I think that Shakespeare would agree with this statement to a great extent. There was plenty of corruption in the government going on when Shakespeare was alive, and when he was writing Macbeth. He also reflects this in Macbeth's character development throughout the play.
In the time around when Macbeth was first being written and performed, King James was taking over rule of England from Queen Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth was a Protestant, and persecuted Catholicism while she was in power. The people of England knew that King James was a Catholic, and were hopeful that when he took power, he would offer more religious freedom (or at least less religious persecution). However, despite being Catholic, King James still persecuted Catholicism when he took the throne because he was afraid of the change (and likely afraid of the Protestant portion of the population hating him for the change). This is reflective of power corrupting because King James' position of power led him to abandon his defense of his beliefs in favor of pleasing others.
This can also be seen to a great extent in Macbeth. When Macbeth was solely the Thane of Glamis, he was quieter. He asked the witches specifically if he would need to do something to fulfill the prophecy, and said that if it was going to happen, then it would happen naturally. When he became the Thane of Cawdor as well, he started to believe the witches and started thinking about what would need to happen for him to become king- Duncan would have to be killed, and his sons gotten rid of. Macbeth, who previously had said that it would come naturally, takes it upon himself to make this happen. Not only does he kill Duncan and scare off his sons to ensure his throne, he also resolves to kill his best friend and his friend's son. The possibility of being king made Macbeth so power-hungry that he would kill his own best friend.
Comments
Post a Comment