rhetorical devices used in antony's speech

Item added to your cart

Rhetorical devices in julius caesar: mark antony's funeral speech.

William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar  is a treasure trove of rhetorical devices. What devices does Mark Antony employ in his famous speech at Caesar’s funeral?

Although Mark Antony claims to be a “plain blunt man” who is only able to “speak right on,” he is actually a highly skilled orator who uses a wide range of rhetorical devices not only to persuade his audience but to influence and even inflame their emotions (3.2.230, 235). Antony’s funeral oration amounts to a masterclass in the cynical manipulation of logos, ethos, and pathos!

Because Antony uses so many devices that it’d be hard to account for them all, this blog post will focus on the three most prominent rhetorical devices which play pivotal roles in his speech: rhetorical questions, verbal irony, and paralepsis.

If you’re a teacher who’d like to explore this topic with your students, then you’ll definitely want to check out this Complete Teaching Unit on Julius Caesar . Save yourself hundreds of hours of prep time while amplifying student engagement with this Complete Teaching Unit on Julius Caesar !

Mark Antony's Use of Rhetorical Devices

Mark Antony had been given permission to speak at Caesar’s funeral on the condition that he would not “blame” any of the conspirators (3.1.270). Does Antony ever explicitly blame Brutus or his fellow conspirators? No, Antony never explicitly blames or criticizes the conspirators. Yet the true meaning of his words inheres in what he says implicitly.…

Here, Mark Antony uses a series of rhetorical questions in order to establish that Caesar was not an ambitious person. For example, Antony observes that Caesar conquered many enemies whose “ransoms” enriched the Roman “coffers”; then he asks, “Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?” (3.2.98-99). Antony observes that Caesar refused his offer of the crown three times; then he asks, “Was this ambition?” (3.2.106). While Antony knows how his audience would answer these questions, he does not expect them to answer out loud, since to do so would be to “blame” the conspirators.

Mark Antony finishes each of these points by affirming that Brutus is an “honorable” man. In fact, he repeats the same pair of lines three times verbatim: “Yet Brutus says [Caesar] was ambitious, / And Brutus is an honorable man” (3.2.95-96, 102-103, 107-108). What is the effect of this repetition? By repeating this pair of assertions, Antony suggests that both assertions are untrue. His use of repetition creates verbal irony, whereby a speaker says one thing but means another. While he seems to assert that Brutus is “honorable,” the repetition of this assertion implies that Brutus is really dishonorable.

Mark Antony is a master of verbal irony. His dexterity in deploying ironic words and gestures is evident across a number of scenes in the play. Whereas Brutus consistently embodies honesty and humility, Antony purports to say one thing even as he is really saying the opposite. By using irony, Antony is able to explicitly praise Brutus even while he implicitly blames and condemns him. Each time that Antony seems to affirm that Brutus is an “honorable” man, he is really undermining his opponent’s honor and credibility.

Toward the end of his funeral oration, Mark Antony uses a rhetorical device called “paralepsis.” Paralepsis is a form of verbal irony where the speaker disclaims the very things which he is trying to accomplish! Antony uses paralepsis at least three times in his funeral speech. Here’s just one brief example:

In these lines, what does Antony say he intends to do? What does he actually do? Antony says he doesn’t intend to “stir […] up” his audience so they’ll take revenge on the conspirators; and he says he doesn’t mean to provoke a “sudden flood of munity.” But, of course, what Antony actually does is provoke his audience into pursuing revenge against his political enemies. As if on cue, the people cry, “We’ll mutiny” (3.2.244).

Like so many of Shakespeare’s villains, Mark Antony is an embodiment of duplicity and two-facedness. As the angry mob rushes out with torches to search for the conspirators, Antony utters a two-line soliloquy which reveals his true intentions. Speaking in apostrophe to the “Mischief” which he has sought to provoke, Antony concludes, “Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot; / Take thou what course thou wilt” (3.2.275-276).

Thus, Shakespeare uses this play to demonstrate that while rhetoric can amount to an art of rational persuasion, it can also be exploited for the purpose of manipulating and inflaming other people’s emotions.

Teach It Today!

If you’re a teacher who’d like to explore these and many other topics with your students, then you’ll definitely want to check out this Complete Teaching Unit on Julius Caesar . The 160-page resource packet includes worksheets, discussion questions, and writing prompts for every scene in Julius Caesar . Best of all, it includes a teacher's answer key for every page!

Save yourself dozens of hours of prep time while motivating students to be highly engaged. Check out this Complete Teaching Unit on Julius Caesar . You'll use it for years to come!

Leave a comment

Please note, comments need to be approved before they are published.

• Choosing a selection results in a full page refresh.
• Opens in a new window.

A Short Analysis of Mark Antony’s ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen’ Speech

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)

Mark Antony’s ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen’ speech from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is a masterclass of irony and the way rhetoric can be used to say one thing but imply something quite different without ever naming it . Mark Antony delivers a funeral speech for Julius Caesar following Caesar’s assassination at the hands of Brutus and the conspirators, but he is only allowed to do so as long as he does not badmouth the conspirators for their role in Caesar’s death.

Antony’s references to Brutus as an honourable man subtly and ingeniously show that Brutus is anything but honourable, while also serving to show that Caesar was not the ambitious man Brutus has painted him to be.

The best way to analyse this key speech from the play is to go through it, summarising it section by section.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

Mark Antony has ‘read the room’ and knows the mood among the crowd: they still support the assassination of Julius Caesar and so side with Brutus and the other conspirators.

Mark Antony treads carefully, brilliantly going against their expectations and reassuring him that he is simply there to deliver a funeral oration, not to take the dead general’s side (it’s worth remembering that Julius Caesar was a general, not an emperor: although he was called Caesar, he wasn’t ‘a’ Caesar, the name given to later emperors of Rome in his honour).

The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones;

Daniell notes helpfully that these lines, which have become much more famous thanks to Shakespeare’s play, are proverbial and their sentiment (albeit with different wording) predate Shakespeare.

The meaning is obvious enough: when people die, the bad things they did often stick in people’s memories, while their good deeds are forgotten. As Antony goes on to say, ‘So let it be with Caesar’.

Immediately, then, he is cleverly saying that he is happy for everyone to focus on Caesar’s bad points and forget the good the man did; but in referring to the latter, he is subtly reminding them that Caesar did good as well as evil things. (By the way, a note on scansion or metre: because Mark Antony is addressing the crowd using blank verse or unrhymed iambic pentameter , ‘interred’ should be pronounced as three syllables, not two.)

So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: If it were so, it was a grievous fault, And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.

Mark Antony now takes up Brutus’ words about Julius Caesar and responds to them. He doesn’t contradict Brutus, but instead uses the subjunctive ‘If’: ‘If it were so’. He refuses to say that Caesar was ambitious, but grants that if it were true, it was a terrible fault.

The purpose of this is to cast doubt on the very idea that Caesar was ambitious (supposedly the very reason for his assassination), but in such a way that doesn’t rub the crowd (which still supports Brutus) up the wrong way. He then goes on to point out, however, that if Caesar was ambitious, he’s now dead, so has ‘answer’d’ or paid the penalty for his fault.

Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest– (For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men) Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.

Mark Antony makes a performative gesture to Brutus’ supposed generosity in letting him, Mark Antony, speak at Caesar’s funeral. He says that such generosity is a sign of Brutus’ honour: he, and the rest of the conspirators, are ‘honourable men’.

