Macbeth

Throughout the play we see many of Shakespeare’s ideas on the topic and theme of kingship but also what he thought the qualities a man should have to rule his country Macbeth is a play about power and about how the characters in the play handle it and use it. These characters are judged as leaders by their personalities, relationships with their subjects and their attitude towards the country.

The characters Duncan, Macbeth, Malcolm and Edward all represent their own brand of kingship and as the play progresses we see the faults in each of these. The first to represent kingship in the play is Duncan. He is loved by his subjects and this love is well deserved and Duncan may be considered the most generous and loved king but that does not mean he is infallible. He is a good king has two sons and cares for Scotland. He is described as a sainted king by Macduff in Act 4 scene 3.

Duncan places a lot of trust upon his soldiers and they are very loyal as we see in the bleeding captain fighting against mercenaries and Macbeth says himself his loyalty and service to Duncan is sufficient for his reward and also says ”he hath honoured him of late” and the essence of Duncan’s good nature creates doubts in Macbeth with regards to the murder and Lady Macbeth has also experienced this kindness, a large diamond received for been a good hostess. We see Duncan is decisive when it comes to the matter of traitors as the thane of Cawdor is executed swiftly following his deception from Duncan’s ranks.

We also see a definite flaw in his nature as he is nai??ve and overly trusting, this is evident when he says ” there is no art to find the minds construction in the face ” and his ability to sense the deception and treason of the thane of Cawdor and Macbeth shows a lot about his short comings in dealing with certain aspects of his rule which at the time the play was set it was a very important ability to have as a king and his misplaced trust is seen in his haste to reward Macbeth with his new title of Cawdor.

In act 4 scene 3 Malcolm lists of the traits of a good king including justice, verity, temperance, stableness, bounty, perseverance, mercy, lowliness, devotion, patience, courage and fortitude and Macduff in response says a king without any of the following does not deserve to live. Also in this scene we see Malcolm testing MacDuff’s loyalty saying he is worse than Macbeth, even though it’s not very ensuring that his believable lying and a quickness to flee following his father’s murder shows fear but it does show he is learning from the mistakes of his father which is a subtlety in the play as to what kind of king he would be.

On a more evident note we do see he does know the characteristics of a king and already has loyalty from his subjects which shows a much more stable rule but is questionable if his accession to the throne was smooth and he will remain reliant on his nobles as I father once was. The main issue of the play regarding kingship regards the rule of Macbeth which gives a scenario of the latent potential for evil in kingship. It is clear Macbeths only interest is in his own agenda and plans which seriously contrasts with the list read out by Malcolm in the scene previously mentioned.

Macbeth’s unstable rule is only maintained by resorting only to murder and terror against his subject and Macbeths use of these tools is mainly caused by hi deep rooted insecurity. This shows kingship has the potential for good and for evil . In the time of Shakespeare the King was believed to be an agent of God and God himself spoke through the king and as Macbeth is not rightfully king his control disturbs the natural order of nature and the earth becomes ”feverous” showing the connection between kingship, nature, and all things balanced is to Shakespeare and the majority of his people at the time believed was real.

The killing of Duncan to obtain the crown was also described as ”unsanctified” due to Duncan being instilled with ”divine right” which raises the issue that Macbeths crime is not only unjustly but unholy and a crime against God himself. Macbeth being aware of this prior to the murder he said he would ”jump the life to come” meaning he is damned.

These thought of eternal damnation weighs heavily in Macbeth’s corrupted mind and is a catalyst for his declining unpopularity as the king and is described as a tyrant, hell-kite, usurper, butcher and as devilish which also agrees with the religious side of his kingship. Coming up to the end of Macbeths reign we see he has alienated and abandoned his wife, ordered the killing of innocent women and children and his best friend and has lost the loyalty of all his Thanes and now completely relies on occult prophesies which were completely still led to the demise of the once ambitious soldier, Macbeth.

Addressing the character of Edward even though he doesn’t show up on stage at all he is established as Macbeths opposite and contrasting sharply in regards to the religious aspect of the play, the doctor says people are healed by his ”holy touch” , ”solicits heaven” and is ”full of grace”. The lord in act 3 scene 6 says he is both ”pious” and ”holy” his ”white magic” runs in opposition to the witches black magic. Edward believes the heart of Scotland can be cured by pray but sends 10’000 men to assist Malcolm and MacDuff showing diplomacy and strategy.

Shakespeare contrasts the various modes of kingship in the play, a combination of political manoeuvring, religious and spiritual believe and the kingly graces as defined and appreciated by loyal subjects and the optimistic conclusion that those not in possession of their worth will not be accepted as kings and throughout the play we see the that the countries suffering or prosperity is a direct reflection of the moral of its king.

How does William Shakespeare utilise the genre of tragedy in the play, Macbeth. The utilisation of the genre tragedy in William Shakespeare’s play Macbeth is apparent through the actions that lead up to the tragic death of the plays hero. Other elements needed to classify a play as a tragedy are abnormal conditions of the mind and both inner and outer conflicts. The play consists of prophecies given to Macbeth, leading to the murder of innocents King Duncan, Banquo and Macduff’s family.

Insanity takes a hold on Macbeth and his wife, as she kills herself. Macduff, not being born of a woman, slays Macbeth and restores the throne of Scotland to Malcolm. Through the plot, and other aspects of this play, Macbeth contains the correct standards for it to be classed as a tragedy. Macbeth can be classified as a tragedy, as it contains the death of a hero. The hero is Macbeth, an honourable man, loyal to the crown, before being corrupted by his wife, Lady Macbeth and the prophecies brought onto him by three witches. Gentlemen rise; his highness is not well” (III, IV, LII), is stating that Macbeth is becoming mentally distorted and is losing his heroic traits, until he is killed in a duel, which brings harmony back into Scotland. Through the life and death of Macbeth, the use of the genre tragedy is apparent in the play. The genre tragedy is also evident in Macbeth by the progressively deteriorating mental conditions of the characters after the murder of King Duncan.

