Wormald argues that there was a notable difference between the English King James I and Scottish King James VI, and the key to understanding this difference is understanding the nature of Scottish kingship in comparison to English kingship. Underlying the transformation of James VI to James I was the fear of his subjects; the Scots feared that his accession to the English crown would lead to their neglect, while the English simply feared and hated the Scottish people. The xenophobia of the English towards the Scots, solidified in the writings of Anthony Weldon, influenced later attitudes towards James I, and can help to explain the marked difference in English and Scottish accounts of James as king. However, Wormald asserts that xenophobia …show more content…
cannot work as a full explanation of negative perceptions of James, as notable scholars have arrived at the same conclusions of James as contemporaries such as Weldon. Wormald aligns herself with the revisionist view by arguing that James' understanding of government and role as king must be rethought and argues that full understanding of James I can only come by first examining the reign of James VI. Wormald, on the whole, finds James to have been an effective king as James VI.
Wormald rejects the view that the English and Scottish institutions were vastly different. While Wormald acknowledges a difference in the level of sophistication, with English institutions achieving a higher level than similar Scottish institutions, Wormald does not believe this hindered the workings of the Scottish government. Wormald goes on to suggest that its simplicity actually increased its effectiveness in comparison to the over-complicated English system. Wormald emphasises the importance of a strong Parliament for James' authority, especially in the face of an increasingly political nobility and hostile church (kirk). The kirk is cited by Wormald as the most dangerous threat to James, and she believes James expended considerable effort in attempting to control the kirk. The key to his success in controlling church and state, according to Wormald, was personal intervention in political arenas, which allowed him to maintain an equilibrium and play factions against each other, eventually resulting in James' desired outcome. However, Wormald argues that the accession to James I changed the Scottish government by increasing the interaction of the central government with the localities through regular taxation, and increasing competition for
power. As James I, Wormald finds more difficulties in James' rule, but disagrees with the Whig view that James was incapable. Wormald views James as a more practical king of England than he had been in Scotland, and believes his experiences as a Scottish king shaped his rule as an English monarch in a positive way. Wormald suggests that the traditional Scottish approach used by James helped lessen tensions between government and localities in England, however, his absenteeism in Scotland led to greater tensions there. Wormald challenges the view that the first decades of James I's rule were smoothed over by the continuing influence of Elizabethan ministers, attesting that James actually took active measures to decrease the power of key Elizabethan figures such as Robert Cecil. To Wormald, the Scottish experiences of James are undervalued because of xenophobia and lack of understanding of the Scottish style of kingship. A combination of xenophobia and alienation had a profound effect on James' rule, such as the rise of favourites such as the Duke of Buckingham.
Studs Terkel published a nonfiction Working which consists many interviews among different people’s descriptions of their jobs. Through this book, Terkel demonstrates the meaning of work to different people and how their work experiences shape their attitudes about their lives. Among these interviewers, Maggie Holmes is a domestic while Dave Bender is a factory owner. Although their wages are different, Maggie Holmes and Dave Bender’s attitudes about their works are contradictory. People who love their works are passionate and happy about their lives and express less complain than those people who do not like their jobs.
During the Stuarts, the only people who had the liquid cash to pay for the needs of the modern government were primarily the middle-class and gentry, which were represented by the parliament. The “awkward, hand-to-mouth expedients” (38) of the Stuarts agitated by the differences in expectations of governance, brought them into conflict with their primary tax base. The impatience of the eventual rebels was exacerbated by their Stuart’s disregard for the traditional balance between the crown and the parliament, as they were Scottish royals who had only dealt with a very weak
In order to keep our two characters separate, the Shakespearian character will be referred to as Macbeth and the actual historical character as MacBeth or King MacBeth, depending on the time. The following areas will be examined to find the “real” MacBeth: heritage and title, personality, deeds and death. The heritage will determine the legitimacy as heir to the throne and title to reflect rank and class; their personality, deeds and death to illustrate their worthiness of being king. In 1005 MacBeth MacFindlaech was born to Findlaech MacRuaridh and Doada, daughter of Malcolm I, making him in line to be King. It was around this same time that his grandfather (Malcolm II) became king. As was required for the children of important chieftains, M...
For the most part, Beowulf’s characteristics describe those of a triumphant warrior who played a major role in defending the lives of his fellow citizens, while leading a thriving country. Although Beowulf soon became king, he died for his people, and was remembered as a victorious fighter. Beowulf is at least in part a study of kingship because it discusses the qualities that produce a good king, the disadvantages during his rule and how he overcame them, and the problems that arose upon his death.