He was my friend, faithful and just to me: But Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man.

Antony now slowly begins to ease in some praise for Caesar, but keeps it personal to him, rather than making grand, universal statements about Caesar’s good qualities: he was his friend, and faithful and just to him . But then, Brutus says Caesar was ambitious, and Brutus is honourable, so ‘I guess I was wrong (but I know I’m not)’. Obviously this last bit is implied, not spoken aloud – but that’s what Mark Antony is building towards.

He hath brought many captives home to Rome Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?

Let’s look at what Caesar did: he took many enemies prisoner and brought them here to Rome, and these captives’ ransoms, when paid, helped to make Rome rich. Does this seem ‘ambitious’ behaviour to you?

When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: Ambition should be made of sterner stuff: Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man.

When the poor of the city suffered, Caesar wept with pity for them. Hardly the actions of an ambitious man, who should be harder-hearted than this! But Brutus says Caesar was ambitious, and Brutus is honourable, so … it must be true … right? Note how Antony continues to sow the seeds of doubt in the crowd’s mind.

You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And, sure, he is an honourable man.

Antony reminds the Romans that at the festival of Lupercalia (held in mid-February, around the same time as our modern Valentine’s Day; so just a month before Caesar was assassinated), he publicly presented Julius Caesar with a crown, but Caesar refused it three times (remember, he was ‘just’ a general, a military leader: not an emperor). Again, Antony appeals to the crowd: does this seem like the action of an ambitious man?

I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know.

Although he clearly is disproving what Brutus claimed of Caesar, Antony maintains that this isn’t his aim: he’s merely telling the truth based on what he knows of Caesar.

You all did love him once, not without cause: What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?

Antony reminds the crowd of Romans that they all loved Caesar once too, and they had reasons for doing so: Caesar was clearly a good leader. So why do they now not mourn for him in death? (Note Antony’s skilful use of ‘cause’ twice here: they loved Caesar with good cause, but what cause is responsible for their failure to shed a tear at his passing?)

O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason. Bear with me; My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, And I must pause till it come back to me.

Observe the clever pun on Brutus’ name in ‘brutish beasts’: Antony stops short of calling Brutus a beast, but it’s clear enough that he thinks the crowd has been manipulated with violent thugs and everyone has lost their ability to think rationally about Caesar. The mob spirit has been fomented and everyone has made Caesar, even in death, the target of their hatred.

Mark Antony brings his ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen’ speech, a masterly piece of oratory, to a rousing end with an appeal to personal emotion, claiming that seeing Rome so corrupted by hatred and blinded by unreason has broken his heart. He concludes, however, with a final line that offers a glimmer of hope, implying that if Rome would only recover itself, he would be all right again.

You can watch Damian Lewis reciting this famous speech here .

2 thoughts on “A Short Analysis of Mark Antony’s ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen’ Speech”

We are going into drama soon and will be studying this speech. You have brought to my attention aspects I had noticed, even though I have taught it for years. Thanks!

Thanks for the comment, Pam – that’s praise indeed! I hope you have a fruitful discussion :)

Comments are closed.

Discover more from Interesting Literature

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Susan B. Anthony’s Speech Analysis: Rhetorical Devices, Purpose, & More

📢 susan b. anthony speech analysis – introduction, 📝 logos in susan b. anthony’s speech, ✍️ ethos in susan b. anthony’s speech, 📜 historical parallels in susan b. anthony’s speech, ↪️ susan b. anthony speech rhetorical analysis – summary, 💡 work cited.

The speech delivered by Susan B. Anthony following her arrest for casting a vote in the presidential election stands as a remarkable exemplar of American oratory. In “On Women’s Right to Vote,” Anthony set forth a clear objective: to persuade her audience that women’s suffrage was not only constitutionally justified but also a fundamental right, as inherently granted to men. To achieve her goal, Anthony deftly employed a combination of logos, ethos, and historical parallels, weaving together a persuasive argument that resonated deeply with her listeners. With skillful logical reasoning, Susan B. Anthony established her credibility through ethos and cleverly linked the struggles of women to the historical struggle for equality. Anthony delivered a powerful and convincing plea for women’s right to vote. Her succinct yet impactful rhetoric not only left an indelible mark on the suffrage movement but also solidified her position as a key figure in the fight for women’s rights in American history. Read this essay sample of Susan B. Anthony’s speech analysis to learn more about her purpose, contribution, and rhetorical devices used.

Logos is, by far, the most prominent rhetorical strategy used in the speech. Essentially, the core of the author’s argument is a classical syllogism: the Constitution secures liberties for all people, women are people – therefore, women should enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution – including suffrage – as much as men. She even adopts the form of a syllogism directly when she speaks of this discrimination from a legal perspective.

Any law that contradicts the universal suffrage is unconstitutional, and restrictions on voting are in contradiction to the Constitution – therefore, such law is “a violation of the supreme law of the land” (Anthony 5). Thus, Anthony represents her thesis – that women have the right to vote and restricting it is against the spirit and letter of the Constitution – as an inevitable logical conclusion of an impartial inquiry into the matter.

Anthony’s use of ethos is not typical, but all the more impressive because of that. Closer to the end of her speech, she mentions that the only way do deny citizens’ rights to women is to deny they are persons and doubts that her opponents “will have the hardihood to say they are not” (Anthony 8). As a rule, the speaker tries to establish credibility by pointing to something that makes him or her more competent to speak on a given topic than others, be that knowledge or personal experience. However, Anthony does not opt for that – rather, she appeals to a bare minimum of credibility a sentient creature is entitled to: being considered a person. While not elevating her above the audience, this appeal to credibility is still enough for her rhetorical purpose.

To further her case and root it in the audience’s relatively recent experiences, Anthony also draws a historical parallel with the emancipation and enfranchisement of former slaves. She emphasizes that the Constitution says, “we, the people; not we, the white male citizens” (Anthony 4). This specific reference to whiteness is a clear reference to the 15 th Amendment prohibiting the denial of the right to vote based on color, race, or previous condition of servitude.

By linking the issue of women’s suffrage to voting rights for black citizens, Anthony claims the former is an important progressive endeavor, just like the latter. This parallel is likely an attempt to appeal to the audience’s self-perception as progressive citizens of a free country. The implicit reasoning is clear: those who decided that race is an obstacle for casting a ballot cannot, in all honesty, claim that the gender is.

As one can see, Susan B. Anthony’s 1873 speech combines logos, ethos, and historical parallels to make a case for women’s voting rights. Anthony’s appeals to logic are simple and clear syllogisms based on the Constitution itself. She claims no greater credibility that is due to any sentient being, but that is just enough for her rhetorical purpose. Finally, a historical parallel with the recent enfranchisements of citizens of all races appeals to the audience’s sense of justice and self-perception as progressive people.

Anthony, Susan B. “ On Women’s Right to Vote. ” The History Place .

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, June 20). Susan B. Anthony’s Speech Analysis: Rhetorical Devices, Purpose, & More. https://studycorgi.com/susan-b-anthonys-speech-rhetorical-analysis/

"Susan B. Anthony’s Speech Analysis: Rhetorical Devices, Purpose, & More." StudyCorgi , 20 June 2021, studycorgi.com/susan-b-anthonys-speech-rhetorical-analysis/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Susan B. Anthony’s Speech Analysis: Rhetorical Devices, Purpose, & More'. 20 June.

