rhetorical analysis of brutus funeral speech

The Bill / Shakespeare Project

Julius Caesar Funeral Orations, Part One: Brutus

In the aftermath of the assassination of the titular Julius Caesar , there are back-to-back funeral speeches by Brutus and Antony. Over the next few entries, we’ll take a look at them both.

First up, Brutus.

III.ii.12-33, 35-9

First things, first. The first section of the oration is the single longest speech of prose in the play; in fact, the speech comprises more than 10% of all prose in the play. There are an additional seven lines of prose that follow the above excerpt, but there is little argument or rhetoric in those lines; they simply set up Antony’s appearance and speech to come. Compare this to Antony’s speech: Brutus’ short and succinct 27 lines of prose versus Antony’s 133 lines of verse (divided into ten interconnected speeches over 173 lines, broken up by interjections from the crowd).

At its most basic, what we’re talking about here is: Prose vs. Verse.

Way back “in the day,” we discussed the use of prose and verse , and we talked about the possible rationales for using one over the other:

The ol’ “verse = nobility :: prose = common man” clichéd trope.
Verse, by its very nature as heightened language, conveys both deep emotional content and complex rhetorical flourishes.
Prose is perfect for conveying the mundane and banal… concepts neither earth-shatteringly important nor deeply philosophical.

Given Brutus’ almost universal use of verse elsewhere in the play, he looks to be employing the “verse = nobility :: prose = common man” analogy. His opening certainly does nothing to make a connection between himself and his audience: “Romans, countrymen, and lovers.” Romans, the city dwellers, possibly the aristocracy comes first. Followed by “countrymen,” those who are more rural in either locale or appearance. Only last does Brutus mention any sort of bond between him and his audience: “lovers,” which in Shakespeare’s day meant “friends” (“lover, n.2.1.a” OED Online . Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 1 December 2014).

In the remainder of his speech, he certainly doesn’t use many rhetorical flourishes. Mainly, they come in the form of cyclical syntax, oppositional diction, and repetition.

The first sentence (after the above-mentioned greeting) begins and ends with the word “hear.” The next sentence follows the same convention, with an even more palindromic structure: believe-honor-respect-honor-believe. Even the third sentence follows the pattern with censure-judge; though here he begins to use oppositional concepts (wisdom vs. senses [physical perception as opposed to intellectual wisdom]).

The oppositional diction comes to the forefront at this point. Brutus uses the parallel structure of opposing verbs and modifiers: “loved Caesar less”/”loved Rome more” and “living, and die all slaves”/”dead, to live all free men.” It’s not a complex structure. He keeps the sentences short and the parallels very simple. This reinforces the nobility vs. common man tactic, and might–if you are so inclined–reveal a disdain for his commoner audience.

Then Brutus hammers his point home with repetition. First, he employs a “as he was [fill in the adjective], I [fill in the verb]” repeated structure, summarizing it with a repetitious “[result of the verb] for his [adjective]” conclusion. All of this sets up the only real risk of Brutus’ speech: the call for a response. Three times, Brutus asks a question of his audience:

Who is here so base that would be a bondman? societal: who would be so “not noble” (“base, adj.II.6.b” OED .) as to want to be a slave?
Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? intellectual: who would be so “slow-witted” (“rude, adj.II.6.b” OED .) as to not be a Roman (the height of scholarship at that point in the world)?
Who is here so vile that will not love his country? moral: who would be so “despicable” or “depraved” (“vile, adj.A.1.a” OED .) as to no love his country?

After each question, he says that if any of his audiences falls into the category he’s just described, then he’s offended them. This is the closest Brutus comes to complex rhetoric in his entire speech. Only it’s insulting. He sets up each situation as negative, then says he’ll pause for a reply. Who would call himself ignoble, slow-witted or despicable?

“None, Brutus, none” (III.ii.34).

It’s a leap of logic to go from not being offended to being compliant to assassination, but Brutus’ speech beckons to the mob and they make the jump. Contemptuous? Maybe. Cynical? Probably. Calculated? Most definitely.

From there, it’s just a matter of wrapping things up in a nice tight bow, with the reasons of Caesar’s death in the archives of the Capitol, seemingly objectively presented (with Caesar’s “glory” not understated nor his wrongs overstated). He claims that he has done no more to Caesar as the masses will do to Brutus (be careful what you wish for!), and then (in another case of ‘whoops, forget you heard that’) says that he has the “same dagger” for himself when Rome needs it.

Interestingly, before Brutus leaves, in his last speech to the commoners, he reverts to verse when imploring them to stay and listen to Antony. It’s almost as if, having succeeded in turning the crowd to his side, Brutus abandons his need for “common-speak” and, in letting down his guard, makes the miscalculation that will lead to his and Cassius’ downfall.

Julius Caesar "Friends, Romans, countrymen...."

Line Analysis | Readings Page | Home

In Mark Antony's funeral oration for Caesar, we have not only one of Shakespeare's most recognizable opening lines but one of his finest examples of rhetorical irony at work. The speech could serve as a thematic synopsis to Julius Caesar . Perhaps more than any other of Shakespeare's works, Julius Caesar is a play that hinges upon rhetoric—both as the art of persuasion and an artifice used to veil intent.

To be sure, Antony does not have it easy. He is already a man distrusted by the conspirators for his friendship with Caesar. Brutus lets him speak at Caesar's funeral, but only after Brutus, a great orator in his own right, has spoken first to "show the reason of our Caesar's death." Brutus makes it clear that Antony may speak whatever good he wishes of Caesar so long as he speaks no ill of the conspirators. But Antony has two advantages over Brutus: his subterfuge and his chance to have the last word. It's safe to say that Antony makes the most of his opportunity.

Antony's performance on the bully pulpit should come as no surprise. It is obvious from his Act III, sc. i meeting with the conspirators that he means something different in nearly everything he says. He even subtly mocks the senators with his lines "My credit now stands on such slippery ground/That one of two bad ways you must conceit me/Either a coward or a flatterer." Antony is the picture of disingenuous. Brutus, ignoring the more sensible misgivings of Cassius, takes Antony at his word. We, however, know what's in store when Antony in private utters, "O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth/That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!"

Brutus is clearly overmatched at Caesar's funeral, both by Antony's duplicity and oration. Brutus gives a reasoned prose speech that convinces the crowd Caesar had to die. Then, for reasons that remain questionable even taking naiveté into account, Brutus not only yields to Antony but leaves the Forum altogether. Antony will expend 137 lines of blank verse before he's done, using rhetoric and calculated histrionics to incite the crowd into a mob frenzy. All quite masterful for a man who denies any ability to "stir men's blood," as he puts it.

In the speech that follows, Antony merely sets the table for dissent. He progressively hits upon the notes of ambition and honourable in a cadence that soon calls both terms into question. Antony's prime weapons at the beginning are his conspicuous ambiguity regarding Caesar ("If it were so, it was a grievous fault") and Brutus ("Yet Brutus says he was ambitious"), rhetorical questions ("Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?") and feigned intent ("I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke"). More chilling, however, is Antony's cynical epilogue to the funeral speech as the mob departs: "Now let it work: mischief, thou art afoot/Take thou what course thou wilt!" As Antony exemplifies, the art of persuasion is not far removed in Julius Caesar from the craft of manipulation.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interréd with their bones; So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: If it were so, it was a grievous fault, And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it. Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest— For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men— Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral. He was my friend, faithful and just to me: But Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man. He hath brought many captives home to Rome Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: Ambition should be made of sterner stuff: Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man. You all did see that on the Lupercal 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. I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know. You all did love him once, not without cause: What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him? O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason. Bear with me; My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, And I must pause till it come back to me.

—Act III, sc. ii

Go to Line Analysis | Back to Readings

A Short Analysis of Mark Antony’s ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen’ Speech

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)

Mark Antony’s ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen’ speech from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is a masterclass of irony and the way rhetoric can be used to say one thing but imply something quite different without ever naming it . Mark Antony delivers a funeral speech for Julius Caesar following Caesar’s assassination at the hands of Brutus and the conspirators, but he is only allowed to do so as long as he does not badmouth the conspirators for their role in Caesar’s death.

Antony’s references to Brutus as an honourable man subtly and ingeniously show that Brutus is anything but honourable, while also serving to show that Caesar was not the ambitious man Brutus has painted him to be.

The best way to analyse this key speech from the play is to go through it, summarising it section by section.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

Mark Antony has ‘read the room’ and knows the mood among the crowd: they still support the assassination of Julius Caesar and so side with Brutus and the other conspirators.

Mark Antony treads carefully, brilliantly going against their expectations and reassuring him that he is simply there to deliver a funeral oration, not to take the dead general’s side (it’s worth remembering that Julius Caesar was a general, not an emperor: although he was called Caesar, he wasn’t ‘a’ Caesar, the name given to later emperors of Rome in his honour).

The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones;

Daniell notes helpfully that these lines, which have become much more famous thanks to Shakespeare’s play, are proverbial and their sentiment (albeit with different wording) predate Shakespeare.

The meaning is obvious enough: when people die, the bad things they did often stick in people’s memories, while their good deeds are forgotten. As Antony goes on to say, ‘So let it be with Caesar’.

Immediately, then, he is cleverly saying that he is happy for everyone to focus on Caesar’s bad points and forget the good the man did; but in referring to the latter, he is subtly reminding them that Caesar did good as well as evil things. (By the way, a note on scansion or metre: because Mark Antony is addressing the crowd using blank verse or unrhymed iambic pentameter , ‘interred’ should be pronounced as three syllables, not two.)

So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: If it were so, it was a grievous fault, And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.

Mark Antony now takes up Brutus’ words about Julius Caesar and responds to them. He doesn’t contradict Brutus, but instead uses the subjunctive ‘If’: ‘If it were so’. He refuses to say that Caesar was ambitious, but grants that if it were true, it was a terrible fault.

The purpose of this is to cast doubt on the very idea that Caesar was ambitious (supposedly the very reason for his assassination), but in such a way that doesn’t rub the crowd (which still supports Brutus) up the wrong way. He then goes on to point out, however, that if Caesar was ambitious, he’s now dead, so has ‘answer’d’ or paid the penalty for his fault.

Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest– (For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men) Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.

Mark Antony makes a performative gesture to Brutus’ supposed generosity in letting him, Mark Antony, speak at Caesar’s funeral. He says that such generosity is a sign of Brutus’ honour: he, and the rest of the conspirators, are ‘honourable men’.

He was my friend, faithful and just to me: But Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man.

Antony now slowly begins to ease in some praise for Caesar, but keeps it personal to him, rather than making grand, universal statements about Caesar’s good qualities: he was his friend, and faithful and just to him . But then, Brutus says Caesar was ambitious, and Brutus is honourable, so ‘I guess I was wrong (but I know I’m not)’. Obviously this last bit is implied, not spoken aloud – but that’s what Mark Antony is building towards.

