DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Sean Young

3/18/14

 

First Essay: Julius Caesar REVISION

 

     Every day, words are used to captivate and persuade people. But what is it that lures us in and makes us listen? Shakespeare knew what type of speeches could change a crowd’s opinion and this rhetoric is in the play Julius Caesar. Rome was known for admiring the qualities of physical body and strength, yet there was also immense power in the oral language. More specifically, the characters in Julius Caesar show that great rhetoric and knowing one’s audience has the power changes minds. Almost every character demonstrates this, and it is especially apparent during Brutus’s and Antony’s speech regarding the death of Caesar.

     Before talking about Brutus and Antony, the females in the play need to be looked at, as their own speeches greatly demonstrate that rhetoric and knowing your audience can move mountains. In Act 2, Portia persuades her husband by pouring out her heart and speaking truth. Portia asks Brutus to tell her the truth of what is happening, and says “I should not need, if you were gentle Brutus./ Within the bond of marriage, tell me, Brutus,/ is it expected I should know no secrets/ that appertain to you?.../ If it be no more, Portia is Brutus’ harlot, not his wife.” (2.1 302-310) Brutus is moved to tears and tells Portia that he will reveal everything to her. Portia is able to persuade Brutus due to her rhetoric, and knowing exactly what to say to her husband. Portia knows that Brutus loves her dearly, and would never want to associate her to a harlot instead of his wife. Because of this, Portia is able to persuade Brutus by making him ultimately feel like an uncaring husband. And that is something that seems to hit Brutus hard, as he immediately says “You are my true and honorable wife,/ as dear to me as are the ruddy drops/ that visit my sad heart.” (2.1 311-313) Because Portia used this clever rhetoric with Brutus, Brutus was persuaded from keeping his plot to kill Caesar a secret with her.

     Calphurnia is also able to change Caesar’s mind due to her wording and rhetoric. She is willing to put herself in the line of fire in order to try and get Caesar to stay home where she knows he will be safe from harm. She begs Caesar not to go to the capitol and says “Do not go forth today. Call it fear/ that keeps you in the house, and not your own./ We’ll send Mark Antony to the Senate House,/ and he shall say you are not well today.” (2.2 54-58) Caesar, moved by this, is persuaded to stay at home, until he is tricked by Decius. Now, Caesar is a man not easily moved or persuaded. But the fact that Calphurnia could change Caesar’s mind about going to the capitol says a lot, especially since Caesar wouldn’t want to look like he lacks courage and strength in front of the senate. Now how does Calphurnia persuade Caesar so easily? It is because she knows exactly what Caesar wants to hear. She knows that Caesar will listen to her if she takes the blame and if his absence looks like it is due to illness, not fearfulness. Calphurnia knows a lot about rhetoric and even more so about her husband Caesar. Putting the two together, she was able to easily persuade him.

     The release of Cimber is a great example of how speech that isn’t backed up by rhetoric fails to persuade anyone. The conspirators against Caesar do not truly wish to release Cimber from banishment; they only use this as an excuse to close in and murder Caesar. Even though all the conspirators, starting with Metellus and ending with Brutus, kneel and appeal their case for the release of Publius Cimber, Caesar is not moved and does not deter from his original decision. And why would Caesar not change his mind on the matter when eight men, including his close friend Brutus, kneel and plead before him? It is because the conspirator’s plead has no meat behind its words. Their speech isn’t backed up by the rhetoric, and is in fact based upon deceit and lies. And without speaking with rhetoric, words cannot persuade a man.

     Now, Brutus’s speech regarding his reasoning for killing Caesar fails in comparison to Antony’s because it lacks any rhetoric and he fails to realize the audience he is addressing. When speaking to the people of Rome, Brutus speaks in prose, which is more direct and used by commoners. This may seem like Brutus is trying to connect to the people of Rome, but it actually reveals that Brutus’s speech, by speaking in prose, is actually very artificial for a person such as Brutus. In fact, during his speech, Brutus uses words such as “I” and “Brutus” a lot, thus referencing himself (3.2. 117-119). This type of language and logic closely mimics that of Caesar, not that of Brutus. Thus in some twisted way, Brutus has taken on Caesar’s persona after murdering him. Brutus isn’t even being truthful to himself in a sense. During his speech, he persuades the people by making them believe that Caesar was a tyrant ruler and that his murder would only benefit Rome. However, he gives no real hard evidence to show that Caesar would have indeed been a horrible tyrant and ruin Rome.

