Custom essays on Analysing Julius Caesar’s play from Act 3, Scene 2
There is also a fact, which for Shakespeare expert will seem strange. Brutus says not in verse, as during all tragedy, but in prose. We have got used, that in all significant, pathetic moments speech of the hero clothes in the raised poetic form. Deviation from a rule, observable here, has induced some researchers to doubt: maybe there is here a mistake, maybe the typesetter or the copyist of the manuscript of Shakespeare has confused, having rejected breakdown of speech Brutus for the lines? First of all, Brutus condescends to people, therefore, he speaks the simple language. But to that, there is also other reason: it does not want words, rhetorical adorning to obscure simple true. Without beating about the bush, he expounds the fact and explains it with extreme frankness and clearness. His conscience is pure, and to exercise the wit in case he does not want. His main occasion — he with his honesty, frankness and love to Rome. But the idea of Caesarismus, autocracy has already become stronger in national consciousness, and this Brutus is unable to understand! It seems to him that Romans, welcoming him, support republic, and they see in him only more worthy master, than Caesar.
If to come more deeply it is possible to find in Brutus speech many the positive and negative moments. Many supporters of its speech consider, that it has failed only that Antony made a speech last, said concluding word. Also, speak that actually its speech convincing and powerful. Brutus defenders say that: he is skilfully involves people in dialogue, asking to them questions; his questions are rhetorical and the answer to them is axiomatic; question, “Who is here so base that would be a bondman?” is rhetorical. And of course, it means answer “No one”. Rhetorical questions always used by public speakers to force spectators to think. In such cases they can reach own decisions; he plays on a pity of his audience suggests to sacrifice himself for own country; his speech is brief and close to sense; he well convinces the audience. When he has stopped to speak, citizens exclaim, “This Caesar was a tyrant”, “We are blest that Rome is rid of him”.custom essays
Other readers assert that Brutus speech is weaker, unconvincing and not so emotional then Antony: while Brutus appeals to the minds of people, Anthony expects emotions from people. Brutus calls people to appeal to feeling of duty, and Antonio – summons to avidity. Brutus asks people to value the degrees of good and evil, Antony rely on a human need to love and hate. Brutus addresses his speech the people collectively as “Romans”, Antony says to people “Friends”. Antony knows instinctively, that his personal contact and good relationships for people more important than their identification with the state. Brutus speaks in prose that provokes the intellect; Antony speaks in verse that provokes the emotions. Brutus speech is not so strict or important that speaks in verse. Brutus makes politically terrible mistake of expecting too much from the people. He discusses with them, as though they are intellectually equal to him. He uses a language, not to lead senses, but to express ideas.
Thus studying aforesaid we understand that Brutus speech, that Caesar was ambitious convinced many-headed crowd for a time and when Mark Antony points at his qualities, Brutus appeared vicious by himself. Human memory is such, that the new compels to forget about old, and one story is trusted only until will not hear other (Spring, 73).
On the assumption of aforesaid we can say that Marcus Brutus one of the most difficult character in this play. Brutus is difficult, because he killed Caesar not for avidity, not from envy; he did not wish to save his social position as many other conspirators against Caesar.
And now on your own I understand that as many in the world people – so many different opinions. Marcus Brutus cannot be only good or bad for all. On his utterances we can only guess, whether he wanted benefits and blessings on your own, whether for Rome and for people. But murder of Caesar already makes him for a reader negative character, and his ability to influence on people exposes talent of the real ruler.
It is possible also to suppose an interesting thing. What was a play, if Brutus was positive character, would do everything in behalf on Rome and for people and did not kill Caesar. What would be then? Probably then a play was not such enthralling and thrilling. So Brutus character must be such what it was created by Shakespeare, but not such as it is redone by critics: they search something new, want to add him new streaks, instead to read carefully and more attentive to understand at last the plan of great English writers.
In the academic circles of Brutus – still source of large hot discussion, murder of leader for the benefit of people was made bravery, deserving tragic hero. Contradictions and hot arguments around Shakespeare’s hero still rage. And maybe some day someone will find an answer for a question “Is Marcus Brutus tragically hero or villain, which has suffered from his own actions?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.