Inaugural Edition, December 2008
ENL
257: Best Essays in Rhetorical Theory
2nd Place Winner
The
Art of Swaying a Hostile Crowd: Marc Antony’s Funeral
Oration
Eileen
Dunleavy In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Mark Antony pleads with his “Friends,
Romans (and) countrymen” to lend him their ears in an effort to exonerate
Caesar from false charges laid against him. The three main conspirators in Caesar’s
murder, Brutus, Casca and Cassius portrayed Caesar as an ambitious tyrant to
the Roman people. After Caesar was unjustly killed by his friends and comrades,
the crowd was persuaded to believe that his death was necessary for the good
of the republic. However, Antony’s oration cleverly manipulates the
crowd through the use of pathetic appeals, especially enargeia, into rebelling
against
the assassins and mourning the death of Caesar.
Caesar’s untimely and unnecessary
death created a unique rhetorical moment that Marc Antony seized. Bitzer states
in his article “The Rhetorical Situation” that “a particular
discourse comes into existence because of some specific condition or situation
which invites utterance” (Bitzer 41). According to the assassins, Caesar’s
murder was necessary for the good of all the Roman citizens, who unquestioningly
believed Brutus’s accusations that Caesar was ambitious and unfit to govern
Rome. Marc Antony used his speech to win back the citizens and unite them in
grief and outrage at Caesar’s murder. One of Marc Antony’s objectives
as he ascended to the pulpit was to refute the claims of Caesar’s guilt
of ambition: “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. / I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke” (3.2.98-102).
He reminded the public that Caesar had been offered the opportunity to be
crowned King of Rome three times, and each time Caesar had refused it. As
Antony implies,
an ambitious man would most certainly take the opportunity to become king
at the first offering. Marc Antony was given permission to speak at the funeral
of Caesar, under the condition that he would not undermine the conspirators.
And so, Marc Antony never directly states that Brutus and the other conspirators
lied about their murderous motives. Marc Antony was constrained by the inability
to publicly show his contempt for the gruesome murder, and so he took a more
subtle approach by gradually turning the crowds against the murderers.
Prior
to Marc Antony’s oration the crowd had been convinced by Brutus that
the death of Caesar was just and warranted. They were led to believe that
Caesar was a tyrant and so when Marc Antony ascended to speak they were already
hostile
to his argument. Crowley and Hawhee state that
members of an audience may hold one of three attitudes toward
an issue or a rhetor’s
ethos: they may be hostile, indifferent, or accepting. Communication researchers
have found that it is easier to move people who care about an issue than it is
to influence those who are indifferent. That is, it is easier to bring about
a change of mind in those who are accepting or hostile than in those who are
indifferent. (212)
Before Marc Antony spoke the crowd called Caesar a tyrant and
said “we
are blest that Rome is rid of him” (3.2.73). The crowd had been easily
swayed to believe the lies concerning Caesar’s ambition, and felt they
were indebted to the murderers for freeing them from Caesar’s alleged tyrannical
rule. However, after Antony’s speech, the hostile crowd had completely
changed their opinions about the murder and the conspirators.
Marc Antony shows
the gathered crowd the body of Caesar to show how viciously he was killed
by his so called friends,
Look, in this place ran Cassius' dagger
through:
See what
a rent the envious Casca made:
Through this the well-beloved Brutus
stabb'd;
And as he pluck'd his cursed steel away,
Mark how the
blood of Caesar
follow'd it,
As rushing out of doors, to be resolved. (3.2.176-181)
The display
of the body and its wounds join with and Antony’s words to evoke enargeia which
is when “rhetors picture events so vividly that they seem to be actually
taking place before the audience. Vivid depictions of events, stir the emotions
of an audience so exactly as if they had been present when it occurred” (Crowley
and Hawhee 214). Crowley and Hawhee actually refer to Shakespeare’s version
of Marc Antony’s oration in their text, in order to describe enargeia.
They say “it is easy for readers to imagine this scene—Antony holding
up the torn, bloodstained cloak, putting his hands through the holes made by
the daggers that killed Caesar” (Crowley and Hawhee 215). This display
of the brutal nature in which Caesar was murdered is vividly described by Marc
Antony and plays upon the emotions of the crowd. The crowd is literally shown
that conspirator’s actions were in no way honorable, as they had claimed
them to be. At the sight of Caesar’s tattered, bloody cloak it becomes
clear that Caesar was not killed for the good of Rome. The crowd begins to realize
that it was not Caesar’s ambition that led to his death, but the ambition
of the conspirators and that Caesar had been viciously assassinated in cold blood.
Antony reinforces this when he describes how Brutus inflicted Caesar’s
most fatal wounds.
For Brutus, as you know, was Caesar's angel:
Judge,
O you gods, how dearly Caesar loved him!
This was the most unkindest
cut of all;
For
when the noble Caesar saw him stab,
Ingratitude, more strong
than traitors' arms,
Quite vanquish'd him: then burst his mighty
heart.
(3.2.183-188)
Antony heart-wrenchingly
asserts that it was not the brutal stabbing that killed Caesar,
but his betrayal by his best friend Brutus. Marc Antony paints
the picture of Caesar’s murder
to the gathered crowd, describing Brutus delivering fatal stab wounds to his
best friend.
To create a common bond between himself and
the crowd, Marc Antony continually addresses them as “friends, Romans, countrymen.” These
words serve to unify himself with the crowd and eventually sway them to feel
as outraged by the murder as he does. Antony speaks with an intimate distance
from his audience which according to Crowley and Hawhee suggests that he is familiar
with his audience. Antony’s speech is punctuated with subtle and at times
obvious disdain for the murderers which, as Crowley and Hawhee suggest, exemplifies
how a “rhetors’ strong expression of an attitude—approval or
disapproval, for example—closes distance. More attitude = intimate distance” (183).
Antony clearly does not condone the murder and makes that abundantly clear; however,
he never explicitly states that the conspirators were unjust. He uses honorific
terms to identify them, repeatedly calling them “honorable men,” for
example. This repetition actually serves to disprove the title, because honorable
men would never have committed such a vile act. These techniques create a divide
between the crowd and the conspirators who murdered Caesar because it forces
the Romans to see the murder for what it truly was.
Antony evokes further pathos
from the crowd by reading them Caesar’s will, and informing them that he
left a large part of his estate to them.
It is not meet you know how Caesar loved
you.
You are not wood, you are not stones, but men;
And,
being men, bearing the will of Caesar,
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! (3.2.143-148)
He tells them that hearing Caesar’s will and the knowledge that they are
his heirs will only infuriate them and it is better for them not to know how
much Caesar loved them. Caesar had loved Rome and its people so much that he
left provisions for them in his will. Learning that Caesar had left them all
money and land in his will is what finally turns the public’s opinion against
the murderers. Marc Antony’s speech succeeded in proving that Caesar was
indeed a noble man, and should be mourned as such.
Marc Antony’s eulogy
of Julius Caesar cleverly hid his agenda to clear the name of the slain leader
and managed to sway public opinion from one extreme to another. His words cause
the angry mob to scour the streets of Rome for anyone who took part in his murder.
His pathetic appeals to his friends, Romans and countrymen incited them to become
an enraged mob to avenge Caesar’s death. His words display the assassin’s
malicious actions for what they were and honor the memory of
Caesar.
Works Cited
Bitzer, Lloyd F. "The Rhetorical Situation." Philosophy and Rhetoric
(1968): 39-48.
Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. "Chapter 6: Ethical Proof
: Arguments From Character." Ancient
Rhetorics for Contemporary Students.
New York: Pearson Longmann, 2004. 163-203.
Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. "Chapter
7: Pathetic Proof : Passionate Appeals." Ancient
Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. New York:
Pearson Longmann, 2004.
205-219.
printer-friendly
back to top
|