What happens when a person, even with no evidence, decides somebody else is a danger to society? This is what was examined in William Shakespeare's play, “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar”, where the title character is brutally killed by his allies and close friend Brutus after they decide that he would be a tyrannical leader, even though he has not shown definite proof that he would be anything less than a capable leader. The cautionary tale of Caesar shows what could happen to a person if their rise to power is marred by jealousy from another group, but even if the murder was able to be justified in the eyes of the conspirators, it was not in the eyes of the public. Although Brutus was acting out of fear when he killed Caesar, his actions were …show more content…
Not only does this ignore how Brutus neglected to look at the evidence against the tyrant Caesar theory, but it also paints Brutus as the fallen hero of Rome. The issue with idealizing Brutus as a hero is that he gladly manipulated the people as they were clamoring for answers, commenting,” Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves?” (Shakespeare III. II. 22-23). The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of If Brutus cared for Rome as much as he claimed, then he would have seen that Caesar was fully devoted to the wellbeing of Rome. But instead, he compared himself to his heroic ancestor and decided that he would be the savior of Rome. As Brutus cries,” My ancestors did from the streets of Rome the Tarquin drive, when he was call’d a king. “Speak, strike, redress.” Shakespeare II. I. 53-55). The aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid afor While Brutus started his cause by pledging to protect Rome, he ended the life of Caesar because he wanted to be a