What do you think?
Rate this book
Rome and Rhetoric: Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
Renaissance plays and poetry in England were saturated with the formal rhetorical twists that Latin education made familiar to audiences and readers. Yet a formally educated man like Ben Jonson was unable to make these ornaments come to life in his two classical Roman plays. Garry Wills, focusing his attention on Julius Caesar, here demonstrates how Shakespeare so wonderfully made these ancient devices vivid, giving his characters their own personal styles of Roman speech.
In four chapters, devoted to four of the play’s main characters, Wills shows how Caesar, Brutus, Antony, and Cassius each has his own take on the rhetorical ornaments that Elizabethans learned in school. Shakespeare also makes Rome present and animate by casting his troupe of experienced players to make their strengths shine through the historical facts that Plutarch supplied him with. The result is that the Rome English-speaking people carry about in their minds is the Rome that Shakespeare created for them. And that is even true, Wills affirms, for today’s classical scholars with access to the original Roman sources.
In four chapters, devoted to four of the play’s main characters, Wills shows how Caesar, Brutus, Antony, and Cassius each has his own take on the rhetorical ornaments that Elizabethans learned in school. Shakespeare also makes Rome present and animate by casting his troupe of experienced players to make their strengths shine through the historical facts that Plutarch supplied him with. The result is that the Rome English-speaking people carry about in their minds is the Rome that Shakespeare created for them. And that is even true, Wills affirms, for today’s classical scholars with access to the original Roman sources.
200 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
6 people are currently reading
119 people want to read
About the author
Garry Wills
148 books244 followersGarry Wills is an American author, journalist, political philosopher, and historian, specializing in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.
Wills has written over fifty books and, since 1973, has been a frequent reviewer for The New York Review of Books. He became a faculty member of the history department at Northwestern University in 1980, where he is an Emeritus Professor of History.
Wills has written over fifty books and, since 1973, has been a frequent reviewer for The New York Review of Books. He became a faculty member of the history department at Northwestern University in 1980, where he is an Emeritus Professor of History.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
April 4, 2025
I loved this fresh take on the play’s four leading characters. Wills’ analysis tells us all about the play, Shakespeare, and classical and Renaissance rhetorical traditions.
March 22, 2021
A translation of a translation: the title page of Shakespeare’s source for his Roman plays
Rome and Rhetoric by Garry Wills is a study of the four main characters in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: Caesar, Brutus, Antony and Cassius. The book is divided into four chapters, one for each of these characters. It explores a range of interesting points, from a discussion of how Caesar should be played to an analysis of the rhetorical devices used in Brutus’ and Antony’s speeches at Caesar’s funeral.
The book explains that Shakespeare’s characters in Julius Caesar and the rhetoric they use are very much products of the Renaissance (rather than the classical period), which I found fascinating. To help illustrate this, Wills quotes generously from Shakespeare’s source, Thomas North’s 1579 translation of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. As Wills explains, North’s English translation of a French translation presents Plutarch in ‘a very English-Renaissance garb’.
Rome and Rhetoric was an excellent little book, which made some very interesting points about Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. I recommend it to anyone interested in Shakespeare, rhetoric, ancient Rome or the English Renaissance.
January 22, 2013
Like many indifferently educated people in the United States much of what I know (or think I know) about ancient Rome is through Shakespeare. “Julius Caesar” primarily although “Antony and Cleopatra” and “Coriolanus” add to the mix; Garry Wills in “Rome and Rhetoric” says that knowing first century Rome from the perspective of 16th century England is a pretty good approach. Wills, of course, has a very broad and deep knowledge and understanding of the Latin classics which he brings to bear in this textual analysis of the oratorical and conversational styles of Shakespeare’s Caesar, Antony, Brutus and Cassius. It is a wonderful close reading, laying bare the confusion regarding pride vs. honor, ambition vs. responsibility and civic duty vs. personal aggrandizement that involved each of these characters.
Wills looks at the individual linguistic devices of each of the four showing how the attitudes of each of them toward the others and towards the Roman people were both hidden (or so the characters thought) and revealed to the attentive reader or playgoer. He thinks—and demonstrates—that Shakespeare knew classical Latin rhetoric particularly as used by Cicero a minor but key character in “Julius Caesar” and as taught to schoolboys in the late 1500s, even in rural Stratford.
