In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that a leader's reputation and honor are all important. Perception is reality. A prince doesn't have to be virtuous, but must appear virtuous to the people he is leading. The most effective prince, won't, in reality, possess the qualities that the common people admire and expect, such as mercy, kindness, loyalty and religious faith. On the contrary, he will need to be able to violate those virtues in order to...
In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that a leader's reputation and honor are all important. Perception is reality. A prince doesn't have to be virtuous, but must appear virtuous to the people he is leading. The most effective prince, won't, in reality, possess the qualities that the common people admire and expect, such as mercy, kindness, loyalty and religious faith. On the contrary, he will need to be able to violate those virtues in order to survive: the best prince is, in fact, a pragmatist, who must have the cunning of a lion in avoiding traps. However, his reputation with the common people must remain strong, so that it will more difficult for his enemies to plot successfully against him.
This pragmatism or realism flies in the face of Shakespeare's more conventional notions of good kingship, in which a leader, ideally, possesses the virtues he claims. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Antony, therefore, is not portrayed as the most admirable character, but he is the most Machiavellian figure in the play. He is the master of rhetoric, of appearing virtuous while not actually being virtuous. Although he characterizes himself as a "plain, blunt man," he is anything but that: he will do whatever he needs to do to get ahead, such as using his skills as a speaker to sway the crowd against Brutus or, on a personal level, using Lepidus as a "creature" or tool.
In exploring both texts, it is important to look at what ultimately happens to Antony--he loses--and how this might be a way Shakespeare is commenting on the Machiavellian prince figure.
No comments:
Post a Comment