Machiavelli’s Prince Revealed in Shakespeare’s play, Antony and Cleopatra

Carolyn Jones

Niccolo Machiavelli’s preeminent ruler that he describes in his book, The Prince, is a ruler who utilizes his prowess to build and hold his kingdom. A shrewd leader, he wields his power with acuity and adjusts his game plan to accommodate changing circumstances in order to ultimately outsmart his enemies. In the play, Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare’s characters and the political intrigue surrounding them reflect much of the political doctrine that Machiavelli espouses in The Prince. Which character or characters possess the qualities of Machiavellian fame? What do events and relationships reveal regarding the nature of the politics in the play?

In The Prince, Machiavelli explores how ability and fortune impact a prince and his government. As he reveals the doctrine that a ruler must follow in order to achieve success, Machiavelli identifies characteristics that a prince must possess, such as high-mindedness, courage, strength, and wisdom; however, he also acknowledges reprehensible traits of princes, such as cruelty and evil, that may be part of an effective leader’s arsenal.

Virtue or ability is very near and dear to Machiavelli’s heart; in fact, it is the mainstay of a great prince. Regarding fortune, Machiavelli concedes that he is “disposed to hold that fortune is the arbiter of half our actions, but that it lets us control roughly the other half” (85).

Fortune then is only a fraction of the equation regarding a great prince, and it, coupled with ability, is enhanced if a ruler is wise enough to recognize opportunity and act on it. Machiavelli believes that “we are successful when our ways are suited to the times and circumstances, and unsuccessful when they are not” (85). In Shakespeare’s play, Antony and Cleopatra, Pompey is a ruler who loses the respect of his loyal lieutenant, Menas. Menas proposes the assassination of Lepidus, Antony and Caesar. When Pompey refuses, Menas bitterly rejects his leadership, “For this, / I’ll never follow they palled fortunes more” (2.7.82-83). Perhaps Pompey takes the prize for a cardinal sin against one of Machiavelli’s more shocking guiding principles, which does not consider morals and ethics in terms of political ambitions. Crime and treachery have their place as long as they constitute a necessary and effectual means to gain or hold power. Machiavelli relates a gripping moment in history regarding Agathocles, an army commander, who plotted a conspiracy to gain power and become the King of Syracuse. He called a high-level meeting under the pretense of addressing urgent matters of the state in which “at a prearranged signal, his soldiers killed all the senators and richest men of the city” (Machiavelli 30). In the eyes of Machiavelli could Pompey do less? Shakespeare’s portrayal imports the idea of an opportunity wasted through Pompey’s inability to seize the moment to gain power. Paul Rose points out that Pompey “is horrified, not by the deed, but by the injury to his honor” (385-6): “Ah this shouldst have done / And not have spoke on’t! In me ‘tis villainy; / In thee, ‘t had been good service (2.7. 75-76). Rose reinforces the fact that Menas epitomizes the Machiavellian point of view, while Pompey fails miserably.

Another interesting and important observation plays out in Pompey’s galley that relates to the politics of power and fortune. Caesar’s portrayal in the play closely represents the pragmatic ruler of Machiavellian fame--the careful, calculating strategist. Concerning the drinking and debauchery in the galley scene, Marilyn Williamson emphasizes that Caesar is cautious and perhaps more guarded in the galley than Antony, Enobarbus, and the others; nonetheless, just being there puts him at risk. Williamson stresses that Shakespeare’s scene represents a sign of the political times when “treachery and risk” is inherent, and if “power in it is divided among several leaders—none can trust the others…” (p. 243).

Machiavelli points out that a prince acquires power “…either through luck or favour or else through ability” (5). Earlier, in the case of Agathocles, a prince’s virtue/ability may include villainy. In the galley scene, ability, fortune, and honor are at work concerning the lives of the political powers. Although honor seems unimportant in the scheme of Machiavellian philosophy, it isn’t discounted completely. On one hand, Pompey’s honor and his decision not to resort to villainy lacks ability because “a ruler who wishes to maintain his power must be prepared to act immorally when this becomes necessary” (Machiavelli, 55). Yet, Machiavelli concedes that Agathocles cannot be “numbered among the finest men” (31).

In the first scene of Antony and Cleopatra, as Shakespeare sets up his play, Philo reveals a loss of confidence concerning Antony. Due to Antony’s relationship with Cleopatra, Philo believes that Antony is a leader made weak or ineffectual. Antony’s ability as a general is called into question when Philo claims, “…His captain’s heart, / Which in the scuffles of great fights hath burst / The buckles on his breast, reneges all temper / And is become the bellows and the fan / To cool a gypsy’s lust.” (1.1.6-9). Philo reinforces his fears that Antony is losing sight of his military objectives when he describes Antony as, “The triple pillar of the world transformed / Into a strumpet’s fool” (1.1.12-13).

However, there is substantial evidence in the play that Antony is not the slacker that Philo purports him to be, and it casts considerable doubt on Philo’s fears. Antony’s steadfastness of purpose regarding his military obligations receives affirmation in Antony’s comment that he “must from this enchanting queen break off,” (1.2.135), and Cleopatra reaffirms his dedication to the Roman cause in her expressed fear that a “Roman thought hath struck him”(1.2.88). In conversations with Enobarbus concerning deployment, Antony’s intent of purpose is made perfectly clear in his reprimand, “No more light answers” (1.2.183).

John Roe takes a different approach. He opposes Philo’s angst on the grounds that the dynamics of the relationship between Antony and Cleopatra are such that Antony’s ability is perfected in spirit “through, and not in spite of Cleopatra” (181). What does it mean in terms of fortune and ability if the outcome of the battle is preordained? The soothsayer warns Antony that he is, “sure to lose; and of that natural luck / He beats thee ‘gainst the odds” (2.3.26-28). With this dire prediction, in betting terms, it could be said that the fix is in, and Antony can’t win. Roe contrasts the positive ability of Anthony that he associates with Cleopatra, against Caesar’s fortune that the soothsayer foretells. The opposition of fortune in the two scenarios raises Antony’s ability to greater heights, and lessens Caesar’s ability because Caesar gains his ground not through ability, but through luck. (180-181).

Princes come and go through fortune and ability and Machiavelli devotes much attention to the characteristics that a prince needs to gain control. However, since princes do not live in their kingdoms alone, they have a population to think about. Machiavelli’s opinion of the general population in The Prince reflects his disdain for it when he says that people are “fickle…easy to persuade…but difficult to keep them persuaded” (21). In Antony and Cleopatra, with the threat of Pompey looming large, as Antony prepares to leave Egypt, he echoes Machiavelli’s sentiments: “Our slippery people, / Whose love is never linked to the deserver” (1.2.192-3).

Jack D’Amico examines the politics of the play as “a contest for minds or hearts” (73). In Antony and Cleopatra, Caesar represents the cold, ruthless, quintessential pragmatic ruler. “All Caesar has is a political conscience...” (Rose, 381). In contrast, Antony is a leader that instills admiration in the people; his magnanimity leaps out throughout the play. Antony graciously sends Enobarbus’s things to him after he defects, and even as Enobarbus defects he cries, “This blows my heart,” revealing his high regard for Antony (4.6.33). And who is more loyal than Antony’s faithful follower Dercetus, who in the face of death, tells Caesar, “He was my master, and I wore my life / To spend upon his haters (5.1.8-9). Rose points out that Antony’s lieutenants, Scarus and Eros, “stay with him to the last” (385). As the play closes, it is evident that Cleopatra’s closest followers are so faithful that they are willing to die with her.

The calculating Caesar is self-serving, and because this is politics, with victory at hand, he finds it necessary to create some spin to persuade the people. It is necessary to somehow capture the admiration of the people. D’Amico believes this is particularly crucial for Caesar because he is operating on an international front. According to Machiavelli “the common people are impressed by appearances and results” (63). Parading Cleopatra in the streets would suit Caesar’s need for propaganda. However, Cleopatra’s suicide, deprives Caesar of this final victory (D’Amico p. 69, 73).

In Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare’s characters portray the various ideas and characteristics that are captured in Machiavelli’s doctrine—the power and ambition, the fortunes and missteps, the loyalties and disloyalties. Many of these ideas are visible in the pragmatism of Caesar, the ability of Antony and the spirit of Cleopatra. Perhaps more remarkable than the similarity of the political observations of both writers, is the fact that Machiavelli’s political ideas are relevant in today’s politics, and Shakespeare’s characters and the political intrigue surrounding them, resonate today in the way people understand humanity.

Works Cited

D’Amico, Jack. “Shakespeare’s Rome: Politics and Theatre.” Modern Language Studies. 22.1 (1992): 65-78.

Machiavelli. The Prince. Ed. Quentin Skinner and Russell Price. Cambridge UP. 1988.

Roe, John. Shakespeare and Machiavelli. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. 2002.

Rose, Paul. “The Politics of Antony and Cleopatra.” Shakespeare Quarterly. 20.4 (1969): 379-385.

Shakespeare William. Antony and Cleopatra. 1606-7. The Necessary Shakespeare. Ed. David Bevington. U of Chicago. 2005. 748-800.

Williamson, Marilyn, “The Political Context in Antony and Cleopatra.” Shakespeare Quarterly. 21.3 (1970): 241-251.

[ Home ] [ Textual Influences ] [ Cultural/Historical Influences ] [ Performance History ]
[ Critical History ]