Skip to main content

What is the contrast between Macbeth at the beginning of the play and later in the play?

At the beginning of the play, Macbeth is portrayed as a honest, valiant warrior, loyal to his kinsman King Duncan. He plays a leading role in crushing the rebellion against Duncan's rule by killing the rebel Macdonwald and, alongside his friend Banquo, marshaling the King's forces to victory. Indeed, the Sergeant describes Macbeth to Duncan as "valor's minion," and "brave Macbeth," describing in gory detail how he killed Macdonwald (and many others) in the battle. Duncan exclaims that Macbeth is a "valiant cousin" and a "worthy gentleman." 


Yet almost immediately upon encountering the witches and their prophecy, Macbeth's ambition begins to bubble to the surface, especially when he finds out part of their vision has come true after the death of the thane of Cawdor. Still, he is not committed to murdering Duncan to make the prophecy come true, and it takes his wife's repeated goading to urge him onto the act, which he undertakes with deep misgivings, as he reveals in his soliloquy in the final scene of Act I:



I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition...



Duncan's murder propels Macbeth to the throne, and we quickly witness the corrupting influence of power, especially power gained through violence and treachery. He has Banquo murdered, and though he is clearly haunted by this act (as evidenced by his vision of Banquo's ghost) he is quick to plot further murders, especially after the witches conjure up a series of visions that warn him of the threat posed by Macduff. After he has Macduff's family murdered, he seems to have completely lost his moral compass. By the end of the play (or at least before the climactic final battle) this once valiant and noble thane has become a murderous, bloody monster. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more