macbeth and violence essay

Macbeth and Violence — Example A Grade Essay

Here’s an essay on Macbeth’s violent nature that I wrote as a mock exam practice with students. Feel free to read and analyse it, use the quotes and context for your own essays too!

It’s also useful for anyone studying Macbeth in general, especially with the following exam boards: CAIE / Cambridge, Edexcel, OCR, CCEA, WJEC / Eduqas.

Thanks for reading! If you find this resource useful, you can take a look at our full online Macbeth course here . Use the code “SHAKESPEARE” to receive a 50% discount!

This course includes:

A full set of video lessons on each key element of the text: summary, themes, setting, characters, context, attitudes, analysis of key quotes, essay questions, essay examples
Downloadable documents for each video lesson
A range of example B-A* / L7-L9 grade essays, both at GCSE (ages 14-16) and A-Level (age 16+) with teacher comments and mark scheme feedback
A bonus Macbeth workbook designed to guide you through each scene of the play!

For more help with Macbeth and Tragedy, read our article here .

THE QUESTION

Starting with this speech, explore how far shakespeare presents macbeth as a violent character. (act 1 scene 2).

Debate: How far is Macbeth violent? (AGREE / DISAGREE)

Themes: Violence (break into different types of violence)

Focus: Character of Macbeth (what he says/does, other character’s actions towards him and speech about him)

PLAN — 6–8 mins

Thesis – Shakespeare uses Macbeth to make us question the nature of violence and whether any kind of violent behaviour is ever appropriate

Point 1 : Macbeth has an enjoyment of violence

‘Brandished steel’ ‘smoked with bloody execution’

‘Unseam’d him from the nave to’th’chops’ ‘fixed his head upon the battlements’

Context — Thou shalt not kill / Tragic hero

Point 2 : Macbeth is a violent character from the offset, but this violence is acceptable at first

‘Disdaining Fortune’ ‘valiant cousin/ worthy gentleman’

‘Worthy to be a rebel’

Context: Divine Right of Kings / James I legacy

Point 3: The witches and Lady Macbeth manipulate that violent power

‘Fair is foul and foul is fair’ ‘so foul and fair a day I have not seen’

‘Will these hands never be clean?’ ‘incarnadine’

‘Is this a dagger I see before me?’

Context: Psychological power — Machiavelli / Demonology

(Point 4) Ultimately, Macbeth is undone by violence in the end

Hubris — ‘Macduff was from his mother’s womb untimely ripp’d’

‘Traitor’ ‘Tyrant’

‘Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing’

Context: Violence for evil means is unsustainable, political unrest equally is negative and unsustainable — support James

Macbeth is certainly portrayed as a violent character from the offset, but initially this seems a positive trait: the Captain, Ross and others herald him as a great warrior, both an ally and valuable asset to Duncan and his kingdom. Furthermore, Duncan himself is overjoyed at Macbeth’s skill in battle. Yet, as the play progresses and Macbeth embarks upon his tragic fall, Shakespeare encourages us to question the nature of violence itself, and whether any kind of violence is truly good. Ultimately, Shakespeare demonstrates that Macbeth’s enjoyment of violence works against him, as it is manipulated by the evil forces at work in the play, and it ends in destroying not only himself but his entire life’s work, reputation and legacy.

Firstly, Macbeth is established as a character who embraces violence, though he uses it as a force for good in the sense that he defends Duncan and his Kingdom against traitors and the King of Norway’s attack. In the play, it is interesting to note that Macbeth’s reputation precedes him — despite being the central focus of the tragedy, we do not meet him until Act 1 Scene 3, and so this extract occurs before we have seen the man himself. The Captain’s speech begins with the dramatic utterance ‘Doubtful it stood’, creating a sense of tension and uncertainty as he recounts the events of the battle to Duncan and the others. Yet, the tone of the speech becomes increasingly full of praise and confidence as he explains how Macbeth and Banquo overcame ‘Fortune’, the luck that went against them, and their strong willpower enabled them to defeat ‘the merciless Macdonwald’, the alliteration serving to underscore the Captain’s dislike of the man, while the adjective ‘merciless’ implies that the traitor himself was also cruel and violent. The sense that Macbeth enjoys the violence he enacts upon the traitor is conveyed through visual imagery, which is graphic and quite repellent: ‘his brandish’d steel… smoked with bloody execution’ and ‘he unseam’d [Macdonwald] from the nave to th’chops’. The dynamic verb ‘smoked’ suggests the intense action of the scene and the amount of fresh blood that had stained Macbeth’s sword. Furthermore, the verb ‘unseam’d’ suggests the skill with which Macbeth is able to kill — he does not simply stab the traitor, he delicately and expertly destroys him, almost as if he’s a butcher who takes pleasure in his profession, and indeed at the end of the play Macduff does call him by this same term: ‘the dead butcher and his fiend-like queen’. Interestingly, much of the violence that occurs in the play happens offstage, Duncan is murdered in between Acts 2.1 and 2.2., as are Banquo and Macduff’s family. Even in this early scene, the audience hear about the violence rather than experiencing it directly. This suggests perhaps that for a Jacobean audience at a time of political instability, Shakespeare wanted to discourage the idea or enjoyment of violence whilst still exploring the idea of it in human nature and psychology. Furthermore, a contemporary audience would be aware of the Biblical commandment ‘thou shall not kill’, which expressed that violence and murder of any kind was a sinful act against God. Therefore, we can see that Macbeth is established as a tragic hero from the offset, though he is a successful character and increasing his power within the feudal world, this power is built upon his capacity for and enjoyment of violence, which will ultimately cause him to fail and in turn warn the Jacobean audience against any kind of violence in their own lives.

We could also interpret Macbeth as inherently violent, but under control of his own power at the beginning of the play, an aspect of himself which degenerates under the influence of evil. Though he is physically great, he is easily manipulated by the witches and Lady Macbeth, all of whom are arguably psychologically stronger. The use of chiasmus in the opening scene — ‘fair is foul and foul is fair’ is echoed by Macbeth’s first line in Act One Scene 3: ‘so foul and fair a day I have not seen’. Delving deeper into the meaning of these lines also reveals more about Shakespeare’s opinions on the inherent nature of violence; though the language is equivocal and can be interpreted in many ways, we can assume that the witches are implying that the world has become inverted, that ugliness and evil are now ‘fair’, what is seen as right or normal in Macbeth’s violent world. Macbeth uses similar lines, but with a different meaning, he is stating that he has never seen a day so ‘foul’, so full of gore and death, that was at the same time so ‘fair’, so good in terms of outcome, and positive for the future. Shakespeare is perhaps exposing an inherent paradox in violence here, that war and murder is thought by many to be noble if it leads to a positive political outcome. Furthermore, Lady Macbeth encourages and appeals to Macbeth’s sense for violence by directly associating it with masculinity and male traits that were considered noble or desirable in the Jacobean era. She questions him just prior to Duncan’s death, stating ‘I fear thy nature is too full o’th’milk of human kindness / to catch the nearest way’, using ‘milk’ as a symbol of femininity to imply his womanly and cowardly nature, while in turn asking evil spirits to ‘unsex’ her and fill her with ‘direst cruelty’. In this sense, it could be argued that Shakespeare is commenting on the connections between nature and violence, perhaps a Jacobean audience would have understood that Macbeth fighting for the king was an acceptable outlet for his violence, whereas Macbeth using violence for personal gain and Lady Macbeth’s wish to become more masculine, and therefore more violent, are all against the perceived view of natural gender and social roles of the time. Overall, we could say that the culture itself, which encourages Machievellian disruption and political vying for power through both women and men stepping out of the social norms of their society, encourages more violence and evil to enter the world.

Alternatively, it could be argued that Shakespeare uses Macbeth’s success through violence to criticise the nature of the Early Modern world, and so it is not Macbeth’s violence itself which is at fault, but the world which embraces and encourages this in him. Duncan responds to the Captain’s speech by exclaiming ‘valiant cousin’ ‘worthy gentleman!’, demonstrating his extreme faith in Macbeth’s powers. The Captain additionally terms him ‘Brave Macbeth’, stating ‘well he deserves that name’, suggesting that the general structure of the world supports violent and potentially unstable characters such as Macbeth, enabling them to rise to power beyond their means. Interestingly the downfall of Macbeth is foreshadowed early on in this extract, as the term ‘worthy’ is also applied to the traitor in the Captain’s speech, when he states Macdonwald is ‘worthy to be a rebel’, the repetition of this adjective perhaps subtly compares Macdonwald’s position to Macbeth’s own, as Macbeth’s own death also is similar to the initial traitors, with his own head being ‘fixed…upon the battlements’ of Inverness castle. Through this repetition of staging and terminology, we realise that the world is perhaps at fault more than Macbeth himself, as it encourages a cycle of violence and political instability. Though there is a sense of positivity in extract as Duncan has succeeded in securing the throne and defeating the traitor, the violent context in which this action occurs, being set in 11th century feudal Scotland, suggests the underlying political unrest that mirrors the political instability of Shakespeare’s own time. The play was first performed in 1606, three years after James I had been made King of England (though he was already King of Scotland at this time), and in 1605 there had been a violent attempt on his life with the Gunpowder Plot from a group of secret Catholics who felt they were being underrepresented. Shakespeare’s own family were known associates of some of the perpetrators, so it is likely that he intended to clear suspicion of his own name by creating a play that strongly supported James I’s Divine Right to rule. In this sense, we can see that the concept of a cycle of violence that is created through political instability is integral to Shakespeare’s overall purpose, he is strongly conveying to the audience that not only is Macbeth’s personal violence sinful, but the way in which society encourages people to become violent is terrible and must be stopped, for the good of everyone.

In summary, Macbeth is established from the offset as a violent character, who takes pride and pleasure in fighting and killing. However, Shakespeare is careful not to make this violent action central to the enjoyment of the play (until the very end, when Macbeth himself is defeated), to force us to engage with the psychology of violence more than the physical nature of it. Though the women in the play are passive, Lady Macbeth and the witches prove to incite violence in Macbeth’s nature and lead ultimately to more evil entering the world. Finally, we can interpret the violence of the play as a criticism of the political and social instability of Jacobean times, rather than it being purely Macbeth’s fault, Shakespeare is exploring how the society itself encourages instability through the encouragement of Machiavellian ideas such as power grabbing, nepotism, greed and ambition.

If you’re studying Macbeth, you can click here to buy our full online course. Use the code “SHAKESPEARE” to receive a 50% discount!

You will gain access to over 8 hours of engaging video content , plus downloadable PDF guides for Macbeth that cover the following topics:

Character analysis
Plot summaries
Deeper themes

There are also tiered levels of analysis that allow you to study up to GCSE , A Level and University level .

You’ll find plenty of top level example essays that will help you to write your own perfect ones!

The Theme of Morality in To Kill A Mockingbird

Unseen Poetry Exam Practice – Spring

To Kill A Mockingbird Essay Writing – PEE Breakdown

Emily Dickinson A Level Exam Questions

Poem Analysis: Sonnet 116 by William Shakespeare

An Inspector Calls – Official AQA Exam Questions

The Dolls House by Katherine Mansfield: Summary + Analysis

An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge: Stories of Ourselves:

How to Get Started with Narrative Writing

Robert Frost’s Life and Poetic Career

William Shakespeare

Ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

To call Macbeth a violent play is an understatement. It begins in battle, contains the murder of men, women, and children, and ends not just with a climactic siege but the suicide of Lady Macbeth and the beheading of its main character, Macbeth . In the process of all this bloodshed, Macbeth makes an important point about the nature of violence: every violent act, even those done for selfless reasons, seems to lead inevitably to the next. The violence through which Macbeth takes the throne, as Macbeth himself realizes, opens the way for others to try to take the throne for themselves through violence. So Macbeth must commit more violence, and more violence, until violence is all he has left. As Macbeth himself says after seeing Banquo's ghost, "blood will to blood." Violence leads to violence, a vicious cycle.

Violence ThemeTracker

Violence Quotes in Macbeth

Mr Salles Teaches English

How is Violence Portrayed in Macbeth?

Another top grade essay.

Students keep sending me essays, which is great for you, and terrible for me.

I’m busy making videos. I’m releasing courses on AQA GCSE language . I’m collabbing with Mr Everything English and First Rate Tutor.

But, exams are coming - and so I turn to Tilf.io.

I’ve just had a chat with Kelly, and I’ve said students need more than one free go. And she says, ah, but they can. If you get anyone else to sign up for a free go, you get more free goes. I wish you would do that so that you don’t send them to me!

Give Tilf.io a go. It now gives you a mark too.

In Shakespeare's archetypal, allegorical play "Macbeth", Macbeth's violence is constructed as a warning outlining the detrimental repercussions on morality when employing violence to fulfil selfish ambitions in order to obtain power. In Macbeth's character, violence is inextricably liked to his ambition and his path to usurping the throne, as well as the gender roles prescribed by a patriarchal society that incites a trajectory to prove ones self-worth by procuring an unblemished masculinity.

(This introduction sets up a clear argument about the thematic link between violence and ambition in 'Macbeth'. You effectively introduce the idea that violence is not only a physical act but also tied to societal expectations of masculinity. However, be cautious with phrasing to ensure clarity; 'inextricably liked' may be a typo for 'linked'.)

In the extract Macbeth’s violent acts are commemorated in battle, using violence to defend one's country and defeat ones enemies is valued and respected. The Captain illustrates Macbeth's brave conquering as honoured: "Disdaining Fortune... smoked with bloody execution". The use of religious imagery within "fortune", could suggest how Macbeth's acts of "valour" were honourable and true, how he is so "worthy" that he can destroy his countries enemy, by his own might, without god's help. In this Shakespeare displays the idea that some violent acts are necessary and "valiant", and so initially Macbeth's acts are alined with God and the divine order. Alternatively, "fortune"could allude to fate and the predetermined, relating to gods divine plan. However, it is curious how Macbeth wasn't blessed or crowned with "fortune", he was "disdaining fortune" suggesting a disregard, deeming the fortune of god unworthy. Although, Macbeth is being celebrated and praised, there is an underlying theme of him usurping the fortune of god to obtain a violent conquering in battle.

(You provide a nuanced analysis of the extract, exploring the dual nature of violence as both honorable and potentially hubristic. The examination of the term 'fortune' is insightful, showing an understanding of the complexity of Shakespeare's language. However, ensure that you maintain a focus on the question by explicitly linking these observations back to the presentation of violence.)

Furthermore, the metaphor of "smoked" connotes to heat and hell, foreshadowing the moral, phycological and physiological ramifications of Macbeth's violent acts. Shakespeare instills this idea of violence within Macbeth's character as inherent, from the beginning of the play and even while Macbeth is being payed homage to thee is an underlying shadow of violent acts to defend Scotland that is accepted, now even thought these violent acts, later, bring about his tragic downfall. Perhaps, Shakespeare constructs this in order to appease James I, Shakespeare's patron- this idea of the tragic and eternal consequence of even a trusted, honoured soldier, betraying their king, usurping power- dissuading anyone from treason.

(Your analysis of the metaphor 'smoked' is effective in exploring the ominous undertones of Macbeth's violence. The connection to King James I and the potential political implications of the play is a sophisticated contextual point. However, be mindful of spelling and grammatical errors ('phycological' should be 'psychological', 'payed' should be 'paid', and 'thee' seems out of place) as they can detract from the clarity of your argument.)

In acts 2 Macbeth's portrayal as a violent character is embossed with mania and aggression, initiating his decent from "worthy" to "fiend". as Macbeth outlines his ambitions, he says "with Tarquins ravishing strides, towards his design". This remark to Tarquin, a Roman tyrant who rapped his wife, revealed the constraints that Macbeth has been "cabined, cribbed, confined" too. Shakespeare utilises the prescribed gender roles of society to expose their corrupt and immoral ways. Macbeth, emasculated by lady Macbeth's "when you durst do it, then you were a man", has lost a sense of his own identity within his masculinity. his aspiration to emaciate Tarquin, who ruled ruthlessly, signifies that he now perceives power synonymous with brutality and toxic masculinity. Moreover the idea of "design" further alludes to gods "design" of creation, demonstrating that Macbeth's ambition, fuelled by violent means, is to obtain the intention, time and power of the gods. To a pious Jacobean audience, this idea of Macbeth's aspiration for transgression against the natural order exacerbates Macbeth as, not only a physically violent character but also a threat to gods diving order.

(This paragraph offers a strong analysis of Macbeth's descent into violence and the influence of gender roles. The reference to Tarquin is well-chosen and effectively used to illustrate Macbeth's changing perception of power. However, there are several typographical errors ('rapped' should be 'raped', 'emaciate' seems incorrect, 'gods' should be 'God's', 'durst' should be 'dare', 'diving' should be 'divine') that need to be addressed. Additionally, ensure that your analysis remains focused on the presentation of violence as per the essay question.)

In conclusion, Shakespeare presents Macbeth's ambition as innate and internalised. As a "worthy" character, although patriotically, Macbeth employs violence so powerful that it can overwhelm and disregard fortune". furthermore, as a tyrant, Macbeth's violence is continually ingrained into his mentality and being, inflamed from his emasculation. This cyclical structure, demonstrates how Macbeth is "smoked" in eternal damnation for his instinctuall violence and brutality to fulfil his own self-serving ambition.

(Your conclusion effectively summarises the key points of your essay, reinforcing the idea that Macbeth's violence is a product of his ambition and societal pressures. However, the conclusion could be strengthened by more explicitly tying these points back to the question of how violence is presented in the play. Also, watch out for typographical errors ('instinctuall' should be 'instinctual', 'fortune"' is missing the opening quotation mark) and ensure that the final sentence is grammatically complete.)

Mr Salles Teaches English is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts which help you get top grades, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Mark: 21 - 24 (this is a beta feature and mark may not be very accurate)

Overall feedback:

Your essay demonstrates a thoughtful and developed consideration of the presentation of violence in 'Macbeth', with a particular focus on the interplay between ambition, societal expectations, and gender roles. You provide a range of apt references and integrate them well into your interpretations. To improve, pay close attention to typographical and grammatical accuracy, as errors can detract from the overall quality of your work. Additionally, ensure that each point you make is explicitly linked back to the question to maintain a clear and focused argument throughout.

What went well: The essay shows a strong understanding of the thematic complexities in 'Macbeth' and provides a nuanced analysis of the text. The use of context to inform the interpretation is particularly well done.

Even better if: To achieve a higher level, work on refining the precision of language and proofreading to eliminate typographical errors. Ensure that all analysis is clearly and consistently linked back to the question of how violence is presented in the play.

Thank you for reading Mr Salles Teaches English. This post is public so feel free to share it with someone else who wants top grades.

Ready for more?

Macbeth by William Shakespeare: a timeless exploration of violence and treachery

Senior Lecturer (English and Drama) ANU, Australian National University

Disclosure statement

Kate Flaherty works for the Australian National University. She has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Australian National University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

In our Guide to the Classics series, experts explain key works of literature.

Macbeth issues a warning: the greatest risk to the inner life comes from the delusion that it does not exist.

“A little water clears us of this deed,” says Lady Macbeth, thinking that getting the look right will make it right. But in doing so she commits treachery upon her inner life.

In a world where existence seems increasingly to equate to self-projection, she is an example of the mistake we make when we see the visible surface of public and social media as the place where reality plays out, the place where we see what we are.

Macbeth, like most of Shakespeare’s plays, sets two worlds spinning: one of outer action and one of inner being. The collision of their orbits provides the spark for the drama. The themes of Macbeth’s outer world of action are violence and treachery. The intersecting themes of its inner world are ambition, and moral reasoning.

In exploring what holds a society together and what tears it apart, the play doesn’t just condemn violence, it dramatises its uses. The play showcases both loyal violence and treacherous violence.

In Act One, Scene One, a soldier reports that Macbeth, a Scottish general, has shown prowess on the battlefield and “unseamed” his rebel opponent, Macdonald, “from the nave to th’ chops.” That means he cut him in half.

Macbeth does this in loyal service to King Duncan, and usually enters the stage splattered with blood, that of his victims and his own – blood lost in service to his king. The military campaign is to suppress domestic rebellion. Among the rebels is the “disloyal traitor” the Thane of Cawdor, whose title Duncan transfers to Macbeth, commanding that the treacherous clan chief be executed.

Macbeth’s first promotion, then, is gained through the sanctioned violence of killing traitors. There is a fragile moment at the beginning of the play, when this violence seems to have restored order.

Read more: 'Supp'd full with horrors': 400 years of Shakespearean supernaturalism

Macbeth’s second promotion is also achieved through violence, but this time by premeditated treachery. The witches on the heath greet him as Thane of Glamis, which he is, Thane of Cawdor, which we know from Duncan’s command that he will be, and “king hereafter”.

This sets the spark to the powder keg of Macbeth’s ambition. Violence is in his repertoire and he needs only to take one violent step further to fulfil their prophecy.

The thought of killing the king, a thought “whose murder yet is but fantastical”, occurs to him immediately. And when he arrives back at his castle, his wife Lady Macbeth urges him to “catch the nearest way” to fulfilment of the prophecy by stabbing King Duncan to death as he sleeps in their home.

Here one of the inner-world themes intrudes – who is morally responsible for what Macbeth does? Do the witches wield power over him? Does Lady Macbeth, as the architect of regicide, carry equal blame with Macbeth?

Read more: Guide to the classics: Shakespeare's Hamlet, the Everest of literature

Outer and inner dimensions

The unfolding of their murderous plot is dramatised by Shakespeare as having outer and inner dimensions. The physical world is portrayed as instantly ruptured by their act of violence. Even before Duncan’s murder is discovered, Lennox speaks of the unruly night that has passed: chimneys were blown down, strange lamentings and screams of death were heard in the air, and the earth shook and was feverish.

There is dramatic irony in Macbeth’s response to this poetic description of cosmic disorder: “It was a rough night.”

Society is also fractured. Duncan’s sons flee Scotland. A mood of paranoid crisis sets in as Macbeth is crowned.

But the treachery resonates inwardly, too, and Shakespeare keeps the inner dimension perpetually before the audience. That image from Act One of a man split down the middle is a potent symbol for the destruction the Macbeths have wrought upon themselves.

The order of Macbeth’s mind begins to break down the moment he murders his king. He roams out of the king’s chamber with the bloody daggers still in his hands saying he has heard a voice cry, “Sleep no more! Macbeth does murder sleep.”

Lady Macbeth seems to preserve her practical mindset for a time. She says “a little water clears us of this deed”. But this is another moment of dramatic irony. Her moral delusion is patent.

It seems that Macbeth, with his auditory and ocular hallucinations, has the clearer moral vision. Inevitably, her sleeping mind goes to war with her waking consciousness: “Out damn spot!” She cannot unsee the blood on her hands.

The Macbeths have failed to anticipate that their inner lives – their minds and their functional connection with the world – will be broken by their outer action. Remarkably, these mental, physical, spiritual breakdowns are rendered from the sufferers’ point of view.

Before he kills the king, Macbeth gives a speech about ambition that shows he has the moral insight to avoid the crime. He says he has “no spur to prick the sides of [his] intent”, using the metaphor of riding a horse to express that there is nothing about Duncan to urge him forward into the act of murder.

Macbeth realises he has “only vaulting ambition”, which leaps over itself and falls on the other side. He anticipates the catastrophe, but he kills the king anyway.

Read more: Guide to the classics: Shakespeare’s sonnets — an honest account of love and a surprising portal to the man himself

The twists and turns of moral reasoning

Why does Shakespeare include such contradictions?

Shakespeare understood that it is spellbinding to witness a character forming an inner resolution, or breaking one. In Macbeth, the stakes are high: an innocent life and a kingdom’s peace hang in the balance. The tension is relentless. Lady Macbeth enters, cutting off Macbeth’s reflection on ambition. He has just reasoned himself out of committing the murder, and she reasons him back into it.

The play dramatises the twists and turns of moral reasoning and the pressure of emotional coercion on conscience. Macbeth is wise and compassionate one instant, and preparing to kill his friend the next. This challenges our tendency to see the world in black and white, populated by good people and bad people.

All of the themes of Macbeth – violence, treachery, moral reasoning, conscience and ambition – were close the surface of public consciousness in Shakespeare’s day.

Since Henry VIII left the Catholic Church, establishing himself as the head of the Church of England in 1534, the nation’s political landscape had been riven by religious opposition. This affected people’s everyday lives and challenged their deepest inner convictions. In 1557, you could be burned as a heretic for being Protestant; in 1567, you could be burned as a heretic for being Catholic.

Being able to see the soul in motion, as Shakespeare allows his audience to do, was a fantasy that interrogators of both Catholic and Protestant persuasions would have cherished.

By the time Shakespeare wrote Macbeth, he was a member of The King’s Men – a playing company patronised directly by a new king – James the First of England and the Sixth (you guessed it) of Scotland. What can we make of the fact of Shakespeare writing a Scottish play for a Scottish king, who is also the boss of his particular business enterprise? He had to be very careful.

Shakespeare steered a clever course. His play seems mildly topical and politically correct on the surface, but underneath it complicated the moral questions of its moment.

The first thing to be aware of is that James had a preoccupation with the occult. In 1597, James had published a book called Demonology , seeking to prove and condemn witchcraft. He had it published again in 1603 when he became King of England.

Shakespeare seems to pander to this obsession when he includes witches in his play, who discuss spells and make prophetic predictions.

Notice, though, that Shakespeare leaves unanswered the question of their moral culpability. We are left wondering whether it pleased or disturbed King James that the supernatural element in the play explains very little about the actions of its characters. Shakespeare portrays the Macbeths’ ambition for power as perfectly adequate motivation for their criminal action.

The second thing to be aware of is the Gunpower Plot . When Macbeth was first staged in 1606, England was reeling from the discovery of a nearly successful conspiracy to blow up parliament. If successful, the attempt would have killed the king and a large number of the nation’s ruling class, and triggered catastrophic civic disorder.

Read more: The Gunpowder Plot: torture and persecution in fact and fiction

Gunpowder, treason and plot

On 4 November 1605, Guy Fawkes was arrested. A letter tipping off a member of parliament had led to the discovery of a stash of barrels of gunpowder in a cellar under parliament. Under torture, Fawkes revealed the names of his Catholic conspirators.

The discovery of the plot was promoted as a defining moment of victory for the Protestant nation against its Catholic traitors within, and led to intensified persecution of Catholics across Europe.

The adage, don’t waste a crisis, seems to have been heeded by James. Even in its own moment, the event became a black and white moral fable, in which treachery was weeded out and punished with violence. The traitors were tortured and publicly executed. Their bodies were literally quartered.

How did Shakespeare’s play, first performed in 1606, engage with the Gunpowder Plot and the grisly punishment of its perpetrators?

On the surface, Shakespeare cashed in on the way the Gunpowder Plot had shocked the people of London. Fireworks, or “squibs”, were used at the opening of the play as special effects for the “thunder and lightning” called for in the script. It is easy to imagine the first audience jumping with terror and then telling friends to attend the next spectacular performance.

By inventing the witches, Shakespeare also sets up ambiguous, almost imaginary figures of evil who “melt into air”. Were these anything like the monsters that the trial of the Gunpowder Plot conspirators had created in the public imagination? Many understood the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot to be an act of supernatural preservation of their God-ordained ruler. A silver commemorative medal from 1605 bears the Latin inscription: “You [God], the keeper of James, have not slept.”

Tracing a parallel with this sensibility, Shakespeare borrows Banquo – a real 11th century person believed to be an ancestor of King James – from the historical Chronicles of Raphael Holinshed . His characterisation, deviating from that of Holinshed, puts King James, through association, on the side of right in the play.

Shakespeare’s story of Banquo, who is murdered on Macbeth’s orders but returns as a ghost, seems to shore up by supernatural intervention James’ right to the throne. That is, until we consider that the witches who prophesy that Banquo will be the father of kings are the same ones who predict Macbeth’s ascent to the crown.

Shakespeare’s play is unsettling. It provides a thought experiment. It teases out the moral ambiguities of a society whose members see others in black and white, while permitting shades of grey in themselves.

It is a society in which treachery is punished with sanctioned violence, but in which ambition paves the way to real power via both violence and treachery. It is the kingdom of Scotland riven by contending clans. It is England of 1606 reeling from the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. It is our world of perpetual crisis.

Crisis appeals to the human imagination because it offers to suspend the rules by which we normally operate. Crisis can, as Macbeth shows, make moral compromises appeal as “the nearest way” to increased power. It can make brutal measures seem necessary to retain it.

Macbeth issues a warning for our times about the harm done to individuals and societies when they allow the will for power to drown out the inner voice of conscience.

William Shakespeare
Guide to the Classics

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Subject Coordinator in Cultural Studies

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Literary Theory and Criticism

Home › Drama Criticism › Analysis of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth

Analysis of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth

By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on July 25, 2020 • ( 0 )

Macbeth . . . is done upon a stronger and more systematic principle of contrast than any other of Shakespeare’s plays. It moves upon the verge of an abyss, and is a constant struggle between life and death. The action is desperate and the reaction is dreadful. It is a huddling together of fierce extremes, a war of opposite natures which of them shall destroy the other. There is nothing but what has a violent end or violent beginnings. The lights and shades are laid on with a determined hand; the transitions from triumph to despair, from the height of terror to the repose of death, are sudden and startling; every passion brings in its fellow-contrary, and the thoughts pitch and jostle against each other as in the dark. The whole play is an unruly chaos of strange and forbidden things, where the ground rocks under our feet. Shakespear’s genius here took its full swing, and trod upon the farthest bounds of nature and passion.

—William Hazlitt, Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays

Macbeth completes William Shakespeare’s great tragic quartet while expanding, echoing, and altering key elements of Hamlet, Othello, and King Lear into one of the most terrifying stage experiences. Like Hamlet, Macbeth treats the consequences of regicide, but from the perspective of the usurpers, not the dispossessed. Like Othello, Macbeth centers its intrigue on the intimate relations of husband and wife. Like Lear, Macbeth explores female villainy, creating in Lady Macbeth one of Shakespeare’s most complex, powerful, and frightening woman characters. Different from Hamlet and Othello, in which the tragic action is reserved for their climaxes and an emphasis on cause over effect, Macbeth, like Lear, locates the tragic tipping point at the play’s outset to concentrate on inexorable consequences. Like Othello, Macbeth, Shakespeare’s shortest tragedy, achieves an almost unbearable intensity by eliminating subplots, inessential characters, and tonal shifts to focus almost exclusively on the crime’s devastating impact on husband and wife.

What is singular about Macbeth, compared to the other three great Shakespearean tragedies, is its villain-hero. If Hamlet mainly executes rather than murders, if Othello is “more sinned against than sinning,” and if Lear is “a very foolish fond old man” buffeted by surrounding evil, Macbeth knowingly chooses evil and becomes the bloodiest and most dehumanized of Shakespeare’s tragic protagonists. Macbeth treats coldblooded, premeditated murder from the killer’s perspective, anticipating the psychological dissection and guilt-ridden expressionism that Feodor Dostoevsky will employ in Crime and Punishment . Critic Harold Bloom groups the protagonist as “the culminating figure in the sequence of what might be called Shakespeare’s Grand Negations: Richard III, Iago, Edmund, Macbeth.” With Macbeth, however, Shakespeare takes us further inside a villain’s mind and imagination, while daringly engaging our sympathy and identification with a murderer. “The problem Shakespeare gave himself in Macbeth was a tremendous one,” Critic Wayne C. Booth has stated.

Take a good man, a noble man, a man admired by all who know him—and destroy him, not only physically and emotionally, as the Greeks destroyed their heroes, but also morally and intellectually. As if this were not difficult enough as a dramatic hurdle, while transforming him into one of the most despicable mortals conceivable, maintain him as a tragic hero—that is, keep him so sympathetic that, when he comes to his death, the audience will pity rather than detest him and will be relieved to see him out of his misery rather than pleased to see him destroyed.

Unlike Richard III, Iago, or Edmund, Macbeth is less a virtuoso of villainy or an amoral nihilist than a man with a conscience who succumbs to evil and obliterates the humanity that he is compelled to suppress. Macbeth is Shakespeare’s greatest psychological portrait of self-destruction and the human capacity for evil seen from inside with an intimacy that horrifies because of our forced identification with Macbeth.

Although there is no certainty in dating the composition or the first performance of Macbeth, allusions in the play to contemporary events fix the likely date of both as 1606, shortly after the completion and debut of King Lear. Scholars have suggested that Macbeth was acted before James I at Hampton Court on August 7, 1606, during the royal visit of King Christian IV of Denmark and that it may have been especially written for a royal performance. Its subject, as well as its version of Scottish history, suggest an effort both to flatter and to avoid offending the Scottish king James. Macbeth is a chronicle play in which Shakespeare took his major plot elements from Raphael Holinshed’s Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland (1587), but with significant modifications. The usurping Macbeth’s decade-long (and largely successful) reign is abbreviated with an emphasis on the internal and external destruction caused by Macbeth’s seizing the throne and trying to hold onto it. For the details of King Duncan’s death, Shakespeare used Holinshed’s account of the murder of an earlier king Duff by Donwald, who cast suspicion on drunken servants and whose ambitious wife played a significant role in the crime. Shakespeare also eliminated Banquo as the historical Macbeth’s co-conspirator in the murder to promote Banquo’s innocence and nobility in originating a kingly line from which James traced his legitimacy. Additional prominence is also given to the Weird Sisters, whom Holinshed only mentions in their initial meeting of Macbeth on the heath. The prophetic warning “beware Macduff” is attributed to “certain wizards in whose words Macbeth put great confidence.” The importance of the witches and the occult in Macbeth must have been meant to appeal to a king who produced a treatise, Daemonologie (1597), on witch-craft.

The uncanny sets the tone of moral ambiguity from the play’s outset as the three witches gather to encounter Macbeth “When the battle’s lost and won” in an inverted world in which “Fair is foul, and foul is fair.” Nothing in the play will be what it seems, and the tragedy results from the confusion and conflict between the fair—honor, nobility, duty—and the foul—rank ambition and bloody murder. Throughout the play nature reflects the disorder and violence of the action. Opening with thunder and lightning, the drama is set in a Scotland contending with the rebellion of the thane (feudal lord) of Cawdor, whom the fearless and courageous Macbeth has vanquished on the battlefield. The play, therefore, initially establishes Macbeth as a dutiful and trusted vassal of the king, Duncan of Scotland, deserving to be rewarded with the rebel’s title for restoring peace and order in the realm. “What he hath lost,” Duncan declares, “noble Macbeth hath won.” News of this honor reaches Macbeth through the witches, who greet him both as the thane of Cawdor and “king hereafter” and his comrade-in-arms Banquo as one who “shalt get kings, though thou be none.” Like the ghost in Hamlet , the Weird Sisters are left purposefully ambiguous and problematic. Are they agents of fate that determine Macbeth’s doom, predicting and even dictating the inevitable, or do they merely signal a latency in Macbeth’s ambitious character?

When he is greeted by the king’s emissaries as thane of Cawdor, Macbeth begins to wonder if the first predictions of the witches came true and what will come of the second of “king hereafter”:

This supernatural soliciting Cannot be ill, cannot be good. If ill, Why hath it given me earnest of success Commencing in a truth? I am Thane of Cawdor. If good, why do I yield to that suggestion Whose horrid image doth unfix my hair And make my seated heart knock at my ribs, Against the use of nature? Present fears Are less than horrible imaginings: My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical, Shakes so my single state of man that function Is smother’d in surmise, and nothing is But what is not.

Macbeth will be defined by his “horrible imaginings,” by his considerable intellectual and imaginative capacity both to understand what he knows to be true and right and his opposed desires and their frightful consequences. Only Hamlet has as fully a developed interior life and dramatized mental processes as Macbeth in Shakespeare’s plays. Macbeth’s ambition is initially checked by his conscience and by his fear of the unforeseen consequence of violating moral laws. Shakespeare brilliantly dramatizes Macbeth’s mental conflict in near stream of consciousness, associational fashion:

If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly. If th’assassination Could trammel up the consequence, and catch With his surcease, success: that but this blow Might be the be all and the end all, here, But here, upon this bank and shoal of time, We’d jump the life to come. But in these cases We still have judgement here, that we but teach Bloody instructions which, being taught, return To plague th’inventor. This even-handed justice Commends th’ingredients of our poison’d chalice To our own lips. He’s here in double trust: First, as I am his kinsman and his subject, Strong both against the deed; then, as his host, Who should against his murderer shut the door, Not bear the knife myself. Besides, this Duncan Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been So clear in his great office, that his virtues Will plead like angels trumpet-tongued against The deep damnation of his taking-off, And pity, like a naked new-born babe, Striding the blast, or heaven’s cherubin, horsed Upon the sightless couriers of the air, Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye That tears shall drown the wind. I have no spur To prick the sides of my intent, but only Vaulting ambition which o’erleaps itself And falls on the other.

Macbeth’s “spur” comes in the form of Lady Macbeth, who plays on her husband’s selfimage of courage and virility to commit to the murder. She also reveals her own shocking cancellation of gender imperatives in shaming her husband into action, in one of the most shocking passages of the play:

. . . I have given suck, and know How tender ’tis to love the babe that milks 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.

Horrified at his wife’s resolve and cold-blooded calculation in devising the plot, Macbeth urges his wife to “Bring forth menchildren only, / For thy undaunted mettle should compose / Nothing but males,” but commits “Each corporal agent to this terrible feat.”

With the decision to kill the king taken, the play accelerates unrelentingly through a succession of powerful scenes: Duncan’s and Banquo’s murders, the banquet scene in which Banquo’s ghost appears, Lady Macbeth’s sleepwalking, and Macbeth’s final battle with Macduff, Thane of Fife. Duncan’s offstage murder contrasts Macbeth’s “horrible imaginings” concerning the implications and Lady Macbeth’s chilling practicality. Macbeth’s question, “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood / Clean from my hand?” is answered by his wife: “A little water clears us of this deed; / How easy is it then!” The knocking at the door of the castle, ominously signaling the revelation of the crime, prompts the play’s one comic respite in the Porter’s drunken foolery that he is at the door of “Hell’s Gate” controlling the entrance of the damned. With the fl ight of Duncan’s sons, who fear for their lives, causing them to be suspected as murderers, Macbeth is named king, and the play’s focus shifts to Macbeth’s keeping and consolidating the power he has seized. Having gained what the witches prophesied, Macbeth next tries to prevent their prediction that Banquo’s descendants will reign by setting assassins to kill Banquo and his son, Fleance. The plan goes awry, and Fleance escapes, leaving Macbeth again at the mercy of the witches’ prophecy. His psychic breakdown is dramatized by his seeing Banquo’s ghost occupying Macbeth’s place at the banquet. Pushed to the edge of mental collapse, Macbeth steels himself to meet the witches again to learn what is in store for him: “Iam in blood,” he declares, “Stepp’d in so far that, should Iwade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”

The witches reassure him that “none of woman born / Shall harm Macbeth” and that he will never be vanquished until “Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill / Shall come against him.” Confident that he is invulnerable, Macbeth responds to the rebellion mounted by Duncan’s son Malcolm and Macduff, who has joined him in England, by ordering the slaughter of Lady Macduff and her children. Macbeth has progressed from a murderer in fulfillment of the witches predictions to a murderer (of Banquo) in order to subvert their predictions and then to pointless butchery that serves no other purpose than as an exercise in willful destruction. Ironically, Macbeth, whom his wife feared was “too full o’ the milk of human kindness / To catch the nearest way” to serve his ambition, displays the same cold calculation that frightened him about his wife, while Lady Macbeth succumbs psychically to her own “horrible imaginings.” Lady Macbeth relives the murder as she sleepwalks, Shakespeare’s version of the workings of the unconscious. The blood in her tormented conscience that formerly could be removed with a little water is now a permanent noxious stain in which “All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten.” Women’s cries announcing her offstage death are greeted by Macbeth with detached indifference:

I have almost forgot the taste of fears: The time has been, my senses would have cool’d To hear a nightshriek, and my fell of hair Would at a dismal treatise rouse and stir As life were in’t. Ihave supp’d full with horrors; Direness, familiar to my slaughterous thoughts, Cannot once start me.

Macbeth reveals himself here as an emotional and moral void. Confirmation that “The Queen, my lord, is dead” prompts only the bitter comment, “She should have died hereafter.” For Macbeth, life has lost all meaning, refl ected in the bleakest lines Shakespeare ever composed:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow Creeps in this petty pace from day to day To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Time and the world that Macbeth had sought to rule are revealed to him as empty and futile, embodied in a metaphor from the theater with life as a histrionic, talentless actor in a tedious, pointless play.

Macbeth’s final testing comes when Malcolm orders his troops to camoufl age their movement by carrying boughs from Birnam Woods in their march toward Dunsinane and from Macduff, whom he faces in combat and reveals that he was “from his mother’s womb / Untimely ripp’d,” that is, born by cesarean section and therefore not “of woman born.” This revelation, the final fulfillment of the witches’ prophecies, causes Macbeth to fl ee, but he is prompted by Macduff’s taunt of cowardice and order to surrender to meet Macduff’s challenge, despite knowing the deadly outcome:

Yet I will try the last. Before my body I throw my warlike shield. Lay on, Macduff, And damn’d be him that first cries, “Hold, enough!”

Macbeth returns to the world of combat where his initial distinctions were honorably earned and tragically lost.

The play concludes with order restored to Scotland, as Macduff presents Macbeth’s severed head to Malcolm, who is hailed as king. Malcolm may assert his control and diminish Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as “this dead butcher and his fiendlike queen,” but the audience knows more than that. We know what Malcolm does not, that it will not be his royal line but Banquo’s that will eventually rule Scotland, and inevitably another round of rebellion and murder is to come. We also know in horrifying human terms the making of a butcher and a fiend who refuse to be so easily dismissed as aberrations.

Macbeth Oxford Lecture by Emma Smith

Analysis of William Shakespeare’s Plays

Macbeth Ebook pdf (8MB)

Violence in Macbeth

Macbeth is a prime example of a violent Jacobean drama .

As the Elizabethan age gave way to the Jacobean era new young playwrights emerged. They were very much in tune with their sophisticated London audience, who delighted in the spectacle of sex and violence, so Jacobean plays became increasingly sexual and violent. Not only was there killing and wounding with swords and daggers, poisonings, stranglings, and torture, but also a great number of minor bloodcurdling acts of physical violence. In The Changeling by Middleton and Rowley , for example, De Flores, one of the most villainous psychopaths of the Jacobean stage, stabs a rival, Alonso, three times while his back is turned. He then spies a diamond ring on his victim’s finger. He tries but fails, to remove the ring so he just cuts off the finger and puts it in his pocket before disposing of the body.

Shakespeare wrote most of his plays during the reign of King James. He, of course, had been in tune with his audiences right from the beginning of his career, catering for their interest in history and humour and classical themes during Elizabeth’s reign. And now he was filling his theatres with plays as violent as those of the best of his fellow theatre writers. Cornwall, a character in King Lear , matches De Flores’ unthinkable act by pulling out Gloucester’s eyes, with the stage direction ‘he plucks out his eyes.’

With all that violence, all those blood-drenched stages, all those dead bodies, the shock value of such things would have been somewhat blunted – so what would shock a Jacobean audience? Nothing more than the brutal murder of a child on stage, which Shakespeare provides Macbeth .

There is nothing superficial about Shakespeare’s plays, though. Unlike some of his contemporaries, his violent plays were never about violence: when he used violence it was always in the pursuit of greater meaning and the violence was either a device for characterisation, a dramatic device to move the action forward, or something else quite profound. Indeed, he was titillating his audience, pulling them in to fill the seats but, as always with Shakespeare, he had the larger picture in mind.

If the brutal killing of Macduff’s young son is not there simply to satisfy the bloodthirsty taste of the audience then what was it about? We are used to that scene being there but try and imagine an audience seeing it for the first time. What a shock it must have been, given that most members of the audience had little children and the worst thing they would have been able to imagine would have been the murder of one of them. That scene has been familiar for four centuries but it still shocks when we see it on the stage.

The text of Macbeth is infused with blood: Shakespeare uses the word more than forty times. Putting it very simply, the play is about Macbeth’s ambition to be king (read some of the many Macbeth ambition quotes ) , and having trod a bloody path to realize that he now finds it to have been a hollow and empty enterprise. His attempt to cover up his route to the throne and simply to survive as king involves increasingly desperate acts of violence, and a lot more blood, as he sets about eliminating his opposition.

Macbeth, drenched in blood

Well, what about the murder of the child? This is where we see the master dramatist at work. Shakespeare’s plays are always manipulations of the audience’s emotions. At the beginning of Macbeth Shakespeare takes care to show them Macbeth as a great popular hero, loved by the king and respected and honored by the whole of Scotland. Shakespeare builds that in many ways. When Macbeth gets the idea of murdering Duncan and being elected king we follow him down that road as Shakespeare lets us into his mind with several soliloquies. We don’t see anything else. Macbeth is hesitant. He is still a good man, and we are basically on his side as there are no counter-arguments. We also see him as someone who wants to be king but shrinks from the act he has to commit to get there, but he is bullied and manipulated by Lady Macbeth and forced into it.

The point is that Shakespeare wants us to be there with Macbeth and so at this point, we are identifying with him and wanting him to win. When he kills Duncan it’s done offstage, and all we see is the blood on his hands and his sense of the horror of what he has done. It’s not particularly horrifying for the audience as we don’t see the killing: if Shakespeare had presented the assassination onstage we would have responded differently. But now Macbeth, crowned king, begins to be paranoid. Shakespeare moves us away from the inner life of Macbeth and we have scenes where other characters talk about his violent suppression of anyone he regards as a threat. We see the murder of his best friend, Banquo, and we hear of other atrocities. We are beginning to not like Macbeth so much but perhaps we can still sympathize with his position. But then we have a scene with an intelligent and endearing child, the son of Macduff, chatting with his mother, wondering what’s happened to his father, who has fled to England. Macbeth’s hired killers enter and begin their slaughter of Macduff’s family, on the orders of Macbeth, starting with the killing of the child. Directors of productions of the play are able to make that as brutal and bloody as they like.

This scene occurs right in the middle of the play – the apex of a structure that leads up to it, with the audience on Macbeth’s side, and follows it with our horror at what a villain he is, allowing us to rejoice in his defeat – another violent act in which he is beheaded, and his head displayed onstage. Shakespeare has manipulated our response and turned us completely. The scene depicting the brutal killing of a child takes us away from our support for Macbeth, leading us to an appalled sense of horror at his actions.

The scene is central in every way. The scenes immediately adjacent to it reflect each other, and it goes back to the beginning and forwards to the end of the play in that way, the scenes before that scene and after it reflecting each other at every step, all pointing to that supreme act of violence.

Shakespeare has adopted a structure that was used by the great writers of the past – Homer and all the books of the Old and New Testaments – in which the writers place their main point at the centre of the book and lead up to and away from it, everything pointing to that main, central point. And so, to Shakespeare, the murder of a child is the main point in Macbeth. This idea has not been generally explored by Shakespearean scholars but it suggests that Shakespeare may have seen ambition’s toll as far worse than simply the downfall of a single protagonist. But whether a member of an audience understood that or not was not as important in the early 17th century as the enjoyment of a paying audience derived from witnessing such shocking violence.

but that isnt the main focus of the play…

THEMES: VIOLENCE.

Themes are the fundamental and often universal ideas explored in a literary work. Explore the theme of violence in Macbeth

Macbeth is an extremely violent play.

Macbeth takes the throne of Scotland by killing Duncan and his guards, and tries to hold on to it by sending people to murder Banquo and Macduff’s family. Finally, he attempts to keep his reign by fighting Macduff. These might be the scenes of violence which are the most obvious in the play, but there are others throughout. Even before any characters are on stage, the theatre’s special effects of thunder and lightning, made with gunpowder, cannonballs and fireworks, would have sounded, and smelled, like a battle.

After the Witches, one of the first characters we see is the Captain, wounded in battle in Act I, scene 2. ‘What bloody man is that?’ asks Duncan, drawing attention to him. So when the play begins, the violence of the battle has already been happening. We are not told the causes of ‘the revolt’ but merely its ‘newest state’, that is, just the latest developments.

Those developments are described very graphically by the Captain, who tells us of Macbeth fighting Macdonwald:

‘Till he unseam’d him from the nave to th’ chops, And fix’d his head upon our battlements’ — Act I, scene 2

So, before we even meet Macbeth, he has sliced someone in half and chopped his head off as a prize. This might seem in character for the killer that we know Macbeth to be. The difference is that Macbeth’s actions here are celebrated by the king: ‘O valiant cousin! worthy gentleman!’. Later in the scene, Duncan sentences Cawdor to death. So what the play gives us is two different types of violence: one that is acceptable, and one that is criminal; the first holds Scotland together, the second tears it apart.

Violence is definitely linked to power in the play: the most successful king seems to be the one who is the best at killing. What this means is that the world of Macbeth is caught in a repeating circle of violence:

‘It will have blood, they say: blood will have blood’ — Act III, scene 4

is how Macbeth sums this up. It also leaks into the language of the characters, who make their points with bloody images. Perhaps the most unsettling one belongs to Lady Macbeth, who imagines a baby:

‘I would, while it was smiling in my face, Have pluck’d my nipple from his boneless gums, And dash’d the brains out’ — Act I, scene 7

She is trying to persuade Macbeth to keep his promise, but has to do so like this because the language of violence is the most convincing in Macbeth’s world.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

What do you think about violence in the play?

In what ways is it similar to violence today?

How is it different?

Does the play offer alternatives to a cycle of violence?

OTHER RESOURCES YOU MIGHT LIKE

Get to know the characters we meet in Macbeth

Delve deeper into the language used in Shakespeare’s Macbeth

Context & themes

Everything you need to know about the context of Macbeth , as well as key themes in the play

Follow the production of Macbeth through weekly blogs & resources

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience from our website.

Carry on browsing if you're happy with this, or find out how to manage cookies .

Heroic Violence

Macbeth is shown to be a hero at the start because of his violent nature. He kills a traitor. Ironically, Macbeth ends up becoming the traitor that is murdered at the end of the play.

The violent imagery describing Macbeth at the start of the play is honourable: his violence on the battlefield is for the king.
He is praised and rewarded for killing a treacherous thane, Macdonald (sometimes spelt Macdonwald): ‘Till he unseam’d him from the nave to th’ chops / And fixed his head upon our battlements’ (1,2).
Macbeth shows his courage and strength by cutting his enemy open from his navel (belly button) to his face.
The violent verb ‘unseam’d’ emphasises how Macbeth opens him up.
It all seems very fluid (free) in motion. This implies Macbeth is very strong and is unphased by horrifically killing another man.

Macdonald's head - message about treason

Macbeth removes his enemy’s head and displays it from the battlements. This might seem grisly, but it has a clear purpose.
When Shakespeare was writing, anyone sentenced to death for treason, such as Guy Fawkes after the failed Gunpowder Plot, would be hung, drawn and quartered (a horrible punishment of partial hanging, disembowelling and cutting of body into quarters) and their heads would be shown on pikes on Traitor’s Gate. This was the gateway prisoners would pass through as they entered the Tower of London.
This was done to make sure people thought twice before acting against their king and country.

Macbeth's head

At the end of the play, Macduff removes Macbeth’s head.
Macduff seems to be displaying it as he asks them to look at it: ‘Behold where stands / the usurper’s cursed head’ (5,9).
This moment makes Macbeth’s heroism at the start somewhat ironic – he was a hero for killing a man who seems to have been a traitor to the king. However, almost immediately after that, he himself becomes a traitor, soon murdering the king and taking over Scotland.
This relates back to the witches’ statement: 'Fair is foul, and foul is fair' (1,1) – things and people are not always what they seem.

Heroic code

The warriors fighting believed in the heroic code (defines how a noble person should act): it was honourable to die in battle.
This is why Siward says that his son ‘parted well’ (5,9). The battles were bloody and violent, but participating and fighting, even dying, bravely was very honourable. It deserved praise.
This is why Macbeth’s murder of King Duncan seems particularly evil – he killed him while he slept, without warning.
He did not give Duncan a chance to meet him equally in battle.

Lady Macbeth - Violent Imagery

Lady Macbeth uses very violent imagery to persuade her husband to murder King Duncan. She tells him she would have bashed in the brain of her own baby if she had promised to do it: ‘I would, while it was smiling in my face, / Have plucked the nipple from his boneless gums, / And dashed the brains out, had I so sworn / As you have done to this’ (1,7).

Shocking (from a woman)

This would have been very shocking to a Jacobean (during the reign of James I of England) audience.
Lady Macbeth is a woman whose main purpose, according to the values of the time, would be to give birth to and nurture children. The language she uses is very vivid and violent.

'Plucked'

The verb ‘plucked’ is simple, but devastating; it’s as if she casually removed the baby from the breast and broke the connection between them.
In this sense, Lady Macbeth goes against nature by refusing to nurture her own child and, instead, describes the violent image of her murdering it.

'Boneless'

The adjective ‘boneless’ reflects how young the child is.
He doesn’t have teeth in his gums yet. This reminds the audience of how vulnerable the baby is and how Lady Macbeth does not seem to care – again, her careless attitude goes against nature, especially for women at the time the play was set.

'Dashed'

Finally, the verb ‘dashed’ is a very aggressive one. It shows how she would have bashed in her baby’s head if she had promised to do it.

She uses violence to try and show Macbeth how strong her commitment is to anything she promises to do.
She is trying to show him he is a coward for going back on the plan.
She uses an image of violence against the thing she cares most about – her baby. She does this to show him that she’d do anything to keep her word to him and to make him change his mind.
In Lady Macbeth’s mind, this violent description shows her husband the extent she’d go to for him and, therefore, how much she loves him.

Murder and Violence

Violence leads to more violence in Macbeth . Macbeth murders the king and murders to protect his crown thereafter. He even orders for a child to be murdered.

Killing Duncan

The violence of killing King Duncan is clear from the blood on Macbeth’s hands.
King Duncan was sleeping. Macbeth was especially cowardly in the murder and he prevented him from a warrior’s death.
Macbeth refers to his hands as ‘a sorry sight’ (2,2). This suggests that he has done something incredibly weak in murdering a sleeping man, and one who he was honour-bound (morally obliged) to serve and protect.

Other murders

After King Duncan’s murder, Macbeth steps away from murdering others with his own hands. He prefers to send murderers to do this for him.
This may suggest he is still ashamed of using violence against those who don’t deserve it.
Alternatively, this could show that he cares so little about human life that he carelessly gives the job of murdering to other people – his victims do not deserve his attention.

Violence bringing violence

Macbeth says after seeing Banquo’s ghost, ‘It will have blood they say: blood will have blood’ (3,4).
This is a metaphor saying that once a violent act is committed, more violence will follow. This usually happens when a family tries to avenge (get revenge for) the first murder.

One murder after another

After murdering King Duncan, Macbeth continues to kill others in an attempt to stop anyone else from taking his throne.
He hires men to murder Banquo and his son.
He hires men to murder Lady Macduff and her son.
The guilt of murdering Duncan drives Lady Macbeth to suicide.
The murder of Duncan, Lady Macduff, and her son causes Macduff to kill Macbeth.

Protecting the crown

Macbeth will also stop at nothing to protect his crown. He punishes those disloyal to him, including women and children.
He sends murderers to kill Banquo and his son, Fleance, who escapes.
After Macduff leaves for England, Macbeth sends more murderers to kill his wife and children in their home.

Murdering children

The murder of Macduff’s son is seen on stage: ‘he has killed me, mother’ (4,2).
The murder of children is very violent and upsetting. Children are symbolic of innocence. They cannot protect themselves.
Calling out to his ‘mother’ is very emotive (brings out feelings), because it reminds those watching of how young he is. This violence reflects how evil Macbeth has become.

1 Literary & Cultural Context

1.1 Context

1.1.1 Tragedy

1.1.2 The Supernatural & Gender

1.1.3 Politics & Monarchy

1.1.4 End of Topic Test - Context

2 Plot Summary

2.1.1 Scenes 1 & 2

2.1.2 Scene 3

2.1.3 Scenes 4-5

2.1.4 Scenes 6-7

2.1.5 End of Topic Test - Act 1

2.2 Acts 2-4

2.2.1 Act 2

2.2.2 Act 3

2.2.3 Act 4

2.3.1 Scenes 1-3

2.3.2 Scenes 4-9

2.3.3 End of Topic Test - Acts 2-5

3 Characters

3.1 Macbeth

3.1.1 Hero vs Villain

3.1.2 Ambition & Fate

3.1.3 Relationship

3.1.4 Unstable

3.1.5 End of Topic Test - Macbeth

3.2 Lady Macbeth

3.2.1 Masculine & Ruthless

3.2.2 Manipulative & Disturbed

3.3 Other Characters

3.3.1 Banquo

3.3.2 The Witches

3.3.3 Exam-Style Questions - The Witches

3.3.4 King Duncan

3.3.5 Macduff

3.3.6 End of Topic Test - Lady Macbeth & Banquo

3.3.7 End of Topic Test - Witches, Duncan & Macduff

3.4 Grade 9 - Key Characters

3.4.1 Grade 9 - Lady Macbeth Questions

4.1.1 Power & Ambition

4.1.2 Power & Ambition HyperLearning

4.1.3 Violence

4.1.4 The Supernatural

4.1.5 Masculinity

4.1.6 Armour, Kingship & The Natural Order

4.1.7 Appearances & Deception

4.1.8 Madness & Blood

4.1.9 Women, Children & Sleep

4.1.10 End of Topic Test - Themes

4.1.11 End of Topic Test - Themes 2

4.2 Grade 9 - Themes

4.2.1 Grade 9 - Themes

4.2.2 Extract Analysis

5 Writer's Techniques

5.1 Structure, Meter & Other Literary Techniques

5.1.1 Structure, Meter & Dramatic Irony

5.1.2 Pathetic Fallacy & Symbolism

5.1.3 End of Topic Test - Writer's Techniques

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

Power & Ambition HyperLearning

The Supernatural

The Role of Violence in Shakespeare's Macbeth (Essay Sample)

Macbeth, written by the literary master Shakespeare, is a story full of tragedy, ambition, and suspense. However, a larger theme of violence encompasses and controls the story and its characters. Violence, playing an important role in the play, depicts Macbeth's degradation from an honorable soldier and thane into an evil and selfish king. As Derek Cohen says in Macbeth's Rites of Violence, “There is no peace in the play. Lurking behind every scene, every dialogue, every fantastic appearance or event, is the spectre of violence with death following in its wake.” (Cohen), Macbeth is wholly centered around violence playing an insurmountable role in the determination of Macbeth's morality. When the Three Witches, speaking in trochaic tetrameter, give paradox in the line “Fair is foul, and foul is fair: / Hover through the fog and filthy air” (Shakespeare 1.1.12-13), they give us the most prominent theme in Macbeth. Paradox, and the “fair is foul” theme, is used throughout multiple events in the play, yet is most present in the role of violence. As Macbeth gradually yields to more violence, he changes from an honorable, honest man who fought for a greater good into a corrupt, evil king who fights for his own gain. Violence throughout Macbeth is viewed as valiant, honorable, and rewarding at the start of the play. However, the honor in violence begins to distort as the play carries on, shifting to selfish and cruel intentions. Throughout Shakespeare’s Macbeth, the role of violence emphasizes the shifts in Macbeth’s moral compass and coincides with the theme “fair is foul, and fair is foul” by first being viewed as honorable, representing pathetic fallacy, and ending as a representation of evil.

At the start of the play, the role of violence is one of valor and honor, however this is distinctly different from its role of evil towards the end of Macbeth. When Macbeth returns from the first battle, he is greeted with congratulations and honor. He is rewarded for being a courageous and valiant soldier with a new thane title. The people of Scotland express pride and gratitude for Macbeth's violence in battle and reward him for being ruthless on the battlefront. Macbeth’s friends bare him the great news of his successes: “The king hath happily received, Macbeth, / The news of thy success, and when he reads / Thy personal venture in the rebels’ sight, / His wonders and his praises do contend / Which thine or his” (Shakespeare 1.3.87-91). At this point, Macbeth uses violence for the greater good of defending his country. In Shakespeare for Students: Critical Interpretations of Shakespeare’s Plays and Poetry states: “Macbeth encounters three witches who predict that he will become King of Scotland; these prophecies begin the process of awakening his personal ambition for power” (pg. 440). Macbeth's view of violence drastically alters towards the end of the play from one of honor and loyalty, to one of selfishness and treachery, and this change is depicted with the help of pathetic fallacy in Macbeth's surroundings.

Violence is reflected with pathetic fallacy and continuously present throughout the course of Macbeth in the weather, animals, and other characters. As Macbeth progresses, violence increases, and Macbeth grows eviler with each scene. Actkinson states in Enter Three Witches that “As Macbeth ascends to the throne, the court descends to violence and murder”. (Actkinson), further illustrating that Macbeth's increase in power corresponds to an increase in violence in Scotland. Macbeth's submission to violence and commitment increasingly heinous murders following the introduction of the three witches has an apparent negative effect on the weather and depicts a manifestation of evil in Scotland. As Macbeth's morals slip, the weather becomes stormy, and animals begin to act distressed, notably during the murder of King Duncan when Lady Macbeth says, “I heard the owl scream and the crickets cry” (2.2.15). Violence throughout the play also constitutes a disarray of the environment in Scotland and presents a grim, formidable mood with destruction: “The night has been unruly. Where we lay, / Our chimneys were blown down and, as they say, / Lamentings heard i’ th’ air, strange screams of death / .... Some say the Earth / Was feverous and did shake.” (Shakespeare 2.3.28-36). Shakespeare uses pathetic fallacy to attribute human qualities and emotions to nature, and violence encompasses a larger theme in Macbeth by affecting Scotland negatively. As Macbeth progressively turns to violence, Scotland's environment experiences stormy weather, disturbed animals, and desecrate natural disasters. Because the damaging violence in Macbeth corresponds heavily to pathetic fallacy in weather and animals, this shows that violence is necessary to the progress of the play and essential in explaining the turn and fall of Macbeth into total violence and evil.

While violence in the beginning of Macbeth was viewed as gratifying, the violent nature of Macbeth is gradually warped into a pure evil as he begins to maltreat his people and country. Cohen states that “Macbeth's use of violence is the measure of his depravity. It sinks ever lower in its use of lies, subterfuge and subornation, acts that are necessary to his survival as monarch.” This quote highlights the depletion of Macbeth’s morals as the violence intensifies and escalates throughout the play. Macbeth's morality by the end of the play is completely degraded. He once experienced doubt and hesitation before killing Duncan and had to be persuaded by Lady Macbeth to continue. However, by the end of the play, Macbeth experienced no hesitation or doubt in killing others. Undoubtedly, Macbeth’s forced murder soon harbored into an obsessive need for secured power: “While Lady Macbeth did provoke and shame Macbeth to kill Duncan, he is the one who voluntarily carried out the deed and continued to kill anyone who posed a threat to his position” (Tawakoli). Brutality demonstrates that violence is not as it always seems, following the “fair is foul” theme, in the sense that it can be used in valor, but also in ruthlessness and cruelty. In the same way, Macbeth’s lack of mercy at the beginning of the play was seen positively as he was aiding his country in war, but then manifested into selfish and greedy violence at the expense of his country’s well-being. As Macbeth’s greed for power is continually threatened, he turns to more evil behaviors. It is evident that Macbeth has wholly turned to supernatural evil when he professes, “Seyton! - I am sick at heart,/ When I behold - Seyton, I say! - this push/ Will cheer me ever or disseat me now,” (Shakespeare 5.3.19-21). The allusion in this quote emphasized the effect of intensifying violence in Macbeth and how it has shifted his logic into a distorted logic. It is evident that he has turned to evil as Seyton is an allusion to the real Satan. It is evident that Macbeth has now fully turned to diabolic manners. At the beginning of the play, Macbeth used violence in a brave and loyal sense to protect his country, however at the end of the play, Macbeth used violence in a selfish and cruel way to protect his throne at the expense of others.

Throughout Shakespeare’s Macbeth, the role of violence is used to emphasize the shifts in Macbeth’s moral compass and mindset towards his priorities. At the beginning of the play, Macbeth is very uncertain about committing to the violence due to his extreme valor but at the end of the play, violence is the only thing he turns to. As violence intensifies in Macbeth, Macbeth sinks lower into a state of pure evil, completely demolishing the once noble, honest character he was. Because Macbeth is driven by the desire for power, he feels that violence is the only option he has to keep his power and so, he experiences a vocation to be a selfish, evil king surrounded with violence. Violence also corresponds with the Three Witches’ alliteration of “Fair is foul, and foul is fair: / Hover through the fog and filthy air.” (Shakespeare 1.1.12-13) in the sense that violence is not what it first appeared to be. Macbeth was first rewarded for his valiant battle in Act 1, however, as he grew in power, his violent acts escalated into evil and had unfortunate consequences including the loss of Macbeth's life. Violence in Macbeth shifts from being perceived as honorable to corrupt, and plays a large role by degrading Macbeth's morals and altering Macbeth from an honorable man to a corrupt king.

Related Samples

Macbeth Character Traits Essay Example
"My Red Hand, My Black Hand" Analysis Essay Example
Trust Is Easily Earned (The Tempest by William Shakespeare Literary Analysis)
Homelessness Is A Growing Problem Essay Example
Analysis of Article: Crises Collide: Homeless in America When Climate Disaster Strikes
Teenage Pregnancy in American Culture Essay Example
Should Women Have The Right To Have Abortion Essay Sample
Essay On The Use Of Animals In Macbeth
Romeo and Juliet Narrative Essay Example
Romeo is More to Blame in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

(92) 336 3216666

[email protected]

Read below our complete notes on “Macbeth”, a famous play by William Shakespeare. Our notes cover Macbeth summary, themes, characters, and analysis.

Introduction

Macbeth was written by William Shakespeare in either 1605 or 1606. Its full name is “The Tragedy of Macbeth”. It was first performed in around 1606.

The drama revolves around a Villain named Macbeth who is ambitious and brave but because of his thirst for power, he begins to do evil. He receives a prophecy from three witches that he will become the king of Scotland. To make this prophecy true, he kills the king of Scotland and many other people who become a threat to his throne. At the end he faces a downfall.

The play has many elements i.e. temptation, conspiracy, madness, pathos and destruction.

Macbeth by William Shakespeare Summary

This play portrays a tragic downfall of a brave warrior, Macbeth. After defeating the forces of Norway and Ireland, he receives a prophecy from a trio of witches that he will become the king of Scotland. The other part of the prophecy is that the children of Banquo, another Scottish general, will become the future kings. Macbeth is already made the Thane of Cowder. He is happy and ambitious after receiving the prophecy.

Afterwards, King Duncan declares that he will spend a night at Macbeth’s castle as a celebration of their victory. Macbeth informs Lady Macbeth about the King’s arrival and prophecies of witches. Lady Macbeth appears to be very evil. She makes the plan to kill the king and convinces Macbeth to act accordingly by challenging his manhood.

Lady Macbeth plans to get the chamberlains drunk to show them as culprits after murder. When everyone sleeps, they start acting upon their plan and Macbeth stabs Duncan with a knife and kills him. After that, Lady Macbeth stains the clothes and faces of chamberlains sitting outside the king’s chamber and puts the knives near them to show that they are the culprits.

The next morning, Macduff comes to Macbeth’s castle to receive the king but finds him dead. Subsequently, Macbeth kills the chamberlains to show anger towards king’s death and to show that he is innocent. Banquo discusses the certain issue with Macbeth and departs.

Later, Macbeth proclaims himself the king in front of everyone. He fears his friend Banquo because of the second part of the prophecy, so he arranges two murders to kill Banquo and his son, Fleance. Murderers kill Banquo but his son manages to escape outside the castle in the dark woods.

Although, he successfully executes his plans but he starts behaving abnormally during dinner. He starts witnessing Banquo’s ghost and Lady Macbeth gives excuses for his unusual behavior.

Afterwards, Macbeth again meets the witches and receives three prophecies; Beware of Macduff, none of woman born shall harm him and that he is safe until Burnam’s wood moves to Dunsinane hills. Macduff goes to England to meet Malcolm and plan revenge against Macbeth. They decide to take help from King Edward of England and plan to attack Scotland with 10,000 soldiers. Meanwhile, Ross comes and tells Macduff that his family has been killed by Macbeth.

Moreover, Lady Macbeth starts behaving abnormally because of the guilt of her crimes. Death of Macduff’s family increases her madness and she becomes ill. English army attacks and reaches towards Burnam’s wood and they plan that each soldier will carry a bush in front of him. It seems like the forest is moving towards Dunsinane and the Prophecy of witches becomes true.

Lady Macbeth dies and the war begins. Macbeth fights keeping in mind that no-one can kill him as everyone is born out of mother. He kills Seward’s son and disappears. Macduff finds him, tells him that he was born by cesarean-section and beheads him.

Afterwards, he declares Malcolm the king of Scotland and everyone curses Macbeth and Lady Macbeth for their cruelty.

Themes in Macbeth

Kingship vs. tyranny:.

In the play Duncan is always referred to as a “king” while Macbeth becomes known as “tyrant” when he comes to the throne. This is because of the qualities present in a good king and a tyrant.

Macbeth starts doing evil for the thirst of power and throne which shows his violent temperament and disloyalty towards the country. He kills the king and other people who are a threat to his kingship.

On the other hand, Duncan is kind-hearted and loyal towards his country. At the end, Macbeth faces downfall because of his cruel and immoral nature.

Relationship between Cruelty and Masculinity:

This theme shows that violence is not just a male’s attribute, females can also show violence. It is explored by the character of Lady Macbeth and the three witches in this play.

As we can clearly see, how Lady Macbeth shows aggression, cruelty and violence. She plans to kill the king and forces Macbeth to follow her evil plan and to kill every person who she sees as a threat.

On the other hand, we can see three witches who seem cruel and evil from their conversations throughout the play.

Fate vs. Freewill:

Another major theme of this play is fate vs. freewill. The character of Macbeth and three witches represent this theme.

Although, Macbeth is told by the witches about his future that he will become the king but he is not told how to take the position of king. Prophecy of witches is fate but how to make it reality depends upon Macbeth’s freewill. Instead of waiting for the right time, he chooses a wrong path that leads him towards downfall.

Reason vs. Passion:

This theme is represented by Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. Throughout the play we can see the difference between their persuasive strategies.

Macbeth is very logical and clear-sighted. He knows that he is doing evil and the consequences of it. He feels guilty for breaking King Duncan’s trust but he is persuaded by his wife to do evil.

On the other hand, Lady Macbeth passionately examines the pros and cones of her plan of killing the king. She is an emotional and evil person who uses emotional arguments to convince her husband to do the crime.

Macbeth Characters Analysis

Macbeth is the villain of the play. His initial impression is of a brave and courageous warrior who has won the battle through his bravery and dedication. However, when he meets the three witches, his lack of strength of character and overly ambitious nature is revealed. Shakespeare tries to convey the effects of ambitious nature and self-doubt in a person with weak character.

When Macbeth receives the prophecy from witches he becomes happy but later he is persuaded by his wife’s emotional argument to kill the king. He is a rational person who knows the consequences of doing evil but he is also occupied by evil forces.

Moreover, he also starts behaving abnormally because of the guilt of the sins committed by him but again the thirst for power makes him strong and he begins to act according to his evil plans.

In the end of the play, Macduff beheads him and he faces a downfall.

Lady Macbeth:

Lady Macbeth is one of the Shakespeare’s most evil female characters. She is Macbeth’s wife and a deeply ambitious and cruel woman who lusts for power and position. Her first appearance in the play is when she is plotting Duncan’s murder. She is a cruel and ruthless woman who convinces her husband to commit a sin by challenging his manhood.

She represents the relationship between femininity and violence in the play. Macbeth says that Lady Macbeth is a masculine soul residing in a female body which shows that females can also be cruel and ruthless.

Moreover, she remains firm to her decision of murdering the king and persuades Macbeth but later on the guilt of sins makes her mad. She tries to wash away the invisible blood stains from her hands. Her strength becomes her weakness and she commits suicide by the close of the play.

The Three Witches:

The three witches are referred to as “weird sisters” in the play. They are the ones who give prophecy about Macbeth’s future and play upon him like puppeteers.

Macbeth believes in their prophecies which lead him towards darkness and downfall. However, their true identity is unclear. Although, they are servants of Hecate but the play does not tell us whether they are independent agents playing with human lives or the agents of fate.

Furthermore, some of their prophecies seem fulfilling and some are acted upon by Macbeth.

Banquo is another Scottish General and Macbeth’s friend. He is a brave, ambitious and virtuous person unlike Macbeth. He also receives a prophecy from witches that his children will come to the throne in future. This prophecy becomes a threat to Macbeth’s kingship and he orders to kill Banquo and his son, Fleance. However, his son escapes but he is murdered.

Later, his ghost haunts Macbeth and he starts acting abnormally.

King Duncan:

He is the king of Scotland who is murdered by Macbeth for the lust of power and throne. He is a virtuous man and a good king who is faithful towards his country. His decision to pass the kingdom to his son, Malcolm, becomes the reason of his death.

Macduff is the thane of Scotland. He is loyal towards king and turns against Macbeth after discovering king’s death. He flees to England to meet Malcolm where he comes to know about his family’s murder so he plans to take revenge from Macbeth. He also wants to unseat Macbeth from the throne.

Malcolm is the son of Duncan. He flees to England fearfully after his father’s death. He raises an army there to take back his throne from Macbeth. In the end of the play, Malcolm becomes the king with the support of Macduff and England army.

He is Duncan’s son and Malcolm’s younger brother who flees to Ireland after his father’s death.

He is Banquo’s son who escapes the castle when murderers attempt to kill him. After that he does not appear in the play.

She is the goddess of three witches who guides them to plot mischief against Macbeth. She is evil and weird.

Macbeth Literary Analysis

The play “Macbeth” portrays a tragic downfall of a brave warrior, Macbeth. At first he appears as a brave and courageous Army General who has won the battle through his bravery but later we come to know about his real self when he receives the prophecies from the three witches. The prophecies are that Macbeth will become the king of Scotland soon and children of Banquo, another army general, will inherit the throne in future.

After these prophecies, Macbeth appears to be an evil, ruthless and overly ambitious person. He lacks the strength of character and starts doing evil to become the king. The thirst for power and position leads him towards a great downfall.

On the other hand, Lady Macbeth, a violent and ruthless woman, persuades him to murder the king because of the lust of throne and power. He is a masculine soul in a female body that is strong and overly ambitious about her plans. In the beginning she strongly acts upon her evil plans but later she cannot carry the burden of her sins that leads her towards madness. This shows that no matter how strongly one commits sins, at some point in life those sins overly burden him/her and haunt him/her.

Moreover, Banquo, who is faithful towards Duncan and does not plot evil to make the prophecy come true, is killed by Macbeth. But later on we discover that his ghost starts haunting Macbeth and he starts acting abnormally. It shows the contrast between personalities of the two, Macbeth and Banquo. Both are ambitious and brave but Macbeth is evil and Banquo is virtuous because he does not choose a wrong path to become more powerful.

Additionally, the king of Scotland named Duncan is also a virtuous and honored king who is killed by Macbeth because of his lust for throne. Duncan is referred to as ‘King’ throughout the play whereas Macbeth is referred to as a ‘Tyrant’ when he declares himself as a king. It shows the contrast between a good king and a tyrant. Macbeth murders every person who comes on his way of becoming the king. He is a wicked and immoral person who commits sins whereas Duncan is a moral person who rules the Scotland justly and peacefully.

The play also portrays the consequences and effects of thirst for power of a person who is morally weak and lacks the decisive power. Macbeth knows the consequences of his evil deeds but keeps on committing sins because he lacks the decisive power, he is constantly persuaded by his wife to murder those who are a threat to his kingship. It leads him to a tragic downfall.

More From William Shakespeare

A Midsummer Night’s Dream
The Merchant of Venice
Twelfth Night
The Taming of the Shrew
As You Like It
Much Ado About Nothing
The Comedy of Errors

More from the Review

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Best of The New York Review, plus books, events, and other items of interest

June 6, 2024

Current Issue

June 6, 2024 issue

William Shakespeare with characters from his tragedies; illustration by John Broadley

Submit a letter:

Email us [email protected]

This essay appears, in somewhat different form, as the introduction to Shakespeare Is Hard, But So Is Life (Head of Zeus, 2024).

In his best-selling biography of Elon Musk, Walter Isaacson tries to explain how a man who attempts such “epic feats” can also be “an asshole.” He finds himself seeking help from William Shakespeare: “As Shakespeare teaches us, all heroes have flaws, some tragic, some conquered, and those we cast as villains can be complex.” How better to fill the gap between epic and asshole than with the lesson Shakespeare was apparently trying to teach us when he wrote Hamlet and King Lear ? The only other time the word “tragic” appears in Isaacson’s book is when Musk is regretting his choice of outfit for an audience with the pope: “My suit is tragic.” When tragedy encompasses such trivialities, it’s not so hard to believe that those great plays really are trying to teach us something as trite as the possibility that humans are complex or that powerful people may have some serious defects. Who knew?

Isaacson is not unusual in making such statements about what Shakespeare’s tragedies mean: they exist to instruct us, and their main lesson is that everything would be OK if only we could “conquer” our shortcomings. We can read in The Guardian , of the Harry Potter novels, that “some of the most admirable adult characters, as in Shakespeare, are also revealed to have a tragic flaw that causes them to hesitate to act, to make foolish errors of judgment, to lie, or even to commit murder.” The New York Times informs us that

with Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus or Shakespeare’s Hamlet, their tragic flaws, enacted, became the definition of tragedy. It may be angst (Hamlet), or hubris (Faustus), but it’s there and we know, watching, that the ruinous end will be of their own making.

The former British prime minister Boris Johnson, who has supposedly been writing a book about Shakespeare, and who compared himself in the dying days of his benighted regime to Othello beset by malign Iago, claims that “it is the essence of all tragic literature that the hero should be conspicuous, that he should swagger around and that some flaw should lead to a catastrophic reversal and collapse.”

Also in The New York Times Stephen Marche tells us that

we go to tragedy to watch a man be destroyed. Macbeth must be destroyed for his lust for power, Othello for his jealousy, Antony for his passion, Lear for the incompleteness of his renunciation. They are tragic precisely because their flaws are all too human.

In a review of a biography of Andrew Jackson, the president is called a “‘Shakespearean tragic hero,’ inflexible as Coriolanus, whose tragic flaw was ‘his incessant pursuit of virtue in the political realm.’” Maureen Dowd notes that Barack Obama “has read and reread Shakespeare’s tragedies” and “does not want his fatal flaw to be that he compromises so much that his ideals get blurred out of recognition.”

This stuff is part of the language. Like most clichés, it perpetuates assumptions, not just about Shakespeare but about the world: your ruinous end is of your own making. Tragedies happen not because human beings are dragged between large historical, social, and political forces that are wrenching them in opposite directions, but because individuals are branded from birth with one or another variant of original sin. In seeking to understand ourselves, we can forget the epic and think of the assholes—who receive satisfyingly just deserts. As Johnson put it in 2011, Shakespeare “was, frankly, the poet of the established order” because the troublemakers in his plays “get their comeuppance.” The tragically flawed heroes meet the gory deaths their flaws deserve. Alongside “many insights into the human heart,” Johnson tells us, Shakespeare provides “such ingenious defences for keeping things as they are, and keeping the ruling party in power.”

The most obvious problem with all that is, even if it were true, it would be crushingly dull. Moral tales in which people do bad things because they have wicked instincts and then get their comeuppance are ten a penny. The clichés shrink Shakespeare to the level of Miss Prism in The Importance of Being Earnest , the author of a three-volume novel of “more than usually revolting sentimentality” who explains that in her book “the good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means.” If the definition of tragedy lies in the tragic flaw of the protagonist, we are reduced to a monotonous game of matching the shortcoming to the character: Hamlet = angst; Macbeth = ambition; Othello = jealousy; Lear = reckless vanity.

Fortunately none of this bears even a passing resemblance to the experience of seeing or reading a Shakespeare play. It is terrifyingly clear to us as we encounter these dramas that we are not in a moral universe of comeuppances and rewarded virtue. “As flies to wanton boys are we to th’ gods:/They kill us for their sport,” says Gloucester in King Lear . Macduff’s children are slaughtered. Ophelia is driven to drown herself. At the end of Othello , there are two innocent corpses on the stage: Desdemona’s and Emilia’s. Lear’s terrible question over the dead body of Cordelia echoes through these tragedies: “Why should a dog, a horse, a rat have life,/And thou no breath at all?” Much of the time in Shakespeare, there is no answer.

There is nothing in Cordelia’s or Ophelia’s or Desdemona’s or Emilia’s characters that has led them to extinction. It is simply that in this cruel world, while the bad may indeed end unhappily, so may the good. At the end of King Lear , we have the rather pitiful Albany doing a Miss Prism act: “All friends shall/Taste the wages of their virtue and all foes/The cup of their deservings.” This assurance of just deserts is immediately undercut by one of the most devastating images of absurd injustice, Lear raging at a universe in which his blameless daughter will not take another breath, in this world or the next: “Never, never, never, never, never!”

If the tragedies are supposed to show us the playing out of the innate flaws of their protagonists, they are not very good . Does anyone ever come out of the theater thinking that if only Hamlet had been less angsty, nothing would have been rotten in the state of Denmark? If Macbeth is already consumed by a lust for power, why does his wife have to goad him into killing Duncan? If Othello has an innate instinct for psychotic jealousy, why does Iago have to stage such elaborate plots to get him to believe that Desdemona is cheating on him? Lear may indeed be old and foolish, but he was surely not always thus—the shock of his decision at the beginning of the play to divest himself of the kingdom stems from his having ruled successfully for a very long time. (In the traditional story that Shakespeare adapted and that his audience would have known, Lear had reigned for sixty years.)

As for Shakespeare being “the poet of the established order,” it is certainly true that he was extremely adept in his navigation of a treacherous political landscape in which his greatest predecessor, Christopher Marlowe, was most probably murdered by the state and another fellow dramatist Thomas Kyd died after torture. He did so largely by avoiding references to contemporary England and setting his plays either in distant Catholic countries (where of course they do things no good Protestant ruler would countenance) or in the past. His political skill was rewarded. As of May 1603, after James I’s accession to the throne, Shakespeare was an official of the court as Groom of the Chamber. He and his fellow shareholders in the King’s Men (as they were now called) were each issued with four and a half yards of red cloth for the royal livery in which they were allowed to appear on state occasions. It is hard to think of Shakespeare as a liveried servant, but for him that red coat was surely also a suit of armor that protected him from the violence of his surroundings.

The wonder, though, lies in what he did with that position. He took his royal master’s obsessions and made unprecedented dramas out of them. James was interested in witches, so they appear in Macbeth . The king was—after the Gunpowder Plot in which Catholic conspirators tried to blow him up, along with his entire court and Parliament—worried about the way Catholic suspects under interrogation gave equivocal answers to avoid incriminating themselves. So the Porter in Macbeth , imagining himself as the gatekeeper to Hell, says, “Faith, here’s an equivocator that could swear in both the scales against either scale, who committed treason enough for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven.” As a Scot, James was anxious to establish the idea of Britain as a political union, with himself as “emperor of the whole island.” So Shakespeare shows in King Lear the terrors of a disunited kingdom. James was fascinated by demonic possession, so Shakespeare brushed up on its alleged symptoms in contemporary accounts and has Edgar, in his guise as Poor Tom, enact them on the blasted heath. *

But if these plays start with the need of the King’s Man to suck up to his royal patron, they emphatically do not end there. A hack propagandist of the kind that Boris Johnson imagines Shakespeare to be would have shown, in Macbeth , that equivocation is just what you might expect from traitorous Catholics. Instead he makes the slipperiness of words and the inability to trust people universal aspects of life under rulers who imagine their power to be absolute. Almost everyone in Macbeth plays games with truth and lies, because that’s what you have to do in a murderous polity.

Poor Tom, in King Lear , may be there to flatter the sovereign’s desire to see a man who is (or is pretending to be) possessed by demons. But we don’t care about that because his performance becomes a heartbreakingly real enactment of mental distress: “The foul fiend haunts poor Tom in the voice of a nightingale. Hoppedance cries in Tom’s belly for two white herring. Croak not, black angel. I have no food for thee.” What begins with a brilliant opportunist keeping an eye out for what will appeal to his new master ends as some of the strangest, most searingly painful language ever spoken on the stage.

And even though Shakespeare undoubtedly started King Lear as a fable on the dangers of splitting up the kingdom, he lets it run off into the most devastating mockery of all arbitrary political power. Lear tells Gloucester that the “great image of authority” is a cur biting the heels of a beggar. It is perhaps not surprising that someone who thought Lear’s declaration that “a dog’s obeyed in office” is Shakespeare supporting the established order proved to be such a dog in office himself.

So what does Shakespeare teach us? Nothing. His tragic theater is not a classroom. It is a fairground wall of death in which the characters are being pushed outward by the centrifugal force of the action but held in place by the friction of the language. It sucks us into its dizzying spin. What makes it particularly vertiginous is the way Shakespeare so often sets our moral impulses against our theatrical interests. Iago in Othello is perhaps the strongest example. Plays, for the audience, begin with utter ignorance. We need someone to draw us in, to tell us what is going on. A character who talks to us, who gives us confidential information, can earn our gratitude. Even when that character is, like Iago, telling us how he is going to destroy a good man, we are glad to see him whenever he appears. Within the plot he is a monster. Outside it, talking to us, he is a charming, helpful presence. Drawn between these two conditions, we are not learning something. We are in the dangerous condition of unlearning how we feel and think.

Hamlet talks to us too. He is entertaining, brilliant, sensitive, charismatic, startlingly eloquent—and he has a filial purpose of vengeance that we understand. So what are we to do with his astonishing cruelties—his cold-blooded mockery of the corpse of a man (Polonius) he has just killed by mistake, his mental torturing of Ophelia, his casual dispatch of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, announced to us as a fleeting afterthought? How far would the play have to tilt on its axis for Hamlet to be not its hero but its resident demon?

Shakespeare can, when he chooses, turn our attitudes to characters upside down and inside out. In the first act of Macbeth , Lady Macbeth is bold, vigorous, and supremely confident that she can “chastise with the valor of my tongue” a husband whom we already know to be a fearsome warrior. She makes herself “from the crown to the toe top-full/Of direst cruelty!” In the second act she takes charge while her husband is breaking down under the strain of Duncan’s murder—it is Lady Macbeth who returns the daggers to the chamber and smears the sleeping grooms with blood. In the third act she is still a commanding presence, able to deal with the disaster of the royal banquet and dismiss the courtiers when Macbeth is freaked out by Banquo’s ghost.

We then lose sight of her until the fifth act, when she is suddenly almost a ghost herself, a somnambulist reenacting in tormented sleep the moments after the murder. There is no transition, nothing to lead us gradually from the direly cruel and potent murderer to the fragile shell of a person, floating in “this slumbery agitation”—a phrase that almost cancels itself and thus captures her descent to nothingness.

Even as the action of the play continues to hurtle forward, we are thrown back into this gap between the dynamic woman we last saw and the strange creature she is now, in this liminal state between life and death. We have to try to fill that gap for ourselves, but we can’t quite do it because the stage is suddenly filled with drums and flags and Birnam Wood is about to come to Dunsinane and we have no time to think. Nor do we know quite what to feel—should we still despise her for her ruthless malice or give ourselves over to the poignancy of her mental dissolution?

Usually, if a dramatist shows us an act of extreme violence perpetrated by a character, it is a point of no return. After the enactment of butchery there can be no way back to emotional delicacy and poetic grace. Yet Hamlet stabs Polonius to death, calls the dead man a fool and a knave, tells his mother, in one of Shakespeare’s most brutal phrases, that “I’ll lug the guts into the neighbor room,” and exits dragging the body along like the carcass of an animal. It makes no sense that even after this shocking display of callousness, Hamlet still gets to be the tender philosopher considering the skull of Yorick. But he does. He is still the “sweet prince.”

Lady Macduff’s young son is stabbed to death before our eyes by Macbeth’s thugs. We watch a child—perhaps the most intelligent, charming, and engaging child ever seen onstage—being slaughtered in front of his mother. Yet fifteen or twenty minutes later we have the psychokiller Macbeth at his most affecting, playing the still, sad music of humanity: “And all our yesterdays have lighted fools/The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle.”

Othello wakes the sleeping Desdemona and twice calls her a strumpet. We listen to her heartbreaking plea: “Kill me tomorrow; let me live tonight.” In most productions, she tries to run away and Othello has to manhandle her back onto the bed. Then he takes a cushion and, as she continues to struggle for life, begins to smother her. But this is not quick. A short, staccato phrase of Othello’s, “So, so,” suggests that, as she continues to fight him, he either stabs her or pushes the cushion down even more violently on her face. But still Shakespeare prolongs the agony, for her and for us. Emilia appears at the door and gives Othello the news of Rodrigo’s murder. All the while Othello is still trying to kill his wife. We hear Desdemona’s voice again. Emilia opens the curtains and sees Desdemona dying. She gets two more lines and then expires. As Othello says himself: “I know this act shows horrible and grim.”

It is hard to think how Shakespeare could have made it more horrible. Depending on the production, it can take around ten minutes from start to finish. What could we feel except loathing and disgust? And yet Shakespeare forces us also, within just a few more minutes, to feel compassion for “one that loved not wisely, but too well;/…one not easily jealous but, being wrought,/Perplexed in the extreme.” It is not just Othello who is perplexed in the extreme. As audiences or as readers, we are left in a no-man’s-land where what we feel does not map onto what we have seen, and where extreme ugliness of action alternates with extreme beauty of language.

And all the while that language is unsettling us further. Some of this is accidental: the passage of time has altered meanings, making the effects even stranger and more disconcerting than Shakespeare meant them to be. Words become treacherous because we think we understand them but in fact do not. In the opening scene of Hamlet alone, “rivals” means companions and “extravagant” means wandering. In the first scene of Othello , “circumstance” means circumlocution, “spinster” means someone who spins wool, “peculiar” means personal, and “owe” means own. We can never be quite sure of the linguistic ground beneath our feet. Especially as we experience these words aurally in the theater, stepping stones turn out to be trip hazards.

This effect may be unintended in itself (Shakespeare cannot have known how the English language would evolve over four centuries), but it merely exaggerates what Shakespeare is doing anyway: simultaneously offering and withholding meaning. One way he does this is with a figure of speech that is peculiar in his own sense, personal to him. A distinctive strand of his writing is his fondness for expressing one concept with two words, joined together by “and.” No one has ever made such a humble three-letter word so slippery.

For example, when Hamlet thinks of Fortinbras’s army going off to invade Poland, he remarks that the warriors are willing to die “for a fantasy and trick of fame.” Laertes warns Ophelia against “the shot and danger of desire.” Shakespeare uses this device sixty-six times in Hamlet , twenty-eight times in Othello (“body and beauty”), eighteen times in Macbeth (“sound and fury”) and fifteen times in King Lear (“the image and horror of it”). With these conjunctions, every take is a double take. When we hear “and,” we expect the two things being joined together either to be different yet complementary (the day was cold and bright) or obviously the same (Musk is vile and loathsome).

Shakespeare does use such obvious phrasing, but often he gives us conjunctions that are neither quite the same nor quite different. A trick and a fantasy are alike but not exactly. The shot and the danger are closely related but separate concepts, as are sound and fury. Sometimes our brains can adjust fairly easily: “The image and horror” can be put back together as a horrible image. The “shot and danger” is a dangerous shot. But sometimes they can’t. When Hamlet tells the players that the purpose of theater is to show “the very age and body of the time,” we get the overall idea: they should embody the life of their own historical period. But the individual pieces of the phrase don’t cohere. The time does not have a body—it is the thing to be embodied by the actors. The “age of the time” borders on tautology. When Hamlet talks of his father’s tomb opening “his ponderous and marble jaws,” we must work quite hard to get to what is being signified, which is the heavy marble construction of the tomb. That banal little word “and” leaves us in a place somewhere between comprehension and mystery.

Shakespeare also does this with the basic construction of his sentences. As readers or members of an audience, we are hungry for information, and exposition is one of the basic skills of the playwright. But Shakespeare loves to spool out facts like someone gradually feeding out the line of a kite, adjusting to the tug and tension of the words. He leaves us waiting even while we are being informed. A sentence has a subject, a verb, and an object. Shakespeare delights in separating them from one another to the point where they are almost cut adrift. Early in Hamlet , Horatio is giving us some important backstory: how Old Hamlet acquired Norwegian lands and how Fortinbras is trying to get them back. He starts simply: “Our last king…” He then takes eight words to get to the verb “was” and then another fifteen words to get to “dared to the combat.” And then we have another fifteen words before we find out that Old Hamlet killed Old Fortinbras in this duel.

Or in the second scene of Macbeth , we need to know that Macbeth has triumphed against the rebels on the battlefield. The Captain, bringing the news, tells us that “brave Macbeth…carved out his passage” through the ranks of the enemy. But between “brave Macbeth” and “carved out his passage” there are nineteen words. Lear, in the crucial caprice that catalyzes the tragedy, demands: “Tell me, my daughters…Which of you shall we say doth love us most.” Except what he actually says is:

Tell me, my daughters, Since now we will divest us both of rule, Interest of territory, cares of state, Which of you shall we say doth love us most.

We have to hang on for the dramatic point. This happens again and again in these plays: the language is used to keep us in states of suspended animation. The propulsive rhythms keep the words moving forward with a relentless energy. (Otherwise, we would lose patience and conclude that Shakespeare is really quite a bad writer.) But the import of the words lags behind. This is Shakespeare’s marvelous kind of syncopation: the meter is regular but the meaning is offbeat.

Frank Kermode, riffing on T.S. Eliot, wrote of how a strange piece of language opens up “the bewildering minute, the moment of dazzled recognition” for which all poetry searches. These plays work toward those bewildering minutes when we both recognize something as profoundly human and are at the same time so dazzled by it that we cannot quite take it in. Some of these moments are elaborately linguistic: Hamlet’s contemplations of whether or not he should continue to exist, Macbeth’s articulation of the ways in which his violence has utterly isolated him from humanity itself. But some are almost wordless. There is Lear’s terrible “Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh!” over the body of his dead daughter and Othello’s “Oh, Oh, Oh!” when he realizes that he has murdered his wife for no reason. Shakespeare can make his eternal minutes from the most exquisite artifice or from the most primitive of sounds, knowing as he does that when words fail, after all the astounding articulacy we have been experiencing, the failure is itself unfathomably expressive.

None of this has anything to do with moral instruction. Moral destruction may be more like it: creating the “form and pressure” of the times through a great unraveling, in which what we know becomes un-known. If we have to go back to Aristotle’s theories of tragedy to understand what Shakespeare is doing, the place to go is not his idea of the fatal flaw—a concept Aristotle drew from Greek plays that could hardly be more different from Shakespeare’s. It is, rather, to Aristotle’s identification of the emotions that tragedy seeks to draw out of us: pity and terror. In Shakespeare’s tragedies, we have to supply the pity ourselves because there is precious little of it on offer to the people caught up in the violence of arbitrary power. But there is an abundance of terror. “Security,” says one of the witches in Macbeth , “is mortals’ chiefest enemy.” To feel secure is to be unprepared for the duplicity of reality. Shakespeare gives us crash courses in every kind of insecurity: physical, emotional, psychological, cognitive, even existential.

Ross, in the same play, explains to the soon to be murdered Lady Macduff:

But cruel are the times when we are traitors And do not know ourselves; when we hold rumor From what we fear, yet know not what we fear, But float upon a wild and violent sea…

This could be applied to all these tragedies, in which fear itself cannot be defined or contained. The plays are wild and violent seas on which even the boundaries of terror cannot be charted. If you had to live in one of them, your best course would be to listen to what a messenger tells Lady Macduff: “If you will take a homely man’s advice,/Be not found here; hence with your little ones.”

These violent wildernesses are not created by the flaws in Shakespeare’s characters. The jumpy guards on the battlements at Elsinore as Hamlet begins are not watching out for ghosts: war is already coming, as Young Fortinbras threatens to invade if the lands Old Hamlet seized from Norway are not returned. Before Macbeth even meets the witches, Scotland is beset by civil war and invasion. The play proper opens with the question: “What bloody man is that?” The still-bleeding Captain delivers gory descriptions of a man being cut in two and of his severed head being displayed on the battlements. Macbeth and Banquo are said “to bathe in reeking wounds.” As the action of Othello is beginning, messages are already arriving in Venice with news of the coming Turkish assault on Cyprus—war has begun. The only one of the four protagonists in the tragedies who can be said to unleash large-scale violence by his own actions is Lear—but even then, the speed with which his kingdom falls apart after his abdication makes us wonder whether it would not have descended into chaos anyway if he had merely died of old age.

What we encounter, then, is nothing so comforting as imperfect men causing trouble that will be banished by their deserved deaths. It is men who embody the hurly-burly that, contrary to the predictions of the witches at the start of Macbeth , is never going to be “done.” Hamlet and Macbeth, Othello and Lear are distinguished in these dramas by the illusion that they can determine events by their own actions. They have, they believe, the power to say what will happen next. But no amount of power can ever be great enough in an irrational world. The universe does not follow orders. That, as Miss Prism might have said, is what Tragedy means.

It is nice to imagine a time when these plays could be loved for their poetry alone. It would be a delight to think that their pleasure would be that they speak, as Horatio has it at the end of Hamlet , to an “unknowing world/How these things came about.” But there is not yet a world that does not know the violence of these plays or the fury with which reality responds to all attempts to force it to obey one man’s will. There is no place in history where “Be not found here” is not good advice for millions of vulnerable people. We return to the tragedies not in search of behavioral education but because the wilder the terror Shakespeare unleashes, the deeper is the pity and the greater the wonder that, even in the howling tempest, we can still hear the voices of broken individuals so amazingly articulated. They do not, when they speak, reduce the frightfulness. They allow us, rather, in those bewildering moments, to be equal to it.

Is Israel Committing Genocide?

Mexico’s Politics of Bitterness

Subscribe to our Newsletters

More by Fintan O’Toole

The ambiguous hero of Henrik Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People is a man of science who insists on the primacy of truth and evidence. But he’s also, possibly, a bit of a fascist.

May 23, 2024 issue

To understand Trump’s continuing hold over his fans, we have to ask: Why do they find him so funny?

March 21, 2024 issue

February 11, 2024

Fintan O’Toole is the Advising Editor at The New York Review and a columnist for The Irish Times . His most recent book is We Don’t Know Ourselves: A Personal History of Modern Ireland . (June 2024)

See my “Behind ‘King Lear’: The History Revealed,” The New York Review , November 19, 2015. ↩

June 10, 2021 issue

No Consolation

April 7, 2022 issue

Early Alzheimer’s

June 23, 2022 issue

May 27, 2021 issue

December 2, 2021 issue

Turkey Vultures

January 13, 2022 issue

December 8, 2022 issue

November 24, 2022 issue

Subscribe and save 50%!

Get immediate access to the current issue and over 25,000 articles from the archives, plus the NYR App.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

The Art of Allusion: Adding Depth to Writing

This essay is about the literary device of allusion, which is a reference to a person, place, event, or another work that relies on the reader’s familiarity to convey a deeper meaning. It explores how allusions add layers of understanding to writing, using examples from Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” where Lady Macbeth alludes to Neptune to express her overwhelming guilt. The essay discusses how allusions are also used in modern literature, like Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” to symbolize historical events. Allusions enrich writing by tapping into shared cultural knowledge, enabling authors to evoke emotions and provide commentary. However, using them effectively requires understanding the audience’s familiarity with the reference. Allusions are prevalent in everyday language, literature, music, film, and art, creating connections across time and providing writers with a tool to communicate complex themes succinctly.

How it works

Indirect reference serves as a literary mechanism that imbues written compositions with augmented strata of significance. It entails alluding to a personage, locale, episode, or another literary oeuvre without explicit explication, banking on the reader’s acquaintance to discern the inferred import. By summoning communal or literary cognizance, allusions furnish a succinct modality of conveying a profound comprehension or sentiment that enriches the prose sans necessitating protracted expositions.

Authors spanning diverse genres harness allusions to captivate readers, imbuing their narratives with subtlety and reverberance.

A quintessential illustration resides in the works of Shakespeare. In “Macbeth,” as Lady Macbeth exclaims, “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand?” she invokes Neptune, the Roman deity of the sea, accentuating the enormity of her remorse. The audience instantaneously apprehends the acute and inescapable contrition gnawing at Lady Macbeth’s conscience for her complicity in regicide.

Likewise, contemporary wordsmiths employ allusions to convey intricate notions. In George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” the narrative mirrors the Russian Revolution, with characters embodying historical personages such as Joseph Stalin. Orwell refrains from delineating the historical parallels explicitly, entrusting the reader to discern the analog between the ascent of the porcine hierarchy and Stalin’s autocracy.

Allusions transcend the confines of literature. Vernacular discourse abounds with them, encompassing realms from athletics and melody to cinema and chronicles. Ponder an individual characterized as possessing the “Midas touch,” an overt allusion to King Midas in Greek folklore, whose capacity to transmute all he touched into gold metamorphosed into an emblem of opulence and surfeit. Or when an individual evokes a “David versus Goliath” scenario, they reference the biblical tale of David vanquishing a vastly superior adversary, furnishing a metaphor for any underdog surmounting odds.

In addition to enriching text with strata of import, allusions serve to forge a shared cultural acumen or accentuate communal values. They forge a nexus between authors and readers, as well as between disparate works of art, by tapping into a collective imagination. When the allusion resonates, the reader becomes enmeshed in a broader dialogue, interlinking literature across epochs and geographies.

However, the effective utilization of allusions mandates meticulous consideration of the audience’s background and familiarity. An esoteric reference may fail to elicit the intended impact if it eludes recognition, potentially leaving the reader befuddled. Ergo, writers should elect allusions germane to their audience, enabling them to fully apprehend the deeper import of the reference.

Furthermore, allusions are not merely ornamental; they can also serve as vehicles for critique or contention against extant norms. Authors may subvert established references to proffer novel perspectives or censure social constructs. For instance, Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” alludes to biblical narratives like the chronicle of Rachel and Leah to lay bare how religious fanaticism could distort history and legitimize subjugation. Atwood employs allusion to comment on the nexus of religiosity and politics, prompting readers to engage critically with contemporary quandaries.

In contemporary culture, allusions thrive not only in literature but also in music, cinema, and art. Lyrics in hip-hop often reference fellow artists, historical epochs, or literature to furnish context or homage. In cinema, directors embed allusions to classic celluloid, literature, and historical episodes to infuse texture and engage cinephiles. Visual artisans, likewise, incorporate allusions into their oeuvres to imbue them with strata of import and convey commentary through imagery.

Ultimately, allusions facilitate the weaving of a broader tapestry, endowing writers with a sumptuous lexicon for probing themes, character motivations, and ethical quandaries. They furnish a means to infuse profundity with brevity, interlinking individual works with broader narratives and communal dialogues. By leaning on shared cognizance, allusions can elicit emotions, challenge presumptions, and beckon readers to plumb the depths of the reference’s import. It’s a literary craft that, when wielded discerningly, enriches both the prose and the reader’s immersion.

Cite this page

The Art of Allusion: Adding Depth to Writing. (2024, May 21). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-art-of-allusion-adding-depth-to-writing/

"The Art of Allusion: Adding Depth to Writing." PapersOwl.com , 21 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-art-of-allusion-adding-depth-to-writing/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Art of Allusion: Adding Depth to Writing . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-art-of-allusion-adding-depth-to-writing/ [Accessed: 22 May. 2024]

"The Art of Allusion: Adding Depth to Writing." PapersOwl.com, May 21, 2024. Accessed May 22, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-art-of-allusion-adding-depth-to-writing/

"The Art of Allusion: Adding Depth to Writing," PapersOwl.com , 21-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-art-of-allusion-adding-depth-to-writing/. [Accessed: 22-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Art of Allusion: Adding Depth to Writing . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-art-of-allusion-adding-depth-to-writing/ [Accessed: 22-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Get Involved
New Lawyers
Solo & Small Firm
Attorney Referral
Ethics & Fee Arbitration
Placement Service
Member Directory
Find Legal Help
Dispute with Attorney
Classifieds
Youth Civics Initiative
Signature Events
Announcements
Barrister Newsletter
News Releases
Barrister Advertising
George Floyd Resources

Law Day 2024: Third Place Essay

Improving our democracy:, gun violence and the connection to mental health, by colin d..

Even as America is a very developed and educated democracy, gun violence and the connection with mental health pose a serious problem. While having such a developed government along with our society having a large function in our democracy, we still see this problem every day on the news.

This is an extremely controversial topic, especially in a country with such a high rate of gun homicides. As of December 7th, 2023, we saw a whopping 40,00 deaths due to gun violence in the US, not including gun related injuries. Looking at recent years, we saw a record amount of gun deaths in America. Gun violence has increased greatly since 2000, going from 28,663 gun homicides in 2000, to 48,830 deaths due to gun violence in 2021. This is an increase of about 20,000 deaths, over a 21 year time span, far more than the difference from 1980 to 2000. Now this statistically does not make sense, as gun laws have become more strict, and are largely enforced across the US.

The mental health changes we have seen may have an impact on gun related deaths, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first year of the pandemic, a 25 percent increase in depression and anxiety was seen worldwide. Anxiety and depression are a very real mental illness, and mental illness is one of the major reasons for gun violence and death in the United States. We see that between the time of the pandemic, as mental health decreased, mass shooting incidents increased by a whopping 19% by the time it was over. If we want to make our society a better place to live we need to identify and support people who are struggling with mental health. Most mass shootings are due to incredible stress and anxiety that can’t be relieved otherwise due to lack of support, or other reasons.

So if it cannot be prevented by a diagnosis, or a warning, we need to find a way to make stress and anxiety less common in our society. Some ways this can be achieved might include effective education about the risks and possible stress of social media and its connection to mental health. We could build connections with isolated people, or people that don'’'t have proper support in their lives.

This could include community support networks, as a link to people needing somebody in their lives to trust and talk to if they have nobody else. These networks will provide people the support they need and a safe environment to share their troubles. It could be a volunteer hotline, free for people who are in a mental crisis to talk to a designated professional.

In conclusion, to better help our society and strengthen our democracy with regard to gun violence and mental health, we need to identify individuals who may be struggling and provide support networks.

Works Cited

The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/mental-illness-and-gun-violence/

Gramlich, John. What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S. 26 April, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-thedata- says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

International
Schools directory
Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

Macbeth Model 2024

Subject: English

Age range: 14-16

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

16 May 2024

Share through email
Share through twitter
Share through linkedin
Share through facebook
Share through pinterest

2024 Macbeth model answer on how far Lady Macbeth is presented as a strong female character in Act 1 Scene 7 and how she can be perceived throughout the rest of the play. This model essay is designed to hit the requirements for Grade 9 forAQA English Literature Paper 1. Includes an answer that weaves together language and structure analysis, context and detailed and perceptive insights into Jacobean society, how and why Shakespeare presents Lady Macbeth as a strong female character in the extract and how this perception may change throughout the play and how these changes could be perceived by a Jacobean audience.

Leave a review and we’ll send you another resource for free! Just get in touch at [email protected] once you’ve left your review.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Get this resource as part of a bundle and save up to 23%

A bundle is a package of resources grouped together to teach a particular topic, or a series of lessons, in one place.

Macbeth Revision

Macbeth exam model answers collection. Currently includes: May 2017 model essay - Ambition May 2018 model essay - Macbeth, Banquo and the Supernatural May 2019 model essay - Macbeth as a violent character / violence 2020 model essay - Lady Macbeth and how she changes 2021 model essay 2022 model essay 2023 model essay 2024 model essay

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

IMAGES

Violence in Macbeth Essay Example
Macbeth Essay
Macbeth essay
Macbeth
PPT
61+ Motifs In Macbeth With Quotes

VIDEO

Use This Sentence To Start ANY Macbeth GCSE Essay!
Macbeth Video Essay
Macbeth
GW1
👀Betrayal essay question for Macbeth? No problem, here's some ideas and suggestions
Macbeth & Violence

COMMENTS

Macbeth and Violence
THE ESSAY. Macbeth is certainly portrayed as a violent character from the offset, but initially this seems a positive trait: the Captain, Ross and others herald him as a great warrior, both an ally and valuable asset to Duncan and his kingdom. Furthermore, Duncan himself is overjoyed at Macbeth's skill in battle.
Violence Theme in Macbeth
To call Macbeth a violent play is an understatement. It begins in battle, contains the murder of men, women, and children, and ends not just with a climactic siege but the suicide of Lady Macbeth and the beheading of its main character, Macbeth.In the process of all this bloodshed, Macbeth makes an important point about the nature of violence: every violent act, even those done for selfless ...
How is Violence Portrayed in Macbeth?
This cyclical structure, demonstrates how Macbeth is "smoked" in eternal damnation for his instinctuall violence and brutality to fulfil his own self-serving ambition. (Your conclusion effectively summarises the key points of your essay, reinforcing the idea that Macbeth's violence is a product of his ambition and societal pressures. However ...
Macbeth by William Shakespeare: a timeless exploration of violence and
The themes of Macbeth's outer world of action are violence and treachery. The intersecting themes of its inner world are ambition, and moral reasoning. In exploring what holds a society together ...
Analysis of William Shakespeare's Macbeth
By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on July 25, 2020 • ( 0 ) Macbeth . . . is done upon a stronger and more systematic principle of contrast than any other of Shakespeare's plays. It moves upon the verge of an abyss, and is a constant struggle between life and death. The action is desperate and the reaction is dreadful. It is a huddling together of fierce ...
Violence In Macbeth: An Analysis Of Macbeth & Violence
Violence in Macbeth. Macbeth is a prime example of a violent Jacobean drama. As the Elizabethan age gave way to the Jacobean era new young playwrights emerged. They were very much in tune with their sophisticated London audience, who delighted in the spectacle of sex and violence, so Jacobean plays became increasingly sexual and violent.
Violence In Macbeth
Violence in Macbeth is highlighted by the theme broached by the witches: "Fair is foul, and foul is fair." Violence is either viewed as valorous, or cognitively detrimental. Macbeth is a soldier ...
Violence
THEMES: VIOLENCE. Macbeth is an extremely violent play. Macbeth takes the throne of Scotland by killing Duncan and his guards, and tries to hold on to it by sending people to murder Banquo and Macduff's family. Finally, he attempts to keep his reign by fighting Macduff. These might be the scenes of violence which are the most obvious in the ...
Violence
The violent imagery describing Macbeth at the start of the play is honourable: his violence on the battlefield is for the king. He is praised and rewarded for killing a treacherous thane, Macdonald (sometimes spelt Macdonwald): 'Till he unseam'd him from the nave to th' chops / And fixed his head upon our battlements' (1,2). Macbeth shows his courage and strength by cutting his enemy ...
Macbeth Critical Essays
Macbeth's. Topic #3. A motif is a word, image, or action in a drama that happens over and over again. There is a recurring motif of blood and violence in the tragedy Macbeth. This motif ...
The Role of Violence in Shakespeare's Macbeth (Essay Sample)
The Role of Violence in Shakespeare's Macbeth (Essay Sample) Macbeth, written by the literary master Shakespeare, is a story full of tragedy, ambition, and suspense. However, a larger theme of violence encompasses and controls the story and its characters. Violence, playing an important role in the play, depicts Macbeth's degradation from an ...
Violence in Macbeth Essay Topics
Violence in Macbeth Essay Topics. Clio has taught education courses at the college level and has a Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction. In many ways, ~'Macbeth~' is an extremely violent play. This ...
How is violence portrayed in Macbeth?
Violence is an integral theme in Macbeth - indeed, the word 'blood' occurs forty-two times throughout the play. The action of the play is a cyclical one; a traitor to the crown is vanquished, those who violate the social codes of rule die violently, and a benevolent king is restored. The question remains however, whether the play considers ...
Violence
This videos the theme of violence in Macbeth alongside key quotations examined alongside consideration of motifs, Shakespeare's intentions and audience react...
Macbeth's rites of violence : : essay and review
Shakespeare in Southern Africa. Violence is the heart and soul of Macbeth. It permeates the action and the narrative; it clings to the characters; it infects and controls the imagination of each of the personae. There is no respite, no real relief from violence in any tiny nook or large landscape of the drama. In many ways this is Shakespeare's ...
The Theme of Violence in Macbeth
This essay, will argue that violence is not merely actions performed by the characters but the skeleton of plot and theme. For the sake of a clear analysis, first an outline the concept of karma and karma of violence in Macbeth. Then the essay will conclude that the karmic effect of violence drives the development of plot and reflects moral judgement.
Macbeth by William Shakespeare Summary, Themes, and Analysis
Contents. Macbeth was written by William Shakespeare in either 1605 or 1606. Its full name is "The Tragedy of Macbeth". It was first performed in around 1606. The drama revolves around a Villain named Macbeth who is ambitious and brave but because of his thirst for power, he begins to do evil. He receives a prophecy from three witches that ...
EXEMPLAR ESSAY on the theme of VIOLENCE in 'Macbeth' GCSE 9-1 English
This resource is a model essay answering the following question: 'How is the theme of violence presented in 'Macbeth'?' It is of GCSE standard and targeted at teachers who want to show their students a grade 8/9 answer that they can analyse and obtain ideas from.
Macbeth Downfall in the Context of Violence
In Shakespeare's Macbeth, violence is either viewed as courageous or psychologically destructive. In the story, figures of witches come to the character Macbeth consulting him of prophecies, raising his curiosity and his ambition, which eventually lead to his downfall. Macbeth's attempt to cover his journey to fulfill these prophecies ...
'Violence in Macbeth'
Subject: English. Age range: 11-14. Resource type: Assessment and revision. File previews. zip, 13.96 KB. The following essay was written in response to the following question: ''Explore how fare Shakespeare presents Macbeth as a violent character'' (AQA). The answer was high attaining and achieved 28 out of a possible 30 marks.
How to Write a Grade 9 Macbeth Essay
A good Macbeth essay introduction. A not-so-good Macbeth essay introduction. Is short: one or two sentences is plenty. Is long and rambling. Just contains your thesis statement: a short summary of your argument and personal opinion. Contains many points and so doesn't present a single, clear argument. Doesn't include evidence
English
Banquo is murdered and shows physical violence of how it is becoming a main theme of the play murder is repeated as Macbeth and more and more suspicion and more people rebel against him making him paranoid because of the driving force of the play in the way Macbeth deals with obstacles.
No Comfort
The New York Times informs us that. with Marlowe's Doctor Faustus or Shakespeare's Hamlet, their tragic flaws, enacted, became the definition of tragedy. It may be angst (Hamlet), or hubris (Faustus), but it's there and we know, watching, that the ruinous end will be of their own making. for just $1 an issue!
The Art of Allusion: Adding Depth to Writing
This essay is about the literary device of allusion, which is a reference to a person, place, event, or another work that relies on the reader's familiarity to convey a deeper meaning. It explores how allusions add layers of understanding to writing, using examples from Shakespeare's "Macbeth," where Lady Macbeth alludes to Neptune to ...
Law Day 2024: Third Place Essay
Law Day 2024: Third Place Essay Improving Our Democracy: Gun Violence and the Connection to Mental Health ... Gun violence has increased greatly since 2000, going from 28,663 gun homicides in 2000, to 48,830 deaths due to gun violence in 2021. This is an increase of about 20,000 deaths, over a 21 year time span, far more than the difference ...
Macbeth Model 2024
Macbeth Revision. Macbeth exam model answers collection. Currently includes: May 2017 model essay - Ambition May 2018 model essay - Macbeth, Banquo and the Supernatural May 2019 model essay - Macbeth as a violent character / violence 2020 model essay - Lady Macbeth and how she changes 2021 model essay 2022 model essay 2023 model essay 2024 model essay
Lipstick protester vows to keep fighting Russian influence despite
Ms Minadze and other protesters see the daily evening protests outside Georgia's parliament as part of a new ideological front line. They feel a duty to stand up to the ruling Georgian Dream ...