In William Shakespeare's, Julius Caesar, he proves to the readers
and the people of Rome that the many different types of persuasion will
have different results. Both Brutus and Antony made a speech to the
Romans, hoping to convince them that what happened was either right
or wrong. Brutus used the circular reasoning technique to prove the
justification of Caesar's death. On the other hand, Antony used a
combination of name calling and loaded words to win the people over.
Brutus and Antony both spoke to the same set of people, yet Brutus
didn't have as much impact on the Roman's like Antony. Antony used
name calling and loaded word together. He said, " And Brutus is an
honorable man" ( 3:2.89). He used "honorable" to be sarcastic and to
mock Brutus. Yet, in the same way that was Antony's way of calling all the
conspirators. Brutus's technique wasn't even close to beating Antony's.
He used circular reasoning, but didn't have any real evidence to support
his reason. What Brutus kept saying to the people was, " he was ambitious,
I slew him" (3:2.27). All his speech was about how Caesar must die for the
good of Rome because he was ambitious.
In their speeches, Brutus and Antony had both their points across to
The crowd. Brutus wanted to let the citizens of Rome know that Caesar
would soon become a tyrant. "Had you rather Caesar were living, and
die all slaves" (3:2.23). Antony proved that Caesar was not ambitious, but
he had always had the good of Rome in mind. His ambition was not
always bad. "I thrice presented him a kingly crown,/ which he did thrice
refuse. Was this Ambition?" (3:2.98-99). He read Caesar's will to the
common people. Caesar had left his everything to the public and each
individual "seventy-five" silver coins. Antony pro
...