In William Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, there is a major difference between two of the characters, Brutus and Mark Antony. Brutus was very honorable and Antony was very persuasive. When Brutus spoke at Caesar’s funeral, he appealed to the people’s logic and Antony spoke to the emotions of the people. Antony is very smart and uses his brain frequently during the play and Brutus is very naive about many things.

Brutus was very honorable and Antony was very persuasive. Brutus was very honorable in the way that he always told people the truth. Antony was persuasive in the way that he used people to get whatever he wanted. For example, Antony used Lepidus to seek revenge on all of the conspirators to take the blame for their deaths. In the speech at Caesar’s funeral, Brutus spoke to the people’s logical mind and Antony spoke to the emotions of the people.

Brutus’ speech was very short and to the point and spoke to the logic of the people in the crowd. For example, Brutus spoke in a detached way about Caesar’s death while Antony spoke to the emotions of the crowd by crying and talking about all the good things that Caesar did for Rome. Antony’s intelligence was very apparent throughout the play and Brutus appeared to be naive about many things.

Antony is smart in the way that he manipulates people to his own advantage. For example, Antony was manipulative in his emotional approach to persuade people to become outraged at Brutus. Brutus appears to be naive throughout the whole play because he believed everyone was as honorable as he. Brutus did not question what he was told, assuming it was always true. In conclusion, in William Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, there is a major difference between the two characters, Brutus and Mark Antony.

The strongest contrast between the two characters appears to be their ability and inability to be both honorable and persuasive.

author avatar
William Anderson (Schoolworkhelper Editorial Team)
William completed his Bachelor of Science and Master of Arts in 2013. He current serves as a lecturer, tutor and freelance writer. In his spare time, he enjoys reading, walking his dog and parasailing. Article last reviewed: 2022 | St. Rosemary Institution © 2010-2024 | Creative Commons 4.0


  1. This analysis is profoundly wrong on the piece. Brutus was a introverted philosopher, he was INCREDIBLY intelligent. Was this serious? Or did you not only not read this play. Having said that, Antony was a man of his senses, and an emotional one at that – who had been surprised and disturbed by the killing of JC for which he was not party of. Brutus attempts to sway the people through logic, in a highly emotional time for Rome showing his inability to connect with the people, or even see them – because he only thinks robotically – you seem to forget the unmatched freedoms, and prosperity of Rome at this time NEVER TO BE SEEN again in the history of the Roman empire. Brutus, who was intelligent, but thought he could appeal to “logic” when it was clear to the people that his words were false considering the clear change in their governance and life. Antony on the other hand, related to the people in their emotion, and galvanized it.

    • Hey nick he might’ve not used Shakespeare’s version of the death of Ceaser he could’ve been talking about Plutarchs. Two different authors with different Strategies on writing and point of views on the story.

  2. I must agree with Victoria! I have read this story 6 times and as an English teacher what Elizabeth is saying is incorrect

  3. Dear Elizabeth … you are wrong ! first of all Brutus was manipulated by Cassius thinking it was for the good of Rome … and he does say he killed him for ambition… but you see only Brutus thinks that… but Cassius has a very own selfish reason and he is using Brutus because the people can trust him!! but Brutus is naive … he should have seen right through Cassius…

    I’m not blaming you or challenging you I’m just correcting you … please don’t get this the wrong way!!!

  4. What is written here is not true.Brutus killed a powerful leader for no reason (he says that he was ambitious but he has no proofs for what he said) and still he can be honorable man ? No sir, he is not honorable. His speech has a lot of flaws and no proofs at all.

    • hes honorable in the sense he killing for the people that least thats how the story was i thought the same thing at first killing a friend honorable thats weird but its for the people

  5. although im only in high school, this helped me very much. comparing the two is a very big point in the essay i have to write

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment