Macbeth: Tragedy or Satire?

William Shakespeare wrote four great tragedies, the last of which

was written in 1606 and titled Macbeth. This "tragedy", as it is considered

by societal critics of yesterday's literary world, scrutinizes the evil

dimension of conflict, offering a dark and gloomy atmosphere of a world

dominated by the powers ofdarkness. Macbeth, more so than any of

Shakespeare's other tragic protagonists, has to face the powers and

decide:

should he succumb or should he resist? Macbeth understands the reasons for

resisting evil and yet he proceeds with a disastrous plan, instigated by the

prophecies of the three Weird Sisters. Thus we must ask the question:

If Macbeth is acting on the impulses stimulated by the prophecies of his fate,

is this Shakespearean work of art really a Tragedy?

Aristotle, one of the greatest men in the history of human thought,

interpreted Tragedy as a genre aimed to present a heightened and

harmonious imitation of nature, and, in particular, those aspects of nature

that touch most closely upon human life. This I think Macbeth attains.

However, Aristotle adds a few conditions.

According to Aristotle, a tragedy must have six parts: plot, character,

diction, thought, spectacle, and song. Most important is the plot, the

structure of the incidents. Tragedy is not an imitation of men, but of

action and life. It is by men's actions that they acquire happiness or

sadness. Aristotle stated, in response to Plato, that tragedy produces a

healthful effect on the human character through a katharsis, a "proper

purgation" of "pity and terror." A successful tragedy, then, exploits and

appeals at the start to two basic emotions: fear and pity. Tragedy deals

with the element of evil, with what we least want and most fear to face,

and with what is destructive to human life and values. It also draws out

our ability to sympathize with the tragic character, feeling some of the

impact of the evil ourselves. Does Macbeth succeed at this level? Can the

reader feel pity and terror for Macbeth? Or does the reader feel that

Macbeth himself is merely a branch from the root of all evil and not the

poor, forsaken, fate-sunken man, according to Aristotle's idea of tragedy,

he is supposed to portray? Can the reader "purge" his emotions of pity and

fear by placing himself in the chains of fate Macbeth has been imprisoned

in? Or does he feel the power and greed upon which Macbeth thrives,

prospers, and finally falls? I believe the latter is the more likely

reaction, and that the reader sees Macbeth as a bad guy, feeling little or

no pity for him.

Aristotle also insists that the main character of a tragedy must have

a "tragic flaw." Most tragedies fail, according to Aristotle, due to the

rendering of character. To allow the character to simply be a victim of

unpredictable and undeserved calamities would violate the complete, self-

contained unity of action in the tragedy. If that is so, and if we assume

that the group of three witches is a realistic possibility, then is not

Macbeth such a victim? Does he really deserve the misfortune that is

brought him by his fortune? After all, Macbeth is introduced to the reader

as an honest and humble leader. His fate, once having been revealed to him,

drives him to greed, elevates his lust for power, and coins a conceited

and misguided trust in his seemingly eternal mortality. Diction, the

expression of the meaning in words, is near perfect in Macbeth, simply

because it is written by William Shakespeare, the inventor of perfect

diction. Thought--the task of saying what is possible and pertinent in

the circumstances of the play--can not be disputed. Spectacle and Song are

the effects that highlight the play, and are pertinent in providing an

emotional attraction. Such elements are easily found in Shakespeare.

Macbeth is written with the style and grace that only Shakespeare could

provide. Thus, these elements of tragic drama can not be challenged in this

argument.

While we need to consider that Macbeth strives on power, and in doing

so loses his values of humility and humanity, it should not be forgotten

that Macbeth does, at certain times, feel remorse for things he has

done.

In Act 2, Scene 2, Macbeth confides in Lady Macbeth after the murder of

Duncan:

But wherefore could not I pronounce "Amen"?

I had most need of blessing, and "Amen"

Stuck in my throat.

and:

Methought I heard a voice cry "Sleep no more!

Macbeth does murder sleep," the innocent sleep,

Sleep that knits up the raveled sleave of care,

The death of each day's life, sore labor's bath,

Balm of hurt minds, great nature's second course,

Chief nourisher in life's feast--

Macbeth shall sleep no more. In this scene, he shows great turmoil

over the deed he has done. Thus the reader is shown that Macbeth is

acting

out deeds that go against his conscience, that he regrets his actions,

and

that the prophecies are unfolding. But is this apology enough to

stimulate

pity within the reader? After all, the man just committed his first of

many

murders! His contrition seems to fade as his want of power

flourishes.

So Macbeth continues--the powers of evil feeding on every move he

makes--to

make way for his advancement as prophesied by the witches. He hires his

men to eliminate Banquo, a threat to his cumulative reign. Having

Banquo

out of the way, Macbeth surges with the sense of power. There is no

doubt

that he is acting on the impulses that were stimulated by the first

prophecies of his fate. In Act 4 Scene 1, he returns to the three

witches,

desiring more information regarding his fortune. They in turn assure

him

that "none of woman born shall harm Macbeth." Invincible power! Macbeth

forgets the other two prophecies:

Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth! Beware Macduff,

Beware the Thane of Fife...

and:

Be lion-mettled, proud, and take no care

Who chafes, who frets, or where conspirers are.

