Macbeth upsetting Elizabethan principles

Apparently the play Macbeth upset the principles that governed the Elizabethan understanding of nature, the state and humanity.
The other day the teacher asked us to brainstorm how it did this and what the consequences were.
My class understands that the Great Chain of Being was huge in the Elizabethan period. The Great Chain of Being, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong), is basically a chart of the power and nobility (these came hand in hand) possessed by people at the time. God was at the top of this chain, followed by the King, then (I think) priests came next and they were then followed by other nobles, depending on their nobility (obviously) and finally right down the bottom were the commoners, servants and slaves. In the play, Macbeth kills the king and therefore upsets what Elizabethans was the primary principle relating to nature. The fact that it was the king relates to state.

Reversed gender roles (Macbeth shows nurturing -i.e. feminine - qualities when he has doubts about killing Duncan and Lady M kills a man and is very tough throughout the play, which is obviously a manly characteristic) This upsets the understanding of humanity, I guess.

What have I missed? Would anyone like to expand on or disagree with what I have written? I would greatly appreciate any discussion.

Most of what you've said is correct, however, the characters do not show inversed gender roles throughout the entirety of the play. Lady Macbeth and Macbeth both show dominant gender traits respectively as well as the opposing.

"The Great Chain of Being" as you put it, is known as the "natural order" of the Elizabethan times. Shakespeare's plays all revert to the natural order by the end of the script, to reinforce the ideals of the time.

oh, deja vous! We too studied the Great Chain of Being. and your description is very correct. i think i mentioned it in my reply to your thread TheOnlyOne

Re: Renaissance's interest in the Great Chain of Being

As far as I know, the Great Chain of Being has its origins in Plato and Aristotle, and was to a large extent worked out by Thomas Aquinas. Consequently, the concept in Europe was largely a Mediaeval one, and although Renaissance works took great interest in it, it was commonly problematised rather than adopted by them.

Especially the question of man's place in the world was something that the Renaissance authors were interested in. Basically, in the Mediaeval view man's place was fixed in the Great Chain, and one of the central themes of Renaissance then became to argue to the contrary, and see whether human beings had some possibility of climbing up or falling down in the Chain. This was often signified in the theatre with the use of the stage concepts of "Hell" (the trap-door) and "Heaven" (the roof above the stage), among other things.

Macbeth, therefore, is far from being the only play that deals with these issues at the time. One must also bear in mind that there is an argument that Macbeth was written as a reaction to the assassination attempts of King James, which I suppose would make the play's views of a "fixed" Great Chain understandable. However, I have at the same time argued over the years that the play still turns against the concept itself -- not only is the Great Chain itself fixed, but Macbeth's destiny as a whole seems to be predetermined by the Wyrd Sisters (the fates) from the very beginning. What I as a result interpret Macbeth's tragedy to be is not his killing of the king and the rest, but the fact that he actually has no free will, is not responsible for his actions, and most importantly that he actually comes to realise this. (I would suppose that it is fine to have no free will as long as you do not realise that.) So, while the play seems to adopt the Great Chain, it also appears to be very critical about it.

Or that, in any case, is my personal view. :)

"The Great Chain of Being" is central to any tragedy by Shakespeare. Literature of any time-period will inevitably reveal the world-view/cosmology of said time-period. Previous posts have nicely articulated some of the issues in Macbeth. Let me add a few of my own (if you please):

1. Elizabethan theology dictated that an individual's place in the "chain" was ordained by God, and as such, it was a sin to try and "move up the ladder" socially (a prohibition which most Elizabethans, Shakespeare included, ignored) because this was a mortal attempt to bypass the decision of Divine Judgment to put an individual at his/her location in the chain. Therefore, Macbeth's assassination of the rightful (read: God ordained) ruler of Scotland was a major violation of the Natural Order. This violation of the natural order was so disruptive that the three "realms" of Elizabethan cosmology (human realm, natural realm, heavenly realm) all mirrored the violation. Since the natural world lacked the freewill/reason necessary to choose against God (and the heavenly realm, by default would resist violating God's order), it was the human realm where most disruptions of the natural order occurred. As such, whenever you see the phrase (or a variation of it) "against nature" in Shakespeare, the reference doesn't just mean "unnatural" or "perverted": it means that the very structure of the universe has been assaulted. To be called "unnatural" in Shakespeare carried this dire connotation.

