Red Lotus Of Chastity Analysis

In the Red Lotus of chastity, two characters Devasmita and the nun are implementing the same concept from the Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. They followed the Machiavellian concept of being a lion and a fox. Devasmita was Guhasena’s wife and while her husband was far a way from her they promised each other to keep red louts in their hand. Whoever commits adultery in the absence of the other; the lotus will wither away and will be unfaithful. The nun was planning to undo the chastity of Devasmita while Devasmita was trying hard to protect it. Both Devasmita and the nun acted cleverly as a fox. However, Devasmita continued acting like super fox until she rescues her husband from death, while the nun ended up acting like a lion.

By using Machiavelli’s concept of being both the lion and the fox, Devasmita comes out victorious in her fight against the nun and the merchant’s sons. Near the end of the story Devasmita must save her husband from the revengeful merchant’s sons. Because she previously did such an effective job at being both a lion and a fox, she is able to have one step ahead of her opponents. “‘So we shall,’ they said. They unwound the turbans on the four men and they all saw the dog’s paw on their foreheads. The merchants’ guild was ashamed, and the king surprised”. (967) This part of the story shows that although Devasmita’s use of the lion concept and branding the men as dogs was not a part of the initial plan, her fox is able to step in and save the day. As a fox, Devasmita is able to quickly think and deceive the

He says that force is necessary when the law fails. A prince can use these interchangeable traits to deceive people and break promises.

Two characters in “Red Lotus of Chastity” Devasmita and the Nun, both have some similarities with Machiavelli’s concepts in “The Prince”. Through the narrative, both characters strive to follow Machiavelli’s concept of being the fox and the lion. However, in the turn of events, only Devasmita is victorious in being both the fox and lion while the nun is portrayed as a power greedy lion dressed in a fox clothes. The Machiavelli concept of being a lion and fox means that to attain victory in the battlefield, one must be deceitful, cunning and strong like both animals. “One should therefore select either being a fox or the lion because the lion cannot protect itself from traps it encounters, and the fox which cannot protect itself from wolves” (2528 Prince). The explanation of this according to Machiavelli is that one has to have the instincts and strength of a lion to guard themselves from outside invasion with sheer force and power. However, in an unfortunate turn of events and the encounter be one of intellect, one should be able to quickly adapt thus possessing the

Before comparing the two characters to Machiavelli’s Prince, we must understand Machiavelli’s views on the subject. In chapter XVII Machiavelli stats that it is good to be both loved and feared but that combination is rare to exist in one person. So instead he says “that every prince ought to

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

Niccolo Machiavelli, a political philosopher and diplomat during the Renaissance, wrote based on his belief as result of incidents he had actually experienced. "His works often contrast two forces: luck (one's fortune) and character (one's virtues)."p.35 Machiavelli's writings on "The Qualities of the Prince" focus on advise for monarchial leaders to follow in order to keep their power. Machiavelli's main theory is that princes should retain absolute control of their territories, and they should use any means, and do what ever it takes to achieve this goal. The adjective "Machiavellian" has become despised and it is used to describe a politician who manipulates others in an opportunistic and deceptive way.

In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be

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

While Machiavelli was a Catholic nobleman and Prince a singer and a Jehovah’s Witness(member of a Christian-based religious movement), they were alike in that they explored realms beyond their respective religions. Machiavelli pioneered the study of political science, something quite unheard-of in a time when monarchical power was believed to be a divine right. Prince, while a devout Christian, also spent time studying Afrocentric interpretations of history and some Eastern spiritual ideas.(Hiatt) In addition, Prince’s attitude towards fate bears striking similarity with Machiavelli’s theory of fate. The Prince explains that “fortune is the ruler of half our actions, but that she allows the other half or thereabouts to be governed by us.”(104) According to Machiavelli, there are some things in life that are within man’s control and some things beyond; which is well in accord with Prince’s beliefs. When asked whether he would marry again, Prince said, “that’s another thing that’s up to God. It’s all magnetism anyway- something would pull me into its gravity, and I wouldn’t be able to get out from

"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

Machiavelli says that a ruler must be a combination of a fox and a lion. A ruler needs to have the cunning mind of a fox but also needs to have the strength of a lion so that he can destroy anyone who opposes him.

Machiavelli in his work informs the prince that even if he does possess certain qualities he shall always appear to his followers as retaining all of these qualities as shown in the following quotation “A prince, therefore, need not necessarily have all the good qualities I mentioned above, but he should certainly appear to have them… He should appear to be compassionate, faithful to his word, kind guileless, and devout… He should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary” (Machiavelli 57). Machiavelli highlights that image is extremely crucial for rulers and they must alter the perceptions of their people in regard to him in order to appear in control at all times for the purpose of maintaining and sustaining control. This idea is overturning

Niccolò Machiavelli suggested in The Prince that a ruler should behave as both a fox and a lion, being both loved and feared. There are clever rulers who were strategic, courageous rulers who were effective, and successful rulers who possessed both qualities. Elizabeth I of England and Henery IV of France were two great rulers from Europe that were able to personify Machiavelli 's advice.

Machiavelli concentrated more on the way things should be and how to manipulate them for his own personal gain rather than for the betterment of the state. He was well-known for being a political thinker who believed that outcomes justified why things happened. A key aspect of Machiavelli’s concept of the Prince was that “men must either be caressed or annihilated” (Prince, 9). What Machiavelli meant by