<doc.id=1057.b4>
<title> Essay on Julius Caesar - A close reading analysis </title>
In this essay I am going to look closer upon the character of Brutus in the abstract of Act III, Scene ii and lines 1 to 62. This is when Brutus is holding his speech to the people after Caesar's death. Prior to this passage, Antony has shook the conspirator's hands one by one, and been promised to speak at the funeral. 

"Romans, countrymen, and lovers, hear me for my cause," is the beginning of Brutus' speech. I can not help comparing this line with Antony's first line in his speech, which is "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears" (III.ii.74). Brutus shows more passion when he says 'lovers' instead of 'friends', but on the other hand he begins with 'Romans' which shows a greater distance than Antony's 'friends'. He is a passionate man on a distance.

Brutus appeals to the people to hear him out and gives them a reason why they should listen, namely because he is an honourable man, a man with good reputation along with his ancestors. Honour seems to be of great value and importance to Brutus. He then asks them to be reasonable and wise in their judgement of him. I doubt if a mob of people really are able to be that. They will probably follow the whim of what the first person says who opens his mouth. However, Brutus believes in his ideology and thinks that the people are able to be right in judgement. He believes in their wisdom more than he did in Caesar's. 

He repeats his love and respect for Caesar which I think is genuine, but he also cheats himself in this way. He might think that he murdered him for a greater cause, and the fact that he loved Caesar made the cause even more justified. If Brutus had killed, the honourable man that he was, it must have been for a really great cause. He would not have done it otherwise

Brutus praises Caesar's name but in the end he accuses him to be ambitious: 

There is tears for his love; joy for his fortune; honour 
 for his valour; and death for his ambition. (III.ii.27-28)
 
The reason for the murder is the fear of Caesar becoming the king of Rome and a person that would put the people in slavery. But was Caesar really ambitious? He had thrice refused the crone, i.e. to become king. Brutus killed for something that might have happened, a fear that the power would be used for personal winnings by Caesar. Why not wait and see what would have happened? Maybe Caesar would have been a great ruler. When I think what Brutus has said about him earlier in the play, that "I have not known when his affections swayed More than his reason" (II.i.20-21), I find it hard to believe that he still went through with it. Brutus made a choice between passion and reason in his mind and he chose reason. The passion for Caesar did not win over the fear of his potential powers as a king.

Brutus asks the people if they want to be slaves under Caesar or free Romans. Of course there is only one way of answering this question, in favour for Brutus. He also asks them if there is anyone that has anything to reply to what he has said? They do not come up with anything, but if they had been in their full whit, they would have questioned his honour, his love and his ideals. How can a man reason his way to justify a murder? How can a man be trusted who has killed a dear friend? 

The crowd accept his reason and cheer at him. They want to bring him home in triumph, make a statue out of him and finally someone even shouts, "Let him be Caesar." This must deeply have disappointed Brutus, at least if we think of his motives as noble. The people had not understood a word he was saying. They simply believed him because he was an honourable man. The reason why he has killed Caesar has not been understood at all by the mob. In stead, they want to make him the next Caesar. This should have opened his eyes on the fact that a crowd of people can not be trusted or make wise decisions. They are more passionate than reasonable. On the other hand, could it be that he had hidden reasons? Did he want to be the next Caesar with all the power? This is one example of how we can interpret Brutus in two opposite ways.

When Antony steps on the stage, Brutus declares that Antony had nothing to do with the murder of Caesar. Brutus is not afraid of him or what he will say to the people. In fact it is he who gives him the permission to speak. This trust of his makes him look quite naive and unrealistic. He is really convinced that what he did was the best solution and that Antony "shall receive the benefit of his dying". Brutus does not stay and listen to Antony's speech. He must have thought that it would not make any difference what he would say, that it only would be a tribute to the late man's glory and honour. I think there would have been a different development if Brutus had spoken after Antony, based on the fact that a crowd of people are passionate and will follow the feelings of the moment.

If we compare these two characters more closely, we can see with what different approach they have toward the people. If we know that people see more upon what you do than what you say, this is a good example. Antony showed sorrow. He was the one to carry Caesar's body out in the open. He spoke to the people as friends on their level. He physically came near the crowd and wanted them to see the wholes made from the conspirator's daggers. He appealed to their passion. What did Brutus do? He stood in a pulpit away from the people, and showed no sorrow. I believe that Brutus was passionate at heart but he did not show it. He had a strong conviction of what he thought was true and right, but in the way he brings forward his message, he can be said to be a politician with little compassion on the outside. Brutus does not know how to manipulate people in favour for his opinion or perhaps he deliberately does not want to do so. 

What makes me interpret Brutus in the way I do is affected by several things and not only those shown in this selected abstract. His love and kindness are made clear to us in other parts of the play, for example how he treats his wife Portia (II.i.234ff) and his servant Lucius (IV.iii.250ff). He is further on the only person in the play that puts the general good before his own, who have an ideal and holds on to it.

If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer; not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.(III.ii.19-22)

Brutus wants well but everything goes wrong. He has my sympathy but not my support. He is a tragic figure. 

There seem to be a danger in ideals. Brutus killed a friend because of it. It is something that force people to take action and not to be an observer. Therefore, I do not believe that passion and reason go together. If you have ideals it is often with some kind of passion. This makes them dangerous because of the force they hold. Ideals tend to be non-reasonable, we are likely to go ahead with our conviction no matter what. The stronger the passion, the bigger the faults are likely to be. In the case of Julius Caesar, I would say that the root of the evil comes from the fear of an other person's power. In today's society, there is a lot of bad things that are done simply because we fear one another.
</doc>