An intertextual examination of The Prince (1513), a political treatise by Niccolò Machiavelli and Julius Caesar (1599), a historical tragedy by Shakespeare enhances the reader’s understanding of the shared authorial values regarding state stability and morality despite their different contextual values. Machiavelli’s The Prince reflects the Renaissance Humanist ideals diverging from a conventional form by exploring the struggles of maintaining power and moral principles. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar embraces society’s desire for political stability, cautioning against the undermining of morality and growing chaotic environment resultant of Queen Elizabeth’s monarchical rule. Although composed in disparate milieus, a comparative study of The…show more content… Written in the 16th century, the tumultuous political climate loomed as a distinct threat causing many to fear Queen Elizabeth’s heirless death would throw England into turmoil like in the War of Roses. Thus, cautioning future heirs to be open to the populace or otherwise face the same demise as the characters in the tragedy. Like Machiavelli, Shakespeare clarifies support of the populace as a cornerstone for a leader’s rise of power referring to the failure of Essex’s rebellion due to insufficient support. Specifically, Brutus’ syllogism in the orations, “As Caesar loved me, I weep for him…but, as he was ambitious, I slew him” characterises Caesar as over-ambitious and a danger to the Roman Republic, hence justifying his death appealing towards the plebeians’ appreciation for honour and patriotism prevalent in Elizabethan England. However, Antony appeals to pathos of the crowd mocking Brutus’s nobility through his anaphoric epithet of “honourable” undermining Antony’s speech. That is, by juxtaposing the honour of Brutus and the immorality of murdering Caesar, Antony manipulates the people by questioning the integrity of Brutus’ speech. Consequently, both Shakespeare and Machiavelli explore the inherent psychological weakness of the populace yet provide the foundation for state…show more content… In the 16th Century, Catholic rebellions provoked Elizabeth to pass harsher laws placing heavier restrictions on Catholics securing her position on the throne, reflecting the Machiavellian principle of brutality to ensure social stability. Likewise, Shakespeare illustrates the necessity for brutality through Brutus’ soliloquy “as a serpent’s egg…grow mischievous and kill him in the shell” demonstrating the disregard for loyalty within friendship when attempting to gain greater hierarchical status. Also, Shakespeare’s use of a soliloquy expresses Brutus’ inability to express his emotion revealing a sense of duplicity contrasting to his eulogy. However, humanist ideas were not as widely accepted in England due to the conformity to pre-conceived medieval values binding him from endorsing political perspectives as resoundingly as Machiavelli. Consequently, Shakespeare use of dramatic form restricts him to pose ambiguities and moral dilemmas on characters showcasing the guilt maintaining power through brutality can be. Specifically, the metaphorical synecdoche of “sad heart” and “sad brows” illustrates Brutus’ hamartia spurred by moral mercurial whilst the audience undergoes a catharsis when Brutus suicides out of guilt and loyalty to Rome. This contrasts Machiavelli’s blunt conviction of moral elasticity unified with cruelty as the foundation for
