Those speakers who utilize pathos, logos, and ethos in order to engage their audiences win their favor more often than not. Point being, in Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, the character Antony wins the bona-fide of the Roman people by using the icon of Julius Caesar’s body (post mortem) in order to solicit a hatred in the plebeians against Brutus who used his elements of rhetoric ineffectually. Hence, Antony is more auspicious in his arguments as he has the greater mastery in the rhetorical triangle, hence why he is able to turn the plebeians to mutiny against Brutus despite Brutus delivering an equally impassioned speech. Though Antony and Brutus are both equally utilizing the element of pathos in their respective speeches,
…show more content…
Brutus has erstwhile established himself as a man disposed to the will of the people and therefore deserving of their affection and praise for “he is an honorable man”. Antony’s, on the contrary, bears effective use of destroying ethos especially through the use of the ad-hominem offense which seeks to attack the opponent’s (i.e. Brutus’s) reputation, thus sullying it. In particular, Antony seeks to make the plebeians call into question the honor of Brutus by incessantly bringing up the rhetorical question of whether or not “Brutus is an honorable man” in spite of the acts of ruthlessness he committed against his own friend, Caesar; justifying such acts because “he (Caesar) was ambitious” (III,II,95-96). Such an insubstantial defense against an unanswered attack makes Brutus seem like charlatan, someone who manipulates the feelings of the people for his benefit, moreover, then tries to prove the legitimacy of their actions to the rabble when they are most susceptible to truths- at the beginning- when events are unclear. Ultimately, Brutus, due to this public shamming, is demonized by his own constituents, and now more than ever his entire validity is brought under the scrutiny of the crowd, allowing for Antony to pass off his ideas
Brutus has erstwhile established himself as a man disposed to the will of the people and therefore deserving of their affection and praise for “he is an honorable man”. Antony’s, on the contrary, bears effective use of destroying ethos especially through the use of the ad-hominem offense which seeks to attack the opponent’s (i.e. Brutus’s) reputation, thus sullying it. In particular, Antony seeks to make the plebeians call into question the honor of Brutus by incessantly bringing up the rhetorical question of whether or not “Brutus is an honorable man” in spite of the acts of ruthlessness he committed against his own friend, Caesar; justifying such acts because “he (Caesar) was ambitious” (III,II,95-96). Such an insubstantial defense against an unanswered attack makes Brutus seem like charlatan, someone who manipulates the feelings of the people for his benefit, moreover, then tries to prove the legitimacy of their actions to the rabble when they are most susceptible to truths- at the beginning- when events are unclear. Ultimately, Brutus, due to this public shamming, is demonized by his own constituents, and now more than ever his entire validity is brought under the scrutiny of the crowd, allowing for Antony to pass off his ideas