MODULE A INTERTEXTUAL PERSPECTIVES

MODUL AR RESPONSES
Machiavelli has a pragmatic approach to leadership that employs deception and
ruthlessness
Machiavelli offers a pragmatic approach to leadership, which employs deception to maintain the love of
the people, and uses ruthlessness to ensure continual reign, often emphasising the importance of their
coexistence. The emergence of the renaissance, which brought about freedom of expression, within a
war-torn Italy prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince for Lorenzo Medici, who was the current ruler at
the time. It was written to inform the Medici on how to maintain a powerful rule over Italy, which would
enable war-torn Italy to unify under a common leadership, thereby strengthening the state. The
pragmatic ideas of deception and ruthlessness conflicted with Machiavellis contemporaries, who
preferred idealism which promoted love and generosity, which reflects how the renaissance was
impactful on The Prince. This is conveyed through the treatise, which employs high modality diction,
such as must not, and should not, to provide unequivocal exposition, which reflects upon
Machiavellis intention to offer the Medici practical advice on leadership. He often uses self-reinforcing
dichotomies, such as stating how one must act virtuous in public, but ruthless in private, using the
anti-thesis of both deception and ruthlessness to convey their need to coexist, which reflects how
Machiavelli uses the treatise to persuade the Medici towards his ideas. Thus through the freedom of
expression instigated by the Italian renaissance, and desire to unite war-torn Italy, Machiavelli
developed a practical approach to leadership, which conflicted with his contemporaries and
demonstrated how he was a shrewd observer and a startlingly original thinker.
Shakespeare has an idealistic approach to leadership He criticises Machiavelli, however he
also highlights flaws in an idealistic leader
Contrasting this is Shakespeares discussion of leadership, which compares idealism with pragmatism
to demonstrate their respective flaws. Julius Caesar was written 85 years after Machiavellis The Prince,
and commentates on his pragmatic approach to leadership through the characterisation of Cassius, the
main antagonist of the play. The association of the Machiavellian Cassius, who uses deception to
convince Brutus to assassinate Caesar, with villainy is highlighted through the plays dialogue, in which
Caesar states he has a lean and hungry look; he thinks too much, such men are dangerous. It depicts
how Shakespeare views Machiavellis approach to leadership as power hungry and vicious, which is
reflective of the monachal leadership of Queen Elizabeth, which was intolerant of ideas such as
deception and ruthless, that could be considered questioning of the monarchy. While Shakespeare
negatively portrays Machiavellian pragmatism, he also considers the flaws of an idealistic ruler, through
the characterisation of Brutus, who serves as the tragic character. Brutus is motivated to maintain the
democratic republic for the benefit of the people by ensuring fairness, similar to Machiavellis desire to
unite war-torn Italy to strengthen the state, however differs in his idealistic approach. He is described
as the noblest roman of them all, indicating his morally pure intentions to protect the republic,
however this idealism proves to be a flaw, as depicted in Cassius manipulation of Brutus to incite fear
through falsifying letters from the public which urge him to assassinate Caesar to maintain democracy.
Thus, while Shakespeare criticises Machiavellis pragmatic approach to leadership as a result of the
inflexible political environment from a monachal government, he also discusses the flaws of an
idealistic ruler through the manipulation of Brutus.
Fate or freewill is argued for by Machiavelli and Shakespeare to describe how leadership
works
Shakespeare and Machiavelli also conflict with their exploration of fate against freewill in regards with
leadership, with Shakespeare reaffirming fate as a means of deciding a ruler, and Machiavelli favouring
freewill over fate. Due to the monachal government, Shakespeare had to align his depiction of
leadership as being determined by fate, since the leadership was supposedly decided by God. This is
depicted in Caesars assassination due to his potential corruption, which is foreshadowed by the
pathetic fallacy of rain and thunder, bad omens from a soothsayer saying to beware the Ides of
March, and visions of his corpse. This highlights how Shakespeare depicts leadership as being

determined by fate, and controlled by a divinity to ensure properly rule. This contrasts with
Machiavellis exploration, which personifies fate as a woman, one that can be beaten or seduced, and
conveys how through the enacting of freewill, a leader can ensure his leadership is not governed by
fate. This is continually reasserted throughout the political treatise, which provides advice on how to
govern people through deception and ruthless, which reinforces Machiavellis belief that freewill can
triumph over fate. Thus due to their differing contexts, Shakespeare depicts leadership as being
controlled by fate, whereas Machiavelli, who was enabled by the flexible political environment, could
portray leadership as being based on freewill, rather than fate.