JULIUS CAESAR & THE PRINCE – ESSAY A comparative study highlights how values of morality in the pursuit of power have been reshaped to resonate with their respective contexts. Niccolo Machiavelli’s political treatise The Prince (1513), influenced by the Italian Renaissance’s perennial political instability, advocates for the compromise of morality to fulfil political ambitions. Similarly influenced by a turbulent Elizabethan England and Plutarch’s Life of Brutus, William Shakespeare’s historical tragedy Julius Caesar (1599) offers a more humanistic perspective on the danger of anarchy in the absence of a powerful leader. Their distinctive textual forms develop our understanding of how the unique socio-political threats faced by the composers’ …show more content…
He does so in the 1590s where Elizabeth’s queenship revolutionised the secular attitudes of rulers, garnering appreciation for Machiavelli’s pivotal role in igniting reform. The accumulation of political ideals in ‘Caesar was mighty, bold, royal,’ which Shakespeare undercuts with the past tense ‘was,’ affirms how Elizabethan morality led to self-insufficiency and loss of power. So, Brutus’ downfall and Aristotelian transfiguration symbolises prevalent Great Chain of Being beliefs where the fulfilment of personal ambition was perceived as an act against God. Cassius’ mythological allusion to Icarus ‘growing feathers pluck’d from Caesar’s wing’ reveals sixteen century pressures of public appeasement, which parallels Machiavelli’s epithet ‘best not be hated.’ Hence, the allusion to the Safety of the Queen Act in the litotes ‘can do no more than Caesar’s arm when Caesar’s head is off’ foreshadows Antony’s usurpation of power because of Brutus’ inability to use manipulative means to ensure stability in both spheres, highlighting his hamartia. Instead, Shakespeare advocates a dual role for rulers in the antithesis ‘feared… and loved him,’ endorsing the abandonment of orthodox morality for personal
“Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” (3.2.24) This quote reflects the motive of Brutus for the assassination of his friend, Caesar. I believe Brutus killed him not out of disrespect, but in a selfless act to protect Rome from the decree of Caesar yet to come. I also believe that he did this out of force from the manipulation from his “friend” Cassius. In Shakespeare's “Julius Caesar”, Brutus’ two most significant characteristics are virtue and unconscious hypocrisy. In order to fully understand these characteristics, it is necessary to analyze all other contributing characteristics, the manipulation of friendship that Cassius uses against him, and the motivations for
Honor and power is what drives the conspirators to assassinate Julius Caesar in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar. Caesar is now the single leader of Rome, and members of the Senate have concerns that he will abuse his sole power. Therefore, they plot and accomplish the assassination of Caesar in an attempt to rebuild the balance of Rome. Rome falls into chaos with an unknown future with no central leader for the people to follow. In Act I, Scene 2, Cassius, a member of the Senate, explains to his friend, Brutus, that Caesar is not the god he makes himself out to be. Instead, he argues both he and Brutus are equal to Caesar and are just as deserving of the throne. Cassius’ speech to Brutus diminishes Caesar’s godly demeanor through
Shakespeare introduces to us a character who is evil according to the moral judgement of the moment. He does not respect the social values and norms. For him social taboos such as incest and crimes such as murder cease to be wrong once they become instruments of power. He is Satan incarnated, cunning, greedy and destructive. He has no respect for those who observe social, norms, family ethics and political loyalty.
The intertextual perspectives between both texts portray consistent ideas about leadership and political power regardless of their differing contexts. However, both texts offer distinctive ideas towards the notion of leadership and the mannerism in which power should be obtained, which ultimately greatly enhances our understanding of intertextual perspectives of power. The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli (1513) utilises realpolitik advice on the maintenance of power and virtu. Contrastingly, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (1623) portrays the influence of nobility and the need for stability on leadership. Ultimately, both texts offer us an appreciation through their intertextual perspectives as we engage with their distinctive contexts and values. Both Machiavelli and Shakespeare lived and published their works during the Renaissance, a time where Christianity, once above public criticism and debate, was having its doctrine questioned. This lead
Julius Caesar is the leader of Rome and is seeking to become king in a matter of time. Though he is a good military strategist, he lacks knowledge in running government and is too greedy to have any concern for the peasants when he is alive. Caesar is all about conquering and power and he is afraid of nothing. Before he is murdered, he says “The things that threatened me ne’er looked but on my back. When they shall see the face of Caesar, they are vanished” (II, ii, 575). Th...
Sacrifice and change have always gone hand in hand. Change cannot be bought without compromises or the end of something or someone. When hierarchy is in play many who crave for more power try to commit a coup to change the flow of power. Many examples where the change in power work all happen at a cost of either lives or monetary value. Caesar, the tyrant he was, killed Pompey the previous ruler of Rome for power and allowing for himself to take over the country. Marullus was a man who spoke out against Caesar easy on in the play “Knew not of Pompey ...And do you now strew flowers in his way, That comes in triumph over Pompey’s blood?’’(Shakespeare 1/1/38-53). The plebians of Rome jump to who ever has the power no matter the means, for a ruler
Power is a very interesting thing to hold. Many good-natured men have been destroyed by power and turned away from their morals as a result. When giving a man absolute power, it’s ingrained in the human brain to take it to a new level. This ideal is present in every type of government, regardless of if it’s a dictatorship or a government supported by autonomy. Modern day government suffers from this power hungry greed. Power is an element of human life and often leads to temptation because mankind thirsts for control, and that’s what power grants.
