How does a comparison of Machiavelli's the Prince and Shakespeare's Julius Caesar reflect the way their social, cultural and historical contexts can influence their choice of language forms and features and the ideas, value and attitudes?
Does the end justify the means? I am sure you all would have your own personal opinions in response to this perplexing question. Two composers in the Renaissance era also pondered upon the issue. Consequentialist Machiavelli in the political treatise The Prince reflects the rise of pragmatism and amorality in politics whereas playwright William Shakespeare’s historical tragedy Julius Caesar applies these ideas and attempts to reflect the Elizabethan context. The drama appeals to an audience fearing Elizabeth I’s imminent death without an heir and consequent civil war and religious conflict. Through the osmosis from these new zeitgeists, we can combine the implicit and explicit relationship between texts to deepen our understanding of the values and significance of each.
The Prince is substantially less theoretical than the literature on political theory that preceded it, reflecting the drastic change in the pragmatic nature of powerplay. This realpolitik, didactic approach can be seen through the metaphor and anthropomorphism of the fox and the lion to explain the combination of cunning and strength that a prince must possess to maintain empirical control of his state. Machiavelli stresses that a prince must alternate between the fox and the lion when …show more content…
Why are Machiavelli’s ideas attacked today, whereas Shakespeare’s are applauded? Why are there negative connotations with the word “Machiavellian”? We see daily the separation of ethics from politics and the insight of his ideas nearly 500 years later. So does the end justify the
Does the end justify the means? I am sure you all would have your own personal opinions in response to this perplexing question. Two composers in the Renaissance era also pondered upon the issue. Consequentialist Machiavelli in the political treatise The Prince reflects the rise of pragmatism and amorality in politics whereas playwright William Shakespeare’s historical tragedy Julius Caesar applies these ideas and attempts to reflect the Elizabethan context. The drama appeals to an audience fearing Elizabeth I’s imminent death without an heir and consequent civil war and religious conflict. Through the osmosis from these new zeitgeists, we can combine the implicit and explicit relationship between texts to deepen our understanding of the values and significance of each.
The Prince is substantially less theoretical than the literature on political theory that preceded it, reflecting the drastic change in the pragmatic nature of powerplay. This realpolitik, didactic approach can be seen through the metaphor and anthropomorphism of the fox and the lion to explain the combination of cunning and strength that a prince must possess to maintain empirical control of his state. Machiavelli stresses that a prince must alternate between the fox and the lion when …show more content…
Why are Machiavelli’s ideas attacked today, whereas Shakespeare’s are applauded? Why are there negative connotations with the word “Machiavellian”? We see daily the separation of ethics from politics and the insight of his ideas nearly 500 years later. So does the end justify the