Influences Of Niccolo Machiavelli's The Duchess Of Malfi

The Age of Absolutism The Age of Absolutism was a period of prosperity in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. While at this time many countries had absolute rulers, these rulers were able to make a lot of progress in advancing their nations. These rulers are some of the greatest rulers these countries have ever had and helped lead to the prosperity of this era. During this time period, a majority of the rulers were absolute rulers, having absolute power over their country.

The Prince: A Decidedly unMedieval Piece of Work The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli, was a secular handbook that dealt with modern statecraft and leadership. In fact, this was the first modern book that discussed political science. This book has influenced many well-known leaders, such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. This essay will discuss the past behaviours of Machiavelli to prove that this book, The Prince, is a decidedly unMedieval piece of work which does not follow the idea of living life so that it is worthy of respect and honour, as stated in the Medieval Code of Chivalry.

In Niccolo Machiavelli's book, The Prince (1513), he evaluates on how a prince can be a successful leader. Machiavelli’s purpose of this guidebook was to construct his argument to the rising ruler Giuliano de Medici for when he comes to power in Florence. He adopts a casual but authoritative tone in order to convince the prince that Machiavelli’s evaluation on how to be the best prince, is the right thing for the prince to do without coming off as he knows more than the prince or is trying to intimidate him.. Machiavelli’s reference to previous rulers and whether their tactics failed or succeeded helps to benefit his credibility along with his allusion to historic text. He appeals to our logic by simply stating a prince can only do what is within his power to control, and his use of an analogy furthers his argument.

Then for Machiavelli he talks about how a prince should show no fear instead for him to show that he is the one with power. That a prince's people should fear him. Both authors go on to talk on how their people react based on the prince and princesse act. The authors then go on to explain how they should view and run their people. Both authors also reflect the fact that the way their people are going to act towards them is mainly based off of how they treat them.

Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513, a time when Italy as a whole had yet to be formed; the Italian subcontinent consisted only of loosely connected groups of independent city states with a constantly evolving political battleground. Thus Machiavelli wrote The Prince to convey his idea of a strong, active, and in his own eyes, perfect ruler to the current ruling family, the Medici, as he wished to impress them and become an eventual political attaché for the family. Machiavelli argues that when given a choice it is better to be feared than loved, and bases the majority of his rhetorical argument on logical cause and effect conclusions that are exemplified through his use of anecdotes, and analogy. The excerpt begins at chapter fifteen with Machiavelli stating that he writes the prince in order to “make something useful for whoever understands it” (Machiavelli ch.15), and he expounds upon this simple purpose by devising clear and logical solutions to many of the problems that a ruler may face.

In Machiavelli’s book, The Prince, he maintains a harsh perspective on reality. His advice on how to maintain power leaves no room for compassion or generousity. While some may believe that these are qualities of a good person, Machiavelli believes these qualities lead to the downfall of rulers. He acknowledges that, in reality, it is impossible for someone to have qualities of a good person and simultaneously a good ruler. Machiavelli’s realistic outlook causes him to emphasize that it is better to maintain power through fear, rather than compassion.

One aspect of Machiavelli’s theory which significantly contributes to his reputation as the “philosopher of evil,” is his advice to the prince on keeping their word to the public. In chapter eighteen, Machiavelli states, “a wise ruler cannot, and should not, keep his word when doing so is to his disadvantage, and when the reasons that led him to promise to do so no longer apply” (pg. 37). To simplify, Machiavelli says princes are obligated to lie in certain circumstances. He also states that while it is unnecessary for the prince to have positive qualities, such as honesty, trustworthiness, sympathy, compassion, or be religious, it is essential for the prince to be viewed so by the public (pg. 37). While many people argue that Machiavelli’s legitimization of lying and deception in politics is immoral, I argue the opposite.

In his work, The Poetics Aristotle reflects on the role of pity and fear in tragedy, stating, “Tragedy is essentially an imitation not of persons but of action and of life; of happiness and misery. Add human happiness or misery takes the form of action… Character gives us qualities, but it is in our actions that we are happy or the reverse… The tragic pleasure is that of pity and fear” (Aristotle, The Poetics). Aristotle is probing one to conclude that tragedy is characterized by the pity and fear one evokes when individuals go against their presumed character and commit detrimental acts. Throughout his play Macbeth, Shakespeare, reminisces on the actions that gravitate an audience to render both fear and pity, which characterize a tragedy.

One instance of a Shakespearean character disagreeing with Machiavellian principles is Ferdinand from THE TEMPEST. Machiavellian principles are often not morally sound. In many cases, Machiavelli claims that corrupt traits are the best ones for the rulers of a state to exhibit. One of these claims occurs in Machiavelli’s THE

‘Julius Caesar’ and ‘Henry V’ are plays whose themes are reflective of their respective contextual climates. They were both written in the time of renaissance theatre under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, who was an avid supporter of Shakespeare’s work. The plays were written consecutively, and they both present historical figures that were greatly idolised in the period in which they were composed. Both history plays convey how, on political scenery, deceit is omnipresent. In Julius Caesar, it is used to bring down the monarchial rule and to ultimately implant a new democratic government, while in Henry V, the King makes use of multiple facets of his personality among which is deceitful behavior in order to conquer France and win over

A story of tragedy is not uncommon with William Shakespeare and his works of prose. In his plays, death and despair is more likely than honor and prosperity. This is an included facet to Macbeth as well, having sinister themes of greed, manipulation, and brutality. Macbeth, by the infamous playwright, Shakespeare, presents us with multiple aspects factoring into whether the main character controls his actions that lead to the tragic events.

The moral context and ethics of Machiavelli, are depicted in his work The Prince, can be compared to that of Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes . Machiavelli is considered equally the epithet of political disloyalty and a public visionary. The main emphasis of my analysis is to explore the moral thoughts of Machiavelli’s archetypal prince and to explore the kind of image that these “qualities“ will create. My goal is to explain the nature of Machiavelli’s moral compass while highlighting the perception of his moral flexibility. One assignment this can be compared to is my class participation assignment that questioned Don Quixote’s moral compass when choosing to free the slaves.

I. Machiavelli In his famous work the Prince Niccolo Machiavelli exposes what it takes to be a good prince and how only this good price and keep control over his state. There are many different qualities that make a man a good ruler but there are some that are more essential than others. In this work Machiavelli stresses the importance of being a warrior prince, a wise prince, and knowing how to navigate the duality of virtù and vices. Without these attributes there was no way that a prince could hold together their state and their people.

In this essay the following characters and features will be compared and contrasted: Mercutio and Benvolio, their differences and similarities, how they effected the play, how they participate in the feud. I choose these features because even though they are not “main characters” they still greatly influence the play. I will explain how they effected the play, how their personalities make them foils and how this in turn effects them as characters and everyone around them.

In his novel, the prince, nicolo machiavelli guides us to be a fruitful ruler. He clarifies the best routes for any ruler or sovereign to govern a region, bring prosper to the society, and keep up their position. This book can be read by anyone to get a few pointers on political issues. Most of the thoughts held by machivelli were linked to mercilessness and evil, hence they raised a considerable number of eyebrows. He maintains that the ruler 's primary goal should be conquering, staying in control of the general public and to always have the idea of war in mind.