Essay: Machiavelli’s The Prince and William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

Intertextual perspectives reveal the attitudes, perceptions and point of view of composers which inspire new conceptual understandings. Both, Machiavelli’s The Prince and William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar study the ambition to obtain power and maintain it, intertwined with issues such as morals and ethics. The issue of personal morality underpins the examination both texts provide. The context and human experiences of both composers, reveal the distinctive qualities within the texts that shape meaning about ones behaviour, and how an individual goes about attaining and maintaining power through ambition. Ultimately, an individual’s personal morality is shaped by their context. Writing during Renaissance Italy in 1513, Machiavelli produces a didactic treatise for one individual, Lorenzo Di Medici. Contrastingly, Shakespeare wrote a political dramatic piece for the Elizabethan audience of the early 17th century, in a time of political uncertainty as Queen Elizabeth I had no heir. As both texts deal with the issue of power and ambition, the composers’ contexts shape their perspectives on political ethics, and religion in terms of personal morality. While Machiavelli’s treatise explores how to obtain and maintain power abruptly, Shakespeare goes further by exploring the consequences.
Both Julius Caesar and The Prince, focus on the notion of ‘political ethics’ stemming from their own personal context, and the ideology that power is more important than ethics and morals. In Machiavelli’s text, in terms of politics and power, there are no moral considerations, the end justifies the means. Distinctively, Shakespeare explores the complexity of political ethics and the notion of personal morality through the characters of Antony, and Brutus in relation to Caesar’s death. In Act 3 Scene 2, Brutus in a speech before the plebeians, in justification he regards himself as honourable and reveals that in killing Caesar, he acted out of love for Rome. Brutus is conflicted by his own personal ethics and manipulation from Cassius. Shakespeare demonstrates the power of manipulation again through Antony, who persuades the mob to see the immoral being that he believes Brutus is. As Antony repeats, “Brutus was an honourable man,” Shakespeare uses sardonic flattery and dramatic irony to entertain his audience but also reveals Antony’s desired manipulation to gain power. This reveals the character’s political ethics and personal morality, but also persuades the audience to choose a side when viewing the play further subtly mimicking his context as the instability of the Queen during that period shaped his perspective.
Additionally, in the last scene of the play, Act 5 Scene 5, Shakespeare highlights the character of Octavius who majorly changes the nation from the republic which Brutus sacrificed himself for, to the realm Caesar had always intended. Shakespeare highlights this absence of morals in politics, through the satirical rhyme, “So call the field to rest and let’s away/ To part the glories of this happy day.” This further highlights to the Victorian audience, Shakespeare’s perspective on the notion of political ethics and to gain power and leadership in the end you have to disregard your morals.
Distinctly different from Shakespeare, Machiavelli projects his own perspective in conjunction with his own experiences that in politics there are no moral considerations. He states, “Anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved” the famous saying, demonstrates the separation of politics and ethics in his view, in order to become a successful leader. Influenced by the Italian Renaissance and a forming of a more secularised society he uses a persuasive and didactic form. Machiavelli uses animalistic imagery quoting, “he (a prince) should take on the traits of the fox and the lion…you have to play the fox to see the snares and the lion to scare off the wolves.” He employs this to reveal what he believes in his perspective, makes a successful leader, through an absence of morals and ethics, to have ultimate power. The notion of political ethics, expressed through different perspectives about personal morality, is a prime point where both texts explore a typical, ‘Machiavellian’ figure and the sacrificing of one’s own morals in replacement for power.
An individual’s religion influences their own personal morality and in the case of Julius Caesar and The Prince, influencing how an individual attains and maintains power through ambition. Due to each composer’s different context, which employs their distinctive qualities within the texts, they both have different ways that religion has influenced their ethics and morals. Like many composers of the time, Shakespeare infused his dramatic works with biblical and religious references. He does in, Julius Caesar through the character of Brutus, in the instance of Caesar’s death, to shape meaning about personal morality. In Act 2 Scene 1, Brutus tries to disguise the murder, for his own gain and morals, as a religious sacrifice stating, “Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the gods…We shall be called purgers, not murderers.” The biblical imagery used by Shakespeare, highlights how Brutus uses religion in a way which disguises what he has actually done and makes it seem as though his morals are in line with religion. Contextually, during the 17th century, religion was a vital part of everyday life, and Shakespeare skillfully uses his own perspective to shape meaning for the Elizabethan audience in a way that they would largely connect to.
Like Shakespeare’s context, Machiavelli is also influenced by his time, in particular the Renaissance period and the change to a human centric society instead of one characterized by religion. Machiavelli quotes, “frequently obliged to act against loyalty, against charity, against humanity, and against religion.” The didactic tone reveals Machiavelli’s approach towards personal morality and how his personal perspective involves the notion that a true leader, does not need morals and ethics fueled by religion to gain power through ambition and rather his treatise instead. Machiavelli adopts these views through his many years in Italian politics, and his understanding of humanistic and a secularised society, disregarding morals.
In closing, intertextual perspectives reveal the attitudes and view points of an individual, more specifically Shakespeare and Machiavelli in The Prince and Julius Caesar. Both comprehensively explore the notion of personal morality and how this hinders on gaining power through ambition, in relation to political ethics, and religion. Both their perspectives are characterized by their contexts, of Victorian England and Renaissance Italy, this means that they share both similarities in their perspectives but also many distinct differences including how to attain and maintain power, and most importantly, and what is morally correct or incorrect.