Module A The Prince and Julius Caesar 2016 HSC Response Feedback Please!!

[Fergus6748]

Heya guys, I would really appreciate any feedback whatsoever on this essay. Thanks a bunch!!

"Through an exploration of intertextual perspectives we may better understand the relationship between time and context. Moreover, one must consider the influential and egotistical role of the composers themselves, who through the manipulation of form and values shaped the responders reception of the text. Niccolò Machiavelli's 1513 political treatise 'The Prince' and William Shakespeare's 1613 dramatic retelling 'Julius Caesar' examine notions of morality and politics, reality and idealism, and fate and free will, in light of their contextual and individual positions. Accordingly, the shape and meaning of a text is founded upon the values of the audience and composer alike.

The discussion of fate and freewill uncovers a contrast between Humanism and Christian determinism. Indeed, both texts establish the equivocal existence of fate, while granting ultimate control to freewill. Shakespeare elicits such through the beliefs of Cassius as "Men at some time are masters of their fates. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings." drawing the audience to appraise human capacity for reason and control to reflect the value of humanism that arose from the changing religious paradigm of the Renaissance. Therefore, in rejecting the notion that life exists in a predestined plan, Shakespeare propounds the value and agency of human beings, affirming the notion that life exists in a predestined plan, Shakespeare propounds the value and agency of human beings, affirming the notion that events transpire as a result of free will. Machiavelli exercises the same sentiment through his extended metaphor that luck is "like one of those raging rivers that sometimes rise and flood the plain" serves to illustrate the persistent nature of fortune and its potential for destruction, "tearing down trees and buildings". Machiavelli according to the individual power to protect himself against the destruction of fortune and thus, to an extent, 'control' his fate through free will. Through sexual connotations in his declaration that "fortune is female…if you want to stay on top of her you have to slap and thrust," Machiavelli implies that fortune and luck, like women at the time, can be mastered and controlled. These connotations illustrate the power of the individual over fate, as Machiavelli suggests that one can assert their dominance and exercise free will. Shakespeare juxtaposes this humanist approach, however, with references to preordained events and God's omniscience. The soothsayer's repetition of "Beware the ides of March" illustrates the influence of an unseen force on fate, in which key events, including Caesar's death, are successfully predicted by prophetic abilities, reflective of the ancestral ethnic religion of ancient Rome. As such, by challenging the world around us we can begin to understand the power of our freewill in determining our path. Being able to take accountability for our actions affords us the ability to progress and develop ourselves in a positive way. Reminding ourselves of our choices enables us to accept the control we possess through freewill.

Within the conflict of reality and idealism, arises the need to uphold both to ensure secure leadership and state stability. Shakespeare ingeniously exposes the dangers of idealism through the powerful metaphor and symbolism of the star, “But I am constant as the northern star”, he conveys Caesar’s self-professed magnanimity, with his comparison to space suggesting that he, as ruler, sits above the normal man. This sentiment aligns with the Elizabethan belief in the Great Chain of Being, and conveys the attitude to power prevalent at the time – that the ruling class were mortal instruments of God. Machiavelli encapsulates these dangers to illustrate the need for a balance of reality and idealism through didactic tone, to draw the audience to judge "…if you always want to play the good man in a world where most people are not good, you'll end up badly." He argues that only the leader possesses the capabilities of being both good and bad can make substantial change in their regime. In doing so, we are lead to appraise the cost it takes to progress a regime in such a way. Further, Machiavelli suggests that a successful leader is one who will “...act in such a way that everything he does gives an impression of greatness, spirit, seriousness and strength”. By challenging the classical ideas of the Renaissance through this asyndeton he explores the notion of virtu, engaging the audience into a discussion of the public qualities of a leader. Demonstrating the benefits of appearing virtuous in public as “it’s hard to conspire against a man who is well thought of.” Conversely, empathy between Shakespeare's text and the audience is created through the character foil of Brutus, who acts in service of his ideals in "If it aught toward the general good, Set honour in one eye and death I' th' other And I will lock on both indifferently. For let the gods so speed me as I love the name of honour more than I fear death." Through such positioning and skill over form, Shakespeare demonstrates the need for a balance of reality and idealism. Accordingly, we understand moral agency to be important to audiences over time in analysing their political figures as representative of themselves, yet not necessarily voted in by the people, but crafted by composers themselves.

Furthermore, it is through the inevitability of greed and moral corruption within the pursuit of power which illustrates the incompatibility of morality and successful governance. Through the soliloquy of Brutus, Shakespeare captivates the audience into the consideration of “The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins/Remorse from power”. Brutus embodies the conflict of morality and politics as he applies his code of ethics onto his political environment and actions.
Shakespeare, in essence is arguing that a successful leader should display the “Machiavellian” traits, hence the reason for Brutus downfall. Machiavelli encapsulates this as he observes that it is the leaders who “…seem and sound wholly compassionate, wholly loyal, wholly human, wholly honest and wholly religious” that have the best chances of success. The repetition of such virtuous qualities enforces the notion that influence stems from image, supporting the attitude that rulers must only appear fundamentally good and honourable. Thus, Machiavelli creates a distinction between how a leader should behave, and the relative value of how they actually do, revealing the ultimate paradox of leadership that must exist to ensure successful governance. Through Machiavelli’s cumulative listing of the virtues a ruler must reject “to stay in power he’s frequently obliged to act against loyalty, against charity, against humanity and against religion” it becomes apparent that traditional morality is unable to exist alongside successful governance. Machiavelli propounds, therefore, the importance of realpolitik over the observance of moral principles, reflective of the ultimate desire to secure Italian integrity and unity. Shakespeare’s metaphorical discernment that “But ‘tis common proof that lowliness is young ambition’s ladder” suggests that the ability to manipulate in the interest of power is, in politics, a value more highly prized than generosity and good faith – something that reflects the political cunning and noble greed that was rife in the English courts throughout Elizabeth’s early reign. Shakespeare therefore reveals the value of political sensibility and manipulation in maintaining power, espousing the necessity to abandon traditional morals in the interest of ensuring state stability and integrity. In each text, it is apparent that morality and politics is only

Thus, each composer develops our understanding of the relationship between key values and context. Through comparative study of William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince we are granted deeper insight into the discussion of fate and freewill, and the ever-present conflicts of reality and idealism, and morality and politics by which is perhaps no more important than today, where we are trumped by egos that dominate modern day politics."