Grecian Appeals in a Roman State
When thinking of famous oration, one example comes to the forefront. The speech given by Marc Antony to mourn Caesar in Shakespeare’s work Julius Caesar has been referenced for ages as an example of a convincing argument. Everyone recalls the opening line of, “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.” and all know what follows the speech – war leading to the establishment of the final triumvirate. (Shakespeare 3.2.82) However, in praising Antony’s words, audiences tend to forget the other examples of convincing oration that make appearances in Julius Caesar. The types of oration are found to begin in Ancient Greece with Aristotle as the three types of rhetoric. They are pathos, logos, and ethos and all …show more content…
Brutus’s words work best with the highly educated, a prime example being the conspirators. As senators, the conspirators are highly educated and from their years in the Senate, have refined thought processes that follow logic best. The examples of logos’s effectiveness lie after Brutus has decided to join the plot and he and conspirators are debating the details of their plan. Brutus continuously wins debates on said details due to the logic of his reasoning. The first example is within the debate of whether to include Cicero in the conspiracy. Some conspirators say yes, others say no. Brutus settles the debate by saying, “Let us not break with him, / For he will never follow anything / That other men begin.” (Shakespeare 2.1.162-64) Logically speaking, Brutus is correct. Cicero was historically noted to be a strong and stubborn orator who was loathe to follow others. Therefore, Brutus’s logic holds true and settles the debate on adding Cicero as a conspirator. Secondly, the discussion of who else to kill with Caesar arises. Brutus again uses logic to bring a conclusion. He opposes killing anyone else for fear of seeming like murderers and traitors rather than champions of Rome’s independence from tyrants. This logic is easy to follow, as collateral damage would rouse more anger from the masses than necessary, proving Brutus’s point to be correct. Within this argument is the question of Antony and whether or not to kill him. In response, Brutus says, “And for Marc Antony, think not of him, / For he can do no more than Caesar’s arm / When Caesar’s head is off.” (Shakespeare 2.1.194-96) Brutus’s logic is that Antony is no more than a limb of Caesar, and when the source of the limb’s power is erased, the limb can do nothing. Similarly, Antony will have no power when Caesar is dead, negating the need to kill him. Thrice, Brutus’s argument prevails and the conspirators agree to
When thinking of famous oration, one example comes to the forefront. The speech given by Marc Antony to mourn Caesar in Shakespeare’s work Julius Caesar has been referenced for ages as an example of a convincing argument. Everyone recalls the opening line of, “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.” and all know what follows the speech – war leading to the establishment of the final triumvirate. (Shakespeare 3.2.82) However, in praising Antony’s words, audiences tend to forget the other examples of convincing oration that make appearances in Julius Caesar. The types of oration are found to begin in Ancient Greece with Aristotle as the three types of rhetoric. They are pathos, logos, and ethos and all …show more content…
Brutus’s words work best with the highly educated, a prime example being the conspirators. As senators, the conspirators are highly educated and from their years in the Senate, have refined thought processes that follow logic best. The examples of logos’s effectiveness lie after Brutus has decided to join the plot and he and conspirators are debating the details of their plan. Brutus continuously wins debates on said details due to the logic of his reasoning. The first example is within the debate of whether to include Cicero in the conspiracy. Some conspirators say yes, others say no. Brutus settles the debate by saying, “Let us not break with him, / For he will never follow anything / That other men begin.” (Shakespeare 2.1.162-64) Logically speaking, Brutus is correct. Cicero was historically noted to be a strong and stubborn orator who was loathe to follow others. Therefore, Brutus’s logic holds true and settles the debate on adding Cicero as a conspirator. Secondly, the discussion of who else to kill with Caesar arises. Brutus again uses logic to bring a conclusion. He opposes killing anyone else for fear of seeming like murderers and traitors rather than champions of Rome’s independence from tyrants. This logic is easy to follow, as collateral damage would rouse more anger from the masses than necessary, proving Brutus’s point to be correct. Within this argument is the question of Antony and whether or not to kill him. In response, Brutus says, “And for Marc Antony, think not of him, / For he can do no more than Caesar’s arm / When Caesar’s head is off.” (Shakespeare 2.1.194-96) Brutus’s logic is that Antony is no more than a limb of Caesar, and when the source of the limb’s power is erased, the limb can do nothing. Similarly, Antony will have no power when Caesar is dead, negating the need to kill him. Thrice, Brutus’s argument prevails and the conspirators agree to