For Julius Caesar, traveling to the capitol to meet with the Conspirators was a decision that sealed his fate. Before he left, his wife Calpurnia had tried to convince him to stay home after having a morbid dream that had shaken her. However, Decius came and convinced Caesar to rethink his decision and come to the capitol where he would be assassinated. Throughout the discussion on whether Caesar should go to the capitol, it’s shown that both Calpurnia and Decius use pathos to persuade Caesar; difference being that Decius was able to persuade Caesar more due to him using effective word choice and his fatal flaw against him. Calpurnia uses pathos and appeals to the fear and pride of Caesar, though she does not do so to the extent of Decius.“Which drizzled blood upon the Capitol. The noise of battle hurtled in the air. Horses did neigh, and dying men did groan, And ghosts did shriek and squeal about the streets. O Caesar! These things are beyond all use, And I do fear them.” (Act II Scene ii, lines 21-26) Calpurnia describes the scenes …show more content…
Due to this flaw, it was fate that Caesar would succumb to this and die because his judgement was clouded. Calpurnia uses foreshadowing in her argument, for she talks of omens, but neither Calpurnia nor Caesar knew that her dream was a telling of his fate. This made Decius’ argument seem more realistic, for Calpurnia’s foreshadowing is more abstract while Decius’ claims that the council would look down upon him would seem more sensible. It’s easy to believe that someone is cowardly if they do not show up to an important event due to the possibility of danger, but it’s hard to grasp something that is not set in stone. The dramatic irony would be that Decius is a conspirator and is plotting Caesar's assassination, that was known to the audience yet unknown to the all characters except Decius