Julius Caesar Rhetorical Analysis

715 Words2 Pages

As Rome enters turmoil and political turbulence from the murder of their emperor, Julius Caesar, two men seize the chance to sway the citizens of Rome. Brutus, is a noble and amiable man, who wants Rome to thrive, even if it necessitates murder. And Antony, Caesar’s right-hand man, craves to avenge Caesar and persecute Brutus and the Conspirators. The population of Rome is divided, but Antony manages to sway Rome using pathos through the intimate nature of his companionship with Caesar and highlighting Caesar’s selflessness and leadership qualities, painting him as a martyr and Brutus and his affiliates as cold-blooded murderers working to achieve the destruction of Rome. Coming from a position of treachery and malice, Brutus addresses his audience to make a plea to defend his heinous crime and slander the character of …show more content…

If then that friend asked why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. (Shakespeare 3.2.16-22) Brutus then employs a slippery slope fallacy as well as an either-or fallacy by presenting the argument: “ Had you rather Caesar were living and dying all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men?” (Shakespeare 3.2.22-24) Brutus presents the idea that Caesar’s reign would strip all citizens of their liberties, without any evidence nor any precursor signs in Caesar’s demeanor. Brutus pushes the idea of Caesar‘s leadership leading to the enslavement of the Roman people without any events in between, nor any correlation between those events. Brutus’s speech fails to persuade the audience and pales in comparison to Antony’s due to Brutus’s loss of ethos and logical fallacies, undermining his

Open Document