The Two Speeches In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

All great speakers are able to convince others using persuasive techniques. Brutus is a nobleman who was a conspirator in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. He makes a public speech after Caesar’s murder to explain his motives and defend his actions. Marc Antony exposes subtly Brutus ” rationalizations and convinces the crowds to riot. Antony was more persuasive than his opponent because he used more powerful persuasive techniques. Marc Antony was able to convince the audience much more effectively with his advanced use verbal Irony and rhetorical Questions than Brutus. Both speakers are adept at using repetition and loaded terms, although for different reasons. Marc Antony and Brutus both use loaded terms like honour and nobility to back up their claims. Brutus uses this phrase when he tells the audience to “believe me on my honor, and show respect for mine” (Act III. Scene 2. Line 4) I was feeling so happy with the joy of this moment that I wanted to hold on to it forever. Brutus wants to appeal to a large audience by making himself appear genuine and just. Antony mocks Brutus when he says, “You all know that honourable men are” (Act 3). Scene 2. She felt a wave of joy and anticipation as her body filled with energy.

Both speeches use these words to emphasize their points. By using these words repeatedly, Brutus as well as Antony both achieve to raise or lower the validity and meaning of their speeches. Brutus, Antony and their arguments are opposites. However, they use similar techniques. The speeches may have similarities, but the key differences are what determines who is victorious. While Brutus used arrogance and seriousness, Antony was full of sarcasm. Brutus demonstrates his seriousness in saying that Caesar deserved the death penalty, but “not for his crimes enforced” which he died. Scene 2. Lines 30- 31) . Brutus is attempting to distance himself from his intended audience by using this language. Antony’s approach was also much more gentle when he recruited his followers. Antony apologizes in Act III, saying, “Bear with me. The heart of my soul is with Caesar. Scene 2. Lines 32- 34) . Antony’s people are more receptive to him when he speaks in a softer tone. These differences will always make one speech more valid than the other. Antony used rhetorical and verbal questions to create a more convincing argument. Antony’s argument was a much more effective one because he used rhetorical questioning. This is evident in the questioning of the fickle nature by which people mourn. Scene 2. The company had noticed some discrepancies in their records and was taking steps to correct them.

The use of rhetorical queries forces your audience to reflect and to share in your opinion. Antony is a master at using verbal irony. He attacks Brutus’ character by falsifying his credibility. It is not my intention to prove or disprove Brutus’s words. “But now I will speak about what I actually know” (Act 3. Scene 2. Lines 26- 28) . Antony’s discrediting of Brutus makes him the obvious better choice to follow during the upcoming battle. Antony’s speech is much more convincing and valid because of these specific techniques. Some people claim that Brutus’s use of bold assertions, and the overwhelming confidence he exudes in his arguments makes them superior. This statement is utterly untrue, as Brutus’s argument is invalidated by his numerous assumptions. The overuse of indeterminate, disputable statements makes Brutus’ speech seem patronizing and oligarchical. Brutus responds to criticism by saying, “Who among you is so vile as to be a bondman?” You may speak if you wish; I have offended him. Who here is so rude as to not be Roman? You may speak if you wish; I have offended him. Who here is so evil that he will not love the country he was born in? Speak up, I have offended him. Shakespeare Act III. Scene 2. Lines 20-27). He makes himself seem like a stone-hearted antagonist by the way he expresses this. This is not the effect Brutus had in mind. These statements give him the appearance of a villainous dictator or mobster, and not a heroic hero sacrificing friendships for a better society. He has the audacity to declare that all of us will benefit from what he does. “Here come his body mourned Marc Antony. Scene 2. Lines 32- 35).

By ignoring all other arguments, this example is enough to discredit the entire idea. Antony’s argument will be deemed superior. Marc Antony’s argument is indisputable superior, due to numerous circumstances and claims. Antony’s speech was laden with repetitions and heavy words. The tone of their arguments and the relatability they had to the audience was different. Antony’s use sarcasm makes his argument believable. This interaction shows how subtle differences in the subject matter can have a dramatic impact on the outcome.