Similarities Between Julius Caesar And The Prince
Despite the similar critique of power, morality and human nature in Julius Caesar and The Prince, their differing contexts, form, purpose and audience create unique outlooks on these underlying concerns. Niccolo Machiavelli’s 1513 political treatise, The Prince analyses the methods which individuals may obtain and maintain principalities in response to the political instability of Italy during the chaotic times of the Renaissance. The Prince also critiques conventional morality, the unpredictability of fate as well as humanity’s inability to sustain control. William Shakespeare’s 1599 historical tragedy, Julius Caesar examines the conspirators behind Caesar’s assassination as well as the infighting that followed Rome’s transition from a republican
…show more content…
Machiavelli’s treatise responds to the instability and vulnerability of Florence as it faced infighting and external threats following the collapse of the republic where Machiavelli held a vanquished position. The Prince is written with a blunt direct style, free from the ‘unnecessary ornamentation’ in order to plainly represent in the same way he wishes the Medici to rule. As a result of the political context, Machiavelli’s work warns that if a Prince ‘tries to be good all the time’ he will ‘come to ruin among the great number who are not good.’ Machiavelli stresses the necessity of pragmatism as he opposes the laws of man incorporate “living with integrity” with the beast disregarding these principles by thinking “little about keeping faith”. Machiavelli also suggests the people are the foundations of a principality since a Prince ‘who builds his foundations on the people is a man able to command and of spirit, is not bewildered by adversaries, does not fail to make preparations.’ The collective listing of conditions exhibits the difficulty of maintaining stability. Thus, Machiavelli’s Prince is a Sisyphean character as he constantly toils to defend his principality and uphold rule whilst establishing foundations to be inevitably destroyed. The weak nature of power lies within the absence of expansion beyond the foundations which is also a discreet criticism of the futility of the elite ruling class at maintaining stability. Thus, the bleak and barren landscape depicted in Machiavelli’s The Prince is a symbolic representation of the instability within Renaissance Italy and the ineffectiveness of power in establishing enduring political
Machiavelli’s treatise responds to the instability and vulnerability of Florence as it faced infighting and external threats following the collapse of the republic where Machiavelli held a vanquished position. The Prince is written with a blunt direct style, free from the ‘unnecessary ornamentation’ in order to plainly represent in the same way he wishes the Medici to rule. As a result of the political context, Machiavelli’s work warns that if a Prince ‘tries to be good all the time’ he will ‘come to ruin among the great number who are not good.’ Machiavelli stresses the necessity of pragmatism as he opposes the laws of man incorporate “living with integrity” with the beast disregarding these principles by thinking “little about keeping faith”. Machiavelli also suggests the people are the foundations of a principality since a Prince ‘who builds his foundations on the people is a man able to command and of spirit, is not bewildered by adversaries, does not fail to make preparations.’ The collective listing of conditions exhibits the difficulty of maintaining stability. Thus, Machiavelli’s Prince is a Sisyphean character as he constantly toils to defend his principality and uphold rule whilst establishing foundations to be inevitably destroyed. The weak nature of power lies within the absence of expansion beyond the foundations which is also a discreet criticism of the futility of the elite ruling class at maintaining stability. Thus, the bleak and barren landscape depicted in Machiavelli’s The Prince is a symbolic representation of the instability within Renaissance Italy and the ineffectiveness of power in establishing enduring political