Macbeth: Tragedyor Satire? William Shakespeare wrote four
great tragedies, the last of which was written in 1606 and titled Macbeth.
This "tragedy", as it is considered by societal critics of
yesterday's literary world, scrutinizes the evil dimension of conflict,
offering a dark and gloomy atmosphere of a world dominated
by the powers ofdarkness. Macbeth, more so than any of Shakespeare's
other tragic protagonists, has to face the powers and decide:
should he succumb or should he resist? Macbeth
understands the reasons for resisting evil and yet he proceeds with a
disastrous plan, instigated by the prophecies of the three
Weird Sisters. Thus we must ask the question: If Macbeth is acting on the
impulses stimulated by the prophecies of his fate, is this
Shakespearean work of art really a Tragedy? Aristotle, one of
the greatest men in the history of human thought, interpreted Tragedy as
a genre aimed to present a heightened and harmonious
imitation of nature, and, in particular, those aspects of nature that touch
most closely upon human life. This I think Macbeth attains.
However, Aristotle adds a few conditions. According to
Aristotle, a tragedy must have six parts: plot, character, diction, thought,
spectacle, and song. Most important is the plot, the structure
of the incidents. Tragedy is not an imitation of men, but of action and life.
It is by men's actions that they acquire happiness or sadness.
Aristotle stated, in response to Plato, that tragedy produces a healthful
effect on the human character through a katharsis, a "proper
purgation" of "pity and terror." A successful tragedy, then,
exploits and appeals at the start to two basic emotions: fear and pity.
Tragedy deals with the element of evil, with what we least
want and most fear to face, and with what is destructive to human life and
values. It also draws out our ability to sympathize with the
tragic character, feeling some of the impact of the evil ourselves. Does
Macbeth succeed at this level? Can the reader feel pity and
terror for Macbeth? Or does the reader feel that Macbeth himself is
merely a branch from the root of all evil and not the poor,
forsaken, fate-sunken man, according to Aristotle's idea of tragedy, he is
supposed to portray? Can the reader "purge" his emotions of
pity and fear by placing himself in the chains of fate Macbeth has been
imprisoned in? Or does he feel the power and greed upon which
Macbeth thrives, prospers, and finally falls? I believe the latter
is the more likely reaction, and that the reader sees Macbeth as a bad
guy, feeling little or no pity for him. Aristotle also insists that
the main character of a tragedy must have a "tragic flaw." Most tragedies
fail, according to Aristotle, due to the rendering of character.
To allow the character to simply be a victim of unpredictable and
undeserved calamities would violate the complete, self-
contained unity of action in the tragedy. If that is so, and if we assume
that the group of three witches is a realistic possibility, then is
not Macbeth such a victim? Does he really deserve the misfortune
that is brought him by his fortune? After all, Macbeth is introduced to
the reader as an honest and humble leader. His fate, once
having been revealed to him, drives him to greed, elevates his lust for
power, and coins a conceited and misguided trust in his
seemingly eternal mortality. Diction, the expression of the meaning in
words, is near perfect in Macbeth, simply because it is written
by William Shakespeare, the inventor of perfect diction. Thought the task
of saying what is possible and pertinent in the circumstances
of the play can not be disputed. Spectacle and Song are the effects that
highlight the play, and are pertinent in providing an emotional
attraction. Such elements are easily found in Shakespeare. Macbeth is
written with the style and grace that only Shakespeare could
provide. Thus, these elements of tragic drama can not be
challenged in this argument. While we need to consider that
Macbeth strives on power, and in doing so loses his values of humility
and humanity, it should not be forgotten that Macbeth does,
at certain times, feel remorse for things he has done. In Act 2, Scene 2,
Macbeth confides in Lady Macbeth after the murder of Duncan:
But wherefore could not I pronounce "Amen"? I had most
need of blessing, and "Amen" Stuck in my throat. and:
Methought I heard a voice cry "Sleep no more!
Macbeth does murder sleep," the innocent sleep,
Sleep that knits up the raveled sleave of care, The
death of each day's life, sore labor's bath, Balm of hurt
minds, great nature's second course, Chief nourisher
in life's feast Macbeth shall sleep no more. In this scene, he
shows great turmoil over the deed he has done. Thus the reader is shown
that Macbeth is acting out deeds that go against his
conscience, that he regrets his actions, and that the prophecies are
unfolding. But is this apology enough to stimulate pity within the
reader? After all, the man just committed his first of many
murders! His contrition seems to fade as his want of power flourishes. So
Macbeth continues the powers of evil feeding on every move
he makes to make way for his advancement as prophesied by the
witches. He hires his men to eliminate Banquo, a threat to his
cumulative reign. Having Banquo out of the way, Macbeth surges with the
sense of power. There is no doubt that he is acting on the
impulses that were stimulated by the first prophecies of his fate. In Act 4
Scene 1, he returns to the three witches, desiring more
information regarding his fortune. They in turn assure him that "none of
woman born shall harm Macbeth." Invincible power! Macbeth
forgets the other two prophecies: Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth!
Beware Macduff, Beware the Thane of Fife and: Be
lion-mettled, proud, and take no care Who chafes, who
frets, or where conspirers are. Macbeth shall never
vanquished be until Great Birnam Wood to high
Dunsinane Hill Shall come against him.
