Machiavelli And Shakespeare 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.

After Brutus finishes his speech, Antony speaks about his opinion on the issue; unlike Brutus, Antony acts slyly and communicates a very manipulative tone to persuade the Romans to rebel. Because of Antony's use of parallelism, he creates vivid reasoning for his speech. He states, “ I come here to bury Caesar, not to praise him” (III.ii.44). By using this device, he shows the people of Rome that he isn't praising Caesar, he is putting the leader to rest. This particular line creates a very manipulative tone, because his speech is all about what great this Caesar has done and how he wants to rebel against the conspirators. Further more, Antony uses a lot of irony to slyly get his point across. One example that he uses throughout the speech is “Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is a honorable man” (III.ii.44). Because of the repitition of this ironic statement, the meaning of it changes and intensifies. At first, his tone was sincere, but as the speech progresses, you can see his sarcastic tone increases. Antony does this because he has to use this device to surpass the regulations of Brutus, as well as make the romans listen. Lastly, he uses personification to give life and further meaning to a word. Early in the speech, Antony says, “The evil

Marc Antony, Brutus, and Cassius are all critical characters in William Shakespeare’s famous play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Due to their distinctive personalities and values, there is no trait that all of these characters share, although they do share some traits with one another. Firstly, Marc Antony and Cassius are manipulative in nature, while Brutus is not. Secondly, the root of Brutus and Cassius’ failure is their personality flaw, while Marc Antony proves strong in all the ways they prove weak. Lastly, Antony and Cassius, unlike Brutus, do not separate their private affairs from their public actions while acts only with honor and virtue and completely ignores his personal concerns.

Machiavelli stressed that no art can deliberately aim at a negative result. As a realist, Machiavelli was concerned with reality and not how things could be. He was significantly influenced by his own failures in public life.

Shakespeare shows how power and the prospect of power changes people through the character of Brutus. Brutus’ attitude changes as he acquires power and detects the possibility of being powerful. Originally, everything Brutus does is for the good of the people and Rome itself. He recognizes that he has “no personal cause to spurn at [Caesar]” (I.I.11); however, he considers doing it “for the general” (I.I.12). Power has not yet changed Brutus’ attitude; he still focuses on the good of Rome as a whole and not just gaining power for himself. As the play continues, Brutus’ ongoing internal struggle of whether or not he should kill Caesar ends when he decides to kill him. He wants to kill him in a very specific way so that the people hate Caesar rather

The Bible teaches love, compassion and generosity. Niccolo Machiavelli found the Bible’s lessons idealistic and unrealistic for leaders. Machiavelli wrote his book, The Prince, to show the ruling Meddici family that the world is not a fairy tale. Prior to Machiavelli writing The Prince, the majority of books depicted people as virtuous and ethical. However, The Prince is not the only work of literature that manifests Machiavellian techniques. William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar utilizes similar methods. As shown in Julius Caesar and The Prince, a leader who follows Machiavelli’s advice will accomplish their goals; if the leader does not adhere to Machiavelli’s recommendations, then the leader will not fulfill his aspiration.

Macbeth, by William Shakespeare, applies the Machiavellian principles of how princes should properly conduct themselves which is directly applied through Duncan, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, and Malcolm.

In the tragic play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, the ruler of Rome, Julius Caesar, is stabbed to death by some of his so-called friends. Brutus, one of Caesar's best friends, is approached by some of the other senators to join the conspiracy to kill Caesar. Brutus weighs his options and decides to join the conspirators for the good of Rome. At Caesars's funeral, Brutus gives a speech to convince the citizens that the conspirators were right to kill Caesar. In contrast, Antony gives a speech to convince the Romans that there was no real reason to kill Caesar. Both characters try to persuade the audience, but they achieve different tones using literary and rhetorical devices. The tone of Brutus' speech is prideful, while the tone of Antony's speech is dramatic and inflammatory.

Antony’s manipulation of the plebeians makes him stronger but it also makes Brutus, who had just as much of a chance as Antony did at latching them onto his army, weaker. Brutus’ speech is rather weak because he doesn’t go that extra mile when trying to engrave his points in the plebeian’s brain. His speech is very basic, and because the plebeians are so easy to sway, he is able to initially grab hold of their minds. After this, Antony comes up and uses many tactics for a more effective process of manipulation. First, he shoots down any positive points that Brutus made by counteracting them, and although Brutus went first, he could have tried to cover himself better, for he had to have some kind of idea where Antony would be coming from. For example, Antony mocks Brutus by saying “But Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man,” (Act III Scene II 95-96) and this, as well as his points counteracting Caesar’s ambitiousness, voids out Brutus’ idea of the common good in the plebeians’ minds. Antony also uses visualization as a tactic when he picks up Caesar’s mantle to show just how violent Caesar’s murder was, which again reiterates the fact that it couldn’t have been done completely for the common

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

“Even the noblest men can be seduced by power; it has the power to kill, to distort, and to corrupt” Through this passage, Matthew Sims captures in essence how individuals often turn to betrayal and deception in order to gain their heart’s desires. This characteristic is not only present in life, but can also be seen in modern and classical literature, including the well known work of Julius Caesar. In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, the lust for power transcends any one individual and ultimately leads to death and corruption of not only Caesar, but also of Brutus and Cassius. The play begins with Caesar parading through the streets of Rome as he triumphs in his victory over Pompey. However, Brutus, Cassius, and many others hatch a plot to

  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

Niccolio Machiavelli (Born May 3rd, 1469 – 1527 Florence, Italy.) His writings have been the source of dispute amongst scholars due to the ambiguity of his analogy of the ‘Nature of Politics'; and the implication of morality. The Prince, has been criticised due to it’s seemingly amoral political suggestiveness, however after further scrutiny of other works such as The Discourses, one can argue that it was Machiavelli’s intention to infact imply a positive political morality. Therefore the question needs to be posed. Is Machiavelli a political amoralist? To successfully answer this it is essential to analyse his version of political structure to establish a possible bias. It would also be beneficial

The tragic and untimely death of Julius Caesar, a condemned Roman tyrant, triggered William Shakespeare's creativity. In his play Julius Caesar Shakespeare writes of the treacherous conspirators, Marcus Brutus and Caius Cassius, and their plans to assassinate their Roman leader, Julius Caesar. The story continues to explain how Caesar's loyal friend, Marc Antony, helps avenge the brutal murder. After Antony receives soldiers to fight his battle, his character begins to change. The  fair and faithful Marc Antony transforms to a darker and more deceitful character. Marc Antony is not suitable to rule Rome because he holds a grand desire of great power, his conceit

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”).