FREE ESSAY ON AN ANALYSIS OF GEORGE ORWELL'S POLITICS AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

AN ANALYSIS OF GEORGE ORWELL'S POLITICS AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

My focus is upon a piece by Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian prince from the renaissance
period who writes The Morals of a Prince, and in an opposite vein, an essay by George
Orwell, an English author and enemy of totalitarianism whose essay is Politics and the
English Language. Within these essays I have found a similarity in which Orwell
illustrates that 'political writing becomes the defense of the indefensible, most
political writing is bad, where it is not the author is usually a rebel who expresses his
private opinions'. While this could be true of Machiavelli's piece, he himself contends
that 'men who embrace the ideal, while rejecting the real, will only accomplish their
ruin'
Machiavelli wishes to convince other statesmen of the necessary vices that a prince must
possess to rule a kingdom. A bold stance is taken for the sake of reality ...Better to go
after the real truth of the matter than ....what people have imagined. He offers
rationalizations for why a prince cannot be good, and at the same time, reign
effectively. Vice is a condition of humanity, a prince must therefore be cunning,
miserly, feared, and dishonest to prevent himself, and his post, from being victimized.
Manipulation is key lest friend or foe best him. Generosity cannot be practiced,
otherwise he must recoup his loses in taxation, resulting in his subjects hatred of him.
Though a prince should be feared, for fear of punishment prevents men from committing
crimes against him. The latter is especially true in regard to soldiers during times of
war; respect for their leader intensifies performance. 'A prince must also be sly like a
fox and wary of traps for he cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, he must not
be honest because doing so would go against his best interest.' Machiavelli argues To
preserve the state, he often has to do things against his word, against charity, against
humanity, against religion.
Consequently Orwell draws a connection between the misuse of the English language and
politics, suggesting that it's used as a tool to reword, alter, and deform its purest
meaning, while confusing others into accepting defensive reaction and BAD politics. He
contends that 'political writing is done in modern English prose and through the misuse
of archaic metaphors, showing incompetence and vagueness, further revealing the author's
lack of interest in what he is expressing. Political writing continues to prefer passive
voice rather than active, as it substitutes simple verbs for general-purpose verbs while
turning them into phrases by attaching a noun or adjective. Adjectives might be used to
dignify international politics, glorify war, or to add an air of elegance. Misuse of
Greek and Latin root words while adding ize-formation takes the place of the author's
inability to find appropriate words to convey meaning. Orwell claims most demonstrate
laziness by employing parody, which ...consists of gumming together long strips of words
which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable
by sheer humbug. Political authors often rely upon Ready made phrases 'which construct
sentences and imitate real thought processes. Horrific events become sugar coated by
replacing and eliminating unreliable elements'. Pleas upon us are made 'to never develop
the habit of seeking replacement phrases or jargon in place of simple, clear, and
expressive English. He points out that insincerity corrupts clear language, arguing that
'if thought can ruin language, language can in turn ruin thought'.
Orwell takes a maxim rhetorical approach as he begins his essay by defining principles in
a pragmatic way. Starting with what we must do in order to reshape our deteriorating
language while blaming amoral political lifestyles. By reforming our bad habits, clear
language will follow then we can move toward political regeneration. On the opposite
coin, Machiavelli uses truism for his narration. Even as he writes of the vices that
princes' must possess, he wishes to convince us that his essay is quite frank and
therefore moral because of it. He too defines principles as he begins his piece by
explaining to his readers that he offers useful information with refreshing truths in
place of previously imagined scenarios. A man, or prince, cannot possibly be good when
most of civilization is not, how could he compete otherwise. Orwell could have been
referring to Machiavelli's piece when he adds, In our time it is broadly true that
political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that
the writer is some kind of rebel. He is a bit of a rebel for he is not afraid to voice
his opinions even though they may not be favorably received. Putting aside the
ostentatious reasoning he uses to bait his readers The Morals of the Prince is clearly
written with only a few of Orwell's bad writing techniques employed. Machiavelli writes, 
The man who neglects the real to study the ideal will learn how to accomplish his ruin,
not his salvation. With this he could have been speaking of Politics and the English
Language, as Orwell ideologically adds, ...Decline of a language must ultimately have
political and economic causes.... an effect can become a cause.
With each of the two pieces written in a different era, Machiavelli's from the
renaissance period and Orwell's from the mid 1900s, the similarities described by each
could invariably have been referring to the other. To be fair, since Machiavelli's piece
was translated from Italian to English, we have to wonder how much of his meaning was
lost, or gained, in translation. Seeing that it reads most clearly, I have to believe
that what small percentage appears as bad writing may have been done on the part of the
translator As Machiavelli craftily defends his vices through abstract reasoning. I could
deduce that Orwell was closely correct in assuming, 'political speech and writing can
indeed be used, as the defense of the indefensible', for Machiavelli certainly uses
ornate writing to add credence to his theories. While Orwell ideologically stands his
ground indicating that bad writing is interconnected politically, Machiavelli suggests
that clinging to the ideal rather than the real, could cause a man to live a false
reality and lead to his inevitable downfall. I feel both are a bit extreme, though our
language may have changed substantially, it is unjust to say its cause should lie mainly
with politics. I must add that I do not agree with Morals because corruption is necessary
to rule. 
Most of speech, or writing, is colored to some extent to aide politicians in the support
of current issues. Language and politics seem to go hand in hand, for what would one be
without the other. This of course is why reformists who seek to expose corruption and
preserve justice, draw a connection between the two. Many clues lie within our language
revealing the true intention behind the fa?ades. Still with all of this considered, I
find that what was true of politics then is ironically true of politics now. Some aspects
of the human condition appear to be ageless.
Bibliography
The Morals of a Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
Politics and the English language by George Orwell