Explaining Character in Shakespeare

Classroom Activities

Character Analysis

As the students read the play, they will fill out a graphic organizer that has several characters (Antony, Brutus, Caesar, Calpurnia, Cassius, Portia) for whom they must address questions such as: What do other characters say about the focus character? How do they represent themselves with words to others? What are the character’s private thoughts? What are their actions? This activity is designed to demonstrate how much evidence there is in the text relating to character, and how the evidence may point to conflicting interpretations. Effective classroom conversations cannot occur without adequate preparation for both the rituals and routines of the discussion, as well as the appropriate language for the discourse, in addition to ample textual evidence to support opinion. The graphic organizer is one way to support and scaffold students towards effective conversation.

Funeral Speeches

Close reading requires that students have the opportunity to annotate and really work with the text. Hence it is useful to provide worksheets that will allow students to write, highlight, circle and otherwise annotate. As they are examples of some of the most notable rhetoric in the play, the funeral speeches afford ideal opportunities for students to perform close textual analysis. As indicated in Appendix B, the side-by-side format allows students to respond to questions and be led through close textual analysis. The initial speech by Brutus would be heavily teacher directed, whereas Antony’s speech might be analyzed in small groups.

Brutus’ idealism has been perverted by Cassius, yet he still fails to recognize his tenuous position as he addresses the audience. His relatively short funeral oration is a masterful example of carefully constructed verse that demonstrates balance, yet comes across as cold and too logical with over 30 figures of speech crammed into a relatively short monologue, in the face of his supposed regret for the necessity of murdering a man he loved. His speech seems almost entirely informed by ethos as he commands the crowd to “hear” and “believe” him. He repeatedly refers to his own honor, as if to suggest that it is an unquestionable attribute, which demonstrates his idealism and perhaps his naiveté. His emotional distance is evident when he expresses his regret for the necessity of murder “As Caesar loved me, I weep for him” [III,ii,23] as opposed to expressing his own love for Caesar.¹⁸ Brutus calls Caesar “fortunate” and commends his valor, but condemns his “ambition” and uses that as justification to the amassed crowd for the murder. He asks the rhetorical question, who is so “vile” that they don’t love the Republic and asks that individual to step forward, which of course has the effect of silencing any dissenter. In sum, Brutus’ speech demonstrates stilted rhetoric and moral narcissism, and ultimately his focus on ethos (his honor) will be turned against him. Although he tried to kill a political idea he feared, he necessarily had to commit a murder. However, he distances himself from the actual physical murder by making it a symbolic act and even refers to Caesar as a sacrifice, a “dish fit for the gods” [II,I,174] when planning the deed. His guilty conscience still troubles him when he commits suicide at the end of play and declares “Caesar, now be still, I kill’d not thee with half so good a will.” [V,v,52-53]

When Antony addresses the crowd at the Forum, they initially are respectful only because Brutus has instructed them to be so. His audience is not necessarily hostile, but they seem hardly malleable, yet while Brutus commanded them most masterfully, Antony coaxes them through a progressive series of rhetorical devices that build upon one another. Antony immediately sets himself apart from Brutus by using prose and taking the conversation from the ethereal level to the very physical, evident especially in his use of the actual corpse to illustrate his perspective. Antony proves capable of harnessing his emotions in order to sway the opinion of the crowd in a seemingly natural manner by using prose, yet it is rife with irony, questioning, and logical appeals that gradually persuade the audience. His appeal seems motivated by genuine grief as he carefully leads the audience to question Caesar’s ambition, then tantalizes them with the will while continuing slyly to refer to Brutus’ honor. His use of pathos and logos, while continually sarcastically referring to Brutus’ ethos--“But Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man” [III,ii,85-86]--are delivered in segments with pauses for the crowd to respond and generate pity for Caesar and then righteous indignation after they learn of Caesar’s bequests in the will. Eventually their passions are so inflamed that they are incited to riot. Antony is perhaps the most masterful orator. He has convinced the crowd that he is “a plain blunt man” [III,ii,208], but my students will understand through their analysis that his is in fact, the most calculated and devious deployer of rhetoric in the play. This may lead to a discussion of an audience’s dislike of being manipulated by a rhetorically gifted individual and in inherent reaction to resist the content of what such a person says. Antony’s last speech might respond to the question who is truly the tragic hero of this play. With no benefit to derive from dissembling, Antony states that Brutus “was the noblest Roman of them all” [V,v,68] and his judgment stands as a summary thought for the audience. Still considering the effects of rhetoric, students may also choose a historical interpretation that focuses on the chaos that ensues when the legitimate ruler is usurped.

