One vital characteristic of a leader, according to Shakespeare, is a sense of duty to others. Despite the fact that Shakespeare employs tactics which are “truly Machiavellian” (Roe 2), the events of Shakespeare’s plays are evidence of his belief that caring for others is a requisite of a prosperous ruler. This philosophy is almost a complete antithesis of Machiavelli’s observation that, “it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting.” (Machiavelli 81). Nevertheless, it is clear that self-centered leaders in Shakespearean plays typically do not last long. Obviously, such a sense of duty is not common among leaders in Shakespeare’s plays, which is why the vast majority of them fare so poorly. For example, Iago, …show more content…
The reason Shakespeare often conveys this belief in his plays is likely due to his relationship with Queen Elizabeth I. Shakespeare is known as a major supporter of the queen, so it is likely that he used this recurring theme to deter people from attempting to rise up and take Queen Elizabeth’s throne because “in England, as elsewhere in Europe, there remained a widespread conviction that women were unsuited to wield power over men” (Greenblatt & Logan 359). Whatever the reason, no character who attempts to seize power despite being unworthy of it prospers. For instance, Edmund, Gloucester’s bastard son from King Lear, is not the rightful heir to Gloucester’s fortune and name. However, he claims that he is just as deserving as Edgar because “my dimensions are as well compact/My mind as generous, my shape as true/As honest madam’s issue” (1.2.7-9). Therefore, he concocts a plan to take everything from his father and half-brother. Despite Edmund’s arguments against his unfair treatment, he is not the true heir, so from Shakespeare’s standpoint, he is doomed to fail from the beginning. From a modern perspective, it may be easy to sympathize with Edmund and perceive his treatment as unjust. However, it is necessary to look at Edmund from the perspective of Shakespeare’s goal: to discourage people from rebelling against the queen. The conflict between a rightful heir and a rebel can also …show more content…
Each play presents the audience with a unique story, but throughout every play, Shakespeare appears to maintain the belief that a successful leader must have ambition, the ability to see beyond emotions, an awareness of limitations upon their power, a sense of duty to others, loyal friends, and a right to power. Lacking any of these things, a leader may fail; but lacking more than one, failure is nearly certain. Shakespeare seemed to have extremely high standards for leaders, and rightfully so. He recognized that, despite the fact that many aspire to be leaders, very few actually have what it takes. It is likely that he used his plays to communicate this point with the political figures who came to watch them. After all, Shakespeare’s works can be interpreted as cautionary tales, not only for those who wish to gain power, but for those who already possess
Shakespeare writes with purpose in this play, he is showing that our ideals are not always what they seem. That in the end the truth wins. As in the case of his main characters in the play they needed to think about their ideals and see what the truth would be before they moved forward with their plans. These characters needed guidance and should have allowed life to happen instead of forcing situations; maybe then they would have survived.
The characters that portray leadership in Shakespeare’s plays, like dukes, kings, and generals, are chaotic at best and are at times questionable in their leading roles. From characters like Duke Vincentio to more subtle rulers like Prince Escalus, all have had their fair share of leadership mishaps, which sometimes proved to be a huge mistake. Throughout history, we are able to analyze the successful rulers and the unsuccessful rulers and the flaws that they did and did not possess compared to others. So what makes a good ruler and what qualities separate the true leaders from the not-so-good leaders? Richard II serves as a model to show that having a powerful sense of carelessness as a duke can bring tremendous consequences.
Much of the conflict within Hamlet is the interaction between Hamlet and his uncle and king, Claudius. Throughout the play, much of the insight into their relationship is given through Hamlet’s soliloquies which reveal Hamlet’s distaste for Claudius. Because of the nature of these two characters, Claudius reveals very little about his personal opinion on Hamlet which leads the audience to generally side with Hamlet. Hamlet’s long speeches about the infidelity of his mother and the conniving nature of his uncle lead the audience to develop sympathy for Hamlet’s position and portray Claudius in an unfavourable manner. This bias may also cause readers to criticize Claudius and his leadership, but in order to evaluate Claudius fairly he should be viewed from a completely pragmatic perspective. The value of his leadership must be evaluated based on effectiveness, from a relatively objective perspective. In this context, effectiveness should be defined as a result which benefits the most people and, as a result, promotes peace and prosperity within the domain of the leader’s jurisdiction. In order for a leader to be effective, he must deal with national matters with sagacity and promptness and not involve personal matters where they would impede his judgement. A leader must also discern the best course of action for the whole population which he is leading and not favour certain people over others. Based on these guidelines, an effective leader should generally have the following attributes. A leader should have refined political skills and be able to have the population’s approval while maintaining the skill to negotiate with enemies to avert conflict. A leader should also be persuasive in his speech and actions. This not only fortifi...
He is also fair and just. Shakespeare's exploration of leadership, through the.
William Shakespeare wrote Macbeth with the influence of Machiavellian principles in accordance with his characters. This statement can be supported by the characteristics he carefully coordinated within their actions and decisions. Certain principles from Machiavelli are presented in character descriptions included in criticism novels. The principles that connect with Shakespeare's characters presented by Machiavelli can predict how a prince's reign will be spent.
