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

Validity of Names in Machiavellis Prince and Simone de Beauvoirs Second Sex People often beading names to assure the achievement of whatever goal it is they are trying to achieve. This tactic works especi all toldy well in business, but it can alike work in argument. Names of influential people have influential affects. I know Don Corleone, would certainly have gotten well-nigh anything done in Mario Puzos The Godfather. Both Simone de Beauvoir and Niccol Machiavelli apply the names of well-kn witness people to add a sense of importance and truth to what it was they were saying. Their choice of names is very similar. They both chose fabled heroes, past and present political figures and fictional powers to help their work gain mensurate. However, they differ in a subtle way. The names are used much like a recipe uses measurements one part politics to two parts fiction. This ratio adds a different tone to each argument, which too helps to get the authors, de Beauvoir or Machiavel lis, point across. In de Beauvoirs The Second Sex, there 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 underlying tone of definite truth in her work. She cites these people in packs and lists, using mise en scene 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 harshness 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 foremost 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 second case, we see true-li fe 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.