Julius Caesar Rhetorical Analysis

1147 Words3 Pages

In the world of politics, influential men use persuasion and rhetoric to make an audience sway one way or another. Political leaders can make people act in a certain way than how they would normally. When rhetoric is used powerfully and correctly, it can convince an audience to support the claim the writer is making. William Shakespeare demonstrates this through his play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar multiple times by having characters give persuasive speeches that make the audience change their opinions such as when Antony was able to make a crowd who loved Brutus to wanting to kill him.
Antony was one of the most successful users of rhetoric in the play. After the conspirators killed Caesar, Brutus explained his actions and why Caesar had …show more content…

Caesar also used a form of rhetoric when accepting the crown after the race. When Antony won, he was given a circlet that he then offered to Caesar in honor of him. Caesar first rejected the crown by gently pushing it away. The people wanted Caesar to take the crown which is seen when the “rabblement hooted and clapped their chapped hands and threw up their sweaty nightcaps” (I. ii. 243-244). Caesar then rejected it two more times after the first. Each time the audience grew more excited than before. As Casca had said that Caesar clearly wanted to take the crown because he was looked reluctant to reject the crown and it seemed as if he didn’t want to take his hands off it (I. ii. 241-242). It may seem curious that Caesar rejected something that he wanted. He was doing this on purpose as a form of persuasion to have people respect him and cheer for him more. It is seen throughout the play that the Roman people can be persuaded easily because they are indecisive and have others think for them. When he rejected the crown, it made Caesar seem more humble and sincere than before. Some may think this as a noble act and others cheered for Caesar even more. This form of persuasion is pathos because he’s wanting the people to feel that he is respectable and will be a good leader. Caesar wants the people to make him a dictator and this would help push his agenda and gain …show more content…

When meeting with Brutus for the first time though, Brutus gives a speech that would give him the role as leader. Cassius starts off the conversation with an introduction to everyone and then proceeds to have everyone take a swear for their cause. This is when Brutus starts contradicting Cassius. He starts by disagreeing with him and that if the corruption of their empire as well as the safety of their people aren’t enough of motivation then we shouldn’t do anything (II. i. 125-127). Brutus uses logos when he says, “What bond do we need other/than that of discreet Romans who have said what/they’re going to do and won’t back down” (II. i. 130-133). The logic behind this claim is that there is no better oath than to be a Roman which is implying that all Romans are honorable and trustworthy. This is a logical fallacy because that is not the case, but the conspirators still believe in what Brutus is saying and go along with him. After this speech, Brutus takes over as the leader of the plot against Caesar. Brutus was able to take the power from Cassius and give it to himself through his words. Once again, someone gains power and recognition by using

Open Document