Comparing The Prince and Measure for Measure Essay

After reading Machiavelli’s The Prince and watching Shakespeare’s Henry V in class, one begins to notice similarities between the authors’ idea of what a “perfect king” should be. The patterns between the ideal ruler of Shakespeare and the ideal ruler of Machiavelli can be seen in numerous instances throughout this story. For the duration of this essay, I will compare the similarities in both pieces to give the reader a better understanding of how Shakespeare devised his view of what a “perfect king” should be.

The Prince, by Machiavelli, expresses principles on how a prince is expected act is directly applied through Shakespeare’s characters in his play, MacBeth. The more vital principle to any prince is how to avoid being hated at all costs. The other includes the correct use of clemency and cruelty, as well as if it is better to be loved or feared. MacBeth and Duncan illustrate the polar sides of the principles Machiavelli presents. MacBeth represents a corrupt prince through the the misuse of cruelty, killing those who present themselves as threats. Duncan shows, through his naive nature, that it is better to be feared than loved. Through Machiavelli’s applied principles in MacBeth, it’s simple to analyze how a proper prince

Richelieu’s section regarding the power of the prince was particularly reminiscent of 15th century Italian political strategist Niccoló Machiavelli’s seminal work, The Prince. The Prince also deals with the management of one’s people, and argued

     Measure for Measure is not a celebration of family values, the play points towards both the political virtuosity, which sustains the comic, and the humbler self-knowledge that preserves the integrity of the virtuoso. Human virtue can only be chosen in freedom, but we need not deny ourselves the opportunity of ensuring that this choice is not stifled by the subtly related powers of abstract intellectualism and carnal necessity

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 16th-century. His methods of acquiring and maintaining rule over people are not relevant in today’s modern American society. There are many principles that are still true in politics today, but the methods of ruling can no longer be used in American society today.

William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, composed during the last years of the 16th century, is as much as character study as it is a retelling of a moment in history. Though the play is titled for one king, it truly seems to revolve around the actions of the titular character's successor. Indeed, Henry IV is a story of the coming-of-age of Prince Hal and of the opposition that he must face in this evolution. This process gives narrative velocity to what is essentially a conflagration between two personality types. In Prince Hal, the audience is given a flawed but thoughtful individual. Equally flawed but more given over to action than thought is his former ally and now-nemesis, Hotspur. In the latter, Shakespeare offers a warrior and a man of action and in the former, the playwright shows a politician in his nascent stages of development. The contrast between them will drive the play's action.

The question of good rule is recurrent throughout the works of Shakespeare. Macbeth most potently engages the audience with alternative portrayals of kingship, posing character comparisons to evaluate Shakespeare’s exploration of the theme. The application of contextual expectations of good rule, derived from King James VI’s publication The True Law of Free Monarchies (1598), assists the evaluation of kingship. By diverting from many of James’ requirements, the plays protagonist, Macbeth, is shown to be a poor and unnatural ruler. In extension, Shakespeare supports the sovereignty of divine-right monarchs, as unnatural acquisitions creates detrimental effects for the state of England.

Take Niccolo Machiavelli’s infamous Renaissance-era political treatise The Prince and recently deceased modern pop icon Prince, and upon first glance, they do not have much in common beyond a name. But an in-depth comparison reveals stunning parallels between Prince’s life and Machiavelli’s theories, allowing brand-new insight into their mutual focus on a number of age-old themes.

  The Prince is a celebrated and highly controversial piece of work by the Italian aristocrat Niccolo Machiavelli. His work is a summation of all the qualities a prince must have in order to remain in his position. Machiavelli supports the idea that a prince use his power for the ultimate benefit of all, but he also does not condemn the use of any unpleasant means in order for the prince to maintain his power. His ideas both compare and contrast to the methods used by Prince Hamlet of Denmark in Shakespeare's Hamlet. Hamlet, as we know, struggles mightily to maintain his position as the prince, and one must wonder if this is due to some of the highly essential qualities outlined by

Measure for Measure by William Shakespeare is a play about two lovers who bear a child out of wedlock during an era when it was considered illegal. Even though the play centers around the two characters of Claudio and Juliet, they are hardly ever seen. Measure for Measure is a comedic play which underscores moral dilemmas in a Christian world. Comedic features such as; the Duke disguising himself as a common friar in the play, which is how the play starts to develop inner problems, and unsavory characters are introduced. Practical jokes are used within the play to lighten the tragedy of Claudio being executed. Angelo is the temporary leader while the Duke is gone who has decided that Claudio will die for having premarital relations with Juliet. While

Therefore if a prince wants to maintain his rule, he must be prepared not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or not according to need” (“The Influence of Machiavelli on Shakespeare”).

are prominently distinct from one another and they challenge the reader to conceptualize how one man could have written two very different pieces. In utilizing both primary sources, from Machiavelli’s The Prince and Discourses, and scholarly evidence from multiple writers in academia, I will demonstrate that these two texts can co-exist. I aim to provide an understanding of the relationship between the two texts through a strong republican perspective by viewing The Prince as a comprehensive tool and weapon in furtherance of the republic

The citizens of Vienna having lived under relaxed laws have grown accustomed to breaking them, and Escalus, an old lord with experience in government, warned Angelo (in vain) of the consequences of harsh action; however, Angelo would not be deterred. An excellent insight to Angelo's style of law enforcement comes from the convicted brother of Isabella, Claudio. While in prison and given to many thoughts, Claudio speculates on the motives of Angelo:

In our society, interactions with others contains vital importance when examining the exercise of authority. Due to this, authority has been very challenging to embrace. An individual with arduous authority is often required to make decisions, and these decisions are created based on the conscience this person possesses. Constantly, the interpretation must be made whether these decisions stamp a title on these individuals, and this is where legitimacy or illegitimacy of the individual’s actions make an appearance. In the play Measure for Measure written by William Shakespeare, readers have the opportunity to witness this trial of holding authority.