lady macbeth ambition thesis statement

William Shakespeare

Ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

Macbeth is a play about ambition run amok. The weird sisters ' prophecies spur both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth to try to fulfill their ambitions, but the witches never make Macbeth or his wife do anything. Macbeth and his wife act on their own to fulfill their deepest desires. Macbeth, a good general and, by all accounts before the action of the play, a good man, allows his ambition to overwhelm him and becomes a murdering, paranoid maniac. Lady Macbeth, once she begins to put into actions the once-hidden thoughts of her mind, is crushed by guilt.

Both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth want to be great and powerful, and sacrifice their morals to achieve that goal. By contrasting these two characters with others in the play, such as Banquo , Duncan , and Macduff , who also want to be great leaders but refuse to allow ambition to come before honor, Macbeth shows how naked ambition, freed from any sort of moral or social conscience, ultimately takes over every other characteristic of a person. Unchecked ambition, Macbeth suggests, can never be fulfilled, and therefore quickly grows into a monster that will destroy anyone who gives into it.

Ambition ThemeTracker

Ambition Quotes in Macbeth

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Plays — Macbeth Ambition

Essays on Macbeth Ambition

Hook examples for macbeth ambition essays, anecdotal hook.

Picture a man driven to the brink of madness by his insatiable ambition, a descent into darkness fueled by power. This is the tragic tale of Macbeth.

Question Hook

What happens when ambition blinds one to the consequences of their actions? Macbeth's journey from a valiant warrior to a ruthless tyrant poses this thought-provoking question.

Quotation Hook

"I dare do all that may become a man; who dares do more is none." — Macbeth. Explore the depths of ambition through the words of Shakespeare's iconic character.

Statistical or Factual Hook

Ambition is a central theme in Shakespeare's "Macbeth," a tragedy first performed in 1606. Its exploration of ambition's consequences remains relevant to this day.

Definition Hook

What defines the ambition that leads to greatness or destruction? "Macbeth" serves as a literary mirror reflecting the complexities of this human trait.

Rhetorical Question Hook

Can ambition be both a driving force and a destructive obsession? The story of Macbeth and his unrelenting ambition provides a compelling answer.

Historical Hook

Step into the world of medieval Scotland, where ambition for power and titles was a constant struggle. Explore the historical context that influenced Shakespeare's play.

Contrast Hook

Contrast the noble aspirations of Macbeth at the beginning of the play with the ruthless ambition that consumes him. The transformation is a testament to the play's exploration of ambition.

Narrative Hook

Embark on Macbeth's journey from a loyal subject to a paranoid ruler. His narrative is a cautionary tale of ambition's perilous path.

Shocking Statement Hook

Prepare to witness a descent into madness and moral decay as Macbeth's ambition spirals out of control. The consequences are as shocking as they are tragic.

Lady Macbeth’s Ambition: a Deconstruction

Blind ambition in macbeth, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Corruption and Corruption in Macbeth

An analysis of ambition in macbeth by william shakespeare, macbeth theme: the role of ambitions in poem, the influence of ambitions in macbeth, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Basic Elements of Ambition and Evil in The Story of Macbeth by William Shakespeare

The dangers of ambition in william shakespeare's macbeth, how ambition drives macbeth into downfall in shakespeare’s play, ambition and power in shakespeare’s macbeth, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Effects of Uncontrolled Ambition in Shakespeare's Macbeth

The impact of ambition on people in shakespeare’s lady macbeth, the power ambition has over macbeth in shakespeare’s play, lady macbeth: from ambition to madness, ambition – the biggest weakness of macbeth, the role of ambition in macbeth’s demise, the examples of unchecked ambition in macbeth and its effects, the role of ambition and morality in macbeth by shakespeare, fallout of ambition in macbeth by william shakespeare, the effect of power and confidence on macbeth, power and uncontrolled ambition in shakespeare’s macbeth, tragic flaws of macbeth: ambition and guilt, how macbeth’s ambition leads to his retributive justice, the influence of power in macbeth by william shakespeare, ambition – the main tragic flaw of macbeth, tragic flaws of macbeth in shakespeare’s play, macbeth by shakespeare: the importance of balance in ambition, human nature and ambition in macbeth by william shakespeare, lust for power: the silent killer in macbeth, a theme of greed in the tragedy of macbeth.

William Shakespeare

"I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself and falls on th’ other." With this phrase, Macbeth makes it clear that he is aware of the power of ambition, which can make people rush and make mistakes. He clearly states his lack of motivation and does not deny the fact that now he is driven only by ambition.

The main theme of Macbeth is the destruction that occurs in a person because of his ambition. Ambition makes the protagonist overstep moral principles, which ultimately makes him even more paranoid and anxious.

1. LOWRANCE, B. (2012). “MODERN ECSTASY”: “MACBETH” AND THE MEANING OF THE POLITICAL. ELH, 79(4), 823–849. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/23356185) 2. Zambrano, A. L. (1974). Throne of Blood": Kurosawa's" Macbeth. Literature/Film Quarterly, 2(3), 262-274. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/43795658) 3. Smidt, K. (1969). Two aspects of ambition in Elizabethan tragedy: Doctor Faustas and Macbeth. English Studies, 50(1-6), 235-248. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00138386908597335?journalCode=nest20) 4. Carlisle, C. J. (1983). Helen Faucit's Lady Macbeth. Shakespeare Studies, 16, 205. (https://www.proquest.com/openview/f32bc8310f2789df4e15d81ed2db2a4b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1819311) 5. McPherson, H. (2000). Masculinity, Femininity, and the Tragic Sublime: Reinventing Lady Macbeth. Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture, 29(1), 299-333. (https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/267252/summary) 6. Draper, J. W. (1941). Lady Macbeth. Psychoanalytic Review, 28(4), 479-486. (https://pep-web.org/browse/document/PSAR.028.0479A) 7. Williams, E. W. (1973). In Defense of Lady Macbeth. Shakespeare Quarterly, 24(2), 221-223. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2868860) 8. Alfar, C. L. (1998). 'Blood will have blood:'Power, Performance, and Lady Macbeth's Gender Trouble. Jx: A Journal in Culture and Criticism, 2(2), 179-207. (https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/mla:931/) 9. Reyes, C., & Kenny, A. (2020). Shakespeare's Violent Women: A Feminist Analysis Of Lady Macbeth. UC Riverside Undergraduate Research Journal, 14(1). (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/43v335x5) 10. Gerwig, G. W. (2002). Lady Macbeth. Shakespearean Criticism, 69. (https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CH1420046125&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=08839123&p=LitRC&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E194c4eda)

Relevant topics

• Romeo and Juliet
• A Raisin in The Sun
• Catcher in The Rye
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Of Mice and Men
• The Great Gatsby
• Into The Wild

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Lady Macbeth Character Analysis

Lady Macbeth is possibly Shakespeare’s most famous and vivid female character. Everyone, whether they have read or seen the Macbeth play , has a view of her. She is generally depicted in the popular mind as the epitome of evil, and images of her appear over and over again in several cultures. She is usually portrayed in pictures as something like a Disney character, a cross between Cruella DeVille and the wicked stepmother in Snow White.

