In Petrarch’s sonnet III, page 1621, Petrarch is describing how he fell in love with his muse Laura who was a married woman. The first stanza describes how on the anniversary of Christ’s crucifixion, Petrarch first sees Laura; his love, and falls helplessly in love. He claims that he did not fight the feelings and becomes devoted to her. Petrarch continues in his second stanza to describe how he welcomed his new found love without fear and pursued his feelings with confidence. However, that is when his misfortune began. Because Laura was married, she could not return his love and therefore Petrarch takes the role of the lover who cannot be loved in return. By the third stanza, Petrarch describes how his love found him vulnerable and is responsible …show more content…
I believe that Machiavelli had a valid point with his writing. In government, whether it is a politician, or in Machiavelli’s case a prince, that person of power is responsible for their people which means he must do whatever it takes to protect them regardless of the immorality of their actions. Machiavelli is realistic when it comes to his reasons; he doesn’t believe someone of power should sugar-coat their actions instead, keep the “ideal prince” appearance while acting realistically such as waging war and fighting. Someone of power who governs over their people have to do what is needed, regardless of others opinions. By doing what he needs to, one may even be forgiven for dishonesty. Overall, Machiavelli argued that a ruler should be feared and the main purpose is always to gain more …show more content…
In William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, the reader is introduced to the main character, Hamlet, the prince of Denmark, who has returned home after hearing of the death of his father. However, once he arrives, Hamlet finds that his mother has married his uncle not long after his father’s death. At the beginning of the play, Hamlet encounters his father’s ghost. The ghost tells Hamlet that he was murdered by Claudius, Hamlet’s uncle and his mother’s new groom. Now the question stands, is Hamlet sane or is he simply mad? I believe Hamlet is in fact sane. Yes, he is distraught over the loss of his father and enraged but the betrayal of his uncle but instead of acting on anger Hamlet creates a façade of insanity to hide under. Hamlet even makes Horatio and Marcellus swear not to tell anyone that they saw the ghost or give any indication that they know of Hamlet’s seeming madness. Hamlet tells his friends that there might come a time where his act of insanity might come in handy, but not to mention what they know of the ghost. To me, this scene shows that Hamlet is devising a plan to act insane order to expose Claudius as the murderer. Another example that shows Hamlet’s sanity is when Hamlet, Claudius, and Gertrude watch a play that Hamlet has rewritten the end to. Hamlet writes the ending of the play to mirror the murder of his father and watches Claudius, looking for a reaction. Personally, I believe that this shows Hamlet’s sanity because of the thought and planning this
Machiavelli writes in The Qualities of the Prince, that it is better to be a miser and slightly disliked for a while than to be generous and be liked for a while than hated. If you’re a generous prince you can only be so for a short time before having to raise taxes and having people realize that you’re not that generous in all reality. Once a prince gets a reputation for being hated he will feel any slight unrest of his people. On the other hand if a prince is miserly from the get go he will be received gratefully when he decides to be generous. Using this quality of miserliness he has the ability to expand and defend his kingdom and be ready for any unforeseen events without having to burden his people, which, in turn leads to economic growth.
In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet the main character Hamlet experiences many different and puzzling emotions. He toys with the idea of killing himself and then plays with the idea of murdering others. Many people ask themselves who or what is this man and what is going on inside his head. The most common question asked about him is whether or not he is sane or insane. Although the door seems to swing both ways many see him as a sane person with one thought on his mind, and that is revenge. The first point of his sanity is while speaking with Horatio in the beginning of the play, secondly is the fact of his wittiness with the other characters and finally, his soliloquy.
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
In the many sections Niccolo Machiavelli writes he constantly compares to extreme qualities, one of which is ideal, the other real. These extremes include love(ideal) vs fear, clemency(ideal) vs cruelty, generous(ideal) vs stingy, and integrity(ideal) vs lying. In comparing these different traits Machiavelli highlights the merits of opposing characteristics and (specifically)when it is effective to act in certain ways. He argues that a balance of both are vital as to prevent a prince from dipping too far into a pool of inescapable extremism. The following excerpts display the author’s contrast-centered style: “ Thus, it's much wiser to put up with the reputation of being a miser, which brings you shame without hate, than to be forced—just
Machiavelli is “a crystal-clear realist who understands the limits and uses of power.” -- Pulitzer Prize–winning author Jared Diamond (2013)
Niccolò Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses. In his writing on religion, he states that religion is beneficiary in the formation of political authority and political leaders must support and endorse religion in order to maintain power. However, Machiavelli also critiques corrupt religious institutions that become involved in politics and in turn, cause corruption in the citizenry and divisions among the state. In the following essay, I will examine Machiavelli’s analysis of religion and discuss the relationship between religion and politics in Machiavelli’s thought.
Shakespeare's play "Hamlet" is about a complex protagonist, Hamlet, who faces adversity and is destined to murder the individual who killed his father. Hamlet is a character who although his actions and emotions may be one of an insane person, in the beginning of the book it is clear that Hamlet decides to fake madness in order for his plan to succeed in killing Claudius. Hamlet is sane because throughout the play he only acts crazy in front of certain people, to others he acts properly and displays proper prince like behavior who is able to cope with them without sounding crazy, and even after everything that has been going on in his life he is able to take revenge by killing his father's murderer. In the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare Hamlet is sane but acts insane to fulfill his destiny of getting vengeance on his father's murderer.
