Discuss julius caesar as a tragedy of internal conflicting motives. In 300 words
Answers
There are many conflicts at work in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, but I'll focus on what I take to be the three main ones: the triumvirs vs. the conspirators, friendship vs. the needs of the state, and personal ambition vs. democratic governance.
The first conflict, the triumvirs vs. the conspirators, is the most obvious, as it takes the form of a civil war onstage, rather than as an abstract concept floating around in the ether. In the play, the triumvirs—Octavius, Antony, and Lepidus—engage the conspirators—most notably Cassius and Brutus—in open warfare on the battlefield. They do so to avenge Caesar's death and bring the assassins to justice (and also, one can assume, to take control of the power vacuum left in the wake of Caesar's absence).
The second conflict, friendship vs. the needs of the state, is a little more abstract, as it unfurls within the confines of Brutus' psyche. Brutus and Caesar are known to have a strong relationship as close friends; however, Brutus has also come to fear Caesar's unchecked ambition and the potentially autocratic implications it could have for the future of Rome. As such, Brutus must decide whether his friendship with Caesar is more or less important than the health of the Roman state. In the end, Rome wins.
The last conflict, personal ambition vs. democratic governance, can be seen in many forms. First and most obviously, we can see it manifest in Caesar's desire to rule Rome singlehandedly and the conspirators' desire to stop him at all costs. Second, we can also see it in Antony's willingness to employ an angry mob to catapult him to a higher position of power, disregarding the fact that the conspirators were fighting to protect Rome's representative government. This conflict is the most far-reaching of the play's tensions, and its tragic outcome (personal ambition seems to defeat democracy) still resonates today.
Mark it as brainlist