Compare Shakespeares presentation of the characters Brutus and Mark Antony Essay Example

Compare Shakespeares presentation of the characters Brutus and Mark Antony Paper Julius Caesar was written in 1599, a time in which the monarchy was in power in Britain. Shakespeare would have to be very careful what to put in his plays; he had to stay in favour of the royalty. If for example, Brutus was portrayed as the overall hero for procuring the safety of Rome through the assassination of someone who was going to rule Rome as a monarchist, Shakespeare would have been in trouble. Therefore, he had to ensure that this assassination was seen as unnatural, something that unsettled the natural order of things. For this reason, he made the night before the assassinations one of strangeness and peculiarity: Men, all in fire, walk up and down the streets. And yesterday the bird o night did sit Even at noon-day upon the market place, We will write a custom essay sample on Compare Shakespeares presentation of the characters Brutus and Mark Antony specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Compare Shakespeares presentation of the characters Brutus and Mark Antony specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Compare Shakespeares presentation of the characters Brutus and Mark Antony specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Hooting and shrieking when these prodigies Do so conjointly meet let not men say These are their reasons, they are natural For I believe they are portentous things Unto the climate that they point upon. -Casca Shakespeare had also intended his portrayal of leadership to capture the audiences attention as England herself was having leadership issues at that period of time. Queen Elizabeth was old and she didnt have an heir. He links this in a way as the Julius Caesar depicted in the play also doesnt have an heir. His wife was shown as having conceivement problems. In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare has woven through important themes; the most prominent being friendship and leadership. Within these two themes, Brutus and Mark Antony show completely different stances. Their close friendship to Caesar makes them interesting to compare as they react in different ways to the apparent growing ambition of Caesar and afterwards, his death. It is their reactions, which allows Shakespeare to use them to make the audience contemplate on the themes of friendship and leadership. In friendship or personal matters, Brutus places state before self. He had considered Caesar a true friend: It must be by his death. And for my part, I know no personal cause to spurn at him But for the general. Brutus Brutus honestly held no personal grudge against Caesar. In spite of this, his values bound him to assassinating Caesar for what he believed to be the good of Rome. During his speech to the citizens of Rome, he justifies his assassination Caesar by saying :Not that I loved Caesar less, but I loved Rome more. Mark Antonys view however, is the complete opposite. He puts personal matters above state. However, Marks Antonys view on friendship isnt all that easy to interpret. On one hand, he is the loyal friend to Caesar, seeking revenge. From this point of view, he seems to be using himself as a medium to channel Caesars revenge upon the conspirators- And Caesars spirit, ranging for revenge, With Ate by his side come hot from hell Mark Antony and thus, why hes bring civil strife to Rome. On the other hand however, it may be that Mark Antony has always been after the power; yet clever enough to stay and work from the background. Before Act 3, he has never been an major character. On the contrary, he is one to be almost dismissed. Yet after his real arrival in scene 3, the audience begins to remember vital, albeit small roles he played earlier on. For example, he was the one who offered Caesar the crown at the Lupercal: I thrice presented him a kingly crown. From this, we can see that far from fearing that Caesar will rule Rome, he fully supports the idea. This could be due to the fact that if Caesar was the one who would be king, he, Mark Antony, in Caesars favour, would also be at the receiving end of this power. It can be said that before Caesars death, Mark Antony already had a perfect future secured for himself. He was the favourite of a man who was sighted to be the ruler of Rome and had nothing to worry about. In this circumstance then, he can be the Antony that revels long a-nights. But after Caesars death, he needs to work out how to get back into a position which is favourable. This is when the real Mark Antony, the consummate politician, comes into play. He then fights for the power, bringing civil strife upon Rome in the process. Its him against the conspirators and he doesnt care what stands in his way. He knows very well what civil war would bring about: over thy wounds do I prophesy- Domestic fury and fierce civil strife Shall cumber all the parts of Italy; Blood and destruction shall be so in use And dreadful objects so familiar That mothers shall but smile when they behold Their infant quartered by the hands of war. Mark Antony Shakespeare uses these words to conjure up vivid images. Phrases like infant quartered by the hands of war are meant to horrify and give an ominous feel for what is to come. When it comes to leadership, the contrast has never been clearer. Brutus does anything he thinks would benefit the state. He doesnt however, ever do anything that goes again his values. This is then his short coming. His greatest virtue brings about his downfall as it is his very idealism, his very naivetà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ that blurs his sight of his surroundings. He is only able to see a single path for himself, the one of goodness and purity. This then causes a problem as he cant see the alternative routes by which other men might take- ones that are not as scrupulous. For example, when Mark Antony asked to speak at Caesars funeral, he agreed. The politically astute Cassius strongly protested against this but Brutus said: What Antony shall speak, I will protest He speaks by leave and by permission Brutus Brutus at this point doesnt understand how this move would endanger their position politically. He doesnt get the fact that although he might be able to convince the Romans that they had done a the right thing by