I hope to demonstrate how Brutus’ funeral oration is ultimately flawed as a result of his dependency upon ethos and style. It is a beautiful piece of rhetoric comprised of repetition, reverse interchanges, the pairing of opposites, and rhetorical questions, but it ultimately demonstrates his narcissistic reliance on his own honor as a justification for murder, and the haughty rhetoric alienates him from his audience. In marked contrast, Antony’s speech is a testament to his apparent emotional trauma. It uses irony and manipulation to firstly convince with logos and then play to the crowd’s emotions with ethos. After close analysis, students will compare and contrast the speeches of Brutus and Antony to reveal the marked contrast between prose and verse, reliance upon ethos as opposed to logos, brevity in contrast to breadth, and careful composition versus an emotional appeal.¹⁹ Although there are a number of questions that direct attention to significant uses of rhetoric, there are also many opportunities to conduct further and deeper analysis. Students may benefit from completing a Venn Diagram that compares and contrasts the speeches of Brutus and Antony (length, prose vs. verse, reaction to the death, commanding vs. coaxing, rhetorical strategies employed, etc.), followed by a discussion of how those differences affect the audience, given the speaker’s purpose. Ultimately it is my hope that students will concur that the masterful use of a variety of rhetorical devices develops logos, ethos and then pathos in Antony’s speech, making him therefore the more effective rhetorician. “He passes the only test that matters in classical rhetoric---audience response.”²⁰ Film versions of the key speeches by Brutus and Antony will be viewed and compared to demonstrate how delivery profoundly alters perception of the content and to explore the art of public speaking and effective speaking strategies.  

Mock Trial

Conduct a mock trial of Brutus for the crime of assassinating Caesar. Assign roles for Brutus, several prosecution and defense lawyers, a judge, and witnesses. The remainder of the class will serve as the jury. Students will prepare for their role in the trial. At the end of the trial the jury members will each write a paragraph explanation of their opinion on the guilt or innocence of the defendant and the evidence that swayed them. The judge will deliver an appropriate sentence, having acted as moderator for the process.

Socratic Seminar

A Socratic seminar is a structured conversation between students that demands they use evidence from the text to support their assertions and interact utilizing a constructive model. I tend to use an inner circle of confident speakers to engage in debate while an outer circle takes very specific notes on the types of interactions students engage in: Do they they pose a question, ask another student to elaborate, refer to another student’s ideas when making a point, or use evidence from the text? Posing questions that are highly debatable and don’t necessarily have a correct answer is a favorite strategy to help students prepare for meaningful classroom conversation. When is murder justified? Is assassination morally less reprehensible than murder? How is the treatment of the wives (Portia and Calpurnia) parallel? Is Caesar’s excessive use of his own name and the third person evidence that he is vainglorious or merely that he is cognizant of his own authority? Was Caesar a threat to Rome or just a fallible man? If the conspirators were right to fear Caesar’s power, were they right to kill him? Did Brutus betray Caesar? Why do Cassius and Brutus kill themselves on the battlefield? Do the ends justify the means? Can positive change result from violent action? What is the function of soliloquy? How does the relationship between Brutus and Cassius change over the course of the play?

Storyboard

Students will create a six panel storyboard to convey the most significant plot points of the play. This activity requires students to demonstrate sequencing skills as they determine which are the most significant moments. They will indicate the main ideas and include a caption with a quotation from the text. This activity will be especially engaging for students as they work in groups and will help my English Language Learners remain engaged.