Brutus' Funeral Oration: An Analysis

Recently, I read Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Caesar for the first time. Now, if you don’t know this, Shakespeare was a genius, and one way in which this is highlighted is in the funeral orations in the third act. I spent almost a month focusing on these orations in my rhetoric class, and in another class, I memorized Brutus’ funeral oration — all of this to say that I have spent a lot of time with this speech this past month.

If you don’t know, the first, delivered by Brutus — the tragic hero of the play — primarily attempts to justify the murder of Julius Caesar through the stoic mentality, and the second, delivered by Caesar’s friend Mark Antony — the central character of the play — uses masterful rhetoric to sway the people in Antony’s favor (and against Brutus). Of the two, Mark Antony’s funeral oration is often lauded as one of the most masterful uses of rhetoric, but Shakespeare’s genius is at work in Brutus’ funeral oration as well. Brutus’ funeral oration is brilliantly written, with every part of the speech pointing toward Brutus’ aim, yet this genius only serves to spotlight the situational irony of the scene.

As in most speeches, Brutus’ funeral oration uses six of the seven parts of classical arrangement: exordium, partitio, propositio, confirmatio, refutatio, and peratio. The first of these (the exordium) hides an interesting appeal to ethos (appeal to character), as well as a sly hint to the reason for Brutus’ speech in the first place.

Firstly, Brutus appeals to ethos by claiming that he has honor: “believe me for mine honor” (Julius Caesar, 3.2.16). He is clearly stating that he, at least, believes he has honor, and he asks the people to keep this honor in mind as they hear his justification of the murder.

He uses a similar appeal near the end of his oration, by claiming that he loves Caesar dearly: “Brutus’ love to Caesar was no less than his [dear friends of Caesar’s]” (3.2.20-21). By this act, he attempts to lessen the rhetorical distance between him and the people: obviously, there is hostility existing between them, but by claiming that everyone here loves Caesar, he attempts to lessen it. 

But even though these appeals to ethos are well-written, what is most interesting about this speech is that the structure of the exordium is in itself a reason for Caesar’s death. There are three imperatives which Brutus gives to his audience: to hear, to believe, and to judge. Of these three, two are passive, and one is active. The people he is speaking to have two passive roles in their government, for they are ruled, in the Roman republic, by the Senate and the Magistrates. But the people also have an active role, by way of the Popular Assemblies. Even the internal structure of his exordium emphasizes what Brutus emphasized by Caesar’s killing: the importance of the internal structure and balance of the Roman Republic.

But the masterful structure of the speech does not end there. The reason for Brutus’ speech is to underscore Brutus’ love for his country. The first part of his speech (lines 13-36) repeats the word love (or some form of it) seven times. The first and last times are both in reference to the audience’s love for Rome, the second two regard Brutus’ love to Caesar, repetitions five and six make a nod to Caesar’s love to Brutus, and the fourth (and middle) one accentuates Brutus’ own love for his country. And then, with the last sentence of the speech, he again draws a comparison: he tells his audience that just as he was ready to kill his best friend (or lover) for his country’s good, he is ready to kill anyone else — even including himself! — for his country, and his people (3.2.45-49).

Every single thing which he says in his speech highlights what he tries to say: it was not for his personal grievances for which he killed Caesar (he, in fact, loved Caesar), but his love of his country which drove him to this action.

There is a reason Brutus argues this: Brutus is a patriotic stoic. At the time of Julius Caesar’s death, Rome was struggling with multiple philosophies. As The Aenied demonstrates, the idea of the model Roman citizen is the one who will do everything for his country, and will think logically and ethically to protect Rome. This is, indeed, what Brutus did, and this is exactly how he exhorts his fellow Romans to act: he calls them to, instead of judging him rashly, listen and hear what he has to say, and then use their wisdom to understand what he did, and to judge him then. He calls them to be stoics.

But he fails, and his enemy (Mark Antony) succeeds.

The people respond to Antony in the way that Brutus wishes they would respond to him. With Brutus, they are riled up, ready to crown him (3.2.54-55), honor him with statues (3.2.52), and want to “bring him home with shouts and clamors” (3.2.56-57). Stoics do not call for Caesars. Stoics do not enthusiastically create statues. Stoics do not march through the streets with joy. Brutus’ speech, with its focus on logic, stoicism, and justifications for Caesar’s horrible death, goes right over the people’s heads, and they only focus on their emotions.

But with Mark Antony, the crowds are calm, murmuring together as they discuss what Antony is saying (3.2.68-70, 72-79, 118-127). They debate his points and use rational thought, instead of shouting along together and following the herd. With Mark Antony, in short, they are stoics. Shakespeare uses this contrast to further highlight the irony in the play: Brutus, although he himself is convinced of stoicism and his patriotic acts, is unable to touch the people in the way he wished, and Antony, who seems more unfocused on this all, is overcome by his emotions several times throughout the play, and yet is able to make the people stoics in the way Brutus wished he could.

Brutus, although he believed himself honorable, is unable to truly convince anyone of his honorable actions, while Antony is able to control the masses however he wishes.

There is so much more in Act 3, Scene 2 of this play than I’ve written here. It really is remarkable, and I would highly encourage you to read it. Throughout the scene, Brutus demonstrates honesty as he appeals to his Roman citizens, but his honesty fails, and instead his rhetorical superior, Mark Antony, conquers. Brutus, the honest character who was misled, tragically dies at the end of the play, and Rome is given what he tried to destroy: an emperor.

For all his patriotism, Brutus failed, and his funeral oration and its failure serve to draw out the irony in this epic tragedy.

But even more, the funeral oration illustrates a moral dilemma: is patriotism or philia more important? Does love for the country outweigh love for friends? These questions are left with the audience to ponder as the play ends. What do you think about them?