ipl-logo

Dichotomy In The Prince And Julius Caesar

863 Words4 Pages

Those that will hear me speak, let 'em stay here. Be patient till the last. Hear me for my cause. Now do you really care about Machiavelli or Shakespeare? No, well too bad, I’ll be talking about them anyway. Does a distinct boundary really exist between Machiavelli’s The Prince and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar? Is there any means of ascertaining the dichotomy between the two texts? Sure! But first it is essential that we consider the context of the authors. Why? Because context, whether it is social, cultural or historical, can have a profound influence on the way the composers express their ideas. It is also context that puts into perspective the motives for the composition of the texts in its various language forms and features. A shared notion …show more content…

“Men…are ungrateful/Wish to maintain…position…to not to be good” is indicative of men who are desirous for power and the extent to which they go to ‘maintain’ it. The negative connotation of ‘ungrateful’ expresses the flaw of humans, and their lack of appreciation. “They shun danger” articulates, through the lexicon of ‘shun’ and exclusive language of ‘they’ as a commentary on the cowardice behaviour of leaders to face danger. This quote from The Prince is ironic in Julius Caesar as, despite the warnings given by his wife and the Soothsayer, Caesar goes to parliament, consequently leading to his downfall. Machiavelli wrote The Prince under house arrest, as a gift to Medici to regain the position in politics, with the attempt failing. This reiterates the theme of desire for power as, Machiavelli, too wants power whilst writing a “handbook” on how to maintain it, allowing his actions to be considered contradictory. The Prince, being written in pragmatic prose, with simple syntax is another example where context prompts the composer to consider the language forms and features that are utilised. This is primarily because of the intended purpose of the text. After being given amnesty by Medici, Machiavelli considered writing The Prince as a favour to him, to appreciate his act of kindness and restate the concern for his position; this being the historical …show more content…

In Julius Caesar, in Act 3, it become explicit the destructive nature of the masses. “We will be satisfied!”: highlights, through the authoritative tone, that if a leader is not loved, then the leader should not undermine the power that the people possess. This is an apparent link to Machiavelli’s questioning on whether “it is better to be feared than loved?”. Furthermore, this view is emphasised through Cinna’s death, that if the moral and ethics of the majority is challenged, then it is detrimental for a leader who wishes to remain in power. If Machiavelli, in The Prince, had directly mentioned his morals, then it may have collided with morals of Medici, making his predicament

Show More
Related
456 Words | 2 Pages

The Prince: A Decidedly unMedieval Piece of Work The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli, was a secular handbook that dealt with modern statecraft and leadership. In fact, this was the first modern book that discussed political science. This book has influenced many well-known leaders, such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. This essay will discuss the past behaviours of Machiavelli to prove that this book, The Prince, is a decidedly unMedieval piece of work which does not follow the idea of living life so that it is worthy of respect and honour, as stated in the Medieval Code of Chivalry.

Read More
1824 Words | 8 Pages

In addition, Machiavelli didn 't take the traditional route for supporting his argument of advice. He didn 't bother using any ethical or philosophical principles as the base for his advice he was trying to give. Instead, he used his own political program on real-life examples as his foundation to his treatise. Which is probably one of the reasons why "The Prince" got so much negative criticism. Machiavelli is practically stepping out of line by explaining what a prince should or should not do in pursuit of his

Read More
1116 Words | 5 Pages

Several humanists were widely appreciated for their shared knowledge during the time, constantly writing about everything in the Renaissance. One famous humanist, Niccolò Machiavelli, published one of his most famous pieces, The Prince, which was a short composition to Lorenzo de’ Medici about the secrets of becoming a good ruler. The controversy around this was Machiavelli was known for loving his Republican government, but developed a plan to have Lorenzo reign in an unjust manner. This specific piece of literature describes a twisted ex diplomat using writing as a way to infiltrate the Florentine government to gain position back in the government. The pope Clement VII described the book to be unethical, but allowed its publication about twenty years after it was accused of being crafted of the hands of Satan due to immorality theme of the treatise.

Read More
1056 Words | 5 Pages

Then for Machiavelli he talks about how a prince should show no fear instead for him to show that he is the one with power. That a prince's people should fear him. Both authors go on to talk on how their people react based on the prince and princesse act. The authors then go on to explain how they should view and run their people. Both authors also reflect the fact that the way their people are going to act towards them is mainly based off of how they treat them.

Read More
676 Words | 3 Pages

In Niccolo Machiavelli's book, The Prince (1513), he evaluates on how a prince can be a successful leader. Machiavelli’s purpose of this guidebook was to construct his argument to the rising ruler Giuliano de Medici for when he comes to power in Florence. He adopts a casual but authoritative tone in order to convince the prince that Machiavelli’s evaluation on how to be the best prince, is the right thing for the prince to do without coming off as he knows more than the prince or is trying to intimidate him.. Machiavelli’s reference to previous rulers and whether their tactics failed or succeeded helps to benefit his credibility along with his allusion to historic text. He appeals to our logic by simply stating a prince can only do what is within his power to control, and his use of an analogy furthers his argument.

