The speeches made to the plebeians by Brutus and Anthony at Caesar's funeral was mostly effective using the "blame game." As Brutus blamed Caesar's death upon his own "ambition", Anthony blamed Caesar's death at the conspirators indirectly. Even though both of their speeches questioned and boggled the crowd's mind, reading both of their speeches, I thought Anthony's was more effective and better, more respective than plain, old, repetitive Brutus'.
Anthony was more persuasive especially because he was more respectful to the commoners rather than making them feel as if they were nothing but low class beggars. There was a use of syntax, rewording of words with a different point of view. Brutus started off by stating, "Romans, countrymen, and lovers!" (III. II. 14). Romans were formally stating citizens of Rome whereas Anthony states, "Friends, Romans, countryman..." (III. II. 82). Friends had a more intimate feeling to it than just Romans which was with formality ,but also with a foreign feeling of a stranger. Approaching them with more comfortable and tender introductions, many people might have already turned their attention upon the speaker. Also, Brutus was more strict upon his tone of speech. He was very stern with his imperatives. Throughout his speech, Brutus was more commanding contrary to Anthony who politely pleaded with courtesy. (i.e. Brutus: "...hear me... be silent..."(III. II. 14-15), Anthony: "...lend me your ears..."(III. II. 82)) So I take that by giving respect to the crowd that's listening, you also win their ticket to trust.
Another reasoning for Anthony being the better persuader is because he doesn't fault only the crowd, but also himself. Putting him into the commoner's shoes, he doesn't put the pressure and fault onto the citizens , but keeps them to a limit. Anthony has a way with his words. For example, when he speaks he acts as if everyone is guilty including himself ,but he's actually indirectly pointing the fault at the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document