'Antony's use of rhetoric in Act3, Scene2 is more effective than Brutus'.

Brutus’ use of rhetorical techniques in this instance are very interesting, because instead of just using just lots of one technique, like Antony, Brutus uses a range in order to manipulate his audience. Brutus uses ethos and by doing this develops his authority in the hope that the plebeians will accept him as their leader. ‘Believe me for mine honour and have respect for mine honour that you may believe’, is a prime example of ethos. In this phrase, Brutus attempts to show the crowd that he ‘is an honourable man’, an idea that Antony virulently counteracts during his speech. Another of his favoured persuasive devices is antithesis such as, ‘…not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.’, this sentence is combined with use of isocolon in order to increase the effect of exordium which makes the audience listen to his argument. One other of Brutus’ favoured methods is anaphora, which is ‘starting several phrases, sentences or lines, with the same word or words.’

Antony uses pathos extensively, sometimes to the point that people can begin to question his ease in doing so, there appears to be a fine line between extensive use being a good thing and extensive use meaning that one oratorical method is suffering from over usage. Another example of pathos(one was mentioned earlier in the essay), is the passage, ‘…And they would go and kiss dead Caesar’s wounds and dip their napkins in his sacred blood,…’ This is an extremely violent and gory image, similar to some examples in Antony’s soliloquy of Act 3 Scene 1, is pathos in the sense that it makes people sympathise with Antony’s anger and even instils anger into the common people- encouraging them to riot and destroy.

In rhetoric, there is a basic structure, which one may follow, to show the formation of this structure, examples from Antony’s speech will be used.  The basic organisation of an argument is called dispostio. The first thing to do is exordium, which is getting the audience’s attention, without the audience’s attention, the argument will not be listened to and may be less effective than if exordium is used. ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!’ The next thing that must be done is narratio, which is setting forth the basic facts and major points to give an overview of the argument. ‘…The good is oft interred with their bones: So let it be with Caesar… Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: if it were so, it was a grievous fault, and grievously had Caesar answered it. Proof(confirmatio), is essentially the evidence to support your point, for example, ‘you did all see on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition? Penultimately, is refutation(confutatio), which is saying how and why the opponents argument is rejected, ‘If Brutus so unkindly knocked or no, For Brutus, as you, was Caesar’s angel. Judge, O you gods, how dearly Caesar loved him! This was the most unkindest cut of all. For when noble Caesar saw him stab…’ Finally is Peroration,. Which is summarising your argument and then appealing to your audience’s sentiments(pathos) an example is, ‘My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, and I must pause ‘till it come back to me…’

In conclusion, both arguments use a wide range or rhetorical techniques and both men appear to achieve their goal just after their speech has occurred, but Brutus appears to have been let down by the ease at which Antony could use pathos by grieving for his ‘dead best friend’. Although, the obvious choice for the better orator may have been Antony at the start of the essay Brutus soon came into his own because he used a wide variety of methods to manipulate his audience, whereas Antony stuck mainly with his easiest option being pathos. For this reason, the extent to which this essay agrees with Antony being the better user of rhetoric is less than say Brutus’ for he utilises all his options fully and by the end of his sppech has won his audience’s favour.

---