Although she has some of the most bloodthirsty lines in Shakespeare she is not quite Cruella De Ville or the wicked stepmother. The response she gets from the male characters suggests that she is a young, sexually attractive woman and, indeed, in her effort to influence Macbeth, she uses every method at her disposal, including the employment of her sexual charms.

She is usually depicted as a strong, tough woman and, in her drive to induce Macbeth to murder King Duncan, she appears to be that, but, having succeeded, it does not take long for her to crumble and break down, destroyed by guilt, and she ends up committing suicide.

Shakespeare does not have any evil characters. What he has are ordinary human beings, like you and me, placed in situations that challenge and test them. Some of them, like Iago in Othello , have personality defects, but that’s rare in Shakespeare and it’s not the case with Lady Mcbeth.

The challenges that Shakespeare presents his characters with generates different responses from different people. Lady Macbeth’s challenge is that she discovers that her husband has been tempted by an encounter with three witches to do something about their prediction that he will become king. She knows that the king would have to die for that to happen. When she gets a message that King Duncan plans to spend the night with them at Glamys Castle it seems to confirm the thought that they would have to kill him and that this was their once in a lifetime opportunity. That’s the situation into which she has been thrust.

She is as ambitious as Macbeth but she knows that for all his bravery in battle, all his soldierly and diplomatic qualities, he is basically much too soft –“too full of the milk of human kindness” – to take advantage of the opportunity. She makes up her mind to make him do it.

And she is right about his lack of resolve – they talk it over and he tells her that he just can’t do it. She goes into high gear and virtually holds his hand through it. One of her strongest qualities is persistence and she shows it here. Macbeth hesitates, equivocates and falters but she holds firm. She argues the case, she mocks him, bringing his manhood into question, she appeals to his sense of loyalty to her, she takes him to bed, and she finally prevails.

Macbeth kills Duncan in his sleep and from that moment their marriage begins to fall apart. They each fall into their own guilt-trip and hardly speak to each other. As king, Macbeth fears his political enemies and embarks on a reign of terror while Lady Macbeth stays in bed, unable to sleep, having nightmares when she does manage it. While walking and talking in her sleep she gives the game away about what they have done and sinks into a moral, physical and spiritual collapse. When Macbeth is on his last legs, with the rebels closing in, he gets the message that she’s dead. At that point, he says he doesn’t have time to think about it. “She should have died hereafter,” he says. Their partnership in this murderous enterprise has destroyed their marriage.

The promise of strength that we see in her at the beginning of the play is an illusion. What we are seeing is naked ambition and a willingness to act on it without having the resources to deal with the consequences. We see how guilt can eat up your soul and destroy you. We see how hollow ambition is, both in her journey and Macbeth’s. (Read the most  significant Macbeth ambition quotes .)

Character attributes

Some significant character attributes of Lady Macbeth are:

• Controlling – she understands that her husband doesn’t have the savageness required to murder the king of his own accord, so she manipulates him. She plans out the murder, then takes control of events when Macbeth loses his mind.
• Cruel – she is a violent, cold-blooded character who is happy to scheme the murder. She ridicules Macbeth when he doesn’t agree to participate in her violent plans.
• Two-faced – she welcomes King Duncan like a friend whilst at the same time planning his murder. She also advises Macbeth to be two-faced.

Erika Sunnegårdh as Lady Macbeth

Top Lady Macbeth Quotes

“I fear thy nature; It is too full o’ th’ milk of human kindness

( act 1, scene 5 )

“To beguile the time, Look like the time; bear welcome in your eye, Your hand, your tongue; look like th’ innocent flower, But be the serpent under’t.”

“ The raven himself is hoarse That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan Under my battlements”

“Come, you spirits That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,

“Would’st thou have that Which thou esteem’st the ornament of life, And live a coward in thine own esteem, Letting “I dare not” wait upon “I would,” Like the poor cat i’ th’ adage? “

( act 1, scene 7 )

“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, had I so sworn as you Have done to this.”

“ Out! damned spot! “

( act 5, scene 1 )

Read more Lady Macbeth quotes .

See All Macbeth Resources

Macbeth | Macbeth summary | Macbeth characters : Banquo , Lady Macbeth , Macbeth , Macduff , Three Witches | Macbeth settings | Modern Macbeth translation  | Macbeth full text | Macbeth PDF  |  Modern Macbeth ebook | Macbeth for kids ebooks | Macbeth quotes | Macbeth ambition quotes |  Macbeth quote translations | Macbeth monologues | Macbeth soliloquies | Macbeth movies | Macbeth themes

• WhatsApp 13
• Pinterest 0

One of my favourite story this is????❤️

amazing helps me so much

when was thhis posted

Leave a Reply

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Common Questions About Lady Macbeth

Is lady macbeth a true story.

Although Shakespeare used the names of real historical people in writing Hamlet, the events of the drama are mostly made up. So in that sense, Lady Macbeth is not a real character. There was an 11th-century Scottish king named Mac Bethad Mac Findlaich . Presumably, he had a wife but we know nothing about her.

What kind of character is Lady Macbeth?

Lady Macbeth is ambitious. She is manipulative and uses several techniques of a skilled manipulator to entice Macbeth into the murder of Duncan. Usually thought of as a hard, ruthless woman, she is, in reality, soft. Not long after the murder, unable to cope with her guilt, she falls apart and loses all sense of herself.

What happens to Lady Macbeth?

Lady Macbeth tries to prop her husband up as he descends into a guilt-ridden hell but she soon falls victim to the same condition. Her whole life literally becomes a nightmare, in which she relives the event that has brought her condition about. Her life becomes unbearable and she commits suicide.

Who does Lady Macbeth kill?

Lady Macbeth does not personally kill anyone. She conspires in the murder of the king, Duncan, though, and actively encourages Macbeth to kill him. It is Macbeth who does the actual killing. Lady Macbeth plays no part in the many further killings that Macbeth engineers. Soon after the killing of Duncan the two don’t even talk to each other.

What made Lady Macbeth go crazy?

Lady Macbeth is partly responsible for the kind of killing that was taboo in Mediaeval Scotland – murdering one’s king, murdering one’s relative and murdering a guest in one’s house. In killing Duncan the couple did all three. She begins to have nightmares about the murder and, in particular, the blood on her hands, which she can’t get rid of no matter how hard she scrubs. That drives her to suicide.

