Although the texts The Prince (1513) by Niccolo Ma Essays

Although the texts The Prince (1513) by Niccolo Machiavelli and William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (1599) are close to 100 years apart, they share commonality in the timeless lust for power that leaders have felt throughout the ages. Shakespeare reflects his context of a possibility of civil war through a historical play set in Rome, and Machiavelli provides the context of important power figures from history that can be used as parables to provide lessons on the nature of humans when dealing with power. Machiavelli and Shakespeare present various systems of governance where both favour monarchy as the most stable system despite Machiavelli being a staunch Republican. Power is ultimately seen as being gained through deception and violence and is kept through the different qualities of the leader, whether it be through the way they talk, or how they act and think. Both texts illustrate messages which not only apply to their times, but also to the modern lifestyle of power play, provi ng the texts to be of lasting relevance. One of the most distinctive qualities of Machiavelli's essay The Prince is its lack of interest in personal morality. Machiavelli's primary interest is in the end justifying the means and how the ambition for power can be achieved and maintained, thus leaving little room for questions of morality. The distinctive quality of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is the play's focus on the complex moral question of what would drive a good man to commit an evil act, believing he was doing it not for his own ambition but to curb the ambition of another. The reading of these two texts in relation to each other thus emphasises their distinctions rather than their similarities. Machiavelli, enmeshed in the world of political intrigue of Florence, believed that ambition drove men to action, but Shakespeare explores a more complex idea. He creates a character, not driven by personal ambition but by idealism; someone who is not driven by emotion but by reason and who will act because he fears another's ambition. In the process, Shakespeare recreates one of the traditions of Elizabethan theatre, the soliloquy. These direct speeches to the audience had been a way to share the character's motivation and prefigure their next move. Cassius' soliloquy after he tries to persuade Brutus to join the conspiracy is a typical example. Now Shakespeare changes the purpose of such direct speech, so it can reveal the inner workings of a character's mind: It must be by his death; and for my part I know no personal cause to spurn at him, But for the general. He would be crowned. How that might change his nature, there's the question. At the start of this new scene Shakespeare trusts his audience to know whom Brutus speaks about. In four lines he moves from certainty, must', to the uncertainty of that question'. The broken rhythm using enjambment and mid-line caesura creates the effect of a man wrestling with his conscience and while he remains uncertain, So Caesar may', he later comes to a decision, Then, lest he may, prevent'. Machiavelli wrote that A good ruler should stick with the good if he can, but know how to be bad when occasion demands.' In Shakespeare's portrayal of Brutus we see this dramatized, but unlike Machiavelli who is interested in the outcome, Shakespeare appears more interested in the effect of such decisions on the individual. As a civil servant who had lost his position in the Florentine republic, Machiavelli's purpose was to flatter and impress the new absolute ruler and potential mentor, Lorenzo di Medici. Working in the humanist tradition of the Italian Renaissance, he uses the persuasive form of the essay, drawing examples from classical times and recent Italian political history. However, he breaks with that tradition by disregarding morality. Previous writers had considered what actions would be right; Machiavelli changes the equation by simply asking, what actions are effective? This caused many of his contemporaries to see him as an immoral monster and led to our modern understanding of the term Machiavellian'. It is not that he is unaware of the moral perspective - he just chooses to ignore it. He holds up Cesare Borgia as a touchstone for princely