Julius Caesar Rhetorical Analysis
As Cicero states: “men may construe things after their fashion”, in the midst of subjective conflicting perspectives upon a certain personality, what would you draw from it? William Shakespeare lends this thought to the audiences of his time as well as ours through the play, Julius Caesar. Was Julius Caesar really the noblest man that ever lived, an ambitious tyrant, or both? Enhanced by the personal values of Cassius and Brutus, we can discover that studying the conflicting perspectives of Caesar and his power can bring us closer to the truth of his character whilst cultivating a more diverse and provocative insight to Shakespeare’s context and audience.
Like many writers, Shakespeare’s purpose of writing was driven by the context and audiences of his times. Based on the political situation of Queen Elizabeth I, who had progressively enlarged her power at the expense of the …show more content…
aristocracy, Shakespeare paralleled it to that of Julius’ tyrannical power, creating his own commentary panel.
Shakespeare uses Cassius’ as a device to oppose the supremacy of imperial rulers through the use of envious rhetorical questioning, “Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed…That he is grown so great?” mocking Caesar’s success as merely a product of luck rather than superiority. This provokes the audience to perceive Cassius as the jealous villain fuelled by his own lack of success, and sympathise with Caesar. Furthermore, Julius’ arrogance and flaws are brought to light by Flavius, whom Shakespeare uses bird imagery to allude to the Greek myth of Icarus. His dialogue states that his “growing feathers” should be “plucked from Caesar’s wing” or he “would soar above the view of men”, suggesting Caesar’s rising arrogance was being fuelled by the fickle natured support of the plebeians.
Shakespeare urges his audience to reconsider their un-opinionated and easily swayed nature through pathos and dialogue spoken in a dramatic, accusatory tone: “you cruel men of Rome, knew you not Pompey?” This dramatically forceful rhetorical question inflicts guilt upon his Roman audience and encourages a stronger sense of judgment, whilst provoking us to re-address our perception of Julius Caesar’s character by not just accepting what is given to us as the plebeians did, but to dig deeper for an even more enriched understanding of Julius’ image. In fact, it is safe to say that Julius was conceited, as well as a tyrant despite his good relation with the public. He constantly referred to himself in third person, on top of using the simile, “I am as constant as the Northern Star” to describe his own perception of the longevity of his power. This highlights his own arrogance and sparks fear in us that perhaps it will lead to the abuse of his power as Cassius so often criticizes.
Apart from these character traits of envy and ignorance that feed into the negative perception of Julius, Brutus’s soliloquy denotes his own conflicting perspective upon the justification of Julius’ assassination. Shakespeare inserts sickness imagery upon Brutus’s “sick offence within his mind”, to reflect disruption in the nature of politics, ironically swaying his roman audience away from his honourable intentions to serve the general public and instead develop further attachment to Caesar. Brutus’s idealistic aims continue to work to his disadvantage as his unconvincing oratory performance heavily creates an aura of indecisiveness and weakness. This makes himself unfamiliar to his honourable values and thus distancing himself from the audience. He is also constantly switching between low and high modality, as he struggles to convince himself whether Julius “must die” because being crowned “might change his nature”. This confuses the Elizabethan and modern audiences as they struggle along with Brutus’ uncertainty. Also, it makes us question the lack of evidence provided of Julius’ assured betrayal. Will Caesar really reach for godly power once he has already gotten to the top of the metaphorical “young ambition’s ladder” whilst “scorning the base degrees by which he did ascend”? Brutus’ further failure to connect his perspective to the audience is underlined by his personal anecdote, “I have not known when his affections swayed”. Again, this numbs the spectators to his conflicted reasoning initially meant to convince himself and his listeners. Instead, they strengthen the support of Julius Caesar’s character as the tragic hero in the play.
Shakespeare’s cunning uses of literary and dramatic devices in the midst of conflicting standpoints lead his audience to accept Julius Caesar’s personality flaws. They also reveal the fact that he is neither the noblest nor the worst of the worst. However we are still persuaded to sympathise with his character despite the viewpoints of his jealous and ignorant competitors. And it is through these perspectives, often conflicting, that we are able to make more diverse and provocative insight upon his character.
Like many writers, Shakespeare’s purpose of writing was driven by the context and audiences of his times. Based on the political situation of Queen Elizabeth I, who had progressively enlarged her power at the expense of the …show more content…
aristocracy, Shakespeare paralleled it to that of Julius’ tyrannical power, creating his own commentary panel.
Shakespeare uses Cassius’ as a device to oppose the supremacy of imperial rulers through the use of envious rhetorical questioning, “Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed…That he is grown so great?” mocking Caesar’s success as merely a product of luck rather than superiority. This provokes the audience to perceive Cassius as the jealous villain fuelled by his own lack of success, and sympathise with Caesar. Furthermore, Julius’ arrogance and flaws are brought to light by Flavius, whom Shakespeare uses bird imagery to allude to the Greek myth of Icarus. His dialogue states that his “growing feathers” should be “plucked from Caesar’s wing” or he “would soar above the view of men”, suggesting Caesar’s rising arrogance was being fuelled by the fickle natured support of the plebeians.
Shakespeare urges his audience to reconsider their un-opinionated and easily swayed nature through pathos and dialogue spoken in a dramatic, accusatory tone: “you cruel men of Rome, knew you not Pompey?” This dramatically forceful rhetorical question inflicts guilt upon his Roman audience and encourages a stronger sense of judgment, whilst provoking us to re-address our perception of Julius Caesar’s character by not just accepting what is given to us as the plebeians did, but to dig deeper for an even more enriched understanding of Julius’ image. In fact, it is safe to say that Julius was conceited, as well as a tyrant despite his good relation with the public. He constantly referred to himself in third person, on top of using the simile, “I am as constant as the Northern Star” to describe his own perception of the longevity of his power. This highlights his own arrogance and sparks fear in us that perhaps it will lead to the abuse of his power as Cassius so often criticizes.
Apart from these character traits of envy and ignorance that feed into the negative perception of Julius, Brutus’s soliloquy denotes his own conflicting perspective upon the justification of Julius’ assassination. Shakespeare inserts sickness imagery upon Brutus’s “sick offence within his mind”, to reflect disruption in the nature of politics, ironically swaying his roman audience away from his honourable intentions to serve the general public and instead develop further attachment to Caesar. Brutus’s idealistic aims continue to work to his disadvantage as his unconvincing oratory performance heavily creates an aura of indecisiveness and weakness. This makes himself unfamiliar to his honourable values and thus distancing himself from the audience. He is also constantly switching between low and high modality, as he struggles to convince himself whether Julius “must die” because being crowned “might change his nature”. This confuses the Elizabethan and modern audiences as they struggle along with Brutus’ uncertainty. Also, it makes us question the lack of evidence provided of Julius’ assured betrayal. Will Caesar really reach for godly power once he has already gotten to the top of the metaphorical “young ambition’s ladder” whilst “scorning the base degrees by which he did ascend”? Brutus’ further failure to connect his perspective to the audience is underlined by his personal anecdote, “I have not known when his affections swayed”. Again, this numbs the spectators to his conflicted reasoning initially meant to convince himself and his listeners. Instead, they strengthen the support of Julius Caesar’s character as the tragic hero in the play.
Shakespeare’s cunning uses of literary and dramatic devices in the midst of conflicting standpoints lead his audience to accept Julius Caesar’s personality flaws. They also reveal the fact that he is neither the noblest nor the worst of the worst. However we are still persuaded to sympathise with his character despite the viewpoints of his jealous and ignorant competitors. And it is through these perspectives, often conflicting, that we are able to make more diverse and provocative insight upon his character.