If one were to be murdered, it would be rather surprising for their murderer to be the first to speak at their funeral. True, the “funeral” in Act III of “Julius Caesar” is no orthodox affair. Brutus’ placement at the forefront of the proceedings could be received as very tacky and ill-fitting for what he had just accomplished. Because the crowd is likely to be hesitant to listen to the killer of their King immediately following the murder, Brutus absolutely depends on this speech to provide evidence for his reasoning and credibility for his leadership. He demonstrates this as well as the circumstance allows through artistic proofs and rhetorical skill throughout the entire speech, and ultimately manipulates his audience whether he means to or not.

First note that the speech is written in prose rather than in poetry. This choice on Shakespeare’s part allows for a more logical appeal. As such, he is not aiming for an initially emotional approach, but it is clear that he would rather rationale to guide the reasoning and consequent emotions of the crowd. That being said, he recognizes that his audience is likely to be in an emotionally vulnerable state and allows for that in his appeals to pathos, as well as logos.

Ethos, however, seems clearly to be his first appeals; shamelessly so. By addressing the crowd “Romans, countrymen, and lovers,” he immediately jumped into the scene with an appeal to pathos by connecting himself to the citizens (III.ii.13). However, he so quickly asks the citizens to hear him by giving himself verbal credibility through his “honor,” asking them to trust him in accordance with his virtue. Then he gives the audience themselves credibility, asking them to “better judge” (III.ii.17). By giving the crowd credibility enough to judge correctly, he becomes a friend to them rather than talking down to them, with a claim of superiority as his appeal to ethos.

Brutus goes on to compare his love for Caesar to any in the crowd who may also love Caesar, claiming his own love to be “no less than his” (III.ii.19). By asking the crowd to listen and judge logically, then immediately appealing to pathos through his ‘love for Caesar,’ he is almost tricking the crowd into believing that the emotions they feel are intellectual, and clearly backed with reason since he set the stage in that manner. This also serves to logically move the speech forward in his reasoning for killing Caesar, while still applying an appeal to pathos in that he loved Rome more than Caesar. He goes on to account what would happen were Caesar to remain in power. By offering that the alternative to Caesar’s death would be the enslavement of all free men, he gives a very surface appeal to both logos and pathos, playing on a logical fear of a tyrannical ruler in the crowd.

Brutus then traps certain members of the audience in providing the rationale to dissent to his movement: “Who is here so base that would be a bondman? If any, speak, for him have I offended. Who is here so vile that will not love his country? If any, speak, for him have I offended. I pause for a reply” (III.ii.28-31). Brutus’ request at this point, after orating his apparently logical reasons for Caesar’s death, allows his audience to speak out against him in theory, but at the risk of sounding insane because his offer only lends for those who wish to be enslaved, according to his most recent claim. Thus, the audience in trapped into agreement.

Brutus is very cunning in his oration, as he uses logic and emotion both to give his audience no choice but to agree with him. Who, after all, is going to publicly dissent the man who has just managed to kill the king? His rhetorical choices are clearly very calculated and serve his purpose effectively, though perhaps not completely morally.