Similarities Between Julius Caesar And The Prince

A comparative study of The Prince (1513), a political treatise by Machiavelli and Julius Caesar (1599), a historical tragedy by Shakespeare facilitates the intertwined values of political stability and loyalty, honour and virtue in spite of their differing contexts. Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince reflects the Renaissance Humanist ideals transposing from a conventional form by exploring the struggles of maintaining power and moral principles. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar embraces the nuances of Elizabethan England by disguising it as a Roman history play fictionalising aspects of history, delving into humanity’s hubristic ambition for power which inevitably entails the sacrifice of moral principles. Both Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Machiavelli’s

Influenced by his disjointed milieu on the Italian Peninsula and his exile from Florence, the treatise composed as a speculum principis employs a didactic tone voicing humanist ideals of Renaissance Italy, directed at Lorenzo de Medici in order to impress and gain his favour. Machiavelli reflects society’s desire for unity through the didactic tone and high modality language of “even with the most powerful army … you need the support of the people” exemplifying Machiavelli’s belief that the people hold the ability to provide state stability and therefore, the need for the prince to maintain loyalty to the people. Machiavelli comments on the importance of people as they harbour the foundations for state stability through the metaphor “the best fortress…is to be loved by his people” but “being hated by them ... all fortress will not save him”, portraying the people as a cornerstone for the success or downfall for the prince. Nonetheless, the populace also provides authority for the leader emphasised by the historical allusion of “Prince Nabis of Sparta…overcome the danger…that would have failed the populace been against him” demonstrating Machiavelli’s patriotic appeals for the ruler to rid Italy of foreign oppressors. Thus, through logical structuring, Machiavelli provides a perspective on the necessity for the populace’s favour in order

This unsympathetic, didactic tone reinforces Machiavelli’s faith in malice as a foundation for gaining power, abandoning moral righteousness. Machiavelli advocates a leader does not have to virtuous but rather, manipulative and astute, creating a defined separation between ethics and politics. The paradox “it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good” serves as an anomaly of the ethical conduct of the 1500s, reinforcing his disregard for moral norms, like Shakespeare, focusing on a more pragmatic approach to the maintenance of power. This is achieved through Machiavelli’s didactic teachings suggesting a leader “should take on the traits of the fox and the lion… you have to play the fox to see the snares and the lion to scare off the wolves”. The extended metaphor underpins the necessity for leaders to have the strength and intelligence of a lion and fox to outmatch the opponents upholding Machiavelli’s self-interested unscrupulous approach to politics and power. Consequently, both Machiavelli and Shakespeare voice a leader must commit immoral behaviour to gain power in spite of sacrificing their honour and