Discuss the themes of Virtu and Fortuna in The Prince. Essay

One of the three major themes of the Prince would be Hatred. For a prince to remain in power he would have to avoid the hatred of all the people. It wasn’t necessary for a prince to be loved by his people but it’s even better that he is feared by his people, but in fact if a prince is feared by his people it could be the cause of his downfall.

A prince has plenty to worry about during times of war and everyone is out to get you so you must be greedy and heinous in times of war. The prince declares that the nation state comes first before individuals.

The prince always have an obstacle to face and some obstacles come with one eye

In conclusion I feel that Prince is doing exactly what they need to be doing as company in the

In Hamlet, Shakespeare introduces us to Fortinbras and Hamlet. Both characters are bent on avenging the death of their fathers who were murdered. In Act I, two different revenge plots by these two men are revealed, and while Fortinbras is very open and bold about killing Claudius, Hamlet is sly and quiet about his plan. Fortinbras is also dead set on attacking Denmark no matter what but Hamlet is indecisive about killing Claudius. Fortinbras plans to lead an army to attack Denmark while Hamlet’s plan of attack is to act crazy.

Oftentimes, the minor characters in a play can be vital and, among other things, function to further the action of the play or to reveal and illuminate the personalities of other characters. In Hamlet, Fortinbras, the Norwegian Prince, serves as the most important foil of Hamlet and provides us with the actions and emotions in which we can compare to those of Hamlet and better reveal Hamlet’s own character. Because Hamlet and Fortinbras both lost their fathers and have sworn to avenge their deaths, Fortinbras is a perfect parallel of Hamlet. He was also very crucial to the play’s ending and to bring a remedy to the corruption that has plagued Denmark.

In “Another Holiday for the Prince” by Elizabeth Jolley the author draws upon many themes, one in particular that Jolley illustrates is how poverty influences changes in the individual lives within one family. To begin with the head of the family; a father is never mentioned in the story, not even once. But by not having a father figure in the story the reader can understand a lot. In society the man is the one who earns the money and provides all the essentials for his family, however this story is presented in a society were the mother has to be the man of the family. Ones self-esteem can be diminished as a result of poverty, alienation; destructive effects of a week personality or society on the individual. The author effectively

The Prince Is not a good or bad example of humanism because all the traits the prince has are very valuable in humanism and the prince seemed like someone he believed in his people more than himself, but they wouldn't keep up their virtue and do dishonest thing but would justify it with “The ends justify the means”. The Prince Machiavelli wanted had to be strong and charismatic, he's going to have to make his people believe and hope when the times are bad, a leader should have a calm manner and concern for others. The leader should be charismatic because the people will agree with you. Everything is easier when you have people who'll support and back your ideas. The leader should have faith in their people like if they formed an army and they didn't look like they'd be successful he wouldn't

Machiavelli writes The Prince centuries after Plato documents Socrates in Crito and The Apology. Despite the different time periods, both Machiavelli and Socrates experience times of turmoil where the concept of democracy was questioned. However, the different time periods cause the views and purposes of Machiavelli’s writing to largely differ from Socrates. Machiavelli writes in a time of turmoil where Italy was a bunch of small, fragmented states and when the Medici’s struggled to regain power after being expelled. This causes his views to be more cynical and pessimistic in comparison to Socrates. If Socrates were to read The Prince, he would disagree with Machiavelli’s beliefs and deem his portrayal of a prince as immoral. Their

Steeped within his own pool of madness, the prince of Denmark seeks to avenge the premature death of his father. Claudius must die, die, die! Nothing else matters: not love, or death, or preservation of state, or the means to which the task is accomplished. To right what is wrong is the only focus that matters. Hamlet, blind by his own emotional transitions, is not aware until it is too late that his counterpart to the north also plots and prepares. Being one of the first writers to develop dynamic and intricate characters that leave the readers to question and interpret the characters’ actions for themselves, Shakespeare understood better than anybody else "what a piece of work is a man!" (2.2.305). In the play Hamlet, Shakespeare

   Machiavelli states that "it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good, and use this knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case." Machiavelli's ideas both compare and contrast to the methods used by Hamlet. Hamlet's desire to drive the king mad and eventually kill him, is what he thinks he must do in order to set things right. Hamlet struggles to maintain his position as prince. Perhaps he lacks the essential qualities of a prince outlined by Machiavelli.

  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

The Renaissance, a revival of antiquity starting in Italy around the middle of the 14th century, had broad implications for the way western society would operate thereafter. It would no longer focus on the church and its dictates, although they would still play a part. It would no longer have its government seated in Rome, with small pawns of the church controlling the land, although the church would still have a hand in government. It would no longer shun the vast stores of knowledge created in the past and ignored for a thousand years, although opponents would remain. The ideas of humanism, individualism, and secularism would come to play a role in society as they had in the past. Niccolo Machiavelli lived in a time when the

human nature is dark and disobedient. He wrote in his book “the prince” that an

Those private citizens who become princes through fortune alone do so with little effort, but they maintain their position only with a great deal; they meet no obstacle along their way since they fly to success, but all their problems arise when they have arrives…such men depend solely upon two very uncertain an unstable things: the will and the fortune of him who granted them