Julius Caesar's Speech Analysis

     Brutus made a convincing speech but came out beneath Antony, because he forced his opinion on the crowd by using his honour, instead of convincing them and giving them reason. Brutus said, "hear me for my/ cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me/ for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour." (3.2. 2-4) Brutus is telling the crowd that they have to believe him and agree with him because he is honourable, Brutus gives no other reason to believe him. Some people in would argue that Brutus gives another reason, when he said, "as he was ambitious, I/ slew him" (3.2. 16-17). But he doesn't give a reason, for why Caesar was ambitious, he just tells the crowd Caesar was ambitious and

In Shakespeare's tragedy Julius Caesar, Portia uses repetition, rhetorical questions, and parallelism in order to persuade Brutus to tell his secret. Portia uses repetition to get Brutus’ attention and to show him how much she wants to know the secret. Pleading, Portia urges, “I should not need, if you were gentle Brutus. / Within the bond of marriage, tell me, Brutus” (2.1.301,302). By using repetition she gets Brutus’ attention so he knows she is talking to him. If Portia did not repeat his name, Brutus would not be as inclined to listen to her. With Portia stating his name more than once he is focused on her and knows that what she is saying is vital. In this part of Portia’s speech she uses pathos. She persuades Brutus by bringing up their

Brutus's speech was ineffective in giving them reasons for Caesar's ambition. This gave Antony a large gap to turn the people against Brutus. Brutus told the people to believe him for his honor , and to respect him for his honor, so that they may believe. He is telling them to believe him for his honor and not for the reasons he gives. Brutus repeated many times that Caesar was ambitious but never once said how or why. This left the people with a question in their mind.

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 the play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, an honorable man, Brutus, is planning to overthrow the soon to be king, Julius Caesar. Brutus is persuaded by Cassius that Caesar is a liar, too ambitious, weak, and not fit to be Rome’s king. Brutus soon believed Cassius, and they and the conspirators made a plan to kill Caesar. After Caesar’s death, Brutus planned to justify his actions of killing Caesar at his funeral in his speech to the people. After Brutus’s speech, the citizens of Rome were all in agreement that Brutus did the right thing for Rome. Brutus then decides to allow Caesar’s best friend, Antony, to speak in honor of Caesar. Antony speaks, and he convinces the citizens that Brutus’s actions were unjust and turned the people against Brutus.

What exemplifies a speech in which persuasive appeals and devices convey emotion and persuade audience members without using false information? Antony's speech in Act III of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare exemplifies a speech in which persuasive techniques work to achieve the speaker's goal. Mark Antony's speech consists of several persuasive techniques that amalgamate to form an effective piece of persuasive rhetoric. Antony's speech is an effective piece of persuasive rhetoric because he uses ethos, pathos, and rhetorical questions.

“The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force” according to Adolf Hitler, a master in rhetoric, who was able to sway the people of Germany into electing him as chancellor, and who was able to brain wash an army into creating the biggest mass genocide on the planet. This type of strategy is mimicked by Mark Antony in William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Mark Antony’s extensive knowledge of rhetorical strategies, such as appeal to the emotions of the commoners, knowledge of topic and reputation, and syntactical devices eclipse Brutus’ reasoning for killing Julius Caesar and wins over the Roman commoners.

Many people know that Julius Caesar was betrayed and killed by many people who he had thought to be his friends. Some less common knowledge is that he did still have friends and others who stayed loyal to him. One man named Mark Antony was the most loyal of them all, even after Caesar’s death. When he found out Caesar had been killed, he began plotting to get on the traitor’s good sides and make it seem as if he had joined them so that he could convince the citizens to fight against them with him. He deceived the traitors and convinced them to let him speak at Caesar’s funeral, and in this speech he turned the citizens against them using very powerful rhetorical skills. After he had drove the traitors from the city, he took control of the city and led them to victory in a war against the conspirator’s armies. These are three telling examples that prove Antony’s skill and potential as a leader.

