<doc.id=0200.b4>
<title> JULIUS CAESAR ESSAY </title>
The extract (Act III. Scene ii. Lines 73-262), from the play Julius Caesar, that I have chosen to analyse in the following paragraphs takes place quite shortly after the assassination of Caesar. Marcus Antonius has seemingly accepted Brutus' proposal for their alliance, but in secret he is planning to avenge Caesar's death by launching a civil war. The unsuspecting Brutus grants his request to speak at the funeral. At the forum, before the Plebeians, Brutus speaks first, assuring them that it was necessary to kill Caesar in order to preserve the republic. The crowd applauds him, and as Brutus leaves and Marcus Antonius commences to speak, the citizens are still in raptures about how fortunate they are to be rid of the tyrant Caesar.
	The magnificent speech that Marcus Antonius then delivers reveals to us that his character, that has not been given much room earlier in the play, indeed is an intelligent schemer, a powerful character who without a doubt has been misjudged by Brutus. Marcus Antonius is very much aware of how impressionable the unthinking crowd is and the methods which he uses to exploit them are simple and cheap, but quite clever. It does not take long until the crowd is puzzled (112-121). Marcus Antonius gradually changes the mood of the crowd from rejoicing to hostility towards the conspirators, while denying his intention to do so. 
		O masters, if I were disposed to stir
		Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
		I should do Brutus wrong, and Cassius wrong, ---
		I will not do them wrong, I rather choose
		To wrong the dead, to wrong myself, and you,
		Than I will wrong such honourable men. (127-133)

	He does not resort to slander or plain dishonesty, he merely puts forth facts, but in a rather manipulative way. He states that he is not there to praise Caesar, yet he continually presents evidence of Caesar's goodness. In the same way he says that he "speaks not to disprove what Brutus spoke", yet the evidence is clearly presented to prove Brutus wrong in the eyes of the crowd (81-108). This clever way of manipulating them into thinking that he speaks only the truth, without any evil intentions, is not only proof of his knowledge of human nature but also of his great political skill. The way that he also belittles himself to inspire further confidence is nothing short of brilliant. 
		I am no orator, as Brutus is;
		But, as you know me all, a plain blunt man,
		That love my friend ---
		I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
		Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech,
		To stir men's blood: I only speak right on. (220-226)

	His intentions might not be all too admirable, but because of his bold rhetoric and his strong personality, one cannot help but to be moved by his speech and one is definitely not surprised at the riotous response which he awakes from the crowd (235-237). He knows what he wants and he knows how to get it, that in itself is quite impressing.
	What is most impressing about Marcus Antonius though is that he is emotionally honest. Surely his speech is manipulative and his intentions quite cruel and calculating, but he actually feels the way he is trying to make his audience feel. 

		Even at the base of Pompey's statua,
		Which all the while ran blood, great Caesar fell.
		O, what a fall was there, my countrymen!
		Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,
		Whilst bloody treason flourisht over us. (191-195)

	He is genuinely grieved by Caesar's death, he feels that Caesar was "faithful and just" to him (92), and generous to the people (252-257). He does not avenge Caesar's death to advance politically himself, he is merely ruled by his passionate conviction that Caesar has been wronged. It is much because of this genuine passion that he manages to retain our opinion of him as a sympathetic character, despite his intentions. In my opinion it is also the passion that gives him the courage and the confidence to make the speech. Certainly he knows that the plebeians are quite easily manipulated, but given the mood among them when he enters the pulpit, one misjudged statement could just as well have cost him his life. Fortunately, or unfortunately, that does not happen, but instead his speech brings about a civil war, just as he knew it would. 
	Marcus Antonius' speech makes a very good example of the power of rhetoric, but it also illustrates the moral ambiguity which is at the heart of the play. The plebeians, who are caught in the middle of this political game do not seem to be able to make up their minds. They first applaud Caesar (I. ii. 32-34), then Brutus for assassinating him, and then after Antonius' speech they turn against Brutus. Who is right and who is wrong? We might laugh at the unthinking multitude but actually that is not an easy question to answer, and it is with Antonius' passionate speech that we really for the first time are exposed to the depth of the question. Is it ever morally justifiable to betray your friend? Was Caesar truly as ambitious as the conspirators alleged, and in any case, was it right to kill him? It is continually a struggle between what is politically correct and what is morally correct. Antonius knows that Brutus is a noble man who only acted rationally according to what he thought was right (V. v. 68-75), but according to the more emotional Antonius that is no valid excuse for what he did. But is it then right of Antonius to start the civil war? His speech, as well as his intentions with it, brings the question of right and wrong to another level. 
	Brutus and Antonius can be described as antipodes, but neither one of them can be said to be all together good or all together evil. Instead both of them are both positive and negative figures in the play, possessing fine human qualities, which however in the end bring about tragic consequences. Though us readers closely can follow both Brutus' reasoning (II. I. 10-34) as well as Antonius' it is no easy task taking a firm standpoint. What the intention of the other conspirators was is better left unsaid, but Brutus is indeed an honourable man dedicated to his country, though he also contributes to the destruction of its peace. His actions are both virtuous and disastrous, and sometimes he is not even easily distinguishable from Caesar as Brutus too tries to change society according to his own views, acting quite imperiously. 
	Our opinion of Marcus Antonius as a sympathetic character mourning the loss of a dear friend changes as he soliloquises about the civil war and how that will also lead to the bloody slaughter of innocent people (III. i. 254-275). Then again we are moved to share his opinion after his speech, even if we are aware of Brutus' good intentions. Certainly, evil can attend good intentions but what justifies evil? Us readers are certainly no better than the Plebeians, and the chief theme of the play, namely the question of what is right and what is wrong probably never will find its answer.
</doc>