Julius Caesar Rhetorical Analysis

658 Words2 Pages

After the assassination of Julius Caesar in the play Julius Caesar by Shakespeare, the people of Rome were left wondering why the conspirators killed Caesar. During the funeral, Brutus and Marc Antony were given chances to speak to the people. Brutus represented the conspirators and tried to justify the murder of Caesar, claiming that if Caesar was kept alive, the republic would be ruled by a tyrannical leader that would assume total control over the entire nation. On the other hand, Antony questioned the actions of conspirators and wanted the people to realize the consequences of the conspirators actions. Marc Antony makes the stronger argument because he uses questions, irony, and ethos to prove that the conspirators were wrong to kill Caesar. …show more content…

Antony counters this claim by providing an example of Caesar helping and benefiting the country. He claims that “[Caesar] hath brought many captives home to Rome, whose ransoms did the general coffers fill” (Shakespeare III.ii.97-98). Antony reminds the people of the money Caesar brought to Rome. Then, he asks if this makes “Caesar seem ambitious” (III.ii.99). By providing an example of Caesar showing the opposite of ambition, it completely counters Brutus’s argument. Antony asks another similar question. Antony reminds the audience of when he offered Caesar the crown 3 times and Caesar rejected the crown 3 times. Antony asks the people again if “this [was] ambition” (III.ii.106). By asking the question again, it strengthens his argument further and makes Brutus’s claim of ambition seem unrealistic and false. Along with the use of questions, Antony also uses irony to support his claim. In his speech, Antony claims that “When the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept” (III.ii.100). He then follows up by stating that “Brutus [said] he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man” (III.ii.102-103). He continues to use this structure throughout his

Open Document