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...