assassinating Caesar, Mark Antony would be able to turn that all around in an single speech because of his oratory skills. In a way, this is the pivotal point in which Brutus seals his fate. If he had not given Mark Antony this opportunity, Mark Antony would have never been able to even fight for the rule of Rome. The power would have been in the conspirators hands. Mark Antony works in an completely different way from Brutus. At points where Brutus is weak, Mark Antony is strong. He isnt exactly unscrupulous but he is able to spot, and then exploit the various short comings of other men. In this way, he is politically set up to go a long way. Again using the example of Act 3, Scene 1, Mark Antony appeals directly to Brutus for permission to speak at Caesars funeral by directing Brutus attention to providing reasons for Caesars death, to which he knows full well that Brutus will be the one who answers. Mark Antony does this as he is able to see that out of them all, Brutus naivetà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ and unconsciousness of underlying political meanings would be an trait to play on. He sees that Cassius would see through his ploy but Brutus wouldnt. Brutus wanted Caesar to have all true rites and lawful ceremonies. Comparing the inner selves of the two men through looking at the ways they treat people, Brutus is kind and caring, while Antony, cruel and manipulative. Examples depicting this would be Brutus asking his servants and guards to rest in his personal quarters (call Claudio ad some other of my men, Ill have them sleep on the cushions of my tent), Brutus and Antony purely and simply using Lepidus as someone to do his dirty work- ( [My horse] is a creature that I teach to fight, To wind, to stop, to run directly on, His corporal motion governed by my spirit; And in some taste is Lepidus but so.) -Mark Anthony A direct contrast of Brutus and Mark Antony can be made as Brutus refuses to kill Mark Antony along with Julius Caesar even as Cassius almost predicts the future by saying that Antony is a shrewd contriver. Brutus however, spared Mark Antony: Our course would seem too bloody, Caius Cassius, To cut the head off and then hack the limbs. -Brutus Mark Antony in contrast, isnt as merciful. He condemns his own sisters son to death at a meeting of the ruling triumvirs: He shall not live- look, with a spot I damn him. However, we cant say whether this is the real Mark Antony, someone whos cold and heartless. It might have just been sheer bravado which led him to utter those words. Mark Antony is able to read people in a way Brutus just simply cant. Mark Antony says as one of the closing lines, This was the noblest Roman of them all: All the conspirators, save only he, Did that they did in envy of great Caesar He only, in general honest thought And common good to all, made one of them. -Mark Antony Brutus didnt do as well with his interpretation of Mark Antony. This is yet again another shortcoming of Brutus that makes him vulnerable in politics. He is unable to peel back the masks that various figures in politics, especially Mark Antony, puts up. He assumes that Mark Antony wouldnt be a threat after Caesar was removed: And for Mark Antony, think not of him, for he can do no more than Caesars arm when Caesars head is off. -Brutus This was one his greatest faults of all. It ties in with his insistence in believing in the essential good of those around him. Similarities between the two characters are few but one of them is their ability to put aside or hide emotion. Both characters are stoic. Brutus doesnt grieve openly after Portias death. He says: Why, farewell Portia. We must die Messala With meditating that she must die once I have the patience to endure it now. -Brutus And after this point, he never mentions her again. This isnt normal behaviour nowadays. Mark Antony does the same after Caesars death. He allows himself a singular point over which he releases his pent up grieve and after that, Caesars name was never mentioned by him in mourning again. He does however use his emotions to his advantage. For example, at his meeting with the conspirators after the death of Caesar, he plays the role of an distraught, grieving friend to make Brutus believe that he only wanted to speak at Caesars funeral as a friend; and to try and make Cassius think that he was too embroiled in emotional turmoil at the time to be scheming for anything: That I did love thee, Caesar, O, tis true. If thy sprit then look upon us now, Shall it not grieve thee dearer than thy death To see thy Antony making his peace, Shaking the bloody fingers of thy foes- Most noble- in the presence of thy corse? Had I as many eyes as thou hast wounds, Weeping as fast as they stream forth thy blood It would become me better than to close In terms of friendship with thine enemies. -Mark Antony One other point of similarity between the two men was their skill at rhetoric. Both mens speeches after the assassinations of Caesar, made to move and sway the thinking of the crowd were amazing ones. For instance, Brutus used ordinary prose instead of the normal blank verse he used to speak to the people with the intention that it would be easier for him to get through to them. He also used plenty of rhetorical questions. If any, speak, for him I have offended. Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If any, speak for him I have offended. Who is here so vile that will not love his country? If any speak for him I have offended. I pause for a reply. Brutus His speech is simple, so simple that it pangs with it sincerity whereas, Mark Antonys on the other hand, is much more manipulative and devious. He starts off by saying that he wasnt going to praise Caesar and by saying that Brutus was an honourable man. His drift gradually changed though; and gradually steers the mass towards the idea that Brutus and the conspirators were to be punished. He slowly turns the tide, so as not to startle the crowd and to ruin his chances of winning them over. He works them up by dangling Caesars will under their noses and then pulling it away and refusing to read it to them. In this way, he manages to get the crowd up to a real state. Through their speech methods, we are able to see the differences in their characters Brutus speech is calm, and contained. His peace and tranquillity is meant to rub off onto the crowd whereas