1. StudyCorgi . "Susan B. Anthony’s Speech Analysis: Rhetorical Devices, Purpose, & More." June 20, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/susan-b-anthonys-speech-rhetorical-analysis/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Susan B. Anthony’s Speech Analysis: Rhetorical Devices, Purpose, & More." June 20, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/susan-b-anthonys-speech-rhetorical-analysis/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Susan B. Anthony’s Speech Analysis: Rhetorical Devices, Purpose, & More." June 20, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/susan-b-anthonys-speech-rhetorical-analysis/.

This paper, “Susan B. Anthony’s Speech Analysis: Rhetorical Devices, Purpose, & More”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 9, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• Benefits to Participating Communities
• Participating School Districts
• Evaluations and Results
• Recognition Accorded
• National Advisory Committee
• Establishing New Institutes
• Topical Index of Curriculum Units
• View Topical Index of Curriculum Units
• Search Curricular Resources
• View Volumes of Curriculum Units from National Seminars
• Find Curriculum Units Written in Seminars Led by Yale Faculty
• Find Curriculum Units Written by Teachers in National Seminars
• Browse Curriculum Units Developed in Teachers Institutes
• On Common Ground
• Reports and Evaluations
• Articles and Essays
• Documentation
• Video Programs

Have a suggestion to improve this page?

To leave a general comment about our Web site, please click here

Share this page with your network.

Convincing the Masses: Rhetoric in Julius Caesar

Introduction.

“For who so firm that cannot be seduced?” --Cassius [I,ii,305]

Rhetoric, or the art of persuasion, is a key skill for my sophomore English students to develop as it requires them to make connections between the classroom and the world surrounding them. This necessitates that they come to a deeper understanding of figures of speech and how they affect readers, how they are used to persuade, and how to use them oneself to effectively communicate. Rhetoric surrounds them every day as they interact with advertisements, political speeches, media coverage of current events, movies, art, and the classroom. While my students are quite savvy viewers and are aware that many images they see may be altered, they seem less critical of the written and spoken word. My unit seeks to develop in my students the ability to think critically, read analytically and speak and write effectively and convincingly. By exploring the connections among the speaker, the audience, and the subject within the given context, I hope to give my students the tools that will enable them to be aware of how those interconnections are played out in their daily lives. The analysis and use of the arts of rhetoric will empower my students to be better citizens, better communicators and more successful in their pursuits.

By teaching the fundamentals of rhetoric, I hope to create an awareness of its prevalence in advertising and political speeches, an appreciation for the power of language, and a sense that students can potentially harness that power. I want my students not only to become skilled at identifying rhetoric, but also to become proficient in using the art to strengthen their critical reading skills, speaking and writing. I plan to build on their understanding of logos, ethos and pathos, as Aristotle divided the parts of persuasive speech in his Rhetoric , while also strengthening their observation of basic rhetorical strategies like repetition, structure, symbolism, defining, describing, etc. While some time will be devoted to the classical canon of rhetoric - invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery- I do not intend to cover the tropes and figures in detail. My true aim is to develop critical thinking skills, utilizing challenging classroom activities to engage their interest and encourage civic engagement.

A number of different texts and video clips will be utilized to create a rich and comprehensive exploration of the use of rhetoric in modernity, but William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar will serve as my foundation text. This drama is based upon the historical figure Julius Caesar, who returns to Rome as a triumphant hero only to be considered a potential threat to the republic as a result of his consolidation of power. Several senators, led by his friend Marcus Brutus, conspire to assassinate him. After the bloody deed, Mark Antony masterfully turns the people against the conspirators and a vicious struggle for power ensues. Although the semantically dense language is a challenge, grappling with the text develops close reading skills and challenges students to really excel and perform in a rigorous manner. Students will carefully read the text with a focus on characters and themes, using a variety of activities.

Demographics

Oak Grove High School encompasses a population of just under two thousand students who represent diverse ethnicities as part of the East Side Union High School District. 43% of our students are considered socioeconomically disadvantaged , as they qualify for the free and reduced lunch program, and our graduation rate is improving at 82.3%. Our struggles to graduate our population are evident: we are considered a Program Improvement site due to low Annual Yearly Progress, and the Degrees of Reading Power test reveals that approximately 45% of our incoming freshmen read at, or below, a sixth grade level.

In addition, our school is located in an area known for having an incredibly high cost of living, which often necessitates that our students contribute to the household finances by working. Additionally, parental supervision is often minimal, as the economy requires both parents to work. 56.4% of our students identify as Latino/Mexican and these students are especially at risk because many will be the first family members to earn a high school diploma, and often must do so with limited access to technology and even internet access in an area known for heavy gang activity.

The Common Core State Standards are in their second year of implementation in California, and the pragmatic approach to developing students who are able to engage in complex critical thinking activities is a challenge to implement. In the past, speaking and listening skills were largely limited in the classroom as they were not assessed in state testing, and they consumed valuable time that needed to be spent on basic reading comprehension and other skills. The Common Core has allowed us to become more holistic practitioners and I hope my unit allows our students to translate classroom skills to real world applications that benefit them personally, civically, and academically.

Rhetoric and Rigor

Julius Caesar could be viewed as an exploration of the uses and abuses of rhetoric as characters persuade one another most eloquently to engage in or excite violence. Using Julius Caesar as a foundation text, my students will learn about rhetorical devices.  As we decode the text and explore themes and characters central to the historical play, students will engage in a variety of activities that enable them to truly understand the differing perspectives that lead so many men to assassinate their leader and the turmoil that ensues.  One of the focuses at my school has been to require students to provide evidence from the text for any responses they provide in class.  This play will afford students ample practice in finding textual evidence to cite as there are distinct rhetorical styles evident, as well as sharply contrasting points of view, which allow for students to explore passages and interpret the text differently.  Grappling with facts in an attempt to gain a perspective or synthesize ideas is a valuable mental exercise, and even if the students forget the facts, they retain the value of the intellectual struggle.

Content Objectives

My sophomores will have been introduced to Shakespeare in their freshman year through the text of Romeo and Juliet , so while the rigor of this unit is great, it is not their first encounter with the Bard. Additionally, the unit will not occur in isolation of their other academic courses. The English II students are required to concurrently enroll in World History, which focuses on Rome for the first six weeks of instruction, making this the ideal time for me to teach this unit. Beyond creating interdisciplinary connections between their classes, it creates a more authentic learning experience and precludes the necessity of providing background historical information about Rome and Julius Caesar.

Concerning Rhetoric

Aristotle’s rhetoric.