Wills contrasts Brutus’ speech at Caesar’s funeral to that of Antony in terms of their structures based on the initial principles laid down by Aristotle. Both begin their arguments with logos, an appeal to reason and a straightforward attempt to convince the audience—a very restive and volatile audience, confused and upset with the assassination of Caesar and looking for leadership or at least someone to tell them what to think—that the conspirators had the best interests of the Republic at heart. This is followed by ethos to show that the speaker is trustworthy. According to Aristotle (quoted by Wills) ethos “affects the response, especially in political but also in judicial forums, that the speaker seem of a certain sort, and that the hearers understand how he feels about them and, more to the point, how they feel about him”.
Brutus’ speech is simple ethos—trust me because I am noble and honorable—but goes no further. Antony shows that he is a plain lover of Caesar and using the device known aporia, which is speech interrupted by silence and hesitation, gets the crowd on his side when they fill in the blanks by saying that “There’s not a nobler man in Rome than Antony”. He then goes beyond Brutus and into pathos, directly into the emotions of the audience to change the way they think and feel about the Ides of March: “If you have tears, prepare to shed them.”
This is just a quick summation of a few pages from “Rome and Rhetoric”. The book is full of learning but wears it lightly and assumes no more from the reader than a willingness to look at a very familiar work of literature in a new (although actually very old) way.
There are plenty of asides that refer to other plays and other playwrights—particularly Ben Jonson—and fun facts about the play itself. For example the title part is so short—significantly fewer lines than any of the other three—because it ran between “Henry V” and “Hamlet”, both of which starred Richard Burbage. It was a busy season so Shakespeare gave the great tragedian a bit of rest between rehearsing and performing two such daunting roles as the Lancastrian king and the Danish prince.
Wills attacks one of my favorite short scenes—lines 20 to 40 of Act 4, Scene I—in which Antony tells how he will cut one of the conspirators, Lepidus, out of the spoils of victory and set him up to be burdened with the “divers slanderous loads” that are sure to come and which should fall on Antony more than anyone else. When Octavius objects saying of Lepidus that “he’s a tried and valiant soldier;” Antony responds with “So is my horse, Octavius, and for that I appoint him a store of provender...do not talk of him but as a property”. Republican Rome had a very dark side; Antony’s casual dismissal of a formerly essential part of his party is a chilling example of it.
This is a short book that is worth reading and probably rereading
Wills looks at the individual linguistic devices of each of the four showing how the attitudes of each of them toward the others and towards the Roman people were both hidden (or so the characters thought) and revealed to the attentive reader or playgoer. He thinks—and demonstrates—that Shakespeare knew classical Latin rhetoric particularly as used by Cicero a minor but key character in “Julius Caesar” and as taught to schoolboys in the late 1500s, even in rural Stratford.
Wills contrasts Brutus’ speech at Caesar’s funeral to that of Antony in terms of their structures based on the initial principles laid down by Aristotle. Both begin their arguments with logos, an appeal to reason and a straightforward attempt to convince the audience—a very restive and volatile audience, confused and upset with the assassination of Caesar and looking for leadership or at least someone to tell them what to think—that the conspirators had the best interests of the Republic at heart. This is followed by ethos to show that the speaker is trustworthy. According to Aristotle (quoted by Wills) ethos “affects the response, especially in political but also in judicial forums, that the speaker seem of a certain sort, and that the hearers understand how he feels about them and, more to the point, how they feel about him”.
Brutus’ speech is simple ethos—trust me because I am noble and honorable—but goes no further. Antony shows that he is a plain lover of Caesar and using the device known aporia, which is speech interrupted by silence and hesitation, gets the crowd on his side when they fill in the blanks by saying that “There’s not a nobler man in Rome than Antony”. He then goes beyond Brutus and into pathos, directly into the emotions of the audience to change the way they think and feel about the Ides of March: “If you have tears, prepare to shed them.”
This is just a quick summation of a few pages from “Rome and Rhetoric”. The book is full of learning but wears it lightly and assumes no more from the reader than a willingness to look at a very familiar work of literature in a new (although actually very old) way.
There are plenty of asides that refer to other plays and other playwrights—particularly Ben Jonson—and fun facts about the play itself. For example the title part is so short—significantly fewer lines than any of the other three—because it ran between “Henry V” and “Hamlet”, both of which starred Richard Burbage. It was a busy season so Shakespeare gave the great tragedian a bit of rest between rehearsing and performing two such daunting roles as the Lancastrian king and the Danish prince.
