Julius Caesar Rhetorical Analysis

Some examples of Brutus using Pathos in his speech are when he talks about how he slew his best friend for the good of Rome and for the good of the people. Also some more examples of Pathos in Brutus' speech is when he talks about how he has the same dagger for himself whenever the Roman people call for his death. Antony has some Pathos in his speech also that gets to the people in the crowd. Examples of Pathos in Antony's speech are when he talks about how his heart is in the coffin with Caesar and when he needs to take a second away because he has to go cry because of how upset he is. Some more examples of pathos in his speech are when he talked about how it wasn’t right for them to know how much Caesar loved all the people of Rome. In conclusion, I think that as I stated before, they both had very good examples but Antony had better examples because his got down more to the people's level and he really could connect with them and knew what they wanted to

Antony uses an abundance of pathos in his speech. One example is: “Caesar was my friend and just to me” (III, ii, 86). Using pathos helps the audience make connections with him. He also reads Caesar’s will which makes the people feel guilty about turning against Caesar during Brutus’ speech. He shows them the stabs wounds on Caesar’s coat and names which conspirator stabbed him. The Roman people now feel pity and anger towards the conspirators. Overall, Antony was smart with his words and won over the Roman people better than

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.

By contrast Antony from Julius caesar heavily relies upon the power of language and its ability to exploit the human flaw that is emotion, and by doing so manipulate ones perception through a emotionally (pathos) driven argument. Antony has a greater understanding of the people and knows that they are passionate people who will be swayed by such talk. Also Antony unlike Brutus uses iambic pentameter this shows that he has a higher authority which would make the audience listen more carefully. After each argument Antony produces in Caesar’s defense, he uses irony through the lines “But Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man”. This line is repeated a number of times creating an anaphora. As well as slowly dismantling Brutus’

Is the man who calms the crowd is more persuasive? Or is the man who can angers one more effective? It is very obvious that Antony's speech was more effective after he convinced all of rome that Brutus killed Caesar in vain. Antony used many pieces of evidence to sway the opinion of the romans to believe that Brutus was wrong. He also uses emotion and establishes more credibility or effectively than Brutus. These arguments are far more effective than Brutus saying that he killed Caesar because he could have been ambitious.

Throughout the two men’s speeches, both try to invoke emotions in the people of Rome. Brutus attempts this first and is ultimately less effective than the pathos Antony uses throughout his speech. Brutus states, “ If there’s anyone in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar’s, I say to him that my love for Caesar was no less than his. If, then, that friend demands to know why I rose up against Caesar, this is my answer: it’s not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” In this statement, Brutus is directing the emotion towards himself instead of the people. He isn’t allowing the people to feel for themselves; this is not an compelling way of using pathos. Antony uses a different method that creates a bigger rise out of the crowd. He does this by saying,

In the Tragedy of Julius Caesar: Act 3 by William Shakespeare we listen to Brutus and Antony’s speeches both of them tried to win over the citizens of Rome. In their speeches they are talking about honor and how they were friends with Julius Caesar. They talk about how Julius handled things around Rome they also talked about his death and how gruesome it was. My thesis is that Antony’s speech is far more imperior he appealed to the citizens more than Brutus did.

The Roman citizens that were listening to these speeches were not smart enough to logically depict each speech. They were very easily manipulated by both Brutus and Antony, but Antony knew how to read the crowd, therefore his speech was more influential in the decision the Romans made.

Brutus never really uses pathos as his driving force in his speech. Some of his lines can be seen as emotional, but those same lines mainly are used by him to build up his own image and not show that he really cared about Caesar. His closing line about letting the people stab him if they disagreed with his view is pathos oriented. However by that point his logic has the plebeians already believing his side. Where as Brutus for the most part uses small amounts of pathos, Antony dominates Brutus with his use of pathos. He starts right away proving that Caesar’ love for his people is real by saying, “when that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept”(3.2.100). By proving Caesar’s love for his people, Antony cancels out the damage done by Brutus’s speech. Next to turn the blame on the conspirators, Antony brings up that the honorable- who does not want to wrong- are the ones “whose daggers have stabbed Caesar”(3.2.164). His inflammatory words make the crowd burst into a frenzy calling for the execution of the conspirators. While Antony has the crowd where he wants them, he pushes further. He begins to list all the conspirators who stabbed Caesar and where they stabbed him. This rant even further puts the plebeians in his corner, and they are completely under his control now. Finally to push them over

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.

In my opinion, Antony’s speech was more effective, because they took action after his speech. Because of his speech, It created big chaos in Rome and a war. Antony’s speech was mainly about getting revenge for Caesar’s death. He also used logos, pathos, and ethos in his speech. One way he caught the audience’s attention, was by using his emotions. In the speech he said, “My heart is in a coffin and I must pause till it come back to me”. He was saying that his heart was broken and he needed to rethink his words before going forward in sadness. He then used Ethos. “Come I speak in Caesar’s funeral, he was my friend, faithful and just as me”, Antony said. He was acknowledging himself by coming to speak at his friend’s speech, and he Also calling himself a faithful friend. Last, he used logos. He was saying that Brutus was not really ambitious for he had done. Another example of logos, he said, “I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, but here I am to speak what I do know.” Antony was saying that in his speech was stating facts and things of his knowledge.

“When the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: ambition should be made of sterner stuff”(3.2.93-94). In William Shakespeare's “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” two characters, Antony and Brutus, each give a funeral speech to persuade the crowd. Brutus kills Caesar, Rome’s next leader, in order to preserve the peace in Rome, while Antony seeks to avenge his fallen friend Caesar. Since these men have conflicting goals their speeches attempt to persuade the crowd of two different things. While some may still think Brutus did a better job with his speech, it is clear that Antony was much more persuasive.

In the story written by Shakespeare called Julius Caesar; both Brutus and Marc Antony give speeches to the Roman Citizens. These speeches are given following the death of Julius Caesar. Brutus’ speech is short and to the point, whereas Marc Antony’s speech is a longer, and more thought out, one. Although both speeches are used to persuade the audience I thought Marc Antony’s speech was more persuasive. First of all, Marc Antony’s speech is more than double, in words, than Brutus’ speech; which means he had more time to steal the people of Rome’s hearts.

Two ways that their speeches are the same is that Brutus wants the conspirators to listen to his speech and follow his wishes, but Antony wants the conspirators to follow him instead of Brutus, so they both want the people to follow by one of their sides. The strongest contrast between Brutus and Antony appears to be their ability and inability to be both honorable and persuasive.

Two incredible speeches, packed into one play. Two credible speakers, packed into one play. In shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar, there is a quite noticeable difference and contrast between two important moments in the script. These moments are Marc Antony's speech and Brutus’s speech. On one hand, there is Antony. An emotional wreck talking to a group of plebeians. He is talking to their greed and anger. On the other hand, there is Brutus. He stoops to the Plebeians level to talk mainly to their logical side. Both speeches have superior Moments, but there is a clear winner here. Marc Antony took a much better strategic approach which allowed him to appeal to the plebeians much better. Antony appealed to the plebeians greed, Anger, and emotional