Additionally, Shakespeare more realistically explores abuses of power (the other end of this spectrum of its effects) by characterizing Marc Antony with a manipulative and vindictive side that he developed upon gaining power while Golding's abusive leader, Jack, acts out on a whim for no apparent reason. When he names himself chief, Jack acts in a very naïve, juvenile way, viewing it as a fun way to pass the time, acting nothing like the vindictive Antony. To Jack, being stranded is an exciting game and nothing else. Throughout the story, Ralph sought to take a reasonable approach for organizing life on the island and a rescue from it. Meanwhile, Jack would "like to a catch a pig first." Over time, he remembers that he is "chapter chorister and head boy" and "can sing C-sharp". To him, he can have more fun if he breaks away and establishes his own chiefdom. Even later, Jack realizes that by creating rituals, such as the "dance" performed when killing animals, he can manipulate the other boys by giving them some sense of unity, but he did not stop there. He developed a fixation upon two things: the conch and the fire. Even though Ralph would have let him have a piece of burning wood and whatever else he needed, Jack did not wish to acquire it this way. Rather, he continued his "game" and resorted to raiding Ralph's camp. From there, his love of the game and the fun he was having brought the entire colony into ruin when the only thing preventing his only enjoyment was Ralph himself. In other words, Golding proposes that power corrupts gradually as one sees with Jack, but Jack has not lost control. Rather, he is doing this for personal enjoyment. One can assume this because he did not abuse those associated with him for any reason, ironically fears blood but overcomes this strictly to better enjoy his "fun", and stops the hunt for Ralph and anyone else who did not join his tribe after the arrival of the British Navy brings back sanity. On the other hand, Marc Antony's dynamic characterization truly demonstrate power's corrupting abilities as the reader views his transformation from loving friend of Caesar to military and political mastermind in a matter of scenes. Antony started out as a friend of Caesar who remembered that "when Caesar says 'Do this," it is performed." (Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Act I, Sc. 2, 10) Until his death, Antony remains static only serving Caesar as a loyal friend, but, then, with the assassination of Caesar, one sees a change in Antony. Antony uses apostrophe and soliloquy to say, "0 pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth/that I am meek and gentle with these butchers." (Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Act III, Sc. 2, 254-255) As with Jack, these attacks become larger and more serious. Next, Antony speaks at Caesar's funeral saying that he "should do Brutus wrong and Cassius wrong, /Who you all know are honorable men." (Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Act III, Sc. 3, 124-125) Antony, at this point, includes subversive undertones to turn the crowd against the Conspirators using his power, his chance to speak, against those who granted it. However, in the Fourth Act, Antony will literally want heads to roll. Antony has become completely and entirely vindictive, corrupted by his newfound power. He, Octavius, and Lepidus have established an army and are preparing to fight Brutus and Cassius. Not only does he consent to the assassination of those in Caesar's will in order to increase his share, but he also implores Octavius to get rid of Lepidus saying that, while "he is a tried and valiant soldier", his horse is the same. What has occurred to Antony, his development of an inbred desire to destroy all and promote only yourself, truly demonstrates the corrupting nature of power especially in conjunction with politics. Governments of all kinds whether democratic, fascist, or communistic all fall when one person tries to take all the power for himself or herself. Unlike Jack who wanted to be recognized and feel important, Antony became a monster that was worse than the Conspirators he abhorred, so, because of this, one is safe to assume that Shakespeare more accurately showed the corrupting affects and abuses power can lead too.
Additionally, both works offer insight into the idea that an object or a person can fulfill a unifying role, and its destruction can cause anarchy. Once again, Shakespeare has offered a better description of this object. In The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Julius Caesar is this unifying force. From the play, one can learn two things. First, the nature of the force does not matter if a force is in control or an object in place. In the play, Caesar fulfills this role, but, before the play began, one learns that Pompey was the leader of the Roman World and loved by many. Marullus accuses the people of Rome of being "blocks", "stones", and "worse senseless things". However, he sums this point up quite nicely when he says,
"Knew you not Pompey? Many a time and oft/
Have you climbed up to walls and battlements, /
To tow'rs and windows, yea, to chimney tops, /
You infants in your arms, and there have sat/
The livelong day, with patient expectation, /
To see great Pompey pass the streets of Rome. /...
And do you now cull out a holiday/...
