• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Would Julius Caesar have become a Tyrant if he'd been allowed to live?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Would Julius Caesar have become a Tyrant if he'd been allowed to live? Julius Caesar: the ruler of Rome who was slain because he was 'ambitious', yet how much of this statement is true. The Shakespeare play begins with a triumphant Caesar: the previous triumvirate dissipated - Crassus dead in battle and Pompey assassinated a new system is in place with Caesar at the top. Yet was it just unhappy chance that brought us here, or the continuation, and works instigated as a result, of Caesar's ambition? Caesar was judiciously reviewed by the conspirators as 'too ambitious' for the glory of Rome, and as it transpires, for his own good as well - he was murdered because of it. Was said, in truth, a judicious review or one afflicted and soiled by the personal feelings of Cassius - a jealous nostalgic man? Is Brutus really the quintessence of honour, whether he believes it or not? Shakespeare's script opens with the narrative concerning Flavius and Marullus. These two tribunes are testifying against Caesar to some citizens of Rome who are celebrating Caesar's glory. This scene not only lays down the main idea of conflict over Caesar (those who think he should live and those who think he should but gives a strong case against him forwarded by the pair of Flavius and Marullus. ...read more.

Middle

Calphurnia: "Alas my lord, Your wisdom is consumed in confidence. Do not go forth today" Caesar: Mark Antony shall say I am not well, And for thy humour I will stay at home." [Act 2; scene 2 lines 48-50/55-56] Proof of their close and relaxed relationship is shown by the fact Calphurnia can suggest her husband is overconfident. Although she does cover this liberty up with compliments ('your wisdom is consumed in confidence') this is a right no normal friend of Caesar's could have because we have already established Caesar as a proud man. She seems to know him surprisingly well. Quickly, Caesar relents and lets Calphurnia have her way. This submission is evidence of a break in Caesar's arrogance. However, this breach seems to extend solely to and for his wife for when a herald enters the scene Caesar's barriers are back up. When asked to explain why he cannot go to the senate that day Caesar answers: "The cause is in my will." [Act 2; scene 2 line 71] This defiance of reason shows Caesar's current power in the senate. He has strong faith that even his whim will satisfy the 'graybeards' in the senate. Caesar's relationship with Calphurnia is made less significant because of Brutus' with his wife; Portia. ...read more.

Conclusion

Caesar himself does neither strongly incriminate nor clear himself. The constant arrogance found in him can be countered with his gentle behaviour towards his wife but is backed up again by the examples found of his arrogance resurfacing afterwards. Caesar speaks strongly for his innocence when we hear (via Casca ironically) that the Senate offered him the crown thrice and he thrice renounced it. This might have been a ploy to subdue anger against him but I find this unlikely for many reasons: 1. If he were really extremely arrogant than he would not have feared retribution from those who opposed him. 2. He had a lot of support and controlled the Senate - he could have easily dealt with serious opposition to his crowning. It must be said that Casca did mention 'he was fain to have it' so this tact by Caesar may have been a ploy. Caesar never wholly incriminates himself and the arguments put against him are not justified on anything above suppositions. Antony who knew him best kept loyal and the ambition he had may not have come from Caesar. Killing Caesar on suppositions is wrong according to judicial law today and morals should come into the debate. Caesar is innocent according to the poor prosecution as opposed to a strong defence. Cassius is so ridden with guilt during the consequent civil war that Brutus is needed to keep him from suicide. Nicolas Long English Coursework ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Julius Caesar section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Julius Caesar essays

  1. Julius Caesar- Mark Antony speech - Analysis

    He was my friend, faithful and just to me: But Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man. He hath brought many captives home to Rome, Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?

  2. Discuss Shakespeare's presentation of the speeches of Brutus and Antony in Act 3 Scene ...

    This also throws in a question of doubt and furthermore, it is the starting point of a series of queries of whether Caesar was actually ambitious. Shakespeare then develops Antony's previous thought, saying, "if it were so, it was a grievous fault".

  1. In William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", honour is displayed as a main theme throughout the ...

    You can tell this because Caesar says, " et tu, Brute." Most people would of seen Brutus as being in control of the murder of Julius Caesar because he doesn't allow Antony to be killed as well as Caesar. He says, "Our corse will seem too bloody."

  2. Explore the dramatic effectiveness of Act 1 of Julius Caesar.

    He is superstitious and lacks determination. By line 215 Shakespeare introduces another character into the play, Casca. Casca is a nobleman who didn't have anything to do with the plot against Caesar up till now. Cassius and Brutus question Casca about what happened and why the crowd shouted three times

  1. Explain how Mark Antony was able to persuade the plebeians of Rome that the ...

    orator has, which is ironical as he has the intelligence, reputation, and gesture to easily persuade the plebeians. The response from the plebeians it that they want to destroy the conspirators homes; "We'll house of the Brutus." If Antony were a "plain blunt man" then he would have not been able to persuade the plebeians so easily.

  2. With close reference to the text explain how Mark Antony manipulates the crowd after ...

    The contemporary relevance of this is that in some countries that are lead in dictatorship e.g. in Saudi Arabia the king chooses a successor to take over after they cease to exist. This can also be relevant to countries that have a parliament but also have a monarchy e.g.

  1. Free essay

    Julius Caesar

    he talks to the Plebeians about him only doing what was right for Rome, we know him as quite a cautious character; this nature of his came out in his speech, when he asks the crowd at regular intervals if he has offended them, and when it was silent he would start as he meant to finish.

  2. Julius Caesar

    I will now explain Mark Antony's speech. Mark Antony used deceitful lies to entice the audience into thinking that what Brutus had done was just pure treason, done without reason. Another lie MA used was -"Friends, Romans, countrymen lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work