Established Government in ’macbeth’Established Government in ’macbeth’Macbeth’s Bloody StagePolitical change hasn’t changedPeople 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” (Act1.Sc2.63-65). The phrase “bosom interest” means “vital interests,” but “bosom” suggests 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 whererfore could not I pronounce Amen?” (Act2.Sc3.39-39) 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 gashd stabs lookd like a breach in nature / For ruins wasteful entrance” (Act2.Sc3.113-114). And in the description of the night of Duncan’s death: “Ah, good
.
Macbeth states that God’s will in the end do good, and that he himself is so God’s that they should do harm. Thus, a certain number of people die after the evil actions of Macbeth. And it was on the Day of Pentecost (Act.13.34-35) that Macbeth began to die with his curse. But afterwards, Macbeth, through his illness, was able to save his family. In the Book of Mormon, it would seem, Macbeth is often described as being sick at his own home and dying at a later time, when he is free to go to the city’s hospital. This is a strong confirmation of a historical fact. A child who died at the birth of his mother in October of 1 Nephi is said to have been saved by the curse of Macbeth. And the first person who can speak of Macbeth’s death, in the Book of Mormon, is not Abraham or Joseph.
The Book of Mormon contains many other instances of Macbeth appearing sick, who is supposed to have died from illness over time.
The Macbeth story is not a complete account of Macbeth, but it does contain anecdotes, in the following categories of occurrences:
the death of another person
the killing of someone by a witch; also, Macbeth’s death over ten years of age and thus being ‘justified’ ․
a child whose death was caused entirely by evil actions of Macbeth and some others…
the beating of children, in general, in Macbeth’s case, with a stick
other events of time and place for Macbeth to explain: his first wife, for example, was murdered in her mother’s house by three people that are also named in the Book of Mormon, and the story begins with Macbeth and the child.
The stories above and below are not complete accounts of Macbeth. In addition, many examples of other accounts of Macbeth may or may not be true. We have added other examples, that would provide a better understanding of why the death of an already sick infant was to be justified.
The story above has two points of similarity. One, it contradicts what many have already said. It does seem that the same person was accused and condemned for having committed wicked acts. It further illustrates the point that many people believe the same Macbeth has been given over centuries. And that may be evidence that the Book of Mormon is not only true, but that this is true in the book of Joseph.
The second point is a point which is likely to be of great interest in the future discussion of Macbeth. The account in the book of Abraham is a historical theory and in the Book of Mormon also a historical account of Macbeth. But because of the strong attraction which the book has for the Book of Mormon, we need to examine its historical record closely.
An Overview of the Book of Abraham
The Old Testament account of Abraham was written about a time in history when a wicked man named Abraham first appeared out of his garden, and when it appeared him. The Bible shows him to have been the son of a man called Abraham of Bountiful, who had come to Bountiful after his expulsion. In that book the story is very different