In fact, Brutus’s speech doesn’t even seem to reflect that he himself cares about the people of Rome. He does not address the people during the speech at all, but rather centers it on himself. He does not use rhetoric at all and fails to realize just who he is addressing. Brutus says “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I love Rome more.” (3.2 23-24) Brutus may have believed he was speaking the truth and that killing Caesar would be better for the Republic, but he doesn’t realize that his words of loving Rome more will not sink in to this angry crowd of people. Brutus just fails to realize that he is addressing an angry mob, upset at Caesar’s death. He is trying to justify himself without real reasoning. He gives lies of Caesar’s ambition and reasoning, only gaining the people’s trust because of his status and close relationship with Caesar himself. At this point, Brutus’s reasoning almost seems selfish and only pertaining to him. There’s no connection to the people of Rome or a greater good, he’s only trying to justify his actions of murder through lies and slander. None of it is persuasive, and he is clearly lacking rhetoric. When Antony takes the stand, Brutus’ words are quickly forgotten because it lacked impact in the first place.

     Antony’s speech is much more effective at persuading the audience to join his side against Brutus because he is able to use rhetoric very well, and knows exactly what the people want to hear and what they don’t. Antony actually shows the people of Rome proof that Caesar was not an ambitious man and would not have been a tyrannical ruler. He reminds the people that Caesar refused the crown three times which shows that Caesar did not have the “ambition” that Brutus was trying to use against him. And on top of that, Antony doesn’t even outright slander Brutus. He calls him an honorable man during the whole speech, which is the truth; Brutus was an honorable man who only did what he did because he thought it to be righteous. And the final nail in the coffin is when Antony reveals Caesar’s actual written will, which dictates that each man of Rome would acquire seventy five drachmas and the private arbors and orchards of Caesar’s land (3.2. 121-133).

Antony’s rhetoric and knowledge that the audience is one that cares for Caesar is what makes his speech so convincing. Antony says things such as “my heart is in the coffin there with Caesar” (3.2 116). The plebeians think that Antony is truly grieving for Caesar, sharing the same emotions as them. This helps Antony level with and be a part of the people, rather than Brutus whose strategy was to try and prove innocence. Or the fact that Antony actually spoke to the people of Rome, providing theoretical questions to the audience and engaging them in the speech, unlike Brutus who spoke mostly of himself. And along with that, by giving true evidence of Caesar’s ambition (or lack off) and by reading his will that showed Caesar’s true nature and care for the people of Rome, the audience then, and only then, truly turned against Brutus and the other conspirators. It was the cunning manipulation Antony used on the crown to win this battle.

Shakespeare knew that rhetoric and knowledge of one’s listener is a power capable of driving people. And thus, the many characters and their speeches in Julius Caesar reflect just that, especially in the crucial turning point in the story where Brutus and Antony give their speeches during Caesar’s funeral. Brutus’s speech lacked tactic, rhetoric, hard evidence, and even real passion. Whereas Antony’s speech was exactly the opposite; it was passionate, persuasive, and gave the people of Rome all the evidence they needed to turn against Brutus.

    

 

 

Work Cited

 

Shakespeare, William, Barbara Mowat, and Paul Werstine. Julius Caesar. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 2011. Print.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Sean Young

1/25/14

 

First Essay: Julius Caesar

 

     Every day, words are used to captivate and persuade people. But what is it that lures us in and makes us listen? Shakespeare knew what type of speeches could change a crowd’s opinion and it is evident in the play “Julius Caesar”. Even though Rome was known for admiring the qualities of physical body and strength, there was also power in the oral language. More specifically, the characters in “Julius Caesar” show that speaking the truth and from the heart with passion are what changes minds. Almost every character demonstrates this, and it is especially apparent during Brutus’s and Antony’s speech regarding the death of Caesar.

     Before delving into Brutus and Antony, I’d like to talk about the females in the play, as their own speeches greatly demonstrate that truthful and heartfelt words can persuade mountains. In Act 2, Portia persuades her husband by pouring out her heart and speaking truth. Portia asks Brutus to tell her the truth of what is happening, and tells him that as husband and wife, they should be able to share anything with one another. Brutus is moved to tears and tells Portia that he will reveal everything to her (2.1. 67-71). And even though he never gets to tell her the truth due to lack of time, I truly feel that his mind had been changed from secretive to being open due to Portia. Because Portia was being absolutely honest with Brutus and with no hidden selfish intentions, Brutus was persuaded from keeping his plot to kill Caesar a secret with her.

     Calphurnia does an even better job of absolutely changing Caesar’s mind due to an honest speech from her heart. She is willing to put herself in the line of fire in order to try and get Caesar to stay home where she knows he will be safe from harm. She begs Caesar not to go to the capitol and to tell everyone that it was her fault, thus to make sure people do not look at Caesar as a coward. Caesar, moved by this, is persuaded to stay at home, until he is tricked by Decius (2.2. 75-81). Now, Caesar is not easily moved or persuaded, which is easily seen by the fact that he will not undo his decision of banishing Publius Cimber. But the fact that Calphurnia could change Caesar’s mind about going to the capitol says a lot, especially since Caesar wouldn’t want to look like he lacks courage and strength. Now how does Calphurnia persuade Caesar so easily? It is because she speaks with love and honesty from her heart. She truly cares for Caesar and believes that if he does not stay home, he will die this day. Caesar’s mind changes because Calphurnia’s words are backed up with such passion and honesty.

