Validity of Names in Machiavelli’s Prince and Simone de Beauvoir’s Second Sex :: Machiavelli Prince Essays

Validity of name in Machiavellis Prince and Simone de Beauvoirs Second Sex People very much drop name c exclusivelying to assure the achievement of whatever goal it is they are trying to achieve. This tactic snips especially well in business, scarce it can also work in argument. Names of influential quite a little cave in influential affects. I know Don Corleone, would certainly have gotten about anything done in Mario Puzos The Godfather. Both Simone de Beauvoir and Niccol Machiavelli used the names of well-known people to add a sense of importance and trueness to what it was they were saying. Their choice of names is very similar. They both chose fabled heroes, past and give way political figures and fictional powers to help their work gain value. However, they differ in a subtle way. The names are used much comparable a recipe uses measurements one part politics to two separate fiction. This ratio adds a different tone to each argument, which also helps to nail the aut hors, de Beauvoir or Machiavellis, point across. In de Beauvoirs The Second Sex, thither are many references made to true, verifiable sources. Granted that she makes use of nearly all possible spectrums of existence in terms of beings she chooses to cite, there is an underlie tone of definite truth in her work. She cites these people in packs and lists, using context to categorize her groups. Some isolated individuals Sappho c. 610-c. 580 b.c., Christine de Pisan 1364-1431, Mary Wollstonecraft 1759-1997, Olympe de Gouges 1748-1793 have protested against the virulence of their destiny, (de Beauvoir). Joan of Arc (1412-1431), Mme Jeanne-Marie Roland (1759-1793), Flora Tristan (1803-1844)Figures important for their political or revolutionary activity, (Jacobus footnote, p 179). In the first case, we see a list of four sure-fire sources, all of whom protested against the harshness of their destiny. We find out later in the work that these four people were all authors. In the secon d case, we see true-life people, all of whom were some how politically involved. De Beauvoir hits us with a rapid-fire bombardment of undeniable truths. When she uses a fictitious character, however, it is usually alone. The suicide of Lucretia has had value only as a symbol, (de Beauvoir). Here we see a not-so verifiable citation. It is alone in the text, an island surrounded by a sea of de Beauvoirs own words. This name is by itself.