Shakespeare’s ‘Macbeth’ is a classic example of a Jacobean Tragedy; the appearance of the Witches, Banquo’s ghost, the settings and the Good vs Evil dichotomy all provide evidence for this. Perhaps the most distinctive feature is the inclusion of major characters with a single obsessive motive. When Malcolm refers to Macbeth as a “dead butcher” in Act Five, Scene Four, the point is clear: the events of the play have been created and undertaken by a man with a driving blood-lust and lack of respect for propriety. This would suggest Macbeth’s commitment is to status, position and power however, Shakespeare offers us a different Macbeth in the opening scenes.
During the course of the play, the audience witness Macbeth dealing with various commitments – his commitment to being a soldier, his commitment to his wife, and perhaps, a commitment to evil. In addition, Shakespeare presents to the audience other characters who demonstrate adherence to, and dismissal of, their own commitments. Thus, ‘Macbeth’ can be read as a play of commitments, as each of the characters struggle to find balance among their various allegiances.
At the start of the play, ‘brave Macbeth’ is clearly committed to King and country in his actions of ‘disdaining fortune’ and ‘[unseaming] him from the nave to th’ chops’. His commitment is rewarded as he is named as Thane of Cawdor. The combination of the Witches’ prophecies and his commitment to his ‘dearest partner of greatness’ offer Macbeth a new focus: his own betterment. However, though the thought of assassination first appeals to Macbeth, he dismisses the idea because he is ‘his kinsman and his subject’; here Macbeth’s commitment to the role of loyal soldier clearly vocalised.
Throughout Act One, Lady Macbeth’s language is powerful; her commitment to evil has been clearly announced by her claims to have ‘dashed the brains out, had I so sworn”. As demonstrated in his ‘thought’ to write her a letter, Macbeth is clearly a devoted husband and therefore, it is simple to see how his relationship with Lady Macbeth influences his actions, deeds and consequential mental state. To ensure that her husband will do what is necessary, she manipulates him so that he can, in her mind, reach his full potential; her need to ‘Pour mine spirits in thine ear’ shows her controlling nature and how Macbeth has no choice about killing Duncan or indeed what or who he is committed to. She tells him to ‘act like th’innocent flower but be the serpent under’t’. This metaphor creates an image in the audience’s mind of a beautiful flower concealing a cunning, dangerous snake beneath; perhaps suggesting to the audience we will never know the true Macbeth.
Once Lady Macbeth has lost her place of influence in Macbeth’s life, she suffers a mental breakdown: ‘out damn spot’; ‘The Thane of Fife had a wife’. Her commitment to Macbeth, it seems, has cost her her identity and eventually, her life. Macbeth is now the dominant member of the relationship but one with fading commitment. The relationship is completely abandoned in Act 5 when Macbeth demands the Doctor ‘cure her of that’, ‘purge it’ and ‘raze out’. He has no time for understanding and loving his wife. This is confirmed when he comments ‘she should have died hereafter’. His only focus at this point in the play is to winning the battle and protecting his position as King. Despite his position of leadership, whether he is committed to his country is questionable here.
In the early acts Macbeth seems concerned about the effects his actions might have and seems prepared to leave much to chance. By the end, his life is measured out in repetitive days with no hint of hope of anything “Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow”. The audience can only conclude that Macbeth’s commitment to success has cost him greatly. Shakespeare brings the play to a close in which order and the “right” way of things is restored: Macduff kills Macbeth and offers the final perspective on him as the ‘dead butcher’ and his ‘fiend like Queen’.
By exploring the theme of commitment that runs through Shakespeare’s ‘Macbeth’, one can begin to trace how Shakespeare judged his fellow man. Shakespeare gives the audience a rounded portrayal of a war hero who degenerates, as his character becomes tainted with illicit power. Whether Macbeth has loyalty to anything is an easy question for the audience to ponder.
The honourable, such as Malcolm and Macduff, were committed to doing what was best for the country and the benefit of the people. Each of them fled the country at their own expense, Malcolm’s reputation and Macduff’s family, in order to try to win support and aid for the people of Scotland. This represents a complete polar opposite from the position Macbeth takes, which is devotion to self and family at the expense of the crown and the people. That he is supported in this by his wife is perhaps not surprising, but demonstrates the failure of both to adhere to the Old Codes of honour and hospitality, despite being contrary to Christian morality. The couple’s madness is unsurprising to the audience and it presented as an appropriate conclusion.
Placed firmly between these two dichotomies is Banquo. The juxtaposition of Macbeth and Banquo is central to the play, as Banquo unreservedly chooses family and posterity, over friendship or liege. Even when Banquo commits to Macbeth when invited to the feast, “Let your Highness /Command upon me, to the which my duties / Are with a most indissoluble tie / For ever knit”, his previous thought patterns suggest this commitment is more in the nature of self-interest than true heartfelt devotion.
In conclusion, it is clear how the play ‘Macbeth’ illustrates the importance of placing commitments carefully and in balancing them between house and state or self and other.