The Prince, published in 1532, was written by a former Italian senior official Niccolo Machiavelli to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the governor of Florence, in the hopes that Lorenzo would take his advice to heart, and invite him back to public service. Seeing as Lorenzo died in 1519, and The Prince was published 5 years after Machiavelli’s death during the 1530’s, it is doubtful that the titular Prince ever saw this piece of work. It is a great question of history, though, how the politics of Italy would have changed if Lorenzo had seen and followed Machiavelli’s advice. Assuming Machiavelli was trying to provide purely good advice for the Prince, does he succeed? Or does he fail? That is what will be discussed today.
Machiavelli states, “From this the prince may secure himself sufficiently if he avoids being hated or despised and keeps the people satisfied with him; this is necessary to achieve, […]” (73). It is necessary for the prince not to be hated by his subjects, and keep them satisfied to keep one’s rule. Thus Machiavelli, does not care about the standings of right and wrong, he leaves this to the people and he tries to put on the façade of giving them what they would like, but also being able to run the
The prince, written by Machiavelli is troubled with the issues of politics, ruling a state and how a ruler or a leader should be in regards to ruling a state. One of the most important topics touched on in the book, The Prince, is the effect moral value (virtue) has on the ruler and their good or bad chance (fortune) with regards to their effects on gaining and keeping power. A leader needs to be virtuous and have good fortune on his side in order to avoid failure, however being too virtuous can possibly hinder one’s ability to run a nation successfully.
After five hundred years, Niccolo Machiavelli the man has ceased to exist. In his place is merely an entity, one that is human, but also something that is far above one. The debate over his political ideologies and theories has elevated him to a mythical status summed up in one word: Machiavelli. His family name has evolved into an adjective in the English language in its various forms. Writers and pundit’s bandy about this new adjective in such ways as, “He is a Machiavelli,” “They are Machiavelli’s,” “This is suitable for a Machiavelli.” These phrases are almost always the words of a person that understands more about Niccolo’s reputation than the man himself. Forgotten is that Machiavelli is not an adequate example of the ruler he is credited with describing; a more accurate statement would be to call someone a “Borgia” or a “Valentino.” Most of the time they are grossly mistaken in their references. All these words accomplish is to add to the legend, and the misinterpretation, of the true nature of Niccolo Machiavelli.
Machiavelli wrote The Prince in which he states “it is better for a new political ruler to be feared than loved”. Machiavelli stated that rulers should be loved and feared but at the end to remain safe it’s better to be feared than love. Being virtuous plays a major role in securing a state and gaining the support of the citizens but virtue or love doesn’t guarantee the safety of the ruler and or state. Therefore this essay will argue It is better for a new political leader to feared than loved, which would allow the leader to have the state secure or under control, also instilling fear in people would make them obey the rules and regulation and would allow The Prince to be safe and protected.
Taking Cesare Borgia as a "model," Machiavelli formed his beliefs on rulers into a book called "The Prince." Key to the book is the idea that infighting between family members as well as a lack of central leadership will lead to the instability of a nation. Machiavelli asserted that good rulers must learn "not to be good" but to set aside ethical standards of justice and compassion in order to maintain stability. Unlike medieval and other early-Renaissance writers who advocated that rulers – specifically kings – were sent by God to carry out his moral law, Machiavelli argued that successful rulers are the ones who do whatever they need to in order to preserve order. Machiavelli did in fact have goals. He wanted to prove his value and prove his worthiness. He was a humanist. I think that he was trying to tell us that all good rulers are virtuous. (Pg.61) he also explains that being virtuous, is a better way to obtain territory. The best thing for a ruler to do, is to take the proper path Because all vice leads to ruin. When there is only one leader, they exist. No one else can!! (Pg. 85)
In the sixteenth century, there were three sets of socioeconomic statuses that one could acquire or be a part of, the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The divide between these three generalized classes was far more complicated in reality that it seems, as socioeconomic classes consist of multiple branches. Nonetheless, it all essentially came down to two undeniable factions, the oppressors and the oppressed. Niccolo Machiavelli, being a mixture of the two due to his living situation while writing the book, gained a middle-ground which allowed him to achieve omnipotent intelligence that so many rulers normally lack, first hand experience of what it like to live both lives, one as a peasant and the other as a nobleman. This omnipotent
Machiavelli’s ultimate goal is to inform the Prince on how to keep his principality and assure his spot. The Prince needs to maintain power and can do anything to get and keep it, as long as it doesn’t affect his subjects negatively. Some methods can be steal land, make empty promises, and cheat people in order to stay on top. Machiavelli says “The Principle foundations that all States have, as well new, as old, or mixt are good laws, and good armes; and because there cannot be good laws where there are good armes; and where there are good armes, there must be good laws.” (Letter 12) Without good armies there cannot be good laws, but if a state has a strong army, that shows the state has good laws that are enforced.It is crucial to lay down a solid foundation, because after he has spent so long clawing his way to the top, he wouldn’t want all of it come crashing down. This means eliminating rivals and winning followers. Machiavelli says “They who by fortune only becomes Princes of private men, with small pains to attain is, but have much ado to maintain themselves in it; and find no difficulty at all in the way, because they are carried thither with...