Julius Caesar Rhetoric Analysis

The central theme of Act III, Scene ii of “Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare is the power of rhetoric because it shows the effect of two funeral orators’ on the crowd. In this scene, Antony and Brutus have similar purpose in talking to the public, which is to gain the support of the Plebeians according to their conflicting views about Caesar’s assassination. This essay focuses on comparing the orations of the two speakers in this part of the play according to Aristotle’s rhetoric system. According to Aristotle’s writings, Antony’s speech is more persuasive than Brutus’ speech, because he is able to provide logical, emotional and ethical appeals to his audience. Firstly, in comparison to Brutus’ logic, Antony provides more evidence to prove that Caesar was not ambitious. Secondly, Antony’s emotional acts and speech moved his audience more than Brutus. Finally, Antony acts more noble than Brutus does.

Antony mentions about the battles Caesar had won that gave more wealth to the country, “he hath brought many captives home to Rome whose ransoms did the general coffers fill”. Further, he also reminds the people when he offered Caesar a crown, but Caesar rejected it in his statement, “You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he thrice refuse: was this ambition?” Lastly, he tells the people about Caesar’s affection to the poor, “When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept”. Unlike Mark Antony, Brutus does not provide any evidence to prove his point that Caesar was ambitious. This information illustrates how logic reasons alter the people’s opinions. Thus, since Antony provide more evidences to support his opinion, people sided him instead of