Analysis of Brutus's Speech from William Shakespear's "Julius Caesar"

When Brutus speaks to the Romans, he has two purposes. His first and more important purpose is to persuade the audience that Caesar's murder was justified. His second purpose is to introduce Mark Antony. He accomplishes this second purpose better than the first. He implies that he is a "good guy" for letting Caesar's best friend speak, but he is naïve when he decides not to stay to listen to Antony. Brutus should get an "F" grade on his speech, while Antony is rewarded with an "A". Brutus's speech is practically a failure.

Brutus makes his first mistake when he disperses half of his audience. "Those that will hear me speak, let 'em stay here; / Those that will follow Cassius, go with him... (Act III, Scene 2, lines 5-6). Brutus does not have the authority of a powerful leader. By showing that Cassius is equal in power and authority, Brutus makes himself less important.

The most serious flaw in Brutus's speech is that he is not specific or detailed; he is too ambiguous. This is the essence of Brutus's argument: You know that I am an honorable man. (What does he mean by honorable? Is it honorable to assassinate a leader for the reasons Brutus offers?) I loved Caesar as much as you did, but Caesar was a threat to Rome because he was ambitious. Brutus is vague about Caesar's "crimes"; he never explains how Caesar was ambitious or why his ambition was harmful. In fact, the word "ambitious" is a poor choice because it often has favorable connotations as well as negative ones. For example, we admire someone for being ambitious and striving to achieve a high goal. But Brutus assumes that ambition is all bad. He fails to provide any convincing evidence to prove that Caesar deserved to die.

Brutus' logic is faulty also. As part of his justification of Caesar's murder, he says, "Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men?" (Act III, Scene 2, lines 23-24). This is an example of the either-or fallacy, one kind of faulty reasoning. Brutus says that only two positions are possible: Either Caesar remains alive and all of Rome is in slavery, or Caesar is dead and all of Rome is free. In fact, there are many other possible alternatives between these two extremes. And why should we believe Brutus anyway? He does not substantiate either of the claims he makes: Why does Caesar alive mean slavery and why does Caesar dead mean freedom?

Brutus uses a powerful emotional appeal when he appeals to his listeners' patriotism, but it's not enough to justify Caesar's murder. He says, "Who is here so vile that will not love his country?" (Act III, Scene 2, lines 31-33). He pauses for effect, knowing full well that no one will publicly admit to being unpatriotic. Patriotic, of course, is a loaded word; and it's "vile" to be unpatriotic.

If we had only Brutus's speech in this act, we would probably think it wasn't bad. He is very sincere. But Brutus is far less passionate and thus far less convincing to the mob than Antony is. Brutus doesn't use any of the persuasive devices that Antony uses. And he ignores one big rule of persuasive speaking: Nobody believes anybody without proof. Brutus is vague and illogical, and his rational appeal to patriotism is not enough to save his speech. Brutus may or may not be an honorable man, bur he is certainly a horrible orator.