Comparing Machiavelli's The Prince And Julius Caesar

The pursuit for power and political stability often challenges leaders on whether or not to adhere to traditional concepts of morality. This interplay between power and personal morality is a common idea in Niccolo Machiavelli’s 1513 political treatise “The Prince”, and William Shakespeare's 1599 tragedy “Julius Caesar”. The Prince reflects the context of political turmoil in which Italy (Florentine republic) was dominated by the Catholic Church and threatened by external powers. Shakespeare’s drama is set in Elizabethan England where there was political and monarchical upheaval due to foreign invasion and the insecure future of England. Both composers value for nationalism enabled them to reveal similarities in their ideas to gain and maintain

Both composers reflect on the idea that the easiest way to gain support, is through the manipulation of the populace. Machiavelli states that successful leadership is attributed to being able to manipulate people’s perspective and appear desirable to them, as the Renaissance Italy’s Humanist movement led to people supporting those who benefitted them. “if the people turn hostile (…) they will desert him” through high modality and syntax, Machiavelli is able to claim the detrimental impact of not acquiring public support on power. He gives the example of the Spartan King (Nabis), another successful leader observed by Machiavelli, who was “besieged by forces from all over Greece (…) all he had to do was take precautions to deal with a few internal enemies but if he’d had the people against him, this wouldn’t have been enough.” And addresses the ease in maintaining power when the public had his

Queen Elizabeth’s skills of rhetoric and expertise in public relations, enabled economic welfare to remain steady. Her ability to maintain public relations led to her success as a leader and served as one of Shakespeare’s intents of composing the play. Through the incompatible perceptions of conspirators and the people of Rome, in terms of monarchical power, Shakespeare emphasizes that without a mutual agreement, and manipulation of the populace, it is hard to obtain success. Antony displays how political power is dependent on manipulative rhetoric through his oratorical confrontation to the antagonistic plebeians. “When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept (…) (weeps)”, his first attempt at winning over the crowd is portrayed through the stage direction of him weeping amidst his speech. Implementing pathos, which Caesar had supposedly done himself, enables him to convey his good intentions for the plebeians. Moreover, after being given the epithet of “blocks” and “stones” by Murellus, earlier in the play, Antony is able to empower the crowd by valuing their presence as humans rather than objects “you are not wood, you are not stones, but men.” Finally, the balanced combination of logos and pathos in order to connect with his responders is utilised by Antony in his oration through the staging, “(Antony descends from the pulpit.)” This new positioning places