Brutus’ short speech has a limiting effect on the crowd versus when Mark Antony voices his long oration, using props such as Caesar’s body and will, it ultimately stirs the crowd into a mutinous rage. Antony having the last word is a helpful advantage also. Antony using Caesar’s corpse as a prop is described by scholar Agnes Teller, “But Antony prepared the great spectacle: the presentation of the corpse. The body is first presented in his mantle to show the places of the stab wounds… The naked Caesar's body with his wounds: this is the truth” (Teller 13). People are outraged and heartbroken of the sight of their former leader, dead in cold blood, right before their eyes. Naive Brutus sees no harm in letting Antony speak to the people of
…show more content…
Antony’s speech has a shift embedded in it. He uses the repetition of calling Brutus and Cassius “honorable men” until the crowd realizes Antony means just the opposite of this. “I will not do them wrong; I rather choose to wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you, than I will wrong such honorable men” (Shakespeare III.ii.127-130). Antony uses the word “honorable” with carefully repetition so it loses it’s textbook definition, and it really means that they have been dishonorable. His charism and reliability shows the crowd that Antony is one of them. He is angered by the conspirator’s acts and leds them into a ravenous path. The crowd reactions towards Antony’s speech versus Brutus’ speech are vastly different. The citizens of Rome are very impressionable, they once loved Pompey, then praised Caesar. Then continued onto hating Caesar, then rejoicing in Brutus. After Brutus’ speech a commoner said, “This Caesar was a tyrant. Nay that’s certain we are blest Rome is rid of him” (III.ii. 75-77). This is right before Mark Antony speaks. The Roman people cannot form their own opinions without being swayed by the almighty rulers of Rome. The evolution of the crowd’s emotions after Mark Antony begins to talk is baffling. A …show more content…
Their speeches both were successful in rallying up the emotions and behaviors of the citizens of Rome, but overall Antony prevails and experiences a more successful outcome than Brutus. Mark Antony riles the crowd into a storm of rage, but uses the rhetorical device of paralipsis, to draw attention to the conspirator’s faults, then showing remorse for them and asking the crowd to do the same. “Good friends, sweet friends,let me not stir you up” (III.ii.217) says Mark Antony after cunningly provoking the crowd into a fit of indignation. The crowd is not well versed on the art of rhetoric, but upon hearing someone like Antony who can tap into their emotions and desires; he has no doubt become more superior to Brutus. Brutus speaks for himself, to save himself, to explain himself, while Antony uses his speech to comfort the people, to remind them of Caesar’s legacy, and unite them to achieve one common goal: seek revenge on the conspirators. Brutus is described as a “Stoic” never one to show his affections. “Brutus never expresses emotions. As a Stoic he despises emotion and particularly its manifestation” (Teller 6). This is a big disadvantage for Brutus in terms of how his speech is perceived. His speech is full of ethos and logos, but lacks the passion of pathos that Antony has an abundance of in his speech. That is the biggest difference in the two speeches; it is
Antony’s speech has a shift embedded in it. He uses the repetition of calling Brutus and Cassius “honorable men” until the crowd realizes Antony means just the opposite of this. “I will not do them wrong; I rather choose to wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you, than I will wrong such honorable men” (Shakespeare III.ii.127-130). Antony uses the word “honorable” with carefully repetition so it loses it’s textbook definition, and it really means that they have been dishonorable. His charism and reliability shows the crowd that Antony is one of them. He is angered by the conspirator’s acts and leds them into a ravenous path. The crowd reactions towards Antony’s speech versus Brutus’ speech are vastly different. The citizens of Rome are very impressionable, they once loved Pompey, then praised Caesar. Then continued onto hating Caesar, then rejoicing in Brutus. After Brutus’ speech a commoner said, “This Caesar was a tyrant. Nay that’s certain we are blest Rome is rid of him” (III.ii. 75-77). This is right before Mark Antony speaks. The Roman people cannot form their own opinions without being swayed by the almighty rulers of Rome. The evolution of the crowd’s emotions after Mark Antony begins to talk is baffling. A …show more content…
Their speeches both were successful in rallying up the emotions and behaviors of the citizens of Rome, but overall Antony prevails and experiences a more successful outcome than Brutus. Mark Antony riles the crowd into a storm of rage, but uses the rhetorical device of paralipsis, to draw attention to the conspirator’s faults, then showing remorse for them and asking the crowd to do the same. “Good friends, sweet friends,let me not stir you up” (III.ii.217) says Mark Antony after cunningly provoking the crowd into a fit of indignation. The crowd is not well versed on the art of rhetoric, but upon hearing someone like Antony who can tap into their emotions and desires; he has no doubt become more superior to Brutus. Brutus speaks for himself, to save himself, to explain himself, while Antony uses his speech to comfort the people, to remind them of Caesar’s legacy, and unite them to achieve one common goal: seek revenge on the conspirators. Brutus is described as a “Stoic” never one to show his affections. “Brutus never expresses emotions. As a Stoic he despises emotion and particularly its manifestation” (Teller 6). This is a big disadvantage for Brutus in terms of how his speech is perceived. His speech is full of ethos and logos, but lacks the passion of pathos that Antony has an abundance of in his speech. That is the biggest difference in the two speeches; it is