In Shakespeare's plays this idea is generally seen in the chaos of the natural world. In Macbeth, Act 2.1 we hear that heaven's "candles" (the stars) are all "out." Later on, in 2.3, Lennox shares the eerie happenings of the night - happenings that parallel the murder of God's chosen king. In 2.4 the conversation between Ross and his father lay out clearly the violation of the Great Chain in their discussion of the chaos of the natural world:
1. The sun refuses to shine
2. A falcon killed by a "mousing owl"
3. Horses (normally herbivors) attacking each other and eating the flesh of the killed horse (becoming carnivors)

In Hamlet, the murder of Claudius (which occurs before the beginning of the play) results in the sighting of a ghost outside Elsinor. In King Lear, once the king's cruel daughters kick him out into the night, this violation of the natural family order (father as "king" to family) results in a violent storm raging across the moors. Each tragdey has the natural or heavenly realm mirror the "disjointed" nature of the human world.

2. I would slightly disagree with the idea that gender is not "inverted" - at least to an extent - in the play. Lady Macbeth (LMB) does ask to be "unsexed" in 1.5 - and her assertive, decisive nature does point to a more "masculine" approach. As well, Macbeth (MB) seems to take on a rather subservient role to his wife - at least in the early stages of the play. But notice that these "roles" occurred after MB received the "prophecy" from the witches - an indication that once the human heart accepts evil as an option, that the true character of an individual begins to change. Besides, one of the running motifs in the play is "manhood" - "bring forth men children only" MB says to his wife after she has claimed she would take the rather unfeminine action of dashing her baby's brains out (in the act of breastfeeding it) rather than break her word as her husband is doing to her. Check the feast in 3.4 - lots of discussion as to what a man is - and generally MB defending to his wife that he IS a man.

3. Finally, I disagree with the idea that MB had no freewill in his experience. The Weird Sisters merely called MB by titles (one of which he had indeed thought of before as indicated by his stunned silence and Banquo's surprised question:"Good sir, why do you start and seem to fear things that do sound so fair?") - they did not definitively state that he had to become king. MB chose to take the action he did - his immediate election to king after Duncan's death reveals that he probably already was a high contender for the position (before Duncan elected his son - an unwise decision) - there is a good chance that he might, if patient, have achieved the kingship without murder. In fact, in 1.7 MB argues himself out of killing Duncan by listing around 7 reasons why such a deed would be wrong. It is the strong influence of LMB that swerves MB's decision. He made choices all the way through. To take away his freewill changes the play from a tragedy (a good man falls from grace through a tragic flaw in his character) to an absurdist drama that makes humanity a mere pawn to the gods. How is MB's death tragic if he had no control, no say in it whatsoever? To have MB a victim of fate (rather than his own freewill) violates the very nature of Elizabethan tragedy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

3. Finally, I disagree with the idea that MB had no freewill in his experience.

---

I will only briefly respond to this, as I don't necessarily disagree with your disagreeing with me. I am certainly open for more than one interpretation for Macbeth, and I acknowledge that my point is perhaps not as well argued for as it should or could be. As such, I consider my position a thought experiment rather than any sort of an attempt to overthrow the established interpretations of Macbeth. The only reason why I keep returning to it is that I haven't really seen many to discuss this possibility, and therefore I would like to see what other people's reactions to it are.

The source of all this is the fact that I cannot simply let go of the fact that the Wyrd Sisters are by their name and number connected to the concept of "wyrd" (the Anglo-Saxon concept of "fate"), and therefore appear to be nothing less than the Norns themselves. Now, if they indeed are the Norns, then what they say to Macbeth is not entirely significant apart from the fact that it can be taken to confirm their knowledge of the course of future events. Which is not surprising, as they are (following this line of reasoning) the Norns. In this view, they don't need to say that Macbeth has to become the king, nor do they need to force him to do it. They just seem to know that it is the natural course of events.

Of course, the concept of "wyrd" is somewhat more complex than simple predestination. Most importantly, as far as I know, in "wyrd" past actions determine to a large degree the course of future events -- however, as the past actions themselves are conditioned by earlier actions, it is generally considered that no actual free will in the system of "wyrd" exists. In other words, we are at the mercy of the fates.

Interestingly enough, note also that "wyrd" is metaphorically depicted as a cloth (as fate is in general in most European mythologies), while many have argued that the most important system of metaphors in the play involves dresses and articles of clothing in general.

