not thought of in high regard...
“Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” (3.2.24) This quote reflects the motive of Brutus for the assassination of his friend, Caesar. I believe Brutus killed him not out of disrespect, but in a selfless act to protect Rome from the decree of Caesar yet to come. I also believe that he did this out of force from the manipulation from his “friend” Cassius. In Shakespeare's “Julius Caesar”, Brutus’ two most significant characteristics are virtue and unconscious hypocrisy. In order to fully understand these characteristics, it is necessary to analyze all other contributing characteristics, the manipulation of friendship that Cassius uses against him, and the motivations for
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
Julius Caesar , by William Shakespeare, is a tragedy that is based on recorded events, by Plutarch, a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist, from Roman history. It is a play that is synonymous with the struggle of power, betrayal and brutality, in the name of leadership. The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli, is a 16th-century political treatise which also concerns it self with dominate leadership and power struggles. Through different textual forms – drama and prose, the ideas which they highlight, alongside the values and attitudes which they convey, are intricately connected with the contexts within which each composer was writing, as well as with the artistic effect each achieves. In both works, language is skillfully shaped to convey
In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Mark Antony—a loyal friend to Julius Caesar, the former emperor of Rome—gives a speech to the Roman commoners in order to persuade them to turn against Brutus, for Brutus and the conspirators had slain Caesar. Antony’s uses rough and sharp diction, a scornful tone, and honest anecdotes in order to achieve his purpose of manipulating the common people to take his side.
The month:September. The year:52 BCE. In the rolling hills of present day central France, near the town of Alesia, one of the greatest minds in history prepares for the battle that will change the fate of his country. The man is a Roman general named Julius Caesar. Almost 2000 years later in 1815 CE, near the flat town of Waterloo in modern day Belgium, another titan of battle fights the battle that will determine the fate of his country. The man is a former French emperor named Napoleon Bonaparte. Indeed Napoleon and Caesar were incredibly similar as a result of being genius military minds, powerful politicians, and both having a violent demise, which left huge impacts on the world after their deaths,but were different in all three respects.
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.
A later example occurs during the funeral oration by Mark Antony. Brutus logically gives his reasons that necessitated Caesar’s death. He informs them that he acted out of love of Rome and his desire to prevent tyrants from controlling her. The citizens embrace his words with cheers and understanding. However, their mood alters when Antony offers his interpretation of the situation. He passionately described the deeds Caesar performed in behalf of the citizens of Rome, which clearly contradict the opinion of the conspirators that Caesar was too ambitious. Antony carefully uses irony in referring to Cassius and Brutus as honorable men; the strategy wins over the citizens and they listen with growing anger to his words. He leads the citizens to the body and begins to show the brutal results of the murder while simultaneously influencing them to believe that the conspirators are murderers and traitors. Ultimately, Antony reads Caesar’s will, which leaves his parks, private estates, and newly planted gardens to the citizens of Rome.
Machiavelli's writing in The Prince represented the Renaissance, in that its concepts--humanism, individualism, and secularism--were present throughout its discourse. He used ancient authority to support his arguments, he had a definitive sense of self, and he was completely independent from religion. These were the developments of the Renaissance. They would be built upon in the future. Humanism would transcend to the next plane of thought in the Enlightenment. Secularism would grow during the Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, and again during the French revolution. Individualism would be enhanced during the Enlightenment and realize its full potential in the Industrial Revolution. Without these basic ideas, none of these further developments could have occurred.
In William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, Julius Caesar is portrayed in different ways. In some scenes he is portrayed as being brave, god- like, and super human. In others he is characterized as being vulnerable, weak, and human. Different characters had contrasting descriptions of Caesar. The noble Cassius described him as both human and super human. Caesar described himself as super human in many scenes. Antony described Caesar with human- like qualities. It is difficult to assess whether Caesar was more human or super human due to the fact that he is depicted with both human and super human qualities.