Rhetorical Devices In Julius Caesar
Brutus Versus Antony:The Clash of Verbal Weapons
In the play Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare, the protagonist, Marcus Brutus, and the antagonist, Mark Antony, have a duel of persuasion to win over the Roman populace. In order to do so, they use what are commonly known as rhetorical devices today in order to strengthen their arguments. Locked in a fierce battle of wit to win over the furious mob, the question is this: Who will be dominant in this battle of verbal scrimmage? Although both speeches are powerful, inevitably, Antony’s use of rhetorical questions and if/then statements makes for a more logical and passionate speech than Brutus. First and foremost, Antony more effectively uses if/then statements better than Brutus in …show more content…
For example, Antony proclaims “He hath brought many captives home to Rome, whose ransom did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious”(3.3.97-99)?, first offering examples of Caesar’s love and care for Rome, the proof of Caesar’s patriotism. This technique is effective, in the sense that he gave solid, undeniable evidence against Brutus's claim of Caesar being ambitious. Also, on another account, psychologically people would feel gratitude toward Caesar, for all he had done for them, making them more inclined to listen to Mark Antony. The context of this rhetorical question further proves Caesar’s undying loyalty to his people. Meanwhile, Brutus claims that Caesar would enslave them all, stating “Who is so base that would be a bondman?”(3.3.31-31), essentially asking if anyone in the crowd was a fool. Also, it is important to note that no one likes to be publically called base, so even if they opposed Brutus’s claim, they would keep silent for fear of being humiliated among Romans. Essentially, the rhetorical question is powerful by pairing humiliation and scorn for all who oppose Brutus’s claim, a perfect way to win one hundred percent of the crowd’s approval. Again, Antony holds a better point, for under in depth examination, most, if not all, would prefer a strong, unified country with slaves over a weak, susceptible country with all free men, a clearly superior use of rhetoric over
In the play Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare, the protagonist, Marcus Brutus, and the antagonist, Mark Antony, have a duel of persuasion to win over the Roman populace. In order to do so, they use what are commonly known as rhetorical devices today in order to strengthen their arguments. Locked in a fierce battle of wit to win over the furious mob, the question is this: Who will be dominant in this battle of verbal scrimmage? Although both speeches are powerful, inevitably, Antony’s use of rhetorical questions and if/then statements makes for a more logical and passionate speech than Brutus. First and foremost, Antony more effectively uses if/then statements better than Brutus in …show more content…
For example, Antony proclaims “He hath brought many captives home to Rome, whose ransom did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious”(3.3.97-99)?, first offering examples of Caesar’s love and care for Rome, the proof of Caesar’s patriotism. This technique is effective, in the sense that he gave solid, undeniable evidence against Brutus's claim of Caesar being ambitious. Also, on another account, psychologically people would feel gratitude toward Caesar, for all he had done for them, making them more inclined to listen to Mark Antony. The context of this rhetorical question further proves Caesar’s undying loyalty to his people. Meanwhile, Brutus claims that Caesar would enslave them all, stating “Who is so base that would be a bondman?”(3.3.31-31), essentially asking if anyone in the crowd was a fool. Also, it is important to note that no one likes to be publically called base, so even if they opposed Brutus’s claim, they would keep silent for fear of being humiliated among Romans. Essentially, the rhetorical question is powerful by pairing humiliation and scorn for all who oppose Brutus’s claim, a perfect way to win one hundred percent of the crowd’s approval. Again, Antony holds a better point, for under in depth examination, most, if not all, would prefer a strong, unified country with slaves over a weak, susceptible country with all free men, a clearly superior use of rhetoric over