Julius Caesar Rhetorical Analysis: A Persuasive Balance

Julius Caesar Rhetorical Analysis: A Persuasive Balance

In this day and age, persuasion can be seen on almost any screen. The average American views thousands of advertisements every week. Most ads are simply pushed out of a person’s mind, but the successful advertisements are the ones that resonate with people. Some forms of ads are very annoying to those who put up with them constantly. Online pop-up ads, for example, are proven to do worse for products and business than no advertising at all! This is because this form of advertising does nothing to convince or persuade the person viewing the ad, and no effort is put into actually put into proving what it’s worth to make a point. Pop-ads make zero use of something known as “rhetorical devices”. In Julius Caesar, Brutus and Mark Antony both try to convey their point of view to a large audience of Roman citizens. One had a better speech than the other since he used “rhetorical devices” more effectively. Logos (logical; what makes sense), Ethos (ethics and morals; portraying similar beliefs and values), and Pathos (emotions; natural feelings that can be counterintuitive to logos) are the rhetorical devices that Aristotle

came up with centuries ago. Overall, Antony made the more convincing speech because he had better usage of the three rhetorical devices of logos, ethos, and pathos, counteracting Brutus’ claims.
In Brutus’ speech at Caesar’s funeral, he claims that he and the Roman citizens are alike, using Ethos as a main device. He first asked everyone to listen to know why he killed Caesar and to respect his honour, then proceeded to convey that he loved Caesar no less than anyone standing before him. He makes it clear during his speech that Caesar was overly ambitious. One of Brutus’ main claims was “Had you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men?” (3.2.12). While this statement definitely plays to the utmost fears of the Romans, it has an underlying usage of ethos. By questioning whether the people would want to be slaves or to have Caesar be killed by his own hands is making even the most infuriated by his acts reconsider what might have happened to everyone otherwise. He follows up with a question catering to his previous claim: “Who is here so base that would be a bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman?” (3.2.20) Asking if anyone is personally offended by his reasoning makes them feel pressured to agree with his actions by toying with their moral outlooks. Brutus very effectively used ethos to manipulate the extremely malleable plebeians for his cause.
Antony made his speech after Brutus was finished with his.

He carried carried out Caesar’s corpse and laid him down before the crowd as he began to speak. Antony has already used pathos as a strong rhetorical device. The sight of a dead body has brought a very serious and saddening atmosphere upon all onlookers. Antony begins by stating “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with Caesar.” (3.2.2) Explaining to the crowd that he is not going to praise Caesar for the man he was but rather respectively bury him for his funeral has established that he isn’t biased. Conveying that man's good deeds are often forgotten with death has stirred up a feeling of remorse towards Caesar; another usage of

pathos.
Antony makes remarks directly towards Brutus and his previous claims later in his speech. “The noble Brutus hath told you that Caesar was ambitious: … For Brutus is an honourable man; So they are they all, all honourable men-- Come I to speak at Caesar’s funeral.” (3.2.5-10) Saying that the conspirators were all honourable while standing above Caesar’s corpse is powerful ethos. It begs the question as to how honorable could these men be who have murdered Antony’s dear friend simply because of ambition? Something that really brought Antony’s speech into full frontal force was telling the people of Caesar’s personal decisions. “I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which thrice he did refuse: Was this ambition?” (3.2.24) Very clearly, this is a direct usage of logos since Antony is informing the crowd on how Caesar refused to be king multiple times.
In the end, both men attempted to make a speech that convinced the Roman civilization on their view of the situation. The reason Antony succeeded over Brutus may be contributed to the simple fact that he made his speech after Brutus did. While to a small extent this is true, I firmly believe he would have made a better speech regardless of when he spoke. The structure of Antony’s speech made better usage of all 3 rhetorical devices, like an orchestral symphony. Brutus was too concise and was feeding off of opinions rather than reasoning and facts. Antony genuinely persuaded the Romans for his cause, Brutus merely had the plebeians agree with him. If using rhetorical devices was so effective in this speech, perhaps it is still something that is still very useful even today. In fact, there is no question that advertising could greatly benefit from better inclusion of rhetorical devices when marketing a product. We can all better ourselves as intelligent people by using Aristotle's ancient rhetorical laws.