Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

In a classic Shakespeare play, Julius Caesar, Antony and Brutus go toe-to-toe at Caesar’s funeral.

Although, to
Brutus’s dismay Antony’s speech was better.
    To begin, Brutus’s speech was formal and more directed to the Romans. In his introduction he starts with
“Romans, countrymen, and lovers!” This was used to join everyone together and later help him justify Caesar’s
death. Throughout the text he describes Caesar as an “ambitious” man. Calling Caesar ambitious makes it
seem that Caesar only thought about himself.
    On the hand, Antony’s speech was more personal and sarcastic. In contrary to Brutus he opens his speech
with “Friends, Romans, countrymen…”. This sets up his later statements of being Caesar’s friend. Throughout
his speech, he uses paralipsis and repetition to poke at Brutus but at the same time save Caesar’s reputation.
   Specifically, Antony repeatedly used the word “honorable” to describe Brutus. The effect of this was that he
was contradicting Brutus’s speech. A paralipsis is a device used to draw attention to something while claiming
to pass it over. There are two examples of this one is “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.” But throughout
the speech he praises Caesar and what he as done. Another example is “I speak not to disprove what Brutus
spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know.”, although he talks good about Caesar and what he has done for
Rome, in contrary to what Brutus said.
    While comparing the two speeches I have found that Antony’s speech was more persuasive. He made points
to contrast what Brutus said in his speech about Caesar. He says that Brutus was wrong, and he put a new spin
on it. For instance, Brutus says “Had you rather Caesar was living and die all slaves…” which was countered by
Antony. It was countered by Antony saying that Caesar felt deeply for his people and that he was a very humble
kindhearted person.
    Throughout Antony’s speech he uses devices, tactics, and his sympathy to his advantage. Brutus only had one
point, which was that he killed Caesar for Rome, to stand on. All in all, Antony’s speech was better and more
persuasive than Brutus's.

Which speech was more Persuasive ?


Mark Antony's speech was more persuasive than Brutus's simply because, Brutus was only trying to persuade
the audience that killing Caesar was the right thing to do. Antony's goal was to rally up the commoners to
revenge Caesars tragic death. Antony mentioned how he and Caesar were really good friends and discuussed
how hurt he was that he lost such a good friend. Antony persuaded the audience by telling the commoners what
he wanted to do, was to keep his promise with Brutus and that was to say nothing bad about him. 
What examples of appeals to emotion did Brutus use? What examples did Antony use? Who handled the appeal
to emotion better ? 
Brutus used ethics by pointing out that he is very loyal to Rome before before he is even loyal to his closest
friends. His goal was to impress the commoners. 

Antony used very convincing characteristics in his speech to persuade his audience. His goal was to try to get
the commoners to fully believe him and see who the real murder is and set a look out for them. 
<I think Antony handled the appeal to emotion better because he discussed how he felt loosing a true friend . 
What examples of appeals to reason did Brutus use? What examples did Antony use? Who handled the appeal
to reason better? 
Brutus uses ethic to by suggesting that anyone who opposes Caesar's murder must also oppose Rome and
therefor hate his own Country. 
Antony uses persuasion to win over the crowd, and he makes a promise to Brutus not to speak bad things about
them as to killers and not give them away so he twisted his promise around so it can backfire on Brutus as the
killer. Antony handled his appeal better by getting the crowd to change their minds and find the real killer. 
Brutus's appeal to ethics was definitely to win the crowd and try to be loyal but lie about him being the killer of
Caesar and he tried to be the the crowd to be impressed and see that he is loyal even before his closest friend. 

Antony's appeal really wasn't ethic, but persuading the crowd of not trying to really give out the killers, but also
keeping the promise he made to Brutus. In the end Antony did change the crowd mind and realized Brutus had
lied to them the whole time before. Antony nailed it way better. 

What examples of appeals to ethics did Brutus use? What examples did Antony use? Who handled the appeal to
ethics better? 
How did Antony win over the crowd ? 
What could have Brutus done differently ? 
Antony won over the crowd by telling them about him and Caesar friendship and telling them how he offered
Caesar to be king and handing Caesar the crown. but Caesar denied it. The crowd remembered all that Brutus
told them about how ambitious Caesar was so they believed Anthony and did not believe Brutus. 
Brutus could have told them all about Caesar denying a crown, or telling them about how good of friends him
and Caesar were.

One Major concern of Julius Caesaris about rhetoric-the skill of persuading others with words. In Act III,
Shakespeare pits Mark Antony's famous "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech (III, II) against Brutus'
"Romans, Countrymen, and Lovers" earlier in the scene. Read both carefully. Most find Antony's speech more
effective rhetoric (surely the crowd did!). Why is that? Does Shakespeare agree? Or disagree? Be able to argue
from care attention to the text, not just your general impressions.

You might consider what makes for effective persuasion, and what Shakespeare might be saying about
persuasion through presenting these two speeches. Break down as carefully as you can howeach speech
works,whateach speaker is trying to achieve, and how successful each was.

Compose an essay dealing with these question. SEt out a thesis (that is your position) and defend your thesis
with evidence from the text and your reasons and analysis. Please limit your answer to 2-3 pages (500-750
words, double spaced).

Here is my essay. I would appreciate advice, criticism and any typos that slipped through my proof read. 
Thanks

Julius Caesar is a play deeply concerned with the idea of rhetoric, or persuasion. The play is driven by
persuasion. Cassius convinces Brutus that Caesar must die, setting the story in motion. The resolution of the
plot is decided by Antony's speech to the plebeians. Shakespeare sees rhetoric as one of the most powerful
forces in the world; able to topple kings and crown them. The play, Julius Caesar, examines what gives rhetoric
its power by pitting Brutus's speech against Mark Antony's. Shakespeare shows Antony's rhetoric to be superior
by the effect he has on the plebeians. 

Brutus's speech fails to convince permanently win over the crowd because he does not understand them. His
first failure is at the beginning of his speech when he asks the plebeians to, "Censure me in you wisdom, and
awake your senses". It seems as though he does not realize that he is speaking to an angry mob. His argument is
based on cold and calculating reason. He argues that the love of freedom is stronger than the ties of friendship.
"Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more". This logic cannot sink deeply into an emotional
mob. He asks the plebeians to "Believe me for mine honor, and have respect to mine honor that you may
believe". He cannot use his honor as a reason for belief in his story when his honor is in question. Brutus fails to
offer any proof of Caesar's ambition, the central point of his argument. He ends his speech with a verbal attack
on any who disagree with him, essentially calling them cowards. This silences dissension temporarily but when
the other side is presented it does not help his cause. Brutus's argument fails because he much less a man of the
people than he would like to think.

Mark Antony's argument is a great piece of rhetoric. He successfully accomplishes his object of convincing the
plebeians that Brutus is a traitor. He has mastered the use of emotion, subtlety and logic. He uses emotional
phrases such as, "My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar" and "Oh judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts".
Which give him a connection with the emotion the crowd is feeling at the death of Caesar. He begins not by
attacking Brutus, but by praising Caesar. This serves to give him a greater common ground with the crowd, who
must have also remembered the things that Antony spoke of. He provides many counter-examples to Brutus's
claim that Caesar was ambitious. "I thrice presented him a kingly crown which he did thrice refuse". These
counter-examples give warrant to the crowd's rejection of Brutus. His reference to Brutus as an, "honorable
man" progresses from a simple statement to a mordant denunciation over the course of his speech. His indirect
way of showing the crowd his feelings makes his speech more effective. The crowd is guided but not forced to
his conclusions so that when they accept his argument they feel like it is their own. Antony is ultimately the
better orator because of his understanding of the crowd. 

Both Brutus and Mark Antony struggle for the support of the plebeians, who are portrayed as dumb and fickle.
This is at the heart of Shakespeare's idea of rhetoric. Rhetoric is pure persuasion; it is not bound by the same
rules as debate. Shakespeare does not pass judgment on the absolute validity of either argument in that scene.
The viewer is left to decide for himself who is truly right, but there is no doubt that Antony is the better speaker.