‘Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is as much about Elizabethan politics as it is about those of ancient Rome.’ Consider this statement by focusing on close analysis of the speeches of Brutus and Antony following Caesar’s assassination.
This Shakespeare essay asks you to do two things:
- Place the play in the context of Elizabethan political tensions
- Show your skills in analysis by comparing and contrasting the two identified speeches.
Advice on tackling this essay question
You should begin this Shakespeare essay by writing about the political scene in Shakespeare’s time. Julius Caesar was first performed in 1599, a time of great political tension, as the long-reigning monarch, Elizabeth, was reaching the end of her life, she had no heir and refused to name one. Also, her life had been perpetually threatened throughout her reign by Roman Catholic plots to put her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, on the throne.
Elizabeth was very much aware of the power of the theatre to influence her people, to the extent that she had banned the performance of Shakespeare’s Richard II. Shakespeare might thus be said to have been able to discuss contemporary politics more easily through the medium of history. All of this should be addressed in the first part of this Shakespeare essay.
The second part of the essay should focus mainly on analysis. As the question asks you to examine the speeches of Antony and Brutus following Caesar’s assassination (Act III, Scene ii) in particular, you should do that, comparing and contrasting the effectiveness of each in turn, the malleability of the crowd, the different approaches (Brutus to reason and patriotism, Antony to emotion and loyalty). It would be useful to comment, also, on the individual ambition of each.
This Shakespeare essay can easily follow the structure of the five paragraph essay, with the historical background being dealt with largely in the introduction and first paragraph and the remaining two paragraphs of the main body addressing the analysis of the speeches of Brutus and Antony in turn.
You should conclude this Shakespeare essay by commenting on the connection between the politics which caused the assassination of Julius Caesar and those prevailing at the time of Elizabeth, together with some closing comments on how each informs the other.
Sample essay response
Introduction
Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” was first performed in 1599, a time of significant political tension in Elizabethan England. The long-reigning monarch, Elizabeth I, was nearing the end of her life, and the lack of an heir fueled uncertainty and anxiety about the country’s future. Elizabeth’s reign had been marred by numerous threats to her life, particularly from Roman Catholic factions who wished to see her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, ascend the throne. Understanding the political backdrop of Elizabethan England is crucial to fully appreciating “Julius Caesar,” as Shakespeare cleverly used historical drama to comment on contemporary issues without direct confrontation. This essay will first explore the political scene of Shakespeare’s time and then provide a detailed analysis of the speeches of Brutus and Antony in Act III, Scene ii, comparing and contrasting their rhetorical strategies and effectiveness.
Elizabethan Political Tensions
The political landscape during Elizabeth I’s reign was fraught with tension. Elizabeth’s refusal to name an heir created a power vacuum that various factions sought to exploit. Her life was under constant threat from Catholic plots, which sought to replace her with Mary Queen of Scots, a Catholic figurehead. These plots highlighted the religious and political divisions within the country, making the stability of the monarchy a matter of grave concern.
Elizabeth was acutely aware of the influence of the theatre on public opinion. The theatre was not just a source of entertainment but also a medium for political commentary. Elizabeth’s ban on the performance of Shakespeare’s “Richard II,” a play depicting the overthrow of a monarch, underscores her recognition of the theatre’s power to stir political sentiment. Shakespeare, cognizant of these dynamics, often used historical narratives to reflect on contemporary politics subtly. “Julius Caesar” is a prime example, where the themes of power, loyalty, and betrayal mirror the anxieties of Elizabethan England.
Brutus’ Speech: Rational Appeal and Patriotism
In Act III, Scene ii of “Julius Caesar,” Brutus addresses the Roman populace following Caesar’s assassination. His speech is a carefully constructed appeal to reason and patriotism. Brutus presents himself as a rational and honorable man who participated in the assassination for the greater good of Rome. He begins by establishing his credibility, addressing the crowd as “Romans, countrymen, and lovers,” which immediately positions him as one of them, someone who shares their concerns and values.
