state of insurrection is counter attacked by a second mutiny, all directly resulting in disorder from the tragic flaws, of not one, but three heroic figures, the reader not only does not lose his wits, but can not pin point the tragic hero. Who does the reader have to thank for this perplexing dilemma? Why none other than the crooked verse of the wily bard Shakespeare, which leads the reader to pose the question: why did Shakespeare not include an obvious tragic hero within his play? The answer lies within Shakespeare's principle concern of examining the state of insurrection: The immoral act committed, with seemingly noble motives, due to Brutus's tragic flaw within his inability to compromise his all too moral ideals. Yet, when critically superimposed into the plot of the play, Brutus's flaw consequently results from Caesar's tragic flaw of ambitiousness witnessed through his outrageous arrogance in seeking the crown. Furthermore, this snowballing tragedy ultimately results in Anthony's evil reaction of preaching mutiny against Brutus's insurrection, due to the consequences of his tragic flaw in his un-"Caesarian" release of chaos and disorder coinciding with his mutiny. Simply stated, a mutiny, led in response to an initial mutiny, is a remarkable recipe for evil and disorder. Finally, the reader can draw the conclusion that although this complicated play has no true tragic hero, it does have a true antagonist: the immoral act of insurrection! All characters within the play are individuals composed of both honorable and dis-honorable qualities, men with emotions in disarray and jumbled motives, men with personal as well as communal needs, and men brought to absolute confusion by the disorder they created in their immoral action of insurrection. Word Count: 2209 ...
