...By: Noah Iles Julius Caesar paper In a classic Shakespeare play, Julius Caesar, Antony and Brutus go toe-to-toe at Caesar’s funeral. Although, to Brutus’s dismay Antony’s speech was better. To begin, Brutus’s speech was formal and more directed to the Romans. In his introduction he starts with “Romans, countrymen, and lovers!” This was used to join everyone together and later help him justify Caesar’s death. Throughout the text he describes Caesar as an “ambitious” man. Calling Caesar ambitious makes it seem that Caesar only thought about himself. On the other hand, Antony’s speech was more personal and sarcastic. In contrary to Brutus he opens his speech with “Friends, Romans, countrymen…”. This sets up his later statements of being Caesar’s friend. Throughout his speech, he uses paralipsis and repetition to poke at Brutus but at the same time save Caesar’s reputation. Specifically, Antony repeatedly used the word “honorable” to describe Brutus. The effect of this was that he was contradicting Brutus’s speech. A paralipsis is a device used to draw attention to something while claiming to pass it over. There are two examples of this one is “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.” But throughout the speech he praises Caesar and what he as done. Another example is “I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know.”, although he talks good about Caesar and what he has done for Rome, in contrary to what Brutus said. ...
Words: 373 - Pages: 2
...Summary of Mark Antony’s Speech In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, there is a character named Mark Antony, he gives a speech at Julius Caesar’s funeral. People consider this speech to be one of the most finest and most remembered lines written by Shakespeare. This speeches main function was used to invalidate Brutus’s convincing statement of how Caesar actually died, Antony also wanted to shift the mood of the crowd. Mark Antony knew that Brutus had made the crowd believe that the death of Caesar was going to be most beneficial towards Rome. Brutus had just finished giving his speech on what had happened to Caesar and it was Mark Antony’s turn to address the crowd and he knew that he would have to hold a neutral ground at first to gain some support of the “plebeians” in line 75, Antony says, “ I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him”. Antony then begins to talk about how Caesar is remembered by his bad deeds, but then he goes forth and addresses them on how Caesar also did good things he had done. “The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones…” in this quote Mark Antony uses a literary device called personification and in this quote Antony personifies the attributes of good and evil. Antony also uses another device called reiteration to suit a common person’s emotion. Antony keeps on repeating “Brutus is an honorable man”. However Antony uses a sarcastic tone whenever he mentions these words. Antony returns again and again...
Words: 498 - Pages: 2
...Iris Nouri 2016/march/28 Julius Caesar Act III, Scene ii Power of language or rhetoric is the central theme in Act III, Scene ii of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare. Shakespeare utilizes system of structuralism to reinforce the central theme in Scene ii. The theme which is based on three argumentative appeals: emotional, logical, and ethical - postulated by Aristotle. Act III, Scene ii takes place post assassination of Julius Caesar – an assassination on the basis of preventing a becoming dictator - ruling over Rome. At the Caesar’s funeral, the two opposing orators, Brutus as a conspirator and Antony as a Caesar’s loyal, present different emotional and ethical appealing argument to convince and persuade the plebeians, Roman Citizens, of the logic behind Caesar’s assassination. From this scene, the audience observe the power of words, presented by Brutus and Antony, on the Roman Public - and the effects of powerful, superior and highly persuasive rhetoric in: stirring emotion by providing tragic event, shaping opinion through logical evidence, and demanding action based on ethics. This essay will demonstrate the effects of power of language, the central theme of Act III, Scene ii. Throughout this essay I will be comparing Brutus and Antony’s use of emotional, logical, and ethical appeals. For different motives, the assassination of Julius Caesar is acted in collaboration of conspirators. The leader of the conspirators is Cassius, a senator, whose rivalry...
Words: 1175 - Pages: 5
...The play “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” was a tragedy written by William Shakespeare in the year 1599. It is one of the many plays that he wrote based off of true events from roman history (these include Coriolanus and Anthony and Cleopatra.) Julius Caesar the main character was a roman states man that played a large role that led to the demise of the roman republic and the rise of the roman empire. The senate granted him triumphs for his victories when he returned to Rome, soon after this he began making laws and legislatures and even passed a law that almost entirely terminated around a fourth of debts owed. Before his assassination Julius held both a dictatorship and the title of tribunate he was appointed dictator for about 10 years. The day of his...
Words: 766 - Pages: 4
...The timeless playscript Julius Caesar, written by the famed Shakespeare, is notable for its riveting plot, thoughtfully-planned characters, and most of all its use of rhetorical devices and persuasive appeal. Following the assassination of Julius Caesar, two funeral speeches are given at the leader’s memorial- one by Brutus, who was a main conspirator against Caesar, and one by Caesar’s closest friend, Antony. Within Antony’s speech, the mourning friend of the late leader of Rome uses multiple strategies to win the public over in support of Caesar, including pathos, aposiopesis, and rhetorical questions. By effectively doing so, Antony establishes himself as a successful orator and the majority of the Roman republic began to believe in Caesar’s...
