Persuasion In Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar

Any salad can become a Caesar salad if you stab it enough. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar is a tragic play written by the great William Shakespeare. The play was first performed in 1599 during the period of history titled “The Age of Discovery.” During this era, historical plays were generally popular due to most people's curiosity to learn about diverse worlds that differed from their own. Because of this, Shakespeare wrote several plays based on historical events that occurred in Roman history, like Coriolanus and Antony and Cleopatra. Though the play is named Julius Caesar, he is overshadowed by other important characters such as Marcus Brutus, Cassius, and Mark Anthony. The play revolves around the scheme and deceitfulness
of the Romans during the time of the death of Caesar. Even though the play is based off of true significant events, there are some fallacies between actual historic events and Shakespeare's events in his play. Brutus and Cassius, the two main leaders of Caesar's assassination, had three main differences and similarities, their personalities, ability to persuade, and reasons why they disagreed with Caesar. The first main point and difference between Brutus and Cassius was their personalities. Cassius had a crafty personality and was narrow minded and spontaneous. This personality can be shown in one of his arguments with Brutus. When Brutus made an insult towards Cassius, he reacted so furiously that even he went to the point of offering his life just to prove that he was right. Cassius's impulsiveness was also displayed when he killed himself after hearing that Titinius was captured, doing so without thinking first whether or not what he heard was true and that his friend his was captured. Cassius’s impetuous personality also led to his downfall. When he murdered Caesar, his jealousy and anger caused him to act irrationally. Because of his poor judgment, Cassius and his conspirators were convicted by the Romans as traitors and murderers instead of bringers of justice. Brutus' distinction from Cassius was that Brutus, in the play, displayed calmness, straight forwardness, and nobility, but his downfall was his gullible nature. After being tricked by Cassius to kill Caesar, Brutus believed that killing Julius was for the greater good of the Republic, rather than what Cassius expressed as a power grab. Brutus cherished Rome so much that he decided killing his friend Caesar was worth it, in order to protect the city from Caesar’s ambition. In many ways, the personalities of Brutus and Cassius differ from each other greatly, but it is because of this difference between the characters, that people are capable of understanding the characters more by being informed with the personality of the character’s opposite. The second main point and first similarity between Brutus and Cassius was their ability to persuade people.
Politicians use their rhetorical skill of persuasion to gain power and to influence large, erratic crowds, and seeming friends to lie outright to each other. Persuasion and suggestion are rhetorical skills that play central roles in Julius Caesar, but they also highlight the willingness of individuals in hard times to hear what they want to hear. From the beginning of the play till the end, persuasiveness and influence played a key role in the plot of the story. First, Cassius, being the cunning person that he was, easily fooled Brutus into taking part in his plan by tricking Brutus' mind into thinking that Caesar is taking over Rome as a Tyrant. Then, Brutus, believing Cassius, was able to sway many Romans towards this mindset, ending in the death of Caesar, and also the death of many due to this
treason. The third main point and second similarity between Brutus and Cassius was why they disagreed with Caesar.
Envy plays one of the strongest and most insidious motivations in human nature. Cassius displayed three reasons why he believed that Caesar should die, he was subverting the republic, he was too weak of a leader, and he sought power. Cassius advised that Caesar would not be physically able to carry out his duties and that this weakness would be interpreted by enemies as the powerlessness of the republic. Due to the future and the reflecting views of the republic, the idea of removing Caesar from the lead becomes a critical issue. Brutus's one and only reason was that Julius would have too much power which would, in the end, not benefit Rome. Because Cassius and Brutus equally considered the future of Rome was in jeopardy, they united in order to eliminate the risk of future
peril. Some people believe that when Julius Caesar becomes a dictator, he would not develop Rome, and that killing him would aid the already bleeding Rome, but this statement is not true. In the five years that Julius reigned over Rome, he made a number of notable impacts on the city of Rome. Plus, Caesar becoming a supreme leader who would eliminate the devious counsel that was in place over Rome. Some people also state that the play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, is an accurate form of ancient history, but this statement is also false. Though the setting and all the characters are historically accurate, there are many fallacies throughout the play, including how many times that Caesar was stabbed. Brutus and Cassius, the two main leaders of Caesar's assassination, were unique in their personalities, ability to persuade, and reasons why they disagreed with Caesar. Brutus killed Caesar, not only the leader of Rome, but one of his closest and dearest friends for the greater of their country.