That comes in triumph over Pompey's blood? /"
(Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Act I, Sc. 1, excerpts from 38-52)
From common knowledge, one knows that even before Pompey, peace was maintained strictly because there was a person in power. Simply put, people are not concerned about who has power as long as there is someone in power. Second, one can once again say that Shakespeare better demonstrates this point merely because of the symbolism he uses and how he integrates it into The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Up until Caesar's assassination, most of Rome is rejoicing the end of the civil war and the possibility that Caesar might rise to power, but, after his death, things change. Antony predicts, "Blood and destruction shall be so in use, / And dreadful objects so familiar, / That mothers shall but smile when they behold/ Their infants quartered with the hands of war..." Later on, this prophesy comes true when he convinces the Romans to rebel against the Conspirators through a series of underlying messages about them in his funeral speech. The conch fails to illustrate this point as effectively because it is too temporal. The conch could be compared to personal finances and money in general. When one views money, one does not see anything of worth; rather, one practices faith believing that it has worth. Likewise, the conch was just a "deep cream shell, with touches of pink here and there" with a "slight, spiral twist" and a "delicate, embossed pattern". All they knew about it was that it was worth "pounds and pounds and pounds" back home. Also like money, the conch changed hands too many times. Everyone felt entitled and empowered by the conch, so the children would attempt to obtain it even though they might not have a valid purpose for keeping it in their possession. However, the primary reason for why the conch does not effectively communicate the idea is not related to the fact that it is temporal as compared to being "constant as the Northern Star". While the nature of the conch is makes it a poor example of a unifying object, the decline of their society better explains why it is not as effect as Julius Caesar is as a symbol. When the conch broke, Jack exclaimed, "See? See? That's what you'll get! I meant that! There isn't a tribe for you anymore! The conch is gone-" However, anarchy had not just set in. To the contrary, their society had already been falling apart. In most societies, a unifying force, object, person, or cause holds even the most unlikely of allies together until it no longer exists. During World War II for example, the democratic Americans partnered with the Communistic U.S.S.R. specifically because they were unified against Germany; however, as soon as the war was over, the Russians took their half of Europe as protectorates and established the Communist Bloc. Meanwhile, we took our protectorates in Western Europe and worked to promote capitalism and democracy thus starting the Cold War with one of our greatest allies. Because Caesar even united the Conspirators together, one can assume that Shakespeare created a stronger symbol to show the unification of a people and the creation of anarchy than William Golding's conch.
Similarly, the balance of power that exists between Jack and Ralph is skewed to a near illogical point while there is a more even balance of power between the Conspirators and the second set of Triumvirs. When Octavius is talking to Antony about the upcoming Battle of Philippi, he says, "...their battles [armies] are at hand;" (Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Act V, Sc. 1, 4). Even though one knows that Brutus and Cassius have become public enemies and been driven from Rome, one can see that they have not lost support. While one might say that there is discontent among the leaders on both sides as when Brutus accuses Cassius of having an "itching palm" and when Marc Antony seeks to get rid of Lepidus, this is absolutely normal. During World War II, the Americans, British, and other capitalistic, democratic members of the Allied Forces sided with the Communist Soviet Union. Even though the alliance ended with the end of the war, the Allied Forces, with the help of their unusual compatriot, Russia, were able to defeat Germany and the Central Powers despite differences. However, what separates the two authors are their ideas about the changes within a balance of power. History shows one that entire regions have relied on complex balances of power and confusing systems of alliances in many instances. For example in Early Modern Era Europe, all European politics were based off the balance of power that was created by the recognition of all states as sovereign as brought about by the Treaty of Westphalia. Likewise, people are like these sovereign states. While this simile may seem very abstract, every person has the right to make his or her own decisions and chose who they associate or ally themselves with. The so-called balances of power created by these states reflect the relationships between the Conspirators and the Triumvirs and each group amongst itself. Additionally, these balances of power are constantly subject to change. Alliances are weakened and broken apart, but it is almost impossible for a non-neutral party to be isolated. This is where Golding's argument that a balance of power can become skewed or knocked uneven through bribery and manipulation fails. At one point, Ralph learns that there are "some littleuns" and "no biguns" other than Sam and Eric. Soon after, he watched as "Piggy fell forty feet and landed on his back across the square red rock in the sea." Eventually, he did not even have Sam and Eric to fall back on because they were forced to Jack's side. In the end, Ralph was entirely alone. When pondering this, one would realize that in a real survival situation people would be more concerned with escape as compared to "meat" and satisfying their desire to "kill the beast" and "Cut its throat!" when food was available. Now while, some may argue that Shakespeare depicts a similar situation with Brutus and Cassius, the balance of power is skewed but not entirely destabilized. Even while they are losing in the Second Battle of Philippi, Brutus is not abandoned by his friends Clitus, Dardanius, Voluminus, and Strato. Rather they are urge, "Fly, fly, my lord, there is no tarrying here," (Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Act V, Sc. 5, 30) along with other similar statements. Additionally, one can infer that many still supported Brutus and Cassius. Shakespeare characterized Brutus as being well respected among the Romans, and Antony and the other Triumvirs had instituted a reign of terror killing off "seventy senators", "Cicero being one". Brutus and Cassius do not commit suicide because they have lost all support. Rather, they are both aware that they have lost their power and prestige, would only cause more destruction and harm to the innocent, and wish to satisfy their guilty consciences as noted when Brutus says, "Caesar, now be still; / I killed not thee with half so good a will." (Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Act V, Sc. 5, 50-51) In short, Shakespeare once again more logically described a side effect of power, its ability to hold people together through trying times, more believably than the irrational and implausible example proposed by the anarchy on the island in Golding's Lord of the Flies.
