Hi,
Please help, this essay is for Module A, we are doing Julius Caesar (Shakespeare) and The Prince (Machiavelli)
The question is “How has the treatment of similar content in a pair of texts shaped and reshaped your understanding of the values and attitudes of their differing contexts.”
Thanks again
Hey there! I'm happy to see you on the threads
Here is your original essay, unmarked:
Spoiler
Niccolo Machiavelli and William Shakespeare both demonstrate their prowess in their respective texts, The Prince (1532), and Julius Caesar (1599) by addressing issues relevant to the contexts in which they were created. The purpose of Machiavelli’s The Prince was to highlight to the Medici Family how to be a good leader in the early Renaissance period. Whereas, Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar to address his Elizabethan audience allegorically commenting on the power struggle of late Renaissance England. Shakespeare represents an array of characters who display many Machiavellian “leadership” characteristics. Ideas on successful leadership are initially shaped in Machiavelli’s treatise, and are again reshaped when considering Shakespeare’s representation of various characters of the conspiracy and aftermath of Caesar’s assassination. Machiavelli said great leaders should possess intelligence, acquire and utilise information for his or her needs through fear, ruthlessness and brutality when necessary. Examples of these characteristics in Julius Caesar, can be seen through select character’s dialogue, their actions towards other characters and the way their fellow characters describe them. While Shakespeare’s characters do not fully ascribe to all Machiavellian leadership qualities, t understood that there were moments when the ideal qualities Machiavelli explained in The Prince, become apparent in Shakespeare’s characters, Cassius, Brutus, Mark Antony and Julius Caesar.
One trait that Machiavelli explored was the need for a successful leader to be intelligent. Not just scholarly, but more so wisdom. He explains in Chapter 20: Are Fortresses, And Many Other Things To Which Princes Often Resort, Advantageous Or Hurtful? that “...the first method for estimating intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.” (Chpt. 20) Similarly, Shakespeare portrays Caesar’s level of intelligence by looking at the men he surrounds himself with, through dialogue Caesar states, “Let me have men about me that are fat/ Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep a-nights.” (Act 1 scene 2) Caesar states further on in a conversation with Antony that Cassius is the opposite of the people he wants to be surrounded by, “Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look/ He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.” (Act 1 scene 2) His authoritative tone describes Cassius as looking “lean and hungry,” Caesar feels threatened that Cassius “thinks too much,” meaning he is wise. The audience could compare Cassius to a fox’s cunning and sly characteristics, Cassius’ “hungry look” metaphorically represents his desire for power and control. Unfortunately, Caesar did not conform to Machiavelli’s leadership necessities, meaning that Caesar lacked the intelligence of a leader, surrounding himself with only “yes men.” By only wanting “fat, sleek-headed men” around him, rather than knowledgeable and intelligent men, who may have warned him about the conspirators or the warning signs leading up to his assassination.
When a leader has a high level of intelligence, he is able to manipulate that in ways to benefit himself and “win over” the masses. Machiavelli ensured this idea was reinforced throughout his novel to highlight its importance in a successful leader. Stating that a leader should never “...attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.” (REF) Shakespeare’s character, Mark Antony, uses his intelligence and wit to manipulate not only the conspirators into letting him address the crowd but also change the alliance of the crowd. Antony begins his speech with a statement he will later contradict and invert, “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.” (Act 3 scene 2) His emotive language and factual tone, slowly manipulates the crowd as his speech goes on. He justifies the conspirators actions in assassinating Caesar by declaring that “Brutus is an honourable man,” but later turns this phrase around rhetorically and sarcastically saying just how “honourable” Brutus is. Shakespeare used repetition in the speech, each time Antony states “Brutus is an honourable man,” (Act 3 scene 2) the line loses its validity and meaning. The masses begin to question Brutus’ intentions and prior actions. “ I thrice presented him a kingly crown,/ Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?/ Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,/ And sure he is an honourable man.” (Act 3 scene 2) Further on in Julius Caesar, Antony successfully displays the manipulation of a crowd when he produces Caesar’s will, but refuses to read it, therefore withholding information to generate suspense in the crowd. Machiavelli stated that a leader “...must learn how not to be good, and use knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires,” (REF) in order to maintain his authority. In Antony’s choice to prolong the reading of Caesar's will, he creates suspense and distracts the crowd, which causes them to forget about the will. Antony successfully manipulates the crowd, returning their loyalty to Caesar, eventually encouraging them to right the injustice of Caesar’s assassination.
