An honorable, respected official in Rome, Marcus Brutus, effectively claims to tell the people that he loved Caesar, but he loved Rome more and Caesar’s ambition was dangerous, therefore, he was justified in killing Caesar for the good of Rome. Brutus supports this claim asserting that he wants the crowd to know that he was justified in killing Caesar. Brutus uses connotation and logic to appeal to pathos and logos by stating, “Then none have I offended. I have done no more to Caesar than you shall do to Brutus. The question of his death is enrolled in the Capitol. His glory not extenuated wherein he was worthy, nor his offenses enforced for which he suffered death.” Brutus uses connotation in the words “none offended, extenuated, offenses enforced and suffered death” to create a sense that justice has been served. …show more content…
Secondly, he supports this claim asserting that his love for Rome was deeper than his love for Caesar. He uses parallelism to appeal to ethos and logos when stating, "As Caesar loved me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I slew him.” Brutus repeats the phrase “as he was ___, I ___ him;” to give more emphasis weather good or bad to each of Caesar's traits that he lists. This quote gives Brutus more authority by pairing Caesars positive traits with his reactions. Brutus then pairs Caesar’s negative traits with his good actions making him seem heroic. By doing this Brutus is able to state some reasons why he loved Caesar but how he loves Rome more. Finally, he supports this claim asserting that Caesar’s ambition was dangerous, therefore, he killed Caesar for the good of