Murder and conflict are common themes in Macbeth. Is violence used to advocate for peace and harmony or is it just a plot device? Does Shakespeare distinguish between moral and immoral types of violence?
Throughout the play, conflict is a major theme. Macbeth has many internal and external issues that he is pressured by. One of the most notable was his conflict with his wife, Lady Macbeth. She called evil spirits upon herself that inevitably effect Macbeth. All she wanted was for her husband to be more powerful, but she did not want to wait. This impatience was not because they had a tyrannical leader, but because she wanted more for her husband. There is also the conflict between good and evil. Macbeth is an honorable man at the beginning, but after evil spirits are brought down, he begins to be consumed by evil. Evil is in control for a good portion of the play, but after Fleance escapes being murder, the upper hand goes back to good. Murder is seen throughout Macbeth with the deaths of many characters. These killings are not done out of a hope for peace, but rather a selfish demand for power. With his wife's urging, Macbeth orders the death of many people who stand in the way of his crown. Clearly this was immoral because there was not an imminent threat if he did not kill these people. The killings are part of the plot and each one leads to the audience closer to understanding the breakdown of Macbeth's mental state. In other words, the murders are not done for peace, but rather they are part of the story. Near the beginning of the play, Macbeth is described as a valiant hero and praised for being a good soldier, but we then we witness his downfall. This turn of events shows the difference between Macbeth's "glory days" and his murderous acts. Very quickly he went from being a war hero to dying at the hand of a former friend. Shakespeare also differentiates moral and immoral violence by the revolts against Macbeth. This is shown to be a moral type of violence because they are trying to stop Macbeth from killing more innocent people. When Macbeth is killed, it is depicted as a good thing because of all the evil acts that he carried out. There are also characters, such as Banquo, who died at the hands of Macbeth, but lead good lives and their deaths were honorable.
I also wrote that evil was in control during the play and that was the reason for just about every murder that took place. You also explained well that Macbeth oredered many murders and those were all his murders even though he had others commit them.
I think it is very interesting that by reading this prompt, you approached the story itself and the feelings that it creates for the characters within this story. However, when I read the prompt, I automatically applied it to the people in real life who were reading the story or watching the play. I was under the impression that we were to analyze the life lesson taken from this literary work and to determine what it was, but you were under the impression that we were analyzing the story line itself, and I think that is very interesting. Neither of us were wrong, but we both had different takes on the prompt. When viewing this prompt from the literary standpoint as you did, I agree with the things you said.
In the story of Macbeth, I do not think that violence is used to achieve or advocate peace and harmony at all. My main reason for thinking this is the root of the violence and the sources that the murders where created from. In the beginning Macbeth was a war general and and used violence to defend his country. After this however, his violence turned into cold blooded murder. By committing these murders he was trying to obtain power and the crown of Scotland. He let pride and power lead him to temptations and this is the reason his killings were evil. The root of all of his murders used evil as well. The three witches were either evil spirits or used evil spirits to obtain information about the future. When Macbeth hard what they had to say and followed it, he was engaging in the same evil as them. And using this evil he killed the man he once served and fought for. Lady Macbeth was not only a very large influence on Macbeth but may have been the only reason that he committed his murders. Lady Macbeth was evil because she called on evil spirits to take her morals away and help her to be able to make her husband a killer just so they could obtain power. I think that Macbeth's murders are not justified with peace because the origin of the murders were all based on evil. I do think that the murder of Macbeth himself was a good thing because he was going to continue to kill others but I do no think that even that murder was based on peace and harmony. He could have been imprisoned or banished from Scotland instead of being killed. Shakespeare does not necessarily distinguish between moral and immoral types of violence but he shows both kinds. When Macbeth is fighting for his country and his king it is moral and when he is fighting for evil it is immoral.
