Abstract This paper examines William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" and in particular looks at how the characters of Cassius and Brutus change from Act one Scene two and Act two Scene one. It discusses how throughout the whole play there are lots of power struggles and betrayal and how the characters of both Cassius and Brutus both develop greatly. It show how the relationship between them changes in many ways and how Brutus always seems to like to be in control of whatever is going on.
From the Paper "Cassius is being so obsequious and sycophantic here that he almost seems insincere. This is suggesting that the plebeians of Rome would rather have Brutus as a dictator than Caesar. An actor would emphasise the stinging "except immortal Caesar". Brutus gets very agitated by this as he feels if anyone is above him then he is denigrated and base. Brutus does not want to be inferior to Caesar in any way. It goes against all of Brutus's personality traits to take the submissive role to anyone or to let anyone seem above him. The way Cassius says "immortal Caesar" presents him in almost a god like position. This is again reiterating the point that Caesar is above Brutus. This represents the manipulative and duplicitous side of Cassius? character."
Abstract This paper analyzes the play "Julius Caesar" by Shakespeare, exploring two variant conceptions of manhood. The paper provides a textual analysis of Cassius, who exemplifies a manhood based in physical prowess and achievement, while Brutus exemplifies a manhood characterized by a deep stoicism. A contrast of these two types of manhood (and indeed, the two characters) is a theme that runs as the play's backbone. Their ideas on manhood direct their decisions; it causes Brutus to rush into the assassination without practical planning, thus manliness (and male conceptions of manhood) is the indirect source of much of the conflict in the play.
From the Paper "It would be an incomplete discussion to address the issue of manhood in the text, especially within the context of ancient Rome, if one does not look to the concepts of honor and virtue. The Oxford English Dictionary defines honor in the context of Elizabethan idiom in several ways, the most applicable to our exploration of Julius Caesar being "[g]lory, renown, fame; credit, reputation, good name," and "[e]xalted rank or position; dignity, distinction." Virtue means "[c]onformity of life and conduct with the principles of morality; voluntary observance of the recognized moral laws or standards of right conduct[..,]" or "the possession or display of manly qualities; manly excellence, manliness, courage, valour." In Julius Caesar, we see the working out of these concepts through the characters of Brutus and Cassius. Brutus, who longs to have the reputation of a man of morals and of internal dignity, tries to operate with a moral compass. He attends mostly to the principle behind an action and not its outward show. He believes this will be sufficient. His implicit trust in the Romans to recognize a worthy man doing a worthy action when they see it is not politically astute and naive. Because of his naivety in things political (and his belief that the people of Rome are a judicious body as opposed to a fickle mob), we see him making disastrous mistakes such as trying to reason with the crowd even as the body of Caesar lies warm and bloody on the ground."
Abstract In "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar" by William Shakespeare, we see the characters of Brutus and Cassius as having the same goals to rid Rome of Caesar, but each for a different reason. The paper shows that Brutus wants Caesar dead for the good of Rome; the audience can see this when Brutus carefully and thoughtfully weighs his decision to join the conspiracy. It shows, on the other hand, that Cassius is jealous of Julius Caesar and his power and therefore wants to kill him.
From the Paper "Throughout the conspiracy, Brutus and Cassius make many more important decisions besides murdering Caesar. Between the two, Cassius, unlike Brutus, has a more realistic outlook on the world. In the decision to allow Mark Antony to speak at Caesar's funeral, Cassius realizes that this is not a good idea and Cassius says to Brutus, "You know not what you do. Do not consent / That Antony speak in his funeral / Know you how much the people may be moved / by that which he will utter"? (III. i. 234 ? 237). In contrast to Cassius? quick, decisive nature, the audience sees that Brutus carefully weighs and agonizes over his decisions before he makes them. Although Brutus? decisions might not be the wisest, they are definitely the most carefully considered. Brutus? weighing of his decisions is apparent when he is debating whether he should join the conspiracy (II. i. ll 10 ? 30)."
Abstract This paper explores the relationship between Marcus Agrippa, Maecenas, and Octavius in Cassius Dio's text. The author analyzes how the interaction of these three characters provides insight into their characters. The author believes that the central theme is humane ambition.
Abstract This essay studies William Shakespeare's play, "Julius Caesar". It approaches the antagonism of both Caesar and the conspirators and the motivations of the conspirators. The themes of political achievement and popular responsibility are also discussed.
From the Paper "Caesar was popular on the streets. His popularity was his source of power. Manipulation is a vice of politicians; on the converse side, influence is a political virtue. These are characteristics of Caesar. Because of his popularity, he can do anything he wants, as the Plebes rule Rome indirectly. This sets the stage for the political statement of the play. As there is an order set, this pure democracy of Rome is one of a kind. The people cast no votes as a whole, but only the elite. However, the approval of the Plebes is the primary concern of all politicians in Rome. This power of the people, however, is flexible in an uneducated society, as is most of Rome. Those who ran the politicians could easily be persuaded by those they ran (i.e. the politicians), who offered supremacy to Caesar."
Abstract This paper reviews two of Shakespeare's tragedies, providing an outline of each play. The paper illustrates how both plays portray the tragedy of human life on a lavish scale. The central themes of each play - power in "Julius Caesar", and young love in "Romeo and Juliet" - are discussed, and the tragic events of the plays are portrayed. The writer draws a comparison between these two plays.