He hath brought many captives home to Rome Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?

Let’s look at what Caesar did: he took many enemies prisoner and brought them here to Rome, and these captives’ ransoms, when paid, helped to make Rome rich. Does this seem ‘ambitious’ behaviour to you?

When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: Ambition should be made of sterner stuff: Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man.

When the poor of the city suffered, Caesar wept with pity for them. Hardly the actions of an ambitious man, who should be harder-hearted than this! But Brutus says Caesar was ambitious, and Brutus is honourable, so … it must be true … right? Note how Antony continues to sow the seeds of doubt in the crowd’s mind.

You all did see that on the Lupercal 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.

Antony reminds the Romans that at the festival of Lupercalia (held in mid-February, around the same time as our modern Valentine’s Day; so just a month before Caesar was assassinated), he publicly presented Julius Caesar with a crown, but Caesar refused it three times (remember, he was ‘just’ a general, a military leader: not an emperor). Again, Antony appeals to the crowd: does this seem like the action of an ambitious man?

I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know.

Although he clearly is disproving what Brutus claimed of Caesar, Antony maintains that this isn’t his aim: he’s merely telling the truth based on what he knows of Caesar.

You all did love him once, not without cause: What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?

Antony reminds the crowd of Romans that they all loved Caesar once too, and they had reasons for doing so: Caesar was clearly a good leader. So why do they now not mourn for him in death? (Note Antony’s skilful use of ‘cause’ twice here: they loved Caesar with good cause, but what cause is responsible for their failure to shed a tear at his passing?)

O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason. Bear with me; My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, And I must pause till it come back to me.

Observe the clever pun on Brutus’ name in ‘brutish beasts’: Antony stops short of calling Brutus a beast, but it’s clear enough that he thinks the crowd has been manipulated with violent thugs and everyone has lost their ability to think rationally about Caesar. The mob spirit has been fomented and everyone has made Caesar, even in death, the target of their hatred.

Mark Antony brings his ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen’ speech, a masterly piece of oratory, to a rousing end with an appeal to personal emotion, claiming that seeing Rome so corrupted by hatred and blinded by unreason has broken his heart. He concludes, however, with a final line that offers a glimmer of hope, implying that if Rome would only recover itself, he would be all right again.

You can watch Damian Lewis reciting this famous speech here .

Discover more from Interesting Literature

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

Type your email…

2 thoughts on “A Short Analysis of Mark Antony’s ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen’ Speech”

We are going into drama soon and will be studying this speech. You have brought to my attention aspects I had noticed, even though I have taught it for years. Thanks!

Thanks for the comment, Pam – that’s praise indeed! I hope you have a fruitful discussion :)

Comments are closed.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

rhetorical analysis of brutus funeral speech

Julius Caesar

William shakespeare, ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

The Shakespearean Student

For shakespeare lovers of any age.

Close Reading: Friends, Romans, Countrymen

Today I’m going to do an analysis of one of the most famous speeches in all of Shakespeare: Antony’s Funeral Speech in Act III, Scene ii of Julius Caesar, commonly known as the “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” speech.

I. Given Circumstances

Antony is already in a very precarious position. His best friend Julius Caesar was murdered by the senators of Rome. Antony wants vengeance, but he can’t do so by himself. He’s also surrounded by a mob, and Brutus just got them on his side with a very convincing speech. They already hate Antony and Caesar. His goal- win them back. Here is a clip of Brutus (James Mason) speaking to the crowd from the Joseph Mankewitz movie version of Julius Caesar:

So the stakes are very high for Antony: If he succeeds, the crowd will avenge Caesar, and Antony will take control of Rome. If he fails, he will be lynched by an angry mob.

II. Textual Clues

If you notice in the text of the speech below, Antony never overtly says: “Brutus was a liar and a traitor, and Caesar must be avenged,” but that is exactly what he gets the crowd to do. So how does he get them to do so, right after Brutus got them on his side?

Antony . You gentle Romans,— 1615 Citizens . Peace, ho! let us hear him. Antony . Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; 1620 So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: If it were so, it was a grievous fault, And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it. Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest— 1625 For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men— Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral. He was my friend, faithful and just to me: But Brutus says he was ambitious; 1630 And Brutus is an honourable man. He hath brought many captives home to Rome Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: 1635 Ambition should be made of sterner stuff: Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man. You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, 1640 Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And, sure, he is an honourable man. I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know. 1645 You all did love him once, not without cause: What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him? O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason. Bear with me; My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, 1650 And I must pause till it come back to me. First Citizen . Methinks there is much reason in his sayings. Julius Caesar Act III, Scene ii.

The two main methods Shakespeare uses to infuse Antony’s speech with powerful persuasive energy are the way he writes the verse, and his command of rhetoric.

The greatest gift Shakespeare ever gave his actors was to write his plays in blank verse. It not only tells you which words are important to stress, it gives you clues about the character’s emotional journey; just as a person’s heartbeat can indicate their changes in mood, a subtle change in verse often betrays the character’s pulse and state of mind. Antony uses his own emotions and his powers of persuasion to manipulate the crowd, so his verse helps show how he changes the pulse of the Roman mob.

I could write a whole post on the verse in this page, which I don’t need to do, since The Shakespeare Resource Center did it for me: http://www.bardweb.net/content/readings/caesar/lines.html What I will do is draw attention to some major changes in the verse and put my own interpretations on how Antony is using the verse to persuade the crowd:

The first line of the speech grabs your attention. It is not a standard iambic pentameter line, which makes it rhythmically more interesting. In the movie version, Marlin Brando as Antony shouts each word to demand the crowd to just lend him their attention for a little while. He uses the verse to emphasize Antony’s frustration.
“The Evil that men do, lives after them”- Notice that the words evil and men are in the stressed position. Antony might be making a subconscious attempt to say Brutus and the other evil men who took the life of Caesar are living, when they deserve to die.
“ If it were so..” Again, Antony might be making a subtle jab at the conspirators. Brutus said Caesar was ambitious and Antony agrees that ambition is worthy of death, but he also adds an If, to plant the seeds of doubt in the crowd’s minds. To drive it home, the word if is in the stressed position, making it impossible for the crowd to not consider the possibility that Caesar wasn’t ambitious, and thus, didn’t deserve to be murdered.

B. Rhetoric

One reason why this speech is so famous is its clever use of rhetoric, the art of persuasive speaking. Back in ancient Rome, aristocrats like Antony were groomed since birth in the art of persuasive speech. Shakespeare himself studied rhetoric at school, so he knew how to write powerful persuasive speeches. Here’s a basic breakdown of the tactics Antony and Shakespeare use in the speech:

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

The three basic ingredients of any persuasive speech are Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos is an appeal to the audience based on the speaker’s authority. Pathos is an appeal to the emotions of the crowd, and Logos is an appeal to facts and or reason. Both Brutus and Antony employ these three rhetorical tactics, but Antony doesn’t just appeal to his audience, he manipulates them to commit mutiny and mob rule.

Logos Antony has very few facts or logical information in his speech. His major argument is that again, since Caesar wasn’t ambitious, (which is very hard to prove), his death was a crime. Antony cites as proof the time Cæsar refused a crown at the Lupercal, but since that was a public performance, it’s hardly a reliable indication of Caesar’s true feelings.

You see logos as a rhetorical technique all the time whenever you watch a commercial citing leading medical studies, or a political debate where one person uses facts to justify his or her position. If you look at Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Presidental Debate, she frequently cited statistics to back up her political positions

Ethos is an argument based on the speaker’s authority. Brutus’ main tactic in his speech is to establish himself as Caesar’s friend and Rome’s. He says that he didn’t kill Caesar out of malice, but because he cared more about the people of Rome.

BRUTUS: If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar’s, to him I say, that Brutus’ love to Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: –Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. JC, III.ii.

Antony employs the exact same tactics, establishing himself as Caesar’s friend and telling the crowd that, as Caesar’s friend, Antony believes that Caesar did not deserve his murder. His use of Ethos therefore, helps Antony refute Brutus’ main claim.

Again, the 2016 debate is another excellent way of showing ethos in action. Hillary Clinton and Brutus frequently cited their political experience and their strength of character to justify their views. There’s an excellent article that examines Hillary’s use of Ethos in her political rhetoric: https://eidolon.pub/hillary-clintons-rhetorical-persona-9af06a3c4b03

Pathos is the most frequently used rhetorical tactic: the appeal to emotion. Donald Trump uses this constantly, as you can see in this clip from the 2016 debate:

https://youtu.be/wMuyBOeSQVs

Pathos is bit more of a dirty trick than Ethos and Logos, which is why Brutus doesn’t use it much. As scholar Andy Gurr writes:

Brutus is a stern philosopher and thinker. His faith in reason fails to secure the crowd from Antony’s disingenuous appeal to their affections, which uses sharp sarcasm and some twisted facts.

Antony’s major appeals to emotion:

His grief over losing Caesar
His painting of Cæsar as a generous, faithful friend
Shaming the crowd for not mourning Caesar’s death
Appeal to piety by showing the body funeral reverence.
His use of Caesar’s bloody body and mantle to provoke outrage from the citizens.
His use of Caesar’s will to make the crowd grateful to Caesar, and furious at Brutus.

Rhetorical Devices

If Ethos, Pathos, and Logos are the strategies of rhetorical arguments, rhetorical devices are the artillery. If you check out the website Silva Rhetoricae, (The Forest Of Rhetoric), you can read about the hundreds of individual rhetorical devices that politicians have used in speeches and debates since ancient history. I will summarize here the main ones Antony uses over and over again in “Friends, Romans, Countrymen.” For another more compete analysis, click here: https://eavice.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/jv-rhetorical-devices-in-antonys-funerary-speech-from-shakespeares-julius-caesar/

Irony The way Antony keeps repeating “Brutus is an honorable man,” is a particularly sinister form of irony, which here means to imply the opposite of what you have said to mock or discredit your opponent. The irony is that the more Antony repeats this idea that Brutus is honorable, the more the crowd will question it. If Brutus were truly honorable, he would not need Antony to remind them. Of course, Brutus can still be honorable whether Anthony mentions it or not, but this repetition, coupled with Antony’s subtle rebuttals Of Brutus’ arguments, manages to shatter both Brutus’ motives, and his good name, at least in the eyes of his countrymen.
Antimetabole is the clever use of the same word in two different ways. Antony manages to work it in twice in this speech:
“If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievou sly hath Caesar answer’d it.”
“You all did love him once, not without cause : What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?”
Rhetorical question This is the most famous rhetorical device which by the way in Antony’s day would have been known as Erotema. Antony asks a series of questions designed to refute the notion that Caesar was ambitious, from his mercy to his captives, to Caesar’s tenderness to the poor, and of course his refusal to take the crown during the Lupercal. Each question calls Brutus’ claims into question and seeds doubt in the crowd.