Greek philosopher Aristotle offered three means to persuade your audience: ethos, pathos, and logos. 1 While ethos is said to translate to ethics, it really suggests the modern sense of image in that the speaker is relying upon their authority to convince the audience based upon our impression of their character. Considering ethos from both the perspective of analyzing how advertising or political rhetoric is meant to impact the audience, but also how a writer can use word choice and style to create their own ethos, is imperative. Logos, or logical argument, traditionally utilizes syllogisms, yet an exploration of inductive and deductive reasoning, logical fallacies and what exactly makes for effective reasoning will be a more appropriate for my purposes. The emotion aroused in audience, or pathos, is crucial to persuasion.  Negative emotions such as anger, fear and insecurity are the most effective and prevalent in modern advertising and politics. 2

The Five Canons of Rhetoric

After determining the audience and context for an appeal, Cicero felt effective persuasion necessitated consideration of invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. 3 Familiarity with these canons is necessary to both craft a speech and to properly analyze the rhetoric of others. Invention tailors an approach for the audience and context: What is the most appropriate appeal and which words will one use to effectively convey that appeal? Arrangement requires the establishment of the credibility of the speaker via ethos, and then the use of pathos or logos to pursue the argument using a structure suitable for the audience and context; traditionally this order is: introduction, statement and proof, conclusion. Style is the choice of appropriate rhetorical techniques and figures of speech and of the construction of the argument, and may include diction, grammar, rhythm and metaphor. Memory is not necessarily rote recall of the words, but a familiarity with the speech that allows the content to seem natural and fluid upon delivery and can support or erode ethos. Delivery of the appeal includes body language and intonation, which profoundly affect ethos and the subconscious reaction to the appeal. Several famous speeches will be analyzed as both a text and a performance to familiarize students with these terms.

Produced in 1599, the play Julius Caesar is based on Sir Thomas North’s 1579 translation of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans , which Shakespeare undoubtedly used to create his account. 4 While Julius Caesar could be considered a political revenge tragedy, it is hardly a biographical narrative. The content relating to his many military exploits and success as a general and politician is eliminated from the play as Shakespeare focuses on the end of his life and the turmoil that ensued after his murder. It is thought-provoking to contrast the historical figure documented by Plutarch with the leader in the play. Interestingly, Plutarch clearly states that Caesar was ambitious, the crime for which he was assassinated. “But the chiefest cause that made him mortally hated was the covetous desire he had to be called king.” 5

The historical figure is a physically robust and mentally astute leader , whereas Shakespeare’s portrayal seems to evince a weaker individual. One example of this might be Cassius’ tale of Caesar needing to be rescued while swimming whereas Plutarch’s account demonstrates him to be a vigorous and accomplished swimmer. Plutarch cites that during the war in Alexandria Caesar:

leaping into the sea, with great hazard saved himself by swimming. It is said that then, holding divers books in his hand, he did never let them go, but kept them always upon his head above water, and swam with the other hand, notwithstanding that they shot marvelously at him.” 6

Is this description of a man in the midst of a battle leaping into the sea while holding books above his head compatible with Cassius’ account, wherein it is Cassius who emerges as brave, strong and heroic?

Caesar said to me, “Dar’st thou, Cassius, now Leap in with me into this angry flood And swim to yonder point?” Upon the word, Accoutered as I was, I plunged in And bad him follow. So indeed he did. The torrent roared, and we did buffet it With lusty sinews, throwing it aside, And stemming it with hearts of controversy. But ere we could arrive the point proposed, Caesar cried, “Help me, Cassius, or I sink.” [I,ii,102-111]

The fact that Cassius positions himself as the first to enter the Tiber having been dared, and then must encourage Caesar to follow him into the water is an interesting juxtaposition. He then demonstrates a huge ego when he compares himself to Aeneas as he saves Caesar from drowning. This tale is wholly believed by Brutus, along with other claims that Caesar was a physically weak, deaf, epileptic who demonstrates a superstitious nature and a vacillating opinion driven by a need for sycophantic devotion. 7 This older Caesar is markedly different from the historical figure represented by Plutarch, but it is exaggerated so greatly by Cassius as to make his jealousy evident. Perhaps “Shakespeare weakens Caesar physically in order to suggest that his bodily vulnerabilities exemplify his psychological and moral failings.”

Similarly, Antony and Brutus are characterized differently by Shakespeare than the historical annals of Plutarch might suggest. Plutarch even suggests that Brutus is the illegitimate son of Julius Caesar and Harold Bloom contends that Shakespeare does not allude to this relationship as it “would have given Brutus too personal a motive for letting himself be seduced into Cassius’s conspiracy.” 9

Elizabethan Theater

It may be useful to provide a sketch of the Elizabethan theater, where the common people clamored to see repertory performances in the afternoons in venues that could pack in up to 3000 theatergoers. There was no intermission, but the crowd did not sit attentively and quietly for three hours: they ate, talked and gambled. The nobility and upper middle class would sit in the galleries while the commoners, or groundlings, stood in the courtyard directly in front of the stage. As audience will be key to the reception of the funeral speeches, students should really be encouraged to visualize the theater and the proximity of the groundlings, whom Shakespeare transforms into the plebeians themselves being swayed by first Brutus and then Antony. The plebeians are easily swayed by effective oratory; thus, they are manipulated by Antony into a dangerous mob. This fickle responsiveness to rhetoric should serve as a warning to each of us that we too might easily fall victim to persuasive rhetoric. Brutus and Antony’s speeches not only sway the plebeians at the Forum, Shakespeare’s rhetoric is aimed at us as well.

While the play is typically considered to be one of Shakespeare’s histories, the very title, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar begs the question, ‘whose tragedy?’ Given that the titular character is murdered in the third act, students must consider whether the tragedy is the loss of innocence that Brutus undergoes as politics and morals collide. In common with the Histories, however, concern over the throne, given that Queen Elizabeth was a female monarch with no progeny, is also a feature of Julius Caesar . Shakespeare may have had the English monarchy in mind as he wrote of this hero of the Roman Republic, whose sanctioned authority was tragically undermined when he was assassinated, leading to instability in the Republic. The stability of his reign was followed by turmoil, which may further evince tragedy as in a larger sense Rome fell into chaos and war. 10 Given that Shakespeare demonstrated an awareness of how his works supported the legitimacy of the Tudors, and specifically the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the revenge for the untimely death of this iconic figure may reflect the fear of civil insurrection many Elizabethans harbored. The titular character may only appear in three scenes, but his immortality is attained through his achievements and our acknowledgement that the Roman Republic is headed for decline after these triumphs. 11 Until her death in 1603, the play may have served as an argument for stability and civil harmony in that the social upheaval that preceded Queen Elizabeth and ominously loomed during her reign and the question of legitimate rule was always present in the minds of the people.

Some of the skill building activities include using “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King, Jr., to instruct students on the most basic application of logos, ethos and pathos by highlighting the text in three different colors. They will watch a clip of the “I Have a Dream Speech” to focus not only on text, but also on the cadence and power of sound devices. As we review the literary devices (simile, metaphor, alliteration, onomatopoeia, personification, hyperbole) and elements (genre, point of view, tone, audience, purpose, etc.) they were introduced to as freshmen, students will begin to apply these skills in a new manner. Students will view Nancy Duarte’s TED talk, “The Secret Structure of Great Talks” as it refers to Aristotle’s Rhetoric and analyzes the “I Have a Dream Speech” as well as a contemporary speech by Steve Jobs. Students will practice annotation while deepening their understanding of rhetoric as they read “Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade.” ELL students and at-risk students will benefit from high interest activities designed to simultaneously create the appropriate academic language to discuss rhetoric as well as develop an awareness of its prevalence in advertising and politics. Some clips of YouTube will be viewed together with an activity wherein students view Super Bowl advertisements and categorize the types of persuasion each employs. 

