OPPapers.com

Macbeth

History is made up of many time periods, many of these

periods had a certain norm, and a way of thinking that was

accepted and adopted by the majority of the people. In the

Elizabethan/Jacobean time period the notion accepted and in

place at the time was that of a great chain of being. This

notion in which God is at the top, then comes the planets,

the angels, human kind and finally the animal kingdom. In

fact, it was based on psalm 8 and placed God, the

all-powerful being, on the uppermost link of the chain and

gave him all the power. In order for any other being or thing

to possess power he/it could do so only with the permission

of God or in accordance to the will of God. In The Tragedy

of Macbeth, Shakespeare, pushes the concept of

primogeniture and also the fact that the king is put into

power by the will of God and anyone opposing the king

would not only cause a great disturbance in the great chain

of being but would likewise be going against the will of God.

In doing this, is Shakespeare convincing enough or is this

idea hype and without substance? To explore this notion we

must first look at the characters Shakespeare uses to

promote this notion. An obvious character to start with

would have to be the one who is king at the beginning of the

play. Duncan is a righteous king, one who is greatly

respected by many of his subjects. Even the man, who killed

him, did so, not because of Duncan's unjustly ruling but

rather out of personal greed. Before Macbeth's greed for

power consumed him, he praises Duncan during his struggle

with the decision of whether or not to usurp the throne and

in doing so, cause great chaos according to the great chain

of being. We see this when Macbeth says: "… This Duncan

hath born his faculties so meek, hath been so clear in his

great office, that his virtues will plead like angels,

trumpet-tongued, against the deep damnation of his taking

off…." Yet in all his greatness and although chosen

supposedly...