A Comparison Of Brutus And Antony In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

William Shakespeare’s tragedy, Julius Caesar, is based on the plot against and the assassination of the ancient Roman general, Julius Caesar. After being stabbed twenty-three times by Roman senators for conspiring against Rome, Caesar is buried and at his funeral, two of his closest associates, Brutus and Marc Antony, present speeches which provide their perspectives on Caesar’s death. Brutus justifies his role in Caesar’s assassination and Antony counters Brutus’s allegations. Although both delivered strong, well-constructed speeches, Brutus’s use of pathos, ethos, and rhetorical questions is far more effective than Antony’s. Brutus’s appeal to the audience’s emotions of guilt is much more convincing, compared to Antony’s. “Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men?” (113). Brutus claims that if Caesar would’ve lived he would’ve deprived the people of their freedom and ruled with an iron fist. He appeals to the audience’s feelings of guilt AND fear by making those who supported Caesar feel as if

“With this I depart, that, as I slew my best lover for the good of Rome. I have the same dagger for myself, when it shall please my country to need my death” (113). Brutus declares that he would be willing to kill himself if he were to ever threaten the good of Rome. By declaring his own sacrifice, he establishes his credibility as a true protector and patriot of Rome. Whereas, Antony’s credibility is weakened by his own argument. “Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest, come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral. He was my friend, faithful, and just to me” (114). Antony builds on his credibility by saying that although he was below Caesar, he was still his friend and he was still treated fairly. Nonetheless, being Caesar’s friend would lead to some amount of bias, therefore diminishing Antony’s credibility, rather than strengthen