Julius Caesar And Machiavelli Analysis

783 Words 4 Pages
A comparative study of texts allows an individual to understand the notion of morality and nationalism by drawing out the similarities and differences between the values, and attitudes they present. This allows an individual to deepen their perspective about reality. This notion is explored in depth in William Shakespeare’s 1599 Elizabethan era play, Julius Caesar and Niccolo Machiavelli’s sixteenth century political treatise, The Prince.
Machiavelli’s interest was principally concerned with the acquisition of power at all costs, whereby the ‘ends should justify the means’ and where questions regarding morality should not obstruct political ambition. As an accomplished diplomat who lost his position in the Florentine republic as a result
…show more content…
The actual documentary is called ‘Who’s Afraid of Machiavelli’ but you would be better off referring to the stimulus or stimulus clip). . This is evident in chapter 15 of his treatise, “If a ruler wants to survive, he’ll have to learn to stop being good, at least when the occasion demands”. The didactic tone of Machiavelli’s prose suggests that it is quintessential for a leader to disguise as a person who lacks morality. To further emphasise this point, he cites an example of Cesare Borgia; an individual who was a ruthless and successful ruler Moreover, he expands the notion of morality in chapter 18 of his work where “a ruler must be able to exploit both the man and the beast in himself to the full.” This phrase suggests the duplicitous nature required of a ruler which was essential during a period, where Florence was constantly attacked by foreign invaders, like King Louis of France. One can argue that the metaphorical reference of ‘beast’ represents how a ruler should appear to the , would not only shock the enemies outside of the state, but the internal conspirators and …show more content…
He further explores the notion of morality in his tragicplay, Julius Caesar. This was acted in Tudor Elizabethan regime where due to her old age and uncertainty of an heir, there was political unrest. One can argue that this play was created, with some modifications to implicitly warn Queen Elizabeth, about the conspiracies against her. It can be argued that Shakespeare first mentions about the notion of morality in Act 1 Scene 2 of the play where his characterisation of Cassius, through the lens of Caesar foreshadows the absence of morality, “He [cassius] is a great observer, and he looks quite through the deeds of men… such men as he be never at heart’s ease….and therefore are very dangerous.” Here, is that an individual like Cassius, who lacks morality, can succeed in politics, and the leader who has morals, may well be unaware of it. Thus, according to Machiavelli, it is essential, to be ‘feared than loved” and hence a successful ruler should lack morality. Whilst Machiavelli values that a leader should be ‘feared’ by the public, Shakespeare values that a leader should be ‘loved’. This is evident during Antony’s funeral speech where the oration, “when that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept; ambition should be made of sterner stuff” clearly indicates that Caesar was loved by the public. Furthermore, according to Machiavellian lens, it can

Related Documents