The concept of the good life is sometimes a very controversial topic that raises various ethical and justice-related questions. A few notable theorists have discussed the concept of life in a more profound manner. For example, Plato’s Republic has formed in a rational setting that its fundamental rules conform to the concept of the good life. Whereas Socrates believes that such an ideal state must be formed with qualities that originate from the individual’s innate setting. However, this paper is going to give an in-depth analysis of the concept of the good life from two works. These works are Hamlet and Machiavelli’s, The Prince. Emphasis will be on how the texts argue about the concept of the good life and their relevance to the time of their publication.
This paper will give a comparison and contrast between “The Prince” which was aptly written by Machiavelli and “Hamlet” which was penned down by William Shakespeare. Briefly, Machiavelli postulates a Prince who seeks to find good life by using his power to maintain his leadership and get favors from the countrymen (Niccolo 42). Whereas, Prince Hamlet is met with demanding situations that make him struggle to befit himself on the throne of his father. Cruelty and revenge are manifested in Hamlet whereas virtue and peace are philosophically explained in Machiavelli’s Prince. The Prince in both texts seeks after leadership that will satisfy their self-interests and generally the interest of the state.
In Hamlet, there is a difference while living unlike when one is dead. The peasant is never equal to the King and vice versa. The author tries to bring to light the concepts of life when he uses the different aspects of death in the piece of work. For example, there is a lot of predestination in the play. The ghost in the work gives the concept of life after death. “All that lives must die, Passing through nature to eternity” (Shakespeare17). Shakespeare uses Hamlet to show the audience the bitterness of losing a father and the inevitable thoughts about suicide. Life can be stopped at free will; hence highlighting the deontological theory that supports motive and not the law. The challenge that faces Hamlet is the worry of dying and missing better chances in life, he reiterates in this legendary saying about the cruelty that “I must be cruel, only to be kind: thus bad begins and worse remains behind” (Shakespeare 47). Although it seems overwhelming the subject of endurances comes in. Hamlet wonders if one can live and endure the challenges that life offers in terms of suffering and pain that needs to be tolerated. Hence, to live is more adventurous than dying. Hamlet is torn between what will be the aftermath after he passes on! Will he be a ghost and be free from the atrocities in life? Therefore, there is a lot of uncertainty in life.
Well, when we look at Machiavelli there is a lot of reverence to the political status of a country. This affects its people directly, making their lives palatable or bitter. Laws governing a country should be of good theme that will allow the leaders and the military to foster justice and avoid which upsets common people. In turn, his argument conforms to the theory of realism which allows the state to engage in successful wars. The approach in his writing of the works titled “The Prince” is a perfect way to make common people respond positively to ambush instead of insurgence. We find the descriptions of diplomatic approaches, internal politics that are correlated with tactical mastery of political structures that are responsible for making the state.
The state as described by Machiavelli should be able to conform to moral values of goodwill and avoid hatred at all costs. “The Prince” in this context should be able to make the people love or fear him but not hate. However, he advocates for cruelty but the most emphatic position is the people’s attitudes towards the Prince. This is because the goodwill of the people will ease life and make a good basis for defense and political stability. In addition, the good life should be made by a person’s free will. Here a person can possess talents that give luck. He puts it that, the fortune that is gained from the “prowess” or talents of a person gives forth the ability to win over failure in life like the ancient Italians (Niccolo 92). Therefore, the fundamental point about the concept of the good life is; a good life is determined by the individual to a certain degree but it is never absolute for full control of the events that may ensue. Machiavelli firmly puts it that the main principle to the good life is a virtue. Virtue ideally should be made by the generosity and apt compassion; therefore “a return to first principles in a republic is sometimes caused by the simple virtues of one man. His good example has such an influence that the good men strive to imitate him, and the wicked are ashamed to lead a life so contrary to his example” (Niccolo 11).
Therefore, to be a perfect Prince, one should be able to be virtuous in front of the people. The prince should be to shun cruelty and deceitful mannerism. This is because the countrymen will emulate him. Interestingly, in this philosophical approach, Machiavelli identifies different human nature traits that should be known to the Prince. As discussed above, the common citizens will love generosity, candor, frugality, and piety but it is strange for the people to put into practice and never hurt a Prince that’s why Machiavelli argues that “Men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared because love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are wretched creatures, is broken on every occasion in which their own interests are concerned; but fear is sustained by a dread of punishment which will never abandon you” (Niccollo 42). However, humans are only able to try to practice such virtues when praised or given some favors but not naturally for their own volition.
From the above description of Machiavelli’s Prince, amazingly, we find that procrastination is evident when Prince Hamlet tries to avenge the death of his father. There is “fear and moral-ethical thought that is evoked inside the self-nature” of Hamlet concerning death and life (Watts 15). When he starts to avenge the death of his father, he uses strategies that Machiavelli outlines for his Prince. Prowess and apt talent make Hamlet get power when he disputes Claudius as a person bereft of princely attributes. We see the noble qualities that are praised by the people; that is, he wins the trust of the people. The people trust and love him. What haunts him is his true zeal and the goal he wants to accomplish, we see the human nature in Hamlet. Several innate facets of human nature are revealed from the character of Hamlet: procrastination; the natural state of humans to kill; revenge; fear of the unknown; and seeking leadership with cruelty and ignorance. These are a few similarities between the two princes in the two texts.
When we look at the context of these two texts we find that the writers come from different geographical settings but have a similar set of their surrounding society. For example, Machiavelli is an Italian writer who believed that is most favorable if a man is feared at the expense of being loved by people. Here he means that a person should be feared because of his personality that should be outstanding. During his period Italy was venturing into war and he opted to give a pragmatic approach to the stature of war which should promote the “virtuous nature” of state leaders (Watts 62). Hence, “The Prince” was relevant to his people who had a hierarchal system of Kingship and warlike republic. When we look at Hamlet there is a good product of theatre production that was extensive and popular in the Elizabethan theaters. The choreography that the writer uses in welcoming the King depicts the freedom of the people in serving the King. But the innate touch on human weakness gives the exact true nature of the people during the Shakespearean era.
In conclusion, we have seen how Machiavelli postulates a Prince who seeks to find good life by using his power to maintain his leadership and get favors from the countrymen. Whereas, Prince Hamlet is met with demanding situations that makes him struggle in order to befit himself the throne of his father; in Act Two, Scene Two he argues about his conscience of being a King saying that “the play’s the thing, Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king” (Shakespeare 31). In Hamlet, we find a cruel King and an ideal Prince in Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. The texts both have postulated leadership qualities and the basic interest is the personal gains that are achieved in different philosophical approaches to making sense of good life in their tenure as leaders.
Works Cited
Niccolo, Machiavelli and Donno Daniel. The Prince. New York, NY: Bantam Classics, 1984, Print.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. New York, NY: Dover Publications, 1992. Print.
Watts, Victor. The Consolation of Philosophy. New York, NY: Penguin, 1999. Print.