Julius Caesar

“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him. ” In William Shakespeare’s “The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar”, there are many dangerous people who are around Caesar. Cassius, supposedly one of Caesars close friends, devises a group called the Conspirators to end Caesars time of rule. This play shows how they kill him, and how Rome goes through chaos as a result.

Cassius is a fascinating character created by Shakespeare. Although Antony shows many characteristics of an intelligent person, Cassius is the smartest character in this play because he has more admirable traits. A great trait to have as an individual is the power to manipulate people into doing whatever you want. Fortunately, Cassius has that ability. After devising a plan to assassinate Caesar, he searched for a particular group of people who were powerful and had the same wish he had. The most important person for his team was Brutus. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings”(28) is what Cassius tells Brutus to try and pursue him to join the conspirators. He said that Caesars rise is their fault because they are not doing anything to stop it. Cassius used his smart, clever, and manipulative ways to tell Brutus that basically, you are helping Rome by killing Caesar. “And since you know you cannot see yourself/ so well as by reflection, I, your glass/ Will modestly discover to yourself”(25) is said to Brutus to persuade him to join the conspiracy because Cassius will help him find himself.

It is this manipulative ability that allows Cassius to carry out his plan and, ultimately, kill Caesar. Imagine how difficult it would be to kill a ruler. It is practically impossible unless you have the mind of a genius and the sharpness of a killer. Thanks to Cassius’ clever mind and precise planning, he accomplished this goal. Even though he ended up killing himself, he successfully completed his mission. . “He reads much;/He is a great observer, and he looks/ Quite through the deeds of men”(30-31) is said by Julius Caesar to describe Cassius. This shows that even though Julius Caesar is a stubborn, selfish person, he sees Cassius’ power.

Cassius was like Michael Jordan in the 1991 NBA Finals. He was committed to succeeding his mission no matter what it took. “Yond’ Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous”(30). Based on what Caesar said about Cassius, this shows that he is so focused, other people can easily see it in his face. Cassius used his skills for the wrong reasons, but you can definitely see what kind of person he really is. The flaw that Cassius has that is very easily seen throughout this play is his jealousy of Caesar. Cassius wants the people to look at him the way they look at Caesar. ‘But in ourselves, that we are underlings. Brutus and Caesar: what should be in that ’Caesar’? Why should that name be sounded more than yours? ’ (28). By trying to kill him, he thought that they would see him and Brutus as their saviors, but, instead, they saw them as traitors of Rome due to Antony’s words. “I was born free as Caesar; so were you: / we both have fed as well, and we can both / Endure the winter’s cold as well as he”(27) is what Cassius says about Caesar. Cassius believes that he is just as great as Caesar and does not think that Caesar should be treated specially.

Cassius’ eye for power is what causes him to kill himself. He saw that his plan had gone too far and that he would be captured so he committed suicide. Unlike Cassius, Brutus had killed Caesar for the love of Rome. Cassius is truly the villain in this story by Shakespeare. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of villains is for good men to do nothing” Edmund burke. In William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar, the good men of Rome do not allow the villain, which in this case is Cassius, to go without being punished.

They pursue him until he is forced to commit suicide. Among these good people, there is Octavius, Lepidus, and most importantly, Antony. Sometimes, the smartest character is not necessarily the good guy. Through his cleverness, manipulative ability and hate for Caesar, Cassius accomplished what was practically impossible… to kill a God.

Works Cited

1. “Notable Quotes in Julius Caesar. ” Notable Quotes in Julius Caesar. N. p. , n. d. Web. 08 Oct. 2012.
2. ;http://www. shakespeare-navigators. com/JC_Navigator/notable_quotes. html;.

To get credit for the collaboration activity, Betrayal 01, 02, 04, 05, and 06:

A. ) Submit this attachment in A Collaboration Process. Then copy and paste the below information in the student comment area of A Collaboration Product and Betrayal 01, 04, and 05:

1. Date you attended the session.
2. At least 3 sentences explaining how Shakespeare’s story about Julius Caesar is different than what really (historically) happened in Caesar’s life.
3. Give examples of the three persuasive techniques from either Antony’s or Brutus’s speech. logos, pathos, and ethos)
4. Give an example of one traitor and one patriot with supporting examples from the play.
5. At least 3 sentences explaining what you did in the session so that someone who did not attend would have an understanding of it.
6. At least 3 sentences evaluating how well your group worked together to accomplish your task.

B. ) Submit this in Betrayal 02: 1. Complete the Lesson 2 Quiz. For the essay questions, you may respond, “I attended the Betrayal Live Lesson on _ (date).

C. ) Schedule Betrayal 6 DBA as we still need to complete that on the phone. If you are an honors student, complete the honors assignment before the dba.

D. ) If you are an honors student, complete lesson 8. Lesson 8 Assignment

1. Choose which character from “The Lay of the Were-Wolf” you would like to defend.
2. Analyze the story to find examples of logos, pathos, and ethos that support your character’s innocence.
3. Determine how to present your examples in a persuasive argument.
4. Write a three-paragraph “closing argument” for the trial that will persuade the jury that your character is not a monster. a. ) Paragraph #1 – logos b. ) Paragraph #2 – pathos c. ) Paragraph #3 –

Recordings: a read-along for each act. Enjoy!

Act I, Scenes i, ii, iii https://sas. elluminate. com/site/external/jwsdetect/playback. jnlp? psid=2012-01-23. 1812. M. 18C7F05BEF4B1A91008CFEA56749A1. vcr&sid=679

Act II, Scenes i, ii, iii, iv https://sas. elluminate. com/site/external/jwsdetect/playback. jnlp? psid=2012-02-03. 107. M. 18C7F05BEF4B1A91008CFEA56749A1. vcr&sid=679

Act III, Scenes i, ii, iii https://sas. elluminate. com/p. jnlp? psid=2012-02-07. 0726. M. 18C7F05BEF4B1A91008CFEA56749A1. vcr&sid=679

Acts IV & V https://sas. elluminate. com/p. jnlp? psid=2012-02-07. 0817. M. 18C7F05BEF4B1A91008CFEA56749A1. vcr&sid=679 Brutus’s Funeral Speech: http://www. youtube. com/watch? v=ab68AjRMKmA

Antony’s Funeral Speech: http://www. youtube. com/watch? v=Zd9BLib8448 Materials from Live Lesson and Play in original language: http://vimeo. com/41708712

Julius Caesar was the means to the evolution of the Roman Republic into an empire. This transition extended its significance to more than 60 million citizens through the outcome of the empire, some of which is virtual peace and prosperity. Arriving at this conclusion, we must now ask, was this transition all because of Caesar? It seems to appear that Caesar had intentionally planned to initiate a dominion as the key to all the troubles in the world. The events that took place, namely the invasion of Gaul, the combat opposing Pompey, and the dictatorship of Caesar, moved so fast and certain.

This viewpoint was equally shared by a few historians; the most expressive of them was the German scholar Theodor Mommsen (1817-1903). He articulated this viewpoint in his Romische Geschichte. For Mommsen, Caesar had cleared all crooked aristocracy and formed an empire that functioned for all of its citizens. Dominion and equality were evenhanded in its foundation. This was a thing that Mommsen would have greatly loved in his own homeland. Mommsen wrote that Caesar’s “aim was the highest which a man is allowed to propose himself – the political, military, intellectual, and moral regeneration of his own deeply decayed nation […

] The hard school of thirty years’ experience changed his views as to the means by which this aim was to be reached; his aim itself remained the same in the times of his hopeless humiliation and of his unlimited plenitude of power, in the times when as demagogue and conspirator he stole towards it by paths of darkness, and in those when, as joint possessor of the supreme power and then as monarch, he worked at his task in the full light of day before the eyes of the world. [… ] According to his original plan he had purposed to reach his object […

] without force of arms, and throughout eighteen years he had as leader of the people’s party moved exclusively amid political plans and intrigues – until, reluctantly convinced of the necessity for a military support, he, when already forty years of age, put himself at the head of an army. ”( Romische Geschichte) Many of his actions had sheltered the common citizens against the self-centered rules of the rich. His rules on levies and nationality most likely demonstrate this. On the other hand, were these actions to protect the people his goal or just his instrument to create a solid foundation for a personal cause?

The following arguments are the judgments of enormous historians, namely Eduard Meyer and Jerome Carcopino. They believed, as written in their Caesars Monarchie und das Pinzipat des Pompejus and Histoire Romaine, that even as a child, Caesar’s goal was the organization of a dominion in Rome. Caring for the citizens’ welfare was not his aim, instead, he utilized them. According to the German historian Matthias Gelzer, maybe, it was not right to center on Caesar’s guiding principle. He added that Caesar maybe was just an exemplar to a much bigger course.

Caesar made history but not in the condition of his own option. He explained further that there had to be profound causes for these actions and it was not right to consider influential men like Julius Caesar as stimulators of social change. Ronald Syme, an Oxford professor, shared the same perspective with Gelzer’s thought that Caesar was just an exemplar to a much bigger course. According to him, Caesar outshined his associate nobles because he established groundwork outside Italy. His abundant allocation of nationality was a significant tool for him to receive this support.

He wanted to be the original among his fellows. After World War II, most people agreed with Syme’s abhor of one-man ruling. This resulted in the vanishing of the subject about Caesar. There were articles but there were no improvements. Today, Syme’s ideas were most likely agreed by most historians than Mommsen’s. However, the perspective of Syme deteriorated very fast. His divisions were similar to the elites that managed universities in the 20th century. His principle in family fidelity was not very possible in the real world. (Lendering) At the Capitoline hill in present Rome lies the statue of Caesar.

It stares down above the remains of his round-table. What types of accomplishments were left for a man who cared much about his personal heritage to history? Since Caesar’s death, his effect on the history of his country has been continually deliberated. The path he chose in life was obviously notorious. Historians either agreed for his actions or opposed it. Centuries later, uneducated native people who barely knew Rome knew his name. His name is one among some which are often renowned. Those who admire Cicero always oppose the fearless, dignified orator against the striving, monomaniacal demolisher of Rome.

Likewise, the ones who look up to Caesar seem to view Cicero as a selfish tool for the oligarchs who, in the first place, had destabilized the Republic even before the arrival of Caesar. In the 19th century, intellectuals raised Caesar’s statesmanship and knowledge into a level that nearly advances into a sect of personality. In Mommsen’s opinion, the Roman Empire was out of power and leads towards devastation. According to him, it was Caesar’s declaration that seized organization of its history and headed towards unwavering years of the Republic.

In the 20th century, many historians likened Caesar to Hitler and Stalin due to the unavoidable responses after the end of World War II. Nevertheless, his status has lived two millennia of disordered government and will live the limits of the previous years. For me, Caesar’s path is a breakpoint in the history of Rome and very essential. An obvious misinterpretation of the Roman psyche of his own era is the mistreatment of Caesar as a man preoccupied by his own dignities. To challenge deeply in quest of individual credit was the outcome of as aristocratic whose only immortality rest in eternally touching the history of Rome.

Cicero, for all his fully conscious acceptance of the history of Rome, blazed with an unslaked yearning to influence his era and be recalled for his actions. Caesar carried amazing traits to his concluding power of the nation which were not present in his motivated equals. The case was unpersuasive for me because the legislation of his Consulate and the soon after kinds passed while Dictator did not gravely tried to restore mistakes long disregarded by the wrangling rich men who declared that he shattered freedom on his own.

Caesar was far more than dreams not like the Gracchis. He was a progressive. Sorting out the applicable comments of his measures from the doubt that a lot of his colleagues were provoked by their personal gluttony and jealousy of his rank among them is hard. Furthermore, the power of Rome was absolutely incompetent of calmly accommodating the transformations of Caesar. It believes with confidence that the Republic was the finest of all potential worlds and that whichever amend was not merely hazardous but completely unpatriotic.

Reading the past of Rome from the Gracchi to Augustus is an extensive and disheartening investigation of what prejudice, factionalism, individual goal, aggression, and gluttony had made to Romans. Basically, Rome had turned relatively ensnared in the collapse when men need not describe the universal superior likewise, and where the aspirations of persons or families were dominant. Cicero enclosed his row completely to the advantage of the status quo and the past rulers of Rome for centuries.

He probably have profoundly hoped to trust in a concordance of the guidelines and this is the capability of every Roman to work as one. Determining that no one ought to continually accumulate excessive authority or control had get nearer to signify that any reformer was ruined in spite of whether his reorganization was excellent or terrible is the most. It is because to execute them may gain him so much thankful patrons. Probably the most grave in estimating whether the Republic could have viably sustained devoid of Caesar’s measures is to acknowledge this thinking.

All of those under pressure to tackle the troubles of the late empire, from the era of Gracchi to Caesar, were all destroyed. Transformation was badly required and no modification appeared probable inside the structure. This perspective is the result of all transformations. Caesar was the only one who lived long enough to start changing the perspective. The main reason why he died is because he did this without enough cruelty. After another war and 20 years of turmoil, the people of Rome acknowledged that dictatorship may be preferable to sovereignty if it conveyed harmony in its way.

