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.
Module A: Comparative study of texts and context Shakespeare’s “Julius Ceaser” explores the concept of absolute authority and how manipulation can cause chaos whereas the Prince by Machiavelli asserts that without absolute authority there is chaos. Understanding of authority has been enhanced by the comparative study of ‘The Prince’ by Niccolo Machiavelli and Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Ceaser’ in the aspect that they are both bold statements to their respective political situation. Understanding of these texts is further enhanced by watching the Charlton Heston rendition of Mark Antony’s speech to the people. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the prince to serve as a political treatus for an effective leader who is void of morals to achieve his goals, Julius Ceaser is a political play that serves as a statement as
The Age of Absolutism The Age of Absolutism was a period of prosperity in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. While at this time many countries had absolute rulers, these rulers were able to make a lot of progress in advancing their nations. These rulers are some of the greatest rulers these countries have ever had and helped lead to the prosperity of this era. During this time period, a majority of the rulers were absolute rulers, having absolute power over their country.
Machiavelli is one of Shakespeare’s most common sources of inspiration for his writing, so it’s no surprise that Antonio’s rise to power to reflects Machiavelli’s views in regards to a ruler. Machiavelli believes that a true ‘prince’, or ruler, doesn’t need to be elected or inherited his power. According to him, there is no difference between legitimate or illegitimate seizure of power, and occupation of the throne. Shakespeare uses Antonio and the aspects of his character to delve into the controversy presented by the moral conflicts of Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’, thus revealing these methods in Prospero.
By comparing literature, changing ideas, values and attitudes all which reflect the current context is evident, none the more than in the Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli, a treatise for young princes on power, and Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, a tragedy which actualises Machiavelli’s cynical ideologies. The prince was written during the Renaissance where there was a shift from scholasticism to humanism- a more logical and less religiously influence cultural movement. Similarly, Julius Caesar was written when the Elizabethan Era- the so called golden era of Britain- was coming to an end with no obvious heir to the throne. In light of this, we can acknowledge how literary techniques and features illustrated the contextual links to the texts. Deception is to politics what death is to life, unavoidable and completely justifiable.
When Machiavelli wrote the letter to Francesco Vettori, he discusses his vast knowledge and experience on political affairs and stated the relevancy amongst each issue. It all interrelates by displaying the distinct political ideologies and contrasting the positive and negative traits that a ruler should obtain. The idea that it shows to readers is that power can be given to any leader but obtaining glory gives that leader immortality and lives on in generations, which is the greatest success a ruler can achieve. Therefore Machiavelli mentions an analogy on fortune being a woman it can be fragile, attractive, and easy to seduce; but to be mastered completely a ruler must apply force and violence portray himself as ruthless to surrender. No matter the vast knowledge or skills of a ruler if acted upon impulsive decisions will be his downfall, for example Julius by doing so actions he achieved nothing if it weren’t for Julius arranging alliances.
One aspect of Machiavelli’s theory which significantly contributes to his reputation as the “philosopher of evil,” is his advice to the prince on keeping their word to the public. In chapter eighteen, Machiavelli states, “a wise ruler cannot, and should not, keep his word when doing so is to his disadvantage, and when the reasons that led him to promise to do so no longer apply” (pg. 37). To simplify, Machiavelli says princes are obligated to lie in certain circumstances. He also states that while it is unnecessary for the prince to have positive qualities, such as honesty, trustworthiness, sympathy, compassion, or be religious, it is essential for the prince to be viewed so by the public (pg. 37). While many people argue that Machiavelli’s legitimization of lying and deception in politics is immoral, I argue the opposite.
