Through their powerful renderings of war and politics, Niccolò Machiavelli's iconoclastic 1532 political treatise The Prince and Shakespeare's 1599 historical tragedy Julius Caesar mutually seek to explore the nature of human weakness. A manifestation of Machiavelli's radically realpolitik interpretation of Renaissance humanism, The Prince subverts the traditional Christian moral zeitgeist, redefining weakness in instrumental terms - that a leader's results are superior in importance to his means of achieving them. While influenced by the comparable circumstances of the inchoate European Renaissance, Julius Caesar explores in a more nuanced manner the notion that a ruler's weaknesses are not subject merely to instrumentalist justification,
…show more content…
Rather, Shakespeare deviates considerably from Machiavelli's instrumentalist doctrine, postulating that while political expedience is a considerable strength, there exists a more intricate scope of personal weaknesses. Shakespeare's acknowledgement of the Machiavellian delineation of weakness is unmistakeable in Cassius' soliloquy: "Brutus, thou art noble; yet I see thy honourable metal may be wrought." The polysemous pun alludes to the Machiavellian tenet of Brutus' weakness being concurrent with his morality, a notion perhaps inspired by the success of the eminently guileful Queen Elizabeth in the face of factional threats. Moreover, Shakespeare concurs upon the inherent weakness of idealistic values, seen powerfully in Brutus' epigrammatic remark, "Th'abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power" - the dramatic irony of Brutus' naivety being in utter support of Machiavelli's argument that "a leader… must learn not to be good". However, influenced by the tumultuous political climate under the Elizabethan succession crisis, Shakespeare diverges from Machiavelli, complicating the concept of weakness by portraying the adverse consequences of Cassius' aforesaid self-interested consequentialism. Namely, Brutus' and Cassius' intrafactional …show more content…
Namely, Brutus' superfluously chiasmic exordium "believe me for mine honour and have respect to mine honour that you may believe" needlessly forbids the audience an appreciation of his message, underlining the weakness of his incapacity to adapt to the public occasion. This weakness is accentuated upon contrast with the shrewdly contrived eulogy of Antony, whereby he announces "let me not stir you up to such a sudden flood of mutiny. They that have done this deed are honourable." Antony's perceptive employment of second person and paralipsis permit him to manipulate the audience sentiment against Brutus while appearing unhostile, such that he operates by Machiavelli's metaphorical expression of strength in "taking on the traits of the fox and the lion". In coherence with widespread superstition, namely the concept of the Chain of Being in Elizabethan society, Machiavelli's motif of 'fortuna' is shown to manifest in supernatural portents throughout Julius Caesar. Namely, Calpurnia's alliterative warning of "fierce fiery warriors fight upon the clouds… dying men did groan and ghosts did shriek and squall about the streets" uses polysyndeton and cataclysmic
Rather, Shakespeare deviates considerably from Machiavelli's instrumentalist doctrine, postulating that while political expedience is a considerable strength, there exists a more intricate scope of personal weaknesses. Shakespeare's acknowledgement of the Machiavellian delineation of weakness is unmistakeable in Cassius' soliloquy: "Brutus, thou art noble; yet I see thy honourable metal may be wrought." The polysemous pun alludes to the Machiavellian tenet of Brutus' weakness being concurrent with his morality, a notion perhaps inspired by the success of the eminently guileful Queen Elizabeth in the face of factional threats. Moreover, Shakespeare concurs upon the inherent weakness of idealistic values, seen powerfully in Brutus' epigrammatic remark, "Th'abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power" - the dramatic irony of Brutus' naivety being in utter support of Machiavelli's argument that "a leader… must learn not to be good". However, influenced by the tumultuous political climate under the Elizabethan succession crisis, Shakespeare diverges from Machiavelli, complicating the concept of weakness by portraying the adverse consequences of Cassius' aforesaid self-interested consequentialism. Namely, Brutus' and Cassius' intrafactional …show more content…
Namely, Brutus' superfluously chiasmic exordium "believe me for mine honour and have respect to mine honour that you may believe" needlessly forbids the audience an appreciation of his message, underlining the weakness of his incapacity to adapt to the public occasion. This weakness is accentuated upon contrast with the shrewdly contrived eulogy of Antony, whereby he announces "let me not stir you up to such a sudden flood of mutiny. They that have done this deed are honourable." Antony's perceptive employment of second person and paralipsis permit him to manipulate the audience sentiment against Brutus while appearing unhostile, such that he operates by Machiavelli's metaphorical expression of strength in "taking on the traits of the fox and the lion". In coherence with widespread superstition, namely the concept of the Chain of Being in Elizabethan society, Machiavelli's motif of 'fortuna' is shown to manifest in supernatural portents throughout Julius Caesar. Namely, Calpurnia's alliterative warning of "fierce fiery warriors fight upon the clouds… dying men did groan and ghosts did shriek and squall about the streets" uses polysyndeton and cataclysmic