Lady Macbeth

Sam Montagna

Shakespeare II

Professor Mulready

23 April 2012

Lady Macbeth

In many of Shakespeare's plays, women play a big role. However, usually, the women do not play the stereotypical role. Portia, Kate and Lady Macbeth do not fade behind their husbands but instead take control. Lady Macbeth, like Portia and Kate, is no different. She plays the stereotypical role to everyone except her husband. Macduff refers to her as “gentle lady” (2597.79). Macduff believes that Lady Macbeth is so gentle and good that she should not even hear about the murder. “Tis not for you to hear what I can speak/ The repetition in a woman's ear/ Would murder as it fell”(2597.80-83). The reality is, at this point, she is the most evil and vindictive character in the play. She is even scarier than the Witches. While the idea to kill Duncan was already in Macbeth's head when the Weird Sisters spoke the prophecy, Lady Macbeth coerced him into it. Macbeth is a moral person. He knows the king trusts him because he promoted him to Thane of Cawdor. The last thane betrayed the king so it is a huge honor for Macbeth to be the new thane. Macbeth is supposed to protect the king from harm. The king is not evil or bad. He is well liked and protected. There is no moral reason to kill the king other than Macbeth's need for power to fulfill the prophecy. However, when it seems that Macbeth is questioning his plot to kill the king, Lady Macbeth forces her plan on him. She insists on killing the king. 

 

Lady Macbeth manipulates her husband. Macbeth is a moral thane and Lady Macbeth acts as if this is news to her. She asks where all the guilt came from. She calls him a “coward” (2590.43). She really goes under his skin. She even tells him that he “would/ Be so much more the man” (2590.50-51). She is a very ambitious woman and will not accept failure or doubt. When Macbeth is overcome after killing Duncan, Lady Macbeth takes the king's blood onto her hands and finishes the job by setting up the guards. There is no doubt that Lady Macbeth is not squeamish and very convincing. The question is where does Lady Macbeth's loyalty lie? Her loyalty definitely does not lie with the king. As soon as her husband got a promotion, she aimed to take him out. However, does that mean that she will want to take out her own husband to gain power? Or, if another man came along and accumulated power, would she align herself with him to kill her husband? Based on her actions, Lady Macbeth loves blood and power. Her family and servants are disposable. Lady Macbeth follows Shakespeare's list of powerful women, however, her future is unclear. Macbeth is a tragedy. Will she be the one to cause the tragedy or fall to it?

Lady Macbeth and Iago

In our discussion in Friday's class, the question of Lady Macbeth's real power and control arose. Is she really the bad-ass that she claims to be, or is she just as insecure as poor Macbeth? While I can see how people could see her instability (ie: her descent into madness as seen in her "Out, out damned spot" speech), I don't think this character trait hinders the control she has over her husband. In fact, I can't help but notice a comparison between  evil Iago in Shakespeare's Othello. Sure, these are my two favorite plays so I may be inclined to find similarities between the two, but the comparison is obvious: Both characters serve as the "little birdie" in the ears of the respective main characters; both characters feed on the emotional weaknesses of others and convince them to murder.

In both cases, the schemer's whispers are the driving force behind the action. While the source of manipulation is obvious in Othello, in Macbeth, one could argue that the witches' prophecies are what really inspires Macbeth to murder the king; after all, without this prophecy Macbeth would never suspect he could become Thane or King. However, in 1.7, we see Macbeth having second thoughts about following through with the act. First, he recognizes that he has the King's "double trust" and that he should "against his murderer shut the door,/Not bear the knife myself" (1.7.12-16). He also refers to Duncan as "meek" and "clear" (blameless), and describes him as a "new-borne babe" and "heaven's cherubim." It is clear that he is still clinging onto his conscience, while Lady Macbeth is ready to take this new-borne babe and "have plucked his nipple from his boneless gums/And dashed the brains out" (1.7.57-58). After this conversation with Lady Macbeth, Macbeth says, "I am settled." Whatever shred of humanity Macbeth had prior to this conversation has been lost. 