Finally yet importantly, Shakespeare truly shows the lasting effects and consequences of power more so than Golding whose ending to the Lord of the Flies suggests that being concerned with the use and misuse of power is futile. When one views the consequences of the actions of Brutus and Cassius, one is given a very tragic picture. Brutus has lost his favor in the hearts of the Romans, his wife, Portia, his friends, Cassius and Caesar, and even the Battle of Philippi. Worst of all, he lost his hope and was overcome with guilt which led him to give Strato his sword so that he could "run upon it." (Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Act V, Sc. 5, 48). Likewise, Cassius falls to a similar fate finally admitting his guilt as he is told in a moment of dramatic irony that Titinius was captured by the enemy who was advancing toward him. Even Portia suffered, committing suicide since she could not cope with the idea of losing her husband. Extraordinarily, this all originated from one event: Brutus giving into the pressure of his peers, colleagues, and compatriots. This in turn led to Caesar's death and Antony's funeral speech. At which he said, "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; / I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." (Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Act III, Sc. 2, 74-75) Through subtleties such as these and the exploitation of loopholes, it becomes popular opinion that "There's not a nobler man in Rome/ than Antony." (Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Act III, Sc. 2, 118-119) Eventually, his power matches that of Caesar's, and a downward spiral ensues because of Brutus's use of his friendship with Caesar and popular support to assassinate Caesar and defend himself in the hearts and minds of the Romans. In contrast, the Lord of the Flies ends with the return of order and sanity with the British naval officer. Golding ends the novel in the middle of the war. When Ralph recovers from his fall, the naval officer asks him a few questions, and, meanwhile, he realizes that the "little boys, their bodies streaked with colored clay, sharp sticks in their hands, were standing on the beach making no noise at all." As one sees, these boys were for the most part unaffected. All the mistakes caused by the abusive leadership of Jack and Roger had no more pertinence. The only one who had an idea of the extent of their mistakes was Ralph. This, when reflected upon, is a true moment of irony. When we examine Ralph, he is not intelligent like Piggy or pulling the strings like Jack. Rather, he simply becomes the "chief' since he found the conch, and, ironically, he is the only one to realize the consequence of their actions. In short, if he had not "wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy" no one would have felt the true effects of what they did for years to come. With this, one can infer that Golding is saying that the positive use of power will slow a negative outcome, but the negative outcome will always occur. However, to Golding, the negative outcome is not necessarily a total loss of hope or comparable occurrence; rather, it might just be the acceleration of the inevitable like Jack's end to innocence. When viewed from this respect, Golding's work is absolutely infuriating because it guarantees that a negative outcome will always occur, it says the effects of exercising power might not be serious, and proposes some amount of order may be restored thus implying that exercising power, in a sense, is futile; however, Shakespeare argues the more realistic view that consequences might not come immediately or at all, but the effects of exercising power can be positive or negative even when it comes to the taking of one's life to correct the mistakes oneself has caused!
In other words, Shakespeare's argument in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar surpasses the argument in William Golding's Lord of the Flies since it is both more realistic and more detailed about the possible outcomes rather than offering a broad, pessimistic generalization. Shakespeare's Brutus actually gains some respect as many honest political leaders do while Golding proposes that honest and wise leaders like Piggy will always be put aside. Golding develops the naive argument that corrupt leaders are not aware of what they are doing as was Jack, but only wish to gain recognition while Shakespeare accurately characterizes Antony as corrupt, power hungry, and seeking personal gain and nothing else. Additionally, Golding uses the conch in his story as a unifying force but, then, depicts the decline of the society on the island to show how symbols of power and figureheads do not actually have any power over people even though real-life experience shows that group mentality will cause people to submit to some force even if it just replaced the former one thus adding to Shakespeare's argument. On top of this, Golding argues that exercises of power are futile since they always lead to a negative outcome which might just accelerate an impending event and that balances of power tip horribly opposite of logic while Shakespeare argues that all exercises of power do have consequences and that it is very rare for one to lose the support of all as both life and the characters of The Tragedy of Julius Caesar demonstrate. In short, Golding's argument cannot overcome that of Shakespeare's because it emphasizes the naivety of those in power and how the exercise of power is futile even though reality contradicts this in most of situations. Even the laws of nature itself prove this. As said by Newton, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." something that Golding could not grasp.