Julius Caesar Rhetorical Analysis

674 Words2 Pages

Perhaps too much credit is given to emotional persuasion for attempting to sway a crowd. In fact, many great speakers have relied on this rhetorical tool. However one must not underestimate the power of facts and reasoning, especially when it comes to a political figure in question like Julius
Caesar. Although Brutus had stronger emotional appeal (and manipulation) throughout his funeral orientation, Antoine's logic outweighs Brutus's rhetorical claims. In terms of credibility, both men are akin in their loyalty to Caesar. Between these two men, Mark Antony’s argument against Caesar’s ambition in supported by real events and facts.
Brutus, in comparison to Mark Antony, has implemented pathos more successfully throughout his speech. Brutus's …show more content…

this statement shows selflessness in Brutus's actions, and makes the crowd look to him for reassurance in later claims. This latch to his soap-box speech is what enables Brutus to get passionate about Roman liberty and in turn excites the crowd as well.
Brutus’s first defense in slaying Caesar was for the well-being of the people, and his allegiance to the people of Rome brings him to offer his own death if the crowd so pleases, “... I have the same dagger for myself, when it shall please my country...”(3.2). Threatening to kill himself, even if it be for the people, gives off a manipulative tone. At this point of the speech, Brutus excited the crowd in his idea against tyranny, and in offering his own death brings even more admiration to Brutus's selfless motives, yet evokes fear of losing a great man at their expense.
Mark Antony on the other hand, is very blunt with the romans, and scolds them for their ignorance, “You all did love him once...what cause withholds you...to mourn for him? (3.2). Mark’ - - - - ark's speech is factual and straight to the point, and while effective in making the people …show more content…

In terms of credibility, both men are akin in their loyalty to Caesar. These two men openly state their fondness for Caesar, “As Caesar loved me, I weep for him...” (Brutus, 32),
“He was my friend, faithful and just to me...” (Antony, 32). Mark Antony and Brutus equally respected Caesar and were not biased towards his character. The oppositions narrowed down to the outcome of Caesar gaining power, meanwhile their view of him in general was analogous.
That being said, their shared loyalty does not hold the other man more credible than the other.
Their persuasion is focused within the arguments against or for Caesar’s death. Mark Antony’s opposition towards Caesar’s death is supported by ം്ia reasoning based off of real events. This rhetorical method is what makes the strongest speech overall. Antony mentions a series of events both he and the crowd were present at, holding the crowd accountable “you all did see at Lupercal I thrice presented him with a crown, which he did thrice refuse was this ambition?”(3.2). Evidence of three sovereign opportunities thrice refused contradicts Brutus's claim that Caesar was ambitious. Brutus's speech attempts to implore logical reasoning, but

Open Document