Drew Miller

HL English Year 2

Mrs. Casady

23 April 2019

The Use of Rhetorical Devices in Julius Caesar - Revised

Act II, scene ii of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, Decius Brutus and his fellow

conspirators plan to assassinate Julius Caesar at a senate meeting. The night prior, Calphurnia

has a dream that Caesar would be assassinated. Both Calphurnia and Decius make attempts to

rationalize this dream through the use of rhetorical devices and strategies, with Decius’ argument

ultimately proving more successful. In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, the author uses

powerful rhetoric and the rhetorical appeals of ethos and pathos to explain Calphurnia’s dream

through the eyes of both Calphurnia and Decius.

In order to convince Caesar to keep his distance for the senate meeting, Calphurnia build

a basis of trust through ethos and appeals to Caesar’s emotions through pathos. The main basis of

Calphurnia’s argument is her relationship with Caesar as his wife and the trust she builds through

the use of ethos. She begins her plea by saying she “never stood on such ceremonies,” implying

she was never one to believe in superstition or omens. This fact immediately alerts Caesar of the

severity of the dream and puts Calphurnia in a place of credibility by setting this dream apart

from any other. Because of this, Calphurnia believes Caesar will be more receptive to her plea to

stay away from the senate. Furthermore, Calphurnia mentions that “the heavens themselves blaze

forth for the death of princes.” This again adds a degree of severity and importance to the dream,

differentiating it from some other omen of death. Calphurnia knows it is the death of someone
important like Caesar because of the grandeur of the commotion; to nobody else would such

commotion be due. By highlighting the severity of the dream as well as differentiating it from ay

other dream, Calphurnia effectively conveys the idea that Caesar should remain far from the

senate meeting the next day.

Decius primarily conveys his interpretation of the dream through the use of flattery as

well as the use of pathos. He first makes an impression on Caesar by sinisterly reminding him

that the senate’s “minds may change” with regard to who would hold the throne. As a close

friend of Caesar, he clearly knows how much Caesar treasures his position as ruler and thus

exploits this desire to be able to carry out his assassination plot. Furthermore, Decius also flatters

Caesar by mentioning that his reasoning for providing this explanation for Calphurnia’s dream

was his “dear, dear love to [Caesar’s] proceeding.” This flattery and declaration of admiration,

especially due to its placement at the end of Decius’ argument, leaves Caesar with the feeling

that he is safe because his people love him. This alleviates any fear of the assassination Caesar

may have held as a result of Calphurnia’s argument. This eventually proved successful, as Caesar

did attend the senate meeting and was assassinated.

Because both Calphurnia and Decius, two people very close to Caesar, provided

compelling arguments explaining the nature of his dream, Caesar is unsure of whether to stay at

home or attend the senate meeting. The deciding factor was the tone utilized by each person.

Calphurnia, due to the shock and horror of her dream, used a fearful and anxious tone while

explaining the dream. This lies in direct contrast to Decius’ pompous and exuberant tone due to

his hidden motive of assassinating Caesar. Ultimately the more positive nature of Decius’
explanation convinces Caesar to attend the meeting. Due to the innate human desire to listen to

the positive, Darius successfully convinces Caesar to go to his doom at the meeting.

Both of Calphurnia and Decius have compelling arguments as to whether Caesar should

attend the senate congregation or not using ethos and pathos. But ultimately Decius’ use of

flattery and appeals to Caesar’s role as a leader convinced him to attend the meeting that would

be his demise.

Reflection

The main issue I encountered when revising this essay was having enough information

about actual rhetorical devices and strategies to write a solid essay. The essay to begin wasn’t

incredibly well written because it was a timed essay written during my sophomore year when I

didn’t fully have a grasp on how rhetorical analysis should work. Now, with the help of the

“what why how” strategy, I have a much better handle rhetorical analysis. In this revision, I did

my best to maintain the original ideas and concepts addressed in the first essay while presenting

such ideas in a more clear, organized, and concise way. Even then, it felt odd to write an essay

again on a book I read a few years ago; it was tough to recall specifics from the book. However it

was still eye-opening to see how far I’ve come since 10th grade in terms of my writing and

ability to analyze works.