How does Lady Macbeth feel after the killing of Duncan?

Once Duncan is killed Lady Macbeth is pleased that her ambition to be the wife of a king has been achieved, but that feeling very soon turns sour as guilt begins to eat away at her. She then she has feelings that she can’t live with, and ends up killing herself (one of 13 suicides in Shakespeare’s plays ).

Is 2016 film Lady Macbeth based on Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth character?

No. Lady Macbeth is a 2016 British film based on Nikolai Leskov’s novella Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District , and starring Florence Pugh.

Mr Salles Teaches English

Grade 9 Essay: How does Shakespeare present the theme of ambition in the play?

What is the shortest essay which can get full marks.

I’m writing a guide to how to write essays at each grade for Macbeth. My Ultimate Guide to Macbeth shows you how to understand the whole play, scene by scene, to above grade 9. It also shows you how to write about each scene at grades 6, 7, 8, 9 and beyond grade 9.

I’ve written over 20 guides and it is the best guide I have ever written.

But, what if you are a student who just wants a grade 5, or just wants a grade 7, or you want a grade 9, but you want it as quickly as possible. You don’t want to read an Ultimate Guide to Macbeth - that’s going to have a lot of Mr Salles brilliance in it but, no offence Mr Salles, English isn’t even in my top 5 subjects.

I want the maximum marks, with the minimum effort.

So, that’s why I’m writing a series of new guides, showing you ‘just’ what you need for each grade, and no more.

How I wrote the essays in the essay writing guide (out in September)

I found all the essays I could which had been marked by a senior examiner.

I rewrote them, changing all the words, but keeping every idea and technique, and every quote.

Then I counted the features of each essay. Exam criteria are vague and open to interpretation. So I wondered, are there features of each essay I can count, which are not open to interpretation? And then, if we do count these features, will they predict the right mark?

Let’s find out.

This is an extract from the guide. Normally, my comments, and the examiner comments, follow the essay. Here, I have put the comments first so you can see what the examiner is looking for before you read the essay.

Response 24

Thesis Statement Yes Explanations 9 Quotes 5 Named Methods 5 Society/era/patriarchal/Jacobean/contemporary/ historical reference etc 3 Shakespeare 4 Exploratory Could, Might, May, Perhaps, Probably 0 Conclusion Yes Paragraphs 7

My Comments

Well, well, well. I was not expecting that mark. (It scored 25/30).

It doesn’t have anywhere near the number of references or quotations I was expecting for AO1.

It introduces the idea that ambition will affect ‘reason’, but never actually proves it –there are many easy examples and quotes revealing the mental state of Macbeth – is this a dagger, murdered sleep, never shake they gory locks, my mind is full of scorpions etc - and Lady Macbeth sleepwalking. The original essay included mistakes in identifying adverbs and nouns, which I’ve got rid of, because even naming them correctly adds no marks. There is very little context used to back up interpretations.

So, what has impressed the examiner?

There are both a thesis statement and a conclusion, so it becomes a well-constructed argument. The student has quoted from the end of the play right at the beginning, to show that they are dealing with the whole text. Although they don’t give many examples from the rest of the play, they do move through it chronologically, so it is a well-constructed argument. This, and very specific language to describe it, helps the student look at Macbeth’s character arc, his ‘journey’, showing how Macbeth changes. The answer looks at the structure of the play in two ways. First by viewing Macbeth’s life in two parts – a rise and fall. Secondly, by exploring Banquo as the antithesis to Macbeth in his ambition. These two ideas mark the answer out as thoughtful and different from most students’ essays.

Examiner Comments

The answer focuses on ambition right from the start and with every point. The thesis statement and next paragraph make it clear that the student is dealing with the whole text. The essay is thoughtful and developed. The student embeds quotations and references to illustrate their ideas. The student’s comments about Shakespeare’s intentions throughout the essay show that they realise his choices are deliberate. In order to get into level 6 the student should explore more of Shakespeare’s ideas.

Write down the other ideas you could put into this essay.

Find references or quotes to back these up.

Write another 350 words to add in to get 30/30.

Thank you for reading Mr Salles Teaches English. I want every student to be able to go up by several grades. Please share this post to help me reach that goal.

The 420 Word Essay!

Shakespeare reveals ambition as the dominant theme in the play, because it is Macbeth’s overpowering ambition which leads to his immoral murder of King Duncan. Lady Macbeth and the witches can only influence Macbeth in this because his ambition is already so great.

In this extract, Shakespeare explores how ambition influences even the most honourable. This is why he gives Lady Macbeth the perspective that Macbeth’s character is “ too full o’th’ milk of human kindness ”, which is her real perception because Shakespeare reveals it in SOLILOQUY. We associate “ milk ” with innocence and purity, which implies that Macbeth is too noble to act on his ambition. Yet, once he has reigned as king, he is viewed as a “ butcher ”, because he has become both cruel and indiscriminate in his killing.

This change from excessive kindness to tyranny is a surprising journey, which warns the audience of the danger of ambition. Moreover, Shakespeare portrays ambition as a force which will overcome morality and reason. He gives Lady Macbeth the view that Macbeth is “ not without ambition, but without the illness should attend it ”. The COMPARISON of ambition to “ illness ” implies that it is destructive, and also that this destruction can turn on the ambitious person themselves, attacking their sense of morality and ability to be kind.

Macbeth lists every reason not to murder Duncan, before focusing on his “ vaulting ambition ”. This METAPHOR implies that his ambition is more powerful than his conscience, so he will overcome his moral objections.

Paid subscribers get a grade 9 exam answer every week, with examiner comments. There are over 40 already published, to which paid subscribers get full access.

The rest of the answer is below the line.

Keep reading with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to Mr Salles Teaches English to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

Macbeth – A* / L9 Full Mark Example Essay

This is an A* / L9 full mark example essay on Macbeth completed by a 15-year-old student in timed conditions (50 mins writing, 10 mins planning).

It contained a few minor spelling and grammatical errors – but the quality of analysis overall was very high so this didn’t affect the grade. It is extremely good on form and structure, and perhaps could do with more language analysis of poetic and grammatical devices; as the quality of thought and interpretation is so high this again did not impede the overall mark. 

Thanks for reading! If you find this resource useful, you can take a look at our full online Macbeth course here . Use the code “SHAKESPEARE” to receive a 50% discount!

This course includes: 

• A full set of video lessons on each key element of the text: summary, themes, setting, characters, context, attitudes, analysis of key quotes, essay questions, essay examples
• Downloadable documents for each video lesson 
• A range of example B-A* / L7-L9 grade essays, both at GCSE (ages 14-16) and A-Level (age 16+) with teacher comments and mark scheme feedback
• A bonus Macbeth workbook designed to guide you through each scene of the play!

For more help with Macbeth and Tragedy, read our article here .

