In the old Shakespearean play of “Macbeth,” the plot surrounds a simple happening, the Scottish King Duncan’s murder committed by the protagonist; however, was he simply a victim of manipulation and circumstances and therefore guilty of a “lesser evil” or simply a cold blood murdered? In the play, Shakespeare makes it clear the idea of ever committing that act was triggered by a “prediction” made by three witches; however, the fulfilling of the idea came out of deep premeditation on the part of Lady Macbeth, the protagonist’s wife, which could arguably turn the deed into a “worse” evil. Either one of these ideas can be truthfully sustained due to the fact that no one category can contain the totality of an “evil deed;” however, was Macbeth was to some extent aware of what he was doing? There are three stages of thought Macbeth analyzes before committing the crime, decisively showing his action was in no way an act of thoughtlessness and therefore not a “lesser evil.” The stages are composed of Macbeth’s consideration of his actions and consequences, his feeling of treason against someone who had laid complete trust on him, and the direct effect it would have on his victims.
In his article, “The Moral Thinking of Macbeth,” J. Gregory Keller from Purdue University states “evil may arise from thoughtlessness. If that is so, thinking may provide an antidote to evil” (Keller, pg. 41), and then proceeds on to saying that is the “most basic evil” (Keller, pg. 41). However, it becomes evident the action was well premeditated as Macbeth went through three different stages of reasoning considering the pros and cons of his decision.
When considering the implications of carrying out what Macbeth thought was necessary for his prophecy to become fulfilled, murder, he states “we teach bloody instructions which, being taught, return to plague the inventor” (Macbeth Act I, Scene 7, line 8-10). In his first stage of reflection, he protagonist carefully goes through an analysis of the consequences of committing homicide; however, doing so in a self-centered way as he only meditates on its possible detrimental results in his own personal life. By his statement, Macbeth is implying a series of key ideas. First of all, he accepts the deed he is considering not good, but rather “bloody.” He did not go into it thinking he was doing right, or that he was committing no crime, he was fully aware of his intentions; he then realizes any wrongdoing will come back and hunt the offender. The last realization leads him to begin doubting and hesitating on the idea, but is quickly removed from any doubt by Lady Macbeth who uses his pride against himself for her own ambition.
The process of persuasion begins when his own pride is attacked. Lady Macbeth, knowing her husband is a hero of war with, tells him “when you durst do it, then you were a man” (1. 7. 55-60), directly attacking his masculinity and telling him he will only be a true man when he commits the murder. Macbeth takes the hard blow, but as Shakespeare demonstrates it, the consequences still overweight his hurt pride, for which his spouse moves on to her next strategy, convincing him she is more manly than him. This is done by a simple statement proving herself more cruel and daring than her husband:
…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… (1.7.55-60)
“Her assault is once again on his manhood and courage,” (Thompson, pg. 2) and this is especially significant in this time period when respect and honor were earned and shown in the “masculinity” of each individual, in a society that would outcast any man lacking this factor. However, at one point Macbeth seems to awaken and questions her on why is she not the one carrying out the homicide if she is the strongest and “manliest,” to which she answers with excuses such as the resemblance of the king and her father. Ultimately, her domineering role over her husband is what prevails. But being a woman acting while blinded by her own ambition, soon enough she can no longer handle the consequences of the crime committed and ends her life tragically. Preceding this incident, however, her insistence fulfills its purpose and Macbeth gets past his first obstacle, reflection on his actions.
The second stage is based on the moral and ethical issues regarding the treason of the trust King Duncan lay on Macbeth because of two positions he currently holds under the kind, first as kinsman and then as his subject (Keller, 44). As a kinsman, he had the sole responsibility of watching for and protecting the royalty, the king. The action he is thinking about carrying out goes exactly against that role, and therefore, against everything Macbeth has stood for in his life. Today it is very possible, because of the present social implications, to miss the true significance of kinship. In the setting in which “Macbeth” unravels, the society is founded on kinship, which implies trust and protection between individuals; without it, the society would lose its skeleton and simply crumble. Macbeth well knew and understood the implications of breaking that trust.
