Macbeth Acts 2-3
Even though I have not read this play before, which evidently puts me in the minority in our class, this story definitely has numerous elements of mystery, especially the prophecy about Macbeth and Banquo's future.
As Caroline discussed in her previous blog post, the idea of fate vs free will is much more fleshed out with Macbeth's rise to prominence (according to the prophecy) in Act III due to the murder of King Duncan. In this section, it seems as if Shakespeare shows that fate itself is static, and that those who try to subvert it like Macbeth are doomed to fail. Macbeth, even as king, cannot be content because he is obsessed with his power being transferred to Banquo's children, so much so that "Our fears in Banquo/ Stick deep ... / They hail'd him father to a line of kings ... If't be so/ For Banquo's issue have I fil'd my mind"(50-60 ActIII.Sc1). Macbeth's decision to send murderers to assassinate Banquo reflect his desire to actively change the fate the Witches initially assigned him, which ultimately leaves Fleance alive and therefore keeps the prophecy viable. Lady Macbeth, on the other hand, shows a much more static view of the prophecy, for she sees Macbeth being king to be the true end goal of the prophecy. When she confronts him about his obsession, she claims that he is using "thoughts which should indeed have died ... / Things without all remedy / Should be without regard. What's done is done" (8-11 ActIII.scII). While she is directly referencing the king's murder, her words also hold true for the prophecy itself, for a prophecy is set in stone "without remedy" cannot be changed, and their fate is constant. In Act I, Lady Macbeth's reasoning for killing the king was based on the premise that the king's death was already predetermined by the prophecy, Her statement that "Thou'ldst gave, great Glamis, that which cries "Thus thou must do" if thou have it"(20-21Act I.Sc.V) shows that killing the king is not going against fate, but rather expediting the prophecy's completion. She may be cruel, but her selfish desires for herself and her husband are carefully executed to not contend directly with fate itself, whereas Macbeth's desire for long-lasting influence on the throne is directly against fate's wishes.
As Caroline discussed in her previous blog post, the idea of fate vs free will is much more fleshed out with Macbeth's rise to prominence (according to the prophecy) in Act III due to the murder of King Duncan. In this section, it seems as if Shakespeare shows that fate itself is static, and that those who try to subvert it like Macbeth are doomed to fail. Macbeth, even as king, cannot be content because he is obsessed with his power being transferred to Banquo's children, so much so that "Our fears in Banquo/ Stick deep ... / They hail'd him father to a line of kings ... If't be so/ For Banquo's issue have I fil'd my mind"(50-60 ActIII.Sc1). Macbeth's decision to send murderers to assassinate Banquo reflect his desire to actively change the fate the Witches initially assigned him, which ultimately leaves Fleance alive and therefore keeps the prophecy viable. Lady Macbeth, on the other hand, shows a much more static view of the prophecy, for she sees Macbeth being king to be the true end goal of the prophecy. When she confronts him about his obsession, she claims that he is using "thoughts which should indeed have died ... / Things without all remedy / Should be without regard. What's done is done" (8-11 ActIII.scII). While she is directly referencing the king's murder, her words also hold true for the prophecy itself, for a prophecy is set in stone "without remedy" cannot be changed, and their fate is constant. In Act I, Lady Macbeth's reasoning for killing the king was based on the premise that the king's death was already predetermined by the prophecy, Her statement that "Thou'ldst gave, great Glamis, that which cries "Thus thou must do" if thou have it"(20-21Act I.Sc.V) shows that killing the king is not going against fate, but rather expediting the prophecy's completion. She may be cruel, but her selfish desires for herself and her husband are carefully executed to not contend directly with fate itself, whereas Macbeth's desire for long-lasting influence on the throne is directly against fate's wishes.
I like how you compared Macbeth's obsession with Lady Macbeth's fulfillment of her prophecy. I didn't see this contrast at first but it is a great observation. From the first few acts it seemed like Lady Macbeth was causing trouble but from this perspective since the fate was already decided it appears like Macbeth is the one who is creating trouble for himself.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo one is forcing Macbeth to do anything. He's a grown adult!! He's totally held accountable for his own actions. Lady Macbeth is certainly instigating trouble but he is the one causing it himself. He needs to stop playing the victim. Interesting post
ReplyDelete!