A different Brutush speech in Julius Caesar

[Robert007]

I was re-reading Julius Caesar by Shakespeare when an interesting idea popped into my head. What if Brutus had by some means managed to procure a copy of Antony's speech? How could Brutus then use this information to construct a speech so that Brutus can outmanuever Antony (assuming that Antony cannot revise his speech or only has time can make minimal revisions).
Any thoughts or considerations would be appreciated (I am a new user who has only posted once in the introductions forum. This is my first thread).

[Calidore]

Reads an awful lot like a homework question to me. Your own ideas posted for feedback are welcome.

[Pompey Bum]

Well, let me give it a shot. Historically speaking it wouldn't have made any difference because Julius Caesar was the great champion of Rome's populares faction against Brutus and the other optimates; the commoners would have ripped the place apart whether there had been a funeral oration or not, and it was a colossal piece of stupidity on the conspirators part to have expected anything else. From a literary point of view, though, why don't you give us your opinion?

[Robert007]

From my point of view, Antony's speech was stronger than Brutus's because he connected more with the people; he exploited their raw emotions. Brutus's speech seemed stuffy and rehearsed, and aimed at the people's patriotism over the abstract idea of Rome. Antony's appealed to rawer emotions and more concrete things. Furthermore, Antony mentioned the will and gave examples showing Caesar's connection to the poorly. Like Pompey Bum said, caesar was the great champion of Rome's poplars while Brutus was championing optimate ideals, the plebeians are obviously more aligned with the optimates (at least according to my reading on the subject, which mainly is from David Shotter's book on the fall of the Roman Republic)

As for my ideas (from a literary point of view), I was thinking that Brutus could also appeal to the baser emotions. He could create a narrative of Caesar the exploiter. He could mention Caesar's parading of Arsinoe IV in chains (which according to Cassius Dio in his Roman History attracted sympathy rather than scorn). By mentioning the brutal acts of Caesar and his unsavory aspects, he could combat the raw emotionalism of Antony, as well as show how Caesar was ambitious and dangerous. But the main thing Brutus must deal with is the will, and how generous Caesar was with the public. This must be the crux of Antony's speech; he must deal with the will, and with Caesar's offerings to the poor. Obviously, he cannot rely on his fellow conspirators, who are part of the greedy, corrupt aristocracy which opposed Caesar's populist dictatorship. To make the stakes interesting, I decided to consider whether Brutus could surmount this difficulty without having to give a penny to the Plebians. Is money the only thing which moves the poor Plebians? Despite them being in such a poor condition (Rome according to Shotter was heavily hierarchal, and I believe that there was no middle class), surely there are other things important to the Plebians. I think that Brutus should focus on politics and patronage. He should greatly twist the truth, relying upon the prosperous times before the Republic began to crumble to paint a picture of generous patrons providing financial security for the poor till subversive demagogue's such as Marius, Sulla, Pompey and Caesar broke the system, adding to the financial duress of the poor. Furthermore, the poor were free in the sense that they were not up to the whims of a single ruler (which according to Shotter is how the Romans viewed freedom). Perhaps then, Brutus could argue that by killing Caesar the dangerous trend of demagogic rule was over, and that a prosperous republic will be resurrected wherein the poor's needs will be met by the traditional patrons. At least this argument will outmaneuver Antony's speech in the short term. As Pompey Bum stated, in the long run Brutus and the conpsirators were foolish.

Anyways, these are my thoughts on the subject.

By the way, how do you get the quotes in the bottom of the posts (where in the settings)?

[Pompey Bum]

From my point of view, Antony's speech was stronger than Brutus's because he connected more with the people; he exploited their raw emotions. Brutus's speech seemed stuffy and rehearsed, and aimed at the people's patriotism over the abstract idea of Rome. Antony's appealed to rawer emotions and more concrete things. Furthermore, Antony mentioned the will and gave examples showing Caesar's connection to the poorly.

Your ideas about the play are original and insightful, but you have made a few mistakes about the history. It's easy to do that, since Shakespeare had his own artistic agenda, and his source was Plutarch, who lived about 150 years after Caesar's assassination, and more importantly, had a strong aristocratic (and anti-Caesarean) bias. As with most historical works of art, Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, although a "history," should not be confused with history itself.

That's a long-winded way to say I've caught you in a few mistakes. Please don't take offense. I figured you would rather know than not know. It still blows me away that you are only a Middle School student and yet know so much.

Like Pompey Bum said, caesar was the great champion of Rome's poplars while Brutus was championing optimate ideals, the plebeians are obviously more aligned with the optimates (at least according to my reading on the subject, which mainly is from David Shotter's book on the fall of the Roman Republic)

No, it's actually just the opposite. Most Plebs were attached to the Populares (or People's) faction, which supported land reform, bread laws, and the extension of Roman citizenship (essentially, the Gracchan reforms) against the rich Optimates, who opposed such measures (often violently). The only Plebs who supported the Optimates were the ones whose families had become rich over the years and were now willing to make common cause with the landed rich.

(Rome according to Shotter was heavily hierarchal, and I believe that there was no middle class),

Actually there was a small middle class, whose members were called Equites. Like the Plebs, they had their own assembly, but were eventually let into the Senate. Some supported Optimates policies, others Populares reforms; still others, like Cicero himself, were moderates. The Equites tended to be merchants. Crassus controlled them during the First Triumvirate, as Pompey controlled the rich landowners and Caesar controlled the urban poor.

I think that Brutus should focus on politics and patronage. He should greatly twist the truth, relying upon the prosperous times before the Republic began to crumble to paint a picture of generous patrons providing financial security for the poor till subversive demagogue's such as Marius, Sulla, Pompey and Caesar broke the system, adding to the financial duress of the poor."

I understand that you are speaking hypothetically, and suggesting that Brutus should "greatly twist the truth," but it is worth pointing out that Sulla cannot really be called a demagogue--although God known he was a monster. A demagogue, in the classical sense, is one who obtains power by playing on the emotions of the common people. Sulla was a more of a reactionary who tried to undue everything Marius (also a killer) had accomplished for the common people. Also, Brutus could have tried to justify Caesar's assassination to Rome's poor by defaming Caesar and Marius' reputation, but they almost certainly would have been torn him to pieces. The poor venerated both men as their heroes and protectors.

Furthermore, the poor were free in the sense that they were not up to the whims of a single ruler (which according to Shotter is how the Romans viewed freedom).

That was certainly true of wealthy Roman landowners, but for most other Romans (at least by 44 BCE) being free just meant that you were not a slave. Political strongmen didn't change the equation all that much. A few decades later, the vast majority of Romans wanted Augustus to protect their personal interests, even if it meant losing some basic civil liberties (including, eventually, freedom of speech).

The Roman Republic is a complicated subject. I recommend a popular history by Anthony Everett called Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician, which does an exceptional job making Roman Republican weirdness understandable, and is a fairly quick (and enjoyable) read. It's sometimes used in High School classes, but I'm sure you would make quick work of it.

By the way, how do you get the quotes in the bottom of the posts (where in the settings)?

Click the settings link at the top of the page. Then click on the edit signature link on the lower left. Scroll down to the part where you can type in a signature, do it, then save it. That's it!

[Clopin]

Seemed to me like the plebeians just responded to whoever had the last word...

Plebeians (at the start of the play) - "We seriously love Caesar, holy ****"
Plebeians (to Brutus after the murder) - "You better have a good explanation for this Brutus, cause we are seriously mad!"
Brutus - The thing is guys... Caesar... Was ambitious
Plebeians - Oh uh? He was? Well okay then fair enough, nice job Brutus
Antony - Wait no, plebs, Caesar was... not... ambitious
Plebeians - Wh... what? Explain yourself Brutus!

And Brutus never spoke again so there ya go, and that's also why democracy sucks.

[Robert007]

Thank you very much for your feedback, Pompey Bum! I'll add Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician by Everett to my reading list.

[stlukesguild]

Brutus never spoke again so there ya go, and that's also why democracy sucks.

But Antony's speech illustrates the power of words. Teachers often employ the speech as an illustration of the manner in which people may be swayed by language... an important lesson when considering politics.