Read More
474 Words | 2 Pages

Then as an attempt to regain a political post and my family’s good favour, Machiavelli wrote The Prince, which was inspired by the shrewd and cunning Cesare Borgia in 1532! Which helped to fuel his fame up to this day! The notorious book espoused his views that strong rulers should be harsh with their subjects and enemies, and that any action with no moral views is okay to do so if the leader thinks it is so. ‘The prince’ was manly for advice to me- Lorenzo De Medici .He wrote that fear and deception were the best ways to allow better political control and for any rulers to remain in power.

Read More
770 Words | 4 Pages

Niccolò Machiavelli wrote during a period of a lot of change, during the Pre-enlightenment. He witnessed corruption of states with internal fighting between the powerful families. Machiavelli’s writing The Prince’s ideas were most appropriate for the time in which he was living in, and today this writing and Machiavelli himself is seen as cynical and evil. Although many of his ideas are seen as evil, it is great to still talk about his ideas in politics today. In the following essay, Machiavelli’s most important ideas presented in The Prince will be discussed as practical, but how they are now looked at as evil and cynical in today’s politics.

Read More
843 Words | 4 Pages

And even after the city was conquered and the Republic fell, he never left Florence. Some have made the argument that Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” not as a handbook, but as an insult to the invading Medici Prince. As Viroli argues (quoting a 1585 Italian text by Albericus Genntili), “Machiavelli was a strong supporter and enthusiast for democracy… He was extremely hostile to tyranny.” If this is to be believed, the Machiavelli, in fact, was actually a good man, who likely did not support the message of The Prince.

Read More
1293 Words | 6 Pages

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

Read More
594 Words | 3 Pages

Compare and contrast In William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is about a man named Cassius who is jealous that Caesar gets all of the power and he gets together with a man named Brutus and they make a group and then they kill Caesar and Caesar’s friend Mark Antony fights for Caesar. I will be comparing the characters Cassius and Caesar the characters are different on the ways they want Rome to be Ruled but the characters are alike in their love for Rome, their want for power, and how they are both overly confident. Cassius and Caesar are alike for their love for Rome. Cassius believes by killing Caesar he is saving Rome from having a weak leader.

Read More
607 Words | 3 Pages

The conspirators loved Caesar but they loved Rome more and feared what he would become if given the power. They wanted an emperor not a king, a friend not a tyrant. “Liberty, freedom! Tyranny is dead!” (III, I, 86).

Read More
1284 Words | 6 Pages

In Machiavelli’s book, The Prince, he maintains a harsh perspective on reality. His advice on how to maintain power leaves no room for compassion or generousity. While some may believe that these are qualities of a good person, Machiavelli believes these qualities lead to the downfall of rulers. He acknowledges that, in reality, it is impossible for someone to have qualities of a good person and simultaneously a good ruler. Machiavelli’s realistic outlook causes him to emphasize that it is better to maintain power through fear, rather than compassion.

Read More
1411 Words | 6 Pages

This essay will focus on Merleau-Ponty’s account of our relations with Others, as well as its relation to Sartre’s philosophy and how effective of a critique Merleau-Ponty offers to the Sartrean understanding of our relationship to the Other. Throughout the essay i shall refer to the relationship between the Individual and the Other, this is simply to mean the relationship found between the ‘I’ and the other humans they interact with who have questionable similarity to the ‘I’. Our relationship to Others is a significant area of discussion because it opens the problem of Other Minds, which entails the idea that I, as an individual, cannot verify that any other individual I interact with is conscious in the same way I am. Both Sartre and Merleau-Ponty

Read More
782 Words | 4 Pages

In The Prince, Machiavelli establishes a primitive and inherently negative view of human nature that centers around man’s obsession with self-preservation through the means of obtaining power. It is this thinking that propels his understanding of the nature of a prince as a leader, and the qualities he must possess due to the nature of his subjects, which validates the natural fear he must have to lose his rule. This logical deduction of fear justifies his perception that the strong are in fact virtuous in respect to the preservation of the state when they are committing vicious acts on its behalf. His fundamentally caustic beliefs about the nature of humanity are the base upon which his understanding of principalities and the relative power

Read More
1034 Words | 5 Pages

Both of these highly influential authors had different opinions on ruling that would shape how people would rule during their time and for rulers to come. One of Machiavelli’s major points in The Prince was that it was better to be feared than to be loved. He said this was because while both ways can be useful tools to help one rule, men are less likely to turn a ruler if they were afraid of punishment. Machiavelli had little faith in the common man and had this to say about them, “They are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of dangers, eager to gain”(pg.353).

Read More

More about Dichotomy In The Prince And Julius Caesar

Related Topics

Open Document