In Scene 2, Act 3, Brutus and Antony both separately tell a speech about Caesar’s death and why it happened. Both are trying to sway the people in their favor, Brutus saying it was necessary while Antony explaining it was murder. Both uses pathos and ethos, their own reputations, to win the people over. Brutus, however, loses to Antony. Antony persuasive speech was more on the side of pathos than Brutus, leading to Brutus’s downfall.

Antony felt that Brutus should not have killed Caesar. He does not feel that he did anything wrong at all for Brutus to have killed him. Within him knowing how the people of Roman feels about Caesar and trying to get their full attention after Brutus speech he starts off by saying “Friends,Roman, Countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar,not to praise him. The evil that men do live after them; the good often interred with their bones; so let it be with Caesar.” That’s his way of saying I don’t expect you all to think about the good or at least all the good Caesar has did/done as much as you think about the bad. “He was my friend,faithful,and just to me: But Brutus says he was ambitious And Brutus is a honourable man”. Antony keeps saying over and over “Brutus says he was ambitious” but he does not feel Caesar was ambitious because “When that the poor have cried,Caesar hath wept:”. He then uses ethos and goes to try to discredit Brutus by saying “You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown,which he did thrice refuse: was this ambitious?”. Antony is saying why give a man credit for just now wanting to be king and do what is right for Roman now when he didn’t want to the first three times it was offered to him. He asks them a rhetorical question with logic to it “You all did love him once,not without cause: what cause withholds you then,to mourn for him?” I say the question has logic because how can you love someone

The Roman senators all took part in betraying Caesar by murdering him. One of the main people involved, Brutus, held a funeral service for the deceased Caesar along with a brief speech. One of Julius Caesar's main companions who loved him dearly, Antony, also gave a speech that lasted much longer. After looking through the ethos, logos, and pathos mentioned in this story, it is obvious that Antony is more persuasive.

To make a strong argument, Antony must first make himself credible to the audience. The first time he does this in the text is in line one when he refers to the people of rome as his friends and countrymen. When he does this, he asks the people of rome to see him as a peer and trust what he says. He builds credibility again in the next line when he tells the audience that he has come to bury caesar, not praise him. After Brutus’ speech, the audience does not like caesar. In order to be able to make an argument, Antony must at first seem to agree with Brutus in order to build credibility with the audience. He does this more when he repeatedly says that Brutus is an honorable man. Antony builds his credibility yet again later in the speech when, in line 192, he refers to the conspirators as wise and honorable, saying that they must have reasons for committing such crimes, and telling the people not to

He does not want Caesar to be crowned king. Power meant more to Brutus than being noble to Caesar. The actions of Brutus do not reflect his intentions of being a nobleman. Contemplating the assassination, Brutus invokes the familiar Elizabethan analogy between the body politic and the body natural. In so doing he invokes the symbolic framework which establishes the relationships among the diverse issues and actions of the play and provides, in this case, an implicit refutation of the position he is about to take. For Brutus' political miscalculations, rather than being the almost inexplicable mistakes of a supremely virtuous character, are the manifestations of a clearly defined moral failing. Brutus, of course, misses the point of his analogy. Sensible of the hideousness of the "Insurrection" within the "little Kingdome" to which he likens himself, he does not go on to deduce, as he might be expected to, that "Rebels [ought] by the Justice of the law to be suppressed, even as the

Some might say that the ability to effectively persuade people to do things is one of the most useful qualities a person can possess. However, it can also be one of the most dangerous. In Julius Caesar, a play by William Shakespeare, a group of conspirators were plotting to overthrow Julius Caesar, who was poised to become the leader of the Roman Empire. Because doing this was a mission that would require a larger group of people, the conspirators attempted to convince people to support their plan and join the group. In doing so, the conspirators used tactics that appealed to both the logic and emotion of others.