This is shown through abnormal conditions of the mind, in which Lady Macbeth sleepwalks during Act 5 Scene 1, mindlessly rubbing her hands together, portraying the action of hand washing. “What, will these hands ne’er be clean? ” (V, I, XLII) is a line in Macbeth which signifies the never-ending guilt that Lady Macbeth felt, which she had hoped would have been inexistent after the physical blood of Duncan had been washed from her hands.

In the closing stages of the play, “By self and violent hands took off her life” (V, VII, XCIX) states Lady Macbeth commits suicide as the guilt was too much for her to bear, which is why Lady Macbeths death assists the play in being classed as a tragedy. The inner and outward conflict that is apparent in Macbeth is another reason that this play can be classed as a tragedy. The outward conflict consists of the ongoing vow of revenge by Macduff towards Macbeth for killing his beloved family. “Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth! Beware Macduff;

Beware the Thane of Fife. Dismiss me. Enough. ” (IV, I, LXXI) Stated by an apparition sent to Macbeth from the witches, this line in the play resulted in the assassination of Macduff’s family by Macbeth. Macduff escapes the same fate as he earlier fled to England in hope that he can join Malcolm’s mission to overthrow Macbeth. When told the shocking news about the death of his loved ones, Macduff claims “Bring thou this fiend of Scotland and myself; within my swords length set him; if he escapes, heaven forgive him too! ” (IV, III, Line CCVVVIII).

From the loss of his cherished family, Macduff becomes enraged, as his desire to slay Macbeth intensifies, in hope that vengeance will be served. The conflict between these two characters is a perfect example of Shakespeare’s utilisation of the tragedy genre. Inner conflict is evident in the play as Macbeth slowly loses his sanity, being faced with the consequences of his rash actions to assassinate Banquo. “Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none: So, all hail, Macbeth and Banquo. ” (Act 1, Scene 3, Line 67) In the first, Banquo is illustrated as being Macbeth’s close and loyal friend.

Because of the prophecy that Banquo will also be the father of kings, Macbeth chooses to have him killed. The inner conflict is noticeable in the dining room, where Macbeth sees The Ghost of Banquo sitting in the seat designated for Macbeth. This supernatural element of the ghost coming back to haunt his murderer is the inner feels, in which he is made to come into the realisation and consequences of his actions. Through the remorse he carries with him till his death, the genre tragedy is enforced in the play Macbeth.

In conclusion, William Shakespeare has utilised the genre tragedy in the play Macbeth in a number of ways. Some of these include the life and death of Macbeth, who was thought to have been a hero before corruption and abnormal conditions of the mind, like Lady Macbeth’s sleeping walking and suicide and Macbeth’s hallucinations of a Banquo coming back to haunt in. Inner and outer conflict are also present, in Macduffs longing for revenge on Macbeth for killing his family, and in the murder of Banquo, making Macbeth suffer for his immoral actions.

The play MacBeth, by William Shakespeare, which we read and the movie, by Rupert Goold’s, which we watch has several diffrences but all put out the same message. The main diffrences in between the play and the movie is the portrayal and functions of the witches, the changes of the setting and some key scenes, and the diffrences of the functions of the main characters and also the minor characters. The portrayal and function of the witches in the original play of MacBeth and the movie have several diffrences. In the play the witches are discribed as ugly things with beards and are outcasts of society that wear black robes.

But in the movie the witches are very creepy. They have a more modern day horror film look. The witches are no showed as witches but as nurses with masks and black framed glasses. Not only are they shown as nurses (witches) but they are kitchen staff, serving women and cleaning maids too. Also throughout the movie the witches are roaming around in the background of pretty much every scene. It gives a feeling that they are there constantly to ensure the MacBeth and his wife, Lady MacBeth, fulfill their tasks that needed to be done.

There are several diffrences between the play and the movie but the main diffrence is the setting of the two. In the movie by Rupert Goold the setting of the ‘’play’’ is in the 1900’s when World War II was taking place. MacBeth and all the other characters are in a Nazi-based area. Where as in the play originally created by William Shakespeare, it is taken place in the olden days, way long ago where it is taken place in a castle with kings and such. Another great diffrence inbetween the two are the weapons used. In the riginal play the main weapons are swords and sheilds and daggers and so on, where as in Goold’s movie the weapons are semi-automatic machine guns, bombs and more new-age weapons. A major scene diffrence in the movie from the play is when the 3 murderers go out to kill Banquo and his son. Instead of Banquo and his son on a horse strolling, they are in a train cabin. In the play the three murderers are Caithness, Angus and MacBeth where as in the play thew three murderers are Caithness, Angus and Lennox instead of MacBeth.

Cordaisha Robinson Mrs. Gorman CA400 March 27th, 2013 This essay will discuss, William Shakespeare’s life, his career, when he was born and died, biographical information, and his childhood. William Shakespeare was an English poet, His father, John Shakespeare, raised William to the best of his abilities… he made sure that William study and got into the best o schools, being that 1561 to 1563 he had been one of the two chamberlains to whom the finance of the town he was very trustworthy. By occupation he was a Glover, but he also appears to have dealt from time to time in various kinds of agricultural produce, such as barley, timber and wool.

He is sometimes described in formal documents as a yeoman, and it is highly probable that he combined a certain amount of farming with the practice of his trade. He was living in Stratford as early as 1552, in which year he was fined for having a dunghill in Henley Street, but he does not appear to have been a native of the town, in whose records the name is not found before his time; and be may reasonably be identified with the John Shakespeare of Snitterfield, who administered the goods of his father, Richard Shakespeare, in 1561.

Snitterfield is a village in the immediate neighborhood of Stratford, and here Richard Shakespeare had been settled as a farmer since 1529. It is possible that John Shakespeare carried on the farm for some time after his father’s death, and that by 1570 he had also acquired a small holding called Ingon in Hampton Lucy, the next village to Snitterfield. But both of these seem to have passed subsequently to his brother Henry, who was buried at Snitterfield in. 1596. There was also at Snitterfield a Thomas Shakespeare and an Anthony Shakespeare, who afterwards moved to Hampton Corley; and these may have been of the same family.