     Speaking of the banishment of Cimber, which is a great example of how speech that isn’t backed up with the truth fails to persuade anyone. The conspirators against Caesar do not truly wish to release Cimber from banishment; they only use this as an excuse to close in and murder Caesar. Even though all the conspirators, starting with Metellus and ending with Brutus, kneel and appeal their case for the release of Publius Cimber, Caesar is not moved and does not deter from his original decision (3.1. 95-99). And why would Caesar not change his mind on the matter when eight men, including his close friend Brutus, kneel and plead before him? It is because the conspirator’s plead has no meat behind its words. Their speech isn’t backed up by the truth, and is in fact based upon deceit and lies. And without speaking truth and from the heart, words cannot persuade a man.

     Now, Brutus’s speech regarding his reasoning for killing Caesar fails in comparison to Antony’s because it lacks hard evidence and truth. When speaking to the people of Rome, Brutus speaks in prose, which is more direct and used by commoners. This may seem like Brutus is trying to connect to the people of Rome, but it actually reveals that Brutus’s speech, by speaking in prose, is actually very artificial for a person such as Brutus. In other words, it is fake. In fact, during his speech, Brutus uses words such as “I” and “Brutus” a lot, thus referencing himself (3.2. 117-119). This type of language and logic closely mimics that of Caesar, not that of Brutus. Thus in some twisted way, Brutus has taken on Caesar’s persona after murdering him. Brutus isn’t even being truthful to himself in a sense. During his speech, he persuades the people by making them believe that Caesar was a tyrant ruler and that his murder would only benefit Rome. However, he gives no real hard evidence to show that Caesar would have indeed been a horrible tyrant and ruin Rome.

In fact, Brutus’s speech doesn’t even seem to reflect that he himself cares about the people of Rome. He does not address the people during the speech at all, but rather centers it on himself. Brutus may have believed he was speaking the truth and that killing Caesar would be better for the Republic; however his speech is the complete opposite. He gives lies of Caesar’s ambition and reasoning, only gaining the people’s trust because of his status and close relationship with Caesar himself. At this point, Brutus’s reasoning almost seems selfish and only pertaining to him. There’s no connection to the people of Rome or a greater good, he’s only trying to justify his actions of murder through lies and slander. Because his speech was modeled by these false pretenses, it falls apart when Antony takes the stage.

     Antony’s speech is much more effective at persuading the audience to join his side against Brutus because it is backed up by the truth and has evidence to show for it. Antony actually shows the people of Rome proof that Caesar was not an ambitious man and would not have been a tyrannical ruler. He reminds the people that Caesar refused the crown three times which shows that Caesar did not have the “ambition” that Brutus was trying to use against him. And on top of that, Antony doesn’t even outright slander Brutus. He calls him an honorable man during the whole speech, which is the truth; Brutus was an honorable man who only did what he did because he thought it to be righteous. And the final nail in the coffin is when Antony reveals Caesar’s actual written will, which dictates that each man of Rome would acquire seventy five drachmas and the private arbors and orchards of Caesar’s land (3.2. 121-133).

Antony may have had to use sneaky techniques to pull the people to his side at first, but the truth is what ended up changing their minds. Antony used trickery and clever wording to grasp the audience initially, such as speaking highly of Brutus and lowly of Caesar to pretend to be on Brutus’s side and then slowly switching that ideal around to lure the people onto his side of the argument. Or the fact that Antony actually spoke to the people of Rome, providing theoretical questions to the audience and engaging them in the speech, unlike Brutus who spoke mostly of himself. Although Antony did these things, I feel it is important to realize that that alone would not have been enough to change the minds of the people. What actually persuaded them was the fact that Antony was passionate and being honest with himself and the audience. His speech was truly heartfelt as he actually cared very deeply for Caesar and the audience felt his sadness and pain. And along with that, by giving true evidence of Caesar’s ambition (or lack off) and by reading his will that showed Caesar’s true nature and care for the people of Rome, the audience then, and only then, truly turned against Brutus and the other conspirators. It was the truth that set them free.

Shakespeare knew that truth and honesty from the heart is what drives people. And thus, the many characters and their speeches in “Julius Caesar” reflect just that, especially in the crucial turning point in the story where Brutus and Antony give their speeches during Caesar’s funeral. Brutus’s speech lacked truth, hard evidence, and even real passion. Whereas Antony’s speech was exactly the opposite; it was passionate, honest, and gave the people of Rome all the evidence they needed to turn against Brutus.

    

 

 

Work Cited

 

Shakespeare, William, Barbara Mowat, and Paul Werstine. Julius Caesar. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 2011. Print.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.