A Machiavellian Ruler Of Shakespeare 's Hamlet

The actions of ordinary people can be just as evil or wicked as the horrible crimes of a murderer. Sometimes what we see on the outside is completely different from what is really on the inside. No one is perfect, everyone has their faults and some faults are unimaginable.

He cannot take revenge on the man who got rid of his father and took his place with his mother. The horror could awaken Hamlet’s violence, which is replaced by remorse and scruples of conscience. Scruples in the consciousness that correspond to something that goes beyond it, that is, in the unconscious.

In 1513, an Italian politician by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli distributed, though privately, a political treatise called The Prince. This treatise was, essentially, a guide on how to effectively rule one's country. It's important beforehand to define exactly what a Machiavellian is, before describing one. A Machiavellian is a leader who, through his power and influence, works toward the common good of his people. This can be done through fear, through deceit, even through manipulation. It is important to understand the main principle of a Machiavellian; the end justifies the means. The end being the common good of his people. Vladimir Putin is a Machiavellian in the ways he retains power, institutes reform, and executes economic

Arguably, the most Machiavellian leader to ever exist would be Joseph Stalin. He abided by three major Machiavellian methods that were stated in the Prince: the ends justifies the means, crush any opposition, and displaying a false character. Stalin had a plan for Russia and did everything in his power to achieve that plan. He wanted to transform Russia into a industrial superpower, a military superpower, and a political superpower. To achieve his goals he committed many horrible crimes against humanity. To be more specific, Stalin killed more than sixty million people during his reign. He was a selfish cold-blooded, heart less, and evil leader; human life was nothing to him. What caused him to develop such evil traits? It all started

Unlike what we see in the articles of lao-tzu and Thomas Jefferson. Machiavelli, in comparison, has almost no faith in human nature. He believes a monarch is better be feared than loved. And he believes that people should be strictly controlled by the monarchies. It is like what Hannah Arendt described in total domination, where there is no trust between the elite and the people. Even in some violent way, suppression is acceptable. Different from both lao-tzu and Jefferson. Lao-tzu believes that any kind of war is destructive and unnecessary. Jefferson believes that war fought to defend oneself is destructive but necessary. On the other hand, Machiavelli celebrate the act of war and praise the ones who prepare for war. These ideas seems cruel

Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florence native, presented revolutionary ideas about leadership in his famous work “The Prince.” This sort of “how-to” handbook for rulers was written in a time when power was frequently changing hands, leaving nations in constant confusion (The Prince, 443). Machiavelli presented a way for these new leaders to maintain their power, encouraging such things as cruelty and fear as a means of governing the common people. This new concept was drastically opposed to the Christian ideals which had been taught for centuries. Despite its harshness, Machiavelli’s doctrine was accepted by many and has influenced some very popular men throughout history. One such person is none other than William Shakespeare. Multiple plays written by Shakespeare are stories of men in government who are either attempting to maintain their power or regain it. It is no wonder, then, why Shakespeare would refer to “The Prince” as a resource when writing these plays. One play in particular, “King Lear,” is evidence of Shakespeare’s acknowledgement of Machiavellian beliefs. Throughout this paly it may be witnessed how Machiavelli’s ideas on what a ruler should be were taken into account by the famous playwright, leading either to his characters’ success or downfall.

A hated leader would invite a rebellion that would try to remove him from power. On the other hand, a leader should not be loved. Showing too much compassion will make the people think you are weak, and he would permit disorders to continue. Machiavelli urges the leader to always be personally armed, and preparing for war, even in peace time. The leader must continually train his body and mind for combat. He believes that people are fickle and greedy, so they will take whatever you give them. Ultimately, he believes the leader should do and say anything to keep the people happy, but when it comes down to it, what makes them happy may not be best for the state as a whole.

According to Machiavelli's view of how to be an effective leader, a ruler should be one who is feared but not hated. Machiavelli states that fear is better than love because love is unreliable. All of the reasons that Machiavelli gives relate to how human nature controls men and drives them to commit crimes in order to reach their goals and satisfy themselves.

Machiavelli defines what a leader should look like in The Prince. His theories, although proven true, are defined as unattainable and idealistic through close analysis of the actions of King Lear, his two daughters, and the consequences they all face due to their actions. King Lear’s two daughters, at first, display Machiavellian leadership traits, but succumb to lust and personal desire, distracting them from their effective ways of leadership. Both daughters fall from their royal positions as a result and ultimately lose rulership, passing away at the conclusion of the play. King Lear does not exemplify Machiavellian leadership by concealing his insecurities and making poor decisions such as handing rulership of his kingdom over to two of his three daughters. King Lear faces the consequences of doing so, is banished from his own kingdom, and is forced to enter a personal and literal storm, eventually dying from his newfound grief and regret. By closely analyzing these characters’ individual storylines, it is evident that Machiavellian leadership is what every ruler should strive to attain, but human imperfection prevents all from actually being able to achieve it.

      Another point made within Machiavelli's writings is that a prince must strive to avoid hatred, yet at the same time, be feared by all those around him. Hamlet most certainly achieved the first goal, for I believe he was highly regarded by all his subjects, but he rarely acted in a way to inspire fear in those around him. Indeed, Polonius, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstem had no trouble plotting against him, because they had no fear that he would turn against them in a violent or malicious manner. On the other hand, I believe Hamlet was a threat to them once he began acting so insanely, because his actions were much more unpredictable. A key point is that men are fickle and constantly changing, as demonstrated by Hamlet himself, so one must be prepared for any turn of events.

People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.

Machiavellianism is a term to describe dark triad personalities, the other two are narcissistic and psychopath. In leaders and rulers, we call this traits characteristic Machiavellian. Nicola Machiavelli, came up with rules to help leaders keep their powers and political influence. He thought that rulers must wear a mask and be both admired and feared from the outside, but, be willing to do anything to keep their power. That means being dishonest, lying, cheating, killing, and be prepared to sell their soul to the devil to keep their power. However,on the other hand, Machiavelli felt religion was another tool rulers could use to take care of all the problems occurring in society. He says that religion is “altogether necessary” to the formation

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince

This is not to say, however, that Machiavelli intended the prince to be indulgent and benevolent to the people, he says quite clearly in Chapter 17, "…it is much more safe to be feared than loved, when you have to choose between the two…" Machiavelli's reasoning was that an excess of clemency towards the subjects when they do something wrong would lead to widespread crime, hurting the whole community. Therefore, being cruel and severe to those who deserve it would allow for the greatest utility (Chapter 17). This view on how to maintain relations with the populace is both logical and realistic. However, Machiavelli draws a clear distinction between being feared and hated. He writes, " A prince must make himself feared in such a manner that … he shall at least not incur their hatred, for being the feared, and not hated, can go very well together," (Chapter 17). The way that a ruler can earn his subjects hatred, says Machiavelli, is if he steals or harms their property. Therefore, by being severe and cruel in his punishments he inspires fear. In being feared, the prince further secures his empowerment, for none of his subjects dare to attempt to take it from him.

Speaking of such qualities as ruthless and mercy, Machiavelli argues that every ruler would like to be regarded as merciful and not cruel. Another thing is that often in order to retain power the ruler has to show cruelty. If the state is threatened with chaos or mess, the task of the prince is to prevent this even if it is necessary to arrange some reprisals. After all, with respect to the rest of the citizens, these executions will become a noble deed since riots and chaos would bring suffering to them (Machiavelli 24). Machiavelli provides an example of Cesare Borgia whose cruelty led to peace in the state. In that way, the