INSHANALLY 1

As simply stated by John Maxwell, “Leadership is influence.” Such is an apt description

if one considers the events in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Shaped by feigned refusal of the

crown, flattery to solicit a potential conspirator and eloquent speeches to persuade the Plebeians,

leadership in Julius Caesar rest heavily on the ability to persuade and manipulate in a society

ruled by a republican form of government. However, the Romans as a result of Caesar’s victory

in defeating Pompey’s sons at the battle of Munda desired to make him a King; “Why, there was

a crown offered him” (1.2.222). The result of such would surely resemble Elizabethan

governance in which Tudor England, in theory, was an absolutist monarchy. Yet, England had

long enjoyed a culture of rule by consensus. When Elizabeth I came to the throne, England was

already in some ways a “limited monarchy.” Parliament, and especially the members of the

House of Commons, claimed rights of their own and were steadily gaining in both experience

and power (The Complete Works of Shakespeare 770). The blending of history and tragedy then

in Julius Caesar reflects a political landscape wrought by those in power and their ability to lead,

those who do not have the power and those who could possibly lead.

In Julius Caesar, Caesar aspires for more power on par with Elizabeth’s use of

absolutism, to portray himself as God’s appointed deputy on earth. The thought of inheriting the

divine rights of Kings and their absolute authority mirrors the Elizabethan notion of “The Great

Chain of Being”. The Great Chain of Being meant that “a monarchial government was ordained

by God and inherent in the structure of the universe…rebellion against a king was not

challenging the state; it was an act against the will of God itself” (The Grand View University).

Within a Roman context, Caesar’s mistaken confidence was garnered by the commoners’

acceptance of his decrees which were taken to be influenced by the gods. Having such unlimited

access to power as one being considered closer to celestial bodies, Caesar asserts himself as
 INSHANALLY 2

being “constant as the northern star” (3.1.60). This self-assurance boasts of Caesar’s constancy,

his faithfulness to the law and his refusal to vacillate under any persuasion. While these traits are

admirable and would exemplify any good leader, Caesar’s confidence quickly becomes

arrogance as he fails to heed his wife’s prophetic dreams and interpretations of the soothsayers.

For example, in his response to the augurers who warned that he should not leave his home on

the Ides of March, he contends that “danger knows full well that Caesar is more dangerous than

he” (2.2.45). Such haughtiness of spirit proves to be his hamartia as he disobeys the gods and

literally fall. As such, Caesar’s ability to lead is clouded by his egotistical disposition despite

noble intentions.

Without actually becoming King, it is difficult to decipher whether or not Caesar would

have transformed the Roman Republic into a tyrannical monarchy. However, a fair assessment of

the situation would take into consideration Caesar’s past political record. As such, without much

direct involvement in the play, what we gather about Caesar is filtered through the points of

views of various characters; friends and enemies alike. For example, Marullus while rebuking

the celebratory antics of two commoners does acknowledge that Caesar “comes in triumph over

Pompey’s blood” (1.1.56). This speaks well of Caesar as a military leader who is ready and able

to defend Rome in the event of battle. More so, Brutus, who battles with his decision to betray

Caesar further cements the fact that Caesar has never overextended his judicial powers. Brutus’

revelations that “I know no personal cause to spurn at him” (2.1.11) and “I have not known when

his affections swayed more than his reason” (2.1.21) is a testament to Caesar’s integrity,

intellectual prowess and ability to lead. More so, in accordance with The Great Chain of Being,

“In return for absolute power, a king was expected to rule with love, wisdom and justice” (Grand

View University). Adopting such a political ideology, Caesar remained “unassailable” (3.1.69) in
 INSHANALLY 3

his judgment of Publius Cimber. More so, Caesar’s love for the people of Rome was exhibited in

his will in which “to every Roman he gives, to every several man, seventy five drachmas” (3.2.

247-248); a considerable amount in those days. As a result of the play’s events, Caesar’s ability

to lead is demonstrated more in his death than in his life as chaos ensues after his demise. In

agreement is Walker who notes that to view Caesar otherwise than a “good and great leader”

would convey that the triumph of Caesar’s spirit at the end would be meaningless, as would the

celestial omens preceding the final act (as cited in Shakespeare Survey 128).

Disregarding The Great Chain of Being, Cassius vehemently loathes Caesar and thus

wants him out of power. In addressing his fellow conspirator, he claims that “The fault, dear

Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings” (1.2.140-141). As such, he

believes that all men are born equally free and should not bow down to another man as many

Romans now do. With such a mentality, Cassius plots the assassination of Rome’s beloved

leader. However, Cassius himself does not wield political influence and as such manipulates

Brutus in joining forces with him as a political pawn; “Well Brutus, thou art noble; yet, I see, thy

honorable metal may be wrought” (1.2.312). Cassius erroneously thought that Brutus’ renowned

loyalty for Caesar will justify the murder and hence bid well with the Plebeians. As such,

Cassius, without power, needed an ally that exudes the very essence of power.