Words: 428 - Pages: 2
...JULIUS CAESAR BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEAR Question 1 In what way does the crowd function as a character? In the play “Julius Caesar”, the crowd plays a crucial role in portraying the setting of their society. The crowds would usually portray characteristics of one character or individual. They acted like this in the way they went about doing things e.g.- they would always take the side of the person in power, they were easily persuaded because of their naïve state of mind. Question 2 One thing Julius Caesar and Brutus have in common is their divided selves. Compare the two characters with special reference to their public and private selves. Both Caesar and Brutus have two distinguished personalities, (divided selves). In reference to Brutus’ public personality, he is confident and hold himself in high esteem. He refuses to show even a spec of weakness. He takes great pride in his speeches. As opposed to his private self, who is very timid and gentle. This was portrayed in the play when he tries to conceal tis side of him from his wife. In reference to Caesar’s public personality, he is fearless, arrogant and noble in public. Caesar was unable to separate his public self from his private self unlike Brutus. Caesar would discuss his private affairs publicly. Question 3 Compare and contrast the scene between Portia and Brutus and the scene between Caesar and Calpurnia Brutus and Portia share a more respectful relationship with an understanding that they are...
Words: 930 - Pages: 4
...classic Shakespeare play, Julius Caesar, Antony and Brutus go toe-to-toe at Caesar’s funeral. Although, to Brutus’s dismay Antony’s speech was better. To begin, Brutus’s speech was formal and more directed to the Romans. In his introduction he starts with “Romans, countrymen, and lovers!” This was used to join everyone together and later help him justify Caesar’s death. Throughout the text he describes Caesar as an “ambitious” man. Calling Caesar ambitious makes it seem that Caesar only thought about himself. On the hand, Antony’s speech was more personal and sarcastic. In contrary to Brutus he opens his speech with “Friends, Romans, countrymen…”. This sets up his later statements of being Caesar’s friend. Throughout his speech, he uses paralipsis and repetition to poke at Brutus but at the same time save Caesar’s reputation. Specifically, Antony repeatedly used the word “honorable” to describe Brutus. The effect of this was that he was contradicting Brutus’s speech. A paralipsis is a device used to draw attention to something while claiming to pass it over. There are two examples of this one is “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.” But throughout the speech he praises Caesar and what he as done. Another example is “I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know.”, although he talks good about Caesar and what he has done for Rome, in contrary to what Brutus said. While comparing the two speeches I have found that Antony’s...
Words: 366 - Pages: 2
...Julius Caesar is primarily about a leader who is betrayed by his senate and one of the people he trusts the most, Brutus, who lead a conspiracy to assassinate him. The assassination occurs due to Caesar's new power and its threat to the old republican institutions. After the conspirators murder Julius Caesar, Brutus and Mark Antony, a close friend of Caesar, made speeches at Caesar's funeral. Each tries to persuade the crowd to follow their explanation concerning the death. They both use different rhetorical appeals to win the crowd over and in this essay I will be comparing and contrasting those speeches. Shakespeare uses the logo appeal through Brutus' speech, which means Brutus is giving a more rational speech and giving the crowd reasons...
Words: 554 - Pages: 3
...At the mourning of Julius Caesar's death, both Antony and Brutus gave very compelling speeches with different uses of ethos, pathos, and logos but Antony's was more persuasive towards the crowd. Each hit several points and got the crowd going however Antony's speech convinced the crowd that " hated " Caesar to adore him again. Ethos is the building up of credibility of a speaker to coax the audience to trust in the more. Brutus started his speech with, " Romans, countrymen, and lovers! Hear me for my cause, and be silent that you may hear. Believe me for mine honor, and have respect to mine honor that you may believe. " In these statements, Brutus is attempting to entice the listeners to believe in his story because he is a public figure. On the other hand, Antony proclaims, " he was my friend, faithful and just to...
Words: 495 - Pages: 2
...In the play Julius Caesar, both Brutus and Antony write speeches after Caesars death at his funeral. After comparing both men's use of ethos, logos, and pathos, it is clear to the crowd that Brutus is the more persuasive speaker. Even though Brutus’ speech was more persuasive, Antony also uses ethos, logos, and pathos in his funeral speech as well. Both men's speeches are similar in ways. Both Brutus’ and Antony's speeches contain ethos. In the play, Brutus says, “Believe me for mine honor, and have respect to mine honor that you may believe.” (Act iii SC II). He also says, “Here comes his body, mourned by Mark Antony who, though he had no hand in his death shall receive the benefit.” (Act iii SC II). This shows that Brutus killed Caesar for the benefit of Rome and its people. In the play Antony uses ethos by stating, “It will inflame you, it will make you mad.” (Act iii SC II). Mark Antony also uses ethics in his speech by saying, “Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.” (Act iii SC II). Antony uses...