Brutus employs logical arguments to justify the assassination, framing it as an act of necessity to prevent Caesar’s ambition from corrupting Rome. He asks rhetorical questions to engage the crowd’s reasoning: “Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men?” This question forces the crowd to consider the implications of Caesar’s rule and implicitly suggests that Brutus’ actions were in their best interest.
Throughout his speech, Brutus emphasizes his love for Rome, portraying himself as a selfless patriot. He repeatedly states that his actions were motivated by his concern for the Republic, not personal gain. This appeal to patriotism is designed to align the crowd’s sentiments with his own, making them see the assassination as a noble act of sacrifice rather than a treacherous murder.
Antony’s Speech: Emotional Appeal and Loyalty
Following Brutus’ speech, Antony delivers a masterful oration that contrasts sharply with Brutus’ rational approach. Antony’s speech is a powerful appeal to emotion and loyalty. He begins by addressing the crowd as “Friends, Romans, countrymen,” a subtle but significant inversion of Brutus’ opening. This address not only positions Antony as a friend to the people but also creates an immediate emotional connection.
Antony cleverly uses irony and repetition to undermine Brutus’ arguments without directly opposing them. He repeatedly refers to Brutus as an “honorable man” while juxtaposing this with examples of Caesar’s generosity and compassion: “He hath brought many captives home to Rome / Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: / Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?” This rhetorical strategy sows doubt in the crowd’s mind about Brutus’ justification for the assassination.
Antony’s emotional appeal reaches its zenith when he reveals Caesar’s will, which bequeaths wealth and public parks to the citizens of Rome. This revelation transforms the crowd’s perception of Caesar from a potential tyrant to a benevolent leader who cared deeply for them. Antony’s use of pathos—his display of Caesar’s mutilated body and his tearful recounting of their friendship—further stirs the crowd’s emotions, inciting them to riot against the conspirators.
Comparison and Contrast
Brutus and Antony’s speeches highlight their contrasting rhetorical strategies and individual ambitions. Brutus’ speech relies heavily on ethos and logos, aiming to persuade the crowd through his credibility and logical reasoning. His appeal to Roman values of freedom and patriotism reflects his self-image as a guardian of the Republic. However, Brutus’ rigid adherence to reason fails to account for the emotional undercurrents of the crowd, leaving a gap that Antony exploits masterfully.
Antony’s speech, in contrast, is a tour de force of pathos. He taps into the crowd’s emotions, using storytelling, irony, and visual aids to shift their allegiance. Antony’s subtle manipulation of the crowd’s feelings demonstrates his shrewd understanding of human psychology and his ambition to avenge Caesar’s death and seize power for himself.
The effectiveness of each speech is evident in the crowd’s reactions. Brutus’ speech initially calms and convinces the populace of the conspirators’ noble intentions. However, Antony’s oration quickly undoes Brutus’ work, transforming the crowd’s rational acceptance into passionate outrage. This shift underscores the malleability of public opinion and the power of rhetoric in shaping political outcomes.
Conclusion
The political tensions in Shakespeare’s time, marked by Elizabeth I’s precarious position and the uncertainty of succession, are mirrored in the themes of “Julius Caesar.” The assassination of Caesar and the subsequent speeches by Brutus and Antony reflect the volatile interplay of reason, emotion, and ambition in political discourse. Brutus’ appeal to rationality and patriotism, though well-intentioned, is ultimately overshadowed by Antony’s emotional manipulation and cunning.
Shakespeare’s exploration of these themes not only provides a commentary on the events of ancient Rome but also offers insights into the political dynamics of his own time. The enduring relevance of “Julius Caesar” lies in its portrayal of the complexities of power and the fragile nature of public opinion. Through the lens of history, Shakespeare critiques the political landscape of Elizabethan England, highlighting the timeless nature of these struggles.
In examining the speeches of Brutus and Antony, we gain a deeper understanding of the rhetorical strategies that drive political change and the human emotions that underlie them. This analysis underscores the play’s central message: that the pursuit of power, whether through reason or emotion, is fraught with peril and can lead to unintended and often tragic consequences.