Shellbe Flynn Flynn Professor Irby Western Heritage in a Global Context 14 February 2007
1
A Speculation on Machiavelli's Views of Brutus and Julius Caesar as Leaders
Machiavelli's The Prince was written as a guide to princes; a "how to book" if you will. He laid down ground rules on everything from what do to when you acquire a new princedom, to who to keep as friends and allies. He had strong stances on human nature, free will, and ethics. In his book you will find reference to any problem a prince could encounter. William Shakespeare, on the other hand, wrote Julius Caesar as a play to entertain the people of England. Though his characters are believable and concrete, they act in ways that real people can't . His play is full of suicide, murder, and bloodbaths (and lengthy monologues in fancy dialect). He writes of two major rulers, leaders, "princes" you could call them. Julius Caesar is the rising king of Rome; he has just defeated the pervious leader (of the Republic) and is seeking to make the city-state an Empire. His closest confidant turned cold-blooded murderer is Brutus. Brutus kills Caesar along with a band of conspirators because they believe that Caesar is gaining too much power and control too quickly. The two men have very opposing views on practically everything regarding the government of Rome. Machiavelli would certainly
Flynn
2
have a strong opinion about how both Julius Caesar and Brutus rule, and on which would be the better leader of Rome. Julius Caesar rules without fear. His rise to power scares all of those around him, including two of his closes friends, Brutus and Cassius. Though he denies the crown three times, his actions prove that he desires to eventually be king . Caesar doesn't worry about stepping on the little people, and he becomes more and more independent by the day. He rules with fear rather than love, which Machiavelli encourages. He says that love is the decision of the people, but fear is the decision of the ruler, and it is always better to do what you can control. Caesar has a following; the citizens of Rome have accepted him as a leader. He had almost solidified himself as the Prince of Rome when he was killed . Machiavelli wrote an entire chapter about how to rule princedoms that previously lived as a republic. He comments on how dangerous they are, saying that the citizens will ultimately gang up against the prince and riot, unwilling to accept the new way of government. They feel an allegiance to their previous way of life and rule, and do not want a new prince with his new laws. He concludes that, if a prince is strong and smart enough, he can force the citizens to believe his ideals and coax into them living under him in an Empire. Shakespeare's play is identical to this prediction. Though Caesar is ultimately killed, Machiavelli would have regarded him as a good leader and prince. His only downfall was not to have realized the plot against him before it happened, but honestly, can you actually expect that? Caesar could be used as a model for Machiavelli, almost there but with a little bit left to learn.
Flynn Brutus, on the other hand, is almost the opposite of what Machiavelli desires in a prince. He rules with love, killing Caesar to free the people from what he believed were
3
his evil grasps. Brutus doesn't want an Empire in Rome, he is satisfied with the Republic that it is. To Machiavelli, this is a certain flaw. Brutus is also easily influenced. Cassius has almost no problem convincing him to kill his best friend . A leader, according to The Prince should be strong-willed and independent. He must rely on no one but himself and follow no one's orders but his own. Though Machiavelli may not have regarded Brutus as an exceptional leader, he certainly was. He was compassionate and cared about the wellbeing of the citizens. Near the end of the battle he waged for control Rome, Brutus sees that he is about to lose and asks his servants to kill him. He dies defending his honor, and when Antony sees his body on the ground he remarks that though the other conspirators killed Caesar out of jealousy, Brutus was acting for the good of the people. He is awarded an honorable burial, and remembered as a true noble . Through reading Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and Machiavelli's The Prince, we have seen many different ideas on leadership. Caesar ruled with disregard and arrogance, Brutus for the good of all, and Machiavelli... well let's just say had Machiavelli been prince we might have had another Hitler on our hands. Though it's easy to list characteristics that an ideal leader would have, it's wrong to restrain them within that "box". Each leader should adopt their own ways that they believe will push society in a positive direction. In this world, there are democracies, monarchies, people living under communist government, and some places with barely any government at all. There are
Flynn civil wars, wars on terror, and wars on wars. We, as people, are obviously yet to find a
4
leader that evokes peace and works for sustainability. We are yet to find a leader that will stop thinking about oil and money long enough to put a stop to genocide in Africa, or free the child laborers of developing countries. Maybe, if we look outside the "box" that we have created as a society, we will find a leader that will do the world some good .