MACBETH EXAMPLE ESSAY:

Macbeth’s ambition for status and power grows throughout the play. Shakespeare uses Macbeth as an embodiment of greed and asks the audience to question their own actions through the use of his wrongful deeds.

In the extract, Macbeth is demonstrated to possess some ambition but with overriding morals, when writing to his wife about the prophecies, Lady Macbeth uses metaphors to describe his kind hearted nature: “yet I do fear thy nature, / It is too full o’th’milk of human kindness”. Here, Shakespeare presents Macbeth as a more gentle natured being who is loyal to his king and country. However, the very act of writing the letter demonstrates his inklings of desire, and ambition to take the throne. Perhaps, Shakespeare is aiming to ask the audience about their own thoughts, and whether they would be willing to commit heinous deeds for power and control. 

Furthermore, the extract presents Macbeth’s indecisive tone when thinking of the murder – he doesn’t want to kill Duncan but knows it’s the only way to the throne. Lady Macbeth says she might need to interfere in order to persuade him; his ambition isn’t strong enough yet: “That I may pour my spirits in  thine ear / And chastise with the valour of my tongue”. Here, Shakespeare portrays Lady Macbeth as a manipulative character, conveying she will seduce him in order to “sway “ his mind into killing Duncan. The very need for her persuasion insinuates Macbeth is still weighing up the consequences in his head, his ambition equal with his morality. It would be shocking for the audience to see a female character act in this authoritative way. Lady Macbeth not only holds control of her husband in a patriarchal society but the stage too, speaking in iambic pentameter to portray her status: “To catch the nearest way. Thou wouldst be great”. It is interesting that Shakespeare uses Lady Macbeth in this way; she has more ambition for power than her husband at this part of play. 

As the play progresses, in Act 3, Macbeth’s ambition has grown and now kills with ease. He sends three murders to kill Banquo and his son, Fleance, as the witches predicted that he may have heirs to the throne which could end his reign. Macbeth is suspicious in this act, hiding his true intentions from his dearest companion and his wife: “I wish your horses swift and sure on foot” and “and make our faces vizards to our hearts”. There, we see, as an audience, Macbeth’s longing to remain King much stronger than his initial attitudes towards the throne He was toying with the idea of killing for the throne and now he is killing those that could interfere with his rule without a second thought. It is interesting that Shakespeare presents him this way, as though he is ignoring his morals or that they have been “numbed” by his ambition. Similarly to his wife in the first act, Macbeth also speaks in pentameter to illustrate his increase in power and dominance. 

In Act 4, his ambition and dependence on power has grown even more. When speaking with the witches about the three apparitions, he uses imperatives to portray his newly adopted controlling nature: “I conjure you” and “answer me”. Here, the use of his aggressive demanding demonstrates his reliance on the throne and his need for security. By the Witches showing him the apparitions and predicting his future, he gains a sense of superiority, believing he is safe and protected from everything. Shakespeare also lengthens Macbeth’s speech in front of the Witches in comparison to Act 1 to show his power and ambition has given him confidence, confidence to speak up to the “filthy nags” and expresses his desires. Although it would be easy to infer Macbeth’s greed and ambition has grown from his power-hungry nature, a more compassionate reading of Macbeth demonstrates the pressure he feels as a Jacobean man and soldier. Perhaps he feels he has to constantly strive for more to impress those around him or instead he may want to be king to feel more worthy and possibly less insecure. 

It would be unusual to see a Jacobean citizen approaching an “embodiment” of the supernatural as forming alliance with them was forbidden and frowned upon. Perhaps Shakespeare uses Macbeth to defy these stereotypical views to show that there is a supernatural, a more dark side in us all and it is up to our own decisions whereas we act on these impulses to do what is morally incorrect. 

If you’re studying Macbeth, you can click here to buy our full online course. Use the code “SHAKESPEARE” to receive a 50% discount!

You will gain access to  over 8 hours  of  engaging video content , plus  downloadable PDF guides  for  Macbeth  that cover the following topics:

• Character analysis
• Plot summaries
• Deeper themes

There are also tiered levels of analysis that allow you to study up to  GCSE ,  A Level  and  University level .

You’ll find plenty of  top level example essays  that will help you to  write your own perfect ones!

Related Posts

The Theme of Morality in To Kill A Mockingbird

Unseen Poetry Exam Practice – Spring

To Kill A Mockingbird Essay Writing – PEE Breakdown

Emily Dickinson A Level Exam Questions

Poem Analysis: Sonnet 116 by William Shakespeare

An Inspector Calls – Official AQA Exam Questions

The Dolls House by Katherine Mansfield: Summary + Analysis

An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge: Stories of Ourselves:

How to Get Started with Narrative Writing

Robert Frost’s Life and Poetic Career

© Copyright Scrbbly 2022

Lady Macbeth as Powerful

The essay below uses this simple structure:, an introductory paragraph to summarise an answer to the question, one paragraph about the extract, one about the rest of the play, one about context., lady macbeth:, the raven himself is hoarse, that croaks the fatal entrance of duncan, under my battlements. come, you spirits, that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,, and fill me from the crown to the toe top-full, of direst cruelty. make thick my blood., stop up the access and passage to remorse ,, that no compunctious visitings of nature, shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between, the effect and it come to my woman’s breasts,, and take my milk for gall , you murd'ring ministers,, wherever in your sightless substances, you wait on nature’s mischief. come, thick night,, and pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,, that my keen knife see not the wound it makes,, nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark, to cry “hold, hold”, starting with this speech, explain how far you think shakespeare presents lady macbeth as a powerful woman., write about:, how shakespeare presents lady macbeth in this speech, how shakespeare presents lady macbeth in the play as a whole., the essay below is written using a simple structure:, an introductory paragraph to summarise an answer to the question., one paragraph about the extract., one about the rest of the play., before you read the answer below, why not have a think about how you'd answer this question. i've highlighted the quotes i'd write about - do you agree or would you focus elsewhere also, which sections from the rest of the play would you focus on and what contextual factors influenced lady macbeth's presentation, most importantly, though, have a think about how you'd write that opening paragraph - answer the question in two or three simple sentences., an example answer, during the majority of the play, lady macbeth is presented as being a powerful woman who defies the expected gender stereotype of the caring, soft, gentle female. by the end of the play, however, she kills herself as she discovers that although she can order the rest of the world around, she cannot control her own guilt, right at the opening of this speech, lady macbeth makes her position known when she describes “my” battlements. the use of the possessive pronoun emphasises that she thinks of the castle walls as being her own. she follows this by calling “come you spirits.” the use of this magic spell has two effects on the audience: firstly, she is calling for dark magic to come and support her. this would have reminded the audience of the possibility that she was a witch and had all the evil powers connected with them. also, she is using an imperative here: “come you spirits.” she’s not asking them but telling them. this shows that she expects even the supernatural world to answer to her demands. one of the things she demands is that they “stop up the access and passage to remorse.” this means that lady macbeth doesn’t want to feel any regret for what she is about to do, which would make her powerful. she is no longer going to be slowed down by feelings of compassion or care in her pursuit of power. finally, she says that the spirits should “take my milk for gall.” here, she is asking that her own milk be turned to poison. this suggests that she is turning something caring and supportive into something deadly, giving her even more evil powers. also, milk is pure white and suggests innocence and purity so lady macbeth is asking that what is innocent and pure about her gets turned into something deadly. throughout this speech lady macbeth sets herself up as being someone very powerful, who is able to control even the spirits., her power continues throughout the play. lady macbeth suggests the murder and talks macbeth into it – showing that she is powerfully persuasive. she also plans the murder, showing that she is intelligent as well. she also stays calm under pressure, such as when macbeth arrives with the daggers from the murder scene but lady macbeth returns them to the scene so that they don’t get caught. she is also able to manipulate macduff when she faints in shock after they discover duncan’s body. you could easily argue that lady macbeth’s ambition was more powerful than macbeth’s, and that the murder wouldn’t have ever happened with her involvement. she is determined to become powerful and will stop at nothing to get it. at the end the play though she is caught sleepwalking, and she confesses to all that they’ve done. this is interesting, however, as while she is sleep-walking she is not in control of herself so she is not really aware of what she’s doing. it could be the case that lady macbeth herself never felt guilty, though she couldn’t hide her real feelings from her dreams. in the end, she dies. malcolm claims that she killed herself quite violently, but since it happens off-stage we cannot be sure. what is clear is that although she could push macbeth around, and trick macduff, and even order the spirits to do her bidding, she couldn’t order the blood off her own hands., shakespeare presents a very powerful female character in lady macbeth, and although this would have been quite radical for people in jacobean england there were other powerful, female role models to choose from: bloody mary or queen elizabeth are good examples. this play, however, was written for king james who had just taken the throne of england, and james was not a fan of queen elizabeth – who had killed his mother, mary queen of scots (and he might not even have been a big fan of his mum, because she married the man who killed his dad) as a result, james would have enjoyed seeing this powerful woman become such a villain and then getting punished for her crimes..

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

GCSE Macbeth thesis and model paragraph - Macbeth's ambition

Subject: English

Age range: 14-16

Resource type: Worksheet/Activity

Last updated

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

A model thesis and first paragraph for the question: How does Shakespeare present Macbeth’s ambition? Topic sentence for second and third paragraphs and room for writing a We Do model, followed by students’ independent paragraph. I Do We Do You Do structure applied to essay. Great for introducing essay writing or feedback after assessment.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Get this resource as part of a bundle and save up to 71%

A bundle is a package of resources grouped together to teach a particular topic, or a series of lessons, in one place.

Macbeth teaching bundle

Bundle contains: Knowledge organiser PowerPoint and resources Scheme of work covering one term Three example essay responses Academic non-fiction task booklet Two literacy tasks linked to Writing Revolution

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

Advertisement

More from the Review

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Best of The New York Review, plus books, events, and other items of interest

June 6, 2024

Current Issue

June 6, 2024 issue

William Shakespeare with characters from his tragedies; illustration by John Broadley

Submit a letter:

Email us [email protected]

This essay appears, in somewhat different form, as the introduction to Shakespeare Is Hard, But So Is Life (Head of Zeus, 2024).

In his best-selling biography of Elon Musk, Walter Isaacson tries to explain how a man who attempts such “epic feats” can also be “an asshole.” He finds himself seeking help from William Shakespeare: “As Shakespeare teaches us, all heroes have flaws, some tragic, some conquered, and those we cast as villains can be complex.” How better to fill the gap between epic and asshole than with the lesson Shakespeare was apparently trying to teach us when he wrote Hamlet and King Lear ? The only other time the word “tragic” appears in Isaacson’s book is when Musk is regretting his choice of outfit for an audience with the pope: “My suit is tragic.” When tragedy encompasses such trivialities, it’s not so hard to believe that those great plays really are trying to teach us something as trite as the possibility that humans are complex or that powerful people may have some serious defects. Who knew?

Isaacson is not unusual in making such statements about what Shakespeare’s tragedies mean: they exist to instruct us, and their main lesson is that everything would be OK if only we could “conquer” our shortcomings. We can read in The Guardian , of the Harry Potter novels, that “some of the most admirable adult characters, as in Shakespeare, are also revealed to have a tragic flaw that causes them to hesitate to act, to make foolish errors of judgment, to lie, or even to commit murder.” The New York Times informs us that

with Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus or Shakespeare’s Hamlet, their tragic flaws, enacted, became the definition of tragedy. It may be angst (Hamlet), or hubris (Faustus), but it’s there and we know, watching, that the ruinous end will be of their own making.

The former British prime minister Boris Johnson, who has supposedly been writing a book about Shakespeare, and who compared himself in the dying days of his benighted regime to Othello beset by malign Iago, claims that “it is the essence of all tragic literature that the hero should be conspicuous, that he should swagger around and that some flaw should lead to a catastrophic reversal and collapse.”

Also in The New York Times Stephen Marche tells us that

we go to tragedy to watch a man be destroyed. Macbeth must be destroyed for his lust for power, Othello for his jealousy, Antony for his passion, Lear for the incompleteness of his renunciation. They are tragic precisely because their flaws are all too human.

In a review of a biography of Andrew Jackson, the president is called a “‘Shakespearean tragic hero,’ inflexible as Coriolanus, whose tragic flaw was ‘his incessant pursuit of virtue in the political realm.’” Maureen Dowd notes that Barack Obama “has read and reread Shakespeare’s tragedies” and “does not want his fatal flaw to be that he compromises so much that his ideals get blurred out of recognition.”

This stuff is part of the language. Like most clichés, it perpetuates assumptions, not just about Shakespeare but about the world: your ruinous end is of your own making. Tragedies happen not because human beings are dragged between large historical, social, and political forces that are wrenching them in opposite directions, but because individuals are branded from birth with one or another variant of original sin. In seeking to understand ourselves, we can forget the epic and think of the assholes—who receive satisfyingly just deserts. As Johnson put it in 2011, Shakespeare “was, frankly, the poet of the established order” because the troublemakers in his plays “get their comeuppance.” The tragically flawed heroes meet the gory deaths their flaws deserve. Alongside “many insights into the human heart,” Johnson tells us, Shakespeare provides “such ingenious defences for keeping things as they are, and keeping the ruling party in power.”