Once a foundation for understanding and appreciating the power and fundamentals of rhetoric has been laid, students will engage with the text of Julius Caesar . During the process of parsing out the play together, students will be led to note the relationship between rhetoric and power as Caesar is able to express his will and his word is obeyed without question.  Likewise, students will note how Cassius employs the use of rhetorical questions to sway Brutus towards seeing Caesar as a threat to Rome and liberty.  The moment when Antony deceives the conspirators through clever double speak in order to address the people will be carefully analyzed to demonstrate the power words have to sway men's hearts and minds.  Most notable of the speeches will be Brutus and Antony's funeral speeches, which sway the crowd's opinion back and forth.  Comparisons of the delivery of these speeches in notable films will also be introduced by means of exploring the art of public speaking and effective speaking strategies.  The moral ambiguity of several characters will also be a key point of discussion. It is only after we have read, viewed and closely examined key passages from the play that I will invite students to engage in a Socratic seminar that will address key questions, such as why the tragedy is called Julius Caesar , given that he has so few lines and dies in the third act. Finally, students will compose a personal statement that requires them to demonstrate their mastery of the art of rhetoric. This culminating activity, based upon the NPR “This I Believe” format, will encourage students to consider the core values and beliefs that shape their characters and inform their decisions. Several fantastic models exist from individuals they are familiar with, such as Amy Tan, Elie Wiesel, Bill Gates and Muhammad Ali.

Analyzing the Characters

Caesar is introduced by the remarks of Flavius and Murellus, who may initially encourage skepticism among the audience about this returning military hero whose victory over Pompey has led the plebeians to celebrate during the Feast of Lupercal. The stage is set with one strong military leader replacing another and conflict in the streets between men of status, the tribunes, and the plebeians, themes that may resonate with my students as we approach a heated Presidential election year. Caesar appears on stage in Act 1, Scene 2, directing his wife to stand before Marc Antony as he runs in a race during the Feast of Lupercal to induce fertility.

Caesar.  Calpurnia. Casca.  Peace ho! Caesar speaks. Caesar.  Calpurnia. Calpurnia. Here, my Lord. Caesar.  Stand you directly in Antonio’s way When he doth run his course. Antonio! [I,ii,1-4]

This choice is complicated and odd as modern science leads us question whether Calpurnia is actually the party responsible for the infertility. 12 This scene furthermore introduces Caesar as a character who is given to a belief in superstition, such that he would command this ritual to take place. Nonetheless, Caesar is shown to be an absolute ruler whose will is obeyed without question and without delay. His power and respect are undoubtable, but perhaps there is also a hint of arrogance. He is clearly an astute observer of the character of others as he has suspicions of Cassius and has proven himself to be a heroic general and powerful leader. His supremacy and nobility are especially significant to establish, as this will later lend terror to the apparition of his ghost. 13 Both Brutus and Cassius speak to Caesar’s spirit when they die, evincing the sense that his posthumous power is nearly invincible.    

There is a lot of rhetoric, but is there any evidence that this Caesar is the character Brutus and Cassius have constructed in their minds who would abuse his power? He does decline the crown three times, and Brutus acknowledges that he rules by reason as opposed to whim, yet his ambition is the supposed justification for the murder. Perhaps Brutus and Cassius dispute the political ideal as opposed to reacting to his individual reactions? He is called a serpent, implying he is a sly and vicious creature as well as a stag whose nobility shouldn’t be marred by slavering dogs tearing him to shreds. Students may perceive him to be a considerate husband who seeks to please his anxious wife when he vacillates upon his decision to go to the Capitol, or as a superstitious man driven by vanity. If he fails to go to the Capitol he might not only be mocked for listening to his wife’s superstitious nonsense, he may also miss his opportunity to be offered the crown. Does this ultimately prove that he is ambitious and therefore a threat who was justly assassinated? Conversely, is his final refusal to read Artemidorus’ letter evidence that he was an unselfish leader who ultimately held the needs of the people before his personal well-being?

Brutus is the most morally pure character in that he truly believes his motivation for murder to be the protection of the Republic. His first lines are therefore rather ironic as he interceded in the exchange between the soothsayer and Caesar to report that “A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March” [I,ii,19] given that we know he will deliver the final blow that defeats Caesar physically and eliminates his will to live. His first soliloquy focuses on the necessity to murder Caesar and the justification for the action, as opposed to a moral dilemma over the murder of his friend or a logical debate over the fallacies in Cassius’ justification.

Cassius seems motivated by petty revenge -- he feels slighted by a man he saved -- as opposed to a purely political motivation. He manipulates Brutus through the use of rhetorical questions to convince Brutus that Caesar was a threat to Rome and liberty, yet his rhetoric is not particularly clever and one must wonder why it is so easy for him to convince Brutus to murder his friend. While he claims to be interested in discoursing on the topic of honor, a common theme in Shakespeare’s plays, he actually seeks to launch an attack upon Caesar. He cites evidence of epilepsy and the near-drowning to draw attention to Caesar’s lack of physical strength and then proceeds to compare the names Brutus and Caesar by way of demonstrating that Caesar is no more deserving of honor and titles. His first soliloquy is delivered in such a manner as to reveal that he is merely using Brutus to establish public respect for his agenda. The very fact that this scheming character considers Brutus worthy of manipulating due to his morally pure reputation cements our impression of Brutus as being motivated by pure ideals, leading to complexity in character interpretation. Cassius’ scheming is ultimately ended when he ends his life (with the help of Pindarus) and the natural order is restored as he proclaims: “Caesar, thou art revenged, Even with the sword that killed thee.” [V,iii,45-6]

Antony is initially introduced as this vigorous young man running a race in honor of his friend Caesar, and his first line is a loyal response , “Caesar, my Lord?” [I,ii,5] after which Caesar conveys his request that he touch Calpurnia during the race. Antony responds “I shall remember. When Caesar says, ‘Do this,’ it is performed,” [I,ii,9-10] reflecting his absolute obedience and subservience to Caesar’s will. Antony demonstrates self-control and an ability to manipulate when he responds to the murder by flattering Brutus’ character, sending a servant to Brutus with instructions to prostrate himself and say “Brutus is noble, wise, valiant and honest,” [III,I,126] and suggesting that he will submit to Brutus’ justification if he demonstrates sufficient reason for killing his friend. He then deceives the conspirators, using clever double speak in order to address the plebeians.

While we focus on each character, there are also many opportunities to explore the power of rhetoric through particular scenes. Creating students who read with intelligence, using their mental faculties to explore text, necessitates choosing challenging content. Exploring character and motivation through the lens of rhetoric with a focus on first lines and soliloquies will lead my students to a more nuanced and complicated analysis of character, motivation and persuasion. Taking note, for example, of the moment when directly after slaughtering Caesar, Cinna declares “Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead! Run hence! Proclaim! Cry it about the streets!” [III,i,78] demonstrating an immediate control of the spin on the action and embedding the justification in the declaration.

Another passage that may encourage interesting discourse is the reconciliation between the conspirators after they argue over funding the military venture. The very nature of friendship and criticism of one’s character flaws is the subject of the dialogue between Cassius and Brutus.

