Julius Caesar2





Brutus’ Inability to Assume Political Leadership of the Conspiracy Against Julius Caesar

In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare presents a broad range of historical personalities as complicated human

beings in agonizing conflict with one another and with themselves. Literary authors A.L. Rowse once

wrote, “No issue hinders a man’s leadership capabilities more than his confusing perception of honor, noble

idealism, and inner self-conflict” (15). In his drama about power, nobility, assassination, and revenge,

Shakespeare examines this particular issue best in his simple yet complex characterization of Brutus. Guided

by conflicting emotions, Brutus, an idealistic man, is unable to assume political leadership of the conspiracy

against Julius Caesar. However, although he ultimately participates in Caesar’s murder, he is neither a

clear-cut hero or villain. On the contrary, it is the corruption and instability of human nature that eventually

leads to his downfall.

Brutus lacks several important ingredients in regard to assuming political leadership: confidence and

ambition. He is also indecisive. His inner conflict is first revealed in a conversation with Cassius in which he

responds to Cassius’ fear that his friend Brutus disapproves of him. Brutus assures Cassius that he is not

angry with him, but with himself:

Cassius,

Be not deceived. If I have veiled my look,

I turn the trouble of my countenance

Merely upon myself. Vexed I am

Of late with passions of some difference,

Conceptions only proper to myself,

Which gives some soil, perhaps, to my behaviors.

But let not therefore my good friends be grieved

(Among which number, Cassius, be you one),

Nor construe any further my neglect

Than that poor Brutus, with himself at war,

Forgets the shows of love to other men. (1.2. 37-46).

In Scene I, Cassius utters the first in a series of persuasive remarks designed to win Brutus on the part of

King 2

the conspiracy to destroy Caesar. But Brutus is incapable of assuming the leadership role as his self-conflict

reflects both his personal love of Caesar and his duty to the Republic. He admits, however, that he loves

honor more than he fears death, and that he will act in the public good at any cost. Later in the

conversation, Brutus reassures Cassius, revealing that he is somewhat inclined toward Cassius’ sentiments.

He then promises to consider the information that Cassius has already presented, to discuss it further, and to

give him an answer at a later date. For the present, Brutus tells Cassius:

Till then, my noble friend, chew upon this:

Brutus had rather be a villager

Than to repute himself a son of Rome

Under these hard conditions as this time

Is like to lay upon us (1.2. 171-174).

Brutus’ noble character is established by both Cassius and Caesar. Brutus is a reflective man, dedicated

to the principles of the Republic, to love and friendship, to duty, and to honor. For the sake of honor, he

will even face death (as, in fact, he does at the end of the play). But as strongly as he holds to these ideals,

he is just as strongly torn by conflicting loyalties to these ideals. Brutus makes decisions deliberately, and

he is not quickly influenced by persuasive and passionate argument. He is torn between his love and

admiration for Caesar and the anti-Caesar sentiments he admittedly shares with Cassius. The emotions of

love and respect for Caesar that Brutus feels are authentic and deep. The effect is to make the political

leadership against Caesar impossible.

Again, Brutus’ conflict consists of his love for Caesar on one hand, and his concern for the social good

and welfare of the Republic on the other. According to historian Steven Ozment, Brutus “tends to

rationalize his actions by altering his view of its desirability” (qtd. in Roberts 152). He can find no

justification to gain the political leadership of the conspiracy against Caesar in Caesar’s past actions;

therefore, he finds justification for it in what Caesar might become. He assumes that Caesar will develop

into a somewhat bombastic and unbearable tyrant if he is crowned king. On the basis of this assumption, he

decides to murder him. The flaw of his reasoning is that Brutus does not raise the question of whether or

King 3

not a moral end justifies immoral means, nor does he consider that his