Julius Caeser

Subjective bias is at the heart of all representations.
Through the representation of language to manipulate a text, several diverse agendas and interpretations are shaped. Varying representations arise through events, personalities or situations are shaped through contextual form, language features, altering the meaning and creating textual integrity. The composers construction of various mediums allows responders to perceive a text to form their own particular view and depiction of these conflicting perspectives create meaning. In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, the persuasion of beliefs surrounding the assassination of Caesar, allow responders to interpret meaning and individual view points. Shakespeare manipulates the conventions of drama and language structure to alter perspectives regarding the events leading up to Caesars assignation.
The conflicting political agendas of Cassius in Julius Caesar demonstrate the relationship between state and citizen and create motifs for actions undertaken throughout the play. Cassius disproval of Caesar running Rome is depicted throughout carefully crafted rhetoric gambits persuading Brutus to join him against Caesar. The fears of Brutus are played upon by Cassius who envies Caesar’s power. “We petty men/ Walk under his huge legs...dishonourable graves.” Emotive language highlights Caesars all-consuming power, the juxtaposition of ‘huge legs’ and ‘petty men’ conveys the assassination as a personal plot and persuades Brutus to join him in his quest for vengeance. The series of words builds up images of jealousy and inferiority. By using faulty reasoning Cassius was able to make Caesar appear to be a tyrant to the people of Rome. This conflicts with Brutus as he is caught in between his love for Rome and his love for Caesar. Cassius’ views on Caesar were conflicting towards the Elizabethan audience as his hatred for the leader opposed supporting views of a monarchical system. Throughout the play Cassius repeatedly express his view that Caesar is a tyrant. His grievances against Caesar are caused in part for the power given to someone he sees as physically and intellectually inferior. In the opening scene, Cassius’, mocking tone denounces Caesar’s success as being due to good luck rather than superiority “Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed...so great?” It is evident that Cassius is jealous of Caesar and Cassius’ actions throughout the play stem from this. The use of various language forms allows the responder to create meaning from the text and develop their own personal insight into Cassius’ beliefs.
The capacity of language to persuade the public for purposes of power is emphasised in Julius Caesar. In the funeral scene the differing perspectives of Mark Antony, Brutus and the Plebeians are portrayed through the use of language. Brutus relies on reason and logic to explain the reasons behind the assassination. Imperative language ironically makes Brutus to appear as the tyrant he feared Caesar would become “Listen here” “Be silent” “If any speak”. Brutus asserts reason and justifies his actions by stressing his patriotism in the juxtaposition ´not that I love casers less but I love Rome more” Brutus’ logical rationale asserted through personal pronouns ‘I honour him, but he was ambitious, I slew him” this appeals to audience through honesty and reason. His consistent use of intimidating rhetorical questions “would you rather Caesar live and die all slaves...free men?” and symmetrical logical structure clearly presents his views and persuade the audience to reason with Brutus and see the logic in his ways. Brutus’ speech is completely contrasted with Antony’s. Antony addresses crowd using powerful blank verse presenting an antithesis to Brutus. Antony skilfully presents Caesar as consistent and Brutus as not, “Did this in Caesar seem ambitious...Brutus is an honourable man” the constant repetition of “honourable man” undermines Brutus’ use of logic and turns Brutus’ arguments against him. Antony uses conspicuous ambiguity regarding Caesar “If so it was a grievous fault” and rhetorical questions “in this did Caesar seem ambitious to further undermine Brutus’ integrity and reason. Both Brutus and Antony manipulate language to enhance their beliefs, through this manipulation conflicting perspectives are created which give the text meaning and allow responders to involve themself into the play and create their own ideas on the assassination.
Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, reflect the idea that many perspectives are created throughout the use of language and neither perspective is right or wrong. The subjectivity of the perspectives is the basis of the play and this gives the text meaning and allows responders to create their own insight into the text.
CONFLICTING PERSPECTIVES ABOUT POLITICAL VIEWS * The capacity of language to persuade the public for purposes of power is emphasised in Julius Caesar. * Brutus and Antony’s conflicting perspectives on the political assassination of Caesar who is portrayed as both hero and putative tyrant. * Shakespeare’s support for the monarchical system * Caesars arrogance and self importance is demonstrated through his hubris where he states in third person “Caesar is more dangerous than he” * When Antony imperatively says “When Caesar says ‘Do this!’ further shows Caesars unchallenged power, authority and confidence. * Perspectives conflict with that of the conspirators. Cassius shows Caesar’s imperfections in his soliloquy. Strong imagery, emotive language ‘How did he shake...his coward lips did their colour fly’

SPEECH * Language is used by Shakespeare to question the manipulative agendas of leaders and to highlight its effectiveness in garnering public support. * Brutus asserts reason and justifies his actions by stressing his patriotism in the juxtaposition ´not that I love casers less but I love Rome more” * Brutus’ logical rationale asserted through personal pronouns ‘I honour him, but he was ambitious, I slew him” this appeals to audience through honesty and reason. * Rhetorical questioning ‘rather Caesar living and die slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men?’ * His perspective and connection to the people are diminished by a lack of rhythm, eloquence and the pathos of Mark Antony

* Antony addresses crowd using powerful blank verses catalysing vengeance on the conspirators and nullify opposition * An antitheses to Brutus * Manipulates crowd through emotive language and sardonic irony of “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. * Connect with emotions of crowd * Represents himself as honest and compassionate this allows Antony to usurp the power the conspirators to cast doubt over Brutus’ credibility. * Demonstrated through repetition of ‘honourable man’ in conjunction with the low modality of ‘if it were so, it was a grievous fault.’ * Further persuades audience to accept his perception of the assassination through antistrophe ‘Brutus says he was ambitious and Brutus is an honourable man’ * The pliable and dynamic shifts of the plebeian’s perspective represented through the exclamation ‘live Brutus live’ to the later “revenge! Let not a traitor live” further emphasises Antonys more skilful use of rhetoric.

* The texts demonstrate the importance of manipulative rhetoric in shaping perception. * The deliberate selection and emphasis on the material which creates different representations that highlights the idea that the truth is not made up of one certainty but various possible interpretations.

* Shakespeare manipulates the convention of drama and language structure to shape acts of representation in Julius Caesar, altering perspectives regarding the event of the assassination of Julius Caesar.