In the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, two of the main characters, Antony and Brutus, both made speeches to the plebeians at Caesar’s funeral. Even though both of them had strong speeches, Antony came out on top. While both men used the same rhetorical devices, Antony was much more effective in persuading the people.
To start, both men used syllogisms in their speeches. By using syllogisms, both men got their points across easily and logically, diverting the attention of the people to the facts and not the details. Brutus starts a syllogism that also functions as a rhetorical question. The use of syllogisms is to bring out two main facts and use them to draw a conclusion. He calls out, “Had you rather Caesar were living and die …show more content…
Brutus gives his antithesis to claim his innocence and reasoning for the murder of Caesar by saying, “not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more,” Julius Caesar (3.2. 21-22). Brutus presents this antithesis to draw an ethical and emotional response from the crowd because of the contrast between loving Caesar less and loving Rome more. The strength of this is that it creates a parallelism of words that are a juxtaposition of each other. It causes the plebeians to see and emphasize the distinctions of the ideas that they might of looked over. Making them see, or think, that Brutus was really putting his honor on the line, just for the good of Rome. The antithetic prediction is that the hierarchy of Rome will make a line between tyranny and democracy by assassinating Caesar. Brutus uses this concept to convince the people he did the right thing. In comparison, Antony uses antithesis at the beginning of his speech to convince the people to listen to him. A few lines into his speech he informs the people, “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him,” Julius Caesar (3.2. 73). Antony said this because previously he had made a deal with the conspirators to not speak against them. By saying this it allows him to do just that in a way that clicks, not on the surface of the mind, but in the back. He uses his antithesis to to subtly trick the people into thinking it wasn’t a biased speech …show more content…
Before everything goes down, Anton claims himself to be “no orator” compared to Brutus. Consequently we can see that through logical syllogisms, emotional antithesis, and a logical and ethical anaphoric style of speech, Antony has stolen the hearts and mind of the people of Rome. By looking over the facts his subtle approach and persuasion moved the plebeians. He called out Caesar’s own faults with syllogism to get into their heads. He claims his own ignorance with an antithesis to get the people to listen to him. And finally he gets the people moved to his side through logical anaphora. In the end he charmed and swayed the people with his rhetoric. He was in a position to lead the wavering Romans down his own path that he created, and he did it perfectly, turning them against Brutus. The facts don’t lie; in the future, Antony seemingly could sway any crowd just as he did this
To start, both men used syllogisms in their speeches. By using syllogisms, both men got their points across easily and logically, diverting the attention of the people to the facts and not the details. Brutus starts a syllogism that also functions as a rhetorical question. The use of syllogisms is to bring out two main facts and use them to draw a conclusion. He calls out, “Had you rather Caesar were living and die …show more content…
Brutus gives his antithesis to claim his innocence and reasoning for the murder of Caesar by saying, “not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more,” Julius Caesar (3.2. 21-22). Brutus presents this antithesis to draw an ethical and emotional response from the crowd because of the contrast between loving Caesar less and loving Rome more. The strength of this is that it creates a parallelism of words that are a juxtaposition of each other. It causes the plebeians to see and emphasize the distinctions of the ideas that they might of looked over. Making them see, or think, that Brutus was really putting his honor on the line, just for the good of Rome. The antithetic prediction is that the hierarchy of Rome will make a line between tyranny and democracy by assassinating Caesar. Brutus uses this concept to convince the people he did the right thing. In comparison, Antony uses antithesis at the beginning of his speech to convince the people to listen to him. A few lines into his speech he informs the people, “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him,” Julius Caesar (3.2. 73). Antony said this because previously he had made a deal with the conspirators to not speak against them. By saying this it allows him to do just that in a way that clicks, not on the surface of the mind, but in the back. He uses his antithesis to to subtly trick the people into thinking it wasn’t a biased speech …show more content…
Before everything goes down, Anton claims himself to be “no orator” compared to Brutus. Consequently we can see that through logical syllogisms, emotional antithesis, and a logical and ethical anaphoric style of speech, Antony has stolen the hearts and mind of the people of Rome. By looking over the facts his subtle approach and persuasion moved the plebeians. He called out Caesar’s own faults with syllogism to get into their heads. He claims his own ignorance with an antithesis to get the people to listen to him. And finally he gets the people moved to his side through logical anaphora. In the end he charmed and swayed the people with his rhetoric. He was in a position to lead the wavering Romans down his own path that he created, and he did it perfectly, turning them against Brutus. The facts don’t lie; in the future, Antony seemingly could sway any crowd just as he did this