Shakespeare Julius Caesar Act III Scene II Analysis

Shakespeare Julius Caesar Act III Scene II Analysis

         The death of unborn tyrant of Rome Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare is this week blogpost. The blogpost discusses the following issues that the play Julius Caesar raises: Two different art of persuasion, Reverse psychology, Mark Anthony speech as masterpiece of wicked and sly demagoguery. Moreover, critical opinions about these issues will be expressed in the blog, as we will show variety of meanings and results that such remarkable play contains.

Keywords: Rhetoric, regicide, the Elizabethan times, Mischief, reverse psychology.

In the Roman times there was the idea of having no tyrant as Rome was ruled by the senators (powerful institution). Julius Caesar a powerful senate and a leader that have possessed the ability to become a tyrant and were proposed the crown several times yet he rejected it. Caesar was killed by his friends one of which was Brutus man with principles and honourable friend of Caesar. Mark Anthony devoted follower of Caesar and Brutus both stand against the crowd justifying the death of Caesar.

  The power of rhetoric and oratory skills:           

First Brutus speaks, then Anthony, both of them are aiming to persuade the crowd to their side. We will observe mostly Anthony’s speech and its effect on the crowd. Brutus speaks to the people in prose rather than in verse. He quickly convinces the people that Caesar had to die because he would have become a tyrant and brought suffering to them all. Mark Anthony’s speech was performed through the use of rhetorical strategies in his speech after Caesar’s death, he successfully debunks Brutus’s assumptions. Beginning with Kairos, which is using the correct timing, in his speech. He allows Brutus to speak before him, which gives him the opportunity to rebut Brutus’s argument. Anthony’s entire arguments are based on providing examples to counter Brutus’s initial claim that Caesar was ambitious. Then with Exdoxa, or commonly held beliefs. Mark Anthony uses events that citizens witnessed as support for his position, by reminding them of the wealth that Caesar brought to Rome, his sympathy for the poor, and his refusal to take the throne when offered it, which are details seeming to disprove any charges of ambition. Now if we think of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech, and the repeated emphasis in that speech. Anthony did the same thing with the phrase "For Brutus is an honorable man, So are they all, all honorable men" or "But Brutus says he was ambitious, And Brutus is an honorable man." (3.2.84-85). The phrase is repeated four times, allowing the crowd to question Brutus' honor. The next step in his speech was to pause and to weep openly before the plebeians, which makes them feel pity for him and for his case. Then furthermore, he descends from the pulpit which is an effective way of becoming one with the people than Brutus’s strategy of speaking in prose. He, then, reveals Caesar's wounds, as he is fully aware, that image speaks far better for his cause than any words possibly could, then he pretends to hold them back, but only wishes to stir them up more. He claims, with false modesty, that he is not a great orator, like Brutus, and that he doesn’t intend to incite revolt. Yet in this very sentence he effects the exact opposite of what his words say, he was able light up the fire of the people’s fury with his presentation of Caesar’s will. Showing his intent to share his wealth with the people of Rome. Anthony utilizes the people’s sense of injustice at being stripped of so generous a ruler. The people completely forget their former sympathy for Brutus and rise up against the conspirators, leaving Anthony to marvel at the force of what he has done.

“The power of speech has the same effect on the condition of the soul as      the application of drugs to the state of bodies; for just as different drugs dispel different fluids from the body, and some bring an end to disease but others end life, so also some speeches cause pain, some pleasure, some fear; some instil courage, some drug and bewitch the soul with a kind of evil persuasion”.

                                                                                                  ~Greek Sophist Gorgias in 414 BC~

Julius Caesar’s play is a highly effective way of delivering a moral lesson for its viewers. A simple analysis of the two ways of convincing presented in this blogpost shows how the choice of the art of persuasion resulted in a succession of speeches. This strong psychological fight made the listeners –The senators- feel a quick change of mind regarding the issue presented until a point at which Brutus lost the duel with Anthony’s final trick.   

Hrafnkell's Saga : Freysgoða.

Hrafnkell's Saga : Freysgoða.

The heroic stories on the Icelandic lands, brings a breeze of thoughts about wonders of morals and life aspects of that time. Harfnkel Saga is one of those stories, which we will approach from the points of warning and blames, collaborating to win, killing as sin, forgiveness as decision and by expressing some critical opinions on each point to reach different meanings and outcomes of such legendary Saga.

