Skip to main content

How is ambition explored in Macbeth's Soliloquy "'if it were done" in Macbeth?

In this soliloquy, Macbeth is trying to talk himself into killing the king.  Before, when he heard the witches make the prophecy that he would be king, he was all ready to go.  He was angry when the king’s son Malcolm was named heir to the throne instead.  When Macbeth returned home, he expressed concern about taking action against the king.


In a soliloquy, the character talks to him or herself.  The goal is often to talk through some kind of internal conflict.  In this case, Macbeth is trying to rise to his ambition.  His wife says that he does not have the “illness” to attend to it.  In other words, Macbeth does not have what it takes to act on his ambition.  This soliloquy seems to demonstrate that, at the very least, he has to talk himself into it.


Macbeth wants to do it.  However, he is concerned that Duncan does not deserve to die.  He has been a good king.  He is also Macbeth’s guest.



He's here in double trust;
First, as I am his kinsman and his subject,
Strong both against the deed; then, as his host,
Who should against his murderer shut the door,
Not bear the knife myself. (Act 1, Scene 7)



It’s generally bad form to kill your guest.  As Macbeth notes, he should be protecting Duncan from harm, not killing him.  He also notes that Duncan has no reason to die anyway, other than Macbeth’s ambitions.


In the end, Macbeth decides that he needs to spur himself into action.



I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself
And falls on the other. (Act 1, Scene 7)



His wife is counting on him.  He will not get to be king any other way.  The only chance he has is to pull himself together and act on his ambition.

Comments

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 ...

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.