I think it is interesting how you still couldn't justify the death of Macbeth at the end of the story. Most people agree that Macbeth should have died to save the community and that he deserved it, but instead, you viewed the other ways that Macbeth could have been punished that didn't involve death. Good work
I think that it is interesting that you think that Macbeth should have dies, yet his death was not based on seeking peace. I think that was exactly what they wanted to accomplish; a more peaceful land. I do not think he deserved to die, but I think that his death was due to a longing for harmony.
I strongly agree with your example shown in Act I. It really explains that violence was not always used to maintain peace in the book. I also liked how you explained how Macbeth's work was mostly evil, which explains Shakespeare's stance on violence.
I disagree with you by not being able to justify Macbeth's death or the violence used against Macbeth to bring peace. I just believe this what peaceful violence means.
Macbeth is a tragedy that involves countless deaths and murders. Some of them are very violent and create conflict within the story. Other ones, however, go almost unnoticed. Those ones are the ones that help to build the characters up in the story rather than the ones that add to the tragedy. The murders that go mostly unnoticed are seen by the author as moral murders, in a way, and therefore are not made into a big deal. The other murders within the book, like the murder of kind Duncan and the killing of Banquo, add to the story in a big way because they are seen by the author as immoral. At the beginning of the story, Macbeth is seen as a war hero because he killed the enemy with no mercy and led his people to victory. He skinned people and even cut them right down the center. Because of this, Macbeth is seen as a hero. However, later in the book, Macbeth killed king Duncan and Banquo, but these murders are seen as immoral. Though these murders were still violent, they were seen as much more immoral because the men killed were not enemies at all. When looking at the big picture, these murders were no different than war murders, yet they are regarded differently within the society of that time. Due to this, I think that Shakespeare does indeed distinguish between moral and immoral types of violence. During this time, no murder can be perceived as moral. However, through this story, Shakespeare does demonstrate how a murder or violence in any form can be perceived during that time and this shows us how these views are different from today's views. When looking at the big picture, one might think that this story is all about violence and the effect of immoral choices. This is not an incorrect perception, but it may not have been what Shakespeare was trying to show us through this work of literature. I think that this work could be used to advocate peace and harmony. By demonstrating the effects of violence and chaos, Shakespeare was able to use his fictional characters to show how life could turn out for everyone if peace and harmony were not preserved throughout the community. By showing that violence is only met with violence in an endless cycle that repeats itself, William Shakespeare was able to instill a fear of violence and murder in all those who witnessed his story. This fear, in a way, may have helped to preserve peace. Because of all of the violence used, I believe that Shakespeare did intend to advocate peace and harmony for those in the community of that time.
I like your ideas on the murders. Also, your thoughts on what Shakespeare was trying to get across in this story really made me understand what he was trying to get to the readers.
It's important to note what the big picture could be, and I believe your description is pretty spot on, it is uncomplicated and to the point as it should be. Violence and immoral choices often go hand in hand.
There is the old saying, "never fight violence, with violence." Yet, in Macbeth that is the constant theme, moral verse immoral forms of violence. Shakespeare seems to present the idea that killing with moral justification makes the violent act admirable, even if the act is merciless and immoral by nature. Shakespeare in most of his plays, but in especially tragedies such as Macbeth, makes it clear that there is two types of violence, violence with a good cause and violence for evil reasons. This could be because of the time that Shakespeare lived, but it is evident in his writings that he believed that if a man did a violent act in order to restore what he thought was peace, then the act of violence was justified and even admirable. We see this idea play out in Act I, Macebth, at the time, a noble warrior with great intentions, was being praised by the king of Scotland for slicing a man in half and cutting his head off. This act in the book was described as valiant and noble, even though it greatly crossed the line of just killing for peace. That act went well beyond just killing. It could be seen as a merciless act that took away a man's life in the most terrible way possible. It was truly brutal, yet it was praised and celebrated. I do not believe that in Shakespeare's work that murder and violence was used to be just a device used to enhance that curiosity and suspense in the plot. Rather, I see violence being described as a way to promote and maintain peace. Yet, it does not make sense how slicing someone in half is justified, but slitting a rival's throats is not. For Diuncan murdered the Thane of Cawdor for treason or the fear of, and Macbeth killed Banquo for the fear of that same action. However, Macbeth's actions are seen as pure evil, and Duncan's are praised, even though they both were trying to maintain their power. It becomes evident through examples such as that to conclude that Shakespeare truly believed that there was two types of violence, moral and immoral violence. Even if the acts of violence were the same, if the intentions of one was to promote peace and the other was to abolish it, the one promoting peace was automatically justified and made moral. This belief is clearly conveyed in Shakespeare's words in, not only Macbeth, but in many of his works especially tragedies.
