The Prince & Julius Caesar Essay Guide (HSC Module A)

1Introduction

Today, we’ll be looking at Niccolò Machiavelli’s treatise The Prince (1532) and William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar (1599) in the updated HSC Syllabus. Below is an unpacking of the new syllabus description for HSC Module A and how we can compare the two texts.

Students explore the ways in which the comparative study of texts can reveal resonances and dissonances within and between texts. Students identify, interpret, analyse and evaluate the textual features, conventions, contexts, values and purposes of TWO prescribed texts. By comparing TWO texts, students understand how authors are influenced by other texts, contexts and values, and how these shape meaning. Through their comparative study, they explore common or disparate issues, values, assumptions or perspectives, and the ways these are depicted. By responding imaginatively, interpretively and critically to the comparative study, students explore and evaluate individual and common textual features, concepts, ideas and values.

Important things to note:

• comparative study of texts can reveal resonances and dissonances between and within texts
• analyse and evaluate the textual features, conventions, contexts, values and purposes of texts
• common or disparate issues, values, assumptions or perspectives
• individual and common textual features, concepts, ideas and values

2Leadership

Let’s explore how main ideas are explored in the two texts and their resonances and dissonances.

Machiavelli promotes leaders to be cunning, decisive and able to gain the support of the masses. Furthermore, he urges leaders to eliminate political rivals to maintain power.

Mirroring Machiavelli’s urge for leadership that is gained from public support, Shakespeare shows how Antony embodies this through his artful use of language to emotively persuade the masses to support him during the funeral speech. This is in contrast to Brutus’ appeal to logic. Additionally, Caesar initially refused the crown 3 times as a way to show his humility, mirroring Machiavelli’s urging for social reputability to maintain power. Yet, Caesar later succumbs to flattery which leads to his downfall. Through this, Shakespeare depicts leaders with their unique fallibilities in contrast to Machiavelli’s absolutist views of effective leadership.

3Leadership and morality

Machiavelli promotes the need to assert effective leadership without being hindered by moral or religious codes. He has a more individualistic view of leadership where power is gained through free will and potentially immoral acts.

Meanwhile, Shakespeare presents leadership within a moral framework and admits that sometimes, deviation from morality is needed for power. Shakespeare uses Brutus to embody moral absolutism, highlighted through his belief that monarchy is inextricably linked to tyranny, so he plots against Caesar to maintain the liberties of the Romans. Cassius’ manipulation of Brutus to join the conspirators’ side embodies Machiavelli’s urging for cunning leaders. Yet Shakespeare prompts audiences to sympathise with Brutus by presenting him as an Aristotelian tragic hero through Antony’s remarks of Brutus’ honour after his death.

4Free will vs fate

Machiavelli reflects strong Renaissance Humanist ideas of free will and individualism in determining one’s propensity to be a great leader. Meanwhile, Shakespeare reflects theocentric beliefs through multiple mentions of fate and omens which influence characters’ actions, e.g. Cassius sees omens which lets him believe that his assassination will be a success.

5Final thoughts

Want personalised guidance on your The Prince and Julius Caesar comparative essay? Contact us today!

Keep exploring