Julius Ceasar, Shakespeare, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Shakespeare

Julius Ceasar

Julius Ceasar Within many of William Shakespeare's tragedies, the reader can easily distinguish between the hero and the antagonist. Unfortunately, this seemingly elementary task proves rather arduous when applied to William Shakespeare's tragedy of Julius Caesar. Upon conclusion of the play, the reader is left with an empty feeling (no thanks to the ever quick-witted bard Shakespeare) when confronted with the question: who is the tragic hero of the play? However, after unraveling the tangled results of careful consideration, the question still remains unanswered, or, at the most, with many answers. One answer to this elusive question is that the hero of the play is truly that character which the play centers around, both corporeal and in spirit: the character of Julius Caesar. Another possible answer, and the most common one, suggests that noble Marcus Brutus is the tragic hero. For Brutus in Marc Anthony's words, "was the noblest Roman of them all"(act 5, scene 5, line 68). Furthermore, how can one not argue that brave, loyal and clever Marc Anthony is not the hero? For in fact he endures his grief skillfully, conquers Brutus bravely, and is one of the few main characters left breathing when the tragedy concludes. All of these justifiable answers, given voice from a clever mind, can be proven infallible. So one is baffled again. How can all three, professedly heroic characters, be proven to be the tragic hero? After dedicating an exceedingly ample amount of time upon equating this seemingly impossible equation, one comes to the conclusion that there is no hero. Rather, one concludes that Shakespeare has written a problem play in which his principle concern is to examine the state of insurrection, the immorality of the act itself, and the evil, which comes after. It is a play of men who as individuals are both good and bad, men with mixed motives and mixed emotions, men with private as well as public needs, and men put to confusion by the disorder they created. Upon presentation of this formidable answer to the proposed question, an initial question arises. How can a play that is entitled Julius Caesar not contain a tragic hero named thus when historically, tragic heroes within Shakespearean tragedies, in fact, have been easily pin-pointed by their title? Take Romeo and Juliet and Othello, for example. Within Romeo and Juliet, the reader witnesses the tragic flaw within the lovers' inability to pursue each other due to former grudges held by relatives. In Othello, the reader discovers that Othello's flaw lies within his understanding that he "loved not wisely, but too well"(act 5, scene 2, line 340) both in his jealousy of Desdemona and in his trust of honest Iago. Although Caesar truly does fulfill the tragic hero prerequisite of experiencing death (like Romeo and Juliet and Othello), he never comes to grips with his flaw. He never fully understands how large his "Caesarian ego" has evolved. This concept of a rather large "Caesarian ego" is fully depicted within the opening scene in Julius Caesar. Shakespeare presents the reader with opposing views of Caesar expressed by the mob, who have come to "see Caesar and to rejoice in his triumph"(act1, scene 1, line 34) contrasted with the tribunes, who hate Caesar, and are perturbed by the crowds joviality and proceed to "Disrobe the images"(act1, scene 1, line 67) of the mob. This generous jest donated by the tribunes, who are in fact, politically close to Caesar, portrays the hierarchy-related bitterness aimed towards Caesar even at this rather powerless position of tribune. Buried in this notion of hierarchical bitterness, lies Caesar's innately invisible tragic flaw of not appreciating those close friends who helped him "climber upward"(act2, scene 1, line 23) on "ambition's ladder"(act2, scene2, line 22). To the general public however, Caesar is the picture of a king, who, although seen infrequently, makes his presence felt continuously. For "always [he] is Caesar"(act1, scene 2, line 212), and is more the honored because he is rarely seen. This omnipotent presence creates great situational irony in that the general public loves Caesar for this power, yet it is in fact fear of this power that sparks the destructive fire of insurrection within Caesar's immediate friends. Upon contemplation of this irony, the reader witnesses the true nature of insurrection, wich exponentially multiplies into an intemperate inferno within the republic of Rome, resulting in distraught and confused Romans, drawing arms against equally irrate and flustered Romans. As witnessed within Cassius's speech in act 1, scene 2, lines 115-118, when he protests that "this man," in reference to Caesar, "Is now become a god, and Cassius is / a wretched creature, and must bend his body / If Caesar carelessly but nod on him." Within this complaint Cassius declares that this immortal man has achieved an immortal stature of "god." Furthermore, within Casca's narrative of the events of the Lupercal, Caesar's arrogance in seeking the crown is visualized in his rejection of one of the "coronets"(act 1, scene 2, line 237), or smaller crowns in an ambitious act of seeking the larger crown of Rome. Nevertheless, Caesar's private inability to perceive his large ego, does not, in fact proclaim him a bad person and worthy of insurrection. Rather, his position as a public hero directly resulting from his more admirable qualities within a republic in need of a common king, renders him an ambitious despot to his immediate friends. It is within this act that Caesar, overwhelmed by his self-importance, swells, reaches for the stars, and is plucked from the heavens by trusted friends, who, due to their fear of Caesar's ambitions derive an insurrection against him, and ultimately kill this "Northern Star"(act 3, scene 1, line 60). Although the act of insurrection, in and of itself, is a rather