Throughout the ages, leaders have spoken out during times of crisis to try and unite people. Marcus Tullius Cicero and George W. Bush are no exception to this trope. In Cicero’s first speech against Catiline, he related the horrible crimes Catiline was planning to commit. During his tenure in office, Bush experienced a terrorist event on September 11, 2001, when the world trade center had been destroyed, and he addressed Congress on this matter nine days later. While Cicero’s speech entails an event that was foiled, Bush’s speech provides facts and support in the aftermath of a traumatic situation. In this essay, I am going to compare the rhetorical devices implemented by both individuals, how they are able to develop their arguments, and some …show more content…
Cicero uses word choices with negative connotations to bring his point across about Catiline. For instance, he states that “I find it unendurable that you should still be here: unendurable, intolerable, impermissible” (Cicero), and later he says “You supplemented that ghastly deed by another so appalling that it is scarcely believable” (Cicero). By highlighting certain words like unendurable and repeating them, Cicero created a memorable line for anyone watching the trial. Bush, on the other hand, uses simple language to instill his message by short statements, such as “Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment” (Bush). This easy language would have been understood by anyone listening to his speech. Bush also uses the negative connotation of the terror attack causing “grief and anger” to have a positive result in creating a “mission.” This language works as a way to bind people together to have a purpose going forward after this terrible event. Cicero and Bush utilize different sentence structure as well. Cicero uses varied sentence structures. He occasionally starts his thought with a short sentence that transitions to a longer sentence, and then ends with another short sentence. Bush, on the other hand, generally uses short sentences, but he …show more content…
Cicero and Bush have analogous ethos and pathos, as they were both leaders in their communities, and their listeners would have been shocked to hear about the events entailed in both of their speeches. Cicero and Bush also have different perspectives in their arguments. Cicero relies on his first-hand experience in the matter, as Catiline planned to kill him. This allows him to connect with his audience on a personal level. Meanwhile, Bush did not have to convince his audience that an event was going to take place. Instead, he was able to put blame on a specific group for the terrorist act, and provide information about their tactics and connections. This strategy works to inform the public about possible future dangers. The strategies that Cicero and Bush employ in their language diverge as well. Cicero tends to repeat words with negative connotations, so that it would be ingrained in people’s minds, while Bush tends to use simpler language that everyone can understand. However, they both use questions in their speeches to switch ideas and catch the attention of their listeners. They also both employ opposing language in their speeches to distinguish right from wrong. While these two individuals both address disturbing historical events in their speeches, they present their material in the most effective way to suit their
When the twin towers were destroyed in New York City by the terrorist group led by Osama Bin Laden, a Country filled with panic, sadness, and anger was left behind. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed, and the families of the fallen suffered greatly. People demanded answers, and wanted justice. People also felt unsafe, and were unaware if it was reasonable to expect another attack. President George Walker Bush prepares a speech for congress to discuss the events that took place, and the plans that will take place because of these events. The objectives of the speech Bush was trying to accomplish were informing the nation what had happed on September 11th, he then noted that it was not Muslins to be blamed for the attack, the challenges that lie ahead, and our plan for the “War on Terror.” The President uses the canons of rhetoric to execute a speech that met his audience’s needs.
Ethos, pathos and logos influence every part of our lives from the time we wake up to the moment we fall asleep. These three advertising tactics are also the pillars of political speeches and other rhetorical media. In the play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, ethos, pathos and logos are used to persuade many of the characters views on the conspirators plot and Caesar’s subsequent death. My independent speech, “Tear Down this Wall,” was given by Ronald Reagan on June 12, 1987 in Berlin, Germany. This speech was given during the Cold War, which separated the Democratic from Communist countries.
Former President George W. Bush’s speech, “Bullhorn”, was given through a megaphone on top the rumble of 220 floors of a horrific event. On the day of September 11, 2001, an Islamic group, called Al-Qaeda, hijacked four American passenger airliners to carry out suicide attacks against targets across the United States. The potential targets included: the twin towers, the Pentagon and the White House. Three of the four hijacked airliners accomplished their goal as the lives of 3,000 innocent civilians were taken. A cloud of grief and mourn covered the country as they experience the worst tragedy since 1941, the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Soon after the attack on September 14th, a ray of hope appeared as President Bush took the stage. Throughout his speech, three rhetorical devices were shown are: ethos, logos, and pathos. Bush used these three devices to connect with the audiences’ emotions, appeal to the audiences’ ethics, and appeal to the logical side of the audience additionally, all while creating a sufficient speech to the comfort the country.
Classically speaking, Bush utilizes Cicero’s five canons of rhetoric during his presentation. These five canons are Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. Invention, the first canon, refers to coming up with the material to present and how to effectively present it. Invention appeals to exactly what information the presenter chooses to speak of, rather than how it is presented. Clearly, in this instance Bush is addressing the 9/11 attacks
Throughout the speech, a major rhetorical theme are the anaphoric phrases. Wrote Bush, “today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of
In President Bush’s Address to the Nation Speech the day after September 11 (9/11) in 2001, President Bush wants to inform the country of this tragic event and what was going to happen for the country. President Bush uses rhetorical devices to captures the audience’s attention and to reach this purpose. President Bush mainly use pathos, logos, anaphoras, and personifications to achieve his purpose.
Plato once wrote that, “Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.” Rhetoric is the foundation of any solid argument, and any good speaker must learn to use it effectively. Creating a strong argument is a difficult task for any speaker, but Mark Antony’s eulogy for Caesar shows us that it can be done with the use of rhetorical strategies and arguments. Antony argues that Caesar was killed unfairly, and wants tells rome to revolt. He accomplishes this argument by using a combination of appeals to the audience's emotions, logic and facts, as well as reasoning and humility.
Throughout the play Julius Caesar, Shakespeare uses a variety of rhetorical strategies to articulate the points of many characters. More explicitly the use of different rhetorical strategies can be seen after the death of Caesar. Preceding Caesar's death speeches were given by Mark Antony and Brutus. In these speeches Brutus tried to justify Ceaser death with vague answers, while Mark Antony came to the support of Caesar and questioned why he really had to die. Brutus and Mark Antony's use of logos, pathos and ethos, allowed them both to give effective speeches. Although Brutus gave a strong speech, Mark Antony exceptional use of pathos and ethos provided him a slight edge over Brutus.
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.
In Shakespeare’s well thought out piece of enchanting literary rhetoric, Julius Caesar, Shakespeare suggests that rhetoric alters reality. This position may be most evident in Brutus’ speech designed to convince the plebeians that Rome’s future
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.
Cassius, Brutus, and Antony use rhetoric successfully in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, albeit each differently and for different causes. Each of these men uses his skills in rhetoric to convince each other and at some points the entire population of Rome to follow his beliefs. However, each of these men has different motivations to do so, as well as different characteristics and general worldviews.
Bush uses appeals throughout his formal speech to help advance the argument he proposes. While doing this Bush takes his listeners on a roller coaster of emotion, appealing to pathos and to logos, then to ethos and back to
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 had a more logical speech while Antony’s speech was more emotional. Overall, Antony had a more sophistic style, he was much more artful and cunning than Brutus. He reeled in the crowd like a fish and captured them.