Performance Notes with link to Globe performance

https://youtu.be/1RL8Wg-b8k

Unlike most Shakespearean plays, with Julius Caesar, we have an eyewitness account of how the play was originally performed. Swiss student Thomas Platter wrote a long description of watching the play at the original Globe Theatre in 1599. This is a translation that I found on The Shakespeare Blog:

On September 21st after lunch, about two o’clock, I and my party crossed the water, and there in the house with the thatched roof witnessed an excellent performance of the tragedy of the first Emperor Julius Caesar, with a cast of some fifteen people; when the play was over they danced very marvellously and gracefully together as is their wont, two dressed as men and two as women… Thus daily at two in the afternoon, London has sometimes three plays running in different places, competing with each other, and those which play best obtain most spectators. The playhouses are so constructed that they play on a raised platform, so that everyone has a good view. There are different galleries and places, however, where the seating is better and more comfortable and therefore more expensive. For whoever cares to stand below only pays one English penny, but if he wishes to sit he enters by another door, and pays another penny, while if he desires to sit in the most comfortable seats which are cushioned, where he not only sees everything well, but can also be seen, then he pays yet another English penny at another door. And during the performance food and drink are carried round the audience, so that for what one cares to pay one may also have refreshment. The actors are most expensively costumed for it is the English usage for eminent Lords or Knights at their decease to bequeath and leave almost the best of their clothes to their serving men, which it is unseemly for the latter to wear, so that they offer them for sale for a small sum of money to the actors. Thomas Platter, 1599, reprinted from: http://theshakespeareblog.com/2012/09/thomas-platters-visit-to-shakespeares-theatre/

So the conclusions we can draw based on Platter’s account include that Antony was standing on a mostly bare stage with a thatched roof, raised slightly off the ground. We can also guess that, since the merchants were selling beer, fruits, and ale, that the audience might have been drunk or throwing things at the actors.

As Platter notes, and this page from Shakespeare’s First Folio confirms, there were only 15 actors in the original cast, so Shakespeare’s company didn’t have a huge cast to play the gigantic crowd in the Roman street. In all probability, the audience is the mob, and Antony is talking right to them when he calls them “Friends, Romans, Countrymen.” I believe that the audience was probably encouraged to shout, chant, boo, cheer, and become a part of the performance which is important to emphasize when talking about how to portray this scene onstage. A director can choose whether or not to make the audience part of the action in a production of Julius Caesar , which can allow the audience to get a visceral understanding of the persuasive power of politicians like Brutus and Antony. Alternatively, the director can choose instead to have actors play the crowd, and allow the audience to scrutinize the crowd as well as the politicians.

In conclusion, the reason this speech is famous is Shakespeare did an excellent job of encapsulating the power of persuassive speech that the real Antony must have had, as he in no small way used that power to spur the Roman crowd to mutiny and vengeance, and began to turn his country from a dying republic into a mighty empire.

If you liked this post, please consider signing up for my online class where I cover the rhetorical devices in Julius Caesar and compare them with several other famous speeches. Register now at http://www.outschool.com

◦ Interview with Patterson Joseph and Ray Fearon RSC: https://youtu.be/v5UTRSzuajo

1. Annotated Julius Caesar: https://sites.google.com/site/annotatedjuliuscaesar/act-3/3-2-57-109

2. Folger Shakespeare Library: Julius Caesar Lesson Plan: https://teachingshakespeareblog.folger.edu/2014/04/29/friends-romans-teachers-send-me-your-speeches/

3. Silva Rhetoric http://rhetoric.byu.edu/

3. Rhetoric in Marc Antony Speech

https://www.google.com/amp/s/eavice.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/jv-rhetorical-devices-in-antonys-funerary-speech-from-shakespeares-julius-caesar/amp/

4. Shakespeare Resource Center: http://www.bardweb.net/content/readings/caesar/lines.html

Julius Caesar

What are the rhetorical devices that brutus employs his funeral speech.

Brutus has a great faith in rationality and his speech reflects this. He "levels" with the people, with a repeated emphasis on the word "honor" to give credence to his motivations. He plays to their virtue, assuming they will understand that their freedom demanded this murder, since it kept Caesar from getting totalitarian power. He also uses a deal of parallel structure to compare the two possibilities: "as he was valiant, I honor him; as he was ambitious, I slew him." Brutus lastly uses himself as a model of affection for Caesar, believing it will make his cause look more noble if he proves that he loved Caesar best, but had no choice.

Log In To Your GradeSaver Account

Remember me
Forgot your password?

Create Your GradeSaver Account

GradeSaver will pay $15 for your literature essays

Benefits to Participating Communities
Participating School Districts
Evaluations and Results
Recognition Accorded
National Advisory Committee
Establishing New Institutes
Topical Index of Curriculum Units
View Topical Index of Curriculum Units
Search Curricular Resources
View Volumes of Curriculum Units from National Seminars
Find Curriculum Units Written in Seminars Led by Yale Faculty
Find Curriculum Units Written by Teachers in National Seminars
Browse Curriculum Units Developed in Teachers Institutes
On Common Ground
Reports and Evaluations
Articles and Essays
Documentation
Video Programs

Have a suggestion to improve this page?

To leave a general comment about our Web site, please click here

Share this page with your network.

Convincing the Masses: Rhetoric in Julius Caesar

Introduction.

“For who so firm that cannot be seduced?” --Cassius [I,ii,305]

Rhetoric, or the art of persuasion, is a key skill for my sophomore English students to develop as it requires them to make connections between the classroom and the world surrounding them. This necessitates that they come to a deeper understanding of figures of speech and how they affect readers, how they are used to persuade, and how to use them oneself to effectively communicate. Rhetoric surrounds them every day as they interact with advertisements, political speeches, media coverage of current events, movies, art, and the classroom. While my students are quite savvy viewers and are aware that many images they see may be altered, they seem less critical of the written and spoken word. My unit seeks to develop in my students the ability to think critically, read analytically and speak and write effectively and convincingly. By exploring the connections among the speaker, the audience, and the subject within the given context, I hope to give my students the tools that will enable them to be aware of how those interconnections are played out in their daily lives. The analysis and use of the arts of rhetoric will empower my students to be better citizens, better communicators and more successful in their pursuits.

By teaching the fundamentals of rhetoric, I hope to create an awareness of its prevalence in advertising and political speeches, an appreciation for the power of language, and a sense that students can potentially harness that power. I want my students not only to become skilled at identifying rhetoric, but also to become proficient in using the art to strengthen their critical reading skills, speaking and writing. I plan to build on their understanding of logos, ethos and pathos, as Aristotle divided the parts of persuasive speech in his Rhetoric , while also strengthening their observation of basic rhetorical strategies like repetition, structure, symbolism, defining, describing, etc. While some time will be devoted to the classical canon of rhetoric - invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery- I do not intend to cover the tropes and figures in detail. My true aim is to develop critical thinking skills, utilizing challenging classroom activities to engage their interest and encourage civic engagement.

A number of different texts and video clips will be utilized to create a rich and comprehensive exploration of the use of rhetoric in modernity, but William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar will serve as my foundation text. This drama is based upon the historical figure Julius Caesar, who returns to Rome as a triumphant hero only to be considered a potential threat to the republic as a result of his consolidation of power. Several senators, led by his friend Marcus Brutus, conspire to assassinate him. After the bloody deed, Mark Antony masterfully turns the people against the conspirators and a vicious struggle for power ensues. Although the semantically dense language is a challenge, grappling with the text develops close reading skills and challenges students to really excel and perform in a rigorous manner. Students will carefully read the text with a focus on characters and themes, using a variety of activities.

Demographics

Oak Grove High School encompasses a population of just under two thousand students who represent diverse ethnicities as part of the East Side Union High School District. 43% of our students are considered socioeconomically disadvantaged , as they qualify for the free and reduced lunch program, and our graduation rate is improving at 82.3%. Our struggles to graduate our population are evident: we are considered a Program Improvement site due to low Annual Yearly Progress, and the Degrees of Reading Power test reveals that approximately 45% of our incoming freshmen read at, or below, a sixth grade level.

In addition, our school is located in an area known for having an incredibly high cost of living, which often necessitates that our students contribute to the household finances by working. Additionally, parental supervision is often minimal, as the economy requires both parents to work. 56.4% of our students identify as Latino/Mexican and these students are especially at risk because many will be the first family members to earn a high school diploma, and often must do so with limited access to technology and even internet access in an area known for heavy gang activity.

The Common Core State Standards are in their second year of implementation in California, and the pragmatic approach to developing students who are able to engage in complex critical thinking activities is a challenge to implement. In the past, speaking and listening skills were largely limited in the classroom as they were not assessed in state testing, and they consumed valuable time that needed to be spent on basic reading comprehension and other skills. The Common Core has allowed us to become more holistic practitioners and I hope my unit allows our students to translate classroom skills to real world applications that benefit them personally, civically, and academically.

Rhetoric and Rigor

Julius Caesar could be viewed as an exploration of the uses and abuses of rhetoric as characters persuade one another most eloquently to engage in or excite violence. Using Julius Caesar as a foundation text, my students will learn about rhetorical devices. As we decode the text and explore themes and characters central to the historical play, students will engage in a variety of activities that enable them to truly understand the differing perspectives that lead so many men to assassinate their leader and the turmoil that ensues. One of the focuses at my school has been to require students to provide evidence from the text for any responses they provide in class. This play will afford students ample practice in finding textual evidence to cite as there are distinct rhetorical styles evident, as well as sharply contrasting points of view, which allow for students to explore passages and interpret the text differently. Grappling with facts in an attempt to gain a perspective or synthesize ideas is a valuable mental exercise, and even if the students forget the facts, they retain the value of the intellectual struggle.

Content Objectives

My sophomores will have been introduced to Shakespeare in their freshman year through the text of Romeo and Juliet , so while the rigor of this unit is great, it is not their first encounter with the Bard. Additionally, the unit will not occur in isolation of their other academic courses. The English II students are required to concurrently enroll in World History, which focuses on Rome for the first six weeks of instruction, making this the ideal time for me to teach this unit. Beyond creating interdisciplinary connections between their classes, it creates a more authentic learning experience and precludes the necessity of providing background historical information about Rome and Julius Caesar.

Concerning Rhetoric

Aristotle’s rhetoric.

