Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince and Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

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, the people of Rome have opinions that are very easily swayed. However, there is one man who does this best in comparison to the rest. This man is Marc Antony. He sways the crowd in favor of his ideas through his use of the will, his speaking techniques of ethos and logos, and by speaking directly to the hearts of the people of Rome.

       In William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, although Marc Antony is allowed to make a speech at Caesar's funeral, he must not speak ill of either the conspirators or Caesar.  Antony was infuriated with Caesar's assassination, and wants to seek revenge on his killers as well as gain power for himself in Rome's government.  He must persuade the crowd that has gathered that Caesar's murder was unjust, and turn them against Brutus and Cassius.  He tries to stir his listeners' anger, rousing them into action and yet say nothing bad about his enemies.  Marc Antony uses several persuasive devices in his speech, which allows him to successfully convince the citizens of Rome to turn

Antony and Cassius, unlike Brutus, never separate their private affairs from their public actions while Brutus tries to prove himself by acting only with respect to honor and virtue, completely ignoring his personal concerns. For example, Cassius disliked the fact that Caesar became “godlike” in the eyes of the Romans, so he leads Brutus to believe that Caesar had become too powerful and must die by sending him forged letters claiming that the Roman people support the death of Caesar, ultimately converting Brutus to his cause. At last Brutus ends up murdering his good friend in an act he truly believed was honorable. Marc Antony, who also shares in Cassius’ selfish trait, persuaded the conspirators that he is on their side, therefore gaining their leniency. He proceeds to persuade the plebeians of the conspirators’ injustice and gains support of the masses.

In his soliloquy, Antony praised Caesar’s great personality but at the same time, he would keep saying positive things about Brutus. An example is when he says, “He was my friend, faithful and just to me; / But Brutus says he was ambitious, / And Brutus is an honorable man.” (3.2.85-87). The way in which he spoke and by telling the citizens the context of Caesar’s will, turned the mob against Brutus and the rest of the conspirators. The anger possessed by the countrymen can be shown when a plebeian says, “Most noble Caesar! We’ll revenge his death!” (2.2.244). This betrayal by Antony caused Brutus to break off their friendship.

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’

Brutus used repetition the most to influence the crowd. He states about Caesar’s “tears, love, and ambition.” Brutus also asked the audience rhetorical questions that they could not answer, and he would take their silence as if they were agreeing when in reality they were probably too scared to answer. Antony also used repetition to sway the crowd. He often pointed out that “Brutus was an honorable man” and he said it with more and more sarcasm each time. Antony also took advantage of the crowd and used reverse psychology on them. He used Caesar’s will as a tool to accomplish this. He told the crowd about Caesar’s will, telling them that they would think twice if they heard what was in the will, but he doesn’t read it to them. That made them beg for him to read it to them. Not only does this get them to do what he wants, it also give the crowd a false sense of authority over Antony. Also, he asks the crowd if he can come down and join them, saying they give him permission, again giving them that sense of authority. Antony, in addition to the will, used Caesar’s body as a prop in his speech. He created a sympathetic attitude towards Caesar. The other pathos appeal Antony used was the contrast that he showed between the beginning and end of his speech. He opened, saying he was only to “bury Caesar, not to praise him” yet towards the end he had accomplished his goal in making the crowd feel sorry for Caesar and wanting to

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.

Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli were both incredibly influential in the development of Western philosophical thought, specifically in relation to ethics in politics. Machiavelli’s text The Prince, written during a period of political turmoil in Italy, outlines the necessary steps a prince must take to obtain both power and authority. Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates assesses the moral and ethical guidelines an ideal leader should possess through the beliefs and teachings of Socrates. While both texts had similar objectives, their opinions were quite contradictory. Socrates would have found Machiavelli’s concept of the “Prince”, and the government he creates to be both unethical and fundamentally flawed. Socrates places higher value on the maintenance and creation of justice, while Machiavelli stresses the process of obtaining and preserving power, unethical or not. Due to their differences in their ideas of virtue, knowledge, and justice it can be concluded that Socrates would not be supportive of the government in which The Prince proposes.

Antony’s manipulation of the plebeians makes him stronger but it also makes Brutus, who had just as much of a chance as Antony did at latching them onto his army, weaker. Brutus’ speech is rather weak because he doesn’t go that extra mile when trying to engrave his points in the plebeian’s brain. His speech is very basic, and because the plebeians are so easy to sway, he is able to initially grab hold of their minds. After this, Antony comes up and uses many tactics for a more effective process of manipulation. First, he shoots down any positive points that Brutus made by counteracting them, and although Brutus went first, he could have tried to cover himself better, for he had to have some kind of idea where Antony would be coming from. For example, Antony mocks Brutus by saying “But Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man,” (Act III Scene II 95-96) and this, as well as his points counteracting Caesar’s ambitiousness, voids out Brutus’ idea of the common good in the plebeians’ minds. Antony also uses visualization as a tactic when he picks up Caesar’s mantle to show just how violent Caesar’s murder was, which again reiterates the fact that it couldn’t have been done completely for the common

The tragic and untimely death of Julius Caesar, a condemned Roman tyrant, triggered William Shakespeare's creativity. In his play Julius Caesar Shakespeare writes of the treacherous conspirators, Marcus Brutus and Caius Cassius, and their plans to assassinate their Roman leader, Julius Caesar. The story continues to explain how Caesar's loyal friend, Marc Antony, helps avenge the brutal murder. After Antony receives soldiers to fight his battle, his character begins to change. The  fair and faithful Marc Antony transforms to a darker and more deceitful character. Marc Antony is not suitable to rule Rome because he holds a grand desire of great power, his conceit

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 William Shakespeare have many themes in the story and, throughout the scenes. I came upon the theme of people with power can control people and cause other to do things without them having a say so in the situation. The odd thing in the story is Caesar had gained so much power that it's nearly impossible for him to lose it. Julius Caesar was the only one known to have that much control over people, it was like a mind control type of thing. These were vast amounts of people that Caesar had control over and that might explain a reason for him not being to lose his power. Working on a Friendship could be considered another lesson of Julius Caesar and William Shakespeare. Throughout the story people had fall outs and other

Machiavelli’s advice for being a successful prince draws from the actions of Moses and the Old Testament God. Moses’ experiences as a leader in Exodus show human nature to be as Machiavelli describes in The Prince. Furthermore, Machiavelli uses Moses as a model for how to rule despite humanity’s difficult nature. While Moses and God control the Israelites using fear and the “Ten Commandments,” Machiavelli creates his own set of Commandments for princes. Machiavelli’s The Prince consists of concrete advice for rulers that reflect the more abstracted stories in Exodus.