From the Paper "Thus, Shakespeare uses the character of Brutus to demonstrate the dangers of being so blindly focused and inward looking that one fails to recognize the less than ideal circumstances and pitfalls that prevent the realization of goals. In sharp contrast is Cassius, who is perhaps ??the most accurate political calculator in the play. Recognizing that unknowable consequences attend all human action, "since th" affairs of men rest still incertain, Let's reason with the worst that may befall? (5.1.95-96). Accordingly, Cassius advises that Antony be killed with Caesar, that Antony not be given the podium at Caesar's funeral, that the conspirators not join battle at Philippi. In retrospect, it is clear that Cassius was right at every point? (Contra Mundum, 1995)."
Abstract This paper examines the book "Clay v. United States: Muhammad Ali Objects to War", written by Suzanne Freedman. It outlines reasons Ali refused to be drafted, the actual court process and the impact the courts decision had on the nation.
From the Paper "The problem with the United States is that it always seems to become involved in events in which it has no place to be in. The Government seems to stick their nose where it doesn?t belong all too often. For many Americans one of these cases happened when the U.S. became involved in the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was the first war that the U.S. was involved in that the general public did not agree to support or condemn it. The book Clay v. United States: Muhammad Ali Objects to War, written by Suzanne Freedman, describes one of the problems created by this "split" in the American public, the draft. For the entirety of the war there was always skeptics about what the U.S. was actually doing there. The Selective Service Act outraged many of Americans because of the opinion of the war. To show their disapproval of the war many refused to be drafted. Cassius Clay, a.k.a. Muhammad Ali, was one of these people but for different reasons."
Abstract This paper discusses Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" and in particular, examines the qualities of Marcus Brutus. It looks at how some qualities can be good or bad, but in Brutus? case his idealism is his flaw. It shows how Brutus is a very true and honest man and how he was always trying to look out for Romans and seek the best for them. Brutus never put his loyalty or nobility to Romans at stake; he always chose the right thing to do according to his morals.
From the Paper "Since Marcus Brutus assumed everyone was pure and honest like him, he in his idealistic state of being, made three major mistakes during the play. The first mistake was not to swear an oath. He thought an oath was not needed because he believed everyone was honest and would keep a secret. His second mistake was not to let Cicero join the conspiracy. He did not want him in the conspiracy because he thought it would appear that the conspirators were trying to buy the crowds support by having Cicero speak. If Cicero would have been in on the conspiracy he may have swayed the crowd in their favor after Caesar's death with his excellent speaking skills. Brutus? last and most foolish mistake was not to kill Antony."
Abstract This paper explains that the primary use of rhetoric is to convince the reader to take the author's side of an opinion; but sometimes the author, as in Machiavelli's "The Prince", has hidden his opinion so deeply in the rhetoric that it is misunderstood. The author points out that Shakespeare used rhetoric in his plays, especially in his political tragedies, to demonstrate how easily men and women were corruptible by power. The paper relates that in "Julius Caesar" Cassius was totally corrupted by his quest for power and brought down ignominiously in battle; however, Brutus, whose flaw was poor judgment and needed to be "one of the gang", was permitted to honorably commit suicide rather than be tried and executed. Many long textual examples.
Table of Contents
Uses and Abuses of Rhetoric
Rhetoric in "Julius Caesar"
Machiavelli's "The Prince"
Rhetoric Unveiled
From the Paper "If Johnny Cochrane were playing to both the jury and the country in this use of a crude rhetorical device, certainly a playwright like Shakespeare would be playing to both royalty and the average playgoer when he wrote "Julius Caesar". Advertisement was limited to a few playbills posted on walls and what the town crier could yell to the generally illiterate common rabble. In looking at any of Shakespeare's plays as Renaissance commercial theatrical adventures, memorable lines would have been good selling points for the literate as was word of mouth of the great fight and death scenes to the common man. Even today our far more sophisticated tastes run from high action adventure to the deeply philosophical in our entertainment."
Abstract This paper examines the life and career of Cassius Clay, later known as Muhammed Ali. By exploring several sources, including Jose Torres' "Sting Like a Bee", the paper shows how Ali influenced the sport of boxing and American society as a whole in the 1960s. The paper also touches on the racial element.
Paper Outline:
The Early Years
On the Road To Glory (1950s)
On the Road to Glory (1960s)
Works Cited
From the Paper "In fact, if we look at Clay's image and impact upon the boxing world and American society during this period, it is highly likely that many people regarded him as a serious threat to the status quo, and the very fabric of the "American" way of life. Within this context, we can argue that Clay probably served as an inspirational and positive role model for other young men of color who wanted to believe that they could overcome any obstacle in life and achieve their dreams - what ever they may be."
Abstract This paper discusses whether Julius Caesar was assassinated out of fear, idealism or jealousy. It argues that fear, idealism and jealousy were all present among the 'liberators' when they assassinated Caesar. It specifically looks at the idealism of Brutus, the fear of Cicero and the jealousy of Cassius in their responsibility for causing the final downfall of Caesar.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Probable Causes Of Caesar's Assassination:
Historical Background/Political Situation
Idealism Of The 'Liberators' Or The Conspirators
The Opposing View And The Role Of Jealousy Or Fear
Fear Among Friends
Jealousy Amidst The Power Seekers
Understanding The Underlying Factors
Conclusion
From the Paper "According to Taylor, though the struggle against Caesar was triggered by idealism, in course of time it became more influenced by 'personal interests' rather than any ideal of Free State. Storch suggests that 'relative depravity' possibly played a role in Caesar's assassination. He explains that those who were pardoned or favored by Caesar were not happy as they in many cases did not get as much as they wanted. Moreover even inside the inner circle of friends dissatisfaction remained because of advancing someone's career over others, like that of Anotony's. Though there were many eligible people in line to be chosen as consul, violating the tradition Caesar appointed Antony for the position, which enraged Labienus, one of the hopefuls for consulship and a member of Caesarian camp."
