mark antonybrutus caesar’s

death: the funeral monologues

&

why should you care?

these two speeches

are really famous

for amazing rhetoric

rhetoric: rĕt'ər-ĭkn.

1.The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.

2.Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.

so they teach you rhetorical

skills

that’s right…skills

speech one

“for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that/you may believe:…” (III.ii).

What is this an example of? Ethos, logos, or pathos?

logos

We also see logos: Brutus’ use of reason are the steps of logic he displays when he says (effectively) if you love Rome, then I have not offended you (by murdering Caesar)

because I did it out of love for Rome..His argument here utilizes both pathos and logos.

not that kind

Logos: Rhetorical question

“Have you rather Caesar were living and/ die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live

/all free men?” (III.ii). 

Knowing the context of his argument—that of the possibility that the Senate could declare Caesar king thus effectively putting an end to the Roman Republic—offers weight to Brutus’ defense of Caesar’s murder. Another example of Brutus’ use of reason are the steps of logic he displays when he says (effectively) if you love Rome, then I have not offended you

(by murdering Caesar) because I did it out of love for Rome..His argument here utilizes both pathos and logos.

Brutus wins his audience—but he fails to keep them. His mistake was in his assumption that the crowd would stay with him—therefore, he did not need to work too hard (or

too long) at maintaining his position. He would have been better served had he heeded Cassius’ earlier warning.

“Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved/Rome more.”

“If any, speak; for him have I offended./ Who is here so rude that would

not be a Roman?”

In still a further statement of reason (and again infused with pathos) Brutus assures the crowd that he has the dagger ready to kill himself—if the good of Rome should call for it. Brutus uses the expenditure of his own life (thereby comparing the lesser-value of individual life to the greater value of Rome in general) Also, his audience can assume that Brutus does place

some value on his own life—therefore there may be little (or no question) that he did, indeed, love Caesar—and—consequently–did have strong reasons for murdering him. Brutus argues that personal life (although individually valuable) should/must be sacrificed (if need be) for the good of Rome. Again, it is the ‘bigger picture’ of a safe, successful Roman Republic

that is important to Brutus—and it is to that end that the small, personal nuances of the individual–its passions, its loves—its very existence—are to be surrendered .

“I have the same dagger for myself,/when it shall please my country to need my death.”

utilitarianism

speech two

antony is grieving

but he has a job to do…

“Friends, Romans,

countrymen, lend me your ears;/I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”

“I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him” (3.2). The statement is not true: Antony came to praise Caesar, fault Brutus, Cassius, etc. and to incite the crowd into taking action.

Further, Antony claims that he speaks not to disprove what Brutus has said; once again, however, this is not true—disproving Brutus is exactly his intent.

concessio

In contrast, Mark Antony’s speech exhibits much more of a sophistic style. His oratory–despite of his protestation to the contrary (“I’m no orator…” 3. 2)—is much more artful and cunning than that of

Brutus. The manner in which Antony ‘works the crowd,’ so to speak, is like that of a skillful, seasoned politician or a fisherman who casts, plays and eventually—successfully–reels in his catch.

"My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar" "Oh judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts"

a)pathosb)logosc)ethos

Brutus wins his audience—but he fails to keep them. His mistake was in his assumption that the crowd would stay with him—therefore, he did not need to work too hard (or

too long) at maintaining his position. He would have been better served had he heeded Cassius’ earlier warning.

For Brutus is an honourable man;So are they all, all honourable men--

How many times? “honorable”

Primarily, however, Antony’s words are full of sophistry and irony. He starts out seemingly supportive of Brutus’ deeds and words, displaying his belief with the phrase, “…Brutus is an honorable man” (3. 2). But soon his speech becomes peppered with suggestions and notions that (stealthily) serve to shake and undermine the audience’s faith in Brutus. By the time Antony has uttered his fourth “honorable man”—it is apparent that Brutus (and his cohorts) are anything but honorable men.

parallelism

“thrice refused…”

Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;

And, sure, he is an honourable man.

"Brutus says he was ambitious," said Antony, beginning this motif, "and Brutus is an honourable man." Antony then recalled both the great wealth that Caesar's military campaigns had produced for the country and the sympathy that Caesar had felt for the poor. These were signs of the very love, fortune

and valor that Brutus had praised in his own speech, but Antony ignored what Brutus had said in praise, simply repeating, "Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; and Brutus is an honourable man." Cleverly, Antony had intertwined the good and bad elements of Caesar's character by posing each virtue as a direct counterexample to his vice, rather than maintaining a distinct contrast between them as Brutus had done. Up to this point in the scene, Antony and

Brutus had referenced essentially the same facts about Caesar, but each speaker had now used language to frame these facts for opposite ends.

It will inflame you, it will make you

mad:

‘Tis good you know not that you are his heirs;For, if you should, O, what would come of it!

For, if you should, O, what would come

of it!

did it work?

“All Revenge! About! Seek! Burn! Fire…We’ll burn the house of Brutus!”