Wills attacks one of my favorite short scenes—lines 20 to 40 of Act 4, Scene I—in which Antony tells how he will cut one of the conspirators, Lepidus, out of the spoils of victory and set him up to be burdened with the “divers slanderous loads” that are sure to come and which should fall on Antony more than anyone else. When Octavius objects saying of Lepidus that “he’s a tried and valiant soldier;” Antony responds with “So is my horse, Octavius, and for that I appoint him a store of provender...do not talk of him but as a property”. Republican Rome had a very dark side; Antony’s casual dismissal of a formerly essential part of his party is a chilling example of it.
This is a short book that is worth reading and probably rereading
August 19, 2012
The heart of these essays is a detailed rhetorical analysis of the funeral orations of Brutus and Marc Anthony. Stating that "Brutus’ speech has usually been treated respectfully in the critical literature on this play. But its rhetoric is so overdone that it approaches what is comic elsewhere in Shakespeare", Wills demonstrates that Brutus's reliance on the rhetorical device of chiasm would have been recognized as a "foolish figure" by an educated Elizabethan. Brutus piles figure on figure in a crammed little space. Antony, by contrast, moves at a more relaxed pace through a development of different figures— ironia, praeteritio, interrogatio, anaphora, and aposiopesis.
Wills' essay on Caesar himself addresses two questions: why Caesar himself has so few lines, and how the character of Caesar was understood by the Elizabethan audience. The final essay, on Cassius, examines the Roman conception of friendship, and Wills shows how friendship plays out among the characters.
So much more than rhetorical analysis of Julius Caesar, these lectures examine Shakespeare as a reader of Plutarch, and Shakespeare's grasp of the Roman ethos. Wills compares Jonson and Shakepseare: "Ben Jonson knew far more about Rome than Shakespeare did (as his gibe about Shakespeare’s “small Latine” shows). But his Roman plays are congested and clogged with their own learning. Shakespeare has a feel for Roman rhetoric, Stoicism, nobility, and cynicism that are immediately convincing." Will's own erudition is vast, but lightly worn. This is a deeply illuminating and highly recommended book.
Wills' essay on Caesar himself addresses two questions: why Caesar himself has so few lines, and how the character of Caesar was understood by the Elizabethan audience. The final essay, on Cassius, examines the Roman conception of friendship, and Wills shows how friendship plays out among the characters.
So much more than rhetorical analysis of Julius Caesar, these lectures examine Shakespeare as a reader of Plutarch, and Shakespeare's grasp of the Roman ethos. Wills compares Jonson and Shakepseare: "Ben Jonson knew far more about Rome than Shakespeare did (as his gibe about Shakespeare’s “small Latine” shows). But his Roman plays are congested and clogged with their own learning. Shakespeare has a feel for Roman rhetoric, Stoicism, nobility, and cynicism that are immediately convincing." Will's own erudition is vast, but lightly worn. This is a deeply illuminating and highly recommended book.
July 23, 2019
Ben Jonson famously said that Shakespeare had "small Latin and less Greek." But Garry Wills makes a convincing case here that, despite his inferior classicist chops, Shakespeare demonstrates in Julius Caesar a much better feel for the essential qualities of Roman civilization than Jonson displays in his two Roman plays, Sejanus and Catiline. Caesar is, Wills says, "the first play to bring a strong feel for Romanitas to the English stage."
I've been meaning to read infuriatingly accomplished polymath Garry Wills for a long time. I thought it was going to be his translation of Augustine or his book on John Wayne, but I picked this up to supplement my reading of Ceasar and I'm really glad I did. On my own, I would never have been able to identify the rhetorical tropes Brutus employs in his funeral oration, let alone understand - and, Wills maintains, a grammar-school-educated audience unfailingly would have - that his reckless use of them reveals his essential political incompetence. Brutus's rhetoric, Wills says, "is so overdone that it approaches what is comic elsewhere in Shakespeare."
This is an excellent piece of criticism, bringing astonishing erudition and perceptive close reading to bear on a canonical classic. I learned fresh things (for instance, the typical distribution of boy actors in Elizabethan theater) and was exposed to fresh ideas about a hoary chestnut.