Macbeth shall never vanquished be until

Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill

Shall come against him.

The witches have spoken again, with unforeseeable truth. Macbeth

leaves the dreaded sisters, blinded by his own ambition. Let the

players

play! He is assured that he is indestructible, for how could Macduff, a

man

of woman born, hurt him? How could the Birnam Wood come to Dunsinane

Hill?

Preposterous! Macbeth leads on, confident, bold, and unvictimized. He

flashes his power, exalts himself, and fears no one, not even himself.

He

no longer cares that he does not sleep. Act 5 Scene 3 opens with

Macbeth:

Bring me no more reports. Let them fly all!

Till Birnam Wood remove to Dunsinane,

I cannot taint with fear. What's the boy Malcolm?

Was he not born of woman? The spirits that know

All mortal consequences have pronounced me thus:

"Fear not, Macbeth. No man that's born of woman

Shall e'er have power upon thee."

Then fly, false thanes,

And mingle with the English epicures!

The mind I sway by and the heart I bear

Shall never sag with doubt nor shake with fear.

Having possession of all the confidence in the world, or at least

thinking he does, Macbeth proceeds in a boisterous manner. His fate,

once

prophesied to him, has now acquired complete control. He has the titles

promised him. He has found protection in the strength of witch's

words.

How can the reader pity such a fool? The only thing to do is laugh at

him,

for it can be sure that these prophecies which Macbeth has ignored will

come

to pass; Macbeth will no doubt fall.

And he does. Macduff, figuratively but not literally of woman

born,

holds the rest of the confidence in the world. Macduff, the Arnold

Schwarzenegger of Shakespearean lords, does the impossible and brings

the

wood to the hill, and brings the fall of the great and powerful

Macbeth. A

tragic ending? I'd say not. A tragic ending would have been for

Macduff to

fall under Macbeth. A tragic ending would have seen Lady Macbeth take

Macbeth's life. But for Macduff to do what he had to do, the prophecy

was

fulfilled, and the only winner is Fate. This does not make a

Tragedy.

Who do we feel sorry for? Maybe only Macduff, who was untimely ripped

from

his mother's womb. We praise Macduff for conquering Macbeth. Maybe

some

readers feel some pity for Lady Macbeth. But we certainly don't feel

pity for Macbeth. Yet Macbeth could have been a victim. He lost

control

of himself, and allowed himself to be led by Fate. Perhaps Shakespeare

fails to supply a "tragic flaw" as insisted on by Aristotle. Macbeth

does

not try to resist Fate, he runs with it. He does not heed warnings of

potential hazards. The Macbeth we were introduced to certainly could

not

have predicted his fortune. Being a man of honesty and humility, he

couldn't have deserved his dilemma. But he succumbed to his fate, and

was

no longer an honest and humble Macbeth.

I think that even the most humble and honest person in the world,

except Jesus himself, could be swayed to corruption. The Macbeth Empire

could be compared to Mark Twain's Hadleyburg. In comparing Macbeth to

The

Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg, we might be able to see Macbeth as a

satirical comedy. Macbeth, honest and humble, was corrupted by the

powers

of fortune in much the same way that the people of Hadleyburg, also

honest

and humble, were corrupted by the same powers. The reader could not

possibly pity the community of Hadleyburg, and would typically cheer at

its

fall. Isn't it the same with Macbeth? The townspeople of Hadleyburg

felt

remorseful when they realized they'd been had, in much the same way that

Macbeth surely felt when he learned of Macduff's method of birth. The

people of Hadleyburg thought that no harm could come to them, because

they

held proper character; they were in proper form. But behind closed

doors

they planned their strategies to acquire the power, provided in the form

of

a monetary inheritance. This greed/lust for power was the Hadleyburg

downfall. Their own greed was their own enemy.

Likewise with Macbeth. A strong leader, upheld by his loyal

comrades,

could do no wrong. But once he learned he was to acquire some great

fortune,

he was his own enemy. His lust for power drove him to his bitter

end.

Satire may be defined as a genre that uses mockery of society to shock

that society into an honest look at itself. Do we consider the

Hadleyburg

tale a tragedy? No. We see it more as satire. It is a sarcastic view

of

society's morals and values, and how hypocritical people, including

ourselves, can be. Putting Macbeth on a parallel with this entertaining

American short story allows us to view the play in a different light.

We

now can see Macbeth as a hypocrite, and we can see him resembling

ourselves. How often can the power of want, the desire for more, lead

humanity to destruction and despair? The same motivational tool that

drives

a college student into a career can someday break him. So let the

critics of yesterday have their tragedy. Let them read their own

literary

mortality in Macbeth:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out brief candle!

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 an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

I am sure even Aristotle would have allowed Macbeth into the

"Tragedy

Hall of Fame." But if a man has the gift of foresight and is aware of

the

risks but chooses to ignore them and runs after his fate, what tragedy

is

there? If Fate wins, it cannot be considered a tragedy if Macbeth

succeeds

in meeting it.

Today we have put out this tragic candle. I'm not of much

importance

in this mortal world of ours, but if I've given you something to

reconsider

and to ponder on, then this task is finished.

(Information on Aristotle was taken from my Literary Criticism text.)

Thank you for your attention and interest.

p.s. Do I get anything 4 hooking you guys up?