Rhetorical Flaws in Brutus’ Forum Speech in Julius Caesar: A Carefully Controlled Weakness?

Dominic Cheetham

Abstract


In Julius Caesar Shakespeare reproduces one of the pivotal moments in European history. Brutus and Mark Antony, through the medium of their forum speeches, compete for the support of the people of Rome. In the play, as in history, Mark Antony wins this contest of language. Critics are generally agreed that Antony has the better speech, but also that Brutus’ speech is still exceptionally good. Traditionally the question of how Antony’s speech is superior is argued by examining differences between the two speeches, however, this approach has not resulted in any critical consensus. This paper takes the opening lines of the speeches as the only point of direct convergence between the content and the rhetorical forms used by Brutus and Antony and argues that Brutus’ opening tricolon is structurally inferior to Marc Antony’s. Analysis of the following rhetorical schemes in Brutus’ speech reveals further structural weaknesses. Shakespeare gives Brutus a speech rich in perceptually salient rhetorical schemes but introduces small, less salient, structural weaknesses into those schemes. The tightly structured linguistic patterns which make up the majority of Brutus’ speech give an impression of great rhetorical skill. This skilful impression obscures the minor faults or weaknesses that quietly and subtly reduce the overall power of the speech. By identifying the weaknesses in Brutus’ forms we add an extra element to the discussion of these speeches and at the same time display how subtly and effectively Shakespeare uses rhetorical forms to control audience response and appreciation.

 


Keywords


rhetoric, Julius Caesar, rule of three, tricolon, forum speech, Brutus, Antony, Shakespeare

Full Text:

PDF

References


Booth, S. (1985). The Shakespearean actor as kamikaze pilot. Shakespeare Quarterly, 36(5), 553-570. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2869769

Cheetham, D. (2002). The rule of three (or four) and pairs. English Literature and Language, 39, 63-84.

Daniell, D. (2008). Introduction. In D. Daniell (Ed.), Julius Caesar (pp. 1-147). London: The Arden Shakespeare, Bloomsbury.

Kraemer, D. J. (1991). ‘Alas, thou hast misconstrued every thing’: Amplifying words and things in Julius Caesar. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 9(2), 165-178. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rh.1991.9.2.165

Forsyth, M. (2013). The Elements of Eloquence: How to Turn the Perfect English Phrase. London: Icon Books Ltd.

Fuzier, J. (1974). Rhetoric versus rhetoric: A study of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar act III scene 2. Cahiers Elisabethains, 5, 25-65.

Gilbert, A. (1997). Techniques of persuasion in Julius Caesar and Othello. Neophilologus, 81, 309-323. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1004251202026

Hazlitt, W. (1818). Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays. London: Taylor and Hessey.

Hoey, M. (1991) Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Humphreys, A. (2008). Introduction. In A. Humphreys (Ed.), Julius Caesar (pp. 1-83). Oxford: Oxford World’s Classics, Oxford UP.

Joseph, S. M. (1962). Rhetoric in Shakespeare’s Time: Literary Theory of Renaissance Europe (Vol. 12). San Diego: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Kolbe, F.C. (1896). Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. II: The Brutus difficulty. The Irish Monthly, 24(280), 505-515. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20499030

Mooney, M.E. (1991). ‘Passion, I see, is catching’ The rhetoric of Julius Caesar. The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 90(1), 31-50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27710456

Newman, S.A. (2007). Using Shakespeare to teach persuasive advocacy. Journal of Legal Education, 53(1), 36-59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42894007

S’hiri, S. (1992). A Pragmatics of verbal irony in literary discourse: An example from drama. Edinburgh Working Papers in Linguistics 3, 124-134.

Schanzer, E. (1955). The tragedy of Shakespeare’s Brutus. ELH A Journal of English Literary History, 22(1), 1-15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2872001

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1998). Rhetoric and relevance. In D. Wellbery and J. Bender (Eds.), The Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory, Practice (pp. 140-155). Stanford: Stanford UP.

Vickers, B. (1968.) The Artistry of Shakespeare’s Prose. London: Methuen.

Wills, G. (2011). Rome and Rhetoric: Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. New Haven: Yale UP.

Willson Jr, R. F. (2010). Julius Caesar: The forum scene as historic play-within. In H. Bloom (Ed.), Bloom’s Modern Critical Interpretations: Julius Caesar–New Edition (pp.19-30). New York: Infobase, 2010.

Zandvoort, R.W. (1940). Brutus’ forum speech in Julius Caesar. The Review of English Studies, 16(61), 62-66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/510028




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.3p.126

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.