Writing a Julius Caesar persuasive essay is an extremely sophisticated task, inasmuch as it is always particularly difficult to write a decent paper about a work of genius and there exist no doubts that both of them – Shakespeare and his literary hero – are geniuses. Many peculiarities have been ascribed to Julius Caesar in distinguishing its particular status in the Shakespearean canon. However, the central feature of Julius Caesar is the controversial nature of the event: the tremendous stature of the historic figure, his noble merits and demerits, and the verdict are to be passed on the key figure in the conspiracy - Brutus, the man whose name was synonymous with unquestionable softness and straightforwardness. Thereby, it is no surprise that a great number of Julius Caesar essay topics is dedicated to the main protagonist of this play, Brutus, who was the beneficiary of Caesar’s nobility - and who may even have been the Caesar’s illegitimate descendant. In this connection, one can discover a small number of critical works that are dedicated to the man who gave his name to this play. Nevertheless, a Julius Caesar tragic hero essay is rather a rare topic than a critical commonplace.
Thus, a person who wishes to look at this play from a new original angle will be inevitably faced with a considerable amount of contradictions in literary sources. Even the best services that provide educational materials about different religious studies and historical sources cannot supply the writer with absolutely correct information about all nuances of Shakespeare’s work. For example, it is a critical commonplace that Julius Caesar is one of Shakespeare’s “Roman” works, a rubric also applied to Antony and Cleopatra, The Rape of Lucrece, Titus Andronicus and Coriolanus. The obvious setting notwithstanding, academics diverge widely on what, if anything unites these plays, or even on what Rome is implied to present. A brief list of the most admitted concepts is as follows:
When Shakespeare brought Julius Caesar to the stage, he was contributing with historians and engaging in a dynamic dispute with all those observers who were endowed with a copious or fragmentary knowledge of the tragic events of March 44 BC and the acts of Julius Caesar. Various coursework examples and a solid number of critical essays indicate that the play itself incorporates many retellings of events, representations in the form of letters and epistles, symbolic representations like Caesar’s images, the trophies and the crown, and a multiplicity of stage props in the political theater which lies at the center of the play—such as Mark Antony’s appropriation of “Caesar’s vesture wounded” - and the transformative power of words themselves, particularly when molded and gilded as they are in Antony’s funeral oration.
Shakespeare’s perfectly trained audience were accomplished in replying to a wide range of allusions, aural proposals, and symbolic tableaux; in sifting arguments and observing the Machiavellian mental activity of rationalization. The sources, then, are not merely the stuff, the materials, the dramaturge draws on to compose the play, but dynamic ingredients that the audience is required to bear in mind. Here is a play about uncertainty. No correct interpretation of any set of events seems possible - everything depends on who is narrating the story. Thereby, for one who is writing a descriptive essay on this play the conditions become even more difficult, because history is never solely recording or retelling; it involves reshaping, not only by the dramatist, narrator or/and historian, but also by participants in the event. A part of the incredibly transformative, hermeneutic energy of Julius Caesar lies in this realization of transforming facts and doings.
Without a doubt, the Shakespeare’s “translation” consists of a discourse with Plutarch, all the other historic documents which had come his way, and the debates that Shakespeare had encountered through plays, arguments, disputes, and private debates. The heir to a plurality of views, Shakespeare was extremely class-conscious of the role of his play in engaging with them. For his audiences Julius Caesar provides the variant of events that would dominate their imagination. While there is no way of retrieving even the ghosts of the manifold contributions to a discussion that had continued from the moment of the manslaughter to the time when Shakespeare began his magnificent play, it is possible to chart in great details the playwright’s response to Plutarch and to clarify the implications of his metamorphoses. Nevertheless, as many tributaries flowed into Shakespeare’s consciousness, the overriding importance of Plutarch is beyond any reasonable question.