I agree with some of your points, but what would have happened if the people didn't fight Macbeth's violence with violence? How much more violence would Macbeth have made? How many more people should have had to die? Sometimes it is the only thing to do. Like if there is a mass murderer who escaped from three prisions and killed fourteen people on the loose, people would be better off if he was dead. I know that sounds horrible, but in reality...
We had a different point of view and you said that Shakespeare shows two types of violence, those being good and evil. You said that some violence justified peace and I said none of it did. Even though we didn't agree, your blog is well written.
I agree with you on many of your ideas. Some of them make a lot of sense. All I say is that if they had not used violence to fight violence Macbeth would have never been silenced.
In the end of the book, the characters who are still alive, which number close to about five, are all happy because they killed off Macbeth who was on a killing spree. They believe that they have rid the world of all evil, which we know is not true, as there will always be evil knocking at our door. They killed off Macbeth because they believe that that will end this horror. It was violence, but it could be argued for being good violence. They were able to end more violence with one violent act. How much more damage would Macbeth have made if he were to not be killed off? Would he just randomly go to war and have most of his troops die because he was an idiot? One would never know what would have happened, as he was killed off. The act of killing off this one person was violent, but it was miniscule in comparison to what he could have done if given the chance. I do not believe that the characters should have given him that chance, so I believe that they did the right thing. There is so much violence in this play, with murder every few scenes. This was not something that many would have expected Shakespeare to do, even when looking back at his other plays, most of which end with almost every main character dying. This play had more death of the other characters, which led up to the main characters dying. This made me think that maybe there was something linking this particular play to the fact of everyone dying. What I believe Shakespeare was trying to say was that violence will not give someone all they want in life. Macbeth was trying to speed up a prophecy he heard by killing someone, and look where that got him: dead.
I think that it is interesting that you say that the characters left at the end of the play think they rid the world of evil. I wonder if they actually thought that. Also, I think that it is interesting that you tied Macbeth to other works of Shakespeare, because I never thought of that.
I really enjoyed how you started your blog with the example of how the people who defeated Macbeth see themselves as heros, even though they committed the same violence and horror that Macbeth did. It really shows how the characters in the play believed that intentions meant everything in justifying violence.
You made some very intelligent and interesting connections to Macbeth in your blog. As we talked about in the seminar, I believe patience would have been the best option for Macbeth. That could have prevented his death.
I agree with Mandy, bringing up patience is an interesting idea. Whether or not it could have prevented his death entirely or even held it off for a bit longer is debatable, but it cannot be ignored. You are correct in the sense that Macbeth was certainly not taking his time with the prophecy.