Greek philosopher Aristotle offered three means to persuade your audience: ethos, pathos, and logos. 1 While ethos is said to translate to ethics, it really suggests the modern sense of image in that the speaker is relying upon their authority to convince the audience based upon our impression of their character. Considering ethos from both the perspective of analyzing how advertising or political rhetoric is meant to impact the audience, but also how a writer can use word choice and style to create their own ethos, is imperative. Logos, or logical argument, traditionally utilizes syllogisms, yet an exploration of inductive and deductive reasoning, logical fallacies and what exactly makes for effective reasoning will be a more appropriate for my purposes. The emotion aroused in audience, or pathos, is crucial to persuasion. Negative emotions such as anger, fear and insecurity are the most effective and prevalent in modern advertising and politics. 2

The Five Canons of Rhetoric

After determining the audience and context for an appeal, Cicero felt effective persuasion necessitated consideration of invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. 3 Familiarity with these canons is necessary to both craft a speech and to properly analyze the rhetoric of others. Invention tailors an approach for the audience and context: What is the most appropriate appeal and which words will one use to effectively convey that appeal? Arrangement requires the establishment of the credibility of the speaker via ethos, and then the use of pathos or logos to pursue the argument using a structure suitable for the audience and context; traditionally this order is: introduction, statement and proof, conclusion. Style is the choice of appropriate rhetorical techniques and figures of speech and of the construction of the argument, and may include diction, grammar, rhythm and metaphor. Memory is not necessarily rote recall of the words, but a familiarity with the speech that allows the content to seem natural and fluid upon delivery and can support or erode ethos. Delivery of the appeal includes body language and intonation, which profoundly affect ethos and the subconscious reaction to the appeal. Several famous speeches will be analyzed as both a text and a performance to familiarize students with these terms.

Produced in 1599, the play Julius Caesar is based on Sir Thomas North’s 1579 translation of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans , which Shakespeare undoubtedly used to create his account. 4 While Julius Caesar could be considered a political revenge tragedy, it is hardly a biographical narrative. The content relating to his many military exploits and success as a general and politician is eliminated from the play as Shakespeare focuses on the end of his life and the turmoil that ensued after his murder. It is thought-provoking to contrast the historical figure documented by Plutarch with the leader in the play. Interestingly, Plutarch clearly states that Caesar was ambitious, the crime for which he was assassinated. “But the chiefest cause that made him mortally hated was the covetous desire he had to be called king.” 5

The historical figure is a physically robust and mentally astute leader , whereas Shakespeare’s portrayal seems to evince a weaker individual. One example of this might be Cassius’ tale of Caesar needing to be rescued while swimming whereas Plutarch’s account demonstrates him to be a vigorous and accomplished swimmer. Plutarch cites that during the war in Alexandria Caesar:

leaping into the sea, with great hazard saved himself by swimming. It is said that then, holding divers books in his hand, he did never let them go, but kept them always upon his head above water, and swam with the other hand, notwithstanding that they shot marvelously at him.” 6

Is this description of a man in the midst of a battle leaping into the sea while holding books above his head compatible with Cassius’ account, wherein it is Cassius who emerges as brave, strong and heroic?

Caesar said to me, “Dar’st thou, Cassius, now Leap in with me into this angry flood And swim to yonder point?” Upon the word, Accoutered as I was, I plunged in And bad him follow. So indeed he did. The torrent roared, and we did buffet it With lusty sinews, throwing it aside, And stemming it with hearts of controversy. But ere we could arrive the point proposed, Caesar cried, “Help me, Cassius, or I sink.” [I,ii,102-111]

The fact that Cassius positions himself as the first to enter the Tiber having been dared, and then must encourage Caesar to follow him into the water is an interesting juxtaposition. He then demonstrates a huge ego when he compares himself to Aeneas as he saves Caesar from drowning. This tale is wholly believed by Brutus, along with other claims that Caesar was a physically weak, deaf, epileptic who demonstrates a superstitious nature and a vacillating opinion driven by a need for sycophantic devotion. 7 This older Caesar is markedly different from the historical figure represented by Plutarch, but it is exaggerated so greatly by Cassius as to make his jealousy evident. Perhaps “Shakespeare weakens Caesar physically in order to suggest that his bodily vulnerabilities exemplify his psychological and moral failings.”

Similarly, Antony and Brutus are characterized differently by Shakespeare than the historical annals of Plutarch might suggest. Plutarch even suggests that Brutus is the illegitimate son of Julius Caesar and Harold Bloom contends that Shakespeare does not allude to this relationship as it “would have given Brutus too personal a motive for letting himself be seduced into Cassius’s conspiracy.” 9

Elizabethan Theater

It may be useful to provide a sketch of the Elizabethan theater, where the common people clamored to see repertory performances in the afternoons in venues that could pack in up to 3000 theatergoers. There was no intermission, but the crowd did not sit attentively and quietly for three hours: they ate, talked and gambled. The nobility and upper middle class would sit in the galleries while the commoners, or groundlings, stood in the courtyard directly in front of the stage. As audience will be key to the reception of the funeral speeches, students should really be encouraged to visualize the theater and the proximity of the groundlings, whom Shakespeare transforms into the plebeians themselves being swayed by first Brutus and then Antony. The plebeians are easily swayed by effective oratory; thus, they are manipulated by Antony into a dangerous mob. This fickle responsiveness to rhetoric should serve as a warning to each of us that we too might easily fall victim to persuasive rhetoric. Brutus and Antony’s speeches not only sway the plebeians at the Forum, Shakespeare’s rhetoric is aimed at us as well.

While the play is typically considered to be one of Shakespeare’s histories, the very title, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar begs the question, ‘whose tragedy?’ Given that the titular character is murdered in the third act, students must consider whether the tragedy is the loss of innocence that Brutus undergoes as politics and morals collide. In common with the Histories, however, concern over the throne, given that Queen Elizabeth was a female monarch with no progeny, is also a feature of Julius Caesar . Shakespeare may have had the English monarchy in mind as he wrote of this hero of the Roman Republic, whose sanctioned authority was tragically undermined when he was assassinated, leading to instability in the Republic. The stability of his reign was followed by turmoil, which may further evince tragedy as in a larger sense Rome fell into chaos and war. 10 Given that Shakespeare demonstrated an awareness of how his works supported the legitimacy of the Tudors, and specifically the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the revenge for the untimely death of this iconic figure may reflect the fear of civil insurrection many Elizabethans harbored. The titular character may only appear in three scenes, but his immortality is attained through his achievements and our acknowledgement that the Roman Republic is headed for decline after these triumphs. 11 Until her death in 1603, the play may have served as an argument for stability and civil harmony in that the social upheaval that preceded Queen Elizabeth and ominously loomed during her reign and the question of legitimate rule was always present in the minds of the people.

Some of the skill building activities include using “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King, Jr., to instruct students on the most basic application of logos, ethos and pathos by highlighting the text in three different colors. They will watch a clip of the “I Have a Dream Speech” to focus not only on text, but also on the cadence and power of sound devices. As we review the literary devices (simile, metaphor, alliteration, onomatopoeia, personification, hyperbole) and elements (genre, point of view, tone, audience, purpose, etc.) they were introduced to as freshmen, students will begin to apply these skills in a new manner. Students will view Nancy Duarte’s TED talk, “The Secret Structure of Great Talks” as it refers to Aristotle’s Rhetoric and analyzes the “I Have a Dream Speech” as well as a contemporary speech by Steve Jobs. Students will practice annotation while deepening their understanding of rhetoric as they read “Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade.” ELL students and at-risk students will benefit from high interest activities designed to simultaneously create the appropriate academic language to discuss rhetoric as well as develop an awareness of its prevalence in advertising and politics. Some clips of YouTube will be viewed together with an activity wherein students view Super Bowl advertisements and categorize the types of persuasion each employs.

Once a foundation for understanding and appreciating the power and fundamentals of rhetoric has been laid, students will engage with the text of Julius Caesar . During the process of parsing out the play together, students will be led to note the relationship between rhetoric and power as Caesar is able to express his will and his word is obeyed without question. Likewise, students will note how Cassius employs the use of rhetorical questions to sway Brutus towards seeing Caesar as a threat to Rome and liberty. The moment when Antony deceives the conspirators through clever double speak in order to address the people will be carefully analyzed to demonstrate the power words have to sway men's hearts and minds. Most notable of the speeches will be Brutus and Antony's funeral speeches, which sway the crowd's opinion back and forth. Comparisons of the delivery of these speeches in notable films will also be introduced by means of exploring the art of public speaking and effective speaking strategies. The moral ambiguity of several characters will also be a key point of discussion. It is only after we have read, viewed and closely examined key passages from the play that I will invite students to engage in a Socratic seminar that will address key questions, such as why the tragedy is called Julius Caesar , given that he has so few lines and dies in the third act. Finally, students will compose a personal statement that requires them to demonstrate their mastery of the art of rhetoric. This culminating activity, based upon the NPR “This I Believe” format, will encourage students to consider the core values and beliefs that shape their characters and inform their decisions. Several fantastic models exist from individuals they are familiar with, such as Amy Tan, Elie Wiesel, Bill Gates and Muhammad Ali.

Analyzing the Characters

Caesar is introduced by the remarks of Flavius and Murellus, who may initially encourage skepticism among the audience about this returning military hero whose victory over Pompey has led the plebeians to celebrate during the Feast of Lupercal. The stage is set with one strong military leader replacing another and conflict in the streets between men of status, the tribunes, and the plebeians, themes that may resonate with my students as we approach a heated Presidential election year. Caesar appears on stage in Act 1, Scene 2, directing his wife to stand before Marc Antony as he runs in a race during the Feast of Lupercal to induce fertility.

Caesar. Calpurnia. Casca. Peace ho! Caesar speaks. Caesar. Calpurnia. Calpurnia. Here, my Lord. Caesar. Stand you directly in Antonio’s way When he doth run his course. Antonio! [I,ii,1-4]

This choice is complicated and odd as modern science leads us question whether Calpurnia is actually the party responsible for the infertility. 12 This scene furthermore introduces Caesar as a character who is given to a belief in superstition, such that he would command this ritual to take place. Nonetheless, Caesar is shown to be an absolute ruler whose will is obeyed without question and without delay. His power and respect are undoubtable, but perhaps there is also a hint of arrogance. He is clearly an astute observer of the character of others as he has suspicions of Cassius and has proven himself to be a heroic general and powerful leader. His supremacy and nobility are especially significant to establish, as this will later lend terror to the apparition of his ghost. 13 Both Brutus and Cassius speak to Caesar’s spirit when they die, evincing the sense that his posthumous power is nearly invincible.

