Julius Caesar Circumstantial Evidence

“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.” – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. What does circumstantial evidence have to do with a speech, you may ask? In a manner of speaking, everything, for the evidence maketh the speech. In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, a long-winded Marc Antony had the wiles to manipulate a large plebian crowd to mutiny during Caesar’s funeral, using only simple words that were cleverly twisted to prove his point. Before humans learned the concept of applying “reasonable doubt” to each and every scenario, Antony had a surefire

way of winning over the citizens. But as we evolved and have become more knowledgeable, a speech like that would evoke demanding yells of, “Where’s the proof?” As the gaping holes of logic are made clear in Antony’s funeral oration, we begin to see what sorts of artifices made his speech so cunning; its use of circumstantial evidence applied in the correct context, its largely emotional pleas, and its desperate engagement of the citizens by telling them what they want to hear. In this way, Marc Antony is nothing more than a demagogue, and his respective speech is nothing more than a series of words that subject the plebian crowd to sheer demagoguery.
Circumstantial evidence, or evidence that relies on an event that has occurred so it can be established as a fact, was Marc Antony’s main argument throughout the oration.

The issue with circumstantial evidence, however, is the fact that the person offering said evidence is given the “burden of proof,” or the responsibility of backing up his claims with solid, non circumstantial evidence to validate the claim. Alas, the citizens did not know of such a concept, and didn’t require Antony to prove his claim leading him to use claims in his oration that were most likely invalid, and more importantly, false. A prime example of this method is displayed here, for instance, when Antony said, “He hath brought many captives home to Rome, / Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill. / Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?” (Act 3, Scene 2, 90-92) Seemingly a well-proved point, Marc Antony pointed out that Caesar acted as a thoughtful leader, putting the priorities of Rome first by “filling the coffers.” Caesar had indeed brought riches to Rome, but there was likely another side to the story. Perhaps it was a failed conquest, resulting in captives rather than what Caesar was truly after. However, only one aspect of the event was presented to the audience. In this light, Caesar accomplished great things, but the story itself could have been presented in another way, thus making this “fact” of Antony’s purely circumstantial. In another example, Antony stated, “You all did see that on

the Lupercal, / I thrice presented him a kingly crown, / Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?” (Scene 3, Act 2, 97-99) If this were indeed true, Caesar would have even my vote as ruler; however, the conspirators, and the readers as well, knew this detail to be false. Towards the beginning of the story in Act I, it is made clear to the readers that Caesar’s show of humility was a façade, thus proving that his true intentions were always to take the crown for himself. Taking advantage of the plebians’ naivety, Antony emphasized the fact that Caesar had denied the crown several times, planting the idea of his humbleness into the mob’s head. Without the public show of modesty, Antony’s claim that Caesar wasn’t ambitious would be invalid, making this example yet another set of deceitful claims that today would require probative facts.
Antony’s speech was successful due to another technique, emotional downpour upon the citizens.

This method, albeit convincing, is merely a ruse used to eradicate logic in the minds of the audience, and replace it with an overwhelming amount of emotion. In the midst of Antony’s speech, he began to say, “You all did love him once, not without cause. / What cause withholds you then to mourn for him? / O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts, / And men hath lost their reason…” (Scene 3, Act 2, 104-107) The prime emotion revealed in this excerpt is sorrow from Antony, which in turn, leads to guilt from the plebians. With Antony’s reminder of the citizens’ former idolization of Caesar, it made them reconsider why they don’t in fact love him anymore, an effectual method in establishing guilt in the hearts of the crowd. Guilt, a largely influential emotion, is perhaps the most powerful tool that pertained to Antony’s methods of manipulation; the reason being is because guilt often causes a person to reevaluate much of their past actions, and more often than not, their faults as well. In order to rid themselves of the gnawing, persistent feeling of troublesome guilt, people will often agree with the person who caused the feeling of guilt, much like the plebians and their immediate compliance with all of Mark Antony’s opinions. In regards to Mark Antony’s opinions, which are no doubt biased, he seemed to fill his speech with none other than praises and words that eulogize Caesar,

rather than offer solid proof, yet again proving the fact that Antony’s speech is entirely comprised of demagoguery. By saying, “Look, in this place ran Cassius’ dagger through. / See what a rent the envious Casca made. / Through this the well-loved Brutus stabbed…” (Act 3, Scene 2, 175-177), Antony implies the idea that he knew, for a fact, how the murder was enacted. Now this fact by itself is a lie, but the absence of truth did nothing to influence the plebians.