Julius Brutus Aristotle Analysis

1624 Words 7 Pages
An Aristotelian Outlook on Two Very Different Tales
Aristotle defines a tragedy as “the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself; in appropriate and pleasurable language;... in a dramatic rather than narrative form; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish a catharsis of these emotions” (Meyer 2). Or to put in simpler terms, completing a serious action that has the depth within itself to arouse fear in an effort to cleanse any current emotions. This definition can be applied to novels such as Julius Caesar and Medea, one revolving around the conspiracy against an ancient Roman leader, and the other, centered on a wife 's calculated desire for revenge against her unfaithful husband. Both works of literature can be carefully analyzed
…show more content…
3.1. 172-175). Throughout the play, readers see that Brutus’ rule ends much like Caesar 's, and when looking at the play in the sense of tragedy, Marcus Brutus remains the tragic hero. He can be accounted as a tragic hero because he is unfailingly presented as a noble, upright, virtuous man who is, led into the tragic act of betraying a friend; and for this suffers both internal and external conflict. Shakespearean tragic heroes, according to Aristotle, are generally characters who are upstanding figures, well-spoken, but who are let down by one major flaw. Brutus fits into this template. His flaw is his idealism – although it might seem strange to label this as a flaw, it is undeniable that it leads to a fatal naivety on his part. He first is naïve enough to think that his political idealism can change all personal concerns in turning against Caesar, a close

Related Documents