I've been meaning to read infuriatingly accomplished polymath Garry Wills for a long time. I thought it was going to be his translation of Augustine or his book on John Wayne, but I picked this up to supplement my reading of Ceasar and I'm really glad I did. On my own, I would never have been able to identify the rhetorical tropes Brutus employs in his funeral oration, let alone understand - and, Wills maintains, a grammar-school-educated audience unfailingly would have - that his reckless use of them reveals his essential political incompetence. Brutus's rhetoric, Wills says, "is so overdone that it approaches what is comic elsewhere in Shakespeare."
This is an excellent piece of criticism, bringing astonishing erudition and perceptive close reading to bear on a canonical classic. I learned fresh things (for instance, the typical distribution of boy actors in Elizabethan theater) and was exposed to fresh ideas about a hoary chestnut.
July 15, 2012
A really interesting and informative read, but a bit narrow in its approach to characterization. Wills makes really good points about the characters as conscious users of rhetoric, but limits them to solely that (a bad sole--perhaps he could use a cobbler?). From an actor's perspective, while rhetoricizing to oneself is viable enough as an action, it doesn't seem nearly as provocative when it's devoid of genuine internal conflict. I think Wills could have left some room for that. But otherwise, this is a great book and well worth reading!
Update: I just took another look at this book. Wills is actually kind of sloppy at times, which is disappointing. At one point he attributes lines to Brutus that actually belong to Cassius (pg 3--though maybe he was looking at a different quarto). He also cites David Daniell in referring to "thy" and "thee" as formal pronouns (pg 133), failing to realize that in Elizabethan times they were actually just the opposite: informal pronouns reserved for either individuals of lower social status or loved ones. This glaring misunderstanding keeps Wills from more fully perceiving and exploring certain elements in the play, namely the sincere and loving relationship between Brutus and Portia.
Update: I just took another look at this book. Wills is actually kind of sloppy at times, which is disappointing. At one point he attributes lines to Brutus that actually belong to Cassius (pg 3--though maybe he was looking at a different quarto). He also cites David Daniell in referring to "thy" and "thee" as formal pronouns (pg 133), failing to realize that in Elizabethan times they were actually just the opposite: informal pronouns reserved for either individuals of lower social status or loved ones. This glaring misunderstanding keeps Wills from more fully perceiving and exploring certain elements in the play, namely the sincere and loving relationship between Brutus and Portia.
March 5, 2012
I wish I had commentary like this for every Shakespeare play I've ever read. Smart but not haughty. Eminently readable.
June 3, 2024
A delightful find that did what my university courses only managed to point at. Fantastic insight into the many minds in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. As Wills notes: "There are... no villains in this play... Here only Romans bring down the Roman Republic, trying to save it." This concept completely shifted my understanding of how to read this play. There really are no "good guys" and "bad guys" and this realization leads to a much more nuanced exploration of human nature.
Loved it.
Loved it.
February 24, 2024
We lawyers are a wordy lot. As our culture changes, under the influence of movies, television, the internet, we shift more and more to a culture of images rather than of words. We lawyers may have to trim our enthusiasm for words. Yet, for now, they remain our stock-in-trade. To this extent, we have few betters guides to the persuasive use of words than Shakespeare and Classical rhetoric, especially via the mind of a master writer like Garry Wills.
In a sense, the Funeral Orations from Julius Caesar are like a trial, although not couched in that format. The jury is the crowd, and both Brutus and Antony must woo them to their judgments. Are we so different? The fiction notwithstanding, I suggest that we have some important lessons to learn here.
Garry Wills has struck again, this time with his book Rome and Rhetoric: Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. In this slender volume Wills explores how Shakespeare, via Plutarch, grasped the essence of Rome at the time of the transition from republic to empire. Specifically, Wills explores the rhetoric of the leading characters. Of course, Antony’s funeral oration is the best known of the set pieces in this play. (My continued apologies to Mrs. Vaughn for having complained about having to memorize this in sophomore English class). However, Antony’s funeral oration is not the only example of rhetoric in the play. Before Antony speaks, Brutus addressed the crowd. Wills contrasts the rhetoric of Brutus, which centers upon “mine honor”, against the more nuanced speech given by Antony. Antony responds to his audience, whereas Brutus expects his audience to respond to him.
