Rhetorical Analysis of Marc Antony’s Speech Shakespeare wrote many great plays in his time, one of which being the story of Julius Caesar. Although Caesar was popularly known as a war general and tyrant, Shakespeare shows us a different side of this great man through the speech of Marc Antony. Not only does Marc Antony appeal to the citizen present in the play, but he brings forth an empathetic view point from those reading or watching the play, as well. Marc Antony’s speech was one of great emotion and passion, used to persuade the crowds and the observers of the play that Caesar was not a horrible man. In the play, Marc Antony is speaking to the common folks of Rome, whose opinions change as quickly as the Tucson weather.
In Act III Scene II of Julius Caesar, Shakespeare composes essentially a war in rhetoric between the characters of Brutus and Mark Antony. Although for different purposes, both speeches given by Brutus and Mark Antony, pertaining to Caesar’s murder, contain poignant and skilled rhetoric in order to win over the citizens of Rome. Brutus bases his speech upon the appeal of ethos, being straight forward and honest with his audience, defending his ethical foundation. On the other hand, Antony’s speech is based upon the appeal of pathos and logos, delivering strong emotional and logical examples to support his argument, as well as dramatic effects with his use of striking pauses and props. Both orators use many combinations of rhetorical devices from Isocolon and Chiasmus to logical fallacies such as Ad Hominem, in order to influence the citizens of Rome into agreeing with their opinion of Caesar’s death.
Through these conflicting perspectives, the textual form of Julius Caesar creates greater interaction with the audience. The conversation between Cassius and Brutus in Act 1 Scene ii is important for the construction of the two characters of both individuals and Caesar himself. The structure of the conversation is in itself revealing of the characters of Brutus and Cassius; Cassius constructs a long argument, using evidence which he can only claim to have happened, to convince Brutus of Caesar’s unworthiness. It is possible that the events Cassius describes are lies and this would serve to reinforce his characterisation as manipulative, though it is equally possible that they are truths – this in itself highlights the complexities of human nature. Brutus says very little and listens through the entirety of Cassius’ monologue with no comment on it at all, and this provides the audience with the perspective that Brutus is judicious.
Though to understand, we must first know the character of the person being persuaded while evaluating this strategy as it’s by nature a very personal oriented sort of persuasion. So Brutus, the one being persuaded, is a by the book, live for nobility, die for honor type of a Roman--and everyone in Rome knows it. Oh, but you don’t believe me? Well just take a look at what Brutus says in line 88-89 of Act 1, scene II and I’m sure you will: “88For let the gods so speed me as I love 89The name of honor more than I fear death.” This is fantastic! For we now know who Brutus is!
Brendan Hyland History 677 Professor McMahon 10/08/13 Cicero’s, In Defense of Marcus Caelius, can be distinguished from his and other judicial speeches of the era due to its overtly theatrical style and rhetoric. Cicero effectively employs a number of dramatic techniques to serve his purpose to acquire his audience’s ‘attenti’ and ‘benivoli’. As R. G. Austin notes in his text titled, Cicero:Pro M. Caelio Oratio, ‘the three traditional functions of the orator were docere, delectare, movere, described as ‘to teach, to delight, and to move.’ Docere, translated as to instruct, teach, or point out, was first introduced in Cicero’s book, De Oratore. Cicero completed this text in 55 BC as a dialogue to ‘describe the ideal speaker and imagine him as a moral guidance of the state.’ Cicero breaks down the term Docere further and summarizes that 'to teach' means to ‘provide truth through rational argument and statement of facts.’ Delectare translates to "delight" and Cicero believed that this form of rhetoric exists solely to pleasure the listener. Cicero uses delectare as a form of speech that appeals to someone’s ethos, or character, for no other reason than to amuse the audience.
In the play, Brutus and Antony are the major contributors on the battle of honour, both using it is as a ploy to gain the support of the people of Rome and to accentuate their own honourable qualities. The funerary speeches are the point in the play where the audiences view is altered to be seen more from Antony’s point of view. Brutus initiates his speech utilising humility, intimacy and emotive language as key concepts to persuade his audience regarding the justification of Caesar’s assassination, where as Antony instantly uses flattery, moving into sarcasm and rhetorical question to sway the Roman crowd and audience into believing that Brutus’ acts were not done out of honour – an act which within itself is
Through an examination and evaluation of these two texts, it will be seen how composers are able to manipulate perspectives through the specific representation of ideas. Julius Caesar is Shakespeare’s response to prevailing attitudes of the time. Through his examination of this situation, he is able to make comment on aspects of his own society, thereby offering his individual perspective. The personality of Julius Caesar is examined through the conflicting perspectives of Marc Antony and Brutus, in particular on the occasion of the speeches that are given by both these figures upon Caesars death. Brutus speaks on prose, presenting Caesar as a person who put himself before his people.
This is emphasised in the funeral eulogies of Brutus and Antony. Brutus in his funeral eulogy is aiming at the reason and the logic of the Roman public in order to justify his actions. This is evident in his use of Locus read throughout his speech; the use of rhetorical questions is aimed solely so that no one can disagree in fear of being seen as a traitor of Rome. In his opening line “Romans, countrymen and lovers” the facing of Romans as the first word highlights what Brutus believes in – the democracy and the republic of Rome. This is deliberately aimed at showing the public his honour and that he will do anything for Rome “I loved Caesar but I love Rome more” the use of the emotive language and the repetition of love further highlight this.
* Paragraph 1 – Shakespeare portrays Brutus and Antony in unique and differentiated ways to explore his own perception of each character * Brutus’ agenda is to Justify the assassination of Caesar and to win the people over with the aim of leading the nation * Brutus’ speech is spoken in prose which Shakespeare has used to represent the idea that Brutus is talking down to the audience and shows us that he is condescending * Antony’s speech is spoken in verse which means that he respects his audience and treats them like they are greater than him * Represents his manipulative nature and that his speech is based on emotion * Shakespeare’s use of textual form * ‘Had you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead to live all freemen?’ * Use of rhetorical questions to show that he is trying to manipulate the audience * Antony’s agenda however is to denigrate the conspirators, with his underlying agenda being to become heir to Caesar * ‘Brutus is an honourable
We witness this through the comments of the other characters in the play. At the beginning of the play, we see Macbeth being referred to as “Brave Macbeth” and receiving praises such as “Bellona’s Bridegroom”, comparing him to the Roman God of War, Mars. He is clearly held in high esteem having a reputation for his ferocity and his prowess in battle. However, in the closing scenes of the play, we see him being referred to such things as “the tyrant” and “hell-hound”. We see that his reputation has been completely reversed, going from hero of many to universal enemy.