Humans have a tendency to point out the flaws in their peers, simply because it is easier to find someone’s flaws instead of their strengths. Bertrand Russell’s essay, “Individual liberty and Public Control,” supports this idea by suggesting that all societies are quick to judge and immediately reject any change that makes itself present in the community. In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus, and Mark Antony are innovators that gain direct support of the Roman masses and refute this idea of societies direct resistance to change. Bertrand Russell’s views on society’s reaction to innovators and the upheaval of the status quo are not an accurate depiction of the Roman republic’s reaction to the three key innovators of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.
Julius Caesar was an innovator that used his bravery and skilled military tactics to establish an empire and create a republic that adored and respected him. Shakespeare manifests this respect for Caesar in the opening scene of the play, when Marullus says,“Knew you not Pompey? Many a time and oft have you climbed up to walls…to see great Pompey pass the streets of Rome,” (1.1.42-43, 47). Pompey was the ruler that the Roman masses originally supported, but as soon as Caesar became powerful they rejected Pompey and immediately began to support Caesar. Humans want to side with the person that will bring them success and happiness, and clearly the majority of Romans are willing to change who they favor if it is in their best interest, proving them to be much more open to change than Russell would like to think. Russell suggests several reasons why societies would resist change,“The most important of these [reasons] is the instinct of conventionality,” (Russell 1). Russ...
... middle of paper ...
...to exist and work,” (Russell 1). He maintains that all innovators who attempt to overthrow the status quo will face extreme adversity and will rarely be successful. This is not true in Mark Antony’s case, because he faced little hardship in getting the Roman masses to agree with him and set his plan of anarchy and chaos into motion.
The representation of human nature through the characters of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar refutes Bertrand Russell’s argument that humans resist change whenever possible. Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus, and Mark Antony were innovators that were at some point successful, largely because of the Roman masses being so open to change. The Roman masses and their overall ability to change from one opinion to the next is indicative of man’s ability to easily accept change when it is in their best interest and not always feel the need to resist it.
The Roman Republic (Res Pvblica Romana) was a form of republican government that was established in 509 BCE to replace the monarchy government that had reigned over Rome since the founding in 753BCE (Steele, 2012). The Failure of the Roman Republic was inevitable as it was an unjust system of government and it was left vulnerable after the attempted changes instigated by the Gracchi, as the Gracchi exposed the weaknesses in the political structure allowing future politicians to manipulate the system. The sources used throughout the essay, which include Plutarch, Appian, Florus and Velleius, will need to be examined closely as each source will demonstrate different views on the Gracchi, as the authors purpose of writing will differ. The Gracchi had set out to change Rome for the better, however in the process; they exposed the internal flaws of the government which resulted in the beginning of the decline of the Roman Republic.
From ages past, the actions of conquerors, kings and tyrants had brought the Roman Republic to a stance that opposed any idea of a singular leader, of a single man that held total power over the entirety of the state. Their rejection of the various ruthless Etruscan rulers that had previously dictated them brought the Republic to existence in 509 BC , and as a republic their prominence throughout the provinces of the world exponentially expanded. Throughout these years, the traditions of the Romans changed to varying degrees, most noticeably as a result of the cultural influence that its subject nations had upon the republic, as well as the ever-changing nature of Roman society in relation to then-current events. However, it was not until the rise of Augustus, the first of a long line of succeeding emperors, that many core aspects of the Republic were greatly changed. These were collectively known as the “Augustan Reforms”, and consisted of largely a variety of revisions to the social, religious, political, legal and administrative aspects of the republic’s infrastructure. Through Augustus, who revelled in the old traditional ways of the past, the immoral, unrestraint society that Rome was gradually falling to being was converted to a society where infidelities and corruption was harshly looked upon and judged. The Roman historian Suetonius states, “He corrected many ill practices, which, to the detriment of the public, had either survived the licentious habits of the late civil wars, or else originated in the long peace” . Through Augustus and his reforms, the Republic was transformed into an Empire, and through this transformation, Rome experienced one of its greatest and stabl...
Imagine it is the year 59 B.C.E., the greatest republic to date is collapsing and it seems it is doomed with a senate which does not care about its people. There seems to be no hope. But then comes a young man who has ideas of equality that could save the republic. That man is Julius Caesar. Conqueror of Gaul, Crosser of the Rubicon, member of the First Tiumbarant, Caesar was a brilliant politician and general. At the time, Rome was governed by Pompey and the senate. Both were in favor bettering themselves and not the poor people. Caesar was in favour of improving life for the lower class. This was not accepted by the senate or Pomey, making them question his ethics. As Caesar became more powerful, as when he conquered Gaul, Pompey and the senate began to plot. They could not have someone as dangerous as Caesar in Rome. Because of this, the senate planned and carried out an assassination attempt, and succeeded. This was only for the senate to maintain power and complete control over Rome. Along with caesar, a little bit of
Julius Caesar is shown to have many reprehensible character flaws over the course of the drama. Namely, he is illustrated as having a belligerent sense of arrogance. Initially, the great majority of the Roman public adores and esteems Caesar. However, this adoration inflates his sense of self-pride and arrogance. For example, in the play’s introduction Caesar is given warning about a plot to extirpate him from the throne. A soothsayer warns him to “beware the ides of March” (890). Rather than to obviate the attempt, Caesar blows off the Soothsayer, stating “he is a dreamer, let us leave him” (890). Later in Act II, Caesar has been informed of dead men walking, a lioness giving birth in the street...