Unlike Caesar, Augustus was able to make in the course of a technical civil service. This is a vent for the wealthy and determined adolescent noble to perform for his nation devoid of resorting to aggression. (Cross) Reference: Cross, Suzanne. “Julius Caesar: The Last Dictator; A Biography of Caesar and Rome 100-44 B. C. ” 2002-2006. October 27, 2006. <http://web. ma/heraklia/Caesar/index. html>. Lendering, Jona. “Gaius Julius Caesar”. 2006. Livius: Articles on ancient history. October 27 2006. <http://www. livius. org/caa-can/caesar/caesar01. html>.

Then fall, Caesar! ” These last words of Caesar show the heartbreak and betrayal that he felt inside. The relationship between Brutes and Caesar is bitterly ironic in such a way that the audience can feel the characters emotions. However, it Is somewhat difficult to choose whether you can Justify the actions of the conspirators, or if you fall into the sorrow and anger that is inside those who loved and supported Caesar. Going back to Career’s last words, “Et TU Brute?

Then fall, Caesar! ” you can start to put an image In your head. Imagine that you were randomly Ewing stabbed by the people you thought liked you so much that they actually wanted to king you. Not only were you stabbed once, but a painful 33 times. And to really put the cherry on top, the last person to stab you was supposedly one of your closest friends. Torturous much? It doesn’t stop yet. You dedicate your last words of the feelings of defeat and utter betrayal to your close friend.

It almost seems as If Caesar was reaching out to the morality of Brutes, Caesar desperately wanted Brutes to know that he was important to him, and that there is almost nothing else that loud have pained him so much than to be stabbed lastly by someone that he thought was so close. Once again, bringing it back to Caesar last words, “Et TU. Brute? ” is just the English what the translator decided to write. Different translations say something like, muff too, young man? Or “You too, my son? ” A popular belief is that Brutes is actually Caesar illegitimate son, as some say there is historical proof that Brutes’ mother and Caesar once intimately loved each other. For this to happen Caesar would have to be only 15 when Brutes was born, so it is found unlikely by any. Whether or not Brutes and Caesar were kin by blood, it is still known that they had an in depth relationship with each other. After Career’s death, there are oodles of complications.

After Antonym had given his speech, the crowd rioted and burned down the houses of the conspirators. Antonym, Octavia, and Lipid’s had taken charge of Rome. Both Antonym and Octavia agreed to have Lipid’s to be the third person in power because of his willingness to agree with what he’s told. Such an act reveals the characters of Antonym and Octavia as loaches and avaricious. Before a war has started, Brutes encounters the ghost of Caesar. Some believe that the ghost was lust a dream, but if this were so, then it shows how Brutes really feels towards Caesar.

Caesar was once his close friend, and even though he believed he was participating in the assassination for a cause, he seems to question his motives when he feels convicted by the ghost. War has begun between Antonym and Octavia against Brutes and Cassias. The armless set out, and Antonym army beats Cassias’ army, but Brutes’ army beats Activation’s army. Cassias then sends out Taluses, of his friends, to Investigate. Cassias thought that Taluses was captured, and out of his own guilt and cowardliness to see what was going on for himself, his friend would pay the price.

Cassias committed suicide, even though Taluses wasn’t actually captured. Once again, the armies fight. Brutes loses the war this time, and before he is captured and paraded around the streets of his enemy in shame, he decides to commit an honorary suicide by running onto a sword while having one of his soldiers holds it. Ablest Roman of them all: [All the conspirators, save only he, [Did that they did in new of great Caesar; [He only, in a general-honest thought [And common good to all, made one of them. His life was gentle; and the elements [So mixed in him that Nature might stand up [And say to all the world, “This was a man! ” Even Antonym, the enemy of Brutes, calls him noble, in which he realizes that Brutes was not in the same reasoning as Cassias. Brutes actually cared about Rome, and even though his viewpoints did not match up with Antonym’s, he still was genuine. Throughout the text it is plain to see that Brutes is open minded, but he makes mistakes.

Brutes is human, and relatable. Through his moral, the reader can forgive Brutes’ bluntness. In my opinion, Brutes is the one that most people tend to favor because of his realistic and thoughtful character. Viewing the conspirators and how they Justified their decision in killing Caesar is somewhat of a confusing manner. Brutes feels like he’s in the right place, he says he loves Caesar well, so this kind of shows Brutes sacrificing is friend for the good of Rome.

Cassias, on the other hand, went on with the murder for purely out of the negativity he feels towards Caesar, rather than doing it for the benefit of Rome. So when choosing a side between the people for and against Caesar, you cannot exactly pick the conspirators as a whole. Instead, one could break it down into three main sides: The people in favor of Caesar, such as Antonym and Octavo’s, the positive conspirators, such as Brutes, and lastly the negative conspirators, such as Cassias.