The most obvious problem with all that is, even if it were true, it would be crushingly dull. Moral tales in which people do bad things because they have wicked instincts and then get their comeuppance are ten a penny. The clichés shrink Shakespeare to the level of Miss Prism in The Importance of Being Earnest , the author of a three-volume novel of “more than usually revolting sentimentality” who explains that in her book “the good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means.” If the definition of tragedy lies in the tragic flaw of the protagonist, we are reduced to a monotonous game of matching the shortcoming to the character: Hamlet = angst; Macbeth = ambition; Othello = jealousy; Lear = reckless vanity.

Fortunately none of this bears even a passing resemblance to the experience of seeing or reading a Shakespeare play. It is terrifyingly clear to us as we encounter these dramas that we are not in a moral universe of comeuppances and rewarded virtue. “As flies to wanton boys are we to th’ gods:/They kill us for their sport,” says Gloucester in King Lear . Macduff’s children are slaughtered. Ophelia is driven to drown herself. At the end of Othello , there are two innocent corpses on the stage: Desdemona’s and Emilia’s. Lear’s terrible question over the dead body of Cordelia echoes through these tragedies: “Why should a dog, a horse, a rat have life,/And thou no breath at all?” Much of the time in Shakespeare, there is no answer.

There is nothing in Cordelia’s or Ophelia’s or Desdemona’s or Emilia’s characters that has led them to extinction. It is simply that in this cruel world, while the bad may indeed end unhappily, so may the good. At the end of King Lear , we have the rather pitiful Albany doing a Miss Prism act: “All friends shall/Taste the wages of their virtue and all foes/The cup of their deservings.” This assurance of just deserts is immediately undercut by one of the most devastating images of absurd injustice, Lear raging at a universe in which his blameless daughter will not take another breath, in this world or the next: “Never, never, never, never, never!”

If the tragedies are supposed to show us the playing out of the innate flaws of their protagonists, they are not very good . Does anyone ever come out of the theater thinking that if only Hamlet had been less angsty, nothing would have been rotten in the state of Denmark? If Macbeth is already consumed by a lust for power, why does his wife have to goad him into killing Duncan? If Othello has an innate instinct for psychotic jealousy, why does Iago have to stage such elaborate plots to get him to believe that Desdemona is cheating on him? Lear may indeed be old and foolish, but he was surely not always thus—the shock of his decision at the beginning of the play to divest himself of the kingdom stems from his having ruled successfully for a very long time. (In the traditional story that Shakespeare adapted and that his audience would have known, Lear had reigned for sixty years.)

As for Shakespeare being “the poet of the established order,” it is certainly true that he was extremely adept in his navigation of a treacherous political landscape in which his greatest predecessor, Christopher Marlowe, was most probably murdered by the state and another fellow dramatist Thomas Kyd died after torture. He did so largely by avoiding references to contemporary England and setting his plays either in distant Catholic countries (where of course they do things no good Protestant ruler would countenance) or in the past. His political skill was rewarded. As of May 1603, after James I’s accession to the throne, Shakespeare was an official of the court as Groom of the Chamber. He and his fellow shareholders in the King’s Men (as they were now called) were each issued with four and a half yards of red cloth for the royal livery in which they were allowed to appear on state occasions. It is hard to think of Shakespeare as a liveried servant, but for him that red coat was surely also a suit of armor that protected him from the violence of his surroundings.

The wonder, though, lies in what he did with that position. He took his royal master’s obsessions and made unprecedented dramas out of them. James was interested in witches, so they appear in Macbeth . The king was—after the Gunpowder Plot in which Catholic conspirators tried to blow him up, along with his entire court and Parliament—worried about the way Catholic suspects under interrogation gave equivocal answers to avoid incriminating themselves. So the Porter in Macbeth , imagining himself as the gatekeeper to Hell, says, “Faith, here’s an equivocator that could swear in both the scales against either scale, who committed treason enough for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven.” As a Scot, James was anxious to establish the idea of Britain as a political union, with himself as “emperor of the whole island.” So Shakespeare shows in King Lear the terrors of a disunited kingdom. James was fascinated by demonic possession, so Shakespeare brushed up on its alleged symptoms in contemporary accounts and has Edgar, in his guise as Poor Tom, enact them on the blasted heath. *

But if these plays start with the need of the King’s Man to suck up to his royal patron, they emphatically do not end there. A hack propagandist of the kind that Boris Johnson imagines Shakespeare to be would have shown, in Macbeth , that equivocation is just what you might expect from traitorous Catholics. Instead he makes the slipperiness of words and the inability to trust people universal aspects of life under rulers who imagine their power to be absolute. Almost everyone in Macbeth plays games with truth and lies, because that’s what you have to do in a murderous polity.

Poor Tom, in King Lear , may be there to flatter the sovereign’s desire to see a man who is (or is pretending to be) possessed by demons. But we don’t care about that because his performance becomes a heartbreakingly real enactment of mental distress: “The foul fiend haunts poor Tom in the voice of a nightingale. Hoppedance cries in Tom’s belly for two white herring. Croak not, black angel. I have no food for thee.” What begins with a brilliant opportunist keeping an eye out for what will appeal to his new master ends as some of the strangest, most searingly painful language ever spoken on the stage.

And even though Shakespeare undoubtedly started King Lear as a fable on the dangers of splitting up the kingdom, he lets it run off into the most devastating mockery of all arbitrary political power. Lear tells Gloucester that the “great image of authority” is a cur biting the heels of a beggar. It is perhaps not surprising that someone who thought Lear’s declaration that “a dog’s obeyed in office” is Shakespeare supporting the established order proved to be such a dog in office himself.

So what does Shakespeare teach us? Nothing. His tragic theater is not a classroom. It is a fairground wall of death in which the characters are being pushed outward by the centrifugal force of the action but held in place by the friction of the language. It sucks us into its dizzying spin. What makes it particularly vertiginous is the way Shakespeare so often sets our moral impulses against our theatrical interests. Iago in Othello is perhaps the strongest example. Plays, for the audience, begin with utter ignorance. We need someone to draw us in, to tell us what is going on. A character who talks to us, who gives us confidential information, can earn our gratitude. Even when that character is, like Iago, telling us how he is going to destroy a good man, we are glad to see him whenever he appears. Within the plot he is a monster. Outside it, talking to us, he is a charming, helpful presence. Drawn between these two conditions, we are not learning something. We are in the dangerous condition of unlearning how we feel and think.

Hamlet talks to us too. He is entertaining, brilliant, sensitive, charismatic, startlingly eloquent—and he has a filial purpose of vengeance that we understand. So what are we to do with his astonishing cruelties—his cold-blooded mockery of the corpse of a man (Polonius) he has just killed by mistake, his mental torturing of Ophelia, his casual dispatch of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, announced to us as a fleeting afterthought? How far would the play have to tilt on its axis for Hamlet to be not its hero but its resident demon?