Words: 511 - Pages: 3
...SPEECHES: Brutus vs Antony Julius Caesar: Act 3, Scene 2 Caesar’s funeral is a key point in the play and is dominated by long speeches by Brutus and Antony. Because the speeches are long and challenging, it is best to view, re-view, read, and analyze. Paraphrasing - Brutus’ Speech Paraphrase Brutus’ speech at Caesar’s funeral. In this speech, Brutus explains why he had to kill Caesar. He quickly convinces the people that he did the right and honorable thing. • View and read Brutus’ speech • Discuss the main ideas that Brutus tries to convey • Paraphrase the speech (put into your own words) • You will be graded on your accuracy and thoroughness of your translatioN Paragraph - Antony’s Speech Explain what makes Marc Antony’s speech...
Words: 1358 - Pages: 6
...strongly with the actual audience. This is especially true for the tragedy of Julius Caesar. Soon after the assassination of Caesar two Speaker, Brutus and Antony, present a side to the argument of whether or not the assassination was justified or not. With Brutus for the assassination and Antony...
Words: 891 - Pages: 4
...Gabriella Vallejo Nigrelli Pd. 3 English 2 PAP 5/14/14 The More the Words, the Less the Meaning Words can be cunning and deceiving when the right person is using them. William Shakespeare displays the concept of how words can be powerful weapons when manipulated by the right person in his play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar (JC) as Brutus persuades the citizens of Rome to understand the righteousness of his delusional actions in his eulogy at Caesar’s funeral. The way Brutus charismatically urges the approval of the Romans is similar to the way Hitler brainwashed the citizens in Germany to exile Jews with his hypnotic way with words. Brutus’s intelligence does not diminish in the slightest as his choice of words cause the citizens’ change of heart towards his sinful actions and intentions, proving the theme that words can be powerful weapons. Brutus is very convincing when he argues that he assassinated his friend for the good of Rome, simply because “[he loved] Rome more” (JC 3.2.20) than his best friend. Brutus participates in killing Caesar, and he stands before the citizens saying that his death is a good thing because Rome will stay a Republic and not go back to an empire. He explains that while he loves his friend, his heart was always set on what was best for Rome. Brutus cleverly questions the citizens with, “who here is so vile that will not love his country” (JC 3.2.28-9). Brutus tests the citizens’ integrity and how civilized they are with this rhetorical device...
Words: 894 - Pages: 4
...Julius Caesar full title · The Tragedy of Julius Caesar author · William Shakespeare type of work · Play genre · Tragic drama, historical drama language · English time and place written · 1599, in London date of first publication · Published in the First Folio of 1623, probably from the theater company’s official promptbook rather than from Shakespeare’s manuscript publisher · Edward Blount and William Jaggard headed the group of five men who undertook the publication of Shakespeare’s First Folio narrator · None climax · Cassius’s death (V.iii), upon ordering his servant, Pindarus, to stab him, marks the point at which it becomes clear that the murdered Caesar has been avenged, and that Cassius, Brutus, and the other conspirators have lost in their attempt to keep Rome a republic rather than an empire. Ironically, the conspirators’ defeat is not yet as certain as Cassius believes, but his death helps bring about defeat for his side. protagonists · Brutus and Cassius antagonists · Antony and Octavius setting (time) · 44 b.c. setting (place) · Ancient Rome, toward the end of the Roman republic point of view · The play sustains no single point of view; however, the audience acquires the most insight into Brutus’s mind over the course of the action falling action · Titinius’ realization that Cassius has died wrongly assuming defeat; Titinius’ suicide; Brutus’s discovery of the two corpses; the final struggle between Brutus’s men and the troops...
Words: 22331 - Pages: 90
...Introduction Creating an effective scheme of work, less than a term into a teaching career, was certainly daunting. Given the complexities of planning for a single lesson – taking into account a long and growing list of factors ‘from provision to pupils with SEN’ to the ‘literacy objective’ that considerably lengthen every written plan – the hurdles to overcome when planning for an 8-week scheme would surely but multiply. While the freedom at my fingertips was invigorating, there was the gnawing sense that failure to grasp the key issues involved would lead to the teacher’s greatest fear – wasted lessons; wasted lessons after which the class would struggle to maintain a respect for the teacher. Furthermore, it would be the waste of an outstanding opportunity. As commentators to the publication Teaching History have repeatedly stressed, the new History National Curriculum for Key Stage 3 offers teachers a ‘glorious flexibility’ to throw out the straight-jacket of centralised requirements beholden to political overlords (Dawson 2008, 18). Instead, led by a relit passion for their discipline, teachers are able to respond to the very specific needs of their school and construct personalised routes towards a variety of objectives. For some commentators, the National Curriculum Key Concepts and their accompanying levels represent the vestiges of an ancien regime of central control that prevent true pupil ownership developing (see Knight 2008). However, a determination to facilitate...
Words: 9792 - Pages: 40
