How could you have wronged “Julius Caesar” so?

The second example cited in the antithesis page discusses the differing portrayals of Antony and Brutus. The example reads:
“In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, we notice antithesis in the characters of Mark Antony and Marcus Brutus. Brutus is portrayed as the “noblest of Romans,” close to Caesar, and a person who loved Rome and Caesar. Antony, on the contrary, is shown as a man with the evil intentions of harming Caesar, and taking charge of Rome. These antithetical characters highlight the conflict in the play.”

First, this explanation confuses the identities of Brutus and Antony. Brutus is the conspirator who assassinated Caesar, while Antony is the slain Caesar’s chief champion. Aside from this blatant factual error, this example grossly oversimplifies these two characters down to virtuous hero and wicked villain even though the text presents both of them in a far more ambiguous light. For instance, Brutus only assassinates Caesar, who was in fact his friend, because he genuinely believes that this is the only way to save the Roman Republic. In contrast, Antony reads Caesar’s will to the plebeians, which includes generous allocations of money and public lands to every Roman citizen, in order to stir them up against the conspirators. Immediately after the plebeians leave to sack Brutus’s house, Antony suggests to his allies that they find some way to cut down on the promises made by the will presumably to keep the money for themselves, which supports the claim that Antony is actually a dishonest, insincere weasel.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. Julius Caesar is one of my favorite works of literature, and I could not bear to see it so misrepresented in such an egregious manner without speaking out. If you’re interested, you can read the full play here: http://shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesar/full.html