For class we are reviewing a segment of the play Julius Caesar. We need to review the section according to a specific Literary Theory. We are reviewing Act 3 Scene 2. In this scene Brutus has killed Caesar and is explaining to the Plebeian's his reasons, at the finishing of his remarks Antony arrives with the body of Caesar and gives an address. Since i have been focusing on Rhetorical strategies of the plays in my blog I wanted utilize a literary theory that would add to this focus. I decided to do a Structuralist reading of this scene, specifically focusing on the True Symbol defined by Saussure...Structuralism is used to define how a composition demonstrates the underlying principles of a given structural system, when the analysis is focused on one work. In other words, it is looking to see how one work, fits into a larger narrative of linguist function, or societal process. The specific segment of this theory that I am going to apply is part of Saussure’s theory of the communication of signs. He explains that all communication is a process of transmitting information through a coded sequence. Very basically, the model is as follows:
Thought > Signifier > Sign > Receiver >Signified > Thought
So a concept is formed in the mind of a individual and that thought is translated into a word, or some other form of communication (physical, verbal, written, etc.). That sign is then conveyed to an individual (the receiver). The individual interprets the sign into a thought, and thus one man’s idea is sent to another.
In Julius Caesar Antony manipulates this process to his advantage. He convolutes the interpretation of the word “honor” throughout his speech. Originally used by Brutus to extend his image of uprightness in his decision to murder Caesar, Antony uses repetition to belittle the connotative value of the word. He belies “honor” by juxtaposing phrases such as:
“Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me;
But Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is Honorable.”
Antony feigns to bemoan the dead in two lines and in the immediate two lines that follow he belittles his bereavement through emphasis on Brutus’ honor. He repeats this pattern multiple times thereby associating the word “honor” with the sentiment of suspicion. Antony has to approach the subject in this way because the mob is already incensed by Brutus speech, and Antony recognizes that he must approach turning their sentiments cautiously or risk being destroyed by them for seeming to revile against Brutus. The reader can see the success of his word transformation clearly by contrasting the reaction of the Plebeians towards the words of Brutus on line 48 to those of Antony on lines 232-233. The mobs interpretation of the word “honor” alters so that the quality of “honor” is akin to treason. Thus, through the rhetoric of repetition Antony manipulates the Signified in his speech to subtly persuade the angry mob to turn on the man they had just been praising.
