Comparing the Speeches of Mark Antony and Brutus in Julius Caesar

“A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions“ -Confucius. This quote is relevant because in Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, Brutus and Antony gave speeches after Caesar’s death. A speaker has to make connections with the audience, use creativity, and have passion. Antony was rhetoric, cunning, and used pathos to connect with the people of Rome. Brutus was also rhetoric, honorable, and used logos and ethos to influence the audience. Overall, Brutus did not influence the crowd like he hoped to. Antony knew how he was going to persuade the people before he gave his speech.

By making the Romans think about this topic, Brutus gains support and the audience feels like the death of Caesar is justified.

Brutus made his speech effective in persuading the people by using tone and rhetorical devices. Brutus was

Marc Antony, Brutus, and Cassius are all critical characters in William Shakespeare’s famous play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Due to their distinctive personalities and values, there is no trait that all of these characters share, although they do share some traits with one another. Firstly, Marc Antony and Cassius are manipulative in nature, while Brutus is not. Secondly, the root of Brutus and Cassius’ failure is their personality flaw, while Marc Antony proves strong in all the ways they prove weak. Lastly, Antony and Cassius, unlike Brutus, do not separate their private affairs from their public actions while acts only with honor and virtue and completely ignores his personal concerns.

In the Tragedy Of Julius Caesar, Brutus and Anthony both presented a speech to the citizens of Rome. Brutus argued why his actions to kill Julius were acceptable while Antony contradicted Brutus’s views, arguing why Caesar should not have been murdered. Both speakers used ethos, logos, and pathos to persuade the people of Rome. Brutus’s speech was mainly based on logic, while Antony’s speech took more of an emotional approach . Overall, Antony had a sophistic style, he was much more artful and cunning than Brutus. He reeled in the crowd like a fish and captured them with his compelling diction.

In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Brutus and Antony attempt to persuade the audience of their position on the death of Caesar. While Brutus explains that his death was necessary, Antony claims that Caesar was not deserving of his demise. However, though Brutus does have ample credibility and taps into the emotional link with his audience to some extent, he does not convey as powerful of an argument as Antony, as he fails to provide sufficient factual evidence. Antony, on the other hand, utilizes logical argumentation with solid evidence, creates an emotional connection with his audience, and maintains credibility in order to support his own argument. Through this, it can be seen that Antony’s use of rhetorical appeals and devices is superior

To begin with, Brutus is too trusting of those around him. Brutus’s friend Cassius recognizes that Brutus is driven by what is best for Rome. Because of this Cassius devises a plan to plant a fake petition from the people of Rome stating that Caesar needs to be executed. Brutus never even questions that the petition is real. After reading the petition Brutus’ response is:

The most predominate and important aspect In the play Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare are the speeches given to the Roman citizens by Brutus and Antony, the two main charaters, following the death of Caesar. Brutus and Antony both spoke to the crowd,using the same rhetorical devices to express their thoughts. Both speakers used the three classical appeals employed in the speeches: ethos, which is an appeal to credibility; pathos, which is an appeal to the emotion of the audience; and logos, which is an appeal to the content and arrangement of the argument itself. Even though both speeches have the same structure Antony’s speech is significantly more effective than Brutus’s.

Giving a successful speech, in any language, is a difficult yet gratifying skill. Great speeches can be inspiring, compelling, and even revolutionary – indeed, these speeches are deliberate, succinct, engaging, and unforgettable. Two examples of such great speeches in both literature and in history are Mark Antony’s eulogy in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Robert F. Kennedy’s On the Death of Martin Luther King. Through the speakers’ use of parallel structure, caesuras, and personal references – three stylistic devices and techniques – not only were both speakers able to embellish their speeches; it also allowed each speaker to deliver an even more powerful speech. In these speeches, the use of repetition through the anaphoral and

In the tragic play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, the ruler of Rome, Julius Caesar, is stabbed to death by some of his so-called friends. Brutus, one of Caesar's best friends, is approached by some of the other senators to join the conspiracy to kill Caesar. Brutus weighs his options and decides to join the conspirators for the good of Rome. At Caesars's funeral, Brutus gives a speech to convince the citizens that the conspirators were right to kill Caesar. In contrast, Antony gives a speech to convince the Romans that there was no real reason to kill Caesar. Both characters try to persuade the audience, but they achieve different tones using literary and rhetorical devices. The tone of Brutus' speech is prideful, while the tone of Antony's speech is dramatic and inflammatory.

Brutus speaks to the citizens of Rome to tell them why he killed Caesar, so that they will not turn on him. He talks about how he killed Caesar, not for his personal wants, but for the good of Rome. He tells the people that allowing Caesar to rule and fulfill his

Julius Caesar is set in 44 BC were Rome was a republic. Roman influence had spread beyond Italy and through the Mediterranean and some of North Africa and also parts of Germany, Belgium and Britain. A senate governed Rome. The main objective of all this meant that not one person was solely in charge and had absolute power and were king like.

The speeches given by both Brutus and Mark Antony in William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Caesar are very persuasive to the audience that they are given to, but rhetorical devices were used in different ways in order for each to have an effect on the people of Rome. In Brutus’s speech, he uses devices such as rhetorical question and antithesis to convince the Romans that he and the conpirators did a good deed by killing Caesar. In Mark Antony’s speech, he sways them to believe that Caesar did not deserve to die, and that the conpirators were the real enemies by using rhetorical devices like rhetorical question and apostrophe. Both speeches were very

Brutus, a conflicted senator obsessed with his civic duty, convinces the people of Rome that his motives in killing Caesar were just and noble by rhetoric. Brutus is the only conspirator to have impersonal motives in killing Caesar. In fact, his motives are trying to find the best solution for Rome, and in the end, he must make the hard choice of killing his best friend for his homeland. As early as Brutus’ conversation with Cassius in Act I, Brutus exhibits this deep love and respect for Rome and how this love is conflicting with his love for his friend, Caesar: “[P]oor Brutus, with himself at war, / Forgets the shows of love to other men” (I.ii.51-52). Brutus brings up this internal conflict again when he tells the crowds that although he did love Caesar, he loved Rome and its people more. After Brutus’ murder of Caesar, he realizes that the issue of the public opinion of Rome is of the utmost importance. Because of this love for Rome, Brutus uses rhetoric to persuade these plebeians to approve of him and his cause. When Cassius warns Brutus about “how much the people will be moved / By that which [Marc Antony] will utter[!]” (III.i.252-253), Brutus tells Cassius that letting Marc Antony speak “shall advantage us more than do us wrong” (III.i.261). In these cases, Brutus demonstrates his awareness of

Julius Caesar and Brutus are more similar than meets the eye. One could argue that both Julius and Brutus are tragic heroes in the tragic play Julius Caesar. This argument is false because Brutus is the one, and only, tragic hero. Brutus is the tragic hero because he possesses the heroic qualities of equality and respect, integrity, and concern for his county, as well as possessing a tragic flaw, which is his own naivety. Heroic qualities can be hard to define, but to simply put it, they are the defining qualities and famed features that define a conqueror. These beliefs often tell the customs and beliefs of the society the hero is from, because this is the way of life for the tragic hero. Every tragic also embeds himself with a tragic flaw. The tragic flaw is the one negative and shameful character trait found throughout that the character just cannot quite seem to control and will lead to their demise, no doubt about it.