Thoughts on Shakespeare's Macbeth
I
Macbeth is Shakespeare's masterpiece because it raises many questions about human nature. One question is, what is the nature of human ambition? I think in Macbeth Shakespeare shows us three kinds of human ambition; they are embodied by the characters Macbeth, Lady Macbeth and Banquo
The first three characters' ambitions are unnatural: both Macbeth and Banquo are prompted by the witches' prophecies; Lady Macbeth violates the "nature" of her sex (as a female). The differences from the three kinds of ambition lie in their relationship to human reason. Lady Macbeth's ambition is utter un-reason-able: it is human passion running loose without any constrain. Her ambition is one that will be triggered upon the slightest suggestion. We ought to remember that she did not make direct contact with the witches; her ambition awakes through an indirect account from Macbeth. Of course, since her ambition is un-reason-able, she dies also an un-reason-able death, i.e. insanity. Macbeth's ambition has an element of rationality, but reason in his case is overwhelmed by passion. At the beginning of the play, Macbeth has doubts if he should kill Duncan; however he is influenced by Lady Macbeth's taunt of his "unmanliness". The rational factor, however, is important, for Macbeth is not insane like his wife by the end of the play; rather he displays the greatest degree of nobility once his passions extinguish. Banquo's ambition is tamed by reason. Macbeth asks him if he wants the best for his sons, and no doubt Banquo wants his prophecy (his sons becoming kings) to come true; but reason checks him, and hence he makes no ill decisions. Hence it is reasonable that Banquo's sons will actually become king because ambition with reason takes time for it to achieve its purpose, and this manifests symbolically in the prophecy, that not Banquo himself, but Banquo's sons will achieve his ambition and become kings.
It is interesting to see the degree of "naturality" of the three kinds of ambition. Both Lady Macbeth and Macbeth's ambitions are considered as unnatural, and this is reflected in the language of Shakespeare when he describes the sceneries and when he decorates the sollioquies of the two characters. Lady Macbeth wants to "unsex" herself to kill Duncan; Macbeth's killing is described as an owl killing a falcon. Banquo, on the other hand, is considered as the "root" of many kings, which Macbeth has to and does eliminate. This, of course, is a reflection of the Renaissance's belief in a hierarchy of power, or Pope's "great chain of being". Ambition is unnatural because it upsets the natural order, and it seems that Shakespeare is suggesting that it is all too easy to have unnatural ambitions (symbolized by the witches) and that only human reason can keep ambitions in check.
II
Another question that springs from Macbeth is this: is Macbeth fated to fall at Dunsinane? How much free will does Macbeth have in the play?
One thing is sure: the witches do know the future. This is not clear at first, for the four prophecies that the witches utter can be just anything anyone can say. The witches say Macbeth is the Thane of Glamis - that is already a fact; then they say Macbeth will be the Thane of Cawdor - that is already happened elsewhere and is about to happen whether Macbeth like it or not; then they say Macbeth will become King - anyone can say this, since the witches are not presenting a logical syllogism; then they say Banquo's sons shall be kings - we do not even know if this is true by the end of the play. So at first we are not clear if the witches can indeed foresee into the future. But when they say that Macbeth shall fall when the forrest moves to Dunsinane, that is a clear evidence that the witches can foresee into the future. If the witches know the future, it follows that Macbeth's actions are all inevitable - they necessary happen.
However, does that mean Macbeth has no free will? It seems that Shakespeare is suggesting a solution for Milton, who a generation later wrote Paradise Lost and had to deal with the same free-will problem (namely, do Adam and Eve have free will such that God is justified to punish them). Shakespeare's solution is this: while things can be inevitable, responsibility lies in the individual's choice of action at the moment of acting. The witches can see into the future, but it does not mean that they are the cause to Macbeth's action. Hardly the case, both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are the culpits of their crimes, and whether consciously or subconsciously, they know it very well. They cannot be or feel guilty if they do not have free will. Macbeth's final stance too is an act of free will; he consciously choose to arm himself and fight until his death. Hence we see the human condition in Macbeth: human beings are responsible for their actions regardless of divinities' foreknowledge of the future. (Hence, Milton is able to justify Adam and Eve's actions and punish them accordingly.)
III
Before reading the play, I was watching a little bit of Verdi's Macbeth. This early work of his is an adaptation of the play, meaning similiarities can be found not only in the plot, but also specifically in the liberetto. I think Verdi made a mistake in choose Macbeth as the subject for his opera because Macbeth is so much of a psychological play. The psychological-originated play is not suitable for Italian opera style, no matter how masterful Verdi's music is composed to be. His chorus music with the witches and the assassins are excellent: they are bold and colourful. But the traditional Italian aria is simply incapable of bringing out Shakespeare's psychology in full force. Lady Macbeth's sollioquy after she received Macbeth simply cannot be sung in a major key! The dark psychological force of ambition is never sustained throughout the entire opera, given the structure of the Italian opera consists in separate arias. Macbeth, if it is to be made into an opera, must be musically intense, and musically intense, I believe, means two things: continuous melody and atonality. Only with continuous melody can the opera keep up its intensity; only with atonality (or at least Wagnerian chromatic harmonies) can the psychological darkness within Macbeth's sollioquies be brought out to its full potential. Admittedly, I have not finished the entire opera, but I'm confident that these observations hold after I've finished the opera. Like Sophocle's Electra, Macbeth is made for a composer like Richard Strauss, not Verdi. Verdi, therefore, was smart in choosing Othello instead at the end of his life as the subject of an opera.