There is a lot of rhetoric, but is there any evidence that this Caesar is the character Brutus and Cassius have constructed in their minds who would abuse his power? He does decline the crown three times, and Brutus acknowledges that he rules by reason as opposed to whim, yet his ambition is the supposed justification for the murder. Perhaps Brutus and Cassius dispute the political ideal as opposed to reacting to his individual reactions? He is called a serpent, implying he is a sly and vicious creature as well as a stag whose nobility shouldn’t be marred by slavering dogs tearing him to shreds. Students may perceive him to be a considerate husband who seeks to please his anxious wife when he vacillates upon his decision to go to the Capitol, or as a superstitious man driven by vanity. If he fails to go to the Capitol he might not only be mocked for listening to his wife’s superstitious nonsense, he may also miss his opportunity to be offered the crown. Does this ultimately prove that he is ambitious and therefore a threat who was justly assassinated? Conversely, is his final refusal to read Artemidorus’ letter evidence that he was an unselfish leader who ultimately held the needs of the people before his personal well-being?

Brutus is the most morally pure character in that he truly believes his motivation for murder to be the protection of the Republic. His first lines are therefore rather ironic as he interceded in the exchange between the soothsayer and Caesar to report that “A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March” [I,ii,19] given that we know he will deliver the final blow that defeats Caesar physically and eliminates his will to live. His first soliloquy focuses on the necessity to murder Caesar and the justification for the action, as opposed to a moral dilemma over the murder of his friend or a logical debate over the fallacies in Cassius’ justification.

Cassius seems motivated by petty revenge -- he feels slighted by a man he saved -- as opposed to a purely political motivation. He manipulates Brutus through the use of rhetorical questions to convince Brutus that Caesar was a threat to Rome and liberty, yet his rhetoric is not particularly clever and one must wonder why it is so easy for him to convince Brutus to murder his friend. While he claims to be interested in discoursing on the topic of honor, a common theme in Shakespeare’s plays, he actually seeks to launch an attack upon Caesar. He cites evidence of epilepsy and the near-drowning to draw attention to Caesar’s lack of physical strength and then proceeds to compare the names Brutus and Caesar by way of demonstrating that Caesar is no more deserving of honor and titles. His first soliloquy is delivered in such a manner as to reveal that he is merely using Brutus to establish public respect for his agenda. The very fact that this scheming character considers Brutus worthy of manipulating due to his morally pure reputation cements our impression of Brutus as being motivated by pure ideals, leading to complexity in character interpretation. Cassius’ scheming is ultimately ended when he ends his life (with the help of Pindarus) and the natural order is restored as he proclaims: “Caesar, thou art revenged, Even with the sword that killed thee.” [V,iii,45-6]

Antony is initially introduced as this vigorous young man running a race in honor of his friend Caesar, and his first line is a loyal response , “Caesar, my Lord?” [I,ii,5] after which Caesar conveys his request that he touch Calpurnia during the race. Antony responds “I shall remember. When Caesar says, ‘Do this,’ it is performed,” [I,ii,9-10] reflecting his absolute obedience and subservience to Caesar’s will. Antony demonstrates self-control and an ability to manipulate when he responds to the murder by flattering Brutus’ character, sending a servant to Brutus with instructions to prostrate himself and say “Brutus is noble, wise, valiant and honest,” [III,I,126] and suggesting that he will submit to Brutus’ justification if he demonstrates sufficient reason for killing his friend. He then deceives the conspirators, using clever double speak in order to address the plebeians.

While we focus on each character, there are also many opportunities to explore the power of rhetoric through particular scenes. Creating students who read with intelligence, using their mental faculties to explore text, necessitates choosing challenging content. Exploring character and motivation through the lens of rhetoric with a focus on first lines and soliloquies will lead my students to a more nuanced and complicated analysis of character, motivation and persuasion. Taking note, for example, of the moment when directly after slaughtering Caesar, Cinna declares “Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead! Run hence! Proclaim! Cry it about the streets!” [III,i,78] demonstrating an immediate control of the spin on the action and embedding the justification in the declaration.

Another passage that may encourage interesting discourse is the reconciliation between the conspirators after they argue over funding the military venture. The very nature of friendship and criticism of one’s character flaws is the subject of the dialogue between Cassius and Brutus.

Cassius. You love me not. Brutus. I do not like your faults. Cassius. A friendly eye could never see such faults. Brutus. A flatterer’s would not, though they do appear As huge as high Olympus. [IV,iii,88-92]

Portia always seems to interest my students as she proves her loyalty to her husband and her determination by actually stabbing herself in the thigh. Her interchanges with him demonstrate a fascinating dynamic and her use of rhetoric to urge Brutus to divulge what’s troubling him includes many strategies. Her bold claim that she is no more than “Brutus’ harlot, not his wife” [II,i,288] if he fails to disclose his plans to her shock both Brutus and the audience.

The dramatic scene in which Caesar is alternately concerned about Calpurnia’s dream wherein he is sacrificed, and vaingloriously eager to meet his fate when Decius Brutus explains that he is the metaphorical fountain of freedom, nourishing the people, is fascinating. Students may declare him to be superstitious and will find ample evidence in the text to support that claim, while others may interpret his choices as an attempt to honor his wife and his civic duty. This is an important passage for analyzing his character and ensuring student comprehension prior to the murder and funeral speeches.

Teaching Strategies

Essential questions.

Who is the speaker and how do they establish ethos?

What is the speaker’s intent?

Who is the intended audience?

What is the rhetorical situation?

How does an author use rhetorical devices to communicate characters’ point of view?

How do the form and content of the message interrelate?

How can you effectively use rhetoric to challenge current thought and bring positive change to the world?

How do we interpret, evaluate and analyze content in our world to discover our own thoughts and opinions?

Learning to annotate text in a careful and deliberative manner is perhaps the most essential skill I will impart to my students, as these notes will inform their writing, thinking and conversations. “Reading Rhetorically” is a text that provides strategies for reading critically to support writing and conversation about a text with a focus on determining the audience, purpose and genre. Educators are incessantly asking students to analyze a text, but what does that really mean? Analysis means that an understanding of the rhetorical strategies used by the author is evident and that they are evaluated in light of the author’s purpose; it is a marriage of both the ideas explicit and implicit in the text and your opinions about those ideas. “On the one hand, you will be expected to represent what the text said accurately and fairly. On the other hand, you will be expected to offer your own analysis, interpretation, or critique in a way that enables readers to see the text differently.” 14

The initial read-through of a piece of text should be active, involving students noticing and circling organizational signal words such as however , therefore , or likewise . Additionally, students will put a question mark next to words, terms or references they are unfamiliar with, and return to them after the initial reading. Bracketing ideas that seem difficult of confusing will also allow students to continue reading through their confusion and later pose questions or determine whether the passage is more clear once they have completed the reading. As students are completing this initial read, they should annotate the text by highlighting main ideas and evidence that supports the writer’s assertions, draw arrows to significant word choices and otherwise note questions, objections, and connections. Once they have reviewed their questions, looked up vocabulary, analyzed the impact of specific word choice, and discussed the reading with their peers, the second reading should occur. This is the point at which I ask them to engage in descriptive outlining. On the left margin they will write a note for each segment that addresses what is said--a summary of the content--and on the right what is done, a statement of how that segment interacts with the whole, usually preceded by words such as describe , explain , or argue . 15 This strategy will be useful for students to practice close reading skills, but will be predominantly used with the “Logos, Ethos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade” article and the sample personal essays, such as Joseph Epstein’s "The Divine Miss H, Revisited” and Horace Miner’s “Body Rituals Among the Nacirema”, which students will review prior to writing their final product

They Say I Say

Developing students who are able to speak clearly and effectively to communicate an idea is incumbent upon educators. The authors of They Say I Say have created an approach to classroom conversations that is rooted in the idea that they are not merely preparing to discuss the author’s argument, but also the arguments it is responding to. Students become active and critical readers as they seek to parse out “not only what the author thinks, but how what the author thinks fits with what others think, and ultimately with what you yourself think.” 16 In order to help students learn how to express their ideas, this strategy offers sentence frames to help them utilize appropriate academic language that focuses on ideas. The frames can be categorized into groups such as those that capture authorial action, such as “X demonstrates that _____” or “X urges us to ______.” Disagreeing, with reasons, might lead to the use of the frame: “X’s claim that _____ rests upon the questionable assumption that _____.” Agreeing with qualifications could be aided by the use of the frame: “I agree that ______, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe _____.” Agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously could be expressed through the frame: “Though I concede that _____, I still insist that _____.” 17

This acronym (Speaker, Occasion, Audience, Purpose, Subject and Tone) is intended to help students consider and evaluate an argument through a series of questions. Students will ask themselves, who is the speaker and what personae they have created, with a focus on ethos. Next, the occasion can be understood in terms of time, place, context and background information. Audience necessitates consideration of the intended audience, which may only be a segment of the population with access to the rhetoric, as well as the three rhetorical appeals utilized. Purpose is the implicit or explicit intention of the speaker. The worldview, assumptions and philosophies that inform the subject of the text must be carefully considered. Tone requires students to consider the attitude of the speaker towards the subject and perhaps even the audience.

Classroom Activities

Character analysis.

As the students read the play, they will fill out a graphic organizer that has several characters (Antony, Brutus, Caesar, Calpurnia, Cassius, Portia) for whom they must address questions such as: What do other characters say about the focus character? How do they represent themselves with words to others? What are the character’s private thoughts? What are their actions? This activity is designed to demonstrate how much evidence there is in the text relating to character, and how the evidence may point to conflicting interpretations. Effective classroom conversations cannot occur without adequate preparation for both the rituals and routines of the discussion, as well as the appropriate language for the discourse, in addition to ample textual evidence to support opinion. The graphic organizer is one way to support and scaffold students towards effective conversation.

Funeral Speeches

Close reading requires that students have the opportunity to annotate and really work with the text. Hence it is useful to provide worksheets that will allow students to write, highlight, circle and otherwise annotate. As they are examples of some of the most notable rhetoric in the play, the funeral speeches afford ideal opportunities for students to perform close textual analysis. As indicated in Appendix B, the side-by-side format allows students to respond to questions and be led through close textual analysis. The initial speech by Brutus would be heavily teacher directed, whereas Antony’s speech might be analyzed in small groups.