Bertrand Russell states that the instinct of conventionality is the most important reason why society resists innovators. For example, the mob reacts violently after Brutus and the other conspirators/innovators murder Caesar. “And with the brands, fire the traitors’ houses” (III Sc.2 ln. 269). With the murder of Julius Caesar, the conspirators disrupt the status quo and the stability of conventionality. This relates directly with Russell’s assertion that a mob that has been pushed out of its comfort zone will react violently to the originator of thus mentioned change. In this example, Brutus and the conspirators who murdered Caesar are the innovators since they disrupted the status quo, which was Caesar’s presence in the Senate. However, one can analyze the same situation and reverse the roles. Julius Caesar is the innovator, and by disrupting the system of the Roman Republic, he brings upon himself his assassination. Julius Caesar’s upcoming crowning by the Senate is disruption ...
William Shakespeare’s play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar is a story full of manipulation and jealousy that changes the way people think. Ancient Rome had umpteen different ways of handling situations that, in today’s world, would be considered unethical; such as battles that were very much horrifying and vivid. However, these battles were not important with the development of the plot. Shakespeare uses various ways of the idea of manipulation and betrayal to lead readers into the rest of the narrative.
...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.
As Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and took the Roman Republic, many came to love and praise him. Being a man of great prestige from his war campaign in Gaul, he was easily excepted by the Roman citizens. Cicero, a public enemy of Caesar's power, wrote, “They fear the man they once trusted [Pompey] and adore the man they once dreaded
In William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, struggles occur between major characters, such as Caesar, Brutus, Antony, and Cassius. These towering political and military figures serve major roles in the play. For example, Brutus is a powerful supporter of the republic, and becomes the tragic hero of the play. Antony is Caesar’s close companion who brings about the undoing of the conspirators, and Caesar is a godlike being, who has just return from his defeat against Pompeii. However, the plebeians, or common folk, eventually serve a greater role. In the democratic government of Rome, the citizens influence politicians. Yet ironically, citizens are actually the ones being manipulated in the process.
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.
William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is centralized on the debate of whether or not man is bound to a fate predestined by some divine force hidden within the stars or a fate controlled by one’s own actions. Based on Sir Thomas North’s Plutarch’s historical accounts, Shakespeare depicts the characters within the play to believe that fate is either controlled by the divine, as indicated through portents or omens, Roman values, or human decision alone. However, Shakespeare ultimately makes the argument that the decisive actions of humans, both good and bad, are what ultimately shape history and therefore fate. Through the use of Plutarch’s writings, Shakespeare develops the life and death of Julius Caesar into a tragedy determined not by the fault
Cicero begins his narrative by morning the loss of Rome's adherence to proper governance. Citing the history of the Roman Republic and its inability to maintain stable leadership, Cicero believes that Rome has fallen into the hands of those who would rather subvert politics, rather than reform the political system through due process. For Cicero, such a decline in virtuous governance lies at the heart of Rome's decay. And it is under this operating framework Cicero proceeds to make known to his audience that his writings reflect not what the state is, but rather what the state was intended to be in its proper governing sense—namely, a state of integrity that is founded upon virtuous obligation. Thus, in an attempt to unravel such decay within the Roman Empire, Cicero offers a philosophical paradigm by which to turn the tide of Roman history towards virtuous living. Believing philosophy to be the telos of desirability, Cicero centers his argument on those aspects that make up virtuous obligation.
Julius Caesar's increasing power is perceived as a threat to the Republic of Rome and its people, and his strong desire for success evokes government officials to abhor Caesar as well as to attempt to limit his control over Rome, proving the theme great political ambition breeds great political enmity. For example, Marullus and Flavius, followers of Pompey, are disgusted at the crowd of commoners "rejoic[ing] in [Caesar's] triumph" (JC.1.1.32). The capricious crowd diverts from being devoted to Pompey, the rival of Caesar, to commemorating Caesar’s success, causing Marullus and Flavius to become agitated at the crowd and also at Caesar. Marullus and Flavius fear Caesar’s rising power, and his ambition, which is perceived as power-hungry, causes the duo to become furious at Caesar because they do not want Pompey's adversary to become successful politically. The pair, loyal to Pompey, despise and mistrust Caesar for being ambitious, and for having an ability to sway the citizens of Rome to favor him. Therefore, they try to hinder him from being too powerful. The fickle nature of ...
After Marc Antony’s speech, he convinces the town people to revolt against the conspirators by controlling ego and not letting his id overrun him. “The id is the primitive urge to seek pleasure without concern for boundaries” (Losh). The conspirators killed Caesar, who Antony loved very much. It is possible that his id compelled him to want revenge on the conspirators. The ego, which deals with the part of the mind interacting with the environment and people, would make Antony rationalize and realize that he couldn’t kill the conspirators, but he could get other people to, like the mob. Knowing this, Antony could have intentionally convinced the mob to revolt against the conspirators, but he couldn’t just come out and tell them to. He had to make them want to kill the conspirators, and think that it was their idea by addressing their ids. If Antony got the mob on his side about Caesar, they would feel betrayed by the conspirators and their ids would make them want immediate revenge. By convincing the townspeople that Caesar was a great man and leader, and that he didn’t deserve being killed for the reasons that the conspirators gave, Antony got the mob...
Two powerful leaders, one power hungry whose ambitious ideas lead to his downfall, the other mindful of people who deserve their higher positions. A true leader is someone who has a vision, a drive and commitment to achieve what's best. In the play written by William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Brutus and Caesar are one of the main characters. They demonstrate leadership qualities that are still relevant to today. They are both very ambitious characters; however, they do so for different reasons and differ in their openness to others. There are many similarities and differences that lie between them. Both are noble and great men with loyal followers and neither man questions the rightness of his own path. Both made crucial mistakes that resulted in their death. However, Caesar acts out of love for for himself, his country, and to retain his power as ruler of Rome. Brutus on the other hand acts out of love for freedom of Rome. This essay will discuss and compare their qualities as leaders as well as their styles and how they are effective/ineffective in the play.