Machiavelli highlights early on in The Prince, that it is far more important “...to be feared than loved if you cannot be both,” (REF) as people will almost always “bow down” to fear, especially when there are consequences involved. Contrastingly, in modern-day society we know that, “Ultimately, fear is a negative emotion. Sure, in the right circumstances it can be used effectively. It can drive needed change quickly,” according to the 3 Most Common Downfalls of Leaders. Shakespeare demonstrated this fear that drove change when the conspirators assassinated Caesar. Brutus states assertively, “It was not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” (Act 3 scene 2) This justifies the killing to the masses, leading them to believe that Caesar’s death was in their best interests, when it was actually to ensure the aristocracy did not lose their power. The battle between fear and love in Julius Caesar, can be summarised in one line uttered in confusion by Caesar as he is killed, “Et tu, Brute!” Caesar’s surprise can be understood by Shakespeare’s audience, as it is an unlikely action taken by someone Caesar trusted. The way in which the conspirators elected to kill Caesar could be seen as cowardly and brutal, they all “ganged up” on him, and went behind his back, literally, in order to accomplish the murder.
Another trait that Machiavelli stated was important for a prosperous 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.” (REF) The brutally honest, factual way Machiavelli states this allows the readers to understand plainly just how important ruthlessness and brutality is in a leader. Brutus and Cassius both conform to this Machiavellian characteristic when they kill Caesar, stabbing him thirty-three times. In the aftermath of the murder, Brutus triumphantly commands the rest of the conspirators “Stoop, Romans, stoop,/ And let us bathe our hands in Caesar’s blood/Up to the elbows, and besmear our swords.” (Act 3 scene 2) This dialogue is conveyed in a proud manner, the conspirators parade around the streets of Rome shouting, “...Peace, freedom and liberty!” (Act 3 scene 2) Brutus believes that he has Rome’s best interests at hand when the assassination occurs.
Here is your essay with my comments written in bold so that you can see what I'm thinking upon my first reading.
Spoiler
Niccolo Machiavelli and William Shakespeare both demonstrate their prowess in their respective texts, The Prince (1532), and Julius Caesar (1599) by addressing issues relevant to the contexts in which they were created. The purpose of Machiavelli’s The Prince was (It is best to talk about texts in the present tense. "The purpose of Machiavelli's The Prince is to highlight..." If you think this reads awkwardly, you can change the syntax so this reads as, "Machiavelli's The Prince was made with the purpose of..." to highlight to the Medici Family how to be a good leader in the early Renaissance period. Whereas, Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar to address his Elizabethan audience(you need a comma here for this to read better) allegorically commenting on the power struggle of late Renaissance England. Shakespeare represents an array of characters who display many Machiavellian “leadership” characteristics. Ideas on successful leadership are initially shaped in Machiavelli’s treatise, and are again reshaped when considering Shakespeare’s representation of various characters of the conspiracy and aftermath of Caesar’s assassination. Machiavelli said (Rather than “said” I think you should use proposed)great leaders should possess intelligence, acquire and utilise information for his or her needs through fear, ruthlessness and brutality when necessary. Examples of these characteristics in Julius Caesar, can be seen through select character’s dialogue, their actions towards other characters and the way their fellow characters describe them. While Shakespeare’s characters do not fully ascribe to all Machiavellian leadership qualities, t understood that there were moments when the ideal qualities Machiavelli explained in The Prince, become apparent in Shakespeare’s characters, Cassius, Brutus, Mark Antony and Julius Caesar. Towards the end here you have gone into technical analysis. Even though it isn’t thorough, it is a bit too soon considering the length of your introduction. Your introduction is very long! You can cut down on words by shortening this last part. Instead, try (this is a rough example – needs tidying): The possession of intelligence, as well as the use of ruthless manipulation of fear, that Machiavelli suggests as being traits of a quality leader are observed in several of Shakespeare’s characters.” Obviously what I’ve suggested needs tidying. Essentially I’ve tried to combine the two texts into the one. If there is one more thing I will suggest you do ADD, it is bringing it back to the values and attitudes because this is your essay question.
One trait that Machiavelli explored was the need for a successful leader to be intelligent. Not just scholarly, but more so wisdomScholarly is an adjective but wisdom is a noun. In this instance they are incomparable. Do you mean wise? Furthermore, before you enter the textual referencing, I think you need to talk about values or attitudes, even if it means replacing the word trait. Your essay needs strong direction of the question. He explains in Chapter 20: Are Fortresses, And Many Other Things To Which Princes Often Resort, Advantageous Or Hurtful? that “...the first method for estimating intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.” (Chpt. 20) Similarly, Shakespeare portrays Caesar’s level of intelligence by looking at the men he surrounds himself with, through dialogue Caesar states, “Let me have men about me that are fat/ Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep a-nights.” (Act 1 scene 2) Caesar states further on in a conversation with Antony that Cassius is the opposite of the people he wants to be surrounded by, “Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look/ He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.” (Act 1 scene 2) His authoritative tone describes Cassius as looking “lean and hungry,” Caesar feels threatened that Cassius “thinks too much,” meaning he is wise. The audience could compare Cassius to a fox’s cunning and sly characteristics, Cassius’ “hungry look” metaphorically represents his desire for power and control. Unfortunately, Caesar did not conform to Machiavelli’s leadership necessities, meaning that Caesar lacked the intelligence of a leader, surrounding himself with only “yes men.” By only wanting “fat, sleek-headed men” around him, rather than knowledgeable and intelligent men, who may have warned him about the conspirators or the warning signs leading up to his assassination. Your textual referencing here is absolutely wonderful. The way that you are approaching quotes that are embedded is truly impressive! Unfortunately, you don’t address the question heavily here. You haven’t focused on the contexts, attitudes and values. I can see that your paragraph is directed by intelligence which is a great thread between the texts. But, you will need to explicitly reference the question.
When a leader has a high level of intelligence, he is able to manipulate that in ways to benefit himself and “win over” the masses. Machiavelli ensured this idea was reinforced throughout his novel to highlight its importance in a successful leader. Here is a good opportunity to say why he says this. What were the attitudes of the time? What was the context? The context involved enough serfdom, which is the masses you talk about. So a strong leader was necessary. But, there are always ulterior motives. This needs to be evident in your dealing with context in order to successfully address the question. Stating that a leader should never “...attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.” (REF) Shakespeare’s character, Mark Antony, uses his intelligence and wit to manipulate not only the conspirators into letting him address the crowd but also change the alliance of the crowd. Antony begins his speech with a statement he will later contradict and invert, “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.” (Act 3 scene 2) His emotive language and factual tone, slowly manipulates the crowd as his speech goes on. He justifies the conspirators actions in assassinating Caesar by declaring that “Brutus is an honourable man,” but later turns this phrase around rhetorically and sarcastically saying just how “honourable” Brutus is. Shakespeare used repetition in the speech, each time Antony states “Brutus is an honourable man,” (Act 3 scene 2) the line loses its validity and meaning. The masses begin to question Brutus’ intentions and prior actions. “ I thrice presented him a kingly crown,/ Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?/ Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,/ And sure he is an honourable man.” (Act 3 scene 2) Further on in Julius Caesar, Antony successfully displays the manipulation of a crowd when he produces Caesar’s will, but refuses to read it, therefore withholding information to generate suspense in the crowd. Machiavelli stated that a leader “...must learn how not to be good, and use knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires,” (REF) in order to maintain his authority. In Antony’s choice to prolong the reading of Caesar's will, he creates suspense and distracts the crowd, which causes them to forget about the will. Antony successfully manipulates the crowd, returning their loyalty to Caesar, eventually encouraging them to right the injustice of Caesar’s assassination. What I suggested for last paragraph stands. We haven’t dealt with context enough just yet. When you talk about context, you will naturally talk about the values and attitudes. You don’t have to give a lot of sentence space to this, you just need to relate the importance of what is happening in the text back to the context appropriately. Probably moreso than any other Module, Module A requires serious context details.
