Who's the true hero in the play, Julius Caesar and Why?

Question

Brutus? Caesar? Anthony?

Answer 1

That might largely depend on ones point of view,,, IN the Reality,,, especially if you happened to be JC.

Certainly many commoners/subject likely applauded his demise, and the conspiracy was laid out by his own troops and government.

I suspect He felt himself to be the HERO of Rome,,, even GOD like. The ROMANCE of the "story" includes M.A. may may be highly fictionalized or embellished.

Brutus, as one of the deliverers of J.C.'s death could be looked on as a hero, but was in fact as much a coward as was Judas.

Perhaps in the end, the true heros were the people, the population of Rome, who had endured the RULE, and were coming through it to end in a much better society, and governing format.

Steven Wolf

Answer 2

The terms hero, protagonist, and central character are often used interchangeably, but they have different functions in a story. In JC, there is enough material to support the idea that any of them could be the "hero" -- unfortunately, arguments can be made against each of them as well.

Maybe the play is more experimental than we've been led to believe.

In the Aristotelian sense, a tragic hero is one with a single, central character flaw which leads to a downfall. Caesar's pride would work for that, as would Brutus' naive following of others, Marc Antony's frivolousness, or even Cassius' ambition.

I propose that Caesar is a more complicated play, in that it is four plays presented as one and that each play is an examination of one character in relationship to an idea. The idea is Julius Caesar and what he represents -- the state, power, pride.

Each individual play overlaps with the next, the central character of the first being Caesar himself, the next Cassius, the next Brutus, and the final being Antony. As Caesar begins his downfall, Cassius' story of manipulation takes over, igniting Brutus' story, which in turn incites Antony to take heroic action.

There are some other structural elements in the play that support the idea of its being more non-traditional than other plays of its kind and of its day -- which is often the case in Shakespeare's plays, although they are skillfully written that they appear absolutely traditional.

Answer 3

pricey ideal answer author, whoever you're, I even could disagree at your factor of putting forward that Cassius really needed him to get on the point of Caesar and the actual shown actuality that you assert that Cassius not in any respect suspected that Brutus would take over the conspirators- Cassius possibly used Brutus to go back in course of Caesar a touch, yet that wasn't his major reason. Brutus replaced into accepted for his loyalty to Rome, and Cassius used this trait hostile to him- Cassius needed extra human beings to affix the conspiracy and he concept with Marcus Brutus as %. chief, human beings would imagine the conspiracy replaced into for a suitable reason. He needed Brutus's image of honor and trustworthiness to the folk. Cassius replaced into on the point of Brutus- his brother-in-regulation- subsequently he knew Brutus had a lust for power... Cassius o.k. knew what he replaced into getting into even as asking Brutus to affix the conspiracy. Plus Brutus would not in any respect had agreed if it hadn't been for the solid notes from 'the Romans' telling Brutus to ascertain him as others did. did not you note how the tables on the prompt grew to develop into and Brutus grew to develop into chief once the conspirators walked through the door? And it replaced into not only because they were in Brutus's living house that he keen to steer the %..

Answer 4

I think Brutus was the hero. His story is tragic.