In his speech, Marc Antony argues that Brutus' statement that Caesar was ambitious is wrong, while Brutus argues that Caesar was ambitious and power-hungry. Marc Antony appeals to the pulpit by using a past occurrence to give them a reason and an example as to why they should believe him. "When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:/ Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:" (19-20 IIIii). Marc Antony uses this point to get the crowd to understand that Caesar was too emotional and had too big a heart to be considered ambitious. Caesar loved Rome and the people living there so much, that he would have never tried to put any of them in harm's way for the sake of gaining power. Brutus uses his own logic to appeal to the crowd by stating
…show more content…
Brutus uses rhetorical questions to get the pulpit to agree that if Caesar were still alive, he would be a tyrant. Mark Antony uses a fact to get the audience to agree with him. "He hath brought many captives home to Rome/ Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:/ Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?" (16-18 IIIii). He uses a past event as a disclaimer to Brutus' reason for killing Caesar because of his ambition. He then asks the pulpit this question to get them to think about which claim they consider to be true. Brutus uses an emotional question to have the pulpit feel anger towards Caesar's negative ambition. "Had you rather Caesar were living/ and die all slaves," (12-13 IIIii). Brutus uses this question to have the pulpit understand that Caesar needed to be killed or they would all be bending at his every command. His point is important in his argument because it uses the emotions of the audience as a way for them to feel anger towards Caesar, ultimately allowing them to realize that under Caesar, they would be slaves. Out of the arguments Marc Antony and Brutus presented, Brutus had the stronger of the two. Brutus used this argument and emotion to get the pulpit to agree with him because the audience can easily comprehend what he is saying and he presents it in such a way that if Caesar were not to have been killed, this slavery would have been the only
Brutus uses rhetorical questions to get the pulpit to agree that if Caesar were still alive, he would be a tyrant. Mark Antony uses a fact to get the audience to agree with him. "He hath brought many captives home to Rome/ Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:/ Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?" (16-18 IIIii). He uses a past event as a disclaimer to Brutus' reason for killing Caesar because of his ambition. He then asks the pulpit this question to get them to think about which claim they consider to be true. Brutus uses an emotional question to have the pulpit feel anger towards Caesar's negative ambition. "Had you rather Caesar were living/ and die all slaves," (12-13 IIIii). Brutus uses this question to have the pulpit understand that Caesar needed to be killed or they would all be bending at his every command. His point is important in his argument because it uses the emotions of the audience as a way for them to feel anger towards Caesar, ultimately allowing them to realize that under Caesar, they would be slaves. Out of the arguments Marc Antony and Brutus presented, Brutus had the stronger of the two. Brutus used this argument and emotion to get the pulpit to agree with him because the audience can easily comprehend what he is saying and he presents it in such a way that if Caesar were not to have been killed, this slavery would have been the only