The witches have spoken again, with unforeseeable truth. Macbeth
leaves the dreaded sisters, blinded by his own ambition. Let
the players play! He is assured that he is indestructible, for how could
Macduff, a man of woman born, hurt him? How could the
Birnam Wood come to Dunsinane Hill? Preposterous! Macbeth leads on,
confident, bold, and unvictimized. He flashes his power,
exalts himself, and fears no one, not even himself. He no longer cares
that he does not sleep. Act 5 Scene 3 opens with Macbeth:
Bring me no more reports. Let them fly all!
Till Birnam Wood remove to Dunsinane, I cannot taint
with fear. What's the boy Malcolm? Was he not born
of woman? The spirits that know All mortal
consequences have pronounced me thus: "Fear not,
Macbeth. No man that's born of woman Shall e'er
have power upon thee." Then fly, false thanes,
And mingle with the English epicures! The
mind I sway by and the heart I bear Shall never sag
with doubt nor shake with fear. Having possession of all the
confidence in the world, or at least thinking he does, Macbeth proceeds in
a boisterous manner. His fate, once prophesied to him, has
now acquired complete control. He has the titles promised him. He has
found protection in the strength of witch's words. How can the
reader pity such a fool? The only thing to do is laugh at him,
for it can be sure that these prophecies which Macbeth has ignored will
come to pass; Macbeth will no doubt fall. And he does.
Macduff, figuratively but not literally of woman born, holds the rest of the
confidence in the world. Macduff, the Arnold Schwarzenegger
of Shakespearean lords, does the impossible and brings the wood to the
hill, and brings the fall of the great and powerful Macbeth. A
tragic ending? I'd say not. A tragic ending would have been for Macduff to
fall under Macbeth. A tragic ending would have seen Lady
Macbeth take Macbeth's life. But for Macduff to do what he had
to do, the prophecy was fulfilled, and the only winner is Fate. This does
not make a Tragedy. Who do we feel sorry for? Maybe only
Macduff, who was untimely ripped from his mother's womb. We praise
Macduff for conquering Macbeth. Maybe some readers feel
some pity for Lady Macbeth. But we certainly don't feel pity for Macbeth.
Yet Macbeth could have been a victim. He lost control of
himself, and allowed himself to be led by Fate. Perhaps Shakespeare
fails to supply a "tragic flaw" as insisted on by Aristotle.
Macbeth does not try to resist Fate, he runs with it. He does not heed
warnings of potential hazards. The Macbeth we were
introduced to certainly could not have predicted his fortune. Being a man
of honesty and humility, he couldn't have deserved his
dilemma. But he succumbed to his fate, and was no longer an honest
and humble Macbeth. I think that even the most
humble and honest person in the world, except Jesus himself, could be
swayed to corruption. The Macbeth Empire could be
compared to Mark Twain's Hadleyburg. In comparing Macbeth to The
Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg, we might be able to see
Macbeth as a satirical comedy. Macbeth, honest and humble, was
corrupted by the powers of fortune in much the same way that the
people of Hadleyburg, also honest and humble, were
corrupted by the same powers. The reader could not possibly pity the
community of Hadleyburg, and would typically cheer at its fall.
Isn't it the same with Macbeth? The townspeople of Hadleyburg felt
remorseful when they realized they'd been had, in much the
same way that Macbeth surely felt when he learned of Macduff's method
of birth. The people of Hadleyburg thought that no harm could
come to them, because they held proper character; they were in proper
form. But behind closed doors they planned their strategies to
acquire the power, provided in the form of a monetary inheritance.
This greed/lust for power was the Hadleyburg downfall. Their own
greed was their own enemy. Likewise with Macbeth. A strong
leader, upheld by his loyal comrades, could do no wrong. But once he
learned he was to acquire some great fortune, he was his
own enemy. His lust for power drove him to his bitter end. Satire may be
defined as a genre that uses mockery of society to shock that
society into an honest look at itself. Do we consider the
Hadleyburg tale a tragedy? No. We see it more as satire. It is a sarcastic
view of society's morals and values, and how hypocritical
people, including ourselves, can be. Putting Macbeth on a parallel with
this entertaining American short story allows us to view the
play in a different light. We now can see Macbeth as a hypocrite, and we
can see him resembling ourselves. How often can the power
of want, the desire for more, lead humanity to destruction and despair?
The same motivational tool that drives a college student into
a career can someday break him. So let the critics of yesterday have
their tragedy. Let them read their own literary mortality in Macbeth:
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.
I am sure even Aristotle would have allowed Macbeth into the
"Tragedy Hall of Fame." But if a man has the gift of foresight
and is aware of the risks but chooses to ignore them and runs after his
fate, what tragedy is there? If Fate wins, it cannot be
considered a tragedy if Macbeth succeeds in meeting it. Today we have
put out this tragic candle. I'm not of much importance in this
mortal world of ours, but if I've given you something to reconsider and to
ponder on, then this task is finished.
. desiring more
information regarding his fortune. They in turn assure him that "none of
woman born shall harm Macbeth. " Invincible power! Macbeth
forgets. evil ourselves. Does
Macbeth succeed at this level? Can the reader feel pity and
terror for Macbeth? Or does the reader feel that Macbeth himself is
merely