Mark Antonys is dramatic and fast flowing, meant to excite the crowd. And that does in a way, convey their characters. Mark Antony is able to detect subtleties in his opponents action and react accordingly to them. Hes like a chameleon, changing to suit the mood and aims of the people. Brutus doesnt have this particular trait, he is much more subdued and this shows through in his speech. Although hes not lacking in determination to get his point across, he isnt overt with his actions or dramatics. Another similarity they share is their love for Caesar. Mark Antony says: Caesar was mighty, bold, royal, and loving, . I feared Caesar, honoured him and loved him. Mark Antony Brutus said when he killed himself: I killed not thee with half so good a will -Brutus But even at this point of similarity, there is disparity. We can be certain that Brutus did love Caesar; but as for Antony, it can be said that he did indeed like Caesar. We cant however, be sure about his intentions where Caesar was concerned when he was alive. If the presentations of the characters are taken at face value, Mark Antony can be seen as the villain and Brutus, the tragic hero. However, one of Shakespeares themes is the relativity of goodness. Brutus assassinated Caesar allegedly for the good of Rome. And Brutus himself did believe in this a 100%. But nevertheless, this was betrayal. Caesar fell at his stab with the words: Et tu Brute?- Then fall Caesar!. Caesar said it perfectly. A friend whom he had trusted, completely and totally, was stabbing him. And this is perhaps, the most tragic thing of all. Mark Antony apparent stance is perfectly paraphrased by E.M Forster: If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country. But, this view seems rather selfish. To be loyal to one friend, causing the downfall of the entire country seems to be almost securing your own future by compensating it with others. And yet, admiration cant be not shown as Marks Antony unwavering loyalty to Caesar is portrayed. Then again, admiration cant not be shown as Brutus places nation before self. Both stances require equal amounts of courage. Courage to betray your friend, and courage again, to betray your country.

Summary of the Holocaust Research Paper Example

Summary of the Holocaust Research Paper Example Summary of the Holocaust Paper Summary of the Holocaust Paper The word Holocaust conjures up for many a mixture of emotions. Of all the events that occurred in the past of injustice against humanity, the Holocaust has to be one of the most famous. It has been argued, and not without emotional indifference, that the Holocaust is not like other records in world and Jewish history. Its hard for one to grasp the horror of the Holocaust, especially in a time and place where one is taught about unity as a necessity for the future. Although no amount of sources such as books, movies, and even Holocaust survivors themselves can account for the true catastrophic impact this event had on the victims, we can learn about the consequences and significance of it. In order to understand the Holocaust, we must take into consideration the causes, effects, and the tragedy of the lives that were affected in a way that greatly impacted and forever changed the way the world viewed human nature. In the period of 1933 to the end of World War II, the Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler, attempted to liquidate the Jews and others who didnt fit the Aryan stereotype (Axelrod, 15). The Nazis called their scheme the Final Solution(Wood, 90). One of the end results of the Final Solution was the emergence horrible concentration and death camps. Over six million Jews were murdered, including 1. 5 million children. Furthermore, about five million non-Jews were killed, totaling to 11 million individuals wiped of the face of the earth. The Nazis and their collaborators had many methods, like the gas chambers, to exterminate a large amount of people quickly and efficiently. The obvious reason for the success of the Holocaust was because of the popular support the Nazis received. There were many factors that allowed for the rise of the Nazi Party and Hitlers dictatorship. First, there was much unrest among the people of Germany. The economy was devastated since it never recovered from World War I and the harsh demands of the Treaty of Versailles which made Germany pay $33 billion in reparations. Another reason was that the Germans were searching for someone or something to blame for their burdens of the humiliation after the war and extremist groups, such as the Nazis, provided an answer for the German people. This made Jews and other minorities an easy target as a scapegoat. This Anti-Semitism combined with the dysfunctional economy molded a pathway for the Nazi Party to rise in Germany. It is important to point out that Hitler and the Nazis came to power by the votes of ordinary people. The Great Depression hit Germany the hardest and the Nazi message appealed more than ever (Wood, 34). The countrys hunger, unemployment, and despair left the people looking for something to cling to- and the Nazi party was it. At first, there wasnt much support for the Nazis (Wood, 34). The other parties, although much larger, were much divided and therefore had a difficult time uniting and gaining support. The Nazi partys propaganda was easy to accept: It certainty offered hope, and its provision of a scapegoat was pleasing. Gradually, the Nazi increased their influence, especially with young people with things such as the youth movements, which became almost compulsory. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, people around the world were shocked by final scores of human losses, and the people responsible were punished for their inhuman acts in the Nuremburg Trials. The Holocaust is significant to many people today, and to an equal number of people means very little. It illustrates that we are still a society thats in the process of searching for knowledge in developing how we treat one another, whether it is for race or faith. The Holocaust stands out as the most current oppressive action against a religion and from this came the most notable phrase, never again. The Holocaust was a dark time in the history of the 20th century and we must remember it in order to keep alive the memories of those who suffered and lost their lives in this terrible event.