The murder and conflict placed throughout the Tragedy of Macbeth is an essential part of the play. The violence that is dawn from these conflicts illustrate the plot because the play is based around the death of King Duncan. Violence in this play is used to set and distinguish between moral and immoral types of violence. The violence that is burned into Macbeth's mind from the witches' evil prophecy represents the immoral violence. This type of violence allies with evil to cause nothing but pain, suffering, and unjust death. Macbeth was poisoned with this unjust evil type of violence. He made Scotland a terrible place under his reign due to his corrupted mental state and the means by which he received the throne. His unjust slaughter of his friend Banquo and Macduff's entire family exemplify the type of violence he possesses. This evil type of violence given from the witches to Macbeth clouded his judgment and completely corrupted and deceived him. This violence is completely immoral. On the other side of things, there is the violence that advocates for peace and harmony. This violence opposes Macbeth in the play. This is the violence that those on Macduff and Malcolm's side used to bring Scotland back to peace, and bring down the evil Macbeth. Their violence was justified because without it, pain and suffering would have endured under Macbeth's rule. They freed Scotland from evil and the true heir to the throne, Malcolm, replaced king Duncan instead of Macbeth. Shakespeare does a very good job of differentiating between the two types of violence, moral and immoral. He uses his characters and their actions to exemplify good and evil. He uses symbols to show how good and evil compare, and he shows clearly how good frees people and evil corrupts people. This of course corresponds to moral and immoral actions. Good siding with moral and evil siding with immoral actions. This balance of characteristics and actions clearly shows the plot and makes for a great life lesson on how power and evil corrupt people. Shakespeare was a master at writing with meaning and conveying useful life lessons.
I agree with you on the idea that the violence of Macbeth and Macduff restored peace and harmony. Macbeth's violence was caused by the witches and Lady Macbeth'a role of calling evil spirits upon herself. You tied in Shakespeare's writing style nicely at the end.
I do not believe that violence is used to advocate for peace in harmony in the case of Macbeth in his wife Lady Macbeth for multiple reasons. Lady Macbeth was a key character who convinced Macbeth to commit murder. She called upon the evil spirits to basically take away her humanity to allow her to help execute the murder. By calling upon the evil spirits Lady Macbeth Macbeth was able to execute the murders and convince her husband to as well. The spirits were also the demise of Lady Macbeth because she was not able to live with the guilt of the murders and the lies from the spirits. Lady Macbeth called the manhood of Macbeth into question as well. She was able to be heartless toward her husband. This lead Macbeth to prove his manhood by murdering those in a higher position than him. Macbeth used violence to achieve power. He murdered countless innocent people including King Duncan, Banquo, young Siward. Macbeth was the cause of chaos and death. He did not bring peace to the people by committing the murders. In fact, he did the just the opposite because he gave the people a reason to start a revolution against him. He gave the people a reason to fight. On the other hand, violence was used towards Macbeth in order to reestablish the peace and harmony that Macbeth interrupted. Macduff led the revolution against Macbeth and this violence led to a reestablished peace. If Macduff had not murdered or stopped in another way Macbeth, many more deaths would have occurred. In this situation, I believe that violence did lead to peace. Good violence and bad violence is seen throughout Shakespeare''s play. A good death would be considered Macbeth's death because peace was restored after his death. Banquo's death was also considered a good death because he went to heaven, but it was bad because he was an innocent man.
In the eyes of each character that craved power, I do believe that they truly thought their murderous deeds were advocating "peace and or "harmony". Using Lady Macbeth as an example, it was plain to see that she wanted her husband to murder Duncan mainly for their own personal gain. Though this much about her intentions are true, this would also mean that she thought it necessary that the current king die in order for she and her husband to truly live prosperously in "peace and harmony". All in all, if she was as good of a wife as Shakespearean scholars make her out to be, Lady Macbeth only wanted to find "peace and prosperity" by any means necessary. Though her means of obtaining the theorized "peace" were vile and heinous, it would not change the fact that her wishes were implied to be centered around the well-being of her family. Macduff is another excellent example, for he truly believed Macbeth was the source of all evil in their world at the time. The sickeningly "ambitious" Macbeth killed their lord, Banquo, and Macduff's wife and young son. What else but justice would this man seek from killing Macbeth? It is clear that glory is not particularly what he craves, for there is no one but Malcolm to impress that point. That aside, Macduff is still too controlled by raw grief to seek anything else but justice at the time he finally slays Macbeth. Considering these two exemplified characters in further analyzing Shakespeare's message, one can decipher that he does distinguish between moral and immoral types of violence. Lady Macbeth's selfish and evil intentions are clearly immoral due to the fact that the "fuel" came from evil spirits she called upon herself, while Macduff's intentions are more centered around justice and the greater good of the lands.
