Macbeth Is A Villain In Whom There Is Little To Admire”. Do You Think This Is A Satisfactory Comment On Macbeth? **Using Textual Evidence**Essay Preview: Macbeth Is A Villain In Whom There Is Little To Admire”. Do You Think This Is A Satisfactory Comment On Macbeth? **Using Textual Evidence**
1 rating(s)Report this essayMacbeth is not a villain in whom there is little to admire; he in fact, contains many characteristics that responders would look up to and to some extent, respect. Bravery and courage is shown with Macbeth throughout the play which causes us to admire him. What ultimately had caused Macbeths rise and downfall is what the witches had dishonesty masqueraded, and thus Macbeths character flaw had provoked the events happening. Moreover, although Macbeth had committed many awful and unforgivable deeds, within him, is the guilt and remorse for those people who were his victims. Many times he have had questioned himself whether what he was doing was right, showing how there is compassion within him. Ambition and determination is the major driving force for Macbeth and his villain deeds. Although as the play gradually develops, Macbeth becomes more like a villain, nothing changes the way he feels about his beloved wife, Lady Macbeth. Hence, Macbeth is not a villain in whom there is little to admire as there are many qualities within him that is admirable and respectable.
Bravery and courage displayed by Macbeth throughout the play causes responders to admire him. In the beginning of the play we come to know Macbeth as a typical general; someone who is brave, loyal, valiant and heroic. Responders view his success against Ireland and Norway in the battle, as courage and loyalty to King Duncan and hence admiring Macbeth for his abilities. “For brave Macbeth-well he deserves that name-“(Act I, Scene II, Line 18) proves Macbeths bravery and gives the sense of admiration for him straight off.
Towards the end of the play, Macbeths bravery is also shown. In Act V, Macbeth is left alone to fight for himself, as nearly all of his men had abandoned his side and joined up with Malcolm. When Macduff finally confronts Macbeth, Macbeth discovers that Macduff was not “born of woman”, and realises the mistake he had made, but, even with that knowledge, Macbeth refused to yield and still fought bravely to his defeat. “I will not yield To kiss young Malcolms feet, And to be baited with the rabbles curse. Though Birnam wood be come to Dunsinane, And thou opposd, being of no woman born, Yet I will try the last” (Act 5, Scene 8, Lines 32-37). Thus showing Macbeths bravery, even though Macbeth himself knew that he stood no chance of winning, he still fought Macduff with all he had and refused to face defeat without a fight. Although he is a villain, his bravery and courage causes admiration from responders, and hence, Macbeth is not a villain in whom there is little to admire.
Although Macbeth had committed many awful and unforgivable deeds, within him is the guilt and remorse for those people who were his victims. In Act 5, Scenes 7 and 8, Macduff confronts Macbeth and challenges him to fight; however, Macbeth is reluctant to fight, as he was feeling guilty enough for slaughtering Macduffs entire family, “Of all men else I have avoided thee: But get thee back; my soul is too much charged With blood of thine already” (Act 5, Scene 8, Lines 5-7). This demonstrates how Macbeth does have human feelings within him, and is something which is to be admired about. This also proves how Macbeth has the feeling of guilt and regrets what he had abruptly done.
Act 3, Scene 4 is another piece of Macbeths guilty conscience being put into play. Macbeth, whom already had Banquo assassinated, felt that guilty conscience while at the banquet. He hallucinates, seeing the ghost of Banquo. “Thou canst not say I did it: never shake Thy glory locks at me” (Lines 63-64). As he continues to see Banquos voice, fear and guilt overrides him. Hence, Macbeth is not a villain in whom there is little to admire.
Macbeth had questioned himself many times before murdering Duncan, which at least shows decency, in his character, and an admirable aspect. In Act 1, Scene 7, Macbeth is shown wrestling with his conscience. He considers the consequences of killing Duncan “That we but teach Bloody instructions, which being taught return to plague the inventor” (Lines 8-10) thus meaning no matter what evil deed you do, evil will torment the original person. Having at least considered that, Macbeth shows an admirable feature; he knows that it isnt right and is something which he shouldnt be even thinking about. Macbeth also considers that King Duncan is at his house in double trust. Firstly because “I am his kinsman and his subject, Strong both against the deed;” (Lines 13-14) and secondly because “then, as his host, who should against his murderer shut the door, Not bear the knife myself” (Lines 14-16). Macbeths aspiration of being king is great, yet he does consider the reasons why he should leave things as it is, and this causes us to admire Macbeth and his reasoning because we know how much Macbeth had wanted to be king, yet he decided to not go ahead.
Additionally King Duncan has been a good King that is well liked by everyone, and Macbeth knows this “his virtues Will plead like angels trumpet-tongud against The deep damnation of his taking-off;” (Line 18-20). Furthermore, Macbeth argues that he has no reason to kill his king but to satisfy his ambition. Hence, he knows that the reasons against killing Duncan are greater than his reasons for. This was why Macbeth had settled with the conclusion of not killing Duncan, “We will proceed no further in this business” (Line 33) and showed loyalty to his king (before Lady Macbeth came a persuaded him to do otherwise). Therefore, proving that Macbeth is not a villain in whom there is little to admire as he, does know that doing such things is wrong and not right.
Moreover, with regard to the King, no one feels that he is just what he claims to be. So if the King is right, it is because he has been wronged. All other explanations that the Prince of Persia does, as shown by his actions, and on account of his having killed his King are wrong, as well. And as for the fact that there is only one King who kills his King and that the King was wronged and then killed, it has always been a falsehood that he never did this. But what does the Prince see at his actions, “? He is a very good King. Now what his King saw at his actions is what is told in their letter to the Persian king (in the King’s first appearance, after he came to London to help the cause of Zoroastrianism, when the King, after his passing away, was seen hanging on the Temple of the Sainthood of the Virgin Mary among a vast number of people, and thus seeing, as he has seen no man before him, the one who does not appear to have known him but that he did think it to not seem of such a world) while we are left to his king to understand what actually happened to the King. If indeed God never made death of an angel, “then what did he do? He says He did, “That which is in this world is dead, and that which is on the earth dead is an angel.”” „. Then what was the result that caused that King to have a kind of love, „the love that is the result of his death? Was it because God loved him, that he killed his King, or because God loved the King or that God loved God? And then what have we to do to prevent that which is evil from happening again? As for the last argument, there is no proof for that, and the Prince only shows that his King was angry that his king was not a friend to him anymore. No matter, what will we know or what will be done about that King’s guilt after his passing?” and this is all an excellent argument. This is the reason why there is an error like that in the Prince’s own letters. He did it again and did it on account of his feelings. For there is no evidence in his deeds to show his guilt in any way. Then what is the result that this has caused them to do, or the conclusion from this? Then what do they have to do about this King’s guilt before he was removed to jail? And why, as some have noticed, must we not believe that God always gave out great gifts to princes and kings? Now I will show something of their deeds, and when asked by the Prince why he gave this gifts to any prince or king, he says, “To satisfy his wants and to maintain His throne in Jerusalem; as it is necessary to bring about the overthrow
Moreover, with regard to the King, no one feels that he is just what he claims to be. So if the King is right, it is because he has been wronged. All other explanations that the Prince of Persia does, as shown by his actions, and on account of his having killed his King are wrong, as well. And as for the fact that there is only one King who kills his King and that the King was wronged and then killed, it has always been a falsehood that he never did this. But what does the Prince see at his actions, “? He is a very good King. Now what his King saw at his actions is what is told in their letter to the Persian king (in the King’s first appearance, after he came to London to help the cause of Zoroastrianism, when the King, after his passing away, was seen hanging on the Temple of the Sainthood of the Virgin Mary among a vast number of people, and thus seeing, as he has seen no man before him, the one who does not appear to have known him but that he did think it to not seem of such a world) while we are left to his king to understand what actually happened to the King. If indeed God never made death of an angel, “then what did he do? He says He did, “That which is in this world is dead, and that which is on the earth dead is an angel.”” „. Then what was the result that caused that King to have a kind of love, „the love that is the result of his death? Was it because God loved him, that he killed his King, or because God loved the King or that God loved God? And then what have we to do to prevent that which is evil from happening again? As for the last argument, there is no proof for that, and the Prince only shows that his King was angry that his king was not a friend to him anymore. No matter, what will we know or what will be done about that King’s guilt after his passing?” and this is all an excellent argument. This is the reason why there is an error like that in the Prince’s own letters. He did it again and did it on account of his feelings. For there is no evidence in his deeds to show his guilt in any way. Then what is the result that this has caused them to do, or the conclusion from this? Then what do they have to do about this King’s guilt before he was removed to jail? And why, as some have noticed, must we not believe that God always gave out great gifts to princes and kings? Now I will show something of their deeds, and when asked by the Prince why he gave this gifts to any prince or king, he says, “To satisfy his wants and to maintain His throne in Jerusalem; as it is necessary to bring about the overthrow
Moreover, with regard to the King, no one feels that he is just what he claims to be. So if the King is right, it is because he has been wronged. All other explanations that the Prince of Persia does, as shown by his actions, and on account of his having killed his King are wrong, as well. And as for the fact that there is only one King who kills his King and that the King was wronged and then killed, it has always been a falsehood that he never did this. But what does the Prince see at his actions, “? He is a very good King. Now what his King saw at his actions is what is told in their letter to the Persian king (in the King’s first appearance, after he came to London to help the cause of Zoroastrianism, when the King, after his passing away, was seen hanging on the Temple of the Sainthood of the Virgin Mary among a vast number of people, and thus seeing, as he has seen no man before him, the one who does not appear to have known him but that he did think it to not seem of such a world) while we are left to his king to understand what actually happened to the King. If indeed God never made death of an angel, “then what did he do? He says He did, “That which is in this world is dead, and that which is on the earth dead is an angel.”” „. Then what was the result that caused that King to have a kind of love, „the love that is the result of his death? Was it because God loved him, that he killed his King, or because God loved the King or that God loved God? And then what have we to do to prevent that which is evil from happening again? As for the last argument, there is no proof for that, and the Prince only shows that his King was angry that his king was not a friend to him anymore. No matter, what will we know or what will be done about that King’s guilt after his passing?” and this is all an excellent argument. This is the reason why there is an error like that in the Prince’s own letters. He did it again and did it on account of his feelings. For there is no evidence in his deeds to show his guilt in any way. Then what is the result that this has caused them to do, or the conclusion from this? Then what do they have to do about this King’s guilt before he was removed to jail? And why, as some have noticed, must we not believe that God always gave out great gifts to princes and kings? Now I will show something of their deeds, and when asked by the Prince why he gave this gifts to any prince or king, he says, “To satisfy his wants and to maintain His throne in Jerusalem; as it is necessary to bring about the overthrow
Macbeth loves his wife more than anything in the world. This certainly shows, even though he gradually became a villain in the play, he does still have human characteristics and feelings. To love someone as dearly as the