Imagine living in an empire where your leader was assassinated by his close friend. What would you do? In Rome’s case, the death of Julius Caesar brought fear and chaos. Many Romans anxiously demanded reasons for Caesars death from two people, Brutus, who planned and carried out the assassination of Caesar and a close friend of Caesar, and Mark Antony, who was a high ranking official and also a close friend of Caesar. Both Brutus and Mark Antony had different views on the death of Julius Caesar and they hoped their orations would persuade the audience of Rome to agree with their point of view. But who will you ultimately agree with? Readers of Brutus’s and Mark Antony’s orations would be successfully persuaded by Brutus’s oration compared
…show more content…
Brutus uses many rhetorical questions that not only keeps the audience engaged, but also makes the audience think about the consequences if Caesar was still around. An example of Brutus’s use of rhetorical questions is found in lines eight to ten which states, “Had you rather Caesar living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all freemen?” This rhetorical question persuades the audience that if Caesar was still around, they would live a much worse life, which convinces the audience that the death of Caesar was for the good of Rome. Mark Antony’s use of rhetorical questions, however, is used to convey the meaning of ambition, which gets sarcastic over the duration of his oration. In both lines eighteen and twenty-five, Brutus asks the audience about the word ambition, stating, “Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?” and “Was this ambition?” Over time, the readers loose the central focus of Mark’s speech, which was Caesar’s death was unnecessary. More so, Mark’s sarcastic questions and attacks towards Brutus, shrouds the true meaning of his oration. Therefore, people would say Brutus’s speech was convincing. Why would it be convincing some may ask, since they both speakers used rhetorical questions? Audiences would say that Brutus effectively uses rhetorical questions that furthers his message to the Romans that Caesar’s death was for the good of Rome. compared to Mark …show more content…
Brutus’s use of parallel structure in his oration makes his oration cohesive and understandable, which furthers his message of Caesar’s death. An example of Brutus’s effective use of parallel structure is shown extensively on lines ten to thirteen, which states, “As Caesar lov’d me. I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honor him, but as he was ambitious, I slew him. There is tears for his love, joy for his fortune; honor for his valor; and death for his ambition.” How do these lines assist Brutus in getting his message across? By using parallel structure and phrases such as, “as he” and “for his” in these lines, Brutus is effectively able to balance his emotion of love for Brutus and the message that is further advanced by these lines. On the other hand, Mark Antony does not use parallel structure in his oration. Without the use of parallel structure in his oration, Mark Antony’s oration became choppy in terms of syntax. Therefore, audiences would find it harder to understand Mark’s oration message and meaning due to the limited use of parallel structure. Therefore, audiences would be persuaded by Brutus’s oration, due to his effective use of parallel
Brutus uses many rhetorical questions that not only keeps the audience engaged, but also makes the audience think about the consequences if Caesar was still around. An example of Brutus’s use of rhetorical questions is found in lines eight to ten which states, “Had you rather Caesar living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all freemen?” This rhetorical question persuades the audience that if Caesar was still around, they would live a much worse life, which convinces the audience that the death of Caesar was for the good of Rome. Mark Antony’s use of rhetorical questions, however, is used to convey the meaning of ambition, which gets sarcastic over the duration of his oration. In both lines eighteen and twenty-five, Brutus asks the audience about the word ambition, stating, “Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?” and “Was this ambition?” Over time, the readers loose the central focus of Mark’s speech, which was Caesar’s death was unnecessary. More so, Mark’s sarcastic questions and attacks towards Brutus, shrouds the true meaning of his oration. Therefore, people would say Brutus’s speech was convincing. Why would it be convincing some may ask, since they both speakers used rhetorical questions? Audiences would say that Brutus effectively uses rhetorical questions that furthers his message to the Romans that Caesar’s death was for the good of Rome. compared to Mark …show more content…
Brutus’s use of parallel structure in his oration makes his oration cohesive and understandable, which furthers his message of Caesar’s death. An example of Brutus’s effective use of parallel structure is shown extensively on lines ten to thirteen, which states, “As Caesar lov’d me. I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honor him, but as he was ambitious, I slew him. There is tears for his love, joy for his fortune; honor for his valor; and death for his ambition.” How do these lines assist Brutus in getting his message across? By using parallel structure and phrases such as, “as he” and “for his” in these lines, Brutus is effectively able to balance his emotion of love for Brutus and the message that is further advanced by these lines. On the other hand, Mark Antony does not use parallel structure in his oration. Without the use of parallel structure in his oration, Mark Antony’s oration became choppy in terms of syntax. Therefore, audiences would find it harder to understand Mark’s oration message and meaning due to the limited use of parallel structure. Therefore, audiences would be persuaded by Brutus’s oration, due to his effective use of parallel