The Senators Swansong

The Senator’s Swansong How can one man’s closest friend also be that man’s murderer? This is precisely what happens in Julius Caesar. Brutus kills his closest friend, Julius Caesar, and then he gives his justification for doing so in his speech at Julius Caesar’s own funeral. Although his speech was flawed, the crowd of people he spoke to were easily swayed, and they accepted Brutus’ justification. Unfortunately for Brutus, he allowed Mark Antony, another one of Caesar’s close friends to speak after him. His speech completely reversed the crowd’s opinion. Comparing Brutus and Antony’s funeral speeches is an important topic because it is a turning point in the conspirator’s attempts to sway the Roman people. The comparison shows how a few crucial errors on the conspirator’s part, along with a great speech by Antony, completely altered the outcome of the entire play. In comparing Brutus and Antony’s speeches, it becomes evident that Antony’s speech was much more effective than Brutus’ speech in four key areas: ethos, pathos, logos, and chronos. Brutus and Antony go in different directions when it comes to ethos. Brutus gets on the stage and says, “Believe me for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that you might believe me” (III.i.14-15). He is telling the crowd to believe him based on his honor, and while they are judging what he has done, remember how honorable he is. His approach is formal and almost condescending. He is on the stage and he knows he has accomplished more admirable deeds than his audience which merits him honor. But, highlighting this sets him above his audience. Antony however comes up and says, “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears” (III.i.60). This opening is similar to Brutus’ except for one key word, friends. This automatically changes the entire tone of the speech. Now, Antony approaches the crowd on the same level as them, as equals. He is no better, no worse. He is a citizen of Rome, just like them. Brutus’ pathos is also flawed. He comes across as cold hearted. Brutus assumes the crowd will believe his hypotheticals as if they are facts. While Brutus killed his friend on the suspicion of him becoming corrupt, he wins over the crowd with the statement: “Had you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men?” (III.i.20-21). The people were swayed by Brutus’ speech until Antony spoke. Antony’s speech casts himself as a victim whose friend has just been murdered in cold-blood. Antony, weeping at the end, showed how emotional it was to him, and that, in turn, made it emotional to everyone else. Antony’s friend died, and he was able to share his emotions to the crowd through his words and actions. The crowd, moved by the speech, concluded that Caesar was wronged. Brutus’ logos was one of the main shortcomings in his entire speech. Brutus’ argument rested on the premise that he was an honorable man. He asked the plebeians not to judge him, for he was honorable. By drawing this premise into question, Antony destroys Brutus’ argument. He gives counter examples to Brutus’ claims of Caesar’s flaws and follows each time with, “Brutus is an honorable man” (III.i.69) He mentions when Brutus said Caesar was ambitious, and then reminds the crowd of the time when he presented the crown three times to Caesar and three times he refused. While never drawing the conclusion himself, Antony’s strong and masterful argument forces the people of Rome to question the validity of Brutus’ honor, and by doing so, they are lead to question the validity of his entire speech. By his own hand, Brutus butchered his chronos, the one thing he could easily control. Brutus tells Antony that he may only give a speech if he promises two things. First, he must compliment the conspirators and not say a single bad word against them and he must go second. This was a very poor choice on Brutus’ part, and it turned out to be a crucial error. Even though Brutus’ speech was much worse, perhaps the fickle people of Rome would have gone with Brutus had he gone second? Brutus allows Antony to go second. Antony’s better timing, along with his better speech ended in the people of Rome siding with Antony. This is ironic since Brutus thought going first would be an advantage. In conclusion, Brutus lacked in ethos because he was too formal and borderline condescending. He lacked in pathos because he seemed cold-hearted. He lacked in logos because he built his argument upon the premise that he was honorable which Antony drew into question. And lastly, his timing was awful, for the people of Rome are so fickle. Antony was better in every category. For his ethos, he entered as a friend and an equal. Antony’s pathos was solid, for he was truly grief-stricken, and he was able to connect with the crowd. His logos was valid. Antony’s great chronos had nothing to do with him, but he benefited from Brutus’ bad choice. Despite Brutus’ weak speech, the plebeians sided with Brutus before Antony took the stage. However, once Antony’s speech was done, there was no question in any of the plebeians’ mind that the conspirators must die for what they had done to Julius Caesar.