While the connection between Machiavelli and Marlowe is clearly articulated in the latter's preface to The Jew of Malta, the parallels between Machiavelli's The Prince and Measure for Measure of Shakespeare are less explicitly expressed, but certainly no less important. One must of course be careful before suggesting that Shakespeare knew Machiavelli's The Prince in its original form: it is very likely that he read one of the many English or French paraphrases circulating at the time. There is, however, no doubt that the vast majority of the characters in Measure for Measure - the Duke, Angelo, Claudio, Pompey and even Isabella - demonstrate Machiavellian qualities. A comparison of key passages, both from The Prince and Measure for Measure, will establish this precise fact. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay A study of royalty, arguably the entire premise of Measure for Measure, is immediately introduced in the first scene, with the declaration of the duke “From the government the properties to be deployed / It would seem to me that they affect speech and discourse. However, it is not until the third scene of the first act that this political discussion becomes specific and, ultimately, linked to the Machiavellian notion of the art of government. In this scene, which details the exchange between Vincentio and the brother, we learn the reasons why the former replaced Angelo. The Duke's two significant dialogues – I.iii.20-33 and I.iii.36-55 – reveal that over the past fourteen years the "strict statutes and the most biting laws" (I.iii.20 ) punishing the accused -Marital relations have fallen into disuse. While this scene is by no means exhaustive, it provides the reader with plenty of food for thought. Vincentio's Machiavellianism, as manifested in the scene above, centers on three main elements: his previous laxity, his current need to deflect responsibility, and his use of Angelo as an instrument to enforce this "law." more severe”. Looking more closely at Measure for Measure and The Prince, we discern that the apparent negligence in the Duke's initial non-enforcement of the law may not really be negligence at all, but rather a strategic choice. Machiavelli's remarks about the need to avoid contempt and hatred are immediately relevant: a prince who wants to maintain his rule is often forced to not be good, because whenever the class of men on whom you believe your reign is corrupt, whether it is the people, or the soldiers, or the nobles, you must satisfy them by adopting the same disposition; and then good deeds are your enemies. By not enforcing a law that the vast majority of citizens - the rank and file and the nobility - transgress at any given time, Vincentio ensures the stability of his position. Angelo's appointment as deputy is complex, to say the least, and can be interpreted in various ways. We might assume that the Duke's remarks testify to his awareness of the hypocrisy of personal enforcement of the law - since it was my fault to give the people room to maneuver, it would be my tyranny to strike them and 'exasperate for what I order him to do' (I. iii.36-38). Of course, one could just as easily argue that the Duke's new 'morality' is the direct result of the realization that he, as the "rod" of the law, is perhaps "more mocked than feared" (I.iii.28). This interpretation is credible when we consider the possibility that Lucio's remarks regarding the Duke may be in. a certain extent representative of a general spirit of disdainrather than simply a humorous product of his debauched and irreverent nature. must we forget the Duke's own admission which is formulated in very negative (and martial) terms: I imposed the charge on Angelo, who can in the ambush of my name strike the house and yet my nature is not never in the fight to make slander. (I.iii.41-44) Clearly, Vincentio wishes to distance himself as much as possible from an act that will inevitably breed hatred, resentment, and civic unrest (or even defiance, as we see in the case of Pompey, who declares to Mistress Overdone in I.ii.91: "I will always be your captor") Once again, the Duke clearly followed the advice of Machiavelli, who repeatedly asserts that the best defense of the wise prince. is the good will of his subjects: a wise prince who is more afraid of his own people than of foreigners builds fortresses; he who fears strangers more than his own people rejects them. Your best possible fortress is that your subjects do not hate you. I blame any prince who considers the hatred of his people unimportant. The substitution of Angelo for the Duke also recalls Machiavelli's story. of the Duke of Romagna: After the Duke had seized Romagna and found it controlled by weak lords [...] the whole province was full of thefts, brawls and excesses of all kinds. This is why he entrusted the direction there to Messer Remirro de Orco, a cruel and prompt man, to whom he gave the most complete authority. This man quickly made the province peaceful and united, gaining enormous prestige. The Duke then decided that it was no longer necessary to have such unlimited power; he therefore created a civil court in the middle of the province. And because he knew that past severities had caused some men to hate him, he resolved to purge the minds of these men and to win them over entirely by showing that any cruelty that had occurred did not come from himself. but from the harsh nature of his agent. So, having the opportunity, one morning in Cesena, he made Messer Remirro lie in two pieces in the public square with a block of wood and a bloody sword near him. What Machiavelli is alluding to in the passage above is the Duke's realization of Orco as a potential threat, "gaining enormous prestige...unlimited power." This implicitly implies that the Duke of Romagna is aware of the implications of his forcible capture of the province - he is fully aware of the possibility that Orco could resort to the same tactics to consolidate and strengthen his power. Shakespeare's Duke Vincentio betrays a similar preoccupation with Angelo. Although he needs his services, he does not fully trust him and therefore stays behind to "visit the prince and the people" (I.iii.46) and check "if the power changes its objectives" (I.iii.55). This latter reference to the tendency of power to corrupt, Shakespeare uses allusion and suggestion rather than explicit reference to explore the Machiavellian possibilities of the play, and even these are nowhere near as violent as those that the found in The Prince himself. A truly Machiavellian play would result in Vincentio killing Angelo and reasserting his power, or Angelo killing the Duke. The more likely of these two possibilities, of course, is the latter: throughout the play, Angelo continually reaffirms his Machiavellian qualities. First, he uses his position for personal gain, realizing that "[his] falsities outweigh [Isabella's] truth" (II.iv.171) and that he is one of those princes "against whom charges cannot be brought before the courts.” "Second, he refuses to overturn Claudio's death sentence even after (to his knowledge) Isabella has fulfilled their,, 1995.