Example research essay topic: Established Government In Macbeth - 1,858 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Political change hasn't changed People question the relevance of Macbeth, not only in respect to the difference in time, but also as a work of fiction depicting real life. The belief that Shakespeare's views as expressed in Macbeth cannot be applied to humanity today is often backed up by the argument that the world has changed. I was taught about women's rights and the divine right of kings if I hadn't been I probably wouldn't have discovered them myself simply by looking at modern culture. Women today are no longer bound by the strict set of rules placed on them in the Elizabethan era, they enjoy near equality in regards to gender, are involved more centrally in power, and are found in more diverse positions of power. Unlike Macbeth, murderers are not forsaken by God, but we are taught that God forgives all, and our justice system is based on rehabilitation through punishment, not just punishment. In a democracy containing a diverse number of religions, and where choice of leaders is the basis, the divine right of kings no longer holds any weight.

However, we are able to relate to the play not only because we have been taught its history, but because parallels can still be seen today. Gender inequality is still prevalent, and if someone ordered a mass-murder, many of us would doubt they would have a place in heaven. But just how relevant today are the play's views on politics? The structure of the play in regards to political change is fairly simple. It begins with a good man, loved and honoured by all, as the rightful king to the throne.

Macbeth then kills Duncan, specifically to become king. Shakespeare uses the bizarre supernatural events as a sign that this action is a crime against nature, and that God is angry. Macbeth, although securing the crown through lineage, (he is Duncan's cousin), is not seen as the rightful king, because of Duncan's unnatural death. During his reign, Macbeth is often referred to as 'tyrant' and under his rule there is only chaos. He capriciously murders those he believes are a threat, offering no real justice. As the personification of tyranny, he must be overcome by Malcolm so that Scotland can once more have a rightful King, and order can be restored, showing that God is happy again.

This is of course the invited reading designed to please the newly-ascended and recently-defended rightful King James I. It is a powerful warning to the God-fearing public of his time, intended to warn against any thought of revolt. Simply put, if you go against the King, you will be punished by God and by your fellow man. This is the notion of the divine right of kings.

But if we no longer believe in the great chain of being, why is Shakespeare's Macbeth so convincing? This is the question that I asked myself, because although the play's scope on political change is fairly narrow, it is reasonably congruent. It is interesting to note that there are a few comparisons to be made between events in the play, and events that have occurred during and near our lifetime. I will try to delve deeper into the actions surrounding government in Macbeth. In the beginning of the play, King Duncan performs the two basic duties of a good king: punishing the bad and rewarding the good. Once he learns about the betrayal of Cawdor and the bravery of Macbeth, he says, 'No more that thane of Cawdor shall deceive / Our bosom interest: go pronounce his present death, / And with his former title greet Macbeth' (Act 1.

Sc 2. 63 - 65). The phrase 'bosom interest' means 'vital interests, ' but 'bosom's ugg ests that a relationship of love should exist between a king and his subject. Act one is intended to set up the rightness of Duncan and of the established government, however, he is too trusting, and this is what brings about his downfall. Macbeth is a brave general who is not inclined to perform evil deeds, and although he desires power and advancement, we come to believe that it is his desire to prove himself to his wife that pushes him, against his better judgment, to kill Duncan, thereby violating legitimate government and the believed foundation in nature. This violation is reflected not only in the unnatural occurrences in nature, but also by Macbeth's steady decline of mental health.

He says, "But wherefore could not I pronounce Amen?" (Act 2. Sc 3. 39 - 39) describing his belief that his tormenting guilt is the result of his exclusion from God's grace. Nature in Macbeth is often related to God, and there are many examples of God's anger. Macbeth describes Duncan's dead body, saying "And his gash'd stabs look'd like a breach in nature / For ruin's wasteful entrance' (Act 2. Sc 3. 113 - 114). And in the description of the night of Duncan's death: "Ah, good father, / Thou seest, the heavens, as troubled with man's act, / Threaten his bloody stage' (Act 2.

Sc 4. 4 - 6). The stage is earth and because of Duncan's murder, the stage is bloody and the heavens are angry. As well as this, King Duncan's horses, 'Beauteous and swift, the minions of their race, / Turn'd wild in nature, broke their stalls, flung out, / Contending 'gains obedience, as they would make / War with mankind. ' (Act 2. Sc 4. 15 - 18) Macbeth and Lady Macbeth were King Duncan's minions. The King showered them with honours and gifts, but they turned wild and made war on their master.

The same idea can be seen in the lines, "Tis unnatural, / Even like the deed that's done. On Tuesday last / A falcon towering in her pride of place / Was by a mousing owl hawked at and killed. " (Act 2. Sc 4. 12 - 15) Duncan was the falcon, and Macbeth the owl. Just as these actions are unnatural, the actions of Macbeth are a crime against nature, and consequently God. Act two shows directly the anger of God. Macbeth goes on to rule using terror to maintain his power, killing those he sees as a threat, most notably Macduff's family.

During his reign, both national and international political passivity cultivates an environment that allows Macbeth's rule to fester. In the end it takes the help of England to overthrow Macbeth and to place the rightful heir to the throne, once more restoring order. This last part displays how God is with the rightful heir to the throne, and exemplifies the divine right of kings. But doesn't this all seem to be a little familiar? That's because the same formula of a peaceful country turning into a land of misery by one man, and then that man being overthrown with the help of outsiders has happened many times. All you have to do is look at World War II or the Soviet Union or King Leopold II and the Congo. "King Leopold II, the new King of Belgium from 1865, laid claim to a huge tract of the Congo region, and declared a Congo Free State, with himself as sole owner in 1885.

With the invention of the tire, and along with the growing popularity of motor cars, the demand in rubber grew sharply, and Leopold sought to provide for this demand. Using brutal methods, primarily the cutting off of hands, to force the local population to work, he achieved a dramatic rise in profits, and set about enriching himself and Belgium. He spent millions building national monuments in Belgium such as the Chateau d'Ardennes and the Brussels' Arcades (Arch) du Cinquantenaire. The violence inflicted on Africans to rob them of their resources provoked an international human rights crusade and eventually forced the Belgian Parliament to wrest control of the colony from Leopold's hands in 1906. " (The Scramble for Africa, Congo under Leopold II and Later Developments from web) As you can see, there are a number of similarities to Macbeth. Firstly, Leopold took over a country un rightfully for his own personal gain, and controlled it through the use of terror. He not only did it for himself, but just as Macbeth yearned power for the love and acceptance of his wife, Leopold wanted wealth for the love and acceptance of his country.

Secondly, political quietism allowed the situation to deteriorate even further, and thirdly, it took the force of a major political power to finally end the tyranny. Of course, it is never as simple as in the play. There are numerous details involved in real-life politics which complicate matters, but at a basic level, historical occurrences and the events in Macbeth are alike. Instead of a belief in the divine right of kings, nowadays we ourselves determine the 'rightness' of our government, by looking at the happiness of the majority. We do not believe that God's anger is what caused the downfall of Leopold or Hitler, but that it is due to human conscience, and moral beliefs. We no longer interpret Macbeth's degeneration as being attributed to his loss of God, but to his loss of mind.

We are able to conclude from this study that Shakespeare has written the play within a limited scope, in respect to political change and the unchallenged rightness of established government. This is obviously because feudalism was the only form of government known at the time, and there were few methods of achieving political change. The unchallenged rightness of established government in Macbeth is a direct result of the society's belief in God and the divine right of kings in Shakespeare's era which accompanied this form of government. Since God is always right, we see now that this belief is exploited by the monarchy to maintain control over their subjects, and in an effort to please James I, Shakespeare reinforces these beliefs.

Rather than resist the intended reading written for King James, we should read across it to understand the play's views in a modern society. Since we no longer believe in the God given 'rightness' of established government which is the cause of Macbeth's downfall in the play, we should then instead interpret the play as someone who gained the crown for the wrong reasons, oppressed his people, and paid the price. Despite different beliefs, these parallels between the play and historical instances are what makes Macbeth so convincing and why it still has relevance today. And although we don't believe in many of the things in Macbeth because the world has changed, we can see that the world hasn't changed that much. " Bibliography: Shakespeare, W. (1997) The Global Shakespeare Series - MACBETH with Related Readings. Australia: Nelson ITP. M fields. (2004) Theory of Kingship in Macbeth. (Internet) e Cheat.

com. Available From: web (Accessed 8 April 2005) Author Unknown. (2005) Macbeth - Themes, Motifs and Symbols. (Internet) SparkNotes. Available From: web (Accessed 7 April 2005) Author Unknown. (Date Unknown) The Scramble for Africa, Congo under Leopold II and Later Developments. (Internet) Goan Overseas Digest. Available From: web (Accessed 8 April 2005)

Research essay sample on Established Government In Macbeth