Throughout the play, conflict is a major theme. Macbeth has many internal and external issues that he is pressured by. One of the most notable was his conflict with his wife, Lady Macbeth. She called evil spirits upon herself that inevitably effect Macbeth. All she wanted was for her husband to be more powerful, but she did not want to wait. This impatience was not because they had a tyrannical leader, but because she wanted more for her husband. There is also the conflict between good and evil. Macbeth is an honorable man at the beginning, but after evil spirits are brought down, he begins to be consumed by evil. Evil is in control for a good portion of the play, but after Fleance escapes being murder, the upper hand goes back to good. Murder is seen throughout Macbeth with the deaths of many characters. These killings are not done out of a hope for peace, but rather a selfish demand for power. With his wife's urging, Macbeth orders the death of many people who stand in the way of his crown. Clearly this was immoral because there was not an imminent threat if he did not kill these people. The killings are part of the plot and each one leads to the audience closer to understanding the breakdown of Macbeth's mental state. In other words, the murders are not done for peace, but rather they are part of the story. Near the beginning of the play, Macbeth is described as a valiant hero and praised for being a good soldier, but we then we witness his downfall. This turn of events shows the difference between Macbeth's "glory days" and his murderous acts. Very quickly he went from being a war hero to dying at the hand of a former friend. Shakespeare also differentiates moral and immoral violence by the revolts against Macbeth. This is shown to be a moral type of violence because they are trying to stop Macbeth from killing more innocent people. When Macbeth is killed, it is depicted as a good thing because of all the evil acts that he carried out. There are also characters, such as Banquo, who died at the hands of Macbeth, but lead good lives and their deaths were honorable.
ReplyDeleteI also wrote that evil was in control during the play and that was the reason for just about every murder that took place. You also explained well that Macbeth oredered many murders and those were all his murders even though he had others commit them.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think it is very interesting that by reading this prompt, you approached the story itself and the feelings that it creates for the characters within this story. However, when I read the prompt, I automatically applied it to the people in real life who were reading the story or watching the play. I was under the impression that we were to analyze the life lesson taken from this literary work and to determine what it was, but you were under the impression that we were analyzing the story line itself, and I think that is very interesting. Neither of us were wrong, but we both had different takes on the prompt. When viewing this prompt from the literary standpoint as you did, I agree with the things you said.
DeleteIn the story of Macbeth, I do not think that violence is used to achieve or advocate peace and harmony at all. My main reason for thinking this is the root of the violence and the sources that the murders where created from. In the beginning Macbeth was a war general and and used violence to defend his country. After this however, his violence turned into cold blooded murder. By committing these murders he was trying to obtain power and the crown of Scotland. He let pride and power lead him to temptations and this is the reason his killings were evil. The root of all of his murders used evil as well. The three witches were either evil spirits or used evil spirits to obtain information about the future. When Macbeth hard what they had to say and followed it, he was engaging in the same evil as them. And using this evil he killed the man he once served and fought for. Lady Macbeth was not only a very large influence on Macbeth but may have been the only reason that he committed his murders. Lady Macbeth was evil because she called on evil spirits to take her morals away and help her to be able to make her husband a killer just so they could obtain power. I think that Macbeth's murders are not justified with peace because the origin of the murders were all based on evil. I do think that the murder of Macbeth himself was a good thing because he was going to continue to kill others but I do no think that even that murder was based on peace and harmony. He could have been imprisoned or banished from Scotland instead of being killed. Shakespeare does not necessarily distinguish between moral and immoral types of violence but he shows both kinds. When Macbeth is fighting for his country and his king it is moral and when he is fighting for evil it is immoral.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting how you still couldn't justify the death of Macbeth at the end of the story. Most people agree that Macbeth should have died to save the community and that he deserved it, but instead, you viewed the other ways that Macbeth could have been punished that didn't involve death. Good work
DeleteI think that it is interesting that you think that Macbeth should have dies, yet his death was not based on seeking peace. I think that was exactly what they wanted to accomplish; a more peaceful land. I do not think he deserved to die, but I think that his death was due to a longing for harmony.
