BRUTUS'S FORUM SPEECH IN <i>JULIUS CÆSAR</i>

Zandvoort, R. W.

doi:10.1093/res/os-xvi.61.62

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The two forum speeches of Julius Caesar have been the object of a great deal of comparative discussion, but very little of that discussion has been centred around the use of rhetorical techniques. Existing rhetorical studies of the speeches, such as Fuzier (1974) and Zandvoort (1940), focus on describing the rhetorical forms used rather than on examining the execution of those forms. Non-rhetorical analysis, while often powerfully argued, fails to produce a consensus on just how Brutus' speech is weaker than Antony's.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kolbe (1896) praises Brutus for delivering "the nearest approach which our language has ever made to the sententious classic style" (p. 511). Zandvoort (1940) stresses the uniqueness of this style by stating that "Brutus' speech is the most prominent example in Shakespeare of the sustained use of rhetorical 'schemes'" (p. 66). Fuzier (1974) describes the speech as "a perfectly constructed and perfectly balanced piece of eloquence, which complies with all the requirements of the genre" (p. 27), and Schanzer (1955) praises "his clipped, carefully patterned phrases" (p. 2).…”

Section: Comparing the Speechesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Brutus speaks in prose because, according to Fuzier (1974) that is "the natural medium of oratory" (p. 27). Prose is more suited to a logical, rational speech such as Brutus gives, just as verse is well suited to the emotive speech which Antony gives, or, as Zandvoort (1940) says, "and why this kind of prose? Because it is pre-eminently a style for the intellect; Antony's appeal will be entirely to the emotions" (p. 65).…”

Section: Comparing the Speechesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Rhetorical Flaws in Brutus’ Forum Speech in Julius Caesar: A Carefully Controlled Weakness?

Cheetham

2017

ALLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Julius Caesar Shakespeare reproduces one of the pivotal moments in European history. Brutus and Mark Antony, through the medium of their forum speeches, compete for the support of the people of Rome. In the play, as in history, Mark Antony wins this contest of language. Critics are generally agreed that Antony has the better speech, but also that Brutus’ speech is still exceptionally good. Traditionally the question of how Antony’s speech is superior is argued by examining differences between the two speeches, however, this approach has not resulted in any critical consensus. This paper takes the opening lines of the speeches as the only point of direct convergence between the content and the rhetorical forms used by Brutus and Antony and argues that Brutus’ opening tricolon is structurally inferior to Marc Antony’s. Analysis of the following rhetorical schemes in Brutus’ speech reveals further structural weaknesses. Shakespeare gives Brutus a speech rich in perceptually salient rhetorical schemes but introduces small, less salient, structural weaknesses into those schemes. The tightly structured linguistic patterns which make up the majority of Brutus’ speech give an impression of great rhetorical skill. This skilful impression obscures the minor faults or weaknesses that quietly and subtly reduce the overall power of the speech. By identifying the weaknesses in Brutus’ forms we add an extra element to the discussion of these speeches and at the same time display how subtly and effectively Shakespeare uses rhetorical forms to control audience response and appreciation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparing the Speechesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparing the Speechesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rhetorical Flaws in Brutus’ Forum Speech in Julius Caesar: A Carefully Controlled Weakness?

Cheetham

2017

ALLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

‘Both English and Latin’: Milton's bilingual Muse

Haan

2007

Renaissance Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines bilingual speaking voices in Paradise Lost within the wider contexts of Renaissance pedagogy, Milton's Latin writings composed at Cambridge and in Italy, the Renaissance questione della lingua, and his self‐presentation in the 1645 volume: Poems Both English and Latin. It argues that in Milton's vernacular epic the Latinless reader is, like Eve, surprised by syntax: bemused, seduced, confounded by the linguistic alterity of a Satan whose use and abuse of Latinate language enables him to function as a serpens bilinguis, a double‐tongued Ciceronian orator, and also by way of a possible pun on ‘brute’ as a second Brutus assassinating Eve, a second Caesar. It concludes by examining the bilingual authorial voice, a voice that is ‘both English and Latin’ and whose essential Latinitas can function perhaps as a signifier of the classical intertexts with which the poem engages.

show abstract

Et tu, Hobbe? Una incursión en el concepto de conspiración política

Rilla

2021

Isegoría

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

En este artículo nos dedicaremos a examinar un problema hermenéutico que suscita el capítulo XI del Leviatán de Hobbes. A saber: ¿Por qué el autor desiste de calificar el atentado de los senadores liderados por Bruto contra Julio César como el resultado de una conspiración? ¿Por qué en lugar de hablar de la acción colectiva de un grupo organizado se refiere a una “multitud de acciones realizadas por una multitud de hombres”? Con el fin de desentrañar esta paradoja, analizaremos la categoría de “facción” desarrollada por Hobbes. Tras constatar que la conspiración republicana se explica con facilidad mediante dicho concepto y que se adecúa mal a la de una multitud irregular, pasaremos a indagar si la clave de esa lectura puede encontrarse en sus fuentes. Mientras que Plutarco es inequívoco respecto del estatuto conspirador del grupo, Shakespeare sí problematiza el asunto. En correspondencia, argüiremos que Hobbes pudo haber tenido en consideración el tratamiento de Shakespeare para negar el carácter colectivo de la acción conspiradora contra César.

show abstract

BRUTUS'S FORUM SPEECH IN JULIUS CÆSAR

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Rhetorical Flaws in Brutus’ Forum Speech in Julius Caesar: A Carefully Controlled Weakness?

Rhetorical Flaws in Brutus’ Forum Speech in Julius Caesar: A Carefully Controlled Weakness?

‘Both English and Latin’: Milton's bilingual Muse

Et tu, Hobbe? Una incursión en el concepto de conspiración política

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About