Imagine that you are a citizen in Rome, and your ruler, Julius Caesar, just got murdered. Your emotions are everywhere and you are very vulnerable. That's how the people of Rome felt in the play, "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar." The Romans where looking for any type of clarity on why this happened, so both Brutus and Mark Antony delivered speeches. Brutus used the rhetorical devices antithesis, epimone, and logos, while Mark Antony used paralipsis and pathos, to evoke the preferred mob mentality that each one wanted.
Brutus was one of the conspirators that murdered Caesar, so he wanted to defend himself and explain why he did what he did. Brutus uses antithesis, putting two contrasting ideas together, to emphasize the differences in the …show more content…
He wants to evoke negative emotions towards the conspirators from the crowd. Antony uses paralipsis, an idea that is briefly mentioned while other points are omitted, to "accidently" tell the crowd certain things. For example, Antony tells the Romans, "...I must not read it. It is not meet you know how Caesar loved you...'Tis good you know not that you are his heirs" (3.2 pg.5). Antony is dropping clues that Caesar truly loved the people and that he included them in his will. While Brutus uses logos, Antony uses pathos, emotion, in his speech to evoke mad and rebellious emotions against the conspirators among the Roman people.
In the end, Brutus and Mark Antony had very different ideas on how to influence the Roman people. If the crowd kept a positive attitude towards Caesar's murder, then Brutus would have become the new ruler of Rome and would have still been alive, along with the other conspirators. Instead, the crowd believed in the negative ideas Mark Antony was feeding them, and they decided to kill and run the conspirators out of the city. Overall, Mark Antony's speech and his use of rhetorical devices was more powerful than Brutus' speech, and made the ending of the tragedy the way it
Brutus was one of the conspirators that murdered Caesar, so he wanted to defend himself and explain why he did what he did. Brutus uses antithesis, putting two contrasting ideas together, to emphasize the differences in the …show more content…
He wants to evoke negative emotions towards the conspirators from the crowd. Antony uses paralipsis, an idea that is briefly mentioned while other points are omitted, to "accidently" tell the crowd certain things. For example, Antony tells the Romans, "...I must not read it. It is not meet you know how Caesar loved you...'Tis good you know not that you are his heirs" (3.2 pg.5). Antony is dropping clues that Caesar truly loved the people and that he included them in his will. While Brutus uses logos, Antony uses pathos, emotion, in his speech to evoke mad and rebellious emotions against the conspirators among the Roman people.
In the end, Brutus and Mark Antony had very different ideas on how to influence the Roman people. If the crowd kept a positive attitude towards Caesar's murder, then Brutus would have become the new ruler of Rome and would have still been alive, along with the other conspirators. Instead, the crowd believed in the negative ideas Mark Antony was feeding them, and they decided to kill and run the conspirators out of the city. Overall, Mark Antony's speech and his use of rhetorical devices was more powerful than Brutus' speech, and made the ending of the tragedy the way it