Rhetorical Analysis Of Julius Caesar
In Shakespeare’s interpretation of Julius Caesar’s assassination titled, Julius Caesar, a man named Cassius is attempting to get the help and alliance of a fellow Roman named Brutus in the conspiracy of assassinating the Roman leader. He accomplishes this in constructed and detailed monologues to persuade Brutus to join the conspiracy. In each of Cassius’ monologues, Cassius strategically uses appeals and rhetorical devices to ultimately give a successful and persuasive speech to his audience, Brutus.
Cassius’ first monologue focuses on Caesar and discrediting him. Cassius also focuses on Ethos and Logos in his first monologue to Brutus. Cassius makes his intent clear by attacking and discrediting Caesar and that he isn’t the “god” the people …show more content…
In his second monologue, Cassius focuses on pathos and logos in order to appeal to his audience, Brutus, directly. Cassius smartly avoids further development of ethos in this monologue to make sure Brutus doesn’t think this is all personal for Cassius and deter him from the conspiracy. Therefore, as mentioned before, Cassius’ intent for his second monologue is to appeal to Brutus. He wants to raise Brutus to the same level as Caesar and make him see that he is just as important in I.ii.9-15. This makes Brutus feel good about himself, and successfully makes Cassius’ arguments against Caesar more personal to Brutus and slowly pulls him into the conspiracy. Cassius could’ve used anyone’s name in his explanation that the name is equal to Caesar, but the fact that he used Brutus’ name made his pathos much stronger and directed at the audience for greater persuasion. This is where Cassius strongly considers his audience and knows that by implementing them into the argument he will have a higher chance at success. When Cassius then shifts into appeal to logos, he explains that Caesar, one man, is taking up all the fame and glory of Rome when there is room for much more than just one single, not even god-like man (I.ii.18-25). He explains once again just like he did in the concluding sentence of his first paragraph that it does not make sense that one man receive all the power and “bear the palm alone” (I.ii.43) He dives into the values of his audience and the people of that time who valued democracy, equality and even a divvied up triumvirate of three leaders who ruled Rome simultaneously in a checks and balances sort of way to avoid absolute leadership like the one Caesar is holding. Brutus of course would agree that, yes, why should a single man rule when the people or Rome and its government is based on a triumvirate with democratic
Cassius’ first monologue focuses on Caesar and discrediting him. Cassius also focuses on Ethos and Logos in his first monologue to Brutus. Cassius makes his intent clear by attacking and discrediting Caesar and that he isn’t the “god” the people …show more content…
In his second monologue, Cassius focuses on pathos and logos in order to appeal to his audience, Brutus, directly. Cassius smartly avoids further development of ethos in this monologue to make sure Brutus doesn’t think this is all personal for Cassius and deter him from the conspiracy. Therefore, as mentioned before, Cassius’ intent for his second monologue is to appeal to Brutus. He wants to raise Brutus to the same level as Caesar and make him see that he is just as important in I.ii.9-15. This makes Brutus feel good about himself, and successfully makes Cassius’ arguments against Caesar more personal to Brutus and slowly pulls him into the conspiracy. Cassius could’ve used anyone’s name in his explanation that the name is equal to Caesar, but the fact that he used Brutus’ name made his pathos much stronger and directed at the audience for greater persuasion. This is where Cassius strongly considers his audience and knows that by implementing them into the argument he will have a higher chance at success. When Cassius then shifts into appeal to logos, he explains that Caesar, one man, is taking up all the fame and glory of Rome when there is room for much more than just one single, not even god-like man (I.ii.18-25). He explains once again just like he did in the concluding sentence of his first paragraph that it does not make sense that one man receive all the power and “bear the palm alone” (I.ii.43) He dives into the values of his audience and the people of that time who valued democracy, equality and even a divvied up triumvirate of three leaders who ruled Rome simultaneously in a checks and balances sort of way to avoid absolute leadership like the one Caesar is holding. Brutus of course would agree that, yes, why should a single man rule when the people or Rome and its government is based on a triumvirate with democratic