![]() One of the central arguments of the play is that, in the context of ancient Rome, kingship is equated with tyranny. Through Brutus’s moral plight, Shakespeare argues that it’s hardly possible for moral principle and political advancement to coexist one will inevitably undermine the other.īrutus’s principled opposition to monarchy is exploited by more politically ambitious characters like Cassius, who are simply hungry for power. Giving in to Cassius on either of his moral points, then, would have prevented Brutus's ruin, but violated his principles. ![]() Brutus's strict moral code makes no allowance for self-preservation, however, and so he rejects the killing of Antony, and even allows Antony to address the plebeians-a step that wins Antony mass support and proceeds to Brutus’s and the conspirators’ ultimate demise. The entire play centers around Brutus upholding the truth of two moral statements: First, that monarchy is intrinsically tyrannical and secondly, that killing Caesar, an as-yet-innocent man, is morally acceptable if it prevents Rome from becoming a monarchy. Since the Rome of Julius Caesar is portrayed as the pinnacle of civilization, arguments about Rome’s governance are also arguments about what constitutes an ideal government.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |