The violence of Macbeth surprised me. Out of the
Shakespeare plays that I have read, it is by far the most violent. Many of
Shakespeare’s plays depict murders, but the murders in Macbeth were especially sinister in nature. The first murder sets
the tone for the play’s exploration of brutal, senseless, and grisly violence
in several ways. The scene in which Macbeth brutally murders King Duncan is terrifying
and gruesome. It is terrifying because it is done while the king is sleeping
and is defenseless. I was most disturbed by the gruesome image of Macbeth
covered in King Duncan’s blood and by my visualization of him smearing the
blood on the clothes of the scapegoats behind the scenes. Also because King
Duncan is such a goodhearted and likable character, his murder weighs heavily
on our sympathies. Macbeth and his wife plot to kill him because they are ruled
by their ambition and their greed. King Duncan does nothing to deserve his
death. The tragedy of his death derives from the distressing knowledge that he
dies because of their vices.
The second moment of disturbing
violence occurs when Macbeth orders the death of his former close friend,
Banquo. Though this death is not especially gruesome, it is disturbing because
Macbeth has now indirectly killed a close friend. The ease with which he
betrays his innocent friend, merely to ensure his kingship, reveals how savage,
brutal, and ruthless Macbeth has become.
The murder of Macduff’s wife and
child was the third death that upset my stomach. Macbeth orders these murders
so that he can capture Macduff’s stronghold, thus reducing Macduff’s power and
presence in Scotland as well as decreasing the likelihood that he seizes the
throne from him. It disturbed me to imagine that any person could demand or
perform the brutal stabbing of an innocent young boy to death for the sole
purpose of taking a preventative measure to protect ones power.
Post-Lecture Impressions:
After our
lecture in class, I started to understand why the violence in Macbeth is so much more brutal and
prevalent than in Shakespeare’s other tragedies and plays of political upheaval
such as Richard II and Julius Caesar. It seems to me that the
supernatural element of Macbeth gives
it an especially sinister mood. By attempting to fulfill the witches’ prophecy,
Macbeth gives it credibility and makes himself vulnerable to the wildness and
unpredictability of the supernatural realm. Whereas Richard II’s malice is
purely a product of his own flawed nature, Macbeth’s descent into evil is
brought about by his alignment with the supernatural realm. Sixteenth century
Christian beliefs underlie the portrayal of the supernatural as necessarily
dangerous and evil. This quality of the play reminds me of another play that I
once read for my Renaissance Literature class, Doctor Faustus. Though it came later than Macbeth, Doctor Faustus portrays the supernatural in a similar
fashion. Like Macbeth, Doctor Faustus sensationalizes
and romanticizes demonology and the supernatural even though it denounces it.
Doctor Faustus’ tragic fate comes about because he collaborates with devils in order
to gain power much as Macbeth liaises with the witches in order to gain power. Macbeth
and Lady Macbeth’s catastrophic downfall is a warning against the perils of the
supernatural. Their fate also warns against the destructive nature of ambition.
Before Macbeth decides to follow the ill-fated, homicidal path to power that
the witches have devised, he shows his morality and rationality by weighing the
benefits and disadvantages of the plan. In fact, before Lady Macbeth persuades
him to proceed with the plan, Macbeth expresses great reluctance: “I have no
spur/To prick the sides of my intent, but only/Vaulting ambition which
o’erleaps itself/And falls on th’other” (1.7.25-28). Macbeth realizes that his
only reason for murdering King Duncan is the strength of his ambition, which he
cannot rationalize as a sufficient cause. He does not decide to act on it until
Lady Macbeth persuades him.
My first
impression of Lady Macbeth was that she was senselessly unjustifiably cruel and
callous. Once she learns of the prophecy that her husband will take the throne,
she vows to set aside the good side of her nature in order to ensure her
husband’s success. During our lecture, I learned that her intentions might have
been motivated by more than simple ambition and callousness. In her attempt to
motivate Macbeth to murder King Duncan, she says viciously, “I have given suck,
and know/How tender ‘tis to love the babe that milk me./I would, while it was
smiling in my face,/Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums/And dashed
the brains out, had I so sworn/As you have done to this” (1.7.54-59). I had
previously viewed this as further evidence of her inherent malice until Dr.
McNamara pointed out the implications of this violent imagery. Evidently, she
has had a son in the past that no longer exists. Most likely, he has died at
some point in his early childhood. Lady Macbeth’s reference to this child in
such an unusual context suggests that his death may have played some part in
her ruthless pursuance of King Duncan’s murder. The exact impact of this past
experience on her attitude is impossible to determine. She could be trying to
channel her grief and pain into anger and violence. At the same time, she could
be making an effort to rid herself of the weight of her grief by forcing
herself to act as though she is callous and merciless. Regardless of the reason for its origin, her nasty
disposition changes after her husband’s plan succeeds. Gradually, she descends
into incoherent madness. This transformation makes it extremely unlikely that
she was as callous as she seemed at the start of the play. The evils she and
her husband committed begin to haunt her and destroy her sanity, which
indicates that her outward cruelty masked her genuine nature, whatever that may
have been.
No comments:
Post a Comment