Wills’ love of Shakespeare is not new. His previous book on Macbeth demonstrates the care with which has explicates these texts. In addition, he has recently published a book on Shakespeare and Verdi, the great Italian opera composer who composed operas on some of Shakespeare’s plays. I haven’t read that book yet, but I have a hard time imagining that it could be better than this book. Wills is trained as a classicist, and the opportunity to merge his love of theater (and Shakespeare in particular), along with his classical learning, provides us a real treat in humanistic learning.
I always enjoyed Julius Caesar (my complaints and sophomore English notwithstanding), and I think that it is an easily accessible play. In addition, there are a couple of good film productions of it that are well worth seeing, including one with Marlon Brando as Anthony. If you have an opportunity to see these productions or to read this play, Wills’ book would be an excellent introduction and perspective on the play.
(First posted in the Persuasive Life blog @ http://greenleafadvocacy.com/rome-rhe... )
In a sense, the Funeral Orations from Julius Caesar are like a trial, although not couched in that format. The jury is the crowd, and both Brutus and Antony must woo them to their judgments. Are we so different? The fiction notwithstanding, I suggest that we have some important lessons to learn here.
Garry Wills has struck again, this time with his book Rome and Rhetoric: Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. In this slender volume Wills explores how Shakespeare, via Plutarch, grasped the essence of Rome at the time of the transition from republic to empire. Specifically, Wills explores the rhetoric of the leading characters. Of course, Antony’s funeral oration is the best known of the set pieces in this play. (My continued apologies to Mrs. Vaughn for having complained about having to memorize this in sophomore English class). However, Antony’s funeral oration is not the only example of rhetoric in the play. Before Antony speaks, Brutus addressed the crowd. Wills contrasts the rhetoric of Brutus, which centers upon “mine honor”, against the more nuanced speech given by Antony. Antony responds to his audience, whereas Brutus expects his audience to respond to him.
Wills’ love of Shakespeare is not new. His previous book on Macbeth demonstrates the care with which has explicates these texts. In addition, he has recently published a book on Shakespeare and Verdi, the great Italian opera composer who composed operas on some of Shakespeare’s plays. I haven’t read that book yet, but I have a hard time imagining that it could be better than this book. Wills is trained as a classicist, and the opportunity to merge his love of theater (and Shakespeare in particular), along with his classical learning, provides us a real treat in humanistic learning.
I always enjoyed Julius Caesar (my complaints and sophomore English notwithstanding), and I think that it is an easily accessible play. In addition, there are a couple of good film productions of it that are well worth seeing, including one with Marlon Brando as Anthony. If you have an opportunity to see these productions or to read this play, Wills’ book would be an excellent introduction and perspective on the play.
(First posted in the Persuasive Life blog @ http://greenleafadvocacy.com/rome-rhe... )
November 12, 2018
The line "Friends, Romans, countrymen" begins Marc Antony's speech in 'Julius Caesar.' It was a rhetorical tour de force. Garry Wills looks at the entire play through the lens of classical rhetoric. That may have been how Elizabethans saw the play. As Wills argues, Shakespeare and his contemporaries were trained in teachings on rhetoric of Quintilian, Cicero, and other ancient writers.
The book is a collection of lectures that Wills gave at Bard College. As such, it is short, with its 150 pages curtailed by a large font and wide margins. But it is full of insight into the play and its characters, reflecting Wills status as one He is one of the most literate, learned people writing today. Moreover, the prism of rhetoric suggests that that the book might provide a key for the analysis of public oration, at least for those, like me, unfamiliar with the tropes of rhetoric as put forth in ancient texts.
The book is a collection of lectures that Wills gave at Bard College. As such, it is short, with its 150 pages curtailed by a large font and wide margins. But it is full of insight into the play and its characters, reflecting Wills status as one He is one of the most literate, learned people writing today. Moreover, the prism of rhetoric suggests that that the book might provide a key for the analysis of public oration, at least for those, like me, unfamiliar with the tropes of rhetoric as put forth in ancient texts.
October 2, 2017
Decent. Rightly begins with some of the more obvious potential mysteries of the play as lever to prise open larger issues. The best things here, of course, are the examinations of the two key speeches by Brutus and Antony. Wills' Latinity and familiarity with the rhetorical tradition these speeches are influenced by make him a pretty ideal summarizer of the ways they work. Though he insists at a couple of points there are no villains in the play, his readings ultimately work against a rehabilitation of Brutus. Perhaps this is just a rebalancing act, after so many centuries of wannabe republican worship of this most sanctimonious and self-deluded of rebels. The least interesting chapter is the last one, filled as it is with some rather less convincing allusions to other Shakespeare plays, about which Wills is on shakier ground (Coriolanus in particular, but Titus as well).