Cassius.  You love me not. Brutus.  I do not like your faults. Cassius.  A friendly eye could never see such faults. Brutus.  A flatterer’s would not, though they do appear As huge as high Olympus. [IV,iii,88-92]

Portia always seems to interest my students as she proves her loyalty to her husband and her determination by actually stabbing herself in the thigh. Her interchanges with him demonstrate a fascinating dynamic and her use of rhetoric to urge Brutus to divulge what’s troubling him includes many strategies. Her bold claim that she is no more than “Brutus’ harlot, not his wife” [II,i,288] if he fails to disclose his plans to her shock both Brutus and the audience.

The dramatic scene in which Caesar is alternately concerned about Calpurnia’s dream wherein he is sacrificed, and vaingloriously eager to meet his fate when Decius Brutus explains that he is the metaphorical fountain of freedom, nourishing the people, is fascinating. Students may declare him to be superstitious and will find ample evidence in the text to support that claim, while others may interpret his choices as an attempt to honor his wife and his civic duty. This is an important passage for analyzing his character and ensuring student comprehension prior to the murder and funeral speeches. 

Teaching Strategies

Essential questions.

Who is the speaker and how do they establish ethos?

What is the speaker’s intent?

Who is the intended audience?

What is the rhetorical situation?

How does an author use rhetorical devices to communicate characters’ point of view?

How do the form and content of the message interrelate?

How can you effectively use rhetoric to challenge current thought and bring positive change to the world?

How do we interpret, evaluate and analyze content in our world to discover our own thoughts and opinions?

Learning to annotate text in a careful and deliberative manner is perhaps the most essential skill I will impart to my students, as these notes will inform their writing, thinking and conversations. “Reading Rhetorically” is a text that provides strategies for reading critically to support writing and conversation about a text with a focus on determining the audience, purpose and genre. Educators are incessantly asking students to analyze a text, but what does that really mean? Analysis means that an understanding of the rhetorical strategies used by the author is evident and that they are evaluated in light of the author’s purpose; it is a marriage of both the ideas explicit and implicit in the text and your opinions about those ideas. “On the one hand, you will be expected to represent what the text said accurately and fairly. On the other hand, you will be expected to offer your own analysis, interpretation, or critique in a way that enables readers to see the text differently.” 14

The initial read-through of a piece of text should be active, involving students noticing and circling organizational signal words such as however , therefore , or likewise . Additionally, students will put a question mark next to words, terms or references they are unfamiliar with, and return to them after the initial reading. Bracketing ideas that seem difficult of confusing will also allow students to continue reading through their confusion and later pose questions or determine whether the passage is more clear once they have completed the reading. As students are completing this initial read, they should annotate the text by highlighting main ideas and evidence that supports the writer’s assertions, draw arrows to significant word choices and otherwise note questions, objections, and connections. Once they have reviewed their questions, looked up vocabulary, analyzed the impact of specific word choice, and discussed the reading with their peers, the second reading should occur. This is the point at which I ask them to engage in descriptive outlining. On the left margin they will write a note for each segment that addresses what is said--a summary of the content--and on the right what is done, a statement of how that segment interacts with the whole, usually preceded by words such as describe , explain , or argue . 15 This strategy will be useful for students to practice close reading skills, but will be predominantly used with the “Logos, Ethos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade” article and the sample personal essays, such as Joseph Epstein’s "The Divine Miss H, Revisited” and Horace Miner’s “Body Rituals Among the Nacirema”, which students will review prior to writing their final product

They Say I Say

Developing students who are able to speak clearly and effectively to communicate an idea is incumbent upon educators. The authors of They Say I Say have created an approach to classroom conversations that is rooted in the idea that they are not merely preparing to discuss the author’s argument, but also the arguments it is responding to. Students become active and critical readers as they seek to parse out “not only what the author thinks, but how what the author thinks fits with what others think, and ultimately with what you yourself think.” 16 In order to help students learn how to express their ideas, this strategy offers sentence frames to help them utilize appropriate academic language that focuses on ideas.  The frames can be categorized into groups such as those that capture authorial action, such as “X demonstrates that _____” or “X urges us to ______.” Disagreeing, with reasons, might lead to the use of the frame: “X’s claim that _____ rests upon the questionable assumption that _____.” Agreeing with qualifications could be aided by the use of the frame: “I agree that ______, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe _____.” Agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously could be expressed through the frame: “Though I concede that _____, I still insist that _____.” 17

This acronym (Speaker, Occasion, Audience, Purpose, Subject and Tone) is intended to help students consider and evaluate an argument through a series of questions. Students will ask themselves, who is the speaker and what personae they have created, with a focus on ethos. Next, the occasion can be understood in terms of time, place, context and background information. Audience necessitates consideration of the intended audience, which may only be a segment of the population with access to the rhetoric, as well as the three rhetorical appeals utilized. Purpose is the implicit or explicit intention of the speaker. The worldview, assumptions and philosophies that inform the subject of the text must be carefully considered. Tone requires students to consider the attitude of the speaker towards the subject and perhaps even the audience.

Classroom Activities

Character analysis.

As the students read the play, they will fill out a graphic organizer that has several characters (Antony, Brutus, Caesar, Calpurnia, Cassius, Portia) for whom they must address questions such as: What do other characters say about the focus character? How do they represent themselves with words to others? What are the character’s private thoughts? What are their actions? This activity is designed to demonstrate how much evidence there is in the text relating to character, and how the evidence may point to conflicting interpretations. Effective classroom conversations cannot occur without adequate preparation for both the rituals and routines of the discussion, as well as the appropriate language for the discourse, in addition to ample textual evidence to support opinion. The graphic organizer is one way to support and scaffold students towards effective conversation.

Funeral Speeches

Close reading requires that students have the opportunity to annotate and really work with the text. Hence it is useful to provide worksheets that will allow students to write, highlight, circle and otherwise annotate. As they are examples of some of the most notable rhetoric in the play, the funeral speeches afford ideal opportunities for students to perform close textual analysis. As indicated in Appendix B, the side-by-side format allows students to respond to questions and be led through close textual analysis. The initial speech by Brutus would be heavily teacher directed, whereas Antony’s speech might be analyzed in small groups.

Brutus’ idealism has been perverted by Cassius, yet he still fails to recognize his tenuous position as he addresses the audience. His relatively short funeral oration is a masterful example of carefully constructed verse that demonstrates balance, yet comes across as cold and too logical with over 30 figures of speech crammed into a relatively short monologue, in the face of his supposed regret for the necessity of murdering a man he loved. His speech seems almost entirely informed by ethos as he commands the crowd to “hear” and “believe” him. He repeatedly refers to his own honor, as if to suggest that it is an unquestionable attribute, which demonstrates his idealism and perhaps his naiveté. His emotional distance is evident when he expresses his regret for the necessity of murder “As Caesar loved me, I weep for him” [III,ii,23] as opposed to expressing his own love for Caesar. 18 Brutus calls Caesar “fortunate” and commends his valor, but condemns his “ambition” and uses that as justification to the amassed crowd for the murder. He asks the rhetorical question , who is so “vile” that they don’t love the Republic and asks that individual to step forward, which of course has the effect of silencing any dissenter. In sum, Brutus’ speech demonstrates stilted rhetoric and moral narcissism, and ultimately his focus on ethos (his honor) will be turned against him. Although he tried to kill a political idea he feared, he necessarily had to commit a murder. However, he distances himself from the actual physical murder by making it a symbolic act and even refers to Caesar as a sacrifice, a “dish fit for the gods” [II,I,174] when planning the deed. His guilty conscience still troubles him when he commits suicide at the end of play and declares “Caesar, now be still, I kill’d not thee with half so good a will.” [V,v,52-53]