Both Iago and Lady Macbeth use careful manipulation in order to achieve their hold over Othello and Macbeth, respectively. In the first interaction between husband and wife, Lady Macbeth addresses Macbeth as "Great Glamis, worthy Cawdor,/Greater than both by the all-hail hereafter." This doting address is obviously ironic to the audience, for it immediately followed her entire speech about how she wishes she could take over for Macbeth, have the spirits "unsex" her and "make thick [her] blood" (1.5.39-41). She also suggests how unmanly her husband is, and how unsuited he is to have such power because he lacks "the illness should attend it" (1.5.18).

This dual behavior is reminiscent of Iago's speech to Roderigo in 1.1 of Othello, when he disparages Othello's choice of Cassio over Iago for second-in-command: "But he (as loving his own pride and purposes)/Evades them with a bombast circumstance/Horribly stuffed with epithets of war,/And in conclusion/Nonsuits my mediators" (1.1.13-17). However hateful Iago is towards Othello, he constantly reassures Othello that he has his best interest at heart when suggesting Desdemona's infidelity.

Furthermore, I find it really interesting that, unlike Othello which focuses on the influence of bonds between men, Macbeth explores the control that a wife can have on her husband; that the female character in one play can be compared to an evil male in the other. I always find Shakespeare's evil characters - especially when they are female - to be the most interesting.

The Duke - Interesting but Kind of a Jerk

As interesting as I think the Duke is as a character in Measure for Measure, I find his actions at the end of the play deplorable. At the start of the play, I was more or less on his side, believing that his actions (that is, disguising as a friar to “test” Angelo) were for the good of the people; he simply wanted to see “if power change purpose” (I.iv.54). However, in Acts IV and V, as his plans for Claudio and Isabel unfold, it seems the feelings of others are just about the last thing on his mind.

In Act III, the Duke (dressed as a friar), orders the Provost to basically sacrifice the unsuspecting Barnardine. I understand that Barnardine’s fate was already decided, but he is basically using this unsuspecting man as simply a tool in his grand scheme instead of leaving his to die in (somewhat) peace.

Here, the Duke uses his “double life” to his advantage as a form of manipulation. First, he uses words such as “vow,” “by the saint whom I profess,” and “plead,” and makes reference to his religious “coat,” that is, uses his alter ego’s religious power in order to persuade the provost. But when that doesn’t work, he writes a letter from himself (the Duke) especially for the provost, discussing his return and ordering that this execution take place. To further persuade, he claims that this information was not even given to Angelo.

The nature of his manipulation of Isabel is slightly more ambiguous to the readers (or at least to me). In IV.iii, the Duke (still disguised as a friar), deliberately lies to Isabel about her brother’s fate: “But I will keep her ignorant of her good, to make her heavenly comforts of despair when it is least expected” (IV.iii.101-103). According to the Duke, he is doing this for her own good; in the end, he will bring her peace of mind. But first of all, the way he delivers the new is, to me, completely malicious! “He hath released him Isabel, from the world. His head is off and sent to Angelo” (IV.iii.107-108). He deliberately builds her up, implying they released Claudio from prison, and then, after a pause, adds, “from the world.” It was almost as if he wanted her to suffer more. Or is this another test, perhaps of Isabella’s faith? And when she breaks down in front of him, instead of comforting her, the Duke flatly tells her “This nor hurts him, nor profits you” (IV.iii.115). This response is much like what a mother would say when her young child has a tantrum; instead of entertaining the outburst, she would simply respond: “this isn’t doing anyone any good.”

But what are his true motives? As I said before, he claims that withholding the information will bring her peace of mind, but why bother waiting? In my opinion, the text suggests that the Duke is doing this for his own benefit. He tells Isabella:

“The Duke comes home tomorrow – nay, dry your eyes –[…]Already he hath carried/Notice to Escalus and Angelo,/Who do prepare to meet him at the gates,/There to give up their power. If you can pace your wisdom/In that good path that I would wish it go,/And you shall have your bosom on this wretch,/Grace of the Duke, revenges to your heart,/And general honour” (119-128). It seems to me that the Duke is withholding the information until he can be the Duke again, so that he can reveal to her, as himself, the good news; he wants to be the hero. Basically, he is saying, “There, there, Isabella, that super-awesome Duke of ours will solve all your problems.” Moreover, he uses this good news as a platform to propose to Isabella? What a gem!

And does anyone else find it ironic that the Duke is dressed as a friar while “playing God” with these people’s lives?