Pink Poogle Toy Forum

I've seen a couple of Shakepeare topics so I thought I would throw in one of my own for all you clever Shakespeare students out there.

I am currently studying Macbeth for literature, and I came across an interesting question: Was Macbeth a virtuous man led down the path of evil or a willing party of his wife's unholy machinations?

What do you think?

I think that we should go back in time and stop William from writing any plays, thus stopping us from pondering questions such as these.

Get rid of his plays? Are you kidding? Then what are us theatre students supposed to do?

Shakespeare's plays are the absolute best possibility for Theatre students for one very important reason: No royalties.

My opinion is that Shakespeare didn't mean to portray Macbeth as a single charecter. I personally think Shakespeare is a good man, however, all the negative aspects of his charecter can be seen in Lady Macbeth. Although Macbeth has a sense of ambition, it is nothing as strong as that of Lady Macbeth, and if he hadn't have sent the letter, then the idea would not, as Lady Macbeth quotes, be stuck to his sticking place.

Willing, I'd say, and thus evil -- even if much of that evil was through weakness (giving in to the temptation the witches dangled before him, and allowing his wife to push him).

Might go so far as to suggest that (by telling her of the prophesy, but then demurring weakly) he manuevered his wife into the position of pushing him to commit his crimes, even sharing them. His way of trying to reap the benefits while shirking the responsibility, perhaps?

Not that I've changed my opinion of his wife -- having the strength to commit evil isn't a good quality, imo, nor is "standing by your man" in evil and scheming to violate sacred hospitality.

(All this, of course, is in regard to "the Scottish play" only. The historical Macbeth was quite different, slaying his king honorably on the field of combat.)

Oh no, Macbeth. Studying five times in three years kind of makes you hate it.

But I don't think it would be fair to simply either Macbeth's or Lady Macbeth's characters to a simple word, like "good", or "evil". Being human, we all have very different characteristics and one word can't describe our personalities.

Lady Macbeth isn't what I would call pure evil. If she was, would she have had to call on the spirits of darkness to help her, and prevent her from being too kind? And the guilt of killing Duncan evidently had an effect on her conscience, as she eventually went mad and commited suicide.

As for Macbeth, his own wife calls him "too full of the milk of human kindness". He doesn't want to kill Macduff at the end because he has already killed so many people. He regrets killing Duncan as soon as he does it and wishes that the knocking could waken the king.

Of course, you can't call him a good, virtuous man. In plain language, he murdered people. But he didn't want to do it, he saw no other way out of the situation, and he regretted all the killings.

The main character in each of Shakespeare's tragedy plays each had a weakness which became their downfall. Macbeth's was ambition. Nuff said.

I know I am basdically the only person in the world arguing this, but I think that Macbeth's fatal flaw is his wife. Without the wife, he would never have had the idea planted in his mind. I find a certain quote very apt here:

Look the like the rose, but be the serpent unde'it.

Or whatever the exact wording is. Macbeth represents the good, innocent part of the flower, and the corruption is from the venom of the serpent under it; Lady Machbeth.

What thou art promised: yet do I fear thy nature;
It is too full o' the milk of human kindness
To catch the nearest way

That quote clearly shows that Macbeth has a generally pure conscience, yet Lady Macbeth wants to corrupt him; why else would she fear the milk of human kindness.

I studied Macbeth and the final conclusion is he is a tragic hero. Even though he regrets killing Duncan, his overconfidence led to his downfall. His ability to think his plans were flawless was an act of pure ego.

As per Matt's arguement, I agree to an extent. Lady Macbeth didn't urge him to kill Duncan, Macbeth did it and told Lady Macbeth about it making her worry. She knew of everything that was going on and Macbeth wanted to turn back time or in other words, confess, but she didn't let him do this because of the fear that her reputation would go down in the gutter.

She is a normal human being. She shows both positive and negative attributes. Macbeth is the same. He was the hero however based on the tragic circumstances, he becomes a tragic hero at the end of the play.

WAY-ell, in context I don't think that means he was exactly a humanitarian. It means that even though he was a murderer, he was a wishy-washy murderer.

And they're also very nice plays to perform. There's a lot less to worry about with the words as they have their own natural rhythm.

