-Prompt: Richard III displays a Machiavellian prince in action, in a narrative. Having read The Prince first, the logical way for us to read Richard III was with Machiavelli’s book in mind, looking for ways that Richard himself (and other characters) follows or breaks the ‘rules’ that Machiavelli lays out. In other words, the standard question here would be, “How did your reading of The Prince affect your understanding of Richard III?” But let’s consider this the other way around. How did your careful reading of Richard III affect your understanding of The Prince? Be specific in your answer.

-Paper must be typed/word-processed and double-spaced, employing a simple 12-point font. The margins of your paper should be no more than 1” (top and bottom) and 1.25” (right and left). Please supply an appropriate title, and remember to include your name and the date at the top of the first page. There is no need for a cover page. Your paper should be no less than four full pages long and no more than five full pages long (somewhere between 1400 and 1800 words long.

-All quotations must be clearly identified; please use in-text parentheses for your citations. All citations of The Prince should be to the page number of the edition we are using for this course. A simple reference such as “(p. 45)” is sufficient. For Richard III, you may cite the text either by page number (just as with The Prince) or by Act, scene, and line numbers: for example, “1.2.203–208.” Be consistent. 

-I will provide the two readings as pdfs in the following links:

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

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

-Do not use, in any way, ChatGPT or any other AI service, in the writing of your paper. This paper should be your own work, from beginning to end.

-Some tips: -Don’t waste space and effort summarizing the plot unless your point specifically concerns the order of events. Lengthy summary is almost always unnecessary; if you find yourself describing the events of the poem for more than a couple of sentences, stop and revise. In any case, I’m not going to fault you for not including enough summary—you should assume that I know what happens in both texts. Summary, moreover, is not the same thing as analysis and argumentation; don’t confuse the two.

-Don’t unload a host of generalizations and unsubstantiated opinions onto the reader. You must support your arguments with specific evidence from the text. You might think of your paper as a kind of argument in court before a judge, who is of course interested in evidence, not spin. You have a question you’re trying to answer in this paper and you’re laying out the best case for your answer. Without supporting evidence for your argument and a logical organization and presentation of your ideas, it’ll be difficult to persuade the judge (me!) that what you’re arguing has merit. 

-When you cite a text, the quotation’s function and purpose in your paper should be clear to your reader. Don’t just jam together quotes without discussion of them—this can easily turn your paper into a laundry list of quotations instead of the exposition of your own ideas. Always ask yourself why you’re citing a particular passage, and be sure to make it clear to the reader why this particular quotation is important to your argument.