In The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare, the story revolves around the various individuals who would vie for control of the Roman Empire. All of these individuals exhibit various attributes, values, and techniques in order to facilitate this goal, from Cassius’ intelligence, Brutus’ charm and honor, to Antony’s gift to drive a crowd. And although all three desire to become the new strongman leader of Rome, it is Antony who succeeds gaining the most control through his own specific talents, most specifically noted at Caesar’s funeral. At the funeral scene, Antony exhibits several qualities beneficial to a Roman leader, such as oratory and appeasement skills. The dialogue depicted in Act III, scene ii provides a valuable and insightful perspective on how these values were desirable for leadership in the late Roman Republic.
In 1976 Randall Dale Adam’s car breaks down and he is offered a ride by another teenager, David Harris, who, unbeknownst to Adams, was driving a stolen vehicle. When they are stopped by a police officer, multiple shots are fired, killing the officer. When this case was sent to court the jury strongly believes Adam is guilty of the murder. However, Errol Morris exposes misleading witnesses’ testimonies and police misbehavior that led to the jury conviction of the wrong man.
The central theme of Act III, Scene ii of “Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare is the power of rhetoric because it shows the effect of two funeral orators’ on the crowd. In this scene, Antony and Brutus have similar purpose in talking to the public, which is to gain the support of the Plebeians according to their conflicting views about Caesar’s assassination. This essay focuses on comparing the orations of the two speakers in this part of the play according to Aristotle’s rhetoric system. According to Aristotle’s writings, Antony’s speech is more persuasive than Brutus’ speech, because he is able to provide logical, emotional and ethical appeals to his audience. Firstly, in comparison to Brutus’ logic, Antony provides more evidence to prove that Caesar was not ambitious. Secondly, Antony’s emotional acts and speech moved his audience more than Brutus. Finally, Antony acts more noble than Brutus does.
Persuasion in Julius Caesar was an indispensable factor in the play. From Decius’s sly flattery to Antony’s significantly impressive speech to the commoners, many different ways of persuasion were used in Julius Caesar. Its power was demonstrated through eloquence between Brutus and Antony to the commoners at Caesar’s funeral. As a result of their speech, Antony succeeds to appeal to their emotional feelings, he swayed them to think conspiracy can’t be justified and makes them go against the conspirators. Cassius and Brutus failed to justify their conspiracy which gave Antony a precious chance to gain the crowd’s trust. Now I’m going to analyze how persuasion by different characters in the story Julius Caesar turned the tables around.
Brutus and Antony’s use of Ethos, Logos, and Pathos throughout the novel are just examples of the everyday persuasion used around us daily, when reading the play it does look like one giant competition to see who is the most persuasive and influential character. Even in today’s economy companies have to compete for the attention of consumers’ worldwide and politicians who argue their beliefs and views to millions of voters in order to get what they want, because the art of persuasion is just one big game.
What impressed me most about the book was the incredible detail he used to describe people, places, events, and things. As I said, some people may find all this detail to be tedious. I however think that it was important to have such details to paint an accurate picture of ancient Rome.
The relation between these two characters is a lot like the juxtaposition with Hamlet and Laertes. Just like Hamlet and Laertes, Fortinbras’ father, King Fortinbras, was also killed but the way he died was in a battle with King Hamlet. Hamlet and Fortinbras’ circumstances are almost identical. Their fathers were both murdered, both their uncles are on the throne and they are both princes of their countries. Revenge is the motive for both of these princes because of their dead fathers, but the way and the reason they seek it is extremely different. Hamlet wants revenge because the ghost of his father told him to and Fortinbras wants revenge to reclaim the land that his father lost when he died. Fortinbras is more focused on the honour of his country, Norway, but all Hamlet cares about is killing his fathers murderer. Hamlet’s morals slow down the process of his revenge whereas Fortinbras’ firm attitude makes him act faster. Hamlet later develops some jealously towards Fortinbras, he says, “Rightly to be great/Is not to stir without great argument/But greatly to find quarrel in a straw/When honor’s at the stake” (Shakespeare 4.4.53-56). Hamlet is saying that if Fortinbras is taking such quick action for a little bit of land that means nothing then what does that make Hamlet? He says in order for him to be great like Fortinbras he must take violent action. Hamlet and Fortinbras are both equally rebellious
Julius Caesar was a strong leader of the Romans who changed the course of the history for the Roman world decisively and irreversibly. With his courage and strength, he created a strong empire and guided the empire for almost 20 years. His life was short, but had many adventures. I will tell of some of this man’s remarkable life. He did many things, therefore, I will only discuss a few. His name, part of his reign, one of his greatest battles, and his death will be told.
