The Better Speech “A speech should not be just be a sharing of information, but a sharing of yourself.” This quote by Ralph Archbold is relevant in Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar when Brutus and Antony spoke to the people of Rome, after Caesar’s death. Although Brutus was an honorable man, his speech did not get the outcome he wanted. Antony was very cunning, concise and used pathos to influence the people of Rome. Overall, Antony knew beforehand how to manipulate the crowd with his speech more than Brutus.
In The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare, a horrendous crime took place, in Act three Scene 1. Julius Caesar was killed by the conspirators. After his murder Antony, fearing for his life sympathized with the conspirators, but he became determined to prove they were criminals. The great and “honourable” Brutus and Cassius, talk to the crowd of plebeians, to announce the death of Caesar and to justify the terrible crime. Antony gave Caesar 's funeral speech, was not involved in the murder, but he declared loyalty to the murderers, but he still remained loyal to Caesar.
Rhetorical Differences The reason Brutus failed to continue to have the citizens of Rome persuaded is simplified in this quote by Robert A Heinlein: “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.” Brutus failed while Antony succeeded because Brutus relied on logic whereas Antony relied on the emotions of the people. Despite the fact that Antony did it for the wrong reasons, he obviously was more skilled in rhetoric than Brutus.
In the play Julius Caesar, Antony’s speech was more persuasive than Brutus’s speech. Antony persuaded the people of Rome not by what he said, but by how he said it. Pathos and logos were used as a means of persuasion throughout his speech. He also used lots of literary devices in his speech like irony, bandwagon, strawman, appeal to pity, and symbolism. The most common type of irony used was verbal.
Antony’s Speech “The evil that men do is remembered after their deaths, but the good is often buried with them.” Julius Caesar was writing by William Shakespeare, the play was about a group of men that wanted to kill Caesar so he wouldn’t be king. Brutus gave Antony the permission to speak at Caesar's funeral. Right before the speeches Antony had to ask for permission to speak at Caesar's funeral they said he could unless he doesn’t talk about them killing him.
Brutus and Antony speak in Caesar's funeral, they use ethos, pathos, and logos to get their point across. With the use of the pathos, logos, and ethos Brutus gets the attention of the commoners. He asks the commoners if what he is going to say is going to offend them, if it does he asks of them to leave there and they all tell Brutus no. Antony speaks before Brutus and gets his point across but fails at his point and just gets the crowd thinking. Brutus than uses his speech techniques to win over the commoner’s ears to listen to him.
In the play Julius Caesar, there are many different speeches made by many different characters. The two that give the best examples of rhetoric are those made by Brutus and Mark Antony. They are both on two different ends of the spectrum and are completely different though. Mark Antony Is an amazing speaker, he knows how to talk to a crowd and get them to join him in his endeavors. While Brutus is the exact opposite, he is not a very good speaker and has trouble getting the people on his side.
As we all know Julius Caesar died on March 15th 44 b.c. due to him being ambushed and stabbed by his most trusted friend Brutus for being too “ambitious.” The question that I now ask is if Caesar’s death was justifiable or not. In the play, we have two different point of views from two different characters; Brutus and Antony.
How does a comparison of Machiavelli’s The Prince and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar reflect the way their particular social, cultural and historical context can influence their choice of language, forms and features and the ideas, values and attitudes? Through a comparison, the historical, cultural and social context of literature are reflected through a writer’s language forms and features, highlighting the relevance of the ideas, values and attitudes of their time. As made evident throughout the Renaissance with Niccolo Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince,” which reveals itself to be a political guide on gaining and ruling a kingdom for Lorenzo De Medici, a potential candidate for leadership of Italy. Similarly, in William Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar,’
How would you persuade the common people to support the correct cause? During this time in Act 3 of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, Caesar was recently assassinated by Brutus and other conspirators. Brutus first delivered a speech to try and gain people on his side, and Antony followed. Antony's speech was the most effective because he appeals to the peoples emotions and uses evidence. The first reason why Antony's speech was the most effective was because it appealed to the audience's emotions.
Brutus and Antony both give speeches at Julius Caesar's funeral. Both men use a variety of ethos, pathos and logos as well. Although both men have very good points, it is clear Antony's speech is more persuasive because he uses ethos, pathos, and logos to appeal to the crowd more than Brutus does. Antony's speech is also more efficiet because he shows emotion and sympathy for the plebeians this makes the plebeians feel as if Antony is one of them and understands how they feel.
The tragic flaw in Marcus Brutus was his pride. Brutus was lulled into the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar with Cassius’ flattery and also flattery in the form of letters forged by Cassius to appear that various Romans had lauded Brutus. Brutus would best fit Aristotle’s description of the tragic hero because of his pride—that is, pride in his integrity and pride in his reputation. Brutus’ pride in his integrity is demonstrated when Cassius approaches him because Brutus has “wronged” Cassius (p. 103-105) In a time of battle, Brutus attacked Cassius for defending a man who took bribes from the Sardians (p. 103).