Marc Antony's Ethos In Julius Caesar

When thinking of famous oration, one speech in literature is a classic example that contains persuasive techniques. 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, “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 convincing orations that make appearances in Julius Caesar. Aristotle first described these in his discourse on types of rhetoric in Ancient Greece. They are pathos, logos, and ethos and all are found in the

play. Each is used in the play and are successful within certain situations with certain audiences. In Julius Caesar by Shakespeare, the three types of appeals are shown with its own successes. The convincingness of each appeal depends on the audience that hears it, therefore exemplifying the fact that no appeal is above the others: pathos is championed by Antony and is most effective with the plebeians, logos by Brutus and is most effective with the conspirators, and ethos by Cassius and is most effective with Brutus.
Pathos, the appeal utilizing emotion and passions, claims Marc Antony as its orator. This form of speech tends to be more popular with the masses and the less educated, in this case, the plebeians. They have had no formal education and are ripe for persuasion using pathos. The primary example of pathos is Antony’s speech mourning Caesar. He utilizes emotion to induce rage against the conspirators in order to avenge Caesar without violating his vow to not speak ill of the conspirators. Within his speech, there are several examples of pathos that in particular demonstrate the effect Antony has on the plebeians. He firstly establishes this piece as an emotional one with, “My heart is there in the coffin with Caesar / And I must pause till it come back to me,” (3.2.116-17). This draws a response from the crowd that claims Antony to be noble, and therefore trustworthy, plebeians sympathizing with him and opening up to listen to his honorable but heartbroken words. This is what Antony preys on. His emotion, his use of pathos in these lines makes him seem honest and therefore softens the crowd up so they will listen. As the masses listen, Antony continues to use pathos to give them cause to trust him and soon, to turn on the conspirators. Soon after the initial emotional plea, Antony initiates the process of riling up the plebeians by teasing them with Caesar’s will. He refuses to read it, saying it would make them love Caesar rather than hate him. This causes the plebeians to shift their allegiance. In one line, one plebeian cries, “They were villains, murderers. The will! Read the will,” in response to Antony’s refusal to read Caesar’s will (3.2.167-68). Antony toys with their emotions, telling them that he cannot make them love Caesar for Caesar was, in the conspirators’ eyes, ambitious and dishonorable. This causes the plebeians to start claiming that they loved Caesar in order to hear the will. Then, Antony finally sparks the plebeians anger by showing them the cuts through the cloak on Caesar’s body and naming those who dealt them, ending with, “This [Brutus’s cut] was the most unkindest cut of all,” (3.2.195). Antony tugs on this rekindled love of Caesar to cast the stabbing into a darker light. Specifically, in Brutus’s instance, Antony explains how Brutus was dearly loved by Caesar, so therefore Brutus’s cut was the worst. Antony makes it seem like an injustice and betrayal to Caesar and successfully manipulates the plebeians to fight in anger at Caesar’s death. Then, reminding them of Caesar’s will, Antony reads it and the plebeians go on a rampage to avenge Caesar. Thus, Antony is successful in his use of pathos. The less educated masses respond well to emotional appeals and are easily swayed, as shown by the fickle nature of the plebeians in response to Antony’s appeal. However, not all appeals are best for the plebeians. Logos is proven not to work with the masses, but it does still have its place.
Examples of logos, the logic’s appeal, appear in Brutus’s arguments. Brutus’s words work best with the highly educated rather than the masses. Plebeians, as shown in Act 3, respond better to emotional appeals. However, a prime example of logos’s impact on the educated is the conspirators. As senators, the conspirators are highly educated and from their years in the Senate, have refined thought processes that follow logic well. 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 his logic and reasoning. The first example is within the debate 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,” (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. Cicero is left out from the plot. 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 that they will 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,” (2.1.194-96). Brutus’s logic is that Antony is no more than a limb of Caesar, and when the limb’s power source is erased, the limb can do nothing. Similarly, Antony will have no power when Caesar is dead, negating the need to kill him. This reasoning brings about the conclusion that only Caesar will be murdered, not Marc Antony nor anyone else. For the third time, Brutus’s argument prevails and the conspirators agree to Brutus’s suggestions. Brutus’s arguments are all valid and accepted by the plotters and thus, logos prevails. It is shown to be an effective argument with the conspirators as they are all highly educated men and logic is the best way to convince them of an argument’s merits. These men are more swayed by logic than anything else, save one. Brutus himself, though possessing a love for reasoning, is more apt to listen to moral debates, such as ethos.
Ethos is the appeal of ethics and morals.

This appeal works best when made to those who possess high ethical or moral standing. Though audiences with which this is highly effective are difficult to find, Cassius succeeds with his appeal with Brutus as his audience. The example here is when Cassius is convincing Brutus to join his plot. Brutus is susceptible to ethos because he is constantly worried about the good of Rome and the plebeians, a trait that is seen and respected by Romans. “This was the noblest Roman of them all,” Antony remarks at Brutus’s death, proving that Brutus did not act for himself, but for the empire and for unselfish reasons (5.5.74). This makes ethos the most effective appeal for him, because Brutus’s morals are for Rome’s benefit, not himself. Firstly, in order to turn Brutus, Cassius reminds him of his dedication to Rome, “There was a Brutus once that would have brooked / Th’ eternal devil to keep his state in Rome…” (1.2.168-69). Brutus would do anything to keep his status and his home as Rome, claims Cassius. He would even make deals with the devil, and this solidifies Brutus’s relation to Rome. To be separated from Rome is unacceptable to Brutus. Cassius then proceeds about an underhanded plot to bring Brutus to his side. He writes letters posing as plebeians and pleads with Brutus in them to save Rome from the threat of Caesar. “Speak, strike, redress!” calls the plebeian Cassius has created (2.1.49). The plebeian asks Brutus to make known his

misgivings and strike and correct the wrong that Caesar has done the empire. The other letters call for Brutus to awake from his slumber and stop ignoring the issues that Caesar causes. Cassius’s letters appeal to Brutus’s ethics because he is dedicated to serving Rome and its people. If the plebeians, Rome’s people, feel threatened, then Brutus feels he must do all he can to aid them. Brutus is then resolved to proceed and thus, Brutus is won to Cassius’s side. Since Brutus has high morals and ethics, Cassius’s ethos worked well to convince him, appealing to the high moral and ethical code that brings Brutus to join the plot.
With pathos, logos, and ethos all making appearances as successful appeals in Julius Caesar, one can conclude that no appeal is above the other.

Their success rests on the audience listening to it. Pathos works best with the less educated masses, the plebeians serving as said population in the play. Antony uses this to his advantage in order to stir emotion for Caesar, causing them to grieve for a man that moments ago, seemed a tyrant. Brutus is a master of logos, convincing the highly educated, the senators turned conspirators, through logic and reasoning to see and agree to his points. This leaves Cicero from the plot and solidifies the decision not to harm anyone but Caesar. Cassius’s ethos has a more selective audience with which to be effective. However, an audience with high moral codes and ethics is found in Brutus and is shown to work as Brutus joins the plot. Since all these audiences are vastly different and are incomparable to one another, the appeals cannot be judged as equals, but as effective in their own

ways.