Through the years, the inhabitants of America have been mobile people. The Native Americans moved according to the seasons and the migration of animals; the first Spanish settlers moved to find gold; the European colonists moved for land; and in the past weeks, Southerners have been moving to escape tragedy. Although these four major diasporas seem to have individual reasons, all four share one common root: the American Dream - an urge to improve a given lifestyle by making a drastic change. In their respective books, The Great Gatsby and Sula, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Toni Morrison display this phenomenon by creating characters that will do anything to better their personal lives; however, both writers incorporate great failure into the lives of their main characters, thus dismissing the idealistic thoughts of the American Dream.
The late nineteenth century Irish novelist, Bram Stoker is most famous for creating Dracula, one of the most popular and well-known vampire stories ever written. Dracula is a gothic, “horror novel about a vampire named Count Dracula who is looking to move from his native country of Transylvania to England” (Shmoop Editorial Team). Unbeknownst of Dracula’s plans, Jonathan Harker, a young English lawyer, traveled to Castle Dracula to help the count with his plans and talk to him about all his options. At first Jonathan was surprised by the Count’s knowledge, politeness, and overall hospitality. However, the longer Jonathan remained in the castle the more uneasy and suspicious he became as he began to realize just how strange and different Dracula was. As the story unfolded, Jonathan realized he is not just a guest, but a prisoner as well. The horror in the novel not only focuses on the “vampiric nature” (Soyokaze), but also on the fear and threat of female sexual expression and aggression in such a conservative Victorian society.
Conclusively, while Bram Stokers novel Dracula is seen as a gothic and horror story, I argue that it is a novel that seeks to address female sexuality directly. Seen through numerous passages, Stoker confronts and battles the views between sexuality during the Victorian era though his genius of characterization of characters present within the novel. As it seems highly intentional to me, I respect the way in which he criticizes and critiques upon female sexuality by bringing into light new ideas regarding female desires. When contrasting his text upon today’s culture, the differences to how one perceived the vampire has changed significantly.
The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare is an intimate portrayal of the famed assassination of Julius Caesar and the complex inner workings of the men who committed the crime. In one particularly revealing scene, two of the men closest to Caesar, one a conspirator in his murder and one his second-in command, give orations for the deceased. Despite being simple in appearance, these two speeches do much of the work in developing and exposing the two characters in question. Though both have a love for Caesar, Mark Antony's is mixed with a selfish desire for power, while Brutus' is pure in nature, brought to a screeching halt by his overpowering stoicism. These starkly-contrasted personalities influence the whole of the play, leading to its tragic-but-inevitable end.
“Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare is the story of the assassination of Julius Caesar. Two speeches were made after his death, one being by Mark Antony. He uses many rhetorical devices in this speech to counter the previous speech and persuade the crowd that the conspirators who killed Caesar were wrong. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion and these many devices strengthen this by making points and highlighting flaws. Antony uses many rhetorical devices, all of which are used to persuade the crowd that the conspirators are wrong and Caesar did not need to be killed.
The Shakespearean play Julius Caesar, tells the behind the scenes story of the conspirators plan to kill the influential ruler, Caesar. In the play Caesar makes a speech referring to himself and describes his method of ruling Rome while comparing himself to the North Star. Prior to the speech the conspirators have come to the Senate to convince Caesar to forgive and restore Cimber after his banishment. But Caesar responds with this speech about him being persistent about his decisions. The speech that Caesar makes about himself can be considered an Epideictic or a Forensic speech, for the reason that he commends himself while creating an opinion of his past actions. This excerpt from the play leads up to the devious conspirators plan unfolding and the upsetting death of Caesar. Rhetoric is used throughout the speech in order to manipulate and convey how invincible Caesar is as well as express the overall theme of the play, be means of delivery, disposition, and style.