Analysis Of Brutus And Antony's Debate

The Forum: Brutus and Antony’s debate.

Rhetoric, diction and structure are all powerful tools commonly seen being used by people to persuade and manipulate or to justify and calm, to name a few. These literary devices are so powerful that they have the ability not only to sway one person 's thoughts but even perhaps the populace. In William Shakespeare 's Julius Caesar I believe that Act 3 Scene 2 can serve as commentary on the cycle between democracy and dictatorship. Even though there is no need to restructure the scene as the language stands out for itself the way it is, rearranging the structure of the scene allows the dichotomy in language to stand out. I believe that deconstructing and reconstructing Shakespeare 's language does not

I believe that the contrast is made a lot clearer as it allows each speech to be heard side by side. It would be incorrect for me to suggest that prose is only spoken by lower classmen, as there are multiple cases of upperclassmen using prose. For example, Celia and Rosalind in As You Like It as well as Hamlet in Hamlet. I believe that in this case Hamlet especially serves as a great example for how prose was used by Brutus in Julius Caesar and provides a good reason as to why prose would have been more appropriate compared to verse. When Hamlet would speak in prose it would be his most rational and analytical, cut thoughts. And when he would speak verse, his thoughts were more irrational and ruled by his emotions.

Now taking that idea and transferring it to Brutus 's speech it makes sense that Brutus would use prose not only to align himself with the plebeians but as preserves and sounds more methodical compared to verse. On the other hand, Marc Antony 's use of verse would then suggest irrationality or heightened emotions compared to Brutus 's cold cut language. However, it may be arguable that Marc Antony isn 't entirely emotional in the moment but rather that he cleverly uses his emotions in a manipulative