Brutus’ idealism has been perverted by Cassius, yet he still fails to recognize his tenuous position as he addresses the audience. His relatively short funeral oration is a masterful example of carefully constructed verse that demonstrates balance, yet comes across as cold and too logical with over 30 figures of speech crammed into a relatively short monologue, in the face of his supposed regret for the necessity of murdering a man he loved. His speech seems almost entirely informed by ethos as he commands the crowd to “hear” and “believe” him. He repeatedly refers to his own honor, as if to suggest that it is an unquestionable attribute, which demonstrates his idealism and perhaps his naiveté. His emotional distance is evident when he expresses his regret for the necessity of murder “As Caesar loved me, I weep for him” [III,ii,23] as opposed to expressing his own love for Caesar. 18 Brutus calls Caesar “fortunate” and commends his valor, but condemns his “ambition” and uses that as justification to the amassed crowd for the murder. He asks the rhetorical question , who is so “vile” that they don’t love the Republic and asks that individual to step forward, which of course has the effect of silencing any dissenter. In sum, Brutus’ speech demonstrates stilted rhetoric and moral narcissism, and ultimately his focus on ethos (his honor) will be turned against him. Although he tried to kill a political idea he feared, he necessarily had to commit a murder. However, he distances himself from the actual physical murder by making it a symbolic act and even refers to Caesar as a sacrifice, a “dish fit for the gods” [II,I,174] when planning the deed. His guilty conscience still troubles him when he commits suicide at the end of play and declares “Caesar, now be still, I kill’d not thee with half so good a will.” [V,v,52-53]

When Antony addresses the crowd at the Forum, they initially are respectful only because Brutus has instructed them to be so. His audience is not necessarily hostile, but they seem hardly malleable, yet while Brutus commanded them most masterfully, Antony coaxes them through a progressive series of rhetorical devices that build upon one another. Antony immediately sets himself apart from Brutus by using prose and taking the conversation from the ethereal level to the very physical, evident especially in his use of the actual corpse to illustrate his perspective. Antony proves capable of harnessing his emotions in order to sway the opinion of the crowd in a seemingly natural manner by using prose, yet it is rife with irony, questioning, and logical appeals that gradually persuade the audience. His appeal seems motivated by genuine grief as he carefully leads the audience to question Caesar’s ambition, then tantalizes them with the will while continuing slyly to refer to Brutus’ honor. His use of pathos and logos, while continually sarcastically referring to Brutus’ ethos--“But Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man” [III,ii,85-86]--are delivered in segments with pauses for the crowd to respond and generate pity for Caesar and then righteous indignation after they learn of Caesar’s bequests in the will . Eventually their passions are so inflamed that they are incited to riot. Antony is perhaps the most masterful orator. He has convinced the crowd that he is “a plain blunt man” [III,ii,208], but my students will understand through their analysis that his is in fact, the most calculated and devious deployer of rhetoric in the play. This may lead to a discussion of an audience’s dislike of being manipulated by a rhetorically gifted individual and in inherent reaction to resist the content of what such a person says. Antony’s last speech might respond to the question who is truly the tragic hero of this play. With no benefit to derive from dissembling, Antony states that Brutus “was the noblest Roman of them all” [V,v,68] and his judgment stands as a summary thought for the audience. Still considering the effects of rhetoric, students may also choose a historical interpretation that focuses on the chaos that ensues when the legitimate ruler is usurped.

I hope to demonstrate how Brutus’ funeral oration is ultimately flawed as a result of his dependency upon ethos and style. It is a beautiful piece of rhetoric comprised of repetition, reverse interchanges, the pairing of opposites, and rhetorical questions, but it ultimately demonstrates his narcissistic reliance on his own honor as a justification for murder, and the haughty rhetoric alienates him from his audience. In marked contrast, Antony’s speech is a testament to his apparent emotional trauma. It uses irony and manipulation to firstly convince with logos and then play to the crowd’s emotions with ethos. After close analysis, students will compare and contrast the speeches of Brutus and Antony to reveal the marked contrast between prose and verse, reliance upon ethos as opposed to logos, brevity in contrast to breadth, and careful composition versus an emotional appeal. 19 Although there are a number of questions that direct attention to significant uses of rhetoric, there are also many opportunities to conduct further and deeper analysis. Students may benefit from completing a Venn Diagram that compares and contrasts the speeches of Brutus and Antony (length, prose vs. verse, reaction to the death, commanding vs. coaxing, rhetorical strategies employed, etc.), followed by a discussion of how those differences affect the audience, given the speaker’s purpose. Ultimately it is my hope that students will concur that the masterful use of a variety of rhetorical devices develops logos, ethos and then pathos in Antony’s speech, making him therefore the more effective rhetorician. “He passes the only test that matters in classical rhetoric---audience response.” 20 Film versions of the key speeches by Brutus and Antony will be viewed and compared to demonstrate how delivery profoundly alters perception of the content and to explore the art of public speaking and effective speaking strategies.

Conduct a mock trial of Brutus for the crime of assassinating Caesar. Assign roles for Brutus, several prosecution and defense lawyers, a judge, and witnesses. The remainder of the class will serve as the jury. Students will prepare for their role in the trial. At the end of the trial the jury members will each write a paragraph explanation of their opinion on the guilt or innocence of the defendant and the evidence that swayed them. The judge will deliver an appropriate sentence, having acted as moderator for the process.

Socratic Seminar

A Socratic seminar is a structured conversation between students that demands they use evidence from the text to support their assertions and interact utilizing a constructive model. I tend to use an inner circle of confident speakers to engage in debate while an outer circle takes very specific notes on the types of interactions students engage in: Do they they pose a question, ask another student to elaborate, refer to another student’s ideas when making a point, or use evidence from the text? Posing questions that are highly debatable and don’t necessarily have a correct answer is a favorite strategy to help students prepare for meaningful classroom conversation. When is murder justified? Is assassination morally less reprehensible than murder? How is the treatment of the wives (Portia and Calpurnia) parallel? Is Caesar’s excessive use of his own name and the third person evidence that he is vainglorious or merely that he is cognizant of his own authority? Was Caesar a threat to Rome or just a fallible man? If the conspirators were right to fear Caesar’s power, were they right to kill him? Did Brutus betray Caesar? Why do Cassius and Brutus kill themselves on the battlefield? Do the ends justify the means? Can positive change result from violent action? What is the function of soliloquy? How does the relationship between Brutus and Cassius change over the course of the play?

Students will create a six panel storyboard to convey the most significant plot points of the play. This activity requires students to demonstrate sequencing skills as they determine which are the most significant moments. They will indicate the main ideas and include a caption with a quotation from the text. This activity will be especially engaging for students as they work in groups and will help my English Language Learners remain engaged.

Resource List

Classroom texts.

Duarte, Nancy, “The Secret Structure of Great Talks,” TEDx East video, 18:38,

November 11, 2010,

http://www.ted.com/talks/nancy_duarte_the_secret_structure_of_great_talks

Edlund, Dr. John R. "Ethos, Logos, Pathos." Ethos, Logos, Pathos. Accessed July 31,

2015. http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/jgarret/3waypers.htm.

Epstein, Joseph. "The Divine Miss H, Revisited." The Weekly Standard, June 22, 2015,

Vol 20, No. 39, 5.

King, Martin Luther. Letter from the Birmingham Jail . San Francisco: Harper San

Francisco, 1994.

Shakespeare, William, and John D. Cox. Julius Caesar . Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview,

2013. One of two indispensable texts for the teacher as it includes discussion of

rhetoric that precedes the play as well as [] excerpts from Plutarch’s Lives

of the Noble Grecians and Romans .

Zigarelli, Michael, “An Introduction to Ethos, Logos and Pathos” You Tube, 4:20, May

30, 2014, http://youtu.be/9L_G82HH9Tg

Bibliography for Teachers

Bean, John C., Virginia A. Chappell and Alica M. Gillam. Reading Rhetorically . New

Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc., 2014. This is one of the fundamental texts used by

our ERWC classes in alignment with the Common Core State Standards. Although

written for students, it serves to deconstruct the elements of analysis by teaching

students how to approach thinking, reading and writing from the perspective of

rhetoric and is especially useful in strategies for closely and vigorously annotating

Blits, Jan H. “ From Caesar’s Ambiguous End.” In Julius Caesar , edited by S.P.

Cerasano, 199-210. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012.

Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human . New York: Riverhead Books,

Includes references to Aristotle’s rhetoric, a basic plot diagram and close analysis of

two speeches: “I Have a Dream” by Martin Luther King and a speech by Steve Jobs.

2015. http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/jgarret/3waypers.htm. Great foundational text

to provide students with an opportunity to understand Aristotle’s three most basic

methods of persuasion and can serve to simultaneously teach annotation skills. There

are also great questions at the end of each method that encourage group conversations.

Garber, Marjorie B. Shakespeare after All . New York: Pantheon Books, 2004.

Garber, Marjorie B. Shakespeare and Modern Culture . New York: Pantheon Books,

Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in

Academic Writing . 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2010.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare . New

York: WW. Norton and Co., 2004. I provide my students with some great handouts

on both Shakespeare and life/theater in Elizabethan times, but this biography is a

delightful exploration of the playwright and his world which will help flesh out my

lectures and commentary.

Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can

Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion . New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007.

Joseph, Sister Miriam. Rhetoric in Shakespeare's Time: Literary Theory of Renaissance

Europe. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962.

McGuigan, Brendan, and Paul Moliken. Rhetorical Devices: A Handbook and Activities

for Student Writers . Rev. ed. Clayton, DE: Prestwick House, 2011.

Miner, Horace. “Body Rituals Among the Nacirema”

Museum of the Moving Image, “The Living Room Candidate: Presidential Campaign

Commercials 1952-2012” http://www.livingroomcandidate.org. Given that I will be

teaching this unit in the midst of campaigning for the next presidential election, an

analysis of one of outgoing President Barack Obama’s speeches that used ethos to

arouse hope and logos to address the economy and war might provide useful as will

viewing current candidate’s debates and ads.

Roskelly, Hepzibah. “What do Students Need to Know About Rhetoric.” College Board

Shakespeare, William, and Susan P. Cerasano. Julius Caesar . New York: W.W. Norton,

rhetoric that precedes the play as well as the addition of excerpts from Plutarch’s Lives

of the Noble Grecians and Roman.

Wills, Garry. Rome and Rhetoric: Shakespeare's Julius Caesar . New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press, 2011. Invaluable text in that it analyzes the characters in Julius

Caesar through the lens of rhetoric. While it is far too in-depth an analysis in terms of

depth and breadth for my classroom, it is invaluable to me as an educator to

familiarize myself with Plutarch’s historical take on these men as well as the specific

rhetorical devices in the text.

30, 2014, http://youtu.be/9L_G82HH9Tg. Fun introductory clip to the pragmatic use of the art of persuasion through as example of a detective trying to get a confession from a suspect.

Academic Standards

This is the second year after adoption of the California Common Core State Standards and the Oak Grove High School English department is focused on truly preparing our students for the 21st century.

Enduring Understandings

Students will understand that:

argument is part of a process and debate, and not the last word, nor is it a dogmatic opinion. One can form an opinion while keeping an open mind W.9-10.1 Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or gets, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.

