Brutus speech in many ways differed from Antony’s speech. He used plenty of ethos and pathos but failed to use logos, Which Antony utilizes fairly well. A good example of pathos in famous speeches is Martin Luther King Jr’s “I have a dream”
Brutus’s and Antony’s speech both have fairly different meanings. Though you can find some similarities in their very eloquent speeches. Out of all the rhetorical devices one thing they use quite often is rhetorical question. For example in Brutus’s speech he says, “Who is here so base that would be a bondman?”. Antony uses, talking about crowning Caesar, “Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?”.
Author Barry Strauss wrote the similarities between Brutus from William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and the assassin of Abraham Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth in “The Death of Caesar: The Story of History’s Most Famous Assassination”. Booth had an obsession for the character of Brutus, and his assassination of Lincoln was connected to this. Even though the two assassinations are immensely different, the reasons behind them are alike. Strauss states that Booth had a great obsession with Brutus. Booth had performed in Shakespeare’s plays, his father and brother had Brutus in their name, and specifically loved the play Julius Caesar.
Antony knows the truth of the people, that is why his speech contains more pathos and ethos than Brutus’s. The outcome of the speeches are very similar. At the end of both, the crowd cheers for their leader because they are fickle and easily persuaded. One of Brutus’s fatal flaws was leaving and letting
In Brutus’s speech, he puts more weight on logos and ethos when orating to the commoners. Antony emphasizes an appeal to the emotions of the plebeians by referring to Caesar’s body, cloak, and will. He was also successful in counteracting Brutus’s claim of Caesar being too ambitious to be king of Rome. When Brutus is speaking, he takes a more logical route to attempt to persuade the people into believing his story.
In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Antony’s speech is more effective than Brutus’s, because Antony knew how to get to the Roman people better than Brutus. He knew how to manipulate the Roman people by using logos and pathos. Whereas Brutus was trying to convince the Roman people that Caesar's death was justified using ethos saying he was ambitious and the conspirators did it for the good of the Roman people. Mark Antony's speech starts with him using sarcasm and repetition, saying the conspirators are noble men, so he doesn't come off too strong right after Brutus’s speech by calling himself a plain man, nothing like the noble Brutus. He then uses logos by removing the cloak off Caesar, pointing out each stab mark on Caesar's lifeless body and
This is why Antony has a better speech. He persuaded his audience to look deeper than what Brutus was saying. He changed the mood with only a few words and that really helped him and his speech. Brutus delivers a speech explaining his reasoning on why he felt he needed to kill Caesar before Caesar could do any damage to his ambition. Brutus claims that Caesar was ambitious and that would be the downfall of Rome.
In Brutus’s speech he used ethos and logos to try and control the people of Rome. He was stoic and blinded of what Antony was capable of. He wanted to change their minds about the conspiracy and the murder of Caesar. Brutus says “Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men” (III, i, 23-24).
Antony wanted the crowd to listen to him and what he had to say. He also wanted to do nothing else but bury Caesar and have a funeral for him. He also had no other motives but to have a funeral while Brutus left and not staying for the funeral on honoring Caesar. Antony also wants to protect Caesars legacy and only wants to protect it and not ruin his legacy and he also isn't saying anything bad about Caesar. Mark Antony was also the better person to give the speech because the crowd turned against Brutus and went to Antonys side right
Brutus1 and Antony had two very different speeches. [To] began, the senators of Rome murder Caesar brutally in the senate after convincing him to come (and) have "drinks like friends". The senators all take stabs at Caesar and then finally kill him [They] did not have the greatest plan after they killed him though. (Antony] **is furiated (and) wants to start a war.
n the two speeches that Brutus and Mark Antony wrote in Julius Caesar they both had different understandings on Julius Caesar's death. Brutus seemed to think that Julius Caesar's death was ok and no need to find the murderer, but Mark Antony wanted to find his murderer because he was close to Julius Caesar. All of this and Brutus still saw Julius Caesar as a honorable man, but his death isn't as important as Rome is. In Brutus' speech he shows his devotion is given first to Rome then to his close friends.
Because Brutus uses prose, it is a reflection of his rational argument defending his reasoning for assassinating Caesar and his own rational thought process. Mark Antony however, approaches the audience with a more emotional and tactful oration. He speaks in iambic pentameter, which is common when one is speaking emotionally and passionately, as in the case of Mark Antony. This is an illustration of his emotion eliciting speech and passionate rebuttal of Brutus' accusation of Caesar's ambition. As for the actual content of the speeches, Brutus presented a group of more rational and intentional ideas rather than Mark Antony's sympathy and tact.
By speaking in prose, Brutus is trying to keep his speech simple, mimic ‘normal speech,’ and stay on the same level as his audience. He convinces the crowd that he is a concerned citizen and he was not trying to usurp the crown for his own personal agenda. He explains that it is his love for Rome outweighs his love for Caesar and because he thought that Caesar was hungry for power the only thing he could do was kill him. He does not believe that Caesar being king is in Rome’s best interest. Although he does a good job at convincing the Romans to his side, his skills as a orator were no match for Antony when he steps up to
So what was the purpose of their speeches? The Purpose of Brutus’s speech was to convince the Romans that killing Caesar was a good idea (Act III, Scene ii. Lines 21-27). Saying that he did he for the good of Rome and that if he would have ruled the Roman people would have been his slaves. Marc Antony’s purpose was the total opposite, he was trying to convince them that the conspirators were bad people and that killing Caesar was not a good think.
Brutus delivers his speech in a laudatory manner by conveying Caesar’s deeds and claiming he was ambitious, although Antony contradicts Brutus’ claims and says Caesar spurned the crown with the intent to merely rule as a de facto dictator. Brutus’ speech reveals his motives were truly for the benefit of Rome given his nationalistic tone and Antony’s speech was merely used to obscure his true motives, which was to embroil Rome in a series of civil wars to attain power. Brutus and Antony’s speeches consisted predominantly of Pathos and Ethos, but it is Antony who ultimately it is Antony who prevails because of his almost disingenuous attitude and even use of Logos which is seen when claims that reading Caesar’s will would dishonor his compeers and even Caesar