The appearance of Hecate in the play, of course, makes no sense at all if you consider the sisters to be the Norns. It is, however, generally agreed that the Hecate scenes are not Shakespeare's, but additions from Middleton. I also seem to remember that the sisters are called the "Wayward" ('turned away') sisters in the Folio, which may or may not be problematic for my thought experiment.

In any case, your point about tragedy being lost is a good one, although I am not sure how valid an argument it is in the end. In fact, I am not entirely sure that the tragedy is lost when the play is viewed from the angle that I am suggesting here. Certainly, Macbeth's tragic flaw cannot any more be taken to be his murderous acts. However, I would suggest that there is another tragic flaw, and that this one is purely epistemological in its nature.

In my argument, Macbeth's mistake is to start to make out what he is actually part of. Throughout the play he appears to be aspiring to understand what he is doing, but the more he rationalises, and the more he plans, the deeper he seems to sink into the quicksand of the story. There is a lot of internal reflection going on in Macbeth. And the resolution that he comes to through his reflections seems to be what his soliloquy is about:

Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by and idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

This, to me, seems to agree with the idea that with a deterministic universe humanity is indeed "a mere pawn to the gods" (actually to the fates, as gods themselves are taken to be under their influence). And, again to me, it is the fact that Macbeth comes to realise this that constitutes his tragedy. As I wrote previously, it would appear to me that there is no tragedy involved in your story if you live in a deterministic world without realising it. It is therefore not Macbeth's death, or his ontological qualities, that in this view provide the tragedy, but rather his knowledge. As a result, I am not so sure if this interpretation would violate the very nature of Elizabethan tragedy, as epistemological problems certainly were on the forefront.

But, as I said, this is just a suggestion, and I don't mean to imply that it should be taken as the ultimate truth of anything (except perhaps for my lack of proper referencing, if you so feel, and for which I apologise :) -- I haven't actually properly touched this matter for a good three years now, after I presented it as a paper at a Shakespeare conference).

Excellent - you have argued well and you know your Anglo-Saxon facts. You are correct: the reference to the witches as the "weird sisters" (3.4) does complicate matters - at least for my students, who rightfully ask "Who are these women? Are they witches or goddesses of fate?" (They've read their gloss notes). And I suppose here we find another of Shakespeare's famous ambiguities (like the age of Hamlet and whether or not Lady Macbeth has ever had children): who are these women? The only identifiers are suspect: the title page and Macbeth's own dialogue. The title page lists the characters as "three witches" - but we both know that Shakespeare did not publish his own works, and that stage directions were not by his hand either. But, Macbeth's choice to call the women "weird" may not definitively identify them. He may see them as such because of the fulfillment of the "Thane of Cawdor" prophecy - but just because Macbeth believes they are agents of fate, are they? How do they know what they know? This, in and of itself, is another complete discussion in terms of what the devil himself may "know."

But even if they are goddesses of fate, again: they predicted an "end" for Macbeth, not a "means" and I believe his freewill choice of the "means" is where the tragedy lies. Macbeth's tragic flaw isn't that he killed Duncan - it is that his ambition for the kingship led him to act out a dark desire in his heart. The witches/weird sisters did not implant murder in MB heart - that was already there as evidenced by his horrified confession in 1.3 of the "horrid image" that crossed his mind, the "fantasitical" (fantasy) murder of Duncan.

If MB is simply a victim of fate, then he becomes merely a cog in the cosmic meat grinder (a metaphor more appropriate for the vicious world of King Lear). Perhaps his fate was to be king - but not in the manner in which he pursued it. Your argument about MB realization of the web in which he is caught is good, but I'm not certain that his great speech in 5.5 is a realization that life is deterministic as it is that life as he knows it (and what other way can we experience life but in our own "internalized" way?) is meaningless. His life (for whose can he use to define life but his own?) is meaningless - and his earlier speech of "my way of life is fallen into the sear, the yellow leaf" shows us that he realizes that his life has come to the "reap what you've sown" stage - a stage metaphorically rendered as a river of blood that he is halfway across (3.4). The realization that one is a pawn to forces beyond his control strikes me as more "pathetic" (in Aristotle's use) than "tragic." One of the oft quoted tenants of a tragic hero is that he is aware of his role in his downfall. To realize that one is involved in a deterministic universe that has doomed him without his complicity is less a tragedy than an unspeakable horror (like the Naturalist writers in late 19thC America, whose stories focus on the impersonal forces of nature and society grinding people into dust - in such stories the tragedy is not personal, but cosmic).

