In the play “Julius Caesar” two critical speeches are given one after another. The results of these speeches would in essence sentence one of the givers to death. Persuasion was the key to gathering the people in their favor. The question is was Brutus’ or Antony’s speech more persuasive. To provide a conclusion we will look at the speeches through Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle spending time in Pathos, Ethos, and finally Logos. When looking at the play both speeches contained a sufficient amount of pathos, however, Brutus and Antony both used it differently than one another. Brutus played upon the people's freedom and their fear of slavery by saying, “Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men?” In self-centering their thoughts, he drove their emotions to think about their own personal survival. Who would rather be in captivity, in bondage, in a place of no freedom? No man would shout out and declare that that is what he dreams about every night. That he wished to live in captivity. No, it is against human nature to want to live in …show more content…
In this particular area of rhetoric one speaker fell short. This speaker was the honorable Brutus who spent to much time making claims than backing them up with sufficient logic. He made the claim that, “as he was ambitious, I slew him.” After making this claim logic begs for evidence to support it, but Brutus does not supply. He believes that his honor suffices the need for logic, and it does until Antony rises to the podium. Antony comes out with logic in abundance. He states that Caesar loved the people, and desired nothing wrong for them. he says that Caesar was not ambitious. He supports those claims by saying, “You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?” By giving examples he one-upped Brutus and in my eyes won the persuasion