A lot of kings get killed in Shakespeare plays, and it is difficult (or indeed well-nigh impossible) to learn any lessons from it. For example, in two plays, Richard III and Macbeth, two kings get killed. In Richard III, Richard kills his nephew Edward V but at the end of the play Richmond kills Richard. In Macbeth, Macbeth kills Duncan, but at the end Macduff kills him. It is suggested that it is a bad thing when Macbeth and Richard kill kings but a good thing when Macduff and Richmond kill kings. Ah, but those were bad kings. But Richard II was a bad king and it was still a bad thing when he gets killed by Henry IV in Richard II. And Henry VI was an astonishingly bad king and it is at best a matter of indifference when he gets killed. And our feelings about King John when he gets killed are indeed ambivalent.
The nearest you can come to a common theme in all of these regicides is that it is bad to kill a legitimate king (even a bad one like Richard II) but it is OK to kill a king with a poor title to the throne. Whether or not a person has a good title to the throne is determined using the sensibilities of Shakespeare's time: the throne should pass to the eldest son of the former king. At times this is in conflict with the historical basis of the plays--eldest sons were not automatically entitled to succeed in Republican Rome (Julius Caesar), early Scotland (Macbeth), or Viking Denmark (Hamlet). In fact, Macbeth and Claudius succeeded to the throne perfectly legitimately, but it would not seem so to an Elizabethan audience. To them, Octavian, Malcolm and Hamlet would seem legitimate whereas Brutus, Macbeth and Claudius would not.
Unfortunately, at the end of Richard III, the throne is taken by a claimant with an absolutely terrible claim to the throne: Richmond, later to become Henry VII and Queen Elizabeth's grandfather. Richmond's best claim to the throne was that he had married the sister of Edward V (in much the same way that Claudius's claim to the throne was enhanced by his marriage to Gertrude).
The issue of succession to the throne was a hot issue in Shakespeare's day, where an unmarried woman was queen. Even after the succession of her nephew James, there was uncertainty. Shakespeare's treatment of kingship tends to support orderly, lawful succession and to vilify anyone who interferes with that.
The murder of Duncan is not staged--that's the genius of it. While Macbeth is doing the killing we watch his wife waiting nervously. It builds much more suspense that simply showing the killing would have done. Besides, it was easier to get a play past the censors if it did not have a scene showing a king being murdered.
Yes, he sure did.
obviously he didnt like showing his penis to people. so he wrote about it instead.
William Shakepeare is mentioned in this novel because he is the main character.
Macbeth says that he was overcome with hatred for killing a Kind (Duncan) was on the same level as killing God. he couldn't help himself. This makes Macbeth look even more innocent, showing that he is loyal to the king, when really he is the opposite)
The murder of Duncan is not staged--that's the genius of it. While Macbeth is doing the killing we watch his wife waiting nervously. It builds much more suspense that simply showing the killing would have done. Besides, it was easier to get a play past the censors if it did not have a scene showing a king being murdered.
Yes, he sure did.
It displays a learned behavior.
"Erudite" means having or showing great knowledge or learning in a particular subject.
well, the maasai boy Vincent Ole Tome thinks that killing a lion is not showing courage, it is showing foolishness to the environment. killing a lion who do no harm is foolishness itself. Leebo, Vincent's enemy, is challenging him to a lion killing contest but leebo dies.
It is showing your futureof you killing yourself and commiting suicide. This isanswers.com
No as that would be showing disrespect for the court, which is a learned behavior and a condition of parental alienation.
I assume you meant "Why did Shakespeare make Macbeth a villan?" Well, what could the storyline have been if he wasn't a villan? Shakespeare's Macbeth was based on the real Macbeth. He murdered his king, Duncan, and became king. I guess that means that the real Macbeth was a villan, and so Shakespeare only kept it that way, showing it wasn't Shakespeare that made his character of Macbeth a villan.
By showing the audience the passion that romeo is in love with Rosaline.
obviously he didnt like showing his penis to people. so he wrote about it instead.
E'er is not a word; it's a different spelling of the word "ever" showing that you don't say the letter "v"