DeBoard 1

Jacob DeBoard

Ms.Woelke

APEL P.5

22 March 2018

Julius Caesar Rhetorical Analysis Essay

For centuries, stories have been told regarding that of uprisings, or wars, caused by

disputes over whom, or how, a country should be ruled, and this is evident in Shakespeare’s

adaptation of ​The Tragedy of Julius Caesar​. In the play, many characters view Julius Caesar as a

threat to Rome because of his great ambition, including that of Cassius, Brutus, and Decius.

These three are amongst a larger group of conspirators who feel something must be done, else

Caesar becomes tyrannical. However, for the conspirators to fulfill their plans, they must first

convince Caesar to attend the senate despite his wife, Calphurnia’s, belief he must stay home.

To convince Caesar of staying home, Calphurnia appeals to Caesar in desperation, in hopes of

appealing to Caesar by evoking an emotional response of fear, while Decius confidently presents

logical facts in order to persuade Caesar to attend the senate, in the end, Decius’ argument was

victorious because of his confidence and modest tone.

In Calphurnia’s eyes, she desires Caesar to stay home because of her emotionally loaded

plees, and that these may evoke some fear within Caesar so that he will resist attending the

senate. In order to convince Caesar of this, Calphurnia presents to Caesar an personal anecdote

of a dream regarding the recent storm. In this anecdote, Calphurnia attempts to create a

horrifying representation of this dream in which “blood drizzled upon the capitol” and auditory

imagery of dying men groaning and ghosts shrieking(Shakespeare,II.ii.9-12). This vivid imagery
 DeBoard 2

within the anecdote of her dream was intended for Caesar to completely feel the fear she felt

whilst having this dream, so that he may be persuaded to stay home. In this same anecdote,

Calphurnia described the storm utilizing figurative language, in the form of a metaphor, by

comparing the storm to “fierce fiery warriors”, and later she made the inference that “the heavens

themselves blaze forth the death of princes”(Shakespeare,II.ii.7, 20-21). With this description of

the storm, Calphurnia desires Caesar to acknowledge and understand her concerns as, according

to Calphurnia, such violent storms don’t happen without reason. To Calphurnia, the reason for

the storm was the coming death of a Ceasar, who’s death would cause such a commotion in the

galaxies rather than the silence brought about whenever “beggars die”(​Shakespeare,II.ii.19). ​As a

final attempt to convince Caesar to stay, Calphurnia humbly begs Caesar to consider her point of

view as she falls on her knee and exclaims “O Caesar!”, thus utilizing an exclamatory sentence

to put emphasis on her appeal(Shakespeare,II.ii.13). This emotionally fearful action is

Calphurnia’s last effort in saving her husband from his apparent doom.

After Calphurnia makes her case to Caesar, Decius provides an alternative to Caesar in

that Decius utilizes logical facts with confidence so that Caesar may attend the senate. To

accomplish this Decius tells Caesar how Calphurnia’s dream was “all amiss interpreted”, and

while the dream may at first appear a nightmare, it’s actually a blessing to all of

Rome(Shakespeare,II.ii.45). Decius then states how “[Caesar’s] statue spouting blood” actually

“signifies that from great Rome [Caesar] shall suck reviving blood”(Shakespeare,II.ii.47-50). In

this statement Decius utilizes the imagery of Caesar’s statue bleeding, to belie what Calphurnia

had previously feared, in the possible death of Caesar, with a completely new meaning of

“revival” to Rome, that brings about a great sense of pride to Caesar(Shakespeare,II.ii.50). This
 DeBoard 3

is logical to Caesar, as the arrogant and cocky ruler he is, because this interpretation of the dream

not only allowed Caesar to feel pride and accomplishment, but it turned Calphurnia’s own words

against her, as this “spouting blood” was given a hopeful new meaning to

Caesar(​Shakespeare,II.ii.47)​. Decius then logically argues that because Caesar had previously

refused the crown of Rome, if he were to “send [the senate] word that [he] would not come, their

minds may change”(Shakespeare,II.ii.57-58). Through this, Decius presents an urgency in a post

hoc fallacy, being if Caesar denies coming, then the crown will most likely not be offered to him

again, thus making not attending the senate the main reason for Caesar no longer being offered

the crown. These logical arguments concerning Calphurnia’s dream and the Caesar’s crown

were Decius’ arguments that Caesar should attend the senate.

Overall, Decius’ argument was more persuasive for Caesar because Decius appealed to

Ceasar with confidence and a modest tone. Throughout Decius’ argument, Decius’ confidence is

evident in that he maintains his composure, while still in a state of panic. This is unlike

Calphurina, as she simply collapses and begs for Caesar to stay once she realized he may choose

otherwise. Being the sophisticated man Caesar is, he simply saw Decius’ confidence more

appealing than Calphurnia’s sorrow and grief. Decius also appeared modest and flattering in his

tone throughout his argument. In utilizing a connotative diction with words like, “smiling,

reviving, great, dear, and love” when describing Caesar and the people of Rome he would lead,

Decius creates an impressionable tone so that Caesar may favor him over Calphurnia’s negativity

and fear, as she utilizes a distressed tone that ultimately makes Caesar embarrassed once he hears

from Decius(Shakespeare,II.ii.48,50,64). Therefore, Caesar feels the urge to listen to Decius, as

 DeBoard 4

his interpritation of the dream is “fair and fortunate” rather than “horrid”, as described by

Calphurnia(Shakespeare,II.ii.4, 46).

In conclusion, Decius’ abundance of logic and flattery appeals more to Caesar than

Calphurnia’s use of emotion and fear, thus making Decius’ argument more effective. Because

Decius was able to understand his audience far greater than Calphurnia, Decius was able to

convince Caesar to attend the senate. Thus, Caesar valued Decius’ logic more because to him,

“cowards die many time before their deaths” and Caesar would rather die living, than live

dying(Shakespeare,II.ii.22).