(The ability to accept the writer’s premise and conduct a descriptive outline that seeks comprehension prior to engaging in questioning the text in a skeptical manner will be taught as a discreet skill)

they can observe patterns objectively and thoroughly, especially when they consider how diction, syntax, style and structure profoundly impact how a message is received by an audience. RL.9-10.10 By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas and poems, and the high end of the grades 9-10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. (My aim is to teach perseverance to my students, who often feel overwhelmed by a complicated text like a Shakespeare play. Teaching them to consider speaker, audience, genre, tone, use of figurative language, grammar, sentence structure and rhetoric and how to perform a close annotation of the text that leads to analysis is key)
the rhetorical choices made by an author can influence the way people think or perceive . "Evaluate a speaker's point of view, reasoning, and use evidence and rhetoric, identifying any fallacious reasoning or exaggerated or distorted evidence.” SL.9-10.3

(Ultimately, the honorable Brutus leaves the stage convinced that his authority and ethos have convinced the audience of the necessity of slaying Caesar, and when he offers to fall upon his own sword, they chant “Live, Brutus, live, live!” However, once Antony has played the impassioned crowd like a fiddle, convincing them with both his style [such as using irony], his tearful emotions and the reading of the will, we witness the crowd incited to riot.)

Grammar would actually be imperative to Aristotle as well, considered an essential part of style and therefore noting the schemes of words and repetition would dovetail with this threefold approach to persuasion. Sister Miriam Joseph, Rhetoric in Shakespeare’s Time , 34-38.
John R. Edlund, “Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade.
Sister Miriam Joseph, Rhetoric in Shakespeare’s Time , 20.
P. Cerasano, ed, Julius Caesar , xi.
John Cox, ed, Julius Caesar , 195.
Brutus’ willingness to believe such lies shows that he was predisposed to despise Caesar already.” Garry Wills, Rome and Rhetroic , 14-15.
Harold Bloom, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human,
“The image of Cicero that Shakespeare wants for his play is the typical Renaissance attitude of respect for the champion of liberty,” hence, Shakespeare could not include Cicero amongst the conspirators, nor could he use Plutarch’s assertion that Cicero was elderly and fainthearted without diminishing his image as a defender of the Republic. Gary Wills, Rome and Rhetoric , 7-8.
Jan H. Blits “ From Caesar’s Ambiguous End,” in Julius Caesar , edited by S.P. Cerasano, 210.
“Shakespeare also invented Caesar’s belief in his wife’s barrenness…, a detail that could as easily reflect Caesar’s disability as his wife’s, though Caesar characteristically fails to see the situation that way.” Cox, 17.
John C. Bean, Virgina A. Chappell and Alica M. Gillam, Reading Rhetorically , 36.
Descriptive outlining (says and does statements) can be explored in detail, along with other helpful strategies for annotating text in Reading Rhetorically . John C. Bean, Virgina A. Chappell and Alice M. Gillam, Reading Rhetorically , 56-57
Gerald Graff, and Cathy Birkenstein, They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing ,
Wills, 81-82.

Comments (1)

Send us your comment

Item added to your cart

Rhetorical devices in julius caesar: mark antony's funeral speech.

William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar is a treasure trove of rhetorical devices. What devices does Mark Antony employ in his famous speech at Caesar’s funeral?

Although Mark Antony claims to be a “plain blunt man” who is only able to “speak right on,” he is actually a highly skilled orator who uses a wide range of rhetorical devices not only to persuade his audience but to influence and even inflame their emotions (3.2.230, 235). Antony’s funeral oration amounts to a masterclass in the cynical manipulation of logos, ethos, and pathos!

Because Antony uses so many devices that it’d be hard to account for them all, this blog post will focus on the three most prominent rhetorical devices which play pivotal roles in his speech: rhetorical questions, verbal irony, and paralepsis.

If you’re a teacher who’d like to explore this topic with your students, then you’ll definitely want to check out this Complete Teaching Unit on Julius Caesar . Save yourself hundreds of hours of prep time while amplifying student engagement with this Complete Teaching Unit on Julius Caesar !

Mark Antony's Use of Rhetorical Devices

Mark Antony had been given permission to speak at Caesar’s funeral on the condition that he would not “blame” any of the conspirators (3.1.270). Does Antony ever explicitly blame Brutus or his fellow conspirators? No, Antony never explicitly blames or criticizes the conspirators. Yet the true meaning of his words inheres in what he says implicitly.…

Here, Mark Antony uses a series of rhetorical questions in order to establish that Caesar was not an ambitious person. For example, Antony observes that Caesar conquered many enemies whose “ransoms” enriched the Roman “coffers”; then he asks, “Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?” (3.2.98-99). Antony observes that Caesar refused his offer of the crown three times; then he asks, “Was this ambition?” (3.2.106). While Antony knows how his audience would answer these questions, he does not expect them to answer out loud, since to do so would be to “blame” the conspirators.

Mark Antony finishes each of these points by affirming that Brutus is an “honorable” man. In fact, he repeats the same pair of lines three times verbatim: “Yet Brutus says [Caesar] was ambitious, / And Brutus is an honorable man” (3.2.95-96, 102-103, 107-108). What is the effect of this repetition? By repeating this pair of assertions, Antony suggests that both assertions are untrue. His use of repetition creates verbal irony, whereby a speaker says one thing but means another. While he seems to assert that Brutus is “honorable,” the repetition of this assertion implies that Brutus is really dishonorable.

Mark Antony is a master of verbal irony. His dexterity in deploying ironic words and gestures is evident across a number of scenes in the play. Whereas Brutus consistently embodies honesty and humility, Antony purports to say one thing even as he is really saying the opposite. By using irony, Antony is able to explicitly praise Brutus even while he implicitly blames and condemns him. Each time that Antony seems to affirm that Brutus is an “honorable” man, he is really undermining his opponent’s honor and credibility.

Toward the end of his funeral oration, Mark Antony uses a rhetorical device called “paralepsis.” Paralepsis is a form of verbal irony where the speaker disclaims the very things which he is trying to accomplish! Antony uses paralepsis at least three times in his funeral speech. Here’s just one brief example:

In these lines, what does Antony say he intends to do? What does he actually do? Antony says he doesn’t intend to “stir […] up” his audience so they’ll take revenge on the conspirators; and he says he doesn’t mean to provoke a “sudden flood of munity.” But, of course, what Antony actually does is provoke his audience into pursuing revenge against his political enemies. As if on cue, the people cry, “We’ll mutiny” (3.2.244).

Like so many of Shakespeare’s villains, Mark Antony is an embodiment of duplicity and two-facedness. As the angry mob rushes out with torches to search for the conspirators, Antony utters a two-line soliloquy which reveals his true intentions. Speaking in apostrophe to the “Mischief” which he has sought to provoke, Antony concludes, “Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot; / Take thou what course thou wilt” (3.2.275-276).

Thus, Shakespeare uses this play to demonstrate that while rhetoric can amount to an art of rational persuasion, it can also be exploited for the purpose of manipulating and inflaming other people’s emotions.

Teach It Today!

If you’re a teacher who’d like to explore these and many other topics with your students, then you’ll definitely want to check out this Complete Teaching Unit on Julius Caesar . The 160-page resource packet includes worksheets, discussion questions, and writing prompts for every scene in Julius Caesar . Best of all, it includes a teacher's answer key for every page!

Save yourself dozens of hours of prep time while motivating students to be highly engaged. Check out this Complete Teaching Unit on Julius Caesar . You'll use it for years to come!

Julius Caesar Complete Teaching Resource by Rigorous Resources

Please note, comments need to be approved before they are published.

Choosing a selection results in a full page refresh.
Opens in a new window.

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — The Tragedy of Julius Caesar — Antony and Brutus: Rhetoric Analysis

Antony and Brutus: Rhetoric Analysis

Categories: The Tragedy of Julius Caesar William Shakespeare

About this sample

Words: 436 |

Published: Mar 16, 2024

Words: 436 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 588 words

1 pages / 517 words

1 pages / 838 words

4 pages / 1712 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on The Tragedy of Julius Caesar

The legacy of Brutus, one of the central figures in William Shakespeare's play "Julius Caesar," continues to spark debates over his motivations and actions. In this essay, I will delve into the complex character of Brutus and [...]

Ambition plays a significant role in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, as it drives the actions of the characters and shapes the outcome of the story. In the play, ambition is portrayed as both a driving force for [...]

The characters in the play grapple with the idea of destiny and the power of their own choices, raising questions about whether their actions are predetermined or a result of their own agency. Through the characters of Caesar, [...]

Brutus and Antony's speeches in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar are two of the most famous and widely studied speeches in literature. Both characters deliver their speeches at Caesar's funeral, and their speeches have a [...]

Shakespeare’s Caesar in “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” is often mistaken as being a tyrant. This view comes from the characterization of Caesar through Cassius and Brutus’ eyes. Caesar’s qualities that make him a martyr instead [...]

Shakespeare has been mesmerizing people with his written word for hundreds of years, from his sonnets to his plays. His stories deal with love, betrayal, murder, death, and even suicide; even in the story of Julius Caesar does [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

the brianna effect

Julius caesar: funeral speech analysis (b vs m).

Rhetorical devices are used all throughout the play, Julius Caesar. The characters use these as methods of persuasion in dialogues and monologues. When it comes to the speeches given at Caesar’s funeral, Mark Antony’s speech was the most effective because it gained the permanent support of the Roman’s and contained far more rhetoric than that of Brutus’ speech. Though he did not have the best arguments in every rhetoric, Antony did best Brutus in the majority of them, which ultimately granted him the leadership of Rome. To begin with, the first of the three rhetorical devices used in Brutus and Antony’s speeches is that of ethos. An example of this in Antony’s speech is when he says that “he (Caesar) was my friend, faithful and just to me” (Antony’s Funeral Speech, line 13). In saying this, Antony is building Caesar’s character by showing Caesar’s loyalty and admiration for him. Not only does this show Caesar’s more compassionate side, but it also builds Antony’s credibility by saying that the late leader of Rome respected him. By doing so, he is trying to get the citizens to see that Caesar was a good friend. Brutus, on the other hand, told the plebeians, “as I slew my best lover for the good of Rome, I have the same dagger for myself, when it shall please my country to need my death” (Brutus’s Funeral Speech, line 36). In this quote, he is saying that he would do the same to himself as he did to Caesar if it were to ever benefit Rome. When considering the rhetorical device of ethos, Brutus’ argument is the most persuasive. He is saying that he would kill himself for Rome, which backs his position further than that of Antony. However, although it is true that Brutus had the stronger ethos, Antony proved to be stronger in both pathos and logos.

To further analyze the two essays, one could use the second rhetorical strategy of pathos, which is all about using emotion to convince an audience. Antony used pathos in his funeral speech by saying that “when the poor hath cried, Caesar hath wept” (Antony’s Funeral Speech, line 19). In saying this, he is showing Caesar’s compassion for others, including his citizens. Antony depicts a good leader by showing that that Caesar was effected by the state of his citizens. In Brutus’ speech, he utilized pathos by saying that “there is tears for his love; joy for his fortune; honour for his valor; and death for his ambition” (Brutus’ Funeral Speech, line 17). This quote is Brutus putting actions and repercussions to the the emotions felt by the citizens. Between the pathos in each speech, Antony used the rhetoric more effectively. He shows that Caesar was empathetic rather than trying to twist the already present emotions of the plebeians.

