Dichotomy In The Prince And Julius Caesar

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

“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

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