In Icelandic times about 10th century, Hrafnkel’s Saga tells the story of chasing rights and battling over power in which one farmer loses his life as he did what Hrafnkel the chieftain warned him not do. This triggers the consequences and turns of fate between Sar and Hranfnkel, which takes you through a journey of pursuing ones right, forgiveness, regret, and strategic decisions.

In this text we can see that there are 3 dominant morals. The first one is that warning wards off the blame , if someone warns you not to do something he has the right to blame you afterwards , that was the case for example when Hrafnkell told Einarr no to ride his horse , and he still disobeyed and got killed for it. Warning  should not justify extreme acts such as killing , to make them understand that, we would say then lets warn those who warn and take away their lives without any blame,  how bitter their own medicine would taste in their mouths ! The second moral that we can extract from the text is that even if someone is too strong to overcome by yourself, you can ally with other people to defeat him. It the case when Þorbjörn  asked Sámr to help him  to win a law suit against Hrafnkell .In that sense , as we collaborate and fight together with the sword of law and justice, no matter how giant the monster will be, we could bring it to its knees in front of justice.  The last dominant moral from the text is that wherever you go, your sins will always follow you it is illustrated with Hrafnkell in which he could not escape from his sin of killing a person without a well justified reason, therefore he was chased after by the people. That is the little catch with the sin of killing, once you commit it, it becomes your shadow.

This text can particularly teach us how to behave since it shows that we have to respect promises which was the case of Einarr who promised hrafnkell not to ride Freyfaxi, but he eventually did it because every horse he approached runs away. Ironically, Herfnkell was identified as murderer where all he did was to keep his word, whereas Einarr is seen as a victim and yet he broke his promise, which leads to his death. Furthermore this Icelandic saga teaches us that an attack on a man’s honor is one of the greatest offenses and respect is the most precious thing in order to endure any kind of relationship. Another lesson to be gained for the saga is that ones you forgive an enemy, people will no longer stand with you against that enemy, when you take a decision concerning your enemy, it would be beneficial for you to listen to your supporters and the people who helped you, because they are the backbone of your power, as in the end of the story Samr regrets not listening to his people as he realized that he lost their support.

Thoughts

Despite being the protagonist of his saga, by taking revenge, being outlawed by the brothers of the ones whom he killed, and initially worshipping as a pagan but later converting from his old Norse gods.
Hrafnkel, is a big fan of killing people for no reason.

At first he was presented as the antagonist driven by his own personal beliefs that he was superior to the rest of Iceland.
As he has established himself as the hand of Frey through an evil oath, and vows to kill others to fulfill this oath and also his choice of victims proves how he is an anti-hero.

Now wait a minute !! lets talk about that.

Its true that Hrafnkel’s murder of Einarr has been argued to be just by Richard Harris in his “The Proverbial Heart of Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða and by R.D. Fulk in his “The Moral System of Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða.”  Both shared the same thought that Hrafnkel’s murder of Einarr was justifiable, because it maintained his honor and respect amongst his servants and the chieftains.
It is certainly a good arguments But .. this still does not provide any logical reason of why an innocent ‘Einarr’ is killed.
Even if Einarr is considered as an insignificant part of the plot of the story, but it should not make the reader sympathize with Hrafnkel.
No valid argument supports his murder, because Einarr had never committed any real crime against Hrafnkel.
It might be the author’s purpose to show that a hero can continue on being a “hero” and to be praised for the killings he commits, as long as he abides by a certain codes of conduct which allows us to think that his victims deserved to be killed.

Sounds familiar… the author created an Icelandic version of Don Corleone.
How  well, we can notice it by the descriptions given to Hrafnkel; he respects most of all his family (in this case his sons and servants),
creates law and rules (His oath to Frey his horse), treating everyone equally, showing no mercy (Einarr) , corrupts his surrounding ( The chieftains, booths ).
And by the end of the saga Hrafnekl, is presented with the perfect opportunity to change his evil traits and manners, and to be considered a hero again (to play it clean), but with no doubts his evilness overrule him again.
What a surprise !.

In conclusion, the prototypical Icelandic saga hero is a one who is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of his family and land, all while
staying true to their personality whether a natural righter of wrongs or a mobster.

The Harfnkel Saga is a story that enables us to learn more about a civilization and a culture that gives a lot of importance to honor. The number of lessons that the reader can take from this saga is innumerable; from honor and vengeance to justice and equilibrium of powers. Harfnkel can be anyone of us, it doesn’t matter if you become overpowered, and it just takes one event to take you down.  The Icelandic history is to be studied more in detail, because it may hide a lot of interesting stories.