English Question

-The following links provide the texts for reference. You don’t have to quote or cite the text in your response this is an informal assignment.

–The Prince: https://apeiron.iulm.it/retrieve/handle/10808/4129…

-Richard III: https://www.folgerdigitaltexts.org/PDF/R3.pdf

-2nd discourse: https://rtraba.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/roussea…

-Below are the topics for the 5 journal entries

-These responses may be informal. By that I mean that you are not expected to provide definitive answers or resolutions of difficulty; the point is to explore some ideas and issues in the text. You may keep your style casual and even conversational, but keep your thinking sharp and serious. Think, reflect, and then get your thoughts down as best you can. Whatever you write about, all responses should be between 250–500 words. (If you go over 500 words, try not to go too far over.)

-topic of entry 1: chapters 1-14 of The Prince: Machiavelli’s lessons in The Prince are often adapted into other arenas of power (corporate boardrooms, the mob, etc.). What parts—some particular bit of advice, or a longer stretch of analysis—of these first 14 chapters do you think are particularly useful in other realms besides the pursuit and maintenance of political power? Alternatively, does any of what Machiavelli advocates also amount to good personal advice? Give examples, of course!

-topic of entry 2: chapter 15-26 of The Prince: Once finished with The Prince. What do you, personally, think are the three or four most important things to remember from Machiavelli’s analysis of absolute power?

-topic of entry 3: Acts 4 and 5 of Richard III: If you were directing a production of Richard III, how would you handle the climactic fight between Richard and Richmond on stage? The nature of their combat will say a lot about how you want the audience to understand these two characters. Defend your decision in light of other possibilities.

-topic of entry 4: Preface and First Part (pg 90-122 of the pdf page numbers): Rousseau often makes comparisons between animals and man in the state of nature.
To what extent are these comparisons effective? Is Rousseau omitting anything
about animals that might weaken his case?

-topic of entry 5: Second Part (pdf page number 122-147): In what ways does Rousseau’s argument resonate with you socially and/or political,
as a young person in the United States in 2024?