The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli and Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare are excellent examples of texts that address universal political issues that remain relevant throughout time. The authors' distinctive contexts and perspectives are highlighted through the exploration of personal morality in different governmental systems. While Machiavelli criticizes morality and considers it an obstacle to the accession and maintenance of power, Shakespeare questions its importance within leaders. Comparing the amoral principles of Machiavelli's treatise with Shakespeare's play reinforces the distinct purpose of the texts, one to teach and the other to challenge the question of whether morality has a place within power and politics. Ultimately, the moral perspective presented in both texts reflects the values ​​and attitudes of the authors' historical and social contexts, two distinct periods of the Renaissance shaped by great political changes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay Born in 1469 in Florence, Italy, Machiavelli grew up in a period of political instability and became interested in the subject from a very young age. By the age of twenty-eight, he had already held several positions of power, including Secretary of the Second Chancellery and Secretary of the War Ten. However, Machiavelli was stripped of his political position and exiled for conspiracy when the Medici family regained power. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli explores the fundamentals of acquiring and maintaining power while clearly illustrating his view that an amoral attitude is necessary to be an effective leader. . He alludes to numerous historical figures throughout the text to support his principles, drawing much of his inspiration from Cesare Borgia. In 1502, Machiavelli was sent to stop the Borgias from invading the Florentine region and witnessed his ruthless and ambitious nature. He effectively used deception and violence to maintain power with a dynamism that impressed Machiavelli. Borgia had “killed every local leader he could lay his hands on”[1], yet Machiavelli claims that he “could not know what better advice to give… than to follow his example”[2]. to demonstrate a "good" example of maintaining power, he emphasizes his view that politics leaves no room for personal morality. This is further emphasized when he states that things that “seem morally right” “will actually lead a ruler to disaster,” while “. something else that seems wrong will bring security and success”[3]. Through this paradox, Machiavelli suggests that positive outcomes justify amoral actions, which clearly reflects his distinct historical context, where he witnessed the effectiveness of political conflicts settled through war and violence. and cruel acts. It also reinforces the distinct form of the text, a political treatise, reflecting Machiavelli's personal motivations to influence and instruct the public, originally Lorenzo de' Medici, of his principles for finding employment in politics.Shakespeare, born in L he England of 1564 also experienced a time of political turmoil, where Queen Elizabeth had no designated heir. This succession crisis led the people to wonder what would happen to their government once the queen died, with the dreaded possibility of civil war. Shakespeare used the well-known historical events of Julius Caesar, manipulating them to represent a form of what might happen in England.., (5.5)