November 18, 2017
Excellent short study of Julius Caesar in four chapters on Caesar, Brutus, Antony, and Cassius. Author gave me new and deeper insights into a play I thought I knew well. Recommended.
April 25, 2023
Brilliant commentary on the rhetoric of the four key players in Shakespeare's great Roman tragedy and on the meaning of the play itself. Wills is clearly a true lover of Shagspeare.
July 15, 2016
“Rome and Rhetoric” by historian Garry Wills is a narrowly focused work that will appeal to only a small audience. The 2011 book, consisting of four chapters, one each on the four main characters of Shakespeare’s drama “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar,” is a revised version of the Anthony Hecht Lectures that Wills gave in 2009 at Bard College.
“Julius Caesar” and “Macbeth” have been my two favorite Shakespeare plays, and I was glad to read an analysis of the rhetorical techniques that the Bard used in revealing the thinking and motivation of the ancient Roman characters.
Shakespeare’s “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” has the title character speaking only 155 lines and dying halfway through, unusual for a play or, for that matter, a movie. Wills asks why the play was not called “The Tragedy of Brutus”? Brutus, after all, speaks almost five times the number of lines that Caesar does and survives almost to the very end of the play.
Wills points out that the historical Julius Caesar was only 56 when he was assassinated in 44 B.C. and was in robust health despite his epilepsy. Will criticizes those directors and actors who would portray Caesar otherwise.
“Caesar was a commanding figure in the Renaissance imagination. He should be played that way in Shakespeare’s drama. Otherwise the power of his specter to haunt all the later action of the play makes no sense. [English actor Richard] Burbage had to make Caesar a figure to reckon with. To present him, as so often happens now, as a tinpot dictator or a dithering old fool is to reduce the scale of the tragedy.”
After Caesar’s assassination, Brutus and Marc Antony deliver eulogies at Caesar’s funeral in the Forum. Wills gives an astute analysis of Shakespeare’s method in using each speech to shed light on the character of each.
“Brutus’ speech has usually been treated respectfully in the critical literature on this play. But its rhetoric is so overdone that it approaches what is comic elsewhere in Shakespeare. And there is another thing to notice about it. It is all about himself. Antony’s speech will be all about Caesar – what he conquered, how he loved, what he leaves his countrymen. But in the speech of Brutus there is a monotonous dwelling on Brutus, his honor, his unquestionable standing.”
Wills shows why Antony’s speech, starting with “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him,” was the more persuasive and thus more effective speech, how its rhetorical devices, mainly irony and the repeated ironic use of the word “honourable” as regards Brutus, roused the citizens of Rome to drive the assassins from Rome. In exile, they are ultimately killed.
For anyone who has performed in this 1599 tragedy or who has read or seen a production, this slim volume will be a useful supplement.
“Julius Caesar” and “Macbeth” have been my two favorite Shakespeare plays, and I was glad to read an analysis of the rhetorical techniques that the Bard used in revealing the thinking and motivation of the ancient Roman characters.
Shakespeare’s “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” has the title character speaking only 155 lines and dying halfway through, unusual for a play or, for that matter, a movie. Wills asks why the play was not called “The Tragedy of Brutus”? Brutus, after all, speaks almost five times the number of lines that Caesar does and survives almost to the very end of the play.
Wills points out that the historical Julius Caesar was only 56 when he was assassinated in 44 B.C. and was in robust health despite his epilepsy. Will criticizes those directors and actors who would portray Caesar otherwise.
“Caesar was a commanding figure in the Renaissance imagination. He should be played that way in Shakespeare’s drama. Otherwise the power of his specter to haunt all the later action of the play makes no sense. [English actor Richard] Burbage had to make Caesar a figure to reckon with. To present him, as so often happens now, as a tinpot dictator or a dithering old fool is to reduce the scale of the tragedy.”
After Caesar’s assassination, Brutus and Marc Antony deliver eulogies at Caesar’s funeral in the Forum. Wills gives an astute analysis of Shakespeare’s method in using each speech to shed light on the character of each.
