Julius Caesar: Power vs. Morality

my essay for a project but idc i will still upload it here

Power and morality have been intertwined together in politics since ages, often raising questions about leadership, ambition, justice, etc. In the play of Julius Caesar, Shakespeare explores these themes through the rise of Caesar, the conflict of Brutus and the influence of Cassius.

Caesar: strong or ambitious?

To deduce whether Caesar was ambitious or whether he was a strong leader has been a debate for years, but in my opinion, he was both. The reason why Caesar was such a strong leader was also because of his ambitious personality. Though having ambitions is a good virtue, Caesar was suspected to be too ambitious and possibly tyrannical. In Act 1 Scene 2 when Casca explains the happenings at the festival of lupercal, he tells us about how Mark Antony handed Caesar a coronet three times and each time he seemed too hesitant to lay his hands off it – even though it was not a real crown. However, this scene is not entirely conclusive or legitimate evidence of Caesar being tyrannical. The narrator of this scene i.e Casca, was already sarcastic and mocking Caesar in his narration. The character has opinions, and could possibly be exaggerating his observation of Caesar being too reluctant to let go of the crown, or interpreted the event according to his own biases. Shakespeare deliberately leaves the uncertainty of Caesar being a dictator on purpose to further add to the tragedy.

Brutus’s moral dilemma: acting for the good of Rome, or misguided?

Brutus is a complex character. In my opinion, he did have the noble thought and intent behind killing Caesar, but instead of turning to violence the first moment, he should have held a peaceful negotiation with Caesar to find out whether he is truly tyrannical or not. Brutus was far more likely to be manipulated by Cassius though, he may be honorable but it was quite easy to manipulate him. Cassius was able to manipulate him by appealing to his sense of honor and duty towards Rome. Furthermore, rather than attempting a calm talk, he chooses to assassinate based largely on what Caesar could become in the future. This reflects on his flawed sense of judgement and his contradictory nature. He values honor and loyalty, yet kills someone who he calls his friend, that too largely based on assumptions and not clear answers or evidence. Besides, the sudden assassination of such an influential and powerful leader can further destabilise a civilization.

Cassius: envy or nobility?

Cassius disguised his envy towards Caesar as nobility. It is very obvious in his speech that he is clearly more envious of Caesar rather than actually caring whether he is tyrannical or not – him being tyrannical could also simply be an excuse to justify his envy towards the public. In Act 1 Scene 2 when Brutus and Cassius have a chat about Caesar during the festival of Lupercal, Cassius continuously tries to appeal to Brutus and flatter him constantly to manipulate him. He also tries to provoke Brutus into experiencing the same envy he has towards Caesar, which can be seen clearly in this quote:

“Brutus and Caesar: what should be in that ‘Caesar’?

Why should that name be sounded more than yours?

Write them together, yours is as a fair name,

Sound them, it doth become the mouth as well,

Weigh them, it is as heavy; conjure with ‘em,

Brutus will start a spirit as soon as Caesar.”

Cassius is unarguably one of the smartest characters in this play, and if he did care about Caesar being tyrannical, he would have given facts or evidence of him destroying Rome to his benefit rather than telling incidents like the swimming competition between them in which Caesar lost and the fever incident in Spain. Instead of showing Caesar as a dictator, he rather shows him as weak and not competent enough and is annoyed at the fact that why he is seen as a great man while Cassius is seen ordinary.

This also proposes a question: if Cassius does this out of envy or wanting to be as powerful as Caesar, why does he treat Brutus as a respected leader? This is because Brutus had something he didn’t – he was a noble and honorable figure in the eyes of the Romans. If such a virtuous man does such a deed, the fickle crowd of Rome surely will not argue against it and think that Brutus did the right thing by assassinating Caesar.

---

“DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?”

This is a classic moral question popularized by writer Niccolo Machiavelli. This statement is generally associated with the term Machiavellianism. In his famous political essay ‘The Prince’, Machiavelli states that leaders are much preferred to be respected than liked. But here – the end is not personal gains or wealth, it is political stability and security of the state. Machiavelli argues that harsh or morally questionable means may be justified if it brings political stability. In the play Julius Caesar, after the means, the end is complete havoc.

To decide whether his assassination was right or wrong is a matter of debate. Instead of taking a clear stance, I would like to propose a question: can you really judge the morality of something shrouded in uncertainty? To word it better – Shakespeare adds uncertainty of Caesar’s thoughts on purpose. We do not know whether Caesar was actually ambitious or was wrongly interpreted. Caesar also never got the opportunity to speak out his thoughts, therefore, can we judge the morality of something based on such broad assumptions?

Brutus’s decision rests not on certainty, but on the possibility of what Caesar might become. This leaves readers with an enduring question: can a person be morally judged for actions they have not yet committed? By refusing to provide a clear answer, Shakespeare transforms Julius Caesar from a political tragedy into a deeper exploration of uncertainty, morality, and human judgment.

Thank you for reading my boring school essay haha