Shall he be king or killed?
How were Brutus’s and Antony’s speeches different? How were they the same? Whose was better? When Brutus spoke he used a majority of logos and ethos, along with many fallacy. Mark Antony, in his monologue, used some logos, but mostly pathos and he too used fallacies. Although they had many differences there was several things that were the same. They had used many of the same ways to make their arguments better. The two speeches were meant to change the common people's opinions but Anthony did it much better.
In Brutus’s speech, to the commoners, he used mainly logos and ethos to make the audience believe that killing Caesar was the only way to save Rome. In several spots he simply told the audience he was honorable. For example, he said “Believe me for mine honor, and respect to mine honor that you may believe.” (III,ii,128-129) He states that, in (III,ii,136-138), had Caesar not been murdered, the people of Rome would have become slaves, whereas …show more content…
He used almost only pathos to direct the opinions of the people. He said, “Caesar was my friend, faithful and just to me”(III,ii, 152), to make the commoners feel sympathy for him. Later he talked of Caesar’s will. Doing this he managed to turn their emotions from sympathising to to revengeful and full of rage. Sometimes he used a mixture of logos and pathos. When he spoke about the will of Caesar he was reading the will not only to tell them what was promised of them but also to make them think Caesar wasn’t ambitious, as Brutus had said. Antony used several fallacies in order to manipulate the public. When reading the will he used red herring, when he repeatedly said “and Brutus is an honorable man.”(III,ii,156) he used Verbal irony, when he said “whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: did this Caesar seem ambitious?”(III,ii,162) he used rhetorical questions. A He also used loaded words, repetition, and appeals to
How were Brutus’s and Antony’s speeches different? How were they the same? Whose was better? When Brutus spoke he used a majority of logos and ethos, along with many fallacy. Mark Antony, in his monologue, used some logos, but mostly pathos and he too used fallacies. Although they had many differences there was several things that were the same. They had used many of the same ways to make their arguments better. The two speeches were meant to change the common people's opinions but Anthony did it much better.
In Brutus’s speech, to the commoners, he used mainly logos and ethos to make the audience believe that killing Caesar was the only way to save Rome. In several spots he simply told the audience he was honorable. For example, he said “Believe me for mine honor, and respect to mine honor that you may believe.” (III,ii,128-129) He states that, in (III,ii,136-138), had Caesar not been murdered, the people of Rome would have become slaves, whereas …show more content…
He used almost only pathos to direct the opinions of the people. He said, “Caesar was my friend, faithful and just to me”(III,ii, 152), to make the commoners feel sympathy for him. Later he talked of Caesar’s will. Doing this he managed to turn their emotions from sympathising to to revengeful and full of rage. Sometimes he used a mixture of logos and pathos. When he spoke about the will of Caesar he was reading the will not only to tell them what was promised of them but also to make them think Caesar wasn’t ambitious, as Brutus had said. Antony used several fallacies in order to manipulate the public. When reading the will he used red herring, when he repeatedly said “and Brutus is an honorable man.”(III,ii,156) he used Verbal irony, when he said “whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: did this Caesar seem ambitious?”(III,ii,162) he used rhetorical questions. A He also used loaded words, repetition, and appeals to