DeleteI strongly agree with your example shown in Act I. It really explains that violence was not always used to maintain peace in the book. I also liked how you explained how Macbeth's work was mostly evil, which explains Shakespeare's stance on violence.
DeleteI disagree with you by not being able to justify Macbeth's death or the violence used against Macbeth to bring peace. I just believe this what peaceful violence means.
DeleteMacbeth is a tragedy that involves countless deaths and murders. Some of them are very violent and create conflict within the story. Other ones, however, go almost unnoticed. Those ones are the ones that help to build the characters up in the story rather than the ones that add to the tragedy. The murders that go mostly unnoticed are seen by the author as moral murders, in a way, and therefore are not made into a big deal. The other murders within the book, like the murder of kind Duncan and the killing of Banquo, add to the story in a big way because they are seen by the author as immoral. At the beginning of the story, Macbeth is seen as a war hero because he killed the enemy with no mercy and led his people to victory. He skinned people and even cut them right down the center. Because of this, Macbeth is seen as a hero. However, later in the book, Macbeth killed king Duncan and Banquo, but these murders are seen as immoral. Though these murders were still violent, they were seen as much more immoral because the men killed were not enemies at all. When looking at the big picture, these murders were no different than war murders, yet they are regarded differently within the society of that time. Due to this, I think that Shakespeare does indeed distinguish between moral and immoral types of violence. During this time, no murder can be perceived as moral. However, through this story, Shakespeare does demonstrate how a murder or violence in any form can be perceived during that time and this shows us how these views are different from today's views.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the big picture, one might think that this story is all about violence and the effect of immoral choices. This is not an incorrect perception, but it may not have been what Shakespeare was trying to show us through this work of literature. I think that this work could be used to advocate peace and harmony. By demonstrating the effects of violence and chaos, Shakespeare was able to use his fictional characters to show how life could turn out for everyone if peace and harmony were not preserved throughout the community. By showing that violence is only met with violence in an endless cycle that repeats itself, William Shakespeare was able to instill a fear of violence and murder in all those who witnessed his story. This fear, in a way, may have helped to preserve peace. Because of all of the violence used, I believe that Shakespeare did intend to advocate peace and harmony for those in the community of that time.
I like your ideas on the murders. Also, your thoughts on what Shakespeare was trying to get across in this story really made me understand what he was trying to get to the readers.
DeleteIt's important to note what the big picture could be, and I believe your description is pretty spot on, it is uncomplicated and to the point as it should be. Violence and immoral choices often go hand in hand.
DeleteThere is the old saying, "never fight violence, with violence." Yet, in Macbeth that is the constant theme, moral verse immoral forms of violence. Shakespeare seems to present the idea that killing with moral justification makes the violent act admirable, even if the act is merciless and immoral by nature. Shakespeare in most of his plays, but in especially tragedies such as Macbeth, makes it clear that there is two types of violence, violence with a good cause and violence for evil reasons. This could be because of the time that Shakespeare lived, but it is evident in his writings that he believed that if a man did a violent act in order to restore what he thought was peace, then the act of violence was justified and even admirable. We see this idea play out in Act I, Macebth, at the time, a noble warrior with great intentions, was being praised by the king of Scotland for slicing a man in half and cutting his head off. This act in the book was described as valiant and noble, even though it greatly crossed the line of just killing for peace. That act went well beyond just killing. It could be seen as a merciless act that took away a man's life in the most terrible way possible. It was truly brutal, yet it was praised and celebrated. I do not believe that in Shakespeare's work that murder and violence was used to be just a device used to enhance that curiosity and suspense in the plot. Rather, I see violence being described as a way to promote and maintain peace. Yet, it does not make sense how slicing someone in half is justified, but slitting a rival's throats is not. For Diuncan murdered the Thane of Cawdor for treason or the fear of, and Macbeth killed Banquo for the fear of that same action. However, Macbeth's actions are seen as pure evil, and Duncan's are praised, even though they both were trying to maintain their power. It becomes evident through examples such as that to conclude that Shakespeare truly believed that there was two types of violence, moral and immoral violence. Even if the acts of violence were the same, if the intentions of one was to promote peace and the other was to abolish it, the one promoting peace was automatically justified and made moral. This belief is clearly conveyed in Shakespeare's words in, not only Macbeth, but in many of his works especially tragedies.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of your points, but what would have happened if the people didn't fight Macbeth's violence with violence? How much more violence would Macbeth have made? How many more people should have had to die? Sometimes it is the only thing to do. Like if there is a mass murderer who escaped from three prisions and killed fourteen people on the loose, people would be better off if he was dead. I know that sounds horrible, but in reality...
DeleteWe had a different point of view and you said that Shakespeare shows two types of violence, those being good and evil. You said that some violence justified peace and I said none of it did. Even though we didn't agree, your blog is well written.
DeleteI agree with you on many of your ideas. Some of them make a lot of sense. All I say is that if they had not used violence to fight violence Macbeth would have never been silenced.
DeleteIn the end of the book, the characters who are still alive, which number close to about five, are all happy because they killed off Macbeth who was on a killing spree. They believe that they have rid the world of all evil, which we know is not true, as there will always be evil knocking at our door. They killed off Macbeth because they believe that that will end this horror. It was violence, but it could be argued for being good violence. They were able to end more violence with one violent act. How much more damage would Macbeth have made if he were to not be killed off? Would he just randomly go to war and have most of his troops die because he was an idiot? One would never know what would have happened, as he was killed off. The act of killing off this one person was violent, but it was miniscule in comparison to what he could have done if given the chance. I do not believe that the characters should have given him that chance, so I believe that they did the right thing. There is so much violence in this play, with murder every few scenes. This was not something that many would have expected Shakespeare to do, even when looking back at his other plays, most of which end with almost every main character dying. This play had more death of the other characters, which led up to the main characters dying. This made me think that maybe there was something linking this particular play to the fact of everyone dying. What I believe Shakespeare was trying to say was that violence will not give someone all they want in life. Macbeth was trying to speed up a prophecy he heard by killing someone, and look where that got him: dead.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is interesting that you say that the characters left at the end of the play think they rid the world of evil. I wonder if they actually thought that. Also, I think that it is interesting that you tied Macbeth to other works of Shakespeare, because I never thought of that.
DeleteI really enjoyed how you started your blog with the example of how the people who defeated Macbeth see themselves as heros, even though they committed the same violence and horror that Macbeth did. It really shows how the characters in the play believed that intentions meant everything in justifying violence.
DeleteYou made some very intelligent and interesting connections to Macbeth in your blog. As we talked about in the seminar, I believe patience would have been the best option for Macbeth. That could have prevented his death.
DeleteI agree with Mandy, bringing up patience is an interesting idea. Whether or not it could have prevented his death entirely or even held it off for a bit longer is debatable, but it cannot be ignored. You are correct in the sense that Macbeth was certainly not taking his time with the prophecy.
DeleteThe murder and conflict placed throughout the Tragedy of Macbeth is an essential part of the play. The violence that is dawn from these conflicts illustrate the plot because the play is based around the death of King Duncan. Violence in this play is used to set and distinguish between moral and immoral types of violence. The violence that is burned into Macbeth's mind from the witches' evil prophecy represents the immoral violence. This type of violence allies with evil to cause nothing but pain, suffering, and unjust death. Macbeth was poisoned with this unjust evil type of violence. He made Scotland a terrible place under his reign due to his corrupted mental state and the means by which he received the throne. His unjust slaughter of his friend Banquo and Macduff's entire family exemplify the type of violence he possesses. This evil type of violence given from the witches to Macbeth clouded his judgment and completely corrupted and deceived him. This violence is completely immoral.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side of things, there is the violence that advocates for peace and harmony. This violence opposes Macbeth in the play. This is the violence that those on Macduff and Malcolm's side used to bring Scotland back to peace, and bring down the evil Macbeth. Their violence was justified because without it, pain and suffering would have endured under Macbeth's rule. They freed Scotland from evil and the true heir to the throne, Malcolm, replaced king Duncan instead of Macbeth.
