Upninders Speech on Julius Caesar and The Prince

Question: Similar ideas and concepts can be treated differently and

the impact this has on meaning and values expressed. Honour and
Prowess

Both Niccol Machiavellis political treatise The Prince (1532) and

William Shakespeares play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar (1599)
elucidate the nature of power and how a character or prowess of the
individual leader determines the success of any state. Stemmed out
of Renaissance period and the resultant political turmoil, corruption,
blackmail and violence if The Prince accentuates that the endno
matter how immoraljustify the means for preserving political
authority, the Julius Caesar encapsulates what motivates people to
pursue power through perpetuating the contrasting ideas of honour
and prowess. Similarly, Machiavelli also delves into Honour and
Prowess and how leaders pursue power through immoral means to
enunciate the vacuum of morality.

Politics is to do with power, gaining power, holding power, increasing

power or creating the fear of power through ones prowess.
Machiavelli argues that leaders must possess the ability to eschew
fixed morality to maintain governance, illustrating the values system
based on amorality and pragmatism. He highlights early on in The
Prince, that it is far more important to be feared than loved if you
cannot be both, as people will almost always bow down to fear,
especially when there are consequences involved. Another trait that
Machiavelli stated was important for an effective leader, is the
ability to be ruthless and brutal towards those who wrong them, If
an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his
vengeance need not be feared. This imperative allows the readers
to comprehend how important ruthlessness and brutality is in a
leader. Machiavelli concludes that in order for a prince to ultimately

1
succeed, he needs ability or prowess, virtu or honour in the form of
calculation and ruthlessness.

All those who are in power, or seek it, win the public over to their
position through thoughtful argument or by playing upon their
emotions. Brutus uses honour to strike Caesars down in the name
of liberty, fearing that absolute power and Caesars view of himself
as more than a mere mortal will enslave Rome to the will of a single
man. In funeral eulogy, he proves himself as a supreme politician
when he shows his prowess, cleverly modulating the tone of Brutus
is an honourable man (Act 3, scene 2) with ironic modulated
repetition, from sincerity to sarcasm. In doing so, he carries the
crowd with him and unleashes the forces that he had predicted to
Caesars corpse, Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war (Act 3,
scene 1). In contrast, Brutus, in his paradoxical assertion, As
Caesar loved me, I weep for him; as/he was valiant, I honour him;
but, as he was ambitious, I slew him despite being able to explain
how it was necessary to kill Caesar to preserve democracy in Rome
fails to win due to his lack of manipulation. His use of ethos appeals
to the citizens of the republican, when he justifies his assassination
of Caesar. This is evident when he initially brings the audience on to
his side through anaphora and a patriotic tone in the line, not
that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. But Antony
undermines this through the use of logos in, To every Roman
citizen he givesseventy-five drachmas. He subtly exploits the
general outpour of emotions, undermining Brutus previous speech
and successfully sways the allegiance of the plebeians who, not so
long ago, desired Caesars better parts to be crowned in Brutus,
into a torment of vengeance and mischief. He achieves this using
pathos, appealing to the audience sense of morality, rather than
logic employed by Brutus. The pathos is accentuated by his use of
aposiopesismy heart is in the coffin with Caesar, and I must
pause till it come back, drawing attention to the emotional

2
implications of the murder which Brutus has deliberately
understated. Antony thus uses his prowess to manipulate the crowd
through vivid olfactory imagery in this foul deed shall smell above
the Earth, which suggests that Caesars regicide was unjustified.

Whilst misguided idealism and honour enable Brutus to justify

murder he ultimately lacked a virtu when he was driven by too much
compassion allowing Antony to speak after him in the funeral. Since
the people responded positively to Brutus speech, Antony could not
insult Brutus honesty in direct manner. Antony successfully displays
his prowess through the manipulation of crowd when he produces
Caesars will, but refuse to read it, therefore withholding information
to generate suspense in the crowd. Antony displays the qualities of
virtu in order to succeeds in fulfilling his political agenda. This
forces the responders to question the personal and moral position of
those who perpetuate their own interest than furthering the
interests of people.

This is in parallel to Machiavellis contention that the leader

manipulates the political and militaristic issues to be in his favour so
that he may retain his power. Machiavellis contends that a leader
should never attempt to win by force what can be won by
deception. Moreover, Machiavelli argues that a leader must
learn how not to be good, and use knowledge, or refrain from using
it, as necessity requires to maintain his authority. Through his
theory of virtue, he asserts that an effective leader needs to be able
to separate traditional Aristotelian values of nobleness oblige in
order to succeed at obtaining and holding onto power. To reinforce
his point, Machiavelli employs base animal imagery to reference the
inherent duplicity in an effective leader that must take on the traits
of the fox and the lion. This implies that the effective leader will be
as cunning as a fox and as fearless as a lion to ensure effective
governance. He argues that it is primarily the character or vitality or

3
skill of the individual leader that determines the success of any
state by highlighting the bold means of acquiring and maintaining
the principality. Machiavelli strengthens this idea through his biased
examination of the past by selecting Cesare Borgia and postulating
that an effective leader must be able to act outside the moral codes
of ordinary individuals in order to win and hold onto political power.
One shocking example is when Borgia blames all atrocities on his
Minister Remirro de Orco and then had de Orco beheaded with his
body put on display in the square. Thus according to Machiavelli an
effective leader must be willing to separate personal ethics from
matters of the state and commit cruel acts to ensure effective
governance. Machiavellis summarises his perspective on
leadership, any man who tries to be good all the timeis bound to
come to ruin. He argues that to deal with the ungrateful and
fickle nature of the common people, a leader must maintain a
favourable public image through the use of artifice of morality,
whilst in reality remaining pragmatic. This is precisely what
happened in Julius Caesar, in which Antony uses his wit and
intelligence to manipulate not only the conspirators into letting him
addresses the crowd but also waver the allegiance of the crowd.

The comparative study of these two remarkably similar texts The

Prince and The Tragedy of Julius Caesar through the delineation of
key ideas of honour and prowess give responders deeper
understanding on the complexity of power and the duplicitous
machinations often resulting in a conspiracy and causing the demise
of the state.