Julius Caesar Rhetorical Analysis Essay

1960 Words4 Pages

Master orators are people who can envelope crowds of people with their passages of perfectly chosen words woven together to move anyone through the usage of ethos, pathos, and/ or logos while simultaneously being the most unsuspicious man who no one thinks much of. Mark Antony of The Tragedy of Julius Caesar is a perfect candidate for a master orator. To understand why, the knowledge of the goings on of the Shakespearean play is necessary. Within the boundaries of this play, Julius Caesar has recently returned from another conquest. Conspirators against Caesar planned to kill him for mostly selfish reasons of jealousy and hatred under the preface of killing a possible tyrant. Once these conspirators finally get their plan and allies together, …show more content…

He gives them facts that they cannot dispute. He retells about how Caesar has “brought many captives home to Rome,/ Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill,” or that Caesar wept when the poor cried, but an ambitious man would be made of “sterner stuff” (III.ii.86-87 & 89). Antony then also used pathos within this section, to weaken the hold of Brutus’ words. Telling the people of how Caesar was always “faithful and just” to him (III.ii.82). Of how Caesar himself “wept” when his people cried (III.ii.88). Following even this, Antony shifted to using pathos. He spoke of how the crowd used to love Caesar like no other, and they loved the man with good reason, yet now they hate the man without reason. And that unjust loss of love to such a man was too much. It killed his heart. Hurt him more than any wound. Such is the thoughts behind the line of “bear with me,/ My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar “ (III.ii.102-103). To his respect, it worked as well as Antony spoke. The crowd began to question Brutus. Questioning whether he was true about the ambitions of Caesar. True about there being no reason to mourn him. The crowd was with Antony for his thoughts, and for the pain he suffered. For the fact that Antony is speaking to the crowd not moments after the death of his dearest friend shows the crowd how much Antony hurts. This sympathetic connection helps strengthen the affects of …show more content…

Antony begins by using the rhetoric strategy of using negative words before their actual point. By using the negative word, such as not or no, Antony actually emphasizes his true intentions while sounding like he’s abiding to the promises. Such lines using this are “let me not stir you up/ To such a sudden flood of mutiny” (III.ii.206-207). This line itself is heard in the crowd’s mind as “let me stir you up to a flood of mutiny.” The actual word “not” isn’t registered as well in the brain, and is thus ignored when registering what was said. Now the actual words he said abided to the promises he said, but the message heard was very manipulative. Antony then continues, saying how he is not an orator such as Brutus, or he cannot make any man’s blood boil by his words alone, for he is but a blunt man who speaks the truth. The saying of him being a blunt man though actually cements his rhetoric into the minds of all. By saying he only speaks blunt truth, the crowd now takes all he has and will say as truth, Believing all Antony says because of both the strengthening sympathetic bond and newly founded sayer-of -truthness. Once Antony was done laying the groundwork for their complete trust in him, Antony pulls the restraint off of the crowd’s emotions by reading the will. Becoming able to now direct and fuel the growing rage in the crowd. These

Open Document