Machiavellian Evaluation of Hamlet

Let us no focus on royal position and family relations. The king stands on top level of power, and if Hamlet had killed Claudius, he would have been punished. Different situation is with manslaughter of Polonius. The prince murders him, however he bears no responsibility for it.. The explanation is simple: Polonius has lower social position than Hamlet. Another important fact is family bond. Although Claudius is a murderer, he still belongs to Hamlet's family; what is more, after marrying Gertrude, he becomes prince's stepfather. In this case Hamlet considers not only killing a man, but a man from his own family. This makes him even more confused and uncertain of his deeds. Fear of society's reaction and reaction of his own mother has also influence on prince's actions.

Beyond Claudius’ need for admiration, he also tends to disregard the feelings of people around him. This is shown in a similar way as his need for admiration, being that he kills his brother to gain power. Such a selfish action will obviously impact those around King Hamlet, but Claudius disregard that and simply does it for his own gain. He doesn’t think about how Hamlet’s death will affect Gertrude, young Hamlet, Polonius, or anyone else close to him. In the aftermath of this, instead of helping Hamlet through the hard time following his fathers sudden death, he tells Hamlet he’s not a man for mourning for such a long time. Staying on the topic of the death of a father, Claudius uses Polonius’ death to get Laertes to want to avenge his

The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark has been performed thousands of times since it was “written in 1599–1601 and published in a quarto edition in 1603” (Britannica.com). It’s popularity stems from its themes that translate across time. These themes, are seen to be relatable even to this day with the ever growing audience. Readers and viewers are able to find similarities between the current state and or even relate to one of the characters or events taking place over the course of Shakespeare’s five act masterpiece. Shakespeare's, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark remains a viable text for contemporary readers in that it functions as a mirror.

This, in turn, exploits Hamlet’s similar flaw of ego and furthers the conflict, but what’s more, it illustrates Claudius’ sheer audacity and lack of repentance. He continues to try to cover up the sin and appease Hamlet into complacency rather than confess and ask for forgiveness. In a mark of pure arrogance, Claudius tells Hamlet to “throw to earth / This unprevailing woe and think of us / As of a father”, conceitedly requesting that Hamlet merely forget the murder and replace his father with the murderer himself (I, ii, 110-112). Similarly, instead of directly confronting Hamlet about his mental condition, the king more or less hires Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy on the prince, again cementing his smug mindset. The king does not believe he can be caught or, rather, that Hamlet is competent enough to figure out his plan and foil him. Claudius, too, thinks only of himself after Hamlet’s inadvertent killing of Polonius, pondering “how shall this bloody deed be answered? / It will be laid to us” instead of considering the ramifications of the murder with respect to Hamlet (4.1.17-18). The other two paper-thin traps the king hatches only reinforce his failure to see beyond the apparent; his attempt to deport Hamlet to England and have him killed reeks of treachery and, luckily, Hamlet realizes the king’s subterfuge, crushing the plot and flipping it back on him. Claudius remains steadfast in his efforts to remove Hamlet, going so far as to set up a

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

Claudius is devout to his country. He cares for the people of Denmark. His only desire is to maintain complete control and will avoid any confrontation that could possible jeopardize his status as king. He uses diplomacy to diffuse any issues rather than violence. For example he sent a letter to the uncle of Fortinbras requesting that he stop the army of Young Fortinbras that plans to attack Denmark. Claudius would much rather celebrate gaily about his succession to the throne: “The king doth wake tonight and take his rouse.” (1.4.9)

Machiavelli considers society an immoral place. According to Machiavelli as stated in The Discourses on Livy, “for as men are, by nature, more prone to evil than to good”. The Prince is a manual for being a successful ruler in an immoral society. Often times that success is met by committing immoral acts. Machiavelli, an outsider to the inner workings of government gives what he thinks are the critical tools to being a successful ruler in modern society. “Sometimes you have to play hardball” is a saying from today that I relate to his philosophies.

