A comparative study of two texts reveals that context is the primary influence on the interaction between pragmatism and personality morality in the pursuit and consolidation of power by an individual. Driven by an overarching contextual desire for stable government, Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince (1513) and William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (1599) demonstrate the incompatibility between personal morality and political success through their respective discussions of effective authority. Putting his vast diplomatic experience into practice among warring Italian city-states, Machiavelli's didactic treatise operates within a value system that extremely favors ruthless pragmatism over ethics in establishing and maintaining authority. While the relative liberality of the form allows Shakespeare to problematize Machiavelli's binary perception of human nature, his ultimate desire to preserve the stability achieved under the reign of Elizabeth I leads him to favor pragmatism over morality in the exercise of authority . Thus, despite representations of human nature nuanced by different purposes, shared contextual priorities push these composers to present aligned intertextual perspectives that privilege pragmatism over morality in an individual's pursuit of power. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Due to the volatile nature of politics, a leader's success in maintaining authority is determined by his or her ability to suppress moral reservations and make calculated decisions to ensure political advancement. Observing Italy's warring oligarchies, riddled with espionage and shifting alliances, Machiavelli offers opportunistic pragmatism as a surefire approach to maintaining authority for the treaty's dedicatee, Lorenzo de Medici, in an attempt to rejoin Florence's diplomatic elite. He dictates that a ruler “must pamper the people or destroy them,” in the high-mode tone typical of a consultative manual demonstrating Machiavelli's binary perceptions of human conduct. He orders his reader to “eliminate the family of the previous ruler” in an attempt to establish authority over mixed monarchies, a euphemism that separates the moral implications of the murder from the political progress it produces. To mitigate these controversial claims in his predominantly Catholic context, he cites "Hannibal's tremendous cruelty" as the primary factor in the general's unshakable authority, an allusion that provides historical validation for his violation of the virtues espoused by leaders of the genre" Mirror of the princes". Faced with the different contextual purpose of entertaining and stimulating his savvy theater audience, Shakespeare problematizes Machiavelli's binary representations of human nature. Brutus is often referred to by the epithet "honorable", endearing him to the public for the moral character that Machiavelli rejects. Furthermore, Brutus struggles to suppress his innate morality, claiming that he is “at war with himself,” a military metaphor that demonstrates the complexity of the negotiation between pragmatism and morality. However, Shakespeare, impressed by Queen Elizabeth's ethically unsound methods of securing authority, such as legalizing torture against disobedient subjects, demonstrates the ultimate failure of leaders driven by blind idealism. Brutus makes a plea to spare Antony, asking that the conspirators be "sacrificers, not butchers," with this religious lexical choice indicating his politically imprudent attempt to idealize Caesar's assassination. Brutus's trusting nature drives him.