We can look for binary opposition in Macbeth, also how words (images, symbols, metaphors) can be discussed in the light of words' meanings are arbitrary.
An act-by-act structural loss of freedom by the protagonist(s) could be used as an instrument for study as (the) Macbeth(s) suffer the consequences of their evil acts. The role of fatality is symbolized by the three Weird Sister (throwbacks to the three Fates of the Greeks) at the start and by Lady Macbeth's loss of sanity towards the end. Pay attention to prophecies and omens.
Another, more standard, structural approach would be an act-by-act study of the battle between the natural world order and the "anti-natural" one (Fair is foul, and foul is fair). This opposition is frequently exploited by Shakespeare in other tragedies as well.
Thank you Sir, for the answer. But whether these weird sisters are really responsible for the fall of Macbeth in the form of fate? It is true that they prophesied for Macbeth. But unlike Banquo, he thought of materializing the prophecy of those witches and threw himself in the trap of deception. And he was deceived and met his doom. So, we see that it is the wrong choice of Macbeth, not his fate that is responsible for his tragedy. If it were fate, he would not kill Macduff's wife and his children.
Dear Sir, it will be a favor for me if you help me to know more about Macbeth on the basis of the theory of structuralism.
I tend to disagree. The Weird Sisters, analogous to the three Fates as they may be, are not at all responsible for Macbeth's fall. As he himself iterates in his final soliloquy, the fault lies in himself, in his ambition that blinded him to the notion that he could somehow shape his own fate by taking actions that would ensure forecast results. As Shakespeare knew, forecasts of results were unreliable and often tricky (He had read Sophocles, too.) to interpret. But Macbeth clearly was as unfamiliar with Oedipus as he was with common sense consequences of his own actions. It is a familiar theme in Shakespearean tragedy; one finds it also played out in the history plays, particularly Richard III. ("I am now so steeped in blood that one more sin might pluck the sinner." i.e.) Like any ambitious gangster, Macbeth saw opportunity and took it; a push from his Lady certainly didn't hurt, but once he had set his feet on the pathway to his own destruction, every action, including the murder of Banquo and of McDuff's wife and children added velocity. All the while--and here's the point--he was deluding himself that any one of those actions would ultimately guarantee the prophecy that, by his own admission, he only half-believed to begin with. Shakespeare's tragic figures all succumb to hubris, of course, but ambition is another factor which modifies raw pride. Macbeth's story is the story of us all. We rarely achieve what we are forecast to achieve, but it is in self-delusion that our destruction lurks, and we must be on guard against the blinding influence of ambition.
I agree with Clay. Macbeth begins in freedom, as I said, but little by little loses it as predicted by the three Weird Sisters.
The witches prophesied for both Banquo and Macbeth. But they both react in two different ways to the prophecy of the witches. Banquo who represents the reason and logic hears them but takes no necessary step in this regard as he is well aware of the deceiving nature of these evil sisters. On the other hand Macbeth's ambitious mind finds a way out to fulfill their prophecy. At the beginning he needs a push from his wife but later on he himself is sufficient to remove all the obstacles from his path.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers