ANALYSIS OF MARCUS BRUTUS Though Julius Caesar is the title-bearing character of the play, he is assassinated in scene 3.1; the remaining three acts of the drama centers around the internal and external conflicts of another character—Marcus Brutus. In fact, the play not only devotes its latter half to his tragedy—the entire play, including the plot up until Caesar’s assassination, all describe the gradual psychological development of Brutus and lay out the background for his larger tragedy, which incorporates the entity of the play. Through reading, one can grasp the self-conflicting thoughts of Brutus, and visualize his changes in thoughts. The tragedy of Marcus Brutus is mainly caused by his naivety to Roman politics—namely that of the other conspirators—and his …show more content…
By stating that “I know no personal cause to spurn at him but for the general,” (2.1.11-2) Brutus is essentially reassuring himself that whatever he might choose to do in the end, treacherous or not, will ultimately be done for what he believes to be the general good. Brutus then justifies himself to the conspiracy about to come by hypothesizing “he would be crowned,” (2.1.12) and then conjecturing dictatorial actions that Caesar would be able to do if he were crowned. He uses several metaphors throughout the speech to vividly describe to himself how bleak Rome would be if Caesar were crowned, thus further justifying his actions by means of the fearful possibilities that lie ahead. For example, the metaphor of climbing a ladder somehow proves to Brutus himself that Caesar, once made powerful, will “scorn … the base degrees by which he did ascend.” (2.1.26-7) This metaphor, along with the one of a “serpent’s egg” (2.1.32) hatching, builds up fear and in a sense confidence in Brutus’s heart—enabling him to find peace and defense in joining the murder, described as “kill[ing] him in the shell.”