When Antony addresses the crowd at the Forum, they initially are respectful only because Brutus has instructed them to be so. His audience is not necessarily hostile, but they seem hardly malleable, yet while Brutus commanded them most masterfully, Antony coaxes them through a progressive series of rhetorical devices that build upon one another. Antony immediately sets himself apart from Brutus by using prose and taking the conversation from the ethereal level to the very physical, evident especially in his use of the actual corpse to illustrate his perspective. Antony proves capable of harnessing his emotions in order to sway the opinion of the crowd in a seemingly natural manner by using prose, yet it is rife with irony, questioning, and logical appeals that gradually persuade the audience. His appeal seems motivated by genuine grief as he carefully leads the audience to question Caesar’s ambition, then tantalizes them with the will while continuing slyly to refer to Brutus’ honor. His use of pathos and logos, while continually sarcastically referring to Brutus’ ethos--“But Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man” [III,ii,85-86]--are delivered in segments with pauses for the crowd to respond and generate pity for Caesar and then righteous indignation after they learn of Caesar’s bequests in the will . Eventually their passions are so inflamed that they are incited to riot. Antony is perhaps the most masterful orator. He has convinced the crowd that he is “a plain blunt man” [III,ii,208], but my students will understand through their analysis that his is in fact, the most calculated and devious deployer of rhetoric in the play. This may lead to a discussion of an audience’s dislike of being manipulated by a rhetorically gifted individual and in inherent reaction to resist the content of what such a person says. Antony’s last speech might respond to the question who is truly the tragic hero of this play. With no benefit to derive from dissembling, Antony states that Brutus “was the noblest Roman of them all” [V,v,68] and his judgment stands as a summary thought for the audience. Still considering the effects of rhetoric, students may also choose a historical interpretation that focuses on the chaos that ensues when the legitimate ruler is usurped.

I hope to demonstrate how Brutus’ funeral oration is ultimately flawed as a result of his dependency upon ethos and style. It is a beautiful piece of rhetoric comprised of repetition, reverse interchanges, the pairing of opposites, and rhetorical questions, but it ultimately demonstrates his narcissistic reliance on his own honor as a justification for murder, and the haughty rhetoric alienates him from his audience. In marked contrast, Antony’s speech is a testament to his apparent emotional trauma. It uses irony and manipulation to firstly convince with logos and then play to the crowd’s emotions with ethos. After close analysis, students will compare and contrast the speeches of Brutus and Antony to reveal the marked contrast between prose and verse, reliance upon ethos as opposed to logos, brevity in contrast to breadth, and careful composition versus an emotional appeal. 19 Although there are a number of questions that direct attention to significant uses of rhetoric, there are also many opportunities to conduct further and deeper analysis. Students may benefit from completing a Venn Diagram that compares and contrasts the speeches of Brutus and Antony (length, prose vs. verse, reaction to the death, commanding vs. coaxing, rhetorical strategies employed, etc.), followed by a discussion of how those differences affect the audience, given the speaker’s purpose. Ultimately it is my hope that students will concur that the masterful use of a variety of rhetorical devices develops logos, ethos and then pathos in Antony’s speech, making him therefore the more effective rhetorician. “He passes the only test that matters in classical rhetoric---audience response.” 20 Film versions of the key speeches by Brutus and Antony will be viewed and compared to demonstrate how delivery profoundly alters perception of the content and to explore the art of public speaking and effective speaking strategies.  

Conduct a mock trial of Brutus for the crime of assassinating Caesar. Assign roles for Brutus, several prosecution and defense lawyers, a judge, and witnesses. The remainder of the class will serve as the jury. Students will prepare for their role in the trial. At the end of the trial the jury members will each write a paragraph explanation of their opinion on the guilt or innocence of the defendant and the evidence that swayed them. The judge will deliver an appropriate sentence, having acted as moderator for the process.

Socratic Seminar

A Socratic seminar is a structured conversation between students that demands they use evidence from the text to support their assertions and interact utilizing a constructive model. I tend to use an inner circle of confident speakers to engage in debate while an outer circle takes very specific notes on the types of interactions students engage in: Do they they pose a question, ask another student to elaborate, refer to another student’s ideas when making a point, or use evidence from the text? Posing questions that are highly debatable and don’t necessarily have a correct answer is a favorite strategy to help students prepare for meaningful classroom conversation. When is murder justified? Is assassination morally less reprehensible than murder? How is the treatment of the wives (Portia and Calpurnia) parallel? Is Caesar’s excessive use of his own name and the third person evidence that he is vainglorious or merely that he is cognizant of his own authority? Was Caesar a threat to Rome or just a fallible man? If the conspirators were right to fear Caesar’s power, were they right to kill him? Did Brutus betray Caesar? Why do Cassius and Brutus kill themselves on the battlefield? Do the ends justify the means? Can positive change result from violent action? What is the function of soliloquy? How does the relationship between Brutus and Cassius change over the course of the play?

Students will create a six panel storyboard to convey the most significant plot points of the play. This activity requires students to demonstrate sequencing skills as they determine which are the most significant moments. They will indicate the main ideas and include a caption with a quotation from the text. This activity will be especially engaging for students as they work in groups and will help my English Language Learners remain engaged.

Resource List

Classroom texts.

Duarte, Nancy, “The Secret Structure of Great Talks,” TEDx East video, 18:38,

November 11, 2010,

http://www.ted.com/talks/nancy_duarte_the_secret_structure_of_great_talks

Edlund, Dr. John R. "Ethos, Logos, Pathos." Ethos, Logos, Pathos. Accessed July 31,

2015. http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/jgarret/3waypers.htm.

Epstein, Joseph. "The Divine Miss H, Revisited." The Weekly Standard, June 22, 2015,  

Vol 20, No. 39, 5.

King, Martin Luther. Letter from the Birmingham Jail . San Francisco: Harper San  

Francisco, 1994.

Shakespeare, William, and John D. Cox. Julius Caesar . Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview,

2013. One of two indispensable texts for the teacher as it includes discussion of

rhetoric that precedes the play as well as [] excerpts from Plutarch’s Lives

of the Noble Grecians and Romans .

Zigarelli, Michael, “An Introduction to Ethos, Logos and Pathos” You Tube, 4:20, May

30, 2014, http://youtu.be/9L_G82HH9Tg

Bibliography for Teachers

Bean, John C., Virginia A. Chappell and Alica M. Gillam. Reading Rhetorically . New

Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc., 2014. This is one of the fundamental texts used by

our ERWC classes in alignment with the Common Core State Standards. Although

written for students, it serves to deconstruct the elements of analysis by teaching

students how to approach thinking, reading and writing from the perspective of

rhetoric and is especially useful in strategies for closely and vigorously annotating

Blits, Jan H. “ From Caesar’s Ambiguous End.” In Julius Caesar , edited by S.P.

Cerasano, 199-210. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012.

Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human . New York: Riverhead Books,

Includes references to Aristotle’s rhetoric, a basic plot diagram and close analysis of

two speeches: “I Have a Dream” by Martin Luther King and a speech by Steve Jobs.

2015. http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/jgarret/3waypers.htm. Great foundational text

to provide students with an opportunity to understand Aristotle’s three most basic

methods of persuasion and can serve to simultaneously teach annotation skills. There

are also great questions at the end of each method that encourage group conversations.

Garber, Marjorie B. Shakespeare after All . New York: Pantheon Books, 2004.

Garber, Marjorie B. Shakespeare and Modern Culture . New York: Pantheon Books,

Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in

Academic Writing . 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2010.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare . New

York: WW. Norton and Co., 2004. I provide my students with some great handouts

on both Shakespeare and life/theater in Elizabethan times, but this biography is a

delightful exploration of the playwright and his world which will help flesh out my

lectures and commentary.

Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can

Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion . New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007.

Joseph, Sister Miriam. Rhetoric in Shakespeare's Time: Literary Theory of Renaissance

Europe. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962.

McGuigan, Brendan, and Paul Moliken. Rhetorical Devices: A Handbook and Activities

for Student Writers . Rev. ed. Clayton, DE: Prestwick House, 2011.

Miner, Horace. “Body Rituals Among the Nacirema”

Museum of the Moving Image, “The Living Room Candidate: Presidential Campaign

Commercials 1952-2012” http://www.livingroomcandidate.org. Given that I will be

teaching this unit in the midst of campaigning for the next presidential election, an

analysis of one of outgoing President Barack Obama’s speeches that used ethos to

arouse hope and logos to address the economy and war might provide useful as will

viewing current candidate’s debates and ads.

Roskelly, Hepzibah. “What do Students Need to Know About Rhetoric.” College Board

Shakespeare, William, and Susan P. Cerasano. Julius Caesar . New York: W.W. Norton,

rhetoric that precedes the play as well as the addition of excerpts from Plutarch’s Lives

of the Noble Grecians and Roman.

Wills, Garry. Rome and Rhetoric: Shakespeare's Julius Caesar . New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press, 2011. Invaluable text in that it analyzes the characters in Julius

Caesar through the lens of rhetoric. While it is far too in-depth an analysis in terms of

depth and breadth for my classroom, it is invaluable to me as an educator to

familiarize myself with Plutarch’s historical take on these men as well as the specific

rhetorical devices in the text.

30, 2014, http://youtu.be/9L_G82HH9Tg. Fun introductory clip to the pragmatic use of the art of persuasion through as example of a detective trying to get a confession from a suspect.

Academic Standards

This is the second year after adoption of the California Common Core State Standards and the Oak Grove High School English department is focused on truly preparing our students for the 21st century.  

Enduring Understandings

Students will understand that:

• argument is part of a process and debate, and not the last word, nor is it a dogmatic opinion. One can form an opinion while keeping an open mind W.9-10.1 Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or gets, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.

(The ability to accept the writer’s premise and conduct a descriptive outline that seeks comprehension prior to engaging in questioning the text in a skeptical manner will be taught as a discreet skill)

• they can observe patterns objectively and thoroughly, especially when they consider how diction, syntax, style and structure profoundly impact how a message is received by an audience.  RL.9-10.10 By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas and poems, and the high end of the grades 9-10 text complexity band independently and proficiently.   (My aim is to teach perseverance to my students, who often feel overwhelmed by a complicated text like a Shakespeare play. Teaching them to consider speaker, audience, genre, tone, use of figurative language, grammar, sentence structure and rhetoric and how to perform a close annotation of the text that leads to analysis is key)
• the rhetorical choices made by an author can influence the way people think or perceive . "Evaluate a speaker's point of view, reasoning, and use evidence and rhetoric, identifying any fallacious reasoning or exaggerated or distorted evidence.” SL.9-10.3

(Ultimately, the honorable Brutus leaves the stage convinced that his authority and ethos have convinced the audience of the necessity of slaying Caesar, and when he offers to fall upon his own sword, they chant “Live, Brutus, live, live!” However, once Antony has played the impassioned crowd like a fiddle, convincing them with both his style [such as using irony], his tearful emotions and the reading of the will, we witness the crowd incited to riot.)

• Grammar would actually be imperative to Aristotle as well, considered an essential part of style and therefore noting the schemes of words and repetition would dovetail with this threefold approach to persuasion. Sister Miriam Joseph, Rhetoric in Shakespeare’s Time , 34-38.
• John R. Edlund, “Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade.
• Sister Miriam Joseph, Rhetoric in Shakespeare’s Time , 20.
• P. Cerasano, ed, Julius Caesar , xi.
• John Cox, ed, Julius Caesar , 195.
• Brutus’ willingness to believe such lies shows that he was predisposed to despise Caesar already.” Garry Wills, Rome and Rhetroic , 14-15.
• Harold Bloom, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human,
• “The image of Cicero that Shakespeare wants for his play is the typical Renaissance attitude of respect for the champion of liberty,” hence, Shakespeare could not include Cicero amongst the conspirators, nor could he use Plutarch’s assertion that Cicero was elderly and fainthearted without diminishing his image as a defender of the Republic. Gary Wills, Rome and Rhetoric , 7-8. 
• Jan H. Blits “ From Caesar’s Ambiguous End,” in Julius Caesar , edited by S.P. Cerasano, 210.
• “Shakespeare also invented Caesar’s belief in his wife’s barrenness…, a detail that could as easily reflect Caesar’s disability as his wife’s, though Caesar characteristically fails to see the situation that way.” Cox, 17.
• John C. Bean, Virgina A. Chappell and Alica M. Gillam, Reading Rhetorically , 36.
• Descriptive outlining (says and does statements) can be explored in detail, along with other helpful strategies for annotating text in Reading Rhetorically . John C. Bean, Virgina A. Chappell and Alice M. Gillam, Reading Rhetorically , 56-57
• Gerald Graff, and Cathy Birkenstein, They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing ,
• Wills, 81-82.

Comments (1)

Send us your comment

Julius Caesar

William shakespeare, everything you need for every book you read..

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — The Tragedy of Julius Caesar — Antony and Brutus: Rhetoric Analysis

Antony and Brutus: Rhetoric Analysis

• Categories: The Tragedy of Julius Caesar William Shakespeare

About this sample

Words: 436 |

Published: Mar 16, 2024

Words: 436 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 504 words

1 pages / 278 words

1 pages / 517 words

7 pages / 3216 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on The Tragedy of Julius Caesar

Brutus and Antony's speeches in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar are two of the most famous and widely studied speeches in literature. Both characters deliver their speeches at Caesar's funeral, and their speeches have a [...]

Julius Caesar, the renowned Roman general and statesman, is often remembered for his military conquests and political achievements. However, his influence extended beyond the battlefield and the Senate, as he also had a [...]

Julius Caesar has been a subject of fascination and debate for centuries. His leadership qualities, decisions, and impact on the Roman Republic have been scrutinized by historians, scholars, and students alike. This essay aims [...]

"Julius Caesar" is a timeless classic that delves into the politics and power struggles of ancient Rome. One of the most iconic scenes in the play is the funeral speech delivered by Mark Antony, which serves as a pivotal moment [...]

We meet the character of Mark Antony three times before Julius Caesar’s death, though he speaks little and we do not get much of an indication of his character. Antony fully enters the play exactly halfway through, when he makes [...]

All great speakers have one thing in common: a seamless ability to use persuasive techniques in order to push a point across. In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, after Caesar’s assassination, nobleman and conspirator Brutus [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free