would be in chaos. What destroys the harmony in Caesar’s Rome—Caesar’s ambition for power? Cassius’ jealousy? Brutus’ naivete? Or the fickleness of its citizens?

One of the major issues Julius Caesar deals with is the overthrow of a ruler. In this play, Shakespeare raises the question of whether this is ever justified and if so, under what circumstances. At the time Shakespeare was writing, a commonly held view on this topic was that the overthrow of any ruler—good or bad—was morally wrong. This view is prevalent in Dante's The Inferno (a part of a longer work completed between 1308 and 1321). In the poem, Dante (an Italian poet) put Brutus and Cassius in the lowest level of Hell as punishment for their rebellion. This concept was well-known in Shakespeare's time through literature such as The Inferno and through the views of England's rulers. The two English monarchs during Shakespeare's lifetime, Queen Elizabeth and King James I, shared the view that an attack on the ruler was deeply immoral and dangerous to the kingdom. James I felt that even a bad ruler should not be overthrown, for such a person was sent by God to test and mature the character of the Christian subject of the ruler. Hence, in no situations should the subject turn to rebellion. Both Elizabeth and James were the targets of plots against them, but both survived the plots.

A view opposite to the medieval one of Dante was put forward by some Renaissance thinkers in their writings. Two Renaissance writers who supported the overthrow of a tyrant ruler were the Italian political writer Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and the French essayist Michel Eyquem Montaigne (1533-92). In their philosophical arguments, they discussed the causes which would lead people to seek to overthrow a ruler. Additionally, some Catholic and Protestant polemicists advocated the overthrow and assassination of an unjust ruler when specific circumstances, such as lack of religious toleration in the kingdom, applied.

In Julius Caesar, Brutus argues that Caesar was killed because of his ambition. He worries about the change that Caesar might undergo if he were to acquire more power. The historical Julius Caesar was able to achieve a level of personal power exceeding that which the ancient Roman political system was designed to allow. The main governing body in Rome in Caesar's time was the Senate. In Julius Caesar, most of the central characters—Caesar, Brutus, Mark Antony—are members of the Senate. The principal officials of the Senate were known as consuls. Two consuls were elected from the Senate by the general public. These two consuls served alternate months during the same year. The power of a consul was intended to be checked by the presence of the second consul and by the short term of office. However, in a period of civil wars, many exceptions to these rules were made for the victorious military leader, Caesar. The Senate awarded additional honors and power beyond that of a consul to Caesar due to his successful military exploits. Later, Caesar claimed even more power for himself.

Like the ancient Roman legal system, the modern democratic system is one in which officials are elected by the general public and in which checks and balances are incorporated into the governing process. In a democracy, people have the power to vote out of office individual leaders who are not representing their views in the passing of laws. A system of checks and balances exists with the division of the U.S. government into three branches: legislative, judicial, and executive. Informal checks are also in place which prevent one person from amassing too much power. Such checks include regularly scheduled elections, campaign laws, independent media, a system of public education, well-trained lawyers and a jury system, separation of church and state, and lobbyists for various constituencies.

Another area of interest for the modern audience is the difference between the historical record, mainly as found in the writings of Greek biographer Plutarch (died c. 120 A.D.), and Shakespeare's use of the record. Much of Shakespeare's story for Julius Caesar is found in Plutarch. However, Shakespeare omits a number of things: 1) reference to Portia's first marriage or her offspring from that marriage 2) the fact that Caesar saved Brutus's life after the battle of Pharsalus 3) the comment that Brutus stabbed Caesar in the "privities." Suetonius, a Roman biographer/historian and contemporary of Plutarch, reported on a tradition that Brutus was Caesar's illegitimate son, another aspect of Roman record which is not mentioned in the play. It has been suggested that perhaps Shakespeare omitted such information in order to depict Brutus in a sympathetic manner. Additionally, there are a number of other differences between Plutarch's historical record and Shakespeare's play, including compressions of time. Similarly, modern artists rely on historical or official records for inspiration. The artist—whether he or she is a poet, an author, a playwright, a director—may interpret or embellish aspects of such documents for any number of reasons, including theatrical or political purposes. One modern example of variation between the record of an event and an artist’s interpretation of that event is the difference between the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the movie version depicted by film director Oliver Stone.