In both The Spanish Tragedy, by Thomas Kyd, and The Troublesome Reign and Lamentable Death of Edward the Second, by Christopher Marlowe (hereafter called Edward II), Machiavellian characters are present. In The Spanish Tragedy, Lorenzo has Machiavellian characteristics, and in Edward II Mortimer junior gets the role. To see how they are Machiavellian, it is best to look at some characteristics of Machiavellian heroes or villains, and then at how Mortimer and Lorenzo fit the bill for these characteristics, and how alike they are, with special interest in the kind of power they portray. The Machiavellian character – could be both hero and villain – has certain defining characters. It is important to see that there are different degrees of Machiavellianism …show more content…
All of Mortimer’s manipulation seems to point in the general direction of his plan: he wants to gain more power through queen Isabella (Lynch xxiv). They behave like lovers early on in the play, while Isabella still supports the king: she says “Sweet Mortimer” to Mortimer (I.iv.225), and later “Sweet husband” to the king (II.ii.36). One of the ways in which he uses the queen to gain more power is to become protector of her son, king Edward III, and have no one in higher stature than they have (Marlowe V.iv.62-64). He was happy to be the protector of Edward III, because that would imply that he had the station of a king, which is a high station in terms of power – which he wanted all along. Interestingly enough, Mortimer sees that he was wrong in saying that he made the wheel of Fortune turn when Edward III condemns him as a traitor and has him killed (V.vi.58-65). So, he is a Machiavellian character and strives for more power through the queen, and in the end he is killed for
Eventually, he is killed which symbolizes the death of
Otto von Bismarck Otto von Bismarck was the first chancellor of the German Empire. He was a master strategist who used realpolitik. As an aristocrat, he “adopted the liberal goal of national unity, giving the German Empire a broad political base” (Background essay). Otto von Bismarck could be considered Machiavelli's model of the ideal ruler in that, he was feared by his people and he used any ends to justify the tactics he used in bringing about the unification of the German states. Niccolò Machiavelli was a diplomat for many years in Italy’s Florentine Republic during the Medici family’s exile.
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 argues the perfect prince will be both feared and loved by his people, and if unable to be both he will make himself feared and not hated. Machiavelli believes it is much safer to be feared than to be loved because people are less likely to offend and stand up against strong characters, also people are less concerned in offending a prince who has made himself loved. Accordingly, Machiavelli believes generosity is harmful to your reputation and the choice between being generous or stingy, merciful or cruel, honest or deceitful, should only be important if it aids the prince in political power. All in all, Machiavelli believes the ruler must be a great deceiver and do what is essential to uphold power over the
Niccolo Machiavelli and his influence on the Enlightenment Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, also known as the father of “Modern Political Theory” was a well-known Italian diplomat, politician, humanist, historian, philosopher and writer from the era of renaissance philosophy. He belonged to several schools of thought, namely: Renaissance humanism, Political realism, Classical republicanism. His claim to fame was his popular book, “The Prince”, which was a handbook for politicians on the use of ruthless, self-serving, cunning inspiring the term “Machiavellian.” Before he wrote his book, Machiavelli was a diplomat for 14 years in Italy’s Florence Republic during the Medici family’s exile.
The main point made by Machiavelli was that men are inherently bad, so a leader must rule in a way that takes this into account. He taught that because of man’s ungratefulness, it is safer to be feared than loved (D-4). This shows that Machiavelli believed that the power and success of a country will lead to the prosperity of its inhabitants. Both influential people believed that a country prospers the most under absolute power.
Machiavelli has clearly started a lot of thought on how the school of Realism operates. Though his view on humans and some of his methods may be extreme, The Prince and the Discourses shows a lot of insight on what do if a prince wants to hold his power and what action should be done to do
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.
Machiavelli has the most correct ideas on both controlling the people as a ruler and on being remembered as a great one. These two viewpoints had great influence during their time and for centuries to come, both with modern ideas and correct ideas even though they had a lot of contrast. Machiavelli’s The Prince may be thought of the more recognizable of the two in the present, but people in the present day have many of the same ideas that
In this journal we can thrash out the influences of Shakespeare and Machiavelli in the tragedy, The duchess of malfi. The Machiavellian note in the play: Niccolo Machiavelli was a statesman who flourished in Florence during the years 1469-1527.His book the PRINCE was the most popular work of the time and had wide influence . His doctrine may be thus summarized: (1) One should not allow oneself to be hampered by any kind of moral considerations in the pursuit
Through all these conflicting characteristics, a side of Hamlet is seen in a new light; a Machiavellian prince. This aspect of Hamlet is the ruthless and cunning tactician who is open to using deceit for his own ends. Machiavelli, in his book 'The Prince ', shows a set of guidelines and philosophical arguments for a ruler to embody. He states that a ruler cannot always be virtuous and good as different situations could lead him to evil and inhumane acts as shown in his statement "learn how not to be good"(Machiavelli, Ch. XV). Machiavelli also stakes his point on a ruler been versatile with his analogy of the fox and lion.
‘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
Being a prince is not as easy as it may seem. There are good and bad decisions a prince can make. Machiavelli has his own standards on how a prince should behave. According to Machiavelli, a prince could be considered a lion, a fox, or a wolf. The lion is fierce but doesn’t have the smarts, while a fox has the smarts but isn 't fierce.
He appears to be trivial, pitiful, pointles and even pathetic character. Presenting Edward II’s character, Christopher Marlowe tried a new style of character portrayal and he definetely succeeded in it. In the first part of the play Edward II is a consistent character, but in the last part his character begins to change, so ambiguity of his character is notable to the readers. King Edward II showed his assertive personality since the beggining of the play when he went against his peers and barons in order to have his minion Gaveston back at court. He made a huge mistake because he shamelessly showed favouritism and he ignored the barons.