Shakespeare's plays beginning with Richard II and concluding with Henry V presents an interesting look at the role of a king. England's search for "the mirror of all Christian kings" provided the opportunity to explore the many facets of kingship showing the strengths and weaknesses of both the position and the men who filled that position. Through careful examination, Shakespeare develops the "king" as a physical, emotional, and psychological being. By presenting the strengths and weaknesses of these characteristics, Shakespeare presents a unified look at the concept of "kingship" and demonstrates that failure to achieve proper balance in "the king versus the man" struggle, leads to the ongoing bloodshed examined in this tetralogy and the next.
Henry V, Twelfth Night, and Macbeth cover the whole field of Shakespearean genres, but it is amazing how Shakespeare displays a theme and carries it through in any kind of play he wants to. Historic, comic, and tragic plays are about as different as you can get, yet when we take a closer look we see many similarities among them, especially in the area of social hierarchy. In all three of these plays, Shakespeare uses a similar theme, which he conveys and proves through his characters. Twelfth Night's Malvolio, and Macbeth's Macbeth, Henry V's Henry all hold social status, and they spread the social scale, one a servant, one a nobleman, and one a king. In the play we see their desires to better their social standing and climb the social hierarchy that puts them all on similar ground, ground which in some cases is somewhat dangerous, breaking social laws.
Enshrouded by manipulation, filled with deceit, and laced with ominous intentions, William Shakespeare's Hamlet, is a compelling and renowned tragic tale of the competition for control. The main characters, most notably Prince Hamlet and Claudius, King of Denmark, provide quintessential examples of the struggle to attaining and maintaining power, and the disparity between appearances versus reality. Provided within the context of Machiavelli's controversial The Prince, their characteristics make them worthy of comparison to Machiavelli's ideas to the ideal Prince. The mind of Machiavelli's Prince is calculating and cunning, in all actions concerned foremost with the ends rather than means. Therefore, as compared to Machiavelli's ideas for successful ruling, it is Claudius who meets these standards to the fullest.
William Shakespeare, poet and playwright, utilized humor and irony as he developed specific language for his plays, thereby influencing literature forever. “Shakespeare became popular in the eighteenth century” (Epstein 8). He was the best all around. “Shakespeare was a classic” (8). William Shakespeare is a very known and popular man that has many works, techniques and ways. Shakespeare is the writer of many famous works of literature. His comedies include humor while his plays and poems include irony. Shakespeare sets himself apart by using his own language and word choice. Shakespeare uses certain types of allusions that people always remember, as in the phrase from Romeo and Juliet, “star-crossed lovers”.
When discussing any of Shakespeare’s pivotal works, it is nearly impossible to somehow relate them to Hamlet. Whether it is stark differences in character, plot similarities, or simply through literary devices, Shakespeare created a masterpiece through Hamlet. Nicolo Machiavelli also coined a treasure with The Prince. Through the lens of Hamlet and The Prince, one is able to dissect Shakespeare’s Macbeth with a greater understanding of Machiavellian beliefs. By placing Macbeth against Hamlet’s incredibly high standards, it becomes clear that the character of Macbeth is not a Machiavellian prince for one simple reason: he is not smart enough and lacks the foresight that Machiavelli preached.
Identifying the particular view that Shakespeare held when he wrote his plays requires delving into the plays themselves and understanding both the characters and challenges that surround the concept of kingship. Furthermore, we may examine two of his plays that are fundamentally different in nature, but are yet inex...
In The Tragedy of Julius Caesar , he reveals his historical influences by incorporating aspects of Roman Society, such as the plebeians struggle against Roman hierarchy. Additionally, Shakespeare formulated the play’s main conflict around Caesar and his ambition, which can be attributed to the cause of man’s demise, and he based Caesar’s character after the actual Caesar motivations and conquests. He also reflects English society by including parallels between Queen Elizabeth I and Julius Caesar. Lastly, through the play’s conflict, he conveys his political views on civil war and expresses his concern for the fate of England’s government. Most importantly, Shakespeare demonstrates how age-old stories, such as the betrayal of Julius Caesar, can be applied to current society. By understanding Shakespeare's motivations and influences, readers are not only able to glimpse into the age of Roman Empire, but also, they are able to understand the political turmoil in England during Shakespeare's
the law he brought back for the sake of lust. Angelo is an immoral and
We live in a world where money, expensive clothes, nice cars and a big house, defines happiness and wealth which is all appearance vs reality. People do not understand that luxury is not everything, we have to make sacrifices to get to where we want in life and it is harder to get to the luxury life than what people think, people usually do not face the reality of how to get to the top or even look at the work it takes to get there, they all just expect to be rich and wealthy when they are older. Throughout history, love has been human nature. We all have our different views regarding what love truly is but we have all experienced love and it blinds people and creates a bond between couples, which can be hard to break but when it does, it leads to a broken heart which makes them suffer. Suffering can be caused by losing someone
Much of the things that the kings in the plays do may not be an altogether true representation of what they, or even the kings of Shakespeare's day were like. Most of what Shakespeare comments on is his personal opinion - it is he that thinks the kings mistreated and disregarded the common people and he that did not believe in the divine right of kings. It is also important to remember that all of Shakespeare's plays, even the historical ones were above all, written to be entertaining and to impress the Elizabethan audience that they were aimed for. Shakespeare did not write the plays as historical references, but instead as interesting and exciting plays that would make for good, entertaining theatre.