Brutus Vs. Antony: A War In Rhetoric Essay

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 Caesars 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, Antonys 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 Caesars death. In both of the funeral orations, we are able to see the power of rhetoric and its ability to persuade crowds through Brutus and Mark Antony.

Brutus speech falls into the description of the classic rhetoric appeal of ethos, basing his argument on his credibility from an ethical standpoint in order to persuade the crowd to believe me [Brutus] for mine honor, and have respect to mine honor, that you may believe. As being one of the conspirators that took part in Caesars death, Brutus uses rhetorical devices from the beginning of his speech, like this Chiasmus for instance, in order to give reason to his actions and advocate his respectable character. Here Brutus is emphasizing that honorable people tell the truth, and since he is an honorable man they should believe what he says, for he too will tell the truth, hiding all possibility that they should doubt his words for lies. Brutus also includes an Isocolon in the lines As Caesar loved me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honor him: The parallelism in this Isocolon demonstrates that Brutus was faithful to Caesar, cared for Caesar, and loved Caesar, which are all admirable and truthful characteristics. Since these lines convey a positive context of truth, the transition into the next line, but, as he was ambitious, I slew him. stays in tune with the previous grammatical parallelism, reducing the negative connotation associated with murder. This also pushes the citizens closer towards believing Brutus, since his character was honorable and truthful before Caesars death, as established in the beginning lines of the Isocolon.

Brutus also uses a figure of parallelism, Antithesis, to give the Roman citizens insight to his character with the line, Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. With these powerful words, Brutus is able to show that he is self-less, sacrificing someone he loved dearly for the betterment of his country and fellow Romans. Another way Brutus is able to draw the crowd closer in believing in his reputable character is through the use of Polyptoton. With this I depart-that, 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. With Brutus placing his own life on the line for his country, he is able to yet again show his selflessness, further justifying his argument that the murder of Caesar was not a crime of vengeance or hate, but one of necessity in order to protect the people. This figure of speech further solidifies Brutus character even more, leading the audience to believe that Caesars murder was not a crime, but was an act of devotion that had to be done for the betterment of Rome and its people.

Brutus parts by addressing the audience with Conduplicatio, a form of repetition, telling the people to Do grace to Caesars corpse, and grace his speech. This departing line, which lacks disrespect and hostility, reflects upon Brutus good character, emphasizing that they [citizens of Rome] too should be graceful, and show respect for both the fallen Caesar and his adversary Mark Antony, like he is able to. Even though this speech delivered by Brutus may fall short in length, he is able to exemplify the appeal of ethos successfully, establishing his credibility and honor, and departing from the crowd with them in complete support of his character and justification in the murder of Caesar.

Mark Antony however takes a different approach in attempt to persuade the audience. He too uses rhetoric to mesmerize the citizens of Rome, but bases his speech upon the appeals of both pathos and logos. When Antony first rises to speak, he is faced with opposition from the crowd, who is now in full support of Brutus. With the odds against him, Antony cleverly enough begins his speech with a prolepsis, announcing to the Romans, Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not praise him. By using this figure of anticipation, Antony is able to successfully refute an argument he knew would arise by disarming the crowd and reducing their hostility, making his character more relatable to the other Romans by addressing them all as if on personal level, as well as having them feel as if he is also on their side. But what the crowd is unaware of is that Antony wishes to avenge the death of his friend and mentor, Julius Caesar, by taking drastic action against the conspirators involved in Caesars murder.

As Antony continues on, he adds in an apostrophe stating I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, but here I am to speak what I do know. And with this statement he is able to indirectly attack Brutus credibility by stressing that fact that what he speaks of more truthful than the words from Brutus. He also uses a combination of repetition and irony to sway the crowd in his direction. He repeats many times that Brutus is an honorable man. Initially the line is used in a literal sense to avoid any disagreement from the Brutus supporting audience, but as Antony progresses deeper into his speech he gives the citizens reasons to relinquish Brutus honor and the crowd then is able to pick up on the irony implied from each line that states Brutus is an honorable man, becoming more apparent with every repetition of the phrase. Antony also uses dramatic techniques to put even more of an emphasis on the irony of Brutus honor, for instance repeating honorable three times during his pause before he weeps for Caesar. Another example of this is when Antony speaks the lines I will not do them wrong; I rather choose to wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you, than I will wrong such honorable me. With this repetition of the word wrong, which in itself already holds a negative context, used alongside the phrase honorable men, which Antony has already attacked with irony, he is once again is able to damage Brutus character, along with the other conspirators with the use of repetition and irony. By using these rhetorical devices, Antony is able to stay within the agreement to not speak ill of the conspirators at a literal level, but is still able to damage their characters credibility with irony, while reinforcing it at the same time with repetition.

Even though both orators use different appeals of classic rhetoric in their speeches, they still share similar figurative devices when addressing the people of Rome. The use of rhetorical questions is extremely effective in persuading the crowd and its power is displayed in both Brutus speech as well as Mark Antonys. Brutus addresses the crowd by asking them, Had you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men? Even though Brutus is working under assumption here, he talks of it as fact, which is even stronger in convincing the crowd that Caesar was indeed ambitious and would have enslaved all of Rome. Mark Antonys is quite effective as well in his use of rhetorical questions, opposing Brutus accusations of Caesars ambition by giving examples of Caesars actions before his death. He hath brought many captives home to Rome whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? ...I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? When Antony brings up these instances displaying that Caesar, in fact, did not possess the ambitious traits Brutus claimed he did, it arouses the question of murder and forces the crowd to question Brutus justification in Caesars death.

In a battle of words, in a war of rhetoric, both Brutus and Antonys funeral orations contain powerful figures of speech. Some of these include chiasmus, antithesis, rhetorical questions, irony, and many uses of repetition. Although both orators are effective in persuading the crowd, overall, Mark Antonys reigns supreme. His speech is emotionally moving, full of passion and pain along with intellectual persuasiveness, ultimately winning over the crowd and leading them to riot against the conspirators.