People debate over whether or not starting a paragraph with a quote is fine. You should probably speak to your teacher about this. In my experience, I found that the paragraph seemed more wholesome if I removed the first sentence from textual referencing. Machiavelli highlights early on in The Prince, that it is far more important “...to be feared than loved if you cannot be both,” (REF) as people will almost always “bow down” to fear, especially when there are consequences involved. Contrastingly, in modern-day society we know that, “Ultimately, fear is a negative emotion. Sure, in the right circumstances it can be used effectively. It can drive needed change quickly,” according to the 3 Most Common Downfalls of Leaders. Shakespeare demonstrated this fear that drove change when the conspirators assassinated Caesar. Brutus states assertively, “It was not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” (Act 3 scene 2) This justifies the killing to the masses, leading them to believe that Caesar’s death was in their best interests, when it was actually to ensure the aristocracy did not lose their power. The battle between fear and love in Julius Caesar, can be summarised in one line uttered in confusion by Caesar as he is killed, “Et tu, Brute!” Caesar’s surprise can be understood by Shakespeare’s audience, as it is an unlikely action taken by someone Caesar trusted. The way in which the conspirators elected to kill Caesar could be seen as cowardly and brutal, they all “ganged up” on him, and went behind his back, literally, in order to accomplish the murder.
Another trait that Machiavelli stated was important for a prosperous 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.” For this first sentence, reference the above paragraph’s comment. (REF) The brutally honest, factual way Machiavelli states this allows the readers to understand plainly just how important ruthlessness and brutality is in a leader. Brutus and Cassius both conform to this Machiavellian characteristic when they kill Caesar, stabbing him thirty-three times. In the aftermath of the murder, Brutus triumphantly commands the rest of the conspirators “Stoop, Romans, stoop,/ And let us bathe our hands in Caesar’s blood/Up to the elbows, and besmear our swords.” (Act 3 scene 2) This dialogue is conveyed in a proud manner, the conspirators parade around the streets of Rome shouting, “...Peace, freedom and liberty!” (Act 3 scene 2) Brutus believes that he has Rome’s best interests at hand when the assassination occurs.
Your textual referencing is superior - as is your integration of texts! You do this so so so well. What you need to work on is involving the question more. You've mentioned the Elizabethan audience at the beginning - but then I don't see a great lot of context for Shakespeare afterwards. The words attitudes and values need to appear in a stronger and more frequent way. I suggest that although you should weave them into your paragraphs, you end the paragraph with a sentence that draws it back in.
As for your conclusion: this is another opportunity to address the question well. Here is a scaffold that I will propose:
-Explicitly answer the question
-Deal with Machiavelli's context and the purpose for his work.
-Deal with Shakespeare's context and his purpose.
-Directly link between why the attitudes and values of Machiavelli are relevant yet reshaped in Shakespeare's text.
-Tie back into the question again.
Once you nail answering the question - there is very little left for you to work on! You're doing super well. Your essay gains so so much integrity when you deal with the question in an integrated and sophisticated manner.
Good luck! Don't be afraid to message back!
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only) (Read 602694 times)