The play by shakespeare called julius caesar was about the story of julius caesar. The story of Julius caesar was that he was stabbed to death by the whole senate. At one part in the play two people named Mark Antony and Brutus started to argue and try to persuade the people in some way by using different rhetorical techniques. Brutus used pathos to persuade the people that he chose right and he was still honorable and caesar deserved to die, but brutus mourned for his death just like the people. Antony used a logos and pathos technique to persuade the people that brutus was bad and that julius did nothing wrong, by using examples Antony made a valid point. Honestly I think antony did a better job at persuading than brutus did because he used examples from julius’s life and all he did. …show more content…
Antony is sarcastic whenever he says brutus is an honorable man and calls him out on his faults and choices. In the text Antony says “He hath brought many captives home to rome whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:Did this in caesar seem ambitious?”. This is when Antony uses an example and a rhetorical question to show that brutus was wrong and that caesar was a good man and wasn’t ambitious. Secondly, Antony did a better job because of the way he pulled everyone in and included logistic examples. Antony goes into detail about all the good that caesar did for people and how julius wasn’t ambitious and actually denied the crown and the power multiple times.In the text it says julius refused the crown 3 times “You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse”. This proves to people that caesar didn’t want all that power thus proves that caesar wasn’t ambitious, julius just wanted to help the people out and be a good