immoral act resulting in confusion and disorder throughout all of Rome, it is not without honorable intentions for the good of Rome, that Brutus's led mutiny kills Caesar. Just as Caesar paid with his life for his tragic flaw in his inability to perceive his ambitious ego, Brutus's tragic flaw lies within his incapacity to understand that not all men are as noble as he, and like Caesar he pays dearly for this flaw with his life. It is worth pondering the idea that if Cassius did not "[have] some aim"(act 1, scene 2, line 163) in suggesting that Brutus "undergo…an enterprise / Of honorable and dangerous consequence"(act 1, scene 3, lines 123-124) or in other words rebellion, would Brutus have found fault within Caesar's actions? Could this upheaval have been quelled if envious Cassius did not open his big mouth? Nevertheless, as a result of Cassisus's modest proposal that "'Brutus' will start a spirit as well as 'Caesar'"(act1, scene 2, line 147), Caesar is catapulted into the center of Brutus's thoughts. Again the ever-omnipotent Caesar is imposed on another Roman's contemplation, this time Brutus. What troubles noble Brutus is the concept of what Caesar was, and more importantly, the possible tyrannical dictator he may become. The fault within this philosophy is that Brutus compares almighty Caesar to, "a serpent's egg / Which hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous," and therefore Brutus must "kill him in the shell"(act 2, scene 1, lines 31-34). It is hard to agree with Brutus's erroneous metaphor of comparing high and mighty Caesar to an amphibious egg. The reader is led to question Shakespeare's apparent insult to noble Brutus's intelligence here. After all, it is solely within this, ironically and honorably driven faulty interpretation of Caesar's potentially tyrannical tendencies, that leads Brutus to "str[ike] him," although he truly "did love Caesar"(act 3, scene 1, line 182), in his greater love for the "general"(act 2, scene 1, line 12) Roman republic. Brutus is viewed by the reader under these internally fabricated motives as an honorably driven insurgent, who, for supposed just cause, administers an immoral act of assassination and brings evil disaster and disorder to his precious Roman republic, which is in fact, a greater tragedy than that in which he had hoped to prevent. After his assassination however, Caesar's private corporeal ambitions of political success are spiritually perpetuated in his image, through the persons of Marc Anthony and Octavius Caesar. Once again, the reader bears witness to the never ending omnipotence of the "Caesarian" spirit, and further understands Brutus's tragic flaw of noble morality in his inability to perceive the truth in Caius Cassius's suggestion to, "let Anthony…fall"(act 2, scene 1, line 161). Or in other words, assassinating Anthony along with Caesar. The tragedy of noble Brutus becomes a tragedy of a man who was too true to his ideals of nobility to be good at the job of statecraft, which typically involves compromise. For Brutus would not compromise his honor to, upon retrospect, save the demise of the Roman republic, and kill Marc Anthony in favor of appearing, "sacrificers, but not butchers"(act 2, scene 1, line 166) in the eyes of the Roman general public within his murder of only Caesar. Clever Anthony, upon laying his life on the line within his trust of Brutus's nobleness, pretends to befriend the conspirators and requests the honor of a speech upon Caesar's funeral. Again the reader beholds Brutus's tragic flaw by trusting Anthony in his finale of a funeral speech to not, "blame us (the conspirators), / But speak all good you can devise of Caesar, / And say you do it by our permission…In the same pulpit whereto I am going, / After my speech is ended"(act 3, scene 1, lines 245-251). Not only is Brutus in error by letting Anthony speak, but his judgement is furthermore at fault in allowing Anthony to speak last. In spite of Brutus's error in allowing Anthony to speak last at Caesar's funeral this act becomes a device through which Anthony's persuasive speech, "put[s] a tongue / In every wound of Caesar," causing the people of "Rome to rise and mutiny"(act 3, scene 2, lines 230-232) against mutiny. Within Anthony's, intended rebellious result to his excessively persuasive speech, even though he contradicts his claim to be "no orator"(act 3, scene 2, line 219), lies Anthony's tragic flaw. However loyal, noble and clever Anthony appears to be, majestic Caesar would not be proud of a subject so willing to create chaos and disorder as portrayed in Anthony's soliloquy, when he states: "Mischief, thou art afoot, / Take thou what course thou wilt"(act 3, scene 2, lines 262-263). Nevertheless, Anthony's liberation of "mischief" proves to be the device in which Caesar's rule, however despotic, is discovered by the reader to be the unifying force within the republic of Rome. Every congregation of humans needs a ruler. Whether it be a tyrannical dictator or a democratic assembly of nobles, the need for a unifying force is pertinent to a successful society and Caesar was destined to become king and found an empire in Rome. Although with honorable intentions as his motives, Brutus attempts to block the inevitable highway of destiny, and revolts against Caesar only to be squashed by Anthony and Octavius, who, kill noble Brutus, acting on behalf of the spirit and name of Caesar, for Brutus's apparently noble murder of Caesar. It is ironic that although Caesar was murdered in the flesh, the spirit of Caesar or "Caesarism" surivived the tyrant's death, which, ultimately resulted in an empire born under Octavius and Anthony in the spirit and name of Caesar. In conclusion, within William Shakespeare's tragedy of Julius Caesar it is understandable that while immersed in a strenuous study of this problem play in which an initial 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. Bibliography:

Word Count: 2209

DMCA Notifications and Requests