So, ultimately, like many issues in SS - this may be unsolvable. There are enough hints to justify the women as witches or Fates - but I believe that SS was most interested in human nature and its workings. The play makes much about the severity of damage crime/sin can do to the human heart - and in a deterministic world, it would seem that there is no room for the human heart and its choices.

Thanks for your reply, Redzeppelin. Here are again some brief thoughts from my part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

just because Macbeth believes they are agents of fate, are they?

---

This is a good point, and one that I remember having thought about quite bit (especially in reference to the word "witch" that is used throughout by the stage directions and most characters). Note, however, that the sisters importantly refer to themselves as the "weird sisters" in (I.3:131). Although I think that it is again actually "wayward" in the folio.

It is, in any case, not only Macbeth who calls them the weird/wayward sisters in the play. A quick search reveals the above-mentioned reference from the sisters themselves, one from Lady Macbeth (I.5:345), two from Banquo (II.1:592, III.1:1002), and then finally two from Macbeth himself (III.4:1434, IV.1:1713).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

But even if they are goddesses of fate, again: they predicted an "end" for Macbeth, not a "means" and I believe his freewill choice of the "means" is where the tragedy lies.

---

I'm not sure if this is actually in line with the concept of Wyrd. I may be mistaken, of course. But to the best of my understanding, the Norns did not predict, they simply knew. And if they know Macbeth's end, they should also already know his means. Or that is at least if we maintain the assumptions that the play here follows the Anglo-Saxon tradition, which of course we don't necessarily have to assume.

But much importance seems to have been placed in the play on the fact that the three are sisters -- something that is never mentioned in Holinshed. All in all, actually, the sisters are far more prominent in Shakespeare than in Holinshed. Moreover, their being at the beginning of the play might perhaps suggest that they, like the fates, come before everything else. (The first scene, of course, is something that has for decades been fairly controversial in Macbeth studies, with some even suggesting that the scene is not by Shakespeare simply because of its "un-Shakespearean" position at the beginning.)

I do like the interpretation that you work out, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

So, ultimately, like many issues in SS - this may be unsolvable.

---

This would, of course, require that something would need to be solved, i.e. that there would be a single definite answer. To be honest, I am not that interested in what Shakespeare may or may not have intended, or what our projection of him may or may not have intended the play to be about. Like I wrote before, I am not seeking a single interpretation to Macbeth or any other play. I'm rather more interested in playing around with the material and seeing what can be made out of it.

As am I. Your points are exceptionally well argued, and like yourself, I am "playing around" with interpretations myself. Your defense of the weird sisters is credible and worth pondering. The idea of "fate" is an interesting one in Shakespeare's tragedies. At different points Macbeth invites fate to "champion" him (3.1), and at other times he fights against it (as in his final words to Macduff "Yet I will try the last" [of the prophecies]).

I suppose my final word on freewill would have to do with my belief that Shakespeare knew the human heart well. Throughout the play there are numerous references to the dangers of letting sin/crime into one's heart. Lady Macbeth seeks to have the "passage to remorse" blocked (1.5); in the murder scene she continually tries to deflect her husband's reflections of the crime he has committed ("consider it not so deeply") because she is aware that her husband - too "full of the milk of human kindness" as he is - will, upon to much reflection of what he has done, may confess or go mad. Later on, the doctor comments that Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking is the result of grievous things upon her heart; and, MB himself asks the doctor if he has an "antidote" to cleanse LMB heart of the "perilous" stuff in it. I think the tragedy of MB is largely in his realization of what he has done to his own heart - and that such a realization is a far deeper hell than the realization that one has been a pawn of the universe. If things were beyond our ability to choose, then we are - to a large extent - absolved of responsibility. But, if we realize that the meaninglessness of life is a self-created hell, a hell we freely chose - well, can there be any worse suffering?

It has been a pleasure to bandy words with you.
thanks

It has been a pleasure to converse with you as well.

And good luck with your students -- if only mine were half as perceptive, I'd be rather quite pleased. Then again, the discipline that I teach, which is theoretical linguistics, generally accumulates less enthusiasm from students of English Studies than does literature.

hi,how r u all i`m happy to be with u ,but i need someone to help me or to speak about the theme of sexual inversion in Macbeth.thanks for u.i want to open this topic