Comparing Loyalty In Julius Caesar And Machiavelli's The Prince
In a comparative study of texts and contexts, the Shakespearean historical tragedy Julius Caesar and Niccolo Machiavelli’s political treatise The Prince, both discuss the concept of personal morality and through this, reveal similarities between one another, whilst reinforcing the texts distinctive qualities. Personal morality in both texts influences the key concerns of loyalty and its opposite disloyalty and how it can be used to gain and maintain power, Machiavelli proves that the success of leader lies with the loyalty of the people and this is mirrored in the downfall of Julius Caesar, as well as this, both texts makes comment on the deceitful nature of manipulation, how it can be used cunningly convince the fickle public in order to gain
…show more content…
Both Julius Caesar and The Prince both focus on the moral question on what would drive a good man to commit an evil act, and the reading of these two texts in relation to one another, strengthens their similarities whilst upholding the texts distinctive qualities.
The key concern of loyalty and its opposite disloyalty is extremely apparent in Julius Caesar and The Prince, in both texts the writer makes a comment on the loyalty of the public and how important this is for a leader to maintain control of their empire, and through this both texts speak of the question of morality. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses the significance of a loyal public, he states in a didactic prose that “where a …show more content…
In The Prince, Machiavelli uses his didactic essay to offer practical advice on how to rule a city like sixteenth-century Florence, he states that a successful prince must display virtu which is shown to translate into strength and skill. Machiavelli advocates the swift ruthlessness of brutal tyrants and acknowledges very little to what it means to be moral. In chapter eight ‘states won by crime’, he states that a leader “should calculate the sum of all the injuries he will have to do, and do them all at once”- through this high modality statement, Machiavelli is only concerned with the maintenance of power, rather than the morals surrounding it. This idea for the brutality of tyrants is used as justification which can be seen throughout Julius Caesar. Shakespeare demonstrates that a successful leader must be expedient, amoral (is this the correct term?) and ruthless and this is no better shown then through the character of Caesar who pronounces himself as “dictator for life”. Caesar states that “The gods are showing disapproval of cowardice… Caesar would be a beast without a heart if he stayed home today from fear”. The visual imagery shows Caesars ambition and strong tyrannical hold over Rome, it shows that he has no fear and will not be stopped- this is what Machiavelli argues is needed in order to
Both Julius Caesar and The Prince both focus on the moral question on what would drive a good man to commit an evil act, and the reading of these two texts in relation to one another, strengthens their similarities whilst upholding the texts distinctive qualities.
The key concern of loyalty and its opposite disloyalty is extremely apparent in Julius Caesar and The Prince, in both texts the writer makes a comment on the loyalty of the public and how important this is for a leader to maintain control of their empire, and through this both texts speak of the question of morality. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses the significance of a loyal public, he states in a didactic prose that “where a …show more content…
In The Prince, Machiavelli uses his didactic essay to offer practical advice on how to rule a city like sixteenth-century Florence, he states that a successful prince must display virtu which is shown to translate into strength and skill. Machiavelli advocates the swift ruthlessness of brutal tyrants and acknowledges very little to what it means to be moral. In chapter eight ‘states won by crime’, he states that a leader “should calculate the sum of all the injuries he will have to do, and do them all at once”- through this high modality statement, Machiavelli is only concerned with the maintenance of power, rather than the morals surrounding it. This idea for the brutality of tyrants is used as justification which can be seen throughout Julius Caesar. Shakespeare demonstrates that a successful leader must be expedient, amoral (is this the correct term?) and ruthless and this is no better shown then through the character of Caesar who pronounces himself as “dictator for life”. Caesar states that “The gods are showing disapproval of cowardice… Caesar would be a beast without a heart if he stayed home today from fear”. The visual imagery shows Caesars ambition and strong tyrannical hold over Rome, it shows that he has no fear and will not be stopped- this is what Machiavelli argues is needed in order to