One instance of a Shakespearean character disagreeing with Machiavellian principles is Ferdinand from THE TEMPEST. Machiavellian principles are often not morally sound. In many cases, Machiavelli claims that corrupt traits are the best ones for the rulers of a state to exhibit. One of these claims occurs in Machiavelli’s THE
General Critique, Analysis & Synthesis with Class Materials According to SparkNotes Editors (2002), „The Prince“ was created by Machiavelli in Florence, betweern 1513 and 1514, and only published after his death in 1532 (Key Facts section, para.1). During this period Italy was dusiunited and plagued by constant power struggle and wars among numerous Italian city-states and even the Roman Catholic Church. These conflicts were supported and sometimes initiated by foreign powers (Spain, France and Holy Roman Empire), which seeked to further their own interests and weaken each other. It is during these tough and dangerous times that Machiavelli decided to write a kind of a manual for rulers (princes) of Italy, which will help them to restore
The moral context and ethics of Machiavelli, are depicted in his work The Prince, can be compared to that of Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes . Machiavelli is considered equally the epithet of political disloyalty and a public visionary. The main emphasis of my analysis is to explore the moral thoughts of Machiavelli’s archetypal prince and to explore the kind of image that these “qualities“ will create. My goal is to explain the nature of Machiavelli’s moral compass while highlighting the perception of his moral flexibility. One assignment this can be compared to is my class participation assignment that questioned Don Quixote’s moral compass when choosing to free the slaves.
The reputation of Niccolo Machiavelli has reigned infamous for centuries, not least as a result of his most noted work ‘The Prince’ (1532) resulting in the term "Machiavellian’ being used today for anyone who is seen slyly to manipulate a given situation to their own advantage by means of shrewd political insight" (Barnett, 2006). Although Machiavelli is often regarded as a pioneer, of sorts, of political thought by contemporaries and historians alike, the direction and content of his work on ‘The Prince’ was not without contextual historical motivation. A growing trend around the sixteenth century was the ‘Principis’ genre of literature, translating literally as “mirror of the prince”. This essay will explore the contextual setting for Machiavelli’s development of ‘The Prince’ and evaluate whether a knowledge of Machiavelli’s life and times is really necessary to understand and interpret the text for either what many believe to be it’s intended purpose or solely the purpose of political guidance. The intention behind Machiavelli 's 'The Prince ' was to provide an advice text, true to the ‘Principis’ style of the time, detailing how to a Prince might go about appearing learned and legitimate of his position in the event that he may not actually be so (Bobbitt;2013).
In his work, The Poetics Aristotle reflects on the role of pity and fear in tragedy, stating, “Tragedy is essentially an imitation not of persons but of action and of life; of happiness and misery. Add human happiness or misery takes the form of action… Character gives us qualities, but it is in our actions that we are happy or the reverse… The tragic pleasure is that of pity and fear” (Aristotle, The Poetics). Aristotle is probing one to conclude that tragedy is characterized by the pity and fear one evokes when individuals go against their presumed character and commit detrimental acts. Throughout his play Macbeth, Shakespeare, reminisces on the actions that gravitate an audience to render both fear and pity, which characterize a tragedy.
‘Julius Caesar’ and ‘Henry V’ are plays whose themes are reflective of their respective contextual climates. They were both written in the time of renaissance theatre under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, who was an avid supporter of Shakespeare’s work. The plays were written consecutively, and they both present historical figures that were greatly idolised in the period in which they were composed. Both history plays convey how, on political scenery, deceit is omnipresent. In Julius Caesar, it is used to bring down the monarchial rule and to ultimately implant a new democratic government, while in Henry V, the King makes use of multiple facets of his personality among which is deceitful behavior in order to conquer France and win over
I. Machiavelli In his famous work the Prince Niccolo Machiavelli exposes what it takes to be a good prince and how only this good price and keep control over his state. There are many different qualities that make a man a good ruler but there are some that are more essential than others. In this work Machiavelli stresses the importance of being a warrior prince, a wise prince, and knowing how to navigate the duality of virtù and vices. Without these attributes there was no way that a prince could hold together their state and their people.
In this essay the following characters and features will be compared and contrasted: Mercutio and Benvolio, their differences and similarities, how they effected the play, how they participate in the feud. I choose these features because even though they are not “main characters” they still greatly influence the play. I will explain how they effected the play, how their personalities make them foils and how this in turn effects them as characters and everyone around them.