“Brutus’ speech has usually been treated respectfully in the critical literature on this play. But its rhetoric is so overdone that it approaches what is comic elsewhere in Shakespeare. And there is another thing to notice about it. It is all about himself. Antony’s speech will be all about Caesar – what he conquered, how he loved, what he leaves his countrymen. But in the speech of Brutus there is a monotonous dwelling on Brutus, his honor, his unquestionable standing.”
Wills shows why Antony’s speech, starting with “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him,” was the more persuasive and thus more effective speech, how its rhetorical devices, mainly irony and the repeated ironic use of the word “honourable” as regards Brutus, roused the citizens of Rome to drive the assassins from Rome. In exile, they are ultimately killed.
For anyone who has performed in this 1599 tragedy or who has read or seen a production, this slim volume will be a useful supplement.
January 2, 2012
Wills contrasts the way three major characters (Brutus, Antony and Cassius) in the play speak. They all use some standard rhetorical modes of speech, which was very interesting to me, not having studied rhetoric. Brutus speaks to the crowd after Caesar's murder and his approach is to remind them of his own integrity, assuming they will agree with what he says, without his having to convince them. In contrast, Antony uses many different forms to draw his listeners in and turn them to his way of thinking. Wills remarks that this is a play without villains, that they were all doing what they thought best for Rome. "Rome eats at them, and they eat at Rome, bringing it down in the name of its own greatness" (p. 119). One quibble I have is that Wills seems to buy into the belief that Brutus was Caesar's natural son, even though they were only 15 years apart in age. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.
April 8, 2013
This weekend I took the time to read a deeper book than my usual fare: ROME AND RHETORIC by Garry Wills, the Northwestern University history professor emeritus. My interest was professional, as I am always looking for more insight on classical leadership. I got what I was seeking and much more. Wills, who has written dozens of books, explained our modern understanding of Caesar, Brutus, Antony, and Cassius through the lens of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar." It turns out that just about everything we know about ancient Rome we know because of Shakespeare, who took what he wanted from Plutarch. The book is loaded with insights profound and trivial; among the latter is the fact that Caesar never said "Et tu, Brute" (for the phrase was coined during the Renaissance). Interesting and slim though it is (only 154 small pages), I recommend this volume only for my academically inclined friends. It isn't for everyone. But if you do have a scholarly bent, you will find it quite enlightening.
June 10, 2016
Garry Wills conducts vigorous analysis on the rhetoric of both Brutus and Antony, identifying the rhetoric devices employed and showing how they reflect their characters. Brutus crams so much rhetorical force in his funeral speech and stresses so much on his own honor, that he shows himself as a self-absorbed idealist. Antony, on the other hand, is a fox which throws away as many rhetorical devices as Brutus but pace his speech much more slowly as he is measuring the reactions of his audiences.
Unfortunately, Wills does not sustain this vigor for the chapters on Caesar and Cassius. He made too much speculations on who might play Cicero in the play, which is really an irrelevant issue. Cassius relies heavily on rhetoric to persuade Brutus to join the conspiracy but Wills fails to delve into any of those. The book might have been more focused had Wills concentrated on their uses of rhetoric.
Unfortunately, Wills does not sustain this vigor for the chapters on Caesar and Cassius. He made too much speculations on who might play Cicero in the play, which is really an irrelevant issue. Cassius relies heavily on rhetoric to persuade Brutus to join the conspiracy but Wills fails to delve into any of those. The book might have been more focused had Wills concentrated on their uses of rhetoric.
October 9, 2016
Rome and Rhetoric: Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, by Garry Wills, 2011. Interesting book, though why Wills did not include (at the beginning perhaps) a discussion of what he meant by “rhetoric” escapes me. He writes four chapters, each one dealing with one of four key characters in Julius Caesar, and discusses their approach to rhetoric and the broader topic of rhetoric in Rome and in Shakespearean England. The most interesting gleaning: “As Cicero put it, “the effect of the orator is in the affect of his hearers” (efficiatur ut afficiantur). Cicero also said that logic is like a fist, while persuasion is like an outstretched hand.” That I like, and when Cicero writes of oration, it is well to listen up!
February 2, 2012
If nothing else, after finishing it, you should have a fine command of chiasmus.
December 5, 2012
Brilliant, short little awesome book. A must read for Shakespeare fans.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews