In “Brutus and Antony’s Funeral Speeches for Caesar”, both men use persuasion; I feel Antony’s use of pathos, repetition, parallel structure, and verbal irony made Antony, however, more persuasive. Antony is more persuasive because he tugs on his audience's heartstrings, invoking empathy and Antony repeatedly makes a mockery of Brutus. At the beginning of Antony’s speech he begs for his “ [f]riends, [the] Romans, and countrymen [to] lend [him their] ears”(Shakespeare). Antony is asking his audience to listen to hear him out. By asking his people for attention, instead of demanding it like Brutus does by telling the people to “be silent” and “respect [his] honour”, Antony appears humble drawing attention and respect to Caesar(Shakespeare).
In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Brutus and Antony attempt to persuade the audience of their position on the death of Caesar. While Brutus explains that his death was necessary, Antony claims that Caesar was not deserving of his demise. However, though Brutus does have ample credibility and taps into the emotional link with his audience to some extent, he does not convey as powerful of an argument as Antony, as he fails to provide sufficient factual evidence. Antony, on the other hand, utilizes logical argumentation with solid evidence, creates an emotional connection with his audience, and maintains credibility in order to support his own argument. Through this, it can be seen that Antony’s use of rhetorical appeals and devices is superior to Brutus’s in its ability to persuade the Roman audience.
Brutus used pathos excessively in his funeral speech and they appealed to the Plebeians’ sense of patriotism and love. Before Brutus joined Cassius’ conspiracy, he was one of Caesar’s favorites, a close friend, and well-respected and trusted by Caesar. When Cassius brought out the idea of the conspiracy, Brutus anxiously pondered and conflicted with himself about it, but in the end joined with the genuine belief that it will benefit the people of Rome. He hoped Caesar’s death would end corruption in Rome, and the distress and sadness of the citizens. Thus, he used pathos in his funeral speech in order to appeal to the sense of patriotism and love for home. Brutus said, “If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:
Throughout his famous speech in the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, Mark Antony continuously propagandizes the crowd using his eloquence. From the very beginning of his speech, Antony is facing a crowd that is already not on his side. His unique elocution allows him to fairly easily brainwash the throng into submitting to his ideas about Julius Caesar’s death. Using rhetorical appeals such as logos and pathos, Mark Antony changes the mob’s mind in a timely manner. He uses plausible and convincing reasoning, rationale, and emotional appeal in order to indoctrinate the multitude of Romans into believing what he has to say. Antony’s exceptional mellifluousness helps him put it all together though, leading to the final product that is his acclaimed speech. Mark Antony possesses phenomenal enunciation and flaunts his rare skill admirably as he dexterously instills his views into the brains of the Romans.
...cessful but Mark Anthony’s speech is much more effective. Ultimately Brutus is trying to defend himself for the killing of Caesar. He wanted to prove to the townspeople that what he did was for the liberty and justice of the Roman Empire. Mark Antony was successful because in his speech he uses a masterful combination of ethos, logos, pathos. He also uses a lot of repetition and rhetorical irony which indirectly shows the crowd that Brutus is not an honorable man and what he does is very wrong. Antony shows true compassion to the common people and the passion won the their hearts over. Antony uses more of a pathos, emotional appeal, unlike Brutus who uses more logos and ethos. Antony’s tone in his speech was melancholy and the crowd could see true sympathy. Antony was ultimately able to persuade his point of view to the crowd and was more victorious than Brutus.
Brutus has a clear and concise argument that depicts the logical tendency of his thinking. Antony's argument is the foil of Brutus's, kindling the crowd's anger by constantly letting his emotions push his speech forward. But just as fire can offer warmth during chilling times, it can also cause severe damage. Because of Antony's speech, an innocent poet was killed and Rome was almost destroyed. Brutus managed to take a group of passionate, outraged people and calm them enough to see the reasoning in Caesar's murder. He went to great lengths with the techniques of ethos, parallelism/repetition, and logos to help others look forward into a promising future without Caesar. And though the crowd chose differently, from these aspects one can conclude Brutus had the superior speech.
Analysis of the Funeral Speeches of Brutus and Marc Antony from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar At the funeral of Julius Caesar two characters make speeches to the plebeian mob, Brutus and Marc Antony. Shakespeare shows us the personalities of the two orators and gives one an advantage over the other. Marc Antony has an advantage over Brutus because he speaks after Brutus and he has Caesar’s body. He also interrupts Brutus’ speech.
Antony exceeds Brutus in the matter of performance because he spells out his evidence without using words. His use of these nonverbal tools helps him draw the attention of the fickle audience. After Brutus finishes his plain and dull speech, Antony takes the stand with a bored and fickle audience not only by using clever speech tactics, but by keeping their fading attention by using nonverbal tactics. The use of these so-called props keep them listening as he explains himself. For example, right when the audience is about to leave in fury, he brings them back saying, “You have forgot the will I told you of” (3.2 252). This fickle audience is drawn back to Antony to listen for their share and this makes them even more upset. This explains that
Marc Antony asked to speak at Caesar’s funeral, and Brutus only allowed to do so on certain conditions. Conditions were that Brutus would speak first and Antony would speak immediately after. Antony needed to also not blame the conspirators for anything and admit that he was only allowed to speak based on Brutus’s permit (Act III.Scene I.254-271). Cassius is wary of this agreement, and he says to Brutus aside, “...do not consent that Antony speak in his funeral: Know how much the people may be moved by that which he utter?” (Act III.Scene I. 248-253) Cassius was well aware that Antony had the art of knowing the man. Antony’s rhetoric significance of emotional appeal, pathos, is indicated in the way he speaks. Antony denied any ability to “stir men’s blood.” as he puts it.
As a final point, Antony and Brutus both spoke at Caesar’s funeral to prove their reasoning’s to the people. Antony’s speech turned out to be the more effective one because he manipulates the words ambitious and honorable to contradict Brutus, he uses props to provide substantial evidence to the people, and his speech was more effective because it essentially persuaded the people to be on his side whereas Brutus did not convince the people of anything.
During Brutus’ speech, he used pathos to establish the emotional contact with the Romans that Antony’s was lacking. Having one’s audience emotionally invested to their listening is precisely critical to have a greater outcome. Using a great deal of emotion, Brutus spoke, “I have the same dagger for myself, when it shall please my county to need my death” (3.2.37-38). By saying this, Brutus made all the Romans feel compassionate about his strong devotion towards Rome. Since he was willing to die, the Romans foresee him as a hero. Although Antony used emotions in his speech, he did not use it to the extent Brutus did, “I will not do them wrong; I rather choose to wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you, than I will wrong such honourable men”
Although both gentlemen used the same three persuasive appeals in their speeches, one was obviously more effective. Antony did a more sufficient job of getting his point across. He understood what he would have to od to win the crowd. He used the three appeals, ethos, pathos, and logos, to his advantage and evn though Brutus also used the same three appeals, his speech did not impact the Roman countrymen nearly as much as Antony. Both speeches had the same structure and used the same rhetorcial devices but Antony’s speech was much more influencial and because of that, he help build the great history that is Rome.
...ns. This made Antony's speech more effective in the fact that he used detailed reasoning for why Caesar was not ambitious. This was why the people came to his favor in the end. The tones and rhetorical devices they used helped to capture their audience by appealing to their emotions and helping to move the views of Antony and Brutus's views across to their listeners. Comparing effectiveness and ineffectiveness of both speeches was important in determining which way the people would be swayed.
In my books, those types are the best at persuading people. Antony took a swing right at the Plebeians feelings by showing them their ruler that they all had loved and cared about for so long. Antony played with the emotions of the people to make them angry and sad, this turned out to be very aiding in persuading the angry plebeians further. Also, Antony completely made Brutus look like a fool by naming off all the reasons why Caesar was ‘ambitious’ (Lines 73- 107). Lastly, Antony crammed his speech full of logic. What is it that everyone will remember in the future? The facts. Brutus could’ve went on all day with asking the Plebeians rhetorical questions, but in the end it didn’t matter because Antony got the people red-hot and ready to
Can one really justify killing a fellow human being? I’m not sure anyone can, but between the two very convincing speeches of Brutus and Antony I would say Antony’s speech was more powerful or convincing. Antony used logos to refute Brutus’ claim, that Caesar was ambitious and therefore had to be killed, and used pathos to spark emotion in the audience of Plebeians and convince them he was right. During Brutus’ speech he convinced the crowd that Caesar was ambitious, too ambitious, to the point where he should be killed, but Anthony did not agree. Anthony used logos by provided a few examples of when Caesar was not as Brutus’ described him one being that, “he that brought many captives home to Rome/ Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:/
Antony’s goal was to persuade the crowd of plebeians that the conspirators acted impetuously and Caesar did not need to be killed. He uses many rhetorical devices to strengthen his speech and gain the support of the crowd. From rhetorical questions to the use of pathos, Antony masters the art of persuasion. His speech moves the crowd from believing Brutus’ reasoning for killing Caesar, to understanding that Caesar did not have to die.