Julius Caesar Rhetorical Analysis

Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare is a tragedy that takes the reader on a short adventure of Julius Caesar’s rule, death, and the aftermath of his death. Caesar was a great ruler until he, in the minds of Cassius, Brutus, and several others, inevitably became over-ambitious, which, in turn, led to his downfall. The aforementioned who believed that Caesar had become over-ambitious began to conspire his assassination. After his assassination, the people of Rome were left very confused and it was up to them to decide whether Caesar’s death was just or unjust. Two of Caesar’s closest confidants, Brutus and Marc Antony, both deliver a speech to the people: one for how Caesar’s death was justified, and the other for how Caesar’s assassination

was was completely unwarranted. Although Brutus had a more effective use of antithesis, Antony had a more effective use of conduplicatio and personification, which helped his speech to be the more effective of the two.
Both Antony and Brutus had a very effective use of conduplicatio. Antony used it in his speech when he sarcastically states that “[He] would rather do Brutus wrong and Cassius wrong, who [everyone knows] are honorable men. [He] will not do them wrong [but would] rather choose to wrong the dead, to wrong [himself and the Roman people than he would] wrong such honourable men” (3.2.41-44). Antony uses the word “wrong” to emphasize the fact that retaliating against Brutus and Cassius would be wrong. As the reader progresses through the speech, it becomes evident that Antony meant this sarcastically. Brutus also used conduplicatio in his speech when he asked, “Who is here so base that would be a bondman? If any, speak, for him have I offended. Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If any speak, for him have I offended” (3.2.20-25). Brutus uses conduplicatio through his repetition of the word offended. He uses it essentially to say that if anyone has an issue with what he said that it is their problem that they are personally offended by what he said rather than his fault for saying it. This makes his audience a lot less likely to offer any objections for what he has to say. Antony had the better use of the rhetorical device because on the surface of his speech, it made it seem as though he genuinely thought that the men who killed Caesar were honorable men. This made his listeners more likely to pay attention to what he had to say than they would have if he just bluntly insulted Brutus and Cassius. The pair was loved by the Roman people, so if Antony had verbally attacked them, the people would have just become angry and would have stopped listening to him.
Antony and Brutus boh also had a very effective use of antithesis.

Antony used it in his speech when he made it clear that, “[He was speaking] not to disprove what Brutus spoke, but [that he was there to] speak he [knew]”(3.2.28-29). He used this rhetorical device to make it clear that he was not speaking to say anything against what Brutus said, but rather to just get his point across. This is helpful for him because it, again, makes his audience more likely to listen to what he has to say than if he said something to offend the people concerning Brutus. Brutus also used antithesis in his speech when he said that the reason that he killed Caesar was, “Not that [he] loved Caesar less, but that [he] loved Rome more” (3.2.12-13). His usage was very effective because, in the eyes of the Roman people, it showed that Brutus loved them so much that he was willing to kill someone that he cared so much about for their well-being. Brutus’s application of the rhetorical device of antithesis was the more persuasive of the two because he uses it to appeal to the emotions of the Roman people, and by his doing so, everything that Brutus said thereafter had a personal attachment to them so they related more to what he had to

say.
A third rhetorical device that both Antony and Brutus used in their speeches was personification.

Antony used it in his speech when he exclaimed, “O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason” (3.2.32-33). Antony uses personification to dramatically emphasize his point that the only possible reason that the people would have not to mourn Caesar’s death is a complete lack of judgment. Brutus also used personification when he said of Caesar that, “The question of his death is enrolled at the Capitol, his glory not extenuated, wherein he was worthy, nor his offenses enforced, for which he suffered death”(3.2.28-31). Brutus uses personification in this quote to give Caesar’s actions a life of their own to make them seem as if they were big enough to play such an integral part in his death. Antony’s application of personification was more beneficial to his overall message than Brutus’s was. Antony’s application forces the people think more and consider what he had to say even after he finished speaking. By saying that their judgment had fled them, Antony gave the people an opportunity to reflect upon the speech that they had just

heard.
Both Antony and Brutus are great orators in their own rights. They both had great speeches heavy with rhetorical devices. Through his use of personification and conduplicatio, though, Antony had the more persuasive speech of the two.