So much of classic literature centers around the ideas of sovereignty and power, because of kingship's prevalence in our history. This provides an important perspective into the common people's trust of authority, and how it changes over time. The texts Beowulf and Macbeth, in particular, highlight the self-serving attitude that so many rulers possess: both protagonists place themselves before their respective kingdoms, turning their prosperity and order into bleak futures of chaos. The two stories together deconstruct the absolute judgment of authority, and show how—with intentions good or bad—the self-centered cannot become good leaders because they can only look out for themselves. With all of his bravery and valor, Beowulf embodies the…show more content… This combination of characteristics gives Macbeth a latent desire for power, which he is unable to act upon until the events of the story, when he meets the witches and finds incentive to fulfill this desire. But as he acts more and more upon his lust for power, Macbeth becomes unable to stop his futile quest. Lamenting his situation, Macbeth decides that “I am in blood / Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er” (3.4.1440-2); stopping would provide for him as many problems as continuing, so Macbeth sets himself to continue his endless march. Nowhere in this or any soliloquy does he mention the cost towards the kingdom—the burden regicide places upon a people means nothing compared to Macbeth's need for control. This single-minded drive shows the negative side of Macbeth's ambition, and his lack of good intent; it, like Beowulf's greed, also leads to his death. Macbeth's murderous acts culminate in a battle at his castle, where Macduff ultimately beheads him; to his comrades, Macduff says “behold, where stands / The usurper’s cursed head: the time is free” (2542-3), showing just how detested a tyrant was Macbeth. Their referring to him as 'cursed' and rejoicing the end of his reign makes sense: Macbeth destroyed a time of new-found peace and transformed the kingdom into a bloodbath. His…show more content… Both demonstrate inherently poor decision making, going contrary to the deference towards authority of their respective times; despite their differing circumstances, they follow similar self-serving paths that suggest similar attitudes towards the monarchy when they were each written. The idea of a king who serves himself over his kingdom is one that has then been around for centuries, and is easily applicable to the world today: the chaos wrought by unscrupulous leaders is a prevailing issue even now, indicating the near-timelessness of the rift between population and government. The two protagonists are therefore characteristic of a more universal message: that leaders motivated by self-interest cannot do good by their nations, and that they can only bring disorder and