“Veni, vidi, vici” (I came, I saw, I conquered) (Source1). This Julius Caesar quote can be used to describe his rise to power in the Roman Republic and destruction of it in the process. Caesar was an extremely influential, yet controversial figure in Rome’s history. He had all the power any Roman could dream of but he abused it. Julius Caesar was a destroyer of the Roman Republic because his arrogance made the government benefit only him, his ruthlessness endangered others, and he undermined the authority of the Roman Senate.
Julius Caesar was written in 1599 in England by William Shakespeare. Shakespeare has born in 1564 and died in 1616. Nobody really knows when exactly he was born but for the records it is assumed that he was born in April, creating an interesting coincidence with his death. He is the greatest writer of his century and probably of the modern era. He influenced many contemporary writers and created a new point of view in the poetry. He wrote 37 plays and 154 sonnets. In his work Julius Caesar Shakespeare shows us the change of power in Rome and the problems that Rome had there. Power is the ability to act with force. Shakespeare makes visible the abuse of power and the struggle to gain power in the biggest empire at the time. Shakespeare also shows that the power itself is more than a name or position. It is something that the people exercise. There is not absolute power, every power has limitations. Besides the servants every character in some way has his power. Although the biggest argument in Julius Caesar is the change of power in the rulers of Rome, Shakespeare tries to show us many different kinds of power and the use of it. As we can see during the play, people with power use power just for their convenience.
For most people, telling the truth is a highly revered trait that is taught at a young age. Parents are constantly telling their children to never lie and to always be honest. And yet, humans tend to resort to twisting the truth in order to get what they want. Whether it is a politician hiding the truth for votes or a young child crying crocodile tears to get their sibling in trouble, humans seem to require manipulation to receive what they truly desire. In William Shakespeare’s tragedy, Julius Caesar, this idea of falsifying information for one’s own gain is apparent. Characters such as Cassius, Antony, and Decius Brutus all demonstrate that manipulation is a requirement in order to achieve an overall goal.
Greed, ambition, and the possibility of self-gain are always constant in their efforts to influence people’s actions. In Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus, a venerable politician, becomes a victim of the perpetual conflict between power-hungry politicians and ignorant commoners. He is a man of honor and good intentions who sacrifices his own happiness for the benefit of others. Unfortunately, his honor is strung into a fine balance between oblivion and belief and it is ultimately the cause of his downfall. His apparent obliviousness leads him to his grave as his merciful sparing of Mark Antony’s life, much like Julius Caesar’s ghost, comes back to haunt him. Overall, Brutus is an honest, sincere man who holds the lives of others in high regard while he himself acts as a servant to Rome.
Power is how much control and support one has. Power can be controversial because the people who want it sometimes don't know how to handle it. In Julius Caesar, written by Shakespeare, many different people possess power. They gain the power in varied ways and react to having it differently. Since there are so many situations in Julius Caesar, power shifts are very common because diverse times call for the amounts of power to vary between different people.
The motif of ambition runs continuously throughout Julius Caesar, written by William Shakespeare, which originates in Ancient Rome and highlights the power struggles, politics and deceit of those vying for power. Ambition leads many of the characters such as Caesar, Cassius, and Brutus to a fate different from what they expected. The play revolves around Caesar, his ascent to power and his eventual loss of everything. Although ambition may lead these public officials to power, it is the same ambition that will be their downfall, ultimately resulting in the death of Julius Caesar, Cassius, and Brutus.
At first glance, historical literature may seem like mere retellings of repeated events. However, by analyzing the author and their intentions, one can understand the underlying message and its applications to society. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare is a rendition of Julius Caesar’s demise and the civil war sparked by it. Shakespeare uses his play as a political mouthpiece to voice his concern for the future of England’s government, since during Queen Elizabeth’s reign, the tensions were high due to the threat of a civil war. By examining events and occurrences associated with the Elizabethan time period, Julius Caesar, and the Roman Empire, one can understand William Shakespeare’s political motivations and historical influences.
Ambition is defined as a strong desire to do or to achieve something, typically requiring determination and hard work. Some may look at this to as a bad thing or a good thing. Some may say that i moderation it is fine. For example, in Julius Caesar, Brutus kills Caesar for having too much ambition. A tragic fall is considered when the main character lets something less than what they are bring them down. When they let their flaw get to them and drive them towards their own demise. The reason people see this is a bad thing is because it can lead to making the person do bad things that will result in possibly dangerous consequences. The reason why some may think ambition is good is because sometimes it is the only thing motivating someone