Rivera 1

Dylan Rivera

Ms. Woelke

AP English Language

15 April 2018

Julius Caesar Rhetorical Analysis

The most amazing superpower is the one of human language. It can read minds, persuade

others, build bridges, or bear destruction. Whoever masters it inevitably will master rhetoric, a

true showcase of the artistic use of language. In the play ​The Tragedy of Julius Caesar​, the clash

between trust and loyalty is displayed between Julius Caesar, soon to be emperor of Rome, and

Brutus, Caesar’s trusted friend who struggles with his loyalty between Caesar and Rome - both

loyalties are not compatible, as Brutus will go on to believe. Although it can be seen throughout

the play, playwright William Shakespeare demonstrates the power of human rhetoric specifically

in the war of words between Calphurnia (Caesar’s beloved wife) and Decius (a trusted

companion of Caesar) over Caesar’s inauguration ceremony as emperor of Rome - to go or not to

go? By the end of the selected passage, Decius overcomes Calphurnia’s inferior argument so that

Caesar goes on to be coronated all due to Decius’s extensive use of emotional connections to

Caesar and Calphurnia’s desperate, rash statements.

In the beginning of the passage Calphurnia makes several fatal rhetorical errors which

weaken her persuasive ability over Caesar. The fact that Calphurnia’s argument is based on a

narrative of her dream (which Caesar and Decius both reference in 2.2.38 and 2.2.45) already

presents itself as a weak basis for Caesar to feel strongly for her cause - in her dream, as

Calphurnia describes, death would come upon Caesar if he goes to the coronation ceremony. A
 Rivera 2

narrative presented in this fashion is inherently distinct from any logical approach: it largely

relies on the inner emotions of Calphurnia and offers no concrete evidence to support that Caesar

would indeed be murdered. The dream itself, explained through this narrative, emotional style

does not make a lasting impact on Caesar’s mind. Furthermore, Calphurnia’s desperate tone

makes her have a weak, unattractive argument. Her tone is largely based on an emotional plea

and can be seen when an exclamation mark is used when she cries, “O Caesar!” (2.2.13) and

fightful diction in the phrases “they frighten me” and “I do fear” (2.2.2 and 2.2.14, respectively).

This exclamation mark conveys a sense of urgency and indicates the raising of Calphurnia’s

voice, signaling her emotional distress and representing the desperateness of her plea. This

desperation may work on Caesar on the short term but would quickly crumble once Decius

presents his argument. Another weak point of Calphurnia’s use of rhetoric lies in her extremely

limited point of view: personalized pronouns (me, I, my) adhering to Calphurnia’s subjective,

fearful point of view over the situation. This is demonstrated in several lines throughout the

passage, including but not limited to, “Yet now they frighten me” (2.2.2), “And I do fear them”

(2.2.14), and “Let me, upon my knee, prevail in this” (2.2.34). These first person point of view

pronouns do not appeal at all to Caesar himself and are limited to Calphurnia, which is a mistake

since Caesar values himself and his ambitions highly. If Calphurnia focused more on second

person point of view pronouns while addressing Caesar - ​you ​are, ​your ​ambitions, etc - her

argument may have been more convincing. However, her argument remains in her personal

realm and fail to state anything truly meaningful to Caesar himself.

Halfway through the passage Calphurnia makes her final arguments and Caesar claims he

will listen and stay back - until Decius enters the picture. Calphurnia delivers a final blow to her
 Rivera 3

argument when she uses an antecedent to refer to Caesar’s reason for not going: “Do not go forth

today. Call it my fear / That keeps you in the house, and not your own” - as “it” refers to the

reason for Caesar not to go (2.2.50-51). This declaration assumes that Calphurnia takes

responsibility for the reasoning behind staying back and “it” is justified through her personal

fears. This reason alone is irrational as a fear itself does not imply anything will happen -

Calphurnia’s dream was simply a false attempt at a foreshadow, in Caesar’s view. Thus, the

antecedent in this case does not work and not sufficiently represent a valid reason for Caesar to

miss the ceremony of becoming emperor.

Decius on the other hand presents a much more rhetorically persuasive argument for

Caesar to go to the senate building as he starts off by using powerful, personalized imagery as he

describes a fountain “spouting blood… in which so many smiling Romans bathed” (2.2.47-48).