Macbeth is Shakespeare's masterpiece because it raises many questions about human nature. One question is, what is the nature of human ambition? I think in Macbeth Shakespeare shows us three kinds of human ambition; they are embodied by the characters Macbeth, Lady Macbeth and Banquo
The first three characters' ambitions are unnatural: both Macbeth and Banquo are prompted by the witches' prophecies; Lady Macbeth violates the "nature" of her sex (as a female). The differences from the three kinds of ambition lie in their relationship to human reason. Lady Macbeth's ambition is utter un-reason-able: it is human passion running loose without any constrain. Her ambition is one that will be triggered upon the slightest suggestion. We ought to remember that she did not make direct contact with the witches; her ambition awakes through an indirect account from Macbeth. Of course, since her ambition is un-reason-able, she dies also an un-reason-able death, i.e. insanity. Macbeth's ambition has an element of rationality, but reason in his case is overwhelmed by passion. At the beginning of the play, Macbeth has doubts if he should kill Duncan; however he is influenced by Lady Macbeth's taunt of his "unmanliness". The rational factor, however, is important, for Macbeth is not insane like his wife by the end of the play; rather he displays the greatest degree of nobility once his passions extinguish. Banquo's ambition is tamed by reason. Macbeth asks him if he wants the best for his sons, and no doubt Banquo wants his prophecy (his sons becoming kings) to come true; but reason checks him, and hence he makes no ill decisions. Hence it is reasonable that Banquo's sons will actually become king because ambition with reason takes time for it to achieve its purpose, and this manifests symbolically in the prophecy, that not Banquo himself, but Banquo's sons will achieve his ambition and become kings.
It is interesting to see the degree of "naturality" of the three kinds of ambition. Both Lady Macbeth and Macbeth's ambitions are considered as unnatural, and this is reflected in the language of Shakespeare when he describes the sceneries and when he decorates the sollioquies of the two characters. Lady Macbeth wants to "unsex" herself to kill Duncan; Macbeth's killing is described as an owl killing a falcon. Banquo, on the other hand, is considered as the "root" of many kings, which Macbeth has to and does eliminate. This, of course, is a reflection of the Renaissance's belief in a hierarchy of power, or Pope's "great chain of being". Ambition is unnatural because it upsets the natural order, and it seems that Shakespeare is suggesting that it is all too easy to have unnatural ambitions (symbolized by the witches) and that only human reason can keep ambitions in check.
II
Another question that springs from Macbeth is this: is Macbeth fated to fall at Dunsinane? How much free will does Macbeth have in the play?
One thing is sure: the witches do know the future. This is not clear at first, for the four prophecies that the witches utter can be just anything anyone can say. The witches say Macbeth is the Thane of Glamis - that is already a fact; then they say Macbeth will be the Thane of Cawdor - that is already happened elsewhere and is about to happen whether Macbeth like it or not; then they say Macbeth will become King - anyone can say this, since the witches are not presenting a logical syllogism; then they say Banquo's sons shall be kings - we do not even know if this is true by the end of the play. So at first we are not clear if the witches can indeed foresee into the future. But when they say that Macbeth shall fall when the forrest moves to Dunsinane, that is a clear evidence that the witches can foresee into the future. If the witches know the future, it follows that Macbeth's actions are all inevitable - they necessary happen.
However, does that mean Macbeth has no free will? It seems that Shakespeare is suggesting a solution for Milton, who a generation later wrote Paradise Lost and had to deal with the same free-will problem (namely, do Adam and Eve have free will such that God is justified to punish them). Shakespeare's solution is this: while things can be inevitable, responsibility lies in the individual's choice of action at the moment of acting. The witches can see into the future, but it does not mean that they are the cause to Macbeth's action. Hardly the case, both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are the culpits of their crimes, and whether consciously or subconsciously, they know it very well. They cannot be or feel guilty if they do not have free will. Macbeth's final stance too is an act of free will; he consciously choose to arm himself and fight until his death. Hence we see the human condition in Macbeth: human beings are responsible for their actions regardless of divinities' foreknowledge of the future. (Hence, Milton is able to justify Adam and Eve's actions and punish them accordingly.)
III
Before reading the play, I was watching a little bit of Verdi's Macbeth. This early work of his is an adaptation of the play, meaning similiarities can be found not only in the plot, but also specifically in the liberetto. I think Verdi made a mistake in choose Macbeth as the subject for his opera because Macbeth is so much of a psychological play. The psychological-originated play is not suitable for Italian opera style, no matter how masterful Verdi's music is composed to be. His chorus music with the witches and the assassins are excellent: they are bold and colourful. But the traditional Italian aria is simply incapable of bringing out Shakespeare's psychology in full force. Lady Macbeth's sollioquy after she received Macbeth simply cannot be sung in a major key! The dark psychological force of ambition is never sustained throughout the entire opera, given the structure of the Italian opera consists in separate arias. Macbeth, if it is to be made into an opera, must be musically intense, and musically intense, I believe, means two things: continuous melody and atonality. Only with continuous melody can the opera keep up its intensity; only with atonality (or at least Wagnerian chromatic harmonies) can the psychological darkness within Macbeth's sollioquies be brought out to its full potential. Admittedly, I have not finished the entire opera, but I'm confident that these observations hold after I've finished the opera. Like Sophocle's Electra, Macbeth is made for a composer like Richard Strauss, not Verdi. Verdi, therefore, was smart in choosing Othello instead at the end of his life as the subject of an opera.
posted by Tristan at 4:04 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home