A John Shakespeare, -who dwelt at Clifford Chambers, another village close to Stratford, is clearly distinct. Strenuous efforts have been made to trace Shakespeare’s genealogy beyond Richard of Snitterfield, but so far without success. Certain drafts of heraldic exemplifications of the Shakespeare arms speak, in one case of John Shakespeare’s grandfather, in another of his great-grandfather, as having been rewarded with lands and tenements in Warwickshire for service to Henry VII.

No such grants, however, have been traced, and even in the 16th-century statements as to” antiquity and service “ in heraldic preambles were looked upon with suspicion. The name Shakespeare is extremely widespread, and is spelt in an astonishing variety of ways. That of John Shakespeare occurs 166 times in the Council Book of the Stratford corporation, and appears to take 16 different forms. The verdict, not altogether unanimous, of competent palaeographers is to the effect that Shakespeare himself, in the extant examples of his signature, always wrote “Shakspere. In the printed signatures to the dedications of his poems, on the title-pages of nearly all the contemporary editions of his plays that bear his name, and in many formal documents it appears as Shakespeare. This may be in part due to the martial derivation which the poet’s literary contemporaries were fond of assigning to his name, and which is acknowledged in the arms that he bore. The forms in use at Stratford, however, such as Shaxpeare, by far the commonest, suggest a short pronunciation of the first syllable, and thus tend to support Dr Henry Bradley’s derivation from the Anglo-Saxon personal name, Seaxberht.

It is interesting, and even amusing, to’ record that in 1487 Hugh Shakspere of Merton College, Oxford, changed his name to Sawndare, because his former name vile reputatum est. The earliest record of a Shakespeare that has yet been traced is in 1248 at Clapton in G]oucester~ shire, about seven miles from Stratford. The name also occurs during the ,3th century in Kent, Essex and Surrey, and durin~ the I4th in Cumberland, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Essex, Warwickshire and as far away as Yougbal in Ireland.

Thereafter it is found in London and most of the English counties, particularly those of the midlands; and nowhere more freely than in Warwickshire. There were Shakespeares in Warwick and in Coventry, as well as around Stratford; and the clan appears to have been very numerous in a group of villages about twelve miles north of Stratford, which includes Baddesley Clinton, Wroxall, Rowington, I{aseley, Hatton, Lapworth, Packwood, Balsall and Knowle.

William was in common use as a personal name, and Williams from more than one other family have from time to time been confounded with the dramatist. Many Shakespeares are upon the register of the gild of St Anne at Knowle from about 1457 to about 1526. Amongst these were Isabella Shakespeare, prioress of the Benedictine convent of Wroxall, and Jane Shakespeare, a nun of the same convent. Shakespeares are also found as tenants on the manors belonging to the convent, and at the time of the Dissolution in 1534 one Richard Shakespeare was its bailiff and collector of rents.

Conjectural attempts have been made on the one hand to connect the ancestors of this Richard Shakespeare with ‘a family of the same name who held land by military tenure at Baddesley Clinton in the 14th and 15th centuries, and on usc other to ideniify him with the poet’s grandfather, Richard Shakespeare of’ Snitterfield. But Shakespeares are to be traced at Wroxall nearly as far back as at Baddesley Clinton, and there is no reason to suppose that Richard the bailiff, who was certainly still a tenant of Wroxall in 1556, had also since 1529 been farming land ten miles off at Snitterfield.

With the breaking of this link, the hope of giving Shakespeare anything more than a grandfather on the father’s side must be laid aside for the present. On the mother’s side he was connected with a family of some distinction. Part at least of Richard Shakespeare’s land at Snitterfield was held from Robert Arden of Wilmcote in the adjoining parish of Aston Cantlow, a cadet of the Ardens of Parkhall, who counted amongst the leading gentry of Warwickshire.

Robert Arden married his second wife, Agnes Hill, formerly Webbe, in 1548, and had then no less than. eight daughters by his first wife. To the youngest of these, Mary Arden, he left in 1556 a freehold in Aston Cantlow consisting of a farm of about fifty or sixty acres in extent, known as Asbies. At some date later than November 1556, and probably before the end of 1557, Mary Arden became the wife of John Shakespeare. In October 1556 John Shakespeare had bought two freehold houses, one in Greenhill Street, the other in Henley Street.

The latter, known as the wool shop, was the easternmost of the two tenements now combined in the so-called Shakespeare’s birthplace. The western tenement, the birthplace proper, was probably already in John Shakespeare’s hands, as he seems to have been living in Henley Street in 1552. It has sometimes been thought to have been one of two houses which formed a later purchase in 1575, but there is no evidence that these were in Henley Street at all. William Shakespeare was not the first child.

A Joan was baptized in 1558 and a Margaret in 1562. The latter was buried in 1563 and the former must also have died young, although her burial is not recorded, as a second Joan was baptized in 1569. A Gilbert was baptized in 1566, an Anne in 1571, a Richard in ~ and a~ Edmunc~l 01 1580. e~nne died in ~7o; Edmund,who like his brother became an actor, in 1607; Richard in 1613. Tradition has it that one of Shakespeare’s brothers used to visit London in the 17th century as quite an old man. If so, this can only have been Gilbert.

During the years that followed his marriage, John Shakespeare became prominent in Stratford life. In 1565 he was chosen as an alderman, and in 1568 he held the chief municipal office, that of high bailiff. This carried with it the dignity of justice of the peace. John Shakespeare seems to have assumed arms, and thenceforward was always entered in corporation documents as “Mr” Shakespeare, whereby he may be distinguished from another John Shakespeare, a “corviser” or shoemaker, who dwelt in Stratford about 1584—1592.

In 1571 as an ex-bailiff be began another year of office as chief alderman . One may think, therefore, of Shakespeare in his boyhood as the son of one of the leading citizens of a not unimportant Youth provincial market-town, with a vigorous life of its own, which in spite of the dunghills was probably not much unlike the life of a similar town to-day, and with constant reminders of its past in the shape of the stately buildings formerly belonging to its college and its gild, both of which had been suppressed at the Reformation.

Stratford stands on the Avon, in the midst of an agricultural country, throughout which in those days enclosed orchards and meadows alternated with open fields for tillage, and not far from the wilder and wooded district known as the Forest of Arden. The middle ages had left it an heritage in the shape of a free grammar-school, and here it is natural to suppose that William Shakespeare obtained a sound enough education,i with a working knowledge of “Mantuan”2 and Ovid in the original, even though to such a thorough scholar as Ben Jonson it might seem no more than “small Latin and less Greek. In 1577, when Shakespeare was about thirteen, his father’s fortunes began to take a turn for the worse. He became irregular in his contributions to town levies, and had to give a mortgage on his wife’s property of Asbies as security for a loan from her brother-in-law, Edmund Lambert. Money was raised to pay this off, partly by the sale of a small interest in land at Snitterfield which had come to Mary Shakespeare from her sisters, partly perhaps by that of the Greenhill Street house and other property in Stratford outside Henley Street, none of which seems to have ever come into William Shakespeare’s hands.

Lambert, however, refused to surrender the mortgage on the plea of older debts, and an attempt to recover Asbies by litigation proved ineffectual. John Shakespeare’s difficulties increased. An action for debt was sustained against him in the local court, but no personal property could be found on which to distrain. He had long ceased to attend the meetings of the corporation, and as a consequence he was removed in 2586 from the list of aldermen. In this state of domestic affairs it is not likely that Shakespeare’s school life was unduly prolonged. The chances are that he was apprenticed to some local trade.

Aubrey says that he killed calves for his father, and “would do it in a high style, and make a speech. ” Whatever his circumstances, they did not deter him at the early age of eighteen from the adventure of marriage. Rowe Marriage recorded the name of Shakespeare’s wife as Hathaway, and Joseph Greene succeeded in tracing her to a family of that name dwelling in Shottery, one of the hamlets of Stratford. Her monument gives her first name as Anne, and her age as sixty-seven in 1623. She must, therefore, have been about eight years older than Shakespeare.

Various small trains of evidence point to her identification with the daughter Agnes mentioned in the will of a Richard Hathaway of Shottery, who died in 1581, being then in possession of the farm-house now known as “ Anne Hathaway’s Cottage. ” Agnes was legally a distinct name from Anne, but there can be no doubt that ordinary custom treated them as identical. The principal record of the i It is worth noting that Walter Roche, who in 1558 became fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, was master of the school in 1570—1572, so that its standard must have been good. Baptista Mantuanus (1448—1516), whose Latin Eclogues were translated by Turberville in 1567. marriage is a bond dated on November 28, 2582, and executed by Fulk Sandells and John Richardson, two yeomen of Stratford who also figure in Richard Hathaway’s will, as a security to the bishop for the issue of a licence for the marriage of William Shakespeare and “Anne Hathwey of Stratford,” upon the consent of her friends, with one asking of the banns.

There is no reason to suppose, as has been suggested, that the procedure adopted was due to dislike of the marriage dn the part of John Shakespeare, since, the bridegroom being a minor, it would not have been in accordance with the practice of the bishop’s officials to issue the licence without evidence of the father’s consent. The explanation probably lies in the fact that Anne was already with child, and in the near neighbourhood of Advent within which marriages were prohibited, so that the ordinary procedure by banns would have entailed a delay until after Christmas.

A kindly sentiment has suggested that some form of civil marriage, or at least contract of espousals, had already taken place, so that a canonical marriage was really only required in order to enable Anne to secure the legacy left her by her father “at the day of her marriage. ” But such a theory is not rigidly required by the facts. It is singular that, upon the day before that on which the bond was executed, an entry was made in the bishop’s register of the issue of a licence for a marriage between William Shakespeare and” Annam Whateley de Temple Grafton. Of this it can only be said that the bond, as an original document, is infinitely the better authority, and that a scribal error of “ Whateley “ for “Hathaway “-is quite a possible solution. Temple Grafton may have been the nominal place of marriage indicated in the licence, which was not always the actual place of residence of either bride or bridegroom. There are no contemporary registers for Temple Grafton, and there is no entry of the marriage in those for Stratford-uponAvon.

There is a tradition that such a record was seen during the I9th century in the registers for Luddirigton, a chapelry within the parish, which are now destroyed. Shakespeare’s first child, Susanna, was baptized on the 26th of May 1583, and was followed on the 2nd of February 1585 by twins, Hamnet and Judith. In or after 1584 Shakespeare’s career in Stratford seems to have come to a tempestuous close. An 18th-century story of a drinking-bout in a neighbouring village is of no Obsce,~~ importance, except as indicating a local impression years, that a distinguished citizen had had a wildish youth. 584 But there is a tradition which comes from a double 1592, source and which there is no reason to reject in substance, to the effect that Shakespeare got into trouble through poaching on the estates of a considerable Warwickshire magnate, Sir Thomas Lucy, and found it necessary to leave Stratford in order to escape the results of his misdemeanour. It is added that he afterwards took his revenge on Lucy by satirizing him as the Justice Shallow, with the dozen white louses in his old coat, of The Merry Wives of Windsor.

From this event until he emerges as an actor and rising playwright in 1592 his history is a blank, and it is impossible to say what experience may not have helped to fill it. Much might indeed be done in eight years of crowded Elizabethan life. Conjecture has not been idle, and has assigned him in turns during this or some other period to the occupations of a scrivener, an apothecary, a dyer, a printer, a soldier, and the like. The suggestion that he saw military service rests largely on a confusion with another William Shakespeare of Rowington. Aubrey had heard that “he had been in his younger years a sthoolmaster in the country. The mention in Henry IV. of certain obscure yeomen families, Visor of Woncote and Perkes of Stinchcombe Hill, near Dursley in Gloucestershire, has been thought to suggest a sojourn in that district, where indeed Shakespeares were to be found from an early date. Ultimately, of course, he drifted to London and the theatre, where, according to the stage tradition, he found employment in a menial capacity, perhaps even as a holder of horses at the doors, before he was admitted into a company as an actor and so found his way to his true vocation as a writer of plays.

Malone thought that he might have left Stratford with one of the travelling companies of players which from time to time visited the town. Later biographers have fixed upon Leicester’s men, who were at Stratford in 1587, and have held that Shakespeare remained to the end in the same company, passing with it on Leicester’s death in 1588 under the patronage of Ferdinando, Lord Strange and afterwards earl of Derby, and on Derby’s death in 1594 under that of the lord chamberlain, Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon.

This theory perhaps hardly takes sufficient account of the shifting combinations and recombinations of actors, especially during the disastrous plague years of 1592 to 1594. The continuity of Strange’s company with Leicester’s is very disputable, and while the names of many members of Strange’s company in and about 1593 are on record, Shakespeare’s is not amongst them. It is at least possible, as will be seen later, that he had about this time relations with the earl of Pembroke’s men, or with the earl of Sussex’s men, or with both of these organizations. What is clear is that by the summer of 1592, when.

Although literature is fiction, often the conflict in a work will be strikingly similar to that of a real event. For example, the central issue of the abusive dictatorship of Macbeth in Macbeth, by William Shakespeare parallels that of the terrorizing dictatorship of Adolf Hitler during the early part of the Twentieth Century. In both of these horrible situations, there is a similarity in the challenging rise to power each must go through, their traumatizing dictatorships which destroyed many lives, and the treacherous downfall which ultimately led to their demise.

Macbeth and Hitler were both loved by their people, but both charismatic leaders manipulated the people to gain power. Macbeth was respected and loved by the King and the people of Scotland. When the Thane of Cawdor lost his battle, the King of Scotland decreed him to death and elected the victorious General Macbeth to the position of Thane. Duncan said to Macbeth once he was Thane of Cawdor, “My Worthy Cawdor” (1. 4. 54). Duncan respected Macbeth and trusted him as Thane of Cawdor Macbeth had previously been visited by three witches when he was with Banquo and was told that he would never become king.

The witches said to Banquo that Macbeth will never be king and the King’s sons would eventually become kings and rule the land. Macbeth was jealous and knew he had to kill the king in order to gain power. Lady Macbeth and Macbeth created the plot to kill Duncan and seize power through force. Their plan was to kill Duncan and blame it on the guards by putting the bloody daggers in the hands of the guards. Lady Macbeth and Macbeth followed through with the plan and Duncan’s sons ran away. Then Macbeth turns around and blames the sons because they left right when Duncan died.

The people of Scotland believed the story and Macbeth falsely gained respect from the people and gained power. In a similar parallel, Hitler too gained power by manipulating the people of Germany to earn their respect. Hitler and his country were in the middle of an economic depression during the early Twentieth Century, and this was a ripe time for a charismatic leader to emerge. The times were tough for the people of Germany and Hitler saw that he could gain power with a little manipulation and appealing to the desperate people’s needs. Hitler ran for president and made many hopeful, inspirational speeches to large crowds of people.

When Hitler was in his campaign to regain power in the Nazi party, he threw a speech in a large hall. People were amazed at how well he spoke and seemed to know their problems and were inspired. “ Former party leaders, who had come only to watch, now marched onto the platform, shook his hand, or embraced him. ”(Stewart 46). The German people fell in love with him and followed his political rise very closely and supported his message. Even though Hitler lost two close political races to Paul von Hindenburg, he ended up succeeding him in office when von Hindenburg died and made it possible for Hitler to become president.

Hitler needed more support to legalize his Nazi party. In order to gain more support, Hitler set fire to the Parliament building in Germany. The German people were scared and Hitler told the public that the communist had set the building on fire. The people falsely believed him and had trust in Hitler giving him more power than ever before. Macbeth and Hitler’s dictatorships were both terrorizing and frightful, especially to the two groups of people they ruled. When Macbeth was in power, he was paranoid of a conspiracy being launched against him. Macbeth was so paranoid that he had spies in every house, and killed many innocent people.

Macbeth feared that Banquo, his friend, was talking about him and grew weary of him. He hired three murderers to kill Banquo once he set off from Macbeth’s kingdom. Macbeth thought he saw Banquo’s ghost and thought that it came back to haunt him. Macbeth seemed to have been losing his mind and he was guilty of Duncan’s death. Macbeth killed his own friend because he thought Duncan was trying to take power back. He had been so paranoid that he had a spy in every house to report of any conspiracies among the people. If the spies would hear anything, Macbeth would kill those who the spies reported back on.

Hitler’s dictatorship was long, terrifying, and stressful. Hitler was in the middle of a war when he was in power. He had the whole world fighting against him as he was trying to gain control of the whole world. Hitler had been so stressed and tired from war that he was mentally unstable. To cope with the long and stressful war, Hitler took drugs. The drugs made him an even worse and cruel dictator. Hitler started genocide in his home country. He persecuted the Jewish population and put them in extermination camps. This dilemma was known to be the Holocaust. Hitler killed six million innocent Jewish people.

Hitler and the Nazis soldiers burned, shot, and gassed the Jews. Once in a concentration camp in Germany, the Nazis said “ Beat Those Jews”(Rees 179). Hitler made the Germans and Nazis convinced that they should kill many innocent and harmless people. Hitler grew weary of conspiracy. He thought people were out to get him. Hitler created the Nazi police. The Nazi police were run by Himmler. The police ran on the principles of “If you don’t speak you don’t get hurt”. The police insured that no one was speaking against Hitler and his political decisions. Macbeth and Hitler both had a treacherous downfall.

Macbeth was mentally unstable and he was making poor decisions. Macbeth was being attacked from Birnam Woods by the English army and Macduff. The prophecies were coming true that the woods would walk to Macbeth’s kingdom and kill him. The English army picked up branches to disguise themselves and hide their numbers. Macbeth and everyone were falling apart and knew they were going to die. Lady Macbeth knew what was coming, and had enough of Macbeth and his terrible reign and took her own life. When Seyton heard a cry from the castle, he found that she died. Seyton said to Macbeth, “ The Queen, My lord, is dead”(5. 5. 16).

Macbeth had lost everything he lived for and his kingdom. Macduff found Macbeth for a standoff. Macbeth accepted his fate and fought with courage. Macbeth died and Malcolm took the crown and became king. Hitler’s downfall was treacherous and lethal. Hitler was in the middle of a war and his army was weakening. The allies were closing in on him and his nation was being destroyed. Hitler was so stressed from the war and all of his struggles that he became crazy and addicted to drugs. While he was in reign, he had 42 assassination attempts against his life. Many of the attempts were from his high ranking generals, and political powers.

The people could no longer take what he was doing to the country. Hitler took his own life by shooting himself. Macbeth and Hitler’s rise to power, dictatorship, and downfall are similar but occurred in different times. Hitler and Macbeth were both loved by people of their country. They both manipulated facts and used this to gain the people’s trust and respect. Both Hitler and Macbeth killed many innocent people. Both men were involved in war. Ultimately, both Macbeth and Hitler were both attacked from various forces. Both men accepted their fate and died. Hitler killed himself, and Macbeth died in his last stand against Macduff.

The tragedy of Macbeth by William Shakespeare outlines how the lust for power can bring out the worst in people. This is evident through Macbeth’s vaulting ambition to be king which ultimately leads to his downfall. Through Macbeth wrestling with his conscience about the prophesies of the witches he started to gain the trait of ambition. We also see his ambition continue to grow through the persuasion by his soul mate which is also shown through the 1961 CBC TV production of Macbeth.

His want to stay king brought out the tyrant within him and shows the evil side of Macbeth, letting his ambition take over. His growth of ambition through the play leads to his tragic death. Macbeth was given a glimpse of prosperity through the witches prophesies. “All hail Macbeth, thou art shalt be king hereafter” the use of the prophesises outlines foreshadowing within the play. The witches are telling Macbeth of his future and he is left to wrestle with his conscience.

This is shown when Macbeth in his soliloquy says “this supernatural soliciting cannot be ill, cannot be good/ if ill why hath it given me earnest success” we see Macbeth wrestling with his conscience and his ambition starting to grow, he is starting to believe the witches and the seed of ambition is planted inside him, which is the first step leading to his demise. We see Macbeth’s ambition continue to grow and lead to his death through the persuasion of lady Macbeth. Lady Macbeth uses guilt to talk Macbeth into committing regicide and becoming king.

This is shown through the quote “wouldst thou have that which thou esteemst the ornament of life and live a coward in thine own esteem letting “I dare not” wait upn “I would” like the poor cat I th’adage” the simile “the poor cat I th’adage outlines how Lady Macbeth uses guilt to talk Macbeth into killing the king by calling him a coward. This is also shown in the 1961 CBC tv production of Macbeth when Lady Macbeth is using her feminism to persuade Macbeth, causing his ambition to grow even more.

When you durst do it, then you were a man and to be more than what you were, you would be so much more the man” this quote shows how Lady Macbeth uses guilt and calling Macbeth a coward to persuade him to commit regicide. The persuasion of Lady Macbeth causes Macbeth’s ambition to continue to grow which another step is leading to his downfall. Macbeth’s desire to stay king brings out the tyrant within him, his vaulting ambition causes wrath on anyone who stands in his path, even his closest friend.

This is shown when Macbeth is planning to kill his best friend, Banquo, “come seeling night/scarf up the tender eye of pitiful day and with thy bloody and invisible hand cancel and tear to pieces tgar great bond which keeps me pale” the use of dramatic irony in this quote shows us how much Macbeth’s ambition has taken over, and how he is not even hesitatint to murder his bestfriend, he is wishing for the night to come when Banquo’s death finally happens so all his fears will be washed away and he will be able to remain king.

Macbeth’s desire to stay king causes him to kill his bestfriend, his ambition has taken over fully by this stage which is the final factor contributing to his death. We see Macbeths ambition start to grow when he is wrestling with his conscience about the witches prophesies. Furthermore , his ambition continues to grow through the persuasion of regicide from his soul mate and Macbeths desire to stay king unleashes his ambition, all these aspect contribute to Macbeth’s vaulting ambition, thus leading to his tragic death.

Through time, the theme of the monstrosity has been a prominent subject in many novels and plays. In the play “Macbeth,” Macbeth illustrates monstrous traits though his ambition as he strives to become the king of Scotland. Victor in Shelley’s Frankenstein also displays monstrous behaviors by using science along with his ambition to create his prodigious mammoth. Moreover, Both Lady Macbeth and the three witches imply their satanic traits by influencing Macbeth to become the monstrous king that he is while Victor become influence by both his place in time which is the Romantic Era and by the monster himself.

In addition, both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth died as a result of their diabolical actions. This is comparable to the sufferings of Victor and Elizabeth because of the monster’s revenge plans and Victor himself. Thus, in Shakespeare’s Macbeth and Shelley’s Frankenstein, monstrosity is apparent throughout the ambitions, influences and outcomes of the main character’s actions. In the play, the main character Macbeth has the ambition to become and remain king. In order to become king, Macbeth needs to kill Duncan who has done absolutely nothing wrong. Duncan is a very noble king.

However, Macbeth’s ambition leads him to be more abnormal and it hurts his reputation in the process. “I’ll go no more. I am afraid to think what I have done; Look on’t again, I dare not” (Shakespeare 2. 2. 53-55). Here, Macbeth intensifies his ambition and drive by trying to become the king of Scotland. Macbeth contemplates the idea that being king, he could do whatever he wants to. The truth is that to attain that position, Macbeth had to murder many innocent people like Duncan. He wants to be king so badly that he never looks back at what he did.

By looking back at the situation, Macbeth thinks that it will bring guilt to him. Similarity, Lady Macbeth cold-bloodily expands her ambition to become queen of Scotland. Some of her ambition rubs off on Macbeth. It is she who has the idea to kill Duncan. She goes as far as to call out the spirits. “That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan under my battlements, come you spirits that tend on moral thoughts, unsex me here and fill me from the crown to the toe-top full” (Shakespeare 1. 5. 38-41). Here, Lady Macbeth wants to unsex herself. She wants to be more of a powerful, uncaring human by getting rid of her feminine side.

It allows her to achieve her ambition. Furthermore, she talks about the crown going from head to toe. Just like her husband, she needs Macbeth to be king so she can be queen. Lady Macbeth is willing to pay any price. Ambition plays a big role in both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s lives as they try to rule Scotland. In Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor and the monster show their ambition during their quest for knowledge. On the night when Victor formulates his creature, he realizes that his ambition has been a failure just by looking at his creation. Moreover, his plans became ruined.

He had expectations that kind of came to an unexpected stop. “How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wrench whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavored to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God” (Shelley 43)! Victor’s ambition has now been a catastrophe. He compares the monster to a wrench because he sees the being as a letdown and a bad accomplishment. His words displays that his feelings are monstrous. By comparing his creature to a wrench, he is being very discriminatory, making him monstrous.

He attempts to be recognized by society and from his perspective; it is impossible to achieve that. Like Lady Macbeth, Victor has also unsex himself because while Lady Macbeth gets rid of her feminine side, Victor gets rid of his world view and put aside all of the caring values at home. However, he did not intend to be evil, he did it for the purpose of science. Similar to Victor, the monster has his own ambition. The monster had the ambition to meet new people despite his ugliness. When he introduces himself to the De Laceys, they strike back. “Agatha fainted, and Safie, unable to attend to her friend, rushed out of the cottage.

Felix darted forward, and with supernatural force tore me from his father, to whose knees I clung; in a transport of fury, he dashed me to the ground and struck me violently with a stick” (Shelley 123-124). Here, the monster tries to fulfill his ambition by meeting the De Laceys. He attempts to explain his ambition. However, things turn out wrong for him. Because of the way, Felix discriminates against him and considers him a monster based on his looks. His social drive leads him to being a satanic-appearing creature in the eyes of the De Laceys. That is why Felix hits him with a stick and Safie runs away. They do not believe in him.

Likewise, Macduff sees evil in Macbeth, as he does not attend his coloration. He just like Felix thinks that he is a monster. Nonetheless, Macbeth is really evil and has evil ambitions. The monster on the other hand does not. Thus, monstrosity is portrayed in the ambitions of both Victor and the monster throughout their intentions to be accepted in society. Macbeth not only shows monstrosity through his own ambition, he also shows it as a result of other influences. One huge influence on Macbeth is none other than his wife. Although Macbeth had the ambition to become king, he does not have the drive to carry through.

This is where Lady Macbeth comes in. She is the one who drives Macbeth into killing Duncan, becoming a temptress in the process. “We fail? But screw your courage to the sticking-place, And we’ll not fail. When Duncan is asleep, Whereto the rather shall his day’s hard journey soundly invite him, his two chamberlains will I with wine and wassail so convince that memory, the warder of the brain, Shall be a fume, and the receipt of reason a limbeck only” (Shakespeare 1. 7. 59-67). Here it shows that Lady Macbeth takes an enormous role in Macbeth’s ambition. Through her words, Lady Macbeth displays her gruesome traits.

She is willing to take the initiative and kill Duncan for Macbeth. Sadly, Macbeth falls for it. The thought of murdering someone is indeed monstrous. The three witches additionally have influence Macbeth in a way that drives Macbeth to become king. When Macbeth first listens to the predictions of the three witches, he is in shock. He later realizes that it can be a reality. The witches are temptresses in Macbeth’s eyes. “All hail Macbeth, hail to thee, Thane of Glamis. All hail Macbeth, hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor. All hail Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter” (Shakespeare 1. 3. 46-48).

Here, the three witches are predicting the future of Macbeth as they tell him that he will become king one day. This evil influence propels Macbeth to do whatever it takes to become king. They make Macbeth believe that he can be king. This influence kick starts Macbeth’s plans to kill Duncan. Thus, monstrosity is demonstrated as both Lady Macbeth and the witches act like temptresses to Macbeth while he strives to become king. Victor also had some influences that cause him to display some monstrosity. The Romantic Era could be a huge influence on Victor as he thrives to create his creation.

His society is described as a revolutionary and rebellious one. As scientists in the Romantic Era make new and new discoveries, it thrusts Victor into creating his own. When the professor reveals that Victor wrong about his theory on why the tree lit up, it causes Victor to revolutionize the world of science. “As I stood at the door, on a sudden I beheld a stream of fire issue from a old and beautiful oak which stood about twenty yards from our house; and so soon as the dazzling light vanished, the oak had disappeared, and nothing remained but a blasted stamp.

When we visited it the next morning, we found the tree shattered in a single manner” (Shelley 26). Here, Victor sees a tree being shattered by lightning. A modern philosopher introduces Victor about his ideas on electricity and galvanism and why the tree completely shattered. He proves that all the scientist Victor follows like Cornelius Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Albertus Magnus were wrong. As the science professor proves Victor wrong, it causes Victor to create and do something bigger so that he can top him one day. He has the thirst for knowledge, knowing that in the Romantic Era, anything is possible.

This era also poses some supernatural and mystical effects that might cause Victor to create his monster. It foreshadows that Victor would isolate himself from his family in order to modernize the science world. The isolation of Victor proves that his is monstrous. Victor gets hints from the Romantic Era similarly to Macbeth getting hints from Lady Macbeth and the witches. The monster has also influence Victor to becoming more atrocious throughout the back and forth affair with the two. The conflict between Victor and the monster starts to take its course.

Victor promises the monster to make him a female companion so that the monster would not feel lonely. Conversely, Victor destroys the monster, thinking that it would take over and corrupt the world. This causes the monster to be angry. Additionally, he tells Victor that he will be there on his wedding night. Victor becomes paranoid to the point where he starts bringing out weapons. “In the meantime I took every precaution to defend my person in case the fiend should openly attack me. I carried pistols and a dagger constantly about me and was ever on the watch to prevent artifice, and by these means ained a greater degree of tranquility” (Shelley 182). Victor’s one mistake of abandoning the monster at birth has cause the monster to seek revenge by killing William and Justine. Victor sees this and accepts the monster’s request of creating a female companion, but later destroys it. This triggers the creature to strike back at Victor on his wedding night. At his wedding night, he carries around weapons in case the monster shows up. Victor becomes paranoid ever since the monster utters that he will be there on Victor’s wedding night. However at the same time, Victor is scaring Elizabeth with all his weapons.

In Elizabeth’s eyes, Victor seems more evil. Victor is being more horrific to Elizabeth even though he is protecting her. Plus, she does not even know that the monster coming; Victor hides this information it from her. This shows that Victor is worried more about the monster (self-protection) than Elizabeth, which makes him monstrous. Thus, Victor displays monstrosity, as he becomes influence by the Romantic Era and the monster. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth both illustrate their monstrous personality, which leads to some key outcomes during their ruling as king and queen.

According to the witches, Macbeth gets paranoid that either Banquo or his son Fleance might become the next king. So he calls out three murderers to kill them. He does not have this drive before, but once he is king, he wants to remain king and is willing to do anything. Moreover, he calls murderers to kill the family of Macduff since he poses as a threat to him. “I have no words, my voice is in my sword, thou bloodier villain than terms can give out to thee” (Shakespeare 5. 8. 6-8). This shows that Macbeth’s immoral actions done on the family of Macduff have made him angry. Macbeth causes his angriness due to what transpired.

Macduff calls Macbeth a villain because he is the one who kills Lady Macduff as well as his son. From the looks of it, Macduff really want to get his hands on Macbeth and kill him. Macduff has the quest for revenge and is eager to go the distance. In the end, the outcome is that Macbeth’s actions has cause him to die in the hands of Macduff because of his monstrous traits. Lady Macbeth also dies as a result from her own monstrous actions. Before she commits suicide, she realizes that it is her fault that Banquo died. She is the one who built Macbeth into more of a devilish being, thus making herself monstrous. Wash your hands, put on your night-gown, look not so pale. I tell you yet again, Banquo’s buried; he cannot come out on’s grave” (Shakespeare 5. 1. 54-56). This shows that Lady Macbeth has guilt for what she has done throughout the play. Lady Macbeth just like Victor creates her own monster in Macbeth and now, she suffers the consequences. She cannot even wash away her sins. She feels that it is her fault that Banquo dies. Furthermore, she commits suicide as a result because she can no longer handle he guilt. Lady Macbeth immoral actions have become a weight of guilt on her to the point where she commits suicide.

Hence, the deaths of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth were as an outcome of their monstrous actions done toward Scotland. Likewise, the conflict between Victor and the monster causes them to be horrific and as a result of their actions, both died which is similar to Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. Ever since Victor abandons the monster at his house, the monster always wants to seek revenge against Victor. He even kills all of Victor’s family members. He soon realizes that killing all those innocent people was not the right thing to do. “That is also my Victim! He exclaimed.

In his murder my crimes are consummated; the miserable series of my being is wound to its close! Oh Frankenstein! Generous and self-devoted being” (Shelley 209). The monster now has guilt in him. He believes that his monstrous traits would be the main force towards the death of Victor. The monster put Victor through so much as he tries to reach the North Pole. He calls Victor his own victim even though he never really kills him. The monster realizes his corruptive mistakes, but it is too late. This also foreshadows the death of the monster. Like Lady Macbeth, the monster has a weight of guilt on his shoulders.

He dies so that he could avoid that guilt. Also, because of Victor killing the female companion of the monster, it sparks the monster so much to the point where he uses monstrous traits to kill Victor’s female companion, the harmless Elizabeth. “Great God! Why did I not then expire! Why am I here to relate the destruction of the best hope and the purest creature on earth? She was there, lifeless and inanimate, thrown across the bed, her head hanging down and her pale and distorted features half covering by her hair” (Shelly 186). Here, this displays that the monster uses his scandalous individualities to kill Elizabeth.

This is comparable to Macbeth as he kills the members of the Macduff family. This is probably because Victor himself demonstrates some monstrosity by killing the monster’s female companion. In a way, it was Victor’s own satanic actions that cause the monster to kill Elizabeth. Also, Victor shows his monstrous traits as he objectifies Elizabeth. Elizabeth is been treated as an object according to Victor. Elizabeth had been objectified her whole existence by Victor. Thus, the monster and Victor proves they have monstrosity and as a result, Victor, Elizabeth, the monster and others die.

Therefore, ambition, influential actions, and outcomes are three aspects of the main characters that display monstrosity in Shakespeare’s Macbeth and Shelley’s Frankenstein. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth have the ambition to become king and queen, but they use monstrous actions like killing Duncan in order to get these positions. In comparison, both Victor and the monster uses monstrosity to achieve their goals on gaining knowledge. Furthermore, temptresses like Lady Macbeth and the three witches have influence Macbeth to be king by using scandalous characteristics of their own.

Both the monster and the Romantic Era itself has cause Victor to further pursue his goal of gaining knowledge but in the process, he portrays monstrosity. Macbeth’s and Lady Macbeth’s shameful characteristics has also resulted in the deaths of countless others including themselves. The lurid conflict between Victor and the monster has also cause their deaths, as well as the deaths of the other members in the Frankenstein family. Thus, the monstrosity is recognized in both Shakespeare’s Macbeth and Shelley’s Frankenstein throughout the main protagonists and antagonists.