This imagery is a direct spin on Calphurnia’s vision that blood would spill from Caesar’s statue,

but in a way signifying his downfall - in Decius’s reasoning, blood spilling from the fountain

will actually represent the glory of Rome once Caesar takes power and Roman’s pride in their

emperor. This imagery, in Caesar’s personal ambition’s favor, is compelling for Caesar as it not

only promotes Caesar’s personal goals but also vividly describes a scene of blood, a substance

Caesar is familiar with from the battlefield. Since this form of imagery is personalized to

Caesar’s ambitions, and strikes a chord within him as the power of spilling blood is a glory that

Caesar understands and even used to seek for on the battlefield, Caesar is more inclined to

appreciate this use of imagery for a reason for him to go. Overall, it is Decius’s more confident

and positive tone which captures Caesar’s attention and provide a smooth ambiance for Decius to

stake his claim by the end of his rhetorical speech. Decius’s tone can be seen in several lines and
 Rivera 4

is already established through lines 2.2.45-52 due to the fact that Decius makes no desperate

statements and even - perhaps arrogantly - dismisses Calphurnia’s dream as “all amiss

interpreted” and suggests a more positive view of her dream as instead an omen for Caesar to go

to the senate building, even boldly interpreting the vision for himself, “It was a vision fair and

fortunate” (2.2.45-46). Decius’s confident tone overrides Calphurnia’s desperate tone, appealing

immediately to Caesar (as Caesar is a confident, respectful man himself) and inevitably makes

Decius’s words even more relatable.

By the end of the passage, Caesar is convinced by Decius that he should go to the senate

building, thus changing his mind and not adhering to Calphurnia’s wishes. Decius seals the deal

by using positive, emotionally powerful diction in his discourse, such as by saying “mighty

Caesar”, where the word “mighty” appeals to Caesar’s pride and strokes his ego by essentially

openly boasting his dominance (2.2.56). Other words are also used in this fashion, notably in a

more positive and uplifting way than how Calphurnia presented her argument. This is critical

because Decius’s speech immediately differs itself from Calphurnia’s choice of words, which

were more concerned with fear - one may even interpret them as counterintuitive to Caesar’s

grand ambitions. Decius’s positive word choice is hence more attractive than Calphurnia’s

diction and is what grabs and maintains Caesar’s attention. In addition, Decius poses a rhetorical

question used in order to make Caesar reflect on his image and his high held ego: “Lo, is Caesar

afraid?” (2.2.63). This rhetorical question is something that the senate would ask themselves if

Caesar did not show up to his coronation, thus inducing a subtle fear that the senate may even

question Caesar’s character and thus merit at deserving role of emperor of Rome. Contrary to

Caesar’s ambitions, this rhetorical question would immediately make Caesar consider this
 Rivera 5

undesirable situation, a concern Calphurnia never brought up - and eventually contributing to

Caesar’s switch to Decius’s argument. To end his reasoning, Decius declares, “And reason to my

love is liable.”, demonstrating a powerful use of personal bonding - Decius’s established

emotional connection to Caesar (2.2.66). Decius effectively reaffirms his devotion to Caesar by

saying this, implying he only has good intentions and would not to anything to harm Caesar as he

“loves” him. This is an emotional plea to Caesar as Caesar is confronted with a verbal

affirmation of Decius’s claimed loyalty. Due to its friendly, virtuous nature, Caesar takes this as

a sign of loyalty and allegiance to a good friend that would not betray him, which compels him

to take Decius’s rationale as valid and the reasoning of an admirable friend.

Ultimately, via methods of rhetorical persuasion, Decius successfully convinces Caesar to

go to the senate building in spite of Calphurnia’s plea for Caesar to stay back. This would go

perfectly in Decius’s favor and lay the stage for the eventual murder of Caesar. Clearly, the

Calphurnia-Decius rhetorical presentations are prime examples of the power of rhetoric and

human language - in this case, it convinced a man to choose a path that would lead to his death.

Decius consistently manifests this power via his delicate control over emotional affections to

Caesar himself and logical reasoning for Caesar to go to the ceremony. Although this is a rather

extreme example, it should be heeded as a warning to others to be wary of human words and yet

an encouragement for people to master the art of rhetoric in response.