Shakespeare does a very good job of differentiating between the two types of violence, moral and immoral. He uses his characters and their actions to exemplify good and evil. He uses symbols to show how good and evil compare, and he shows clearly how good frees people and evil corrupts people. This of course corresponds to moral and immoral actions. Good siding with moral and evil siding with immoral actions. This balance of characteristics and actions clearly shows the plot and makes for a great life lesson on how power and evil corrupt people. Shakespeare was a master at writing with meaning and conveying useful life lessons.
I agree with you on the idea that the violence of Macbeth and Macduff restored peace and harmony. Macbeth's violence was caused by the witches and Lady Macbeth'a role of calling evil spirits upon herself. You tied in Shakespeare's writing style nicely at the end.
DeleteI do not believe that violence is used to advocate for peace in harmony in the case of Macbeth in his wife Lady Macbeth for multiple reasons. Lady Macbeth was a key character who convinced Macbeth to commit murder. She called upon the evil spirits to basically take away her humanity to allow her to help execute the murder. By calling upon the evil spirits Lady Macbeth Macbeth was able to execute the murders and convince her husband to as well. The spirits were also the demise of Lady Macbeth because she was not able to live with the guilt of the murders and the lies from the spirits. Lady Macbeth called the manhood of Macbeth into question as well. She was able to be heartless toward her husband. This lead Macbeth to prove his manhood by murdering those in a higher position than him. Macbeth used violence to achieve power. He murdered countless innocent people including King Duncan, Banquo, young Siward. Macbeth was the cause of chaos and death. He did not bring peace to the people by committing the murders. In fact, he did the just the opposite because he gave the people a reason to start a revolution against him. He gave the people a reason to fight. On the other hand, violence was used towards Macbeth in order to reestablish the peace and harmony that Macbeth interrupted. Macduff led the revolution against Macbeth and this violence led to a reestablished peace. If Macduff had not murdered or stopped in another way Macbeth, many more deaths would have occurred. In this situation, I believe that violence did lead to peace. Good violence and bad violence is seen throughout Shakespeare''s play. A good death would be considered Macbeth's death because peace was restored after his death. Banquo's death was also considered a good death because he went to heaven, but it was bad because he was an innocent man.
ReplyDeleteIn the eyes of each character that craved power, I do believe that they truly thought their murderous deeds were advocating "peace and or "harmony". Using Lady Macbeth as an example, it was plain to see that she wanted her husband to murder Duncan mainly for their own personal gain. Though this much about her intentions are true, this would also mean that she thought it necessary that the current king die in order for she and her husband to truly live prosperously in "peace and harmony". All in all, if she was as good of a wife as Shakespearean scholars make her out to be, Lady Macbeth only wanted to find "peace and prosperity" by any means necessary. Though her means of obtaining the theorized "peace" were vile and heinous, it would not change the fact that her wishes were implied to be centered around the well-being of her family. Macduff is another excellent example, for he truly believed Macbeth was the source of all evil in their world at the time. The sickeningly "ambitious" Macbeth killed their lord, Banquo, and Macduff's wife and young son. What else but justice would this man seek from killing Macbeth? It is clear that glory is not particularly what he craves, for there is no one but Malcolm to impress that point. That aside, Macduff is still too controlled by raw grief to seek anything else but justice at the time he finally slays Macbeth. Considering these two exemplified characters in further analyzing Shakespeare's message, one can decipher that he does distinguish between moral and immoral types of violence. Lady Macbeth's selfish and evil intentions are clearly immoral due to the fact that the "fuel" came from evil spirits she called upon herself, while Macduff's intentions are more centered around justice and the greater good of the lands.
ReplyDelete