Shakespeare can, when he chooses, turn our attitudes to characters upside down and inside out. In the first act of Macbeth , Lady Macbeth is bold, vigorous, and supremely confident that she can “chastise with the valor of my tongue” a husband whom we already know to be a fearsome warrior. She makes herself “from the crown to the toe top-full/Of direst cruelty!” In the second act she takes charge while her husband is breaking down under the strain of Duncan’s murder—it is Lady Macbeth who returns the daggers to the chamber and smears the sleeping grooms with blood. In the third act she is still a commanding presence, able to deal with the disaster of the royal banquet and dismiss the courtiers when Macbeth is freaked out by Banquo’s ghost.

We then lose sight of her until the fifth act, when she is suddenly almost a ghost herself, a somnambulist reenacting in tormented sleep the moments after the murder. There is no transition, nothing to lead us gradually from the direly cruel and potent murderer to the fragile shell of a person, floating in “this slumbery agitation”—a phrase that almost cancels itself and thus captures her descent to nothingness.

Even as the action of the play continues to hurtle forward, we are thrown back into this gap between the dynamic woman we last saw and the strange creature she is now, in this liminal state between life and death. We have to try to fill that gap for ourselves, but we can’t quite do it because the stage is suddenly filled with drums and flags and Birnam Wood is about to come to Dunsinane and we have no time to think. Nor do we know quite what to feel—should we still despise her for her ruthless malice or give ourselves over to the poignancy of her mental dissolution?

Usually, if a dramatist shows us an act of extreme violence perpetrated by a character, it is a point of no return. After the enactment of butchery there can be no way back to emotional delicacy and poetic grace. Yet Hamlet stabs Polonius to death, calls the dead man a fool and a knave, tells his mother, in one of Shakespeare’s most brutal phrases, that “I’ll lug the guts into the neighbor room,” and exits dragging the body along like the carcass of an animal. It makes no sense that even after this shocking display of callousness, Hamlet still gets to be the tender philosopher considering the skull of Yorick. But he does. He is still the “sweet prince.”

Lady Macduff’s young son is stabbed to death before our eyes by Macbeth’s thugs. We watch a child—perhaps the most intelligent, charming, and engaging child ever seen onstage—being slaughtered in front of his mother. Yet fifteen or twenty minutes later we have the psychokiller Macbeth at his most affecting, playing the still, sad music of humanity: “And all our yesterdays have lighted fools/The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle.”

Othello wakes the sleeping Desdemona and twice calls her a strumpet. We listen to her heartbreaking plea: “Kill me tomorrow; let me live tonight.” In most productions, she tries to run away and Othello has to manhandle her back onto the bed. Then he takes a cushion and, as she continues to struggle for life, begins to smother her. But this is not quick. A short, staccato phrase of Othello’s, “So, so,” suggests that, as she continues to fight him, he either stabs her or pushes the cushion down even more violently on her face. But still Shakespeare prolongs the agony, for her and for us. Emilia appears at the door and gives Othello the news of Rodrigo’s murder. All the while Othello is still trying to kill his wife. We hear Desdemona’s voice again. Emilia opens the curtains and sees Desdemona dying. She gets two more lines and then expires. As Othello says himself: “I know this act shows horrible and grim.”

It is hard to think how Shakespeare could have made it more horrible. Depending on the production, it can take around ten minutes from start to finish. What could we feel except loathing and disgust? And yet Shakespeare forces us also, within just a few more minutes, to feel compassion for “one that loved not wisely, but too well;/…one not easily jealous but, being wrought,/Perplexed in the extreme.” It is not just Othello who is perplexed in the extreme. As audiences or as readers, we are left in a no-man’s-land where what we feel does not map onto what we have seen, and where extreme ugliness of action alternates with extreme beauty of language.

And all the while that language is unsettling us further. Some of this is accidental: the passage of time has altered meanings, making the effects even stranger and more disconcerting than Shakespeare meant them to be. Words become treacherous because we think we understand them but in fact do not. In the opening scene of Hamlet alone, “rivals” means companions and “extravagant” means wandering. In the first scene of Othello , “circumstance” means circumlocution, “spinster” means someone who spins wool, “peculiar” means personal, and “owe” means own. We can never be quite sure of the linguistic ground beneath our feet. Especially as we experience these words aurally in the theater, stepping stones turn out to be trip hazards.

This effect may be unintended in itself (Shakespeare cannot have known how the English language would evolve over four centuries), but it merely exaggerates what Shakespeare is doing anyway: simultaneously offering and withholding meaning. One way he does this is with a figure of speech that is peculiar in his own sense, personal to him. A distinctive strand of his writing is his fondness for expressing one concept with two words, joined together by “and.” No one has ever made such a humble three-letter word so slippery.

For example, when Hamlet thinks of Fortinbras’s army going off to invade Poland, he remarks that the warriors are willing to die “for a fantasy and trick of fame.” Laertes warns Ophelia against “the shot and danger of desire.” Shakespeare uses this device sixty-six times in Hamlet , twenty-eight times in Othello (“body and beauty”), eighteen times in Macbeth (“sound and fury”) and fifteen times in King Lear (“the image and horror of it”). With these conjunctions, every take is a double take. When we hear “and,” we expect the two things being joined together either to be different yet complementary (the day was cold and bright) or obviously the same (Musk is vile and loathsome).

Shakespeare does use such obvious phrasing, but often he gives us conjunctions that are neither quite the same nor quite different. A trick and a fantasy are alike but not exactly. The shot and the danger are closely related but separate concepts, as are sound and fury. Sometimes our brains can adjust fairly easily: “The image and horror” can be put back together as a horrible image. The “shot and danger” is a dangerous shot. But sometimes they can’t. When Hamlet tells the players that the purpose of theater is to show “the very age and body of the time,” we get the overall idea: they should embody the life of their own historical period. But the individual pieces of the phrase don’t cohere. The time does not have a body—it is the thing to be embodied by the actors. The “age of the time” borders on tautology. When Hamlet talks of his father’s tomb opening “his ponderous and marble jaws,” we must work quite hard to get to what is being signified, which is the heavy marble construction of the tomb. That banal little word “and” leaves us in a place somewhere between comprehension and mystery.

Shakespeare also does this with the basic construction of his sentences. As readers or members of an audience, we are hungry for information, and exposition is one of the basic skills of the playwright. But Shakespeare loves to spool out facts like someone gradually feeding out the line of a kite, adjusting to the tug and tension of the words. He leaves us waiting even while we are being informed. A sentence has a subject, a verb, and an object. Shakespeare delights in separating them from one another to the point where they are almost cut adrift. Early in Hamlet , Horatio is giving us some important backstory: how Old Hamlet acquired Norwegian lands and how Fortinbras is trying to get them back. He starts simply: “Our last king…” He then takes eight words to get to the verb “was” and then another fifteen words to get to “dared to the combat.” And then we have another fifteen words before we find out that Old Hamlet killed Old Fortinbras in this duel.

Or in the second scene of Macbeth , we need to know that Macbeth has triumphed against the rebels on the battlefield. The Captain, bringing the news, tells us that “brave Macbeth…carved out his passage” through the ranks of the enemy. But between “brave Macbeth” and “carved out his passage” there are nineteen words. Lear, in the crucial caprice that catalyzes the tragedy, demands: “Tell me, my daughters…Which of you shall we say doth love us most.” Except what he actually says is:

Tell me, my daughters, Since now we will divest us both of rule, Interest of territory, cares of state, Which of you shall we say doth love us most.

We have to hang on for the dramatic point. This happens again and again in these plays: the language is used to keep us in states of suspended animation. The propulsive rhythms keep the words moving forward with a relentless energy. (Otherwise, we would lose patience and conclude that Shakespeare is really quite a bad writer.) But the import of the words lags behind. This is Shakespeare’s marvelous kind of syncopation: the meter is regular but the meaning is offbeat.

Frank Kermode, riffing on T.S. Eliot, wrote of how a strange piece of language opens up “the bewildering minute, the moment of dazzled recognition” for which all poetry searches. These plays work toward those bewildering minutes when we both recognize something as profoundly human and are at the same time so dazzled by it that we cannot quite take it in. Some of these moments are elaborately linguistic: Hamlet’s contemplations of whether or not he should continue to exist, Macbeth’s articulation of the ways in which his violence has utterly isolated him from humanity itself. But some are almost wordless. There is Lear’s terrible “Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh!” over the body of his dead daughter and Othello’s “Oh, Oh, Oh!” when he realizes that he has murdered his wife for no reason. Shakespeare can make his eternal minutes from the most exquisite artifice or from the most primitive of sounds, knowing as he does that when words fail, after all the astounding articulacy we have been experiencing, the failure is itself unfathomably expressive.

None of this has anything to do with moral instruction. Moral destruction may be more like it: creating the “form and pressure” of the times through a great unraveling, in which what we know becomes un-known. If we have to go back to Aristotle’s theories of tragedy to understand what Shakespeare is doing, the place to go is not his idea of the fatal flaw—a concept Aristotle drew from Greek plays that could hardly be more different from Shakespeare’s. It is, rather, to Aristotle’s identification of the emotions that tragedy seeks to draw out of us: pity and terror. In Shakespeare’s tragedies, we have to supply the pity ourselves because there is precious little of it on offer to the people caught up in the violence of arbitrary power. But there is an abundance of terror. “Security,” says one of the witches in Macbeth , “is mortals’ chiefest enemy.” To feel secure is to be unprepared for the duplicity of reality. Shakespeare gives us crash courses in every kind of insecurity: physical, emotional, psychological, cognitive, even existential.

Ross, in the same play, explains to the soon to be murdered Lady Macduff:

But cruel are the times when we are traitors And do not know ourselves; when we hold rumor From what we fear, yet know not what we fear, But float upon a wild and violent sea…

This could be applied to all these tragedies, in which fear itself cannot be defined or contained. The plays are wild and violent seas on which even the boundaries of terror cannot be charted. If you had to live in one of them, your best course would be to listen to what a messenger tells Lady Macduff: “If you will take a homely man’s advice,/Be not found here; hence with your little ones.”

These violent wildernesses are not created by the flaws in Shakespeare’s characters. The jumpy guards on the battlements at Elsinore as Hamlet begins are not watching out for ghosts: war is already coming, as Young Fortinbras threatens to invade if the lands Old Hamlet seized from Norway are not returned. Before Macbeth even meets the witches, Scotland is beset by civil war and invasion. The play proper opens with the question: “What bloody man is that?” The still-bleeding Captain delivers gory descriptions of a man being cut in two and of his severed head being displayed on the battlements. Macbeth and Banquo are said “to bathe in reeking wounds.” As the action of Othello is beginning, messages are already arriving in Venice with news of the coming Turkish assault on Cyprus—war has begun. The only one of the four protagonists in the tragedies who can be said to unleash large-scale violence by his own actions is Lear—but even then, the speed with which his kingdom falls apart after his abdication makes us wonder whether it would not have descended into chaos anyway if he had merely died of old age.

What we encounter, then, is nothing so comforting as imperfect men causing trouble that will be banished by their deserved deaths. It is men who embody the hurly-burly that, contrary to the predictions of the witches at the start of Macbeth , is never going to be “done.” Hamlet and Macbeth, Othello and Lear are distinguished in these dramas by the illusion that they can determine events by their own actions. They have, they believe, the power to say what will happen next. But no amount of power can ever be great enough in an irrational world. The universe does not follow orders. That, as Miss Prism might have said, is what Tragedy means.

It is nice to imagine a time when these plays could be loved for their poetry alone. It would be a delight to think that their pleasure would be that they speak, as Horatio has it at the end of Hamlet , to an “unknowing world/How these things came about.” But there is not yet a world that does not know the violence of these plays or the fury with which reality responds to all attempts to force it to obey one man’s will. There is no place in history where “Be not found here” is not good advice for millions of vulnerable people. We return to the tragedies not in search of behavioral education but because the wilder the terror Shakespeare unleashes, the deeper is the pity and the greater the wonder that, even in the howling tempest, we can still hear the voices of broken individuals so amazingly articulated. They do not, when they speak, reduce the frightfulness. They allow us, rather, in those bewildering moments, to be equal to it.

Is Israel Committing Genocide?

Mexico’s Politics of Bitterness

Subscribe to our Newsletters

More by Fintan O’Toole

The ambiguous hero of Henrik Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People is a man of science who insists on the primacy of truth and evidence. But he’s also, possibly, a bit of a fascist.

May 23, 2024 issue

To understand Trump’s continuing hold over his fans, we have to ask: Why do they find him so funny?

March 21, 2024 issue

February 11, 2024

Fintan O’Toole is the Advising Editor at The New York Review and a columnist for The Irish Times . His most recent book is We Don’t Know Ourselves: A Personal History of Modern Ireland . (June 2024)

See my “Behind ‘King Lear’: The History Revealed,” The New York Review , November 19, 2015.  ↩

June 10, 2021 issue

No Consolation

April 7, 2022 issue

Early Alzheimer’s

June 23, 2022 issue

May 27, 2021 issue

December 2, 2021 issue

Turkey Vultures

January 13, 2022 issue

December 8, 2022 issue

November 24, 2022 issue

Subscribe and save 50%!

Get immediate access to the current issue and over 25,000 articles from the archives, plus the NYR App.

Already a subscriber? Sign in