Julius Caesar

the-tragedy-of-julius-caesar

The Tragedy of Julius Caesar

October 14, 2016
The Tragedy of Julius Caesar
Help Received: See Works Cited
Matthew Penaranda
October 14, 2016
Help Received: See Works Cited
The Tragedy of Julius Caesar

William Shakespeare frequently considers the rhetoric of power and politics of the Elizabethan era. For instance, the last short essay I wrote regarding Shakespeare’s` play Henry V was an insightful evaluation of the dichotomies of a monarchy. Taking place in Rome, there is an emphasis on the art of rhetoric in the most politically charged play of this course so far. This essay will identify and analyze the rhetorical strategies of Mark Antony’s funeral oration with a specific interest in the language and structure.
With the Elizabethan era coming to a close, Douglas Trevor points out in his introduction that there is a distinct dramaturgical shift from Shakespeare’s earlier more comic plays to tragedies that are more critical of political forms. While theater was popular amongst the masses, criticism of the religious and secular authorities was generally out of the question and yet Shakespeare becomes increasingly invested in political and social commentary in plays such as Julius Caesar. In many ways, Brutus’ and Cassius’ rebellion reflects unrest in Shakespeare’s England amidst the end of the Elizabethan era. The increasingly humanist sentiments of Europe at this time resulted in skepticism towards the precedence of absolute power. Interestingly enough, the play’s ultimate hero is Mark Antony who avenges the assassination of Julius Caesar. The rhetorical devices that Mark Antony uses to undermine Brutus’ speech include: irony, rhetorical question,
Simply ordering the plebeians to kill Brutus and Cassius would not have been as effective as the subtlety of Antony’s passive aggressive irony because there were those who were very much aware of the potential tyranny that Caesar would have been capable of with the crown. Instead, Antony undermines his opponents’ notion of honor. In lieu of Brutus speech, which explained that his actions were out of virtue and honor, Antony begins his speech with ironic affirmations of the notion of his enemy’s character saying, “so are they all, honorable men (III. ii. 83). The ironic declarations of Brutus’ honor is repeated and accompanied each time with a sarcastic instance when Brutus’ actions reflected honor. The following are lines that follow the Antony’s ironic assertions of Brutus’ “honor” juxtaposed by Caesar’s accomplishments:
“He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill.
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When the poor hath cried, Caesar hath wept.
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
Yet Brutus says he (Caesar) was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honorable man.”
(III. ii. 88-94)
The excerpt above illustrates the increasing sarcasm that paralleled the audience’s dissonance with the notion that Brutus was actually honorable. Instead of directly condemning Brutus, Antony uses irony to seem sympathetic to his enemy and effectively facilitates the illusion that the audience is forming their own dissension to Brutus actions independent of the influence of Antony’s opinions.
Another rhetorical strategy is the use of rhetorical questions. The excerpt above is also an example of how Antony undermines Brutus’ critical notions of Caesar’s supposed ambition and effectively makes Caesar’s efforts seem noble rather then self-serving. Another instance of rhetorical questioning is when Antony points out that he had offered Caesar the crown thrice and each time Caesar refused.
Gary Wills points out that the structure of this speech is dialectic (87). Similar to the dialogues of Socrates, Antony’s rhetorical questions and ironic assertions are answered with statements that challenge and reverse the sarcastic affirmations of Brutus’ virtue and criticisms of Caesar’s ambition.
The nail in the coffin is Antony’s revelation to the plebeians that Caesar left behind his wealth to them. Aware of skepticism he has fostered in the plebeians towards Brutus, Antony effectively prefaced Caesar’s will that is contrary to the accusations of his ambition. Telling the mob about Caesar’s will from the beginning would not have been as effective without the suggestive rhetoric of Antony’s speech that not only condemns Brutus but distracts the plebeians from the reality of the tyranny that Caesar might have been capable of if he were king.
Mark Antony is widely recognized as the victor in persuading the mob in lieu of Caesar’s assassination. Antony’s ironic assertions, dialectic insights, and arrangement of his speech culminate in a call to action that made the new triumvirate possible and devastated the conspirators’ efforts. Mark Antony’s funeral oration reduced the actions of Brutus, Cassius, and the other senators to simply a ruthless and misguided assassination instead of a brave sacrifice for the sake of the preservation of the Roman republic. Historical records indicate that Caesar’s will, mentioned in the play, might have been manipulated by Antony after he convinced Calpurnia to relinquish Caesar’s private documents (106). Shakespeare alludes to this when Antony instructs Lepidus to fetch the document from Caesar’s home saying “Fetch the will hither, and we shall determine How to cut off some charges in legacies” (IV. i. 8-9). Despite convincing the plebeians that he is a “plain blunt man,” it is apparent that Antony was intentionally persuasive in order to mobilize the mob and preface his own campaign for power along with Octavius and Lepidus (III. ii. 12).

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William, and William Montgomery. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. New York: Penguin, 2000. Print.

Wills, Garry. Rome and Rhetoric: Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011. Internet resource.