Underlying all acts of representation is the need to construct a credible viewpoint.

To what extent does your study of conflicting perspectives support this statement?

Composers may attempt to remain objective in order to consummate genuine links and connections
with their audience however, their representations are grounded in the values of their context. Such
ideas are apparent in Shakespeares Elizabethan tragedy Julius Caesar that is founded on his ideology
that leader assassination is abhorrent whereas, Winston Churchills 1941 speech to the Allied Delegates
effectively uses bias to present wartime ideals to self-advocate his own leadership against a common
enemy. These distinctly different approaches have the power to persuade their audiences through the
modes of representation and confirm credibility. Both texts despite changing times, display diverging
viewpoints on the intricacy of political conflict: perhaps textually metonymic of the ethical and moral
divergence that defines human existence.

Shakespeare presents the complexity of humanity through conflicting perspectives in order to deride
the act of assassination as a value of repulsiveness. His representation aims to present Caesars raw
humanity and engage the audiences sympathy. This is accurately highlighted through the conflicting
representation of Brutus and Antony in the funeral orations. Within Julius Caesar, Brutus is perhaps
symbolic of democratic morality, despite his fallacious judgment. In the climatic act 3, in accordance
with his stoic nature, he ultimately employs a logos appeal in attempting to vindicate the
assassination, which is clearly seen through his use of antithesis: Had you rather Caesar were living
and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men? However, Brutuss argument is
supported by his established reputation, which perhaps inadvertently insinuates an element of hubris,
which Antony purposely capitalises on, using rhetoric and syllogism to undermine Brutuss oration: I
thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he
was ambitious; And, sure, he is an honourable man. Shakespeare characterises Antony, who driven by
passion, not only elucidates the inconsistencies and ostensible elitism of Brutuss oration: perhaps a
partial consequence of Brutus own personal conflict: himself at war, but elevates Plebeian support
for himself in order to incite civil war. Shakespeare utilises Plutarchs material that is relative to the
audiences historical knowledge to prompt familiarity and ground his perspectives in the values of his
time, thereby constructing a credible viewpoint.

Caesars leadership is heightened through the amalgamation of other individuals admirations
towards him in an Elizabethan context. However contrastingly, as a different approach, Winston
Churchill promotes wartime ideals in a more modern era, to raise his own leadership position by
deliberately conflicting Hitlers weaknesses and his own strengths. This is evident through his
strongly biased speech - historically symbolic of the ideological disparity that marred the political
milieu in World War II. In attempting to denigrate Nazism, he specifically uses juxtaposition, to
present Hitler as frail and ageing, in order to accentuate how he will bring about a fresh revelatory
leadership: I am here, your excellency. Years ahead of Hitler. Emotive words such as prostrate and
entrapped are accentuated to heighten the state of terror in the audience and amplify Churchills
saviour-like qualities.

He purposely uses a hyperbole and repetition what tragedies, what horrors, what crimes has Hitler
done! juxtaposed to what I wont do, when it is I to ground himself as the futuristic leader in the
eyes of his contemporaries. In order capitalise on the fear of his audience and evoke sympathy for
himself, he uses rage-filled connotations and supernatural allusions, The fire of the enemy and his
curse! in stark contrast to I am here, to rid of him!. Churchill also uses oratory, which, given the
wartime context, was highly persuasive: the tone and expressions become a powerful conduit for
influencing the masses.
He manipulates the structures of his form in order to elevate his own leadership through scare tactics.
However, due to his self-representations being coloured with emotion, the validity of his viewpoint
instills doubt and is more readily questionable.

In contrast to Churchill, Shakespeare effectively uses the persuasive powers of oratory and divergent
viewpoints within the framework of an emotional play; therefore, audiences are more amenable to his
credible viewpoint. Antony and Brutus eulogies utilise tone and gestures to appeal to the patriotic
values of the audience: the public forum, a traditional means of communication in Roman culture.
Given Shakespeares anti-assassination ideology, his representations raise questions of constructed
truths. Antonys use of iambic pentameter and metaphor produces a poetic, elegiac effect which is
perhaps more suitable for the solemnity of the occasion: My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
and I must pause till it come back to me. Antony appeals to the universal values that encompass
humanity. Shakespeare crafts his ideology through the characterisation of Antony, juxtaposing his
eulogy to Brutus Believe me on my honour. Shakespeare crafts his ideology on assassination
through the characterisation of a passionate, sympathetic Antony versus a patriotic Brutus. Indeed,
Antonys germane passion capitalises on the audiences receptiveness to emotion: the human psyche,
is perhaps, more responsive to sentiments of passion, than rationalism.
Furthermore, Antonys use of iambic pentameter establishes a sense of equality with the audience and
allows for greater sympathy towards him: juxtaposing the condescending, commanding tone, be
silent, that you may hear, that seemingly mars Brutus oration. The credibility of this text is founded
on its adherence to contextual values, as it stimulates greater acceptance and connection with the
audience.

Despite changing times, the political domain remains the most predominant subject of exploration to
date. Both play and speech forms present a platform for composers to construct credible viewpoints
depending on the context of the time and the integrity of the presenter. The audience either questions
the credibility of the viewpoint or is swayed by its construct.







Anmol Sharma

Composers may attempt to remain objective in
order to consummate genuine links and
connections with their audience however, their
representations are grounded in the values of
their context. Such ideas are apparent in
Shakespeares Elizabethan tragedy Julius Caesar
that is founded on his ideology that leader
assassination is abhorrent whereas, Winston
Churchills 1941 speech to the Allied Delegates
effectively uses bias to present wartime ideals
to self-advocate his own leadership against a
common enemy.
In the climatic act 3, in accordance with his
stoic nature, he ultimately employs a logos
appeal in attempting to vindicate the
assassination, which is clearly seen through his
use of antithesis: Had you rather Caesar were
living and die all slaves, than that Caesar were
dead, to live all free men? However, Brutuss
argument is supported by his established
reputation, which perhaps inadvertently
insinuates an element of hubris, which Antony
purposely capitalises on,
These distinctly different approaches have the
power to persuade their audiences through the
modes of representation but also raise
questions on their credibility. Both texts
despite changing times, display diverging
viewpoints on the intricacy of political conflict:
perhaps textually metonymic of the ethical and
moral divergence that defines human existence.

Using rhetoric and syllogism to undermine
Brutuss oration: I thrice presented him a kingly
crown, Which he did thrice refuse: was this
ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
Shakespeare characterises Antony, who driven
by passion, not only elucidates the
inconsistencies and ostensible elitism of
Brutuss oration: perhaps a partial consequence
of Brutus own personal conflict: himself at
war, but elevates Plebeian support for himself
in order to incite civil war.

Shakespeare presents the complexity of
humanity through conflicting perspectives in
order to deride the act of assassination as a
value of repulsiveness. His representation aims
to present Caesars raw humanity and engage
the audiences sympathy. This is accurately
highlighted through the conflicting
representation of Brutus and Antony in the
funeral orations. Within Julius Caesar, Brutus is
perhaps symbolic of democratic morality,
despite his fallacious judgment.
Shakespeare utilises Plutarchs material that is
relative to the audiences historical knowledge
to prompt familiarity and ground his
perspectives in the values of his time, thereby
constructing a credible viewpoint.
Caesars leadership is heightened through the
amalgamation of other individuals admirations
towards him. However contrastingly, as a
different approach, Winston Churchill
promotes wartime ideals and values

I am here, your excellency. Years ahead of
Hitler. Emotive words such as prostrate and
entrapped are accentuated to heighten the
state of terror in the audience and amplify
Churchills saviour-like qualities. He purposely
use a hyperbole and repetition what tragedies,
what horrors, what crimes has Hitler done!
juxtaposed to what I wont do, when it is I to
ground himself as the futuristic leader in the
eyes of his contemporaries.
To raise his own leadership position through
deliberately conflicting Hitlers weaknesses and
his own strengths. This is evident through his
strongly biased speech - historically symbolic of
the ideological disparity that marred the
political milieu in World War II. In attempting
to denigrate Nazism, he specifically uses
juxtaposition, to present Hitler as frail and
ageing, in order to accentuate how he will bring
about a fresh revelatory leadership:

In order capitalise on the fear of his audience
and evoke sympathy for himself, he uses rage-
filled connotations and supernatural allusions,
The fire of the enemy and his curse! Churchill
also uses oratory, which, given the wartime
context, was highly persuasive: the tone and
expressions become a powerful conduit for
influencing the masses. He manipulates the
structures of his form in order to elevate his
own leadership through scare tactics.

However, due to his self-representations being
coloured with emotion, the validity of his
viewpoint instills doubt and is more readily
questionable.
In contrast to Churchill, Shakespeare effectively
uses the persuasive powers of oratory and
divergent viewpoints within the framework of
an emotional play; therefore, audiences are
more amenable to his credible viewpoint.
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, and I
must pause till it come back to me. Antony
appeals to the universal values that encompass
humanity. Shakespeare crafts his ideology
through the characterisation of Antony,
juxtaposing his eulogy to Brutus Believe me
on my honour. Shakespeare crafts his ideology
on assassination through the characterisation
of a passionate, sympathetic Antony versus a
patriotic Brutus.
Indeed, Antonys germane passion capitalises
on the audiences receptiveness to emotion: the
human psyche, is perhaps, more responsive to
sentiments of passion, than rationalism.
Furthermore, Antonys use of iambic
pentameter establishes a sense of equality with
the audience and allows for greater sympathy
towards him: juxtaposing the condescending,
commanding tone, be silent, that you may
hear, that seemingly mars Brutus oration.

Antony and Brutus eulogies utilise tone and
gestures to appeal to the patriotic values of the
audience: the public forum, a traditional means
of communication in Roman culture. Given
Shakespeares anti-assassination ideology, his
representations raise questions of constructed
truths. Antonys use of iambic pentameter and
metaphor produces a poetic, elegiac effect
which is perhaps more suitable for the
solemnity of the occasion:
The credibility of this text is founded on its
adherence to contextual values, as it stimulates
greater acceptance and connection with the
audience.
Despite changing times, the political domain
remains the most predominant subject of
exploration to date. Both play and speech forms
present a platform for composers to construct
credible viewpoints depending on the context of
the time and the integrity of the presenter. The
audience either questions the credibility of the
viewpoint or is swayed by its construct.