Similarities Between Henry And Machiavelli

Henry VIII was a king of England from 1509 to 1547. He kept his power because he was able to reciprocate some of the suggestions that Niccoló Machiavelli expressed in his book, “The Prince.” Although there were many similarities in how Henry VIII ruled England and what Machiavelli explains in “The Prince,” Henry VIII did deviate from Machiavelli’s tips.

Ambition is an earnest desire for achievement. Both texts are self reflexive and emphasise Richard’s obsessive ambition, desire and longing for the throne. Each Richard strives towards capturing the throne regardless of consequences and bloodshed. Richard is depicted in both texts as an ambitious character who strives to gain power and independence through deception and self confessed villainy. ‘Since I cannot prove a lover. . . I am determined to prove a villain’ This obsession which drives Richard to commit horrific evils to gain and then protect his claim to the throne. His ambition, power and evil blinds him and inevitably is responsible for his downfall in both of the texts. A connection is formed between Looking for Richard and King Richard III in the final scenes Al Pacino’s interpretation and ‘Hollywood’ background influences an ending which can be interpreted as portraying Richmond as a coward. Elizabethan audiences

Both William Shakespeare’s play “Richard III” and Al Pacino’s docudrama “Looking for Richard” explore the timeless themes of Richards’s pursuit of power and the impacts of his villainous and evil nature. Shakespeare’s Elizabethan context is far different from the humanist and secular context of Pacino. Shakespeare highlights the importance of the church and the divine right to rule of monarchs within Richards’s pursuit of power and downfall; this is not relevant within Pacino’s contemporary times. Hence Pacino employs this key theme to reframe the play's focus from divine rule to political power whilst still exploring Richards’s achievement of this power. Through his portrayal of King Richard, Shakespeare creates a character meant to be hated by his audience who were familiar with the Tudor myth.

While Socrates and Machiavelli lived over 1900 years apart, the dilemmas their societies faced draw many parallels. In Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, he demonstrates a wide-ranging set of rules and principles to be followed by a leader to ensure the steady maintenance of authority and stability in a state or principality. Not only would Socrates be opposed to many of the espoused views in “The Prince” on what creates a successful ruler, thereby society, but had he lived in Machiavelli’s “ideal” state, he would openly question and rebel against the cogs that maintain its stability, possibly even advocating its upheaval. Socrates would most ardently disagree with Machiavelli’s depiction of the supremacy of the prince and state over its

Shakespeare adapts these tenants to construct a power thirsty character. Consequently, while the London elite was introduced to these ideals, Shakespeare shaped the overall plot of the play to exemplify the discussed the power quest introduced by Machiavelli. This results in Richard’s actions that lead him to kill his brother and manipulate his family into getting the throne.

“Instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody’s under the frightful necessity of becoming first a thief and then a corpse.” (Thomas More). In the 1500s the new leader of England was King Henry. He was married but wanted a divorce. In order to do so, he had to ask the pope for permission but the pope rejected his wish. King Henry wanted to take over the church to do what he wanted. Thomas More and King Henry were good friends but Thomas did not agree with king Henry and him taking over the church. Thomas had to sign an oath for the king becoming the head of the church. But Thomas refused to do so.Thomas More was true to himself and stood up for

Machiavelli and Socrates agree on very little. While an initial reading of the two may elicit some comparisons, the goals of their respective philosophies rely on different foundations, and would therefore culminate in very different political results for society. Socrates would likely see in the Prince a selfish ruler, while Machiavelli would see in Socrates a dangerous idealist whose ideas would lead to instability and the death of the state in which these ideas were implemented. Machiavelli’s philosophy of the Prince would not satisfy Socrates because instead of focusing on right action, the Prince is encouraged to put political expediency and self-preservation above all else. In addition, the type of political system that Machiavelli’s

Richard’s aspiration for power caused him to sacrifice his morals and loyalties in order to gain the throne of England. Shakespeare refers to the political instability of England, which is evident through the War of the Roses between the Yorks and Lancastrians fighting for the right to rule. In order to educate and entertain the audience of the instability of politics, Shakespeare poses Richard as a caricature of the Vice who is willing to do anything to get what he wants. As a result, the plans Richard executed were unethical, but done with pride and cunningness. Additionally, his physically crippled figure that was, “so lamely and unfashionable, that dogs bark at me as I halt by them,” reflects the deformity and corruption of his soul. The constant fauna imagery of Richard as the boar reflected his greedy nature and emphasises that he has lost his sense of humanity.