Anyway, a stupid question. No person is all good or all evil.

Macbeth is essentially a human. He is actually fairly kind hearted, but also weak spirited and greedy. He is easily persuaded to do bad things and the seed is planted in his mind by the witches, originally. No, they don't tell him to kill anyone, but they start the ball rolling. If it hadn't been for the witches, why would Lady Macbeth have come up with the plan?

Lady Macbeth has to call on 'evil spirits' to help her do the deed, so obviously she isn't all bad. She fears his nature because she fears that Macbeth's natural kindness etc. will make him not go through with it. Both characters are driven by ambition, and yes, Lady macbeth's ambition is the bigger of the two. As a woman in that society the only way she can hope to achieve status is through her husband. That said, she also wants to see her husband do well because she loves him.

They are both human and curruptable as such. But Matt, without the witches, it never would've happened
Or without the Thane of Cawdor being a trecharous git, I suppose. One of my favourite pieces of dramatic irony comes from this play, when Duncan says they shall never be bothered by Cawdor anymore. Oops. Spoke to soon good sir.

I've much more to say, but my brother wants me off the PC

Haha, wishy-washy is a good way of expressing it. No, I certainly didn't mean to call him a humanitarian. Only I think he wouldn't have gone through the whole thing on his own without his wife egging him on.



Hum, I think the idea was already within his mind. When the witches told him he would be king, he gave a start. I think that start was because he already had the idea in his mind. To be king, he would have to kill Duncan because there is no way he could otherwise be king. It's a sin to kill the king, and so he's not as collected and pleasantly surprised as Banquo was expecting. <insert the quote where he says something like "Why do you start at such pleasant prophecies?">

Macbeth also is shaking when he imagines killing Duncan.

I suppose it's all down to interpretation whether he already had the idea or not, but I would say that if someone else planted the idea into his head, 'twere the witches. His wife did the encouraging, emotionally blackmailing and other stuff to make him do it.

Yes. I see Macbeth as something like Seymour in Little Shop of Horrors - led in by alluring candy (Thane of Cawdor, the dentist,) and kept there by hopes of increasing his stature, yes, but also because he's too weak not to (like in the contract scene.) Yes, I am a freak.

I've alwasy viewdd Macbeth as a man of circumstance. He's not entirely good nor entirely bad, he just did what he thought was best, rather, I would argue that he did what the martial unit thought was best.

the symbology of the quote that Matt used, Look the like the rose, but be the serpent unde'it. Although we learnt it to be referncing the way in which macbeth is supposed to treat Duncan when he arrives at his castle. I've always thought it was a bit of self analysis on Lady Macbeth's part of her and her husband's relationship. If we were to take aside a moment and assume the quote did refer to their marriage, we could say that Macbeth was the delicate flower and Lady Macbeth the spent underneath(reversal theme plays well into this too, as woman are sometimes refered to as flowers). They worked together until Macbeth assumed the role of the man of the house (at the plot of the murder of Banquo).

At school, as Ammer said, we learnt Macbeth to be a tragic hero. I didn't necesarily agree with this, even when we related him to The Mayor of Casterbridge's Micheal Henchard, I still didn't see a strong relationship between a Socreities' Tragic Hero and Hardy's.

I don't think either character was truly evil or bad, but rather their priorities wern't straight due to circumstance. Both had tragic faults, so I've always found it just as valid to assume them as a unit.

This is quite an interesting question. I saw this topic before, but I hadn't finished the play yet so I waited. We finished Act V last week, so I now have an opinion, yay!

As people have said, I don't think that anyone in that play was truly good or wholly evil. Lady Macbeth was ambitious, and not the most considerate person in the world. Duncan didn't mean anything to her, so she was fine with him being killed if it meant she became queen. Macbeth wanted to be king, and wanted to make Lady Macbeth happy, so he committed the murder. He felt bad, but then got caught up in his own power.

It's also a proven fact (maybe not proven in Shakespeare's time, but proven now) that when given a position of power over others, many people become rather heartless and seemingly "evil". That would explain the complaints made that Scotland was going down the drain because of Macbeth's kingship. He was already a little unhinged from killing someone he didn't really want dead, so the added bonus of more power than he knew what to do with drove him over the edge.