The longing for power can seem to be that empty hole that anyone would try to fill inside themselves, but one should always be careful what they wish for, because as we can see in William Shakespeare’s play Macbeth, Macbeth’s ascension to the throne of Scotland is unlike the typical reign of a monarch in any country for that matter. The rising glory of Macbeth is primarily what this play focuses on, but there are several steps Macbeth must take to reach his desired destination. There are multiple aspects that lead to Macbeth becoming king, but in actuality, there are three key ideas that are the most compelling. The first of these three factors happens to be Macbeth’s ambitions just in general, especially in early parts of the play before the
‘Brave Macbeth,’ (1.2.18.) as he is first introduced, possesses a valiant temperament, is adored by his generous king and all those who have viewed his prowess on the battlefield. Noble and righteous, Macbeth is portrayed as a respectable man who – although it being prophesied by the three witches before he obtains knowledge of his good fortune – gains his title of Thane of Cawdor solely through his loyalty to his kingdom. At first glance, the play’s protagonist ostensibly has a near perfect balance of both ambition and pride. However, as the plot progresses and the Weyard Sisters equivocate the future in their familiar groups of three, the reader may discern an imbalance that contradicts early perceptions of the protagonist’s personality. ‘[Yielding] to that suggestion whose horrid image doth … make [his] heart knock against [his] ribs against the use of nature,’ (1.3.144–47) Macbeth has already succumbed, albeit only in thought, to his overwhelming ambition, adding more weight to his formerly balanced internal scale, thus raising pride raising slightly higher, as ambition takes precedence. Yet this change is relatively minute, and balance is retained, as he has no desire to act upon these thoughts, wishing to gain power only ‘if chance will have [him] king … without [his] stir.’ (1.3.154–55) It is not until his wife asks him, ‘If thou are afeard
“Macbeth” was written between 1603 and 1606, when James VI of Scotland, became James I of England. It could be argued, this play was definitely constructed with James in mind, as he was interested in witchcraft and superstitious activity, which feature in Macbeth, as illustrated in this essay.
Johnson, Vernon Elso, ed. "Shakespeare's Macbeth." Social Issues in Literature: Power in William. San Francisco: Greenhaven, 2009. N. pag. Print.
A character is a person in a story that plays a particular role. Stories require characters so that it forms conflicts, tensions and resolutions. Characters also carry certain traits to make the story interesting and unique. Each character might have different attributes. Others could have similar and different qualities. Those who read many novels might notice that characters from various books are similar to each other to an extent, but are not completely the same. The old English poem, Beowulf, and Shakespeare's Macbeth contain characters with similar characteristics. Beowulf and Macbeth share similar traits, but do not have the same objective. Comparing and contrasting determine the similarities and differences of things. Comparing and contrasting is an excellent tool to determine what is right and wrong. When choosing the best car to drive, comparing and contrasting helps in the choice of the best vehicle. Macbeth and Beowulf demonstrate that a warrior's motivations matter for both soldiers and the people.
King Arthur was a very well known person and the story of his life has been told in many different ways. Two different versions of King Arthur's life were "The Passing of Arthur" by Alfred, Lord Tennyson and "The "Death of Arthur"" by Sir Thomas Malory. The two stories shared many similarities, but had no shortage of differences even though they were both about the same person.
Written early in the reign of James I (16031625), Shakespeare's Macbeth is a typical "Jacobean" tragedy in many important respects. Referred to superstitiously by actors as "the Scottish play," the script commemorates James's national heritage by depicting events during the years 1040 to 1057 in his native Scotland. The play also celebrates the ruler's intense interest in witchcraft and magic, which was recorded in a book he wrote in 1597 entitled Demonology. Further topical allusions to the king include all the passages in the script mentioning sleeplessness, which are relevant since James was a well-known insomniac.
The essence of Macbeth lies not only in the fact that it is written by the universal talent William Shakespeare; the royal-conspiracy, the political unethical activity, the killin...
William Shakespeare’s tragedy play Macbeth bears little resemblance to the actual history of Scotland. Through his writing he praised King James I’s ancestor, Banquo, as an innocent victim who was betrayed by his good friend, Macbeth. However, in reality he helps Macbeth kill Duncan. Shakespeare even changed history by creating Macbeth as a dark and evil human and also including scenes of witchcraft. William drastically altered history for the approval and satisfaction of King James I.
The basic setting of Macbeth is a man named Lord Macbeth usurping the Scottish throne from the rightful ruler. Shakespeare's writing was based on "Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1577), the authoritative historical text of the period". In this historical account, there are stories of murder, deceit, and tradition, from which Shakespeare draws his inspiration for Macbeth. The fashion in which Macbeth murdered his king is extremely similar to how one of King Duff's retainers ended his life. Around 1605 when Shakespeare wrote Macbeth, King James I had recently taken the throne of England after having been known as King James IV of Scotland. Macbeth's identity as a Scot is a nod to James I original Scottish upbringing and heritage (www.westirondequoit.org).
Shakespeare, William, and John Crowther. No Fear Shakespeare: Macbeth. ed. New York: Spark Publishing, 2003. Print.