Finally, the third rhetoric is logos, which is persuading someone with facts. Antony tells the citizens, “I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse. Was that ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, and sure he (Brutus) is an honorable man” (Antony’s Funeral Speech, line 24). In saying this, Antony takes away Brutus’ credibility in an innocent manner. He also uses an almost sarcastic extended banter when he keeps undermining Brutus by calling him “honorable”. Brutus, in his example of logos, tells the citizens to “censure me in your wisdom and awake your senses that you may the better judge” (Brutus’ Funeral Speech, line 5). So, rather than giving them a solid example as proof to the plebeians as Antony did, Brutus simply tells the Roman citizens to use their own logic. For that reason, Antony was the most compelling in the logos rhetoric.

In conclusion, both speeches were strong in their own ways. However, collectively, Antony gave a more persuasive funeral speech because of the amount of rhetoric he used and the fact that he gained the support of the plebeians after he gave his speech. In doing so, he best established his position to the Roman citizens in one of the better literary examples of rhetoric we study today.

Rhetorical Analysis of Brutus' and Antony's Funeral Speeches

Word Document File

Description

This assignment asks students to find examples of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in the funeral speeches delivered by Brutus and Antony in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Students will be asked to summarize both speeches, and then separate and identify the way each orator uses Ethos, Pathos, and Logos.

Questions & Answers

Dean christopher.

We're hiring
Help & FAQ
Privacy policy
Student privacy
Terms of service
Tell us what you think

IMAGES

Students analyze the rhetoric in the Julius Caesar funeral speeches by
Brutus Funeral Speech
Brutus Speech At Caesars Funeral
Brutus Speech At Caesars Funeral
Brutus Speech At Caesars Funeral
Brutus Speech At Caesars Funeral

VIDEO

William Shakespeare
#Brutus funeral speech by William #Shakespeare
The Assassination of Julius Caesar A Tale of Betra #history #didyouknow #viral #shorts #rome
Brutus Speech in the Forum by William Shakespeare
Brutus Speech in the Forum Performed By Figura, Samara Nicole BSEDEN 2-1
Brutus Speech

COMMENTS

Julius Caesar Funeral Orations, Part One: Brutus
Only last does Brutus mention any sort of bond between him and his audience: "lovers," which in Shakespeare's day meant "friends" ("lover, n.2.1.a" OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 1 December 2014). In the remainder of his speech, he certainly doesn't use many rhetorical flourishes.
Julius Caesar Act 3, scene 2 Summary & Analysis
Analysis. A crowd of plebeians follows Brutus and Cassius, demanding satisfaction. Half of them follow Cassius to hear his explanation, and half follow Brutus. Brutus begins to speak, asking his countrymen to believe him out of respect for his honor, and to use their wisdom to judge him. He explains that he rose against Caesar not because he ...
Shakespeare Resource Center
The speech could serve as a thematic synopsis to Julius Caesar. Perhaps more than any other of Shakespeare's works, Julius Caesar is a play that hinges upon rhetoric—both as the art of persuasion and an artifice used to veil intent. To be sure, Antony does not have it easy. He is already a man distrusted by the conspirators for his friendship ...
Brutus Funeral Speech Analysis
742 Words3 Pages. The Funeral Speech of Julius Caesar. In Williams Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Antony has a more successful speech than Brutus because Antony appeals to the desire of the Romans. Antony uses sarcasm and verbal irony but Brutus decides to use rhetorical devices. Brutus uses gravitas and his honor but Antony does not.
Scene 2
Analysis. Brutus is blithely unaware of the danger that he has allowed to enter the scene. ... / I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him" funeral oration. Antony's rhetorical skill is impressive; he instantly disarms any opposition in the crowd by saying "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him," but quickly follows this with a subtle turn of ...
A Short Analysis of Mark Antony's 'Friends, Romans, countrymen' Speech
By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University) Mark Antony's 'Friends, Romans, countrymen' speech from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is a masterclass of irony and the way rhetoric can be used to say one thing but imply something quite different without ever naming it.Mark Antony delivers a funeral speech for Julius Caesar following Caesar's assassination at the hands of Brutus and the ...
Julius Caesar Act 3, scene 1 Summary & Analysis
Analysis. With a flourish of trumpets, Caesar, Antony, the conspirators, the soothsayer, senators, and petitioners enter. Caesar observes that "the ides of March are come," and the soothsayer replies that, nevertheless, they are not yet gone. Artemidorus urges Caesar to read his letter first, but Caesar says that a suit concerning himself ...
Close Reading: Friends, Romans, Countrymen
An analysis of the rhetorical tactics Antony employs in his famous funeral speech in "Julius Caesar." ... Antony's Funeral Speech in Act III, Scene ii of Julius Caesar, commonly known as the "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech. ... and furious at Brutus. Rhetorical Devices . If Ethos, Pathos, and Logos are the strategies of rhetorical ...
What argument does Brutus offer at Caesar's funeral?
At Caesar's funeral, which happens in Act III, Scene 2, Brutus argues that what the conspirators did was necessary. He says that Caesar was trying to get too much power for himself.
Brutus and Mark Antony: Speech Analysis
Conclusion. In conclusion, the funeral orations delivered by Brutus and Mark Antony in Julius Caesar are compelling examples of persuasive rhetoric and character-driven speech. Brutus' logical appeal and ethical argumentation seek to justify Caesar's assassination as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good, while Antony's emotional appeal seeks to turn the citizens against the ...
What are the rhetorical devices that Brutus employs his funeral speech
Brutus has a great faith in rationality and his speech reflects this. He "levels" with the people, with a repeated emphasis on the word "honor" to give credence to his motivations. He plays to their virtue, assuming they will understand that their freedom demanded this murder, since it kept Caesar from getting totalitarian power.
Brutus and Antony's Speech Analysis
Brutus and Antony's speeches in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar are two of the most famous and widely studied speeches in literature. Both characters deliver their speeches at Caesar's funeral, and their speeches have a profound impact on the audience and the outcome of the play. This essay will analyze and compare the rhetorical ...
What differentiates the funeral orations of Brutus and Mark Antony in
The basic difference between the funeral speeches of Brutus and Antony is that Brutus, characteristically, appeals to reason and logic, while Antony, characteristically, appeals to emotions ...
15.02.08: Convincing the Masses: Rhetoric in Julius Caesar
Most notable of the speeches will be Brutus and Antony's funeral speeches, which sway the crowd's opinion back and forth. ... sentence structure and rhetoric and how to perform a close annotation of the text that leads to analysis is key) the rhetorical choices made by an author can influence the way people think or perceive. "Evaluate a ...
Brutus & Antony Funeral Speeches Flashcards
2. When the poor suffered, Caesar suffered. 3. He brought prisoners to Rome for the benefit of Rome. The climax of the play where both Brutus and Antony deliver their funeral speeches to Caesar. A section of writing that has a topic sentence, several detail sentences and a concluding sentence. A paragraph should always begin with an indentation ...
Rhetorical Devices in Julius Caesar: Mark Antony's Funeral Speech
Toward the end of his funeral oration, Mark Antony uses a rhetorical device called "paralepsis.". Paralepsis is a form of verbal irony where the speaker disclaims the very things which he is trying to accomplish! Antony uses paralepsis at least three times in his funeral speech. Here's just one brief example:
Antony and Brutus: Rhetoric Analysis
Published: Mar 16, 2024. In play "Julius Caesar," two powerful characters, Antony and Brutus, deliver persuasive speeches to the Roman citizens following Caesar's assassination. Their use of rhetoric plays a crucial role in shaping the citizens' beliefs and actions. This essay will analyze the rhetorical strategies employed by Antony and Brutus ...
Julius Caesar: Funeral Speech Analysis (B vs M)
Julius Caesar: Funeral Speech Analysis (B vs M) Rhetorical devices are used all throughout the play, Julius Caesar. The characters use these as methods of persuasion in dialogues and monologues. When it comes to the speeches given at Caesar's funeral, Mark Antony's speech was the most effective because it gained the permanent support of the ...
Rhetorical Devices in Brutus Speech: Critical Analysis Essay
In conclusion, the three rhetorical devices used by the speakers, to influence their audiences are repetition, parallelism, and pathos. The speakers used rhetorical devices with a specific goal in mind, to conjure up feelings inside the audience. In numerous speeches, the speaker utilizes the method of rhetoric to persuade and excite the viewers.
Ethos, Pathos, Logos Rhetorical Analysis of Funeral Speeches in ...
In this close reading analysis presentation of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in Act 3, Scene 2 of William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Brutus and Antony's funeral speeches are broken into pieces depending on which rhetorical technique is used.Students can easily follow along with a graphic organizer handout as you explain EPL in each speech section by section using the PowerPoint provided.
Rhetorical Analysis of Brutus' and Antony's Funeral Speeches
This assignment asks students to find examples of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in the funeral speeches delivered by Brutus and Antony in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Students will be asked to summarize both speeches, and then separate and identify the way each orator uses Ethos, Pathos, and Logos.
Essay about Rhetorical Analysis of Antony's Funeral Speech
Essay about Rhetorical Analysis of Antony's Funeral Speech. On the Ides of March in 44 B.C., Roman Emperor Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by a group of prominent politicians led by Marcus Brutus. The sudden death of Caesar created a power vacuum which gave rise of a two factions, one headed by Brutus and Cassius and the other by Antony ...

Julius Caesar Funeral Orations, Part One: Brutus

Share this:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Julius Caesar "Friends, Romans, countrymen...."

A Short Analysis of Mark Antony’s ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen’ Speech

Discover more from Interesting Literature

2 thoughts on “A Short Analysis of Mark Antony’s ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen’ Speech”

Julius Caesar

The Shakespearean Student

Close Reading: Friends, Romans, Countrymen

Share this:

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Julius Caesar

Log In To Your GradeSaver Account

Create Your GradeSaver Account

Convincing the Masses: Rhetoric in Julius Caesar

Demographics

Rhetoric and Rigor

Content Objectives

Concerning Rhetoric

The Five Canons of Rhetoric

Elizabethan Theater

Analyzing the Characters

Teaching Strategies

They Say I Say

Classroom Activities

Funeral Speeches

Socratic Seminar

Resource List

Bibliography for Teachers

Academic Standards

Enduring Understandings

Comments (1)

Item added to your cart

Leave a comment

Antony and Brutus: Rhetoric Analysis

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on The Tragedy of Julius Caesar

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

the brianna effect

Share this:

Rhetorical Analysis of Brutus' and Antony's Funeral Speeches

Description

Questions & Answers

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS