Power can change a person in a way that is incomprehensible. If placed in the wrong hands, it’s effects can be deleterious. The greed for power can make people do outrageous things. It can change a person for the worst, however that is not necessarily always the case. In the play Macbeth, Shakespeare shows how power can affect a person for the better and the worst by comparing the characters of Duncan and Macbeth. Although King Duncan only appears in the first act of Macbeth, his role in the play is significant. Shakespeare utilizes him as a character to allow the audience to draw a vivid contrast between Scotland under Duncan’s rule and under Macbeth’s.
First of all, both characters possessed a large amount of power, however they wielded …show more content…
Duncan was a divinely appointed king because he fulfilled the Divine Rights of Kings and was meant to be on the throne. He became king through his lineage, descending to the throne, so he obtained the crown fairly and honourably. It was given to him because he deserved it. In contrast, Macbeth became king through murder. He is not divinely appointed by God through succession of his birth like Duncan. Macbeth was not meant to have the power beyond Thane of Cawdor because did not hold the correct bloodline. Instead, he used violence and manipulation to get the crown. He was undoubtedly a usurper, challenging both the Divine Rights of Kings and the Great Chain of Beings by committing the ultimate crime of regicide. Macbeth says, “I go, and it is done. The bell invites me. / Hear it not, Duncan, for it is a knell/ That summons thee to heaven or to hell” (II, i, 69-71). Macbeth cheated and murdered his way into getting the crown, he did not earn it honestly. Lastly, although both characters reigned over Scotland for a period of time, one was an esteemed ruler, loved by all, whereas the other was unfit to rule. Duncan was a kind and noble king who offered the kingdom an embodiment of order and justice. People prospered under his rule. Duncan was a model king, exhibiting all the qualities of a good leader that was mentioned by …show more content…
He wore the crown out of love of his nation. Comments from characters we have been introduced to, all suggest that Duncan is a benevolent and virtuous king. Even Lady Macbeth, who is sometimes viewed as the play’s fourth witch, is unable to kill him on account of how innocent he looks. She believes that if Duncan had “not resembled/ [her] father as he slept, [she would have] done’t” (II, ii, 16-17). Macbeth, by contrast, brought only chaos and danger to Scotland, symbolized by the bad weather and bizarre supernatural events. It was mentioned that, “On Tuesday last, / A falcon, tow 'ring in her pride of place, / Was by a mousing owl hawked at and kill’d” (II, iv, 14-15). He offered no real justice, only a habit of murdering those he saw as a threat. Macbeth had too many enemies to keep track of and he was not loyal to Scotland, as a good king should be, but loyal to himself and his own interests. Macbeth only wished to be king to gratify his own desires. This is shown when he
First of all, both characters possessed a large amount of power, however they wielded …show more content…
Duncan was a divinely appointed king because he fulfilled the Divine Rights of Kings and was meant to be on the throne. He became king through his lineage, descending to the throne, so he obtained the crown fairly and honourably. It was given to him because he deserved it. In contrast, Macbeth became king through murder. He is not divinely appointed by God through succession of his birth like Duncan. Macbeth was not meant to have the power beyond Thane of Cawdor because did not hold the correct bloodline. Instead, he used violence and manipulation to get the crown. He was undoubtedly a usurper, challenging both the Divine Rights of Kings and the Great Chain of Beings by committing the ultimate crime of regicide. Macbeth says, “I go, and it is done. The bell invites me. / Hear it not, Duncan, for it is a knell/ That summons thee to heaven or to hell” (II, i, 69-71). Macbeth cheated and murdered his way into getting the crown, he did not earn it honestly. Lastly, although both characters reigned over Scotland for a period of time, one was an esteemed ruler, loved by all, whereas the other was unfit to rule. Duncan was a kind and noble king who offered the kingdom an embodiment of order and justice. People prospered under his rule. Duncan was a model king, exhibiting all the qualities of a good leader that was mentioned by …show more content…
He wore the crown out of love of his nation. Comments from characters we have been introduced to, all suggest that Duncan is a benevolent and virtuous king. Even Lady Macbeth, who is sometimes viewed as the play’s fourth witch, is unable to kill him on account of how innocent he looks. She believes that if Duncan had “not resembled/ [her] father as he slept, [she would have] done’t” (II, ii, 16-17). Macbeth, by contrast, brought only chaos and danger to Scotland, symbolized by the bad weather and bizarre supernatural events. It was mentioned that, “On Tuesday last, / A falcon, tow 'ring in her pride of place, / Was by a mousing owl hawked at and kill’d” (II, iv, 14-15). He offered no real justice, only a habit of murdering those he saw as a threat. Macbeth had too many enemies to keep track of and he was not loyal to Scotland, as a good king should be, but loyal to himself and his own interests. Macbeth only wished to be king to gratify his own desires. This is shown when he