The Prince is essentially a guide book on how to acquire and maintain political power. We can think of it as a collection of rules and methods to achieve a level of superior authority. Its main focus is that the ends—no matter how immoral—justify the means for preserving political authority. While some may agree with this mindset of thinking many today dismiss Machiavelli as a cynic. The book shows rulers how it is that they should act to survive in the real world to maintain authority. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas can be radical, they helped to spark a revolution in political philosophy. Although his ideas might have not been completely original, they were very different and unheard of at the time, The Prince, was published. Machiavelli uses many methods to convey his messages including biblical comparisons and of course metaphors. This character can be viewed in several manners. He is almighty and powerful, stopping at nothing to achieve his goals or have his ways. While this quality does qualify him to be a might leader it also raises the question of immorality. How far will one go to maintain order? Would you stop at nothing to achieve this task? Machiavelli shows this by saying, “it is

Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M

The shift from the medieval era to early modernity in the political sphere is notably exemplified in the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli. Two of Machiavelli’s works, The Prince (1532) and Discourses (1531)

Claudius is a coward when it comes to murder. Claudius finds the most indirect way to kill someone: usually with poison. The King also manages to get Laertes to be the one to fatally injured Hamlet– showing hs manipulative tendencies. “Thou art slain./ No med’cine in the world can do thee good./ In thee there is not half an hour’s life./ The treacherous instrument is in the thy hand,/ Unbated and envenomed… The King, the King is to blame” (5.2.344-51). Here, Laertes is explaining that the king poisoned his fencing sword so he could impart the fatal blow on to Hamlet. It is not Claudius that takes the credit; Hamlet has to find out from Laertes that he is dying. Even as Hamlet is dying, Claudius still chooses to remain a coward. As the antagonist, Claudius is meant to embody evil, condemnable traits that make readers hate him. Shakespeare is

Niccolo Machiavelli is a very pragmatic political theorist. His political theories are directly related to the current bad state of affairs in Italy that is in dire need of a new ruler to help bring order to the country. Some of his philosophies may sound extreme and many people may call him evil, but the truth is that Niccolo Machiavelli’s writings are only aimed at fixing the current corruptions and cruelties that filled the Italian community, and has written what he believed to be the most practical and efficient way to deal with it. Three points that Machiavelli illustrates in his book The Prince is first, that “it is better to be feared then loved,”# the second

Claudius’ dangerous and manipulative nature as noted by Bonnet (n.p) is further causes Polonius’s death at Hamlets hands. He does not take the mandate of punishing Hamlet himself for Polonius’s murder but instead sends him to England alongside Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. As a result of his scheming nature, he gives them a letter that will arrange for Hamlet’s death which will later make it appear like an accident. In his prayers, Claudius still wants Hamlet dead as he fears to lose his throne and life at the same time. To prove the animalistic nature

Niccoló Machiavelli is perhaps the greatest political thinker in history. He was a historian, musician, a poet, and he wrote comedies. He liked poetry as much as he liked philosophy. Machiavelli wrote and collected poems. His works, which are inspired by his life experiences, have been read by many of the worlds greatest politicians. Niccoló Machiavelli’s writing was influenced by the Medici family, the Soderini government in Italy, and his own diplomatic career. His great work, The Prince, is legendary for its impact in politics and its controversial proposals.

It is fundamentally important to preface the discussion hosted in this essay by addressing ourselves to the most mundane question-why consider Machiavelli in the context of philosophy, least of all, political philosophy? This question dominates any philosophical inquiries of the Machiavelli’s political ideologies. Put differently, do the contributions by Niccolò Machiavelli to the various salient discourses in the Western thought, most notably political theory, meet the requisite standard models of academic philosophy? Machiavelli essentially seems not to consider himself a philosopher. In fact, he overtly disapproved of any philosophical inquiries into his works. In addition, his credentials do not qualify him to be properly admitted within the realm of philosophy (NeDermAN, 2002).