Throughout the course of history, political philosophy has been dominated by two great thinkers: Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates. Although both highly influential, Socrates and Machiavelli may not see eye to eye. When it comes to the idea of how an “ideal prince” would act, Machiavelli believes that they should lead through fear and follow a thirst for power, no matter the cost. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that they should lead through morality and have a healthy thirst for knowledge. Overall, these two would not exactly agree on what the actions of a good leader would look like or how a political system should be run.

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.

Moreover, Richard’s multifaceted nature in his determination to attain power is further accentuated through the striking metaphor “And thus I clothe my naked villainy …And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”, which Shakespeare employs to represent Richard as an embodiment of absolute evil and amorality. Hence, the Shakespearean audience becomes aware of the destruction of Richard’s moral compass as he sacrifices the value of honesty in his ambitious plan to gain power and engage in sacrilegious acts to create his own fate. Comparatively, Pacino reshapes the downfall of Richard as a result of his ambition for power to reflect the secular perspective of free will and aspiration. As such, Pacino’s reimagining of the opening soliloquy with a mid shot of Pacino leaning over the sick King Edward effectively encapsulates the control Richard possesses, which allows him to deceive the king and maneuver his way

    According to many, Shakespeare intentionally portrays Richard III in ways that would have the world hail him as the ultimate Machiavel.  This build up only serves to further the dramatic irony when Richard falls from his throne.  The nature of Richard's character is key to discovering the commentary Shakespeare is delivering on the nature of tyrants.  By setting up Richard to be seen as the ultimate Machiavel, only to have him utterly destroyed, Shakespeare makes a dramatic commentary on the frailty of tyranny and such men as would aspire to tyrannical rule.

A general conclusion of most critics is that Richard II is a play about the deposition of a "weak and effeminate" king. That he was a weak king, will be conceded. That he was an inferior person, will not. The insight to Richard's character and motivation is to view him as a person consistently acting his way through life. Richard was a man who held great love for show and ceremony. This idiosyncrasy certainly led him to make decisions as king that were poor, and in effect an inept ruler. If not for this defect in character, Richard could be viewed as a witty, intelligent person, albeit ill-suited for his inherited occupation.

Louis XIV was born on September 5, 1638, and ruled as King of France and of Navarre from May 14, 1643 until his death at the age of 76. He took over the throne a few months before his fifth birthday, but didn't actually assume actual control of the government until his First Minister, Jules Cardinal Mazarin, died in 1661. He was to become King of France after his father, Louis XIII, died of tuberculosis. He achieved the role of king by ways of hereditary monarchy, which is one of the ways to become a ruler, as stated by Machiavelli. Louis XIV is known as the 'The Sun King' and also known as 'Louis the Great.' He ruled over France for seventy-two years, which is the longest reign of any French or any other major European ruler and

It is only during his deposition and his imprisonment that Richard shows his greatest strength as a dramatic figure. Although occasionally he seems to demonstrate self-pity, he also reveals himself to have an acute awareness of the ironies and absurdities in the structure of power of his kingdom. He still compels the court to reconsider his initial claim that the crown is divinely appointed: “Not all the water… can wash the balm of an anointed king (3.2.55)”. Although he keeps reminding those present of his God-given mandate to rule, he seems also to take pleasure in passing on the trails of kingship to his successor. As a King, He does have a God-given position of being the king. But as a king one should know the difference between moral values and ethics values. Just because Richard is King and is appointed by God doesn’t give him any rights to be an awful ruler. He can’t always fight a problem by saying that he is