William Shakespeare 's The Prince And Julius Caesar

Trying not to overstep the boundaries of the citizens to get kicked out of power or not doing enough that they replace you. With the power gained from leading it is expected that other princes will try to take power away so the only way to prevent this from happening is to make alliances and maintaining a strong military. Later on, in the novel Machiavelli goes on to focus on what qualities a prince should have and how virtu plays a role in making a proper prince. Although a short novel, it is Machiavelli’s most widely known work and is responsible for creating a negative view on rulers/politicians and also making it seem like anything you do, even immoral, is justifiable if the end goal is worth it. Machiavelli writes “He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation” showing that the use of immoral means is justifiable when the end goal is survival and glory. This book follows the ideals of Italian humanism from the author being from Florence, the heart of the renaissance, dedicating the novel to Lorenzo de’ Medici, an example of a man who invested a lot in helping people learn about philosophy and such subjects to become better humanists.

While the moral codes of Humanism and Catholicism consider betrayal to be wrong, from an amoral perspective, betrayal in political contexts is unavoidable and comes with its own set of benefits. This is Machiavelli’s view in his 1513 work The Prince. In the text, he details the complexities of gaining and maintaining political power to Italian statesman Lorenzo de’ Medici, from whom he hopes to regain a political position after power shifts in the Florentine republic. Machiavelli argues that people, particularly political leaders, should have flexible moral codes so that they can bend them when necessary. To him, whether actions are morally “bad” or “good” is irrelevant—in gaining power, what really matters is whether actions are useful or not useful.

"Friends, Romans, and Countrymen lend me your ears"(49). In the play Julius Caesar written by William Shakespeare, Mark Antony is given an opportunity to speak at Caesar's funeral. In his speech, Antony addresses the death of Caesar and draws attention to the foul play at hand. Not only that, but he also discusses the legacy that Caesar left behind. In doing so, Marc Antony uses verbal irony to being to light the conspirator's betrayal toward not only Caesar, but to the people of Rome.

       In William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, although Marc Antony is allowed to make a speech at Caesar's funeral, he must not speak ill of either the conspirators or Caesar.  Antony was infuriated with Caesar's assassination, and wants to seek revenge on his killers as well as gain power for himself in Rome's government.  He must persuade the crowd that has gathered that Caesar's murder was unjust, and turn them against Brutus and Cassius.  He tries to stir his listeners' anger, rousing them into action and yet say nothing bad about his enemies.  Marc Antony uses several persuasive devices in his speech, which allows him to successfully convince the citizens of Rome to turn

Political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli’s, “The Prince”, exemplifies an early depiction of several “modern” ideological principles that would sustain and preserve nations (especially after the separation of the church and state) in the sixteenth century. In this critically acclaimed work, Machiavelli satirically bequeaths a map of qualities that princes should steadfastly uphold and advance. Expressly, the qualities mapped out are frequently criticized as, “crafty, cunning and unscrupulous methods by which a prince can acquire and maintain political power”. One of the most prominent principles that almost served as a catalyst and enchiridion for Machiavelli’s “ethical” behavior as an eminent political figure of Florence, Italy was, “the end

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

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

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.

Julius Caesar’s, one of the main leaders of Ancient Rome, reign was short lived because some of his fellow leaders, including his best friend, Brutus, murdered him. Mark Antony, a Roman politician, general, and ally of this leader, gives a speech at his funeral in William Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar. Antony’s purpose is to convince the people of Rome that Brutus and his men wrongfully murdered Caesar. He adopts a sarcastic and snarky tone in order to convince the public that Brutus and his “honorable men” are not the noble, just people that they call themselves. Mark Antony delivers a speech at Julius Caesar’s funeral to persuade his audience that Brutus and his men unjustifiably murdered Caesar.

Marc Antony is highlighting themes of revenge as justice when he vows to murder all the conspirators. After the murder of Julius Caesar, mark antony talks to Caesar’s dead body and tells him that the conspirators will pay for what they had done: “Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war, That this foul deed shall smell above the

Antony is also a good friend of Caesar, but unlike Brutus, is not a conspirator and cares for Caesar more than Brutus. When he gives his speech, he is trying to provoke hatred and fury from the audience to get supporters to hunt down and kill the conspirators. His speech is also brimming with fallacies and literary devices, but he uses facts to persuade the audience that Caesar was the ruler they all loved and when he was killed they did not do anything for him. Antony’s speech persuades the fickle crowd to switch sides again and support Antony. He expects this reaction too because he is prepared to take action immediately. He also feels that he will avenge Caesar and that he has done

Machiavelli's work was based primarily on achieving power and stability. The citizenry, while important to keep appeased and docile, was not the basis of Machiavelli's perspective. This was not a humanist work; the active engagement of normative, humanist thinking is counterproductive to understanding Machiavelli. In many circumstances, Machiavelli speaks of controlled violence to achieve an end. This discerns that power is not an intrinsic element in itself but an external, conditioned construct that has no true inherent morality. The most pessimistic, however, realistic description of power is simply whomever has the authority to enforce laws--or subservience-- through threat of violence on a specific

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, one can’t help but grasp Machiavelli’s argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli’s various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however this