RHETORIC AS POWER

Public speaking was one of the chief values of the Roman Republic, and Julius Caesar presents
many examples of noble characters who deliver persuasive arguments in elevated language using
classical techniques of rhetoric. Rhetoric is a term that refers to both the substance of a speaker’s
argument—the appeals to reason, emotion, or values that the speaker makes to support a point—
but also to the style and arrangement of words for maximum effect. For example, in the first scene,
the tribune Murellus scolds the commoners for celebrating Caesar’s defeat of Pompey. He shames
them by reminding them of their previous love for Pompey and the many times they celebrated his
victories, culminating in a series of rhetorical questions that is forceful because of its repeated
syntax:

"And do you now put on your best attire?

The elegant arrangement of the words combined with the clear emotional appeal (look at how
ungrateful you’re all being) and the vivid imagery of Pompey’s blood makes a powerful impact.

Julius Caesar is made up of many speeches like this, in which characters present an argument
justifying their actions or decisions or to persuade someone else to act a certain way. Each of the
major characters—Brutus, Caesar, Cassius, Portia, Mark Antony—delivers a number of such
speeches, and each has his or her own distinct style of using rhetoric.

BRUTUS’ RHETORIC: The central action of the play is the assassination of Caesar, and Brutus
is the character who has to make a public speech attempting to justify it. In Act II, Scene 1, we see
him deliberating with himself about the possible rationales for killing Caesar, not so much
delivering a speech as working out how he would justify the killing, testing and discarding possible
arguments. His arguments here notably lack the things that make other speeches in the play
persuasive, such as emotional appeals, appeals to shared values, or vivid imagery. He admits that
he has no personal reason to hate Caesar and can’t point to anything Caesar has actually done as
justifications. His reasons are very abstract and sound like philosophical propositions or sayings
from books:

“The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins

Since Brutus sees himself as rational and not governed by emotion or self-interest, he might see
this abstract quality as a good thing, but because his arguments are so far removed from how actual
people think and feel, they lack persuasiveness. The murder itself is going to be horrible, and to
say “we killed him because of what he might do in the future” is not going to hold up to scrutiny.
The finished product, the speech Brutus actually gives to the public after the killing, is more
polished and clear than the earlier version, and it does display a command of style, most obviously
in the repetition of syntax and sentence structure to create a rhythm:

“Hear me … Believe me … Censure me,” (III, 2)

or

“As Caesar loved me … As he was fortunate … As he was valiant…” (III, 2)

The speech’s main feature is that it is very brief and to the point. Brutus strives to show that he is
just and balanced, neither exaggerating Caesar’s faults or minimizing his virtues. He seems to
condense his reasons into as few words as possible for maximum impact:

“Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” (III, 2)

He doesn’t ornament the speech with imagery. The resulting speech is reasonable but not
especially compelling. In fact, because it’s so didactic it actually underlines how disconnected it
is from normal human feelings or values. We don’t usually hear people talk about how they love
and honor their friends for certain qualities and at the same time kill them for others.

ANTONY’S RHETORIC: Antony’s speech over Caesar’s corpse is a far more masterful display
of rhetoric than Brutus’s. We know while watching this speech that his motivations are bad, since
he has explained to the audience in Act III, Scene 1 that he wants revenge for Caesar’s death and
that the outcome he hopes for is “war and destruction.” Thus we may view his speech as primarily
manipulative and insincere, since he says so many things he obviously doesn’t mean, such as that
he’s not going to read the plebeians the will when he obviously wants them to demand he read it.
But in fact, Antony’s speech as a whole shows how effective irony can be as a rhetorical device.
He juxtaposes concrete, simple statements about Caesar that his audience can relate to or that they
know to be true, such as that Caesar was his friend, that his audience once loved Caesar, that Caesar
made many conquests for Rome, that he refused a crown, etc., with statements that he clearly wants
his audience to disagree with, such as that the good Caesar did should be “buried” or forgotten,
that Caesar was ambitious, and that Brutus and the other conspirators are honorable men. The
effect of irony on the listeners is so powerful because it creates the impression that they are seeing
a “truth” for themselves that contradicts what the speaker is saying. The speech would still be
effective even if Antony and his audience are both “in on” the fact that he’s being deliberately
insincere. Whether we see him as sly and manipulative or bitingly sarcastic, and whether we see
the plebeians as dimwitted dupes or sharper and more aware, could vary depending on how this
scene is performed.