Furthermore, a deeper analysis of the text depicts Cassius as envious of Caesar’s power

and meteoric rise. Unlike Brutus who genuinely plots the death of Caesar for the greater good of

Rome, Cassius has a personal “axe to grind”. In relating a heroic effort on his part with a

drowning Caesar, Cassius is in disbelief that “[Caesar] is now become a god and [he] a wretched

creature [who] must bend his body” (1.2.117-118). More so, to assert his own superiority,

Cassius ridicules Caesar’s physical attributes which he considers unbecoming of a leader and
 INSHANALLY 4

even appears in contention with the gods; “Ye gods, it doth amaze me/ A man of such a feeble

temper should so get the start of the majestic world and bear the palm alone” (1.2. 129-132). As

concluded by Knights, “What nags at Cassius is simply envy of Caesar… we get the impression

that Cassius’ appeals to Roman “honour”… [is] part of his own self-deception” (Knights 46).

Such self-deception could be Cassius’ own feminine traits; “that rash humour which my mother

gave me” (4.3.119). Nevertheless, by strong utterances directed at Caesar in contrast to his own

positive affirmations, Cassius hints at his desire for power and all its glory. For this reason, he

boasts after the successful execution of his plot that “many ages hence shall this our lofty scene

be acted over in states unborn and accents yet unknown” (3.1.111-113). Hence, by use of

manipulation, Cassius demonstrates how illegitimate power could be sought but eventually

learns by the reappearance of Caesar’s ghost that power, unlike previously thought, does rests in

the fault in our stars.

With few contenders as to who could possibly lead Rome after the death of Caesar,

Brutus and Antony are possible candidates. However, Brutus would make a better leader than

Antony since he is the one that has the interests of Rome at heart. In making a speech to the

Romans at Caesar’s funeral, Brutus laments “If then that friend/ demand why Brutus rose against

Caesar, this is my/ answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more” (3.2.21-24).

While Antony stirred the crowd by way of manipulation, Brutus gives logical reasons for

murdering Caesar. We believe that such a decision to join the conspiracy was for the greater

good of Rome albeit misplaced. As such, Brutus displays the qualities of a good leader; someone

who puts loyalty of countrymen above loyalty of friend. As a result, his noble intentions are

lauded even by Antony who reckons at Brutus’ death that he was “the noblest Roman of them

all” (5.5.68). More so, there is ample evidence to suggest that Brutus was remorseful for his
 INSHANALLY 5

misjudgments. In committing suicide, Brutus’ parting words were “I killed not thee with half so

good a will” (5.5.51) in recognition of his mistaken belief. As Parrott acknowledges, although

Brutus makes mistakes, “his high sense of honor and sweetness of temper are such that he never

forfeits our sympathy” (156).As such, under different circumstances, Brutus’ nobility and

general disposition would make him an ideal ruler of Rome

As is evident in Julius Caesar, leadership is exhibited by those in power and their ability

to lead, those who do not have power and those who could possibly lead. With Caesar, he

appears as an enigma to Brutus as a result of his leadership style influenced by his hubris and

nobility. As for Cassius, his lack of power results in manipulation of one in power to achieve

leadership status. More so, Brutus’ likelihood to lead is reinstated in the mind of the reader by

his remorse and pity for the murder of Caesar. Nonetheless, guilt sparked by Caesar’s ghost

shatters any hope of Brutus stabilizing Rome. As the saying goes “Power corrupts”. However,

the untimely death of Caesar leaves the old adage “absolute power corrupts absolutely”

unproven.
 INSHANALLY 6

Reference

Knights, Lionel C. “ Shakespeare and Political Wisdom: A Note on the Personalism of “Julius

Caesar” and “Coriolanus”.” The Sewanee Review 61.1 (1953). 46. JSTOR. Web. 23 Nov.
2015.

Parrot, Marc. William Shakespeare: A Handbook. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,

1955.156. Print.

“The Great Chain of Being.” GrandView. Grand View University, n.d. Web. 24 Nov, 2015.

“Unto Caesar: A Review of Recent Productions”. Shakespeare Survey,II. Ed. Allardyce Nicoll.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958. 128. Print.

William, Shakespeare. “Julius Caesar”. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Ed. Hardin Craig.

Brighton: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1973.770. Print.