Bennett Watson
Prof. Beach
DWC-001
23 April 2018
Shakespeare’s Critique of The Prince
Political power carries many different beliefs of how it should be performed. Throughout history, humans have been trying to encode the best and proper way to influence or outright control the behavior of people. When controlled and displayed properly civilization can thrive and continue to develop. Attaining this power and figuring out who should have power is not easy. Machiavelli and Shakespeare are two influential figures who take on the task of political power. Machiavelli, in The Prince, focuses on the truths of politics. The Prince highlights Machiavelli’s universal theory of how a prince should rule. It tackles how a prince can gain control and how
…show more content…
Borgia’s “cruelty restored order to Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. When you come to think about it, you’ll see him as being much more truly merciful than the Florentines who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, allowed Pistoia to be destroyed” (Machiavelli 17: 35). Analyzing his actions and way of handling the minister is an excellent example of the political virtue Machiavelli preaches. Borgia in this situation demonstrates that wisdom on love and fear as well as this understanding of the inner essence of the citizens is exactly what people look for and need in a ruler. The punishment is going to leave the people with satisfaction that action was taken while it also leaves them with comfort since their ruler is strong and is being active. He is not pretending to do work or only doing the work that is known by the people, but rather works behind the scenes. This paired with the symbolism of the punishment puts forth the image and works of a wise leader. The man divided the body of politics and his punishment is he himself will be physically divided. This course of action shows a ruler who uses wisdom. Machiavelli relays that this is how a balance of love and fear is effective. Too much love and one will be disregarded to easily and too much fear the ruler will be hated. Borgia is the embodiment of Machiavelli’s theory of how a ruler should rule. Since Borgia was able to achieve and rule in this manner, Machiavelli feels every ruler should and is capable of ruling in this ideal
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
In an earlier century, Niccoló Machiavelli, wrote a document called, “The Prince.” This book was about what it takes to be a successful ruler, and the number one rule of course was: “Power is Everything.” How you acquire the power made no difference as long as you had it. Many people repulsed Machiavelli’s idea of power at all costs, but it would soon be the basis of the government in some countries.
He never would regain the position in politics he had enjoyed earlier in life. “The Prince” though not published until five years after his death, was Machiavelli' best known work. One of the key chapters in “The Prince” is “Of Cruelty and Clemency and Whether
Overall Machiavelli’s perspective does seem harsh and cold at times, but he proves to be an avid supporter of popular rule throughout his writings. He believes in popular rule so strongly that he states it is acceptable to use immoral means to achieve a peaceful government. If the citizens are not happy and feel their ruler disregards their wishes then the populace could become enraged and therefore, the ruler would not be executing his power of indirect popular rule. Machiavelli states that in order to achieve the necessity of popular rule, a leader will have to step outside a moral sphere and do whatever it takes to achieve popular rule. Machiavelli puts clear and strict limits on acts of immorality in leadership. The use of immorality is only acceptable in order to achieve overall good for a government. Engaging in immorality for the sake of popular rule is justified because it is done to serve the people and the state successfully.
In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli considers Cesare Borgia to be perfect example for princes or whomever, to follow if they wish to apprehend how to secure and strengthen their principalities. Cesare Borgia, for Machiavelli, is an ideal lesson of a prince who had great prowess, gained his principality through good fortune by his father Pope Alexander VI, showed continuous actions by his efforts to secure his state quickly, and then lost it to adverse fortune, which led to his fall and death. Machiavelli uses many events of Cesare Borgia’s to show how and why he was successful, and should me imitated as a model of prudence by ambitious princes.
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
... to the times of kings and princess, however it must be noted that the underlying human emotions and their motivations can only be dealt with decisiveness and deep plotting. The concepts discussed are applicable to all leaders and politicians holding offices. Bottom line is, some things never changes. Even though a lot has changed, principles of Machiavelli’s Prince are adapted and used widely yet secretly in a complex world of growth and prosperity with a greater demography and geography.
Machiavelli’s The Prince was written more than 500 years ago and it is “one of the most influential and controversial books published in Western literature.” (Article A) It was about Machiavelli’s political philosophies and the basic principles of what he believes a politician or “prince” should be. The three main ideas of the Prince were “Liberality and Stinginess”, “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to Be Loved Than Feared, or the Reverse?”, and “How a Prince Should Keep Their Promises” and for the most part many of his concepts should or are already instilled in our government.
Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.
Indeed, prudence and cunning can be considered to be important elements inherent in the accomplishment of virtuous actions. In the case of Agathocles, Machiavelli recognises a practical element of virtù. Agathocles’ prowess ultimately resulted in being able to perform deeds that required a high level of skill (Strauss, 1995: 44). Nevertheless, the moral implications of his actions restricted the possibility that his undertakings might be considered virtuous. On the other hand, the actions carried out by Cesare Borgia are indicative of a marriage between rational and moral pursuits (Fischer, 2000: 66). To begin with, the actions undertaken by Oliverotto did not result in the preservation of peace and unity; elements that indicate the existence of virtù in state matters (Mansfield, 1996: 71). Conversely, the actions carried out by Cesare Borgia showed the existence of a martial attitude in order to preserve the power of the ruler and the state (Bobbitt, 2013: 43). It must be added that in Machiavelli’s schema, there is a predilection for a strong ruler capable of preserving some kind of political unity amongst the Italian states. Although the actions exercised by Cesare Borgia necessitated the exercise of violence, his ulterior motives had attached to it an important moral element, leading us to conclude that
Another topic he covers is cruelty, if cruelty is used in the right way the prince will gain much respect and it will preserve a prince’s safety or will help secure the state; it is safer for a prince to be feared than it is for him to be loved because no one will listen or respect a leader who they take to be a joke. Men fear punishment, and this can be used to a prince’s advantage. Men will not disobey if there is a chance of them being killed or thrown in
Machiavelli?s model for his ideal prince was Cesare Borgia, also known as Duke Valentino and son of Pope Alexander VI. He believed Cesare Borgia possessed all the qualities of a prince destined to rule and maintain power in his state. He believed that politics has a morality of its own. There is no regard of justness or unjustness, of cruelty or mercy, of approval or humiliation, which should interfere with the decision of defending the state and preserving its freedom. Therefore, the ruler/prince's single responsibilit...
“The Prince”, by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a series of letters written to the current ruler of Italy, Lorenzo de’ Medici. These letters are a “how-to” guide on what to do and what not to do. He uses examples to further express his views on the subject. The main purpose was to inform the reader how to effectively rule and be an acceptable Prince. Any ruler who wishes to keep absolute control of his principality must use not only wisdom and skill, but cunning and cruelness through fear rather than love. Machiavelli writes this book as his summary of all the deeds of great men.
The Prince by Niccol Machiavelli isn't about one man's ways to feed his power hungry mindset through gluttony, nor is it just explaining altercations between a nation's states. This writing is regarding how one's self-confidence can make them become powerful in a society and also, the way morals and politics differ and can be separated in a government. Originally, Machiavelli wrote The Prince to gain support from Lorenzo de' Medici, who during the era, was governor of Florence. As meant as writing about how a society should be run, this book has been read by many people around the world who want to have better knowledge of the perfect stability of beliefs and politics required to run a good civilization. Enlightening people from the average Joe to the high monarchs of countries, The Prince is one of the best, if not the best, books relating to politics of all time.
The book The Prince was a book of advice to politicians regarding how gain power and keep that power. The title The Prince is not about someone who has inherited land and a decedent to a king. In Machiavelli’s perspective a prince was a man of the citizens....