Antony, an opposite of Brutus, easily sees what Brutus cannot, that the citizens need emotional intensity, and someone to place their anger on. So Antony cunningly uses complex rhetorical techniques to turn public opinion against Brutus, while never actually saying a bad word against any conspirator. Antony speaks with poetry, connecting with the common people in another way, by coming down off the podium and speaking amongst the people. Poetry is also a better conveyer of emotion, which Antony understands to be important to the crowd. The plebeians at first were convinced Brutus was right, saying, “‘Twere best he [Antony] speak no harm of Brutus here” (III.ii.75). So Antony does not, yet still manages to turn the crowd against him. How? By using irony, most famously his use of the word “honorable.” Antony says, “(For Brutus is an honorable man; So are they all, all honorable men)” (III.ii.91-92). At first there is no trace of irony, but each time this “honorable men” phrase is repeated (and he repeats it often, saying “honorable” eleven times) it becomes more ironic and satirical, meaning the opposite of its actual definition. This is only one of the many devices Antony uses to trap the crowd into agreeing with him. He emphasizes Caesar’s will using apophasis and other paradoxical statements. “'Tis good you know not that you are his heirs” (III.ii.157) says Antony, of course only making the citizens want to hear the will more. When he finally reads the will, the crowd has already become excited, and when they hear of the good things Caesar will do for them (Antony reads only the few bits of the will that the citizens profited from), they are ready to kill anyone who might have had anything to do with Caesar’s death. Antony word tricks plays the crowd to the point that he can make them do whatever he wants them to.
Brutus and Antony’s orations share a few traits, but differ in ways that gave Antony’s more influence over the fickle crowd. Both use complex language and rhetorical devices. Both, in some ways, seek to appeal to the citizens morals. But there the similarities end. Brutus spoke in prose, while Antony spoke poetry; Brutus used logic, while Antony tried for emotional appeal. Antony’s speech ended up finally convincing the plebeians more than Brutus’. Why? The language Antony uses is better suited for the occasion than Brutus’. When a king-like figure has just been killed, citizens are not looking for a rational explanation for why this was done, but an emotional response telling whom their anger should be directed towards. Brutus could have done this by speaking more of the faults of Caesar, but he refused to because he believed that his personal faults were not a factor in his death. The crowd in the oration scene of Julius Caesar is extremely ignorant, believing anything anyone says and siding with whoever is speaking at the time. They have no understanding for what the orators are doing, thinking Brutus wants the throne himself, which theoretically at least, he certainly does not, and believing they have been convinced rationally that the conspirators are guilty of a horrible crime (after Antony’s oration, a plebeian says “Methinks there is much reason in his sayings” (III.ii.118)), which he undoubtedly did not. A group as irrational as this cannot follow the logical prose presented by Brutus, but Antony’s emotionally filled poetry easily sways them.
When Antony convinces the plebeians that the conspirators’ killing of Caesar was unjust, unneeded, and inexcusable, Brutus is forced in many ways to give up his idealistic belief that he partook in this assassination for the people of Rome, for it is them that now wanted him dead. In his slow acceptance of this fact, Brutus must also have noticed how badly his stoical, emotionless speech failed to impress the Roman crowd. This failure, along with Antony’s great ability in oration, especially in manipulating the audience, is able to convince the citizens of his hidden opinion, that the conspirators must be punished for the evil deed they committed by killing his friend Caesar.
Or, of course, Antony may have succeeded in simply because he was the last one the crowd heard, so the one they ultimately agreed with, but then there wouldn’t be a point for this essay, now would there?