This concise quote explains Mark Antony's opinion on Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. He believes that the patrician "is a slight unmeritable man, meet to be sent on errands". Antony does not consider Lepidus to be of much importance, to such an extent that he questions Octavius if "the three-fold world divided, he should stand one of the three to share it?"

First and foremost, the audience is again presented with the cruel, ruthless persona of Mark Antony. His confidence and arrogance supposedly puts himself above others, and Antony's actions are only motivated by his selfish interests.

Mark Antony disregards Lepidus' importance in the upcoming campaign. In fact, he views him as a lowly errand-boy rather than an acquaintance and an equal. Antonius is not afraid to speak his mind to Octavius, believing that Lepidus does not deserve an place in their coalition.

This quote also hints to what the world is like after the events of the play. Mark Antony, Octavius and Lepidus plan to divide the Roman Empire in three sections. This alludes to the Second Triumvirate of 43 B.C to 33 B.C.

It is interesting that Mark Antony, a self-absorbed character with a selfish lust for power, is willing to share his authority with two other men that would be considered his equals.

Mark Antony's speech at the Senate House in Act III Scene II appealed to the values and emotions of the Roman public to ignite a rebellion against the conspirators. A key element of his rhetoric centred on Julius Caesar's will; seventy-five drachmas were to be issued to each citizen. It was the generosity of Caesar that Mark Antony used to persuade a mutiny.

Ironically, in the privacy of his home, Antony commands Lepidus to "fetch the will" to "determine how to cut off some charge in legacies." He wants to realise the funds in Caesar's will to raise and army against Brutus and Cassius.

Here Antony is presented as manipulative and avaricious, which contrasts the loyal Tribune the audience was first introduced to. His ascension was made possible by offering to honor Caesar's will, a promise which he obviously has no intention in fulfilling.

From his speech in the Capitol to the end of the play, Mark Antony is confident, ambitious, successful and ruthless. He displays no concern for the Roman citizens as they suffer in the civil upheaval, he is willing to execute a nephew instead of argue for his life, and he only upholds the bare minimum of Caesar's legacy to maintain totalitarian control over the Roman Empire.

Marcus Brutus has been regarded as the "noblest Roman of them all" who acts only with the interest of the State at heart. The assassination of Caesar was even justified by him; he exclaimed to the public "it’s not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more."

In his last moments, it is obvious that Brutus was feeling remorseful of the past atrocities, but is this enough to ground Brutus as a fundamentally heroic character? Is Brutus in fact delusional, attempting to redeem himself via radical patriotism? Do his actions speak louder than his words?

Therefore, my question is:

Is Brutus deserving of a tragic hero status, or does he portray a more antagonistic character in the play?

While not the most profound scene, the misunderstanding of Cinna's true nature adds humour to the play, and highlights the aftermath of Caesar's death.

Mark Antony's speech at the Senate House ignited a passionate and bloodthirsty vengeance within the Plebeians. This vengeance is so intense that even when Cinna explains that he is a poet, the citizens choose to disregard the fact and instead "tear him for his bad verses!"

The passion of the people is also a representation of Mark Antony's rhetoric, which is plausible to also be called manipulation. He appeals to the emotions and the values of society to catalyse his own ascension. This leaves the conspirators to flee for their safety in fear of being tortured by the 'firebrands'.

While the impetus of the public's actions are fairly just, it can be argued that their excessive use of brutality, including attacking innocent citizens, removes some of the legitimacy behind their campaign.

Whether intentional or not, the clock is an example of an anachronism. This technique is the inclusion of something that appears to be in the wrong time, used as a device or simply a literary mistake.

Cassius claims that "the clock hath stricken three", signifying the end of the conspirators' meeting about the upcoming assassination. In the Roman era, mechanical clocks were not invented, and the time was told by much more primitive methods.

This anachronism may have been included as subtle humour, or is more symbolic; it may possibly reference the impending 'strike' on Caesar's reign. Furthermore, the motion of the clock is more dramatic than telling time with a sundial etc.

Shakespeare's use of anachronisms throughout Julius Caesar is most likely intentional, but nevertheless it enhances the drama of the conspirator's conversation.

Cinna speaks on behalf of all the conspirators in this exclamation: "Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!" The forcefulness of his cries reveal the true emotions towards Caesar's reign. In particular, the conspirators consider him a self-centred tyrant. This opinion is justified with two reasons:

1.The tribunes believe that centralising all authority to one man is undemocratic and is detrimental to the Roman Republic;

2.They envy Caesar's might and fear potentially losing their power to the Empire.

The rejoice of the conspirators does not align to the panic and grief experienced by the general society and Mark Antony. This juxtaposition suggests that Caesar's assassination is more destructive than it is justified.

In fact, the 'liberty' and 'freedom' that is promised does not manifest under the conspirators' rule.

The discussion at Brutus' home in Act II Scene I revealed that there was much fear surrounding Antonius' reaction to Caesar's death. Trebonius was the only conspirator to agree with Brutus that Mark Antony did not pose a threat, instead remarking that '"There is no fear in him; let him not die; For he will live, and laugh at this hereafter." However, this act of compassion would eventually lead to the conspirators' downfall.

Therefore, Trebonius' conspiratorial role was to lure Mark Antony away from the Senate House while Caesar's assassination was taking place. Consequently, he was the only conspirator that did not stab Caesar.

As witnessed by Trebonius, Mark Antony "fled to his house amazed" in response to Julius Caesar's death. This indicates the strong relationship between the two Romans, and foreshadows the ardent vengeance that Antony is to develop.

Furthermore, Trebonius recalls that "Men, wives, and children stare, cry out, and run, as it were doomsday." The comparison between the assassination and Armageddon reinforce the idea that the conspirators were not acting in the interests of the general public, but instead in the interests of themselves and their own envy.

Although he is not tangibly introduced until the next scene, the audience is already presented with a fairly clear characterisation of Julius Caesar. However, Caesar's exact nature is determined through two juxtaposing attitudes towards the Empire.

The Roman common-folk praise the defeat of Pompey, in fact making a "holiday to see Caesar and to rejoice in his triumph." On the contrary, the noble classes express a more pessimistic attitude; Flavius cautions that the new leader will "soar above the view of men, and keep us all in servile fearfulness."

The tribunes believe that Caesar's power is too great for one man, and that his rise as Emperor will lead to the downfall of Rome. It is also a valid argument to say that they envy Caesar's might, especially since Flavius and Murellus are to lose an element of their own authority.

After commanding the people to weep for the coming events, Flavius and Murellus leave to "disrobe the images" of Caesar. This metaphor refers to removing the decorations off Caesar's statues, a crime which they are later punished for. The desperation of such an act is an indication of how strongly Caesar is feared and detested by the noblemen.

This scene leaves the audience with a preconceived image of Caesar as ambitious, influential and excessively powerful. The loathing of Flavius and Murellus towards the new Emperor foreshadow the upcoming conspiracy and the ultimate demise of Caesar.

The scornful treatment of the Plebeians by the tribunes is a clear indication of the class distinction that was present during the Roman, and more appropriately, the Elizabethan eras. The noblemen's internal prejudices create perceptions of the commoners as 'naughty knaves', 'hard hearts' and the 'cruel men of Rome'.

Flavius and Murellus' reprimand of the tradesmen for truanting a workday further solidifies their belief that a labourer's sole purpose is menial work. Shakespeare uses the context to express the irony of this hierarchy; the commoners are distinguished by stupidity, although it is the tribunes that fail to understand the meaning behind the cobbler's puns.

Ultimately this scene serves to characterise the Plebeians and their purpose in the play. The constant defamation from the higher classes outline the insignificance of the commoners in regards to the more serious issues of the story.