The Tragedy of Julius Caesar

Compare-and-Contrast Essay: The Tragedy of Julius CaesarBrutus and Mark Antony had two exclusively unfamiliar motives and itinerary in their monologue to the Roman people. Brutus’ try to convince the peopleof restless Romans that Rome has been saved thanks to the brave plotters for killing the covetous, lust for power, Caesar. Antony, a loyal friend of Caesar’s, going to show Brutus and the plotters on what they really are: nothing but bloodthirsty assassins who executed Caesar out of distress and insecurity and never for the good of Rome.

Antony hopes the faithless mob will turn into a bunch of angry rabble-rousers that will settle for nothing less than the retaliation and termination of the plotters.

Brutus’ monologue is hopeless and weak from the beginning and end.Moving towards the citizens as the quick-witted expert, when in fact, the mob contain nothing but ignorant riffraff, who couldn’t figure it out for themselves on what’s right from wrong, was Brutus’ catastrophic error. Throughout Brutus indicate how he loves Caesar and that he feels more guilt for the death of Caesar than himself. Later paying a tribute to the marvelous life of Caesar, Brutus explains why he terminated him because he loves Rome than Caesar, and that Caesar had become pushy. The naive coterie was pleased to hear that Brutus loves Rome. The people couldn’t comprehend the concept of being killed for purpose , as Brutus never mention on how Caesar was forceful or why he should be so inhumanly penalize. Brutus left a feeble minded crazy crowded all the pieces to put together, not able to think for themselves, and therefore, couldn’t understand his monologue.

The outcome of Brutus’ monologue had upset the people that jumped on the dream craze due to a few fascinating words of Brutus’ emotion for Rome, when in fact, they did not understand the monologue at all. His intentions for slandering Caesar, probably single handedly, caused the destruction of the Roman Republic. Now Antony had to persuade the people that Brutus was wrong about Caesar’s desire, and the people would turn against Brutus and the plotters. Compare to Brutus’ monologue, Antony’s was smart. Beforehand Antony faced two complex situations : one was the fact that he carried out under a set of negative base principles made by Brutus, and the other, that the crowd of people was already on Brutus’ side.

Instantaneously, Anthony did what Brutus did not do by uniting with the people rather babbling above them. The people are not lost when Antony talks in humble manner such as his friendship to Caesar. By using sensible history of Caesar’s lack of goals, when he turned down the crown at Lupercal, the people question if Caesar was too pushy or not. Following curiosity all the moral things Caesar has done for Rome were determined, Antony assaults Brutus by linking Caesar’s drive with Brutus’ respect. This was very smart because it gives the view to the people that if Caesar was in fact not pushy that Brutus is in fact not a respectable man. On what’s left to do is delete the belief of Caesar being overly pushy , and that is literally what he does. Altogether Antony does build up sympathy with the people.When he cries sincerely the people can relate to commotion. Uses the corpse of Caesar and talks vividly manner about each cut. Another plan in Antony’s monologue as it displays how much Caesar loved Rome.

Once he had the people on his side, they think that rising is their personal notion and this is what the people finally do. These two monologue shows what a vigorous tool phraseology is if it is used in the correct form that fits the environment. Brutus’ monologue was a downfall because he was unfit to announce on the same level with his viewers. By the way, Antony said what the people had to hear in a clear and plain way so that the people could understand it themselves. The polite battle that was to spew had formerly had been won, not with blades in the arena, but with elite language from Mark Antony.

Did you like this example?

1254

52