Secondly, he was a subject of the King. In this position, he has the responsibility of aiding the king instead of biting the hand that feeds him, a relationship based on loyalty. As Keller states in his article on “The Moral Thinking of Macbeth,” “social groupings depend upon loyalty of group members…and like kinship, trust forms a substratum of every social structure.” As it was previously shown, the protagonist had a deep understanding of the underlying consequences of a crime committed: people would see it, imitate it and soon, a chain reaction of the same crime would break through. In the same way, he knew in a close society such as the one he was living in, murdering the king and breaking that trust bond based on kinship and on loyalty as his subject, Macbeth would “kill (much more) than the king” (Keller, 45), he would kill tradition, he would destroy the solid foundation the nation of Scotland was raised upon. In this situation, he is breaking a “double trust” placed solely on him, “which covers both the intimate relationships one does not choose but on which all human life depends” as is kinship, “and the chosen relations into which one enters with implicit trust in the good will of the other,” being Macbeth a voluntary subject at the will of King Duncan. However, in a time of hesitation, again his wife comes to the picture.
Lady Macbeth sees this moment of weakness and leads him in the direction that will profit her the most, the crown. When he begins to have his thoughts stirred, she goes even further and accuses him of breaking her own trust on him, turning his own doubt and guilt against himself. This is seen in the same instance mentioned above where she admonished him for being weak and lacking courage by showing him she can, even being a woman, be cruel and “brave,” when she adds: “…had I so sworn as you have done to this” (1.7.52). In the balance, his loyalty for his king is outweighed by his loyalty to the spouse he swore eternal promises to at the time of marriage. Again, an ambition-blinded Lady Macbeth drives away any doubt left in her husband and leads him in her most profitable direction, the assassination of the king and his direct heirs; hence, the second stage is overcome in Macbeth’s mind.
After overcoming any obstacle dealing with his own future and wellbeing, only one more barrier remains standing in Macbeth’s mind stopping him from fulfilling the only act that would eliminate the last factor standing between him and the Scottish crown, the rights of others. After thinking so much about his own rights as a human, he begins to analyze those of others, including King Duncan. This begins as Macbeth analyses the moral implications of murder, the taking of another’s life, and attempts to test and determine if in reality the good of committing the crime outweighs its punishment in heaven, to which he states in a soliloquy:
…Duncan 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 (1.7.16-20).
His conscience begins, at this point, to trouble him for even considering such an evil act as a result of which he again hesitates on carrying out. However, he quickly switches perspective. Again, but now indirectly, the manipulations of Lady Macbeth on her husband take root and now he has no need of help to blind himself to the reality of the situation. This last overcome obstacle is determinant evidence that Macbeth did not foolishly or unknowingly committed the crime, he was fully aware of his actions. Shakespeare points this out in a very clear manner, when Macbeth confesses “I have no spur to prick my sided of my intent, but only vaulting ambition…” as the final declaration in his soliloquy at the beginning of Act 1 Scene 7. As this last stage in his reasoning as to why he should not commit the murder is finally cleared, there is nothing stopping the protagonist and the deed is quickly accomplished; however, the consequences prove to be just as detrimental as Macbeth predicted them to be, resulting in the suicide of Lady Macbeth and his own assassination by Macduff.
Macbeth could have easily been a victim of fate, manipulation by his wife, and even a victim of falling prisoner to a lie, the prophecy of his ruling of Scotland. However, even though he did go through a chain of reasons as to why he should not commit the murder, the contrasting reasons were the ones that prevailed, as it is clearly shown in his monologue at the beginning of Act 1 Scene 7. Before committing the crime, the protagonist considered his actions and their consequences, his “double” treachery of the king’s trust as kinsman and subject, and the rights of others equal to his own. Therefore, Macbeth was fully aware of his actions and their implications, constituting his crime as a cold-blooded murder driven by an uncontrollable ambition for power, rather than a “lesser” evil resulting from quick thoughtless action.
Works Cited
He said/She said
Keller, J. Gregory. “The Moral Thinking of Macbeth.” Philosophy and Literature – Volume 29. United States, April 2005.
Mushat Frye, Rolanf. “Macbeth’s Usurping Wife.” Frye, University of Chicago. United States 1955. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2857914
Shakespeare, Cambridge School. “Macbeth.” Cambridge University Press. Edited by Rex Gibson. New York, USA 2005.
