Shakespeare seems to suggest that Duncan's acquiescent and innocent nature and Macbeth's extreme violence make ineffective leaders. An ideal leader on the other hand, has a balance between the "king-becoming graces" and necessary violence.

Authors Avatar

Shakespeare seems to suggest that Duncan’s acquiescent and innocent nature and Macbeth’s extreme violence make ineffective leaders. An ideal leader on the other hand, has a balance between the “king-becoming graces” and necessary violence.

Duncan, the beloved and respected king of Scotland whom Macbeth murders in order to become king is the model of a virtuous and benevolent ruler. His death symbolizes the destruction of the great chain of being (http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/macbeth/canalysis.html). He however is not an effective leader. His over trusting and gullible nature prevents him of seeing what was bound to happen. His tendency to make snap decisions is his hamartia, which leads to his downfall. After he is informed of Macbeth’s victory in battle he rewards him with the title, “thane of Cawdor” without realizing that he is an ambitious person who is willing to destroy anything on his path to get what he desires.

Join now!

Macbeth started out as a good leader and seemed to be worthy of the title, “thane of Cawdor.” According to the bloody sergeant, he bravely fought against Macdonwald, the rebel and the Norwegians. He was referred to as “valiant cousin” and  “worthy gentleman” (1.2 24). During act 2 however, Macbeth looses his values as a good leader and becomes a ruthless murderer, going on a massive killing spree. A true king, according to Malcolm should be able to offer the kingdom order and justice, without compromising the comfort and affection of the public. On the contrary, Macbeth brings only chaos ...

This is a preview of the whole essay