Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
William Shakespeare
by
Qazi Ubaid Ullah
M. A. (English) Final
National Institute of Modern Languages
Quaid-e-Azam University
Islamabad, PAKISTAN.
May, 2000.
The Existential Themes in the Drama of
William Shakespeare
by
Qazi Ubaid Ullah
M. A. (English) Final
National Institute of Modern Languages
Quaid-e-Azam University
Islamabad, PAKISTAN.
May, 2000.
Researchers Submission
A thesis submitted through the
National Institute of Modern Languages
Islamabad
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements of
The MA (English) Degree of
The Quaid-e-Azam University
Islamabad, Pakistan.
The Author.
May, 2000.
The NIML Certification
The National Institute of Modern Languages
Islamabad, Pakistan
An Academic Affiliate of
the Quaid-e-Azam University
Islamabad, Pakistan
Certifies
The Existential Themes in the Drama of
William Shakespeare
by
Qazi Ubaid Ullah Abid
A Thesis submitted to the Quaid-e-Azam University
through the NIML in partial fulfillment for the requirements of
the degree of M.A. (English)
1. __________________ 2. __________________
Brig. Aziz Ahmad Khan Mrs. Rubina Kamran
Director, The NIML. (Head, Department of English)
3. __________________ 4. __________________
Mr. Riaz Hassan Dr. Ikram Azam
Mrs. Ferzana Raoof (Course Teacher)
(Thesis Supervisors)
Declaration
I, Qazi Ubaidullah Abid, do hereby solemnly declare that the work presented in
this thesis is my own, and has not been presented previously to any other
institution or university for a degree.
This work was carried out and completed at the National Institute of Modern
Languages, Islamabad, Pakistan, an academic affiliate of the Quaid-e-Azam
University, Islamabad.
Qazi Ubaid Ullah Abid
(Researcher)
Certified:
1. Mrs. Rubina Kamran 2. Mr. Riaz Hassan
Head, Department of English Mrs. Ferzana Raoof
(Research Supervisors)
3. Dr. Ikram Azam
(Course Teacher)
Acknowledgment
The researcher is deeply thankful to all those who helped him to be what he is.
Special thanks are due to Mrs. Ferzana Raoof and Mr. Riaz Hassan, who
considered the researcher worthy enough to be taken under their kind supervision,
and helped him in every area, whether related or not related to the thesis. The
loving personality of Dr. Ikram Azam has always been there as a source of
permanent inspiration and continuous encouragement. Besides these, the
researcher is also thankful to all his class fellows who helped or at least tried to
help him.
Dedication
This humble work is
dedicated to nobody,
since everybody is nobody
and nobody is everybody.
Bio-data Brief
A wandering soul, Ubaidullah Qazi, after graduating from the Govt. College,
Haripur, with English Literature as an elective subject, decided to join the NIML
in order to quench the thirst of his inquisitive and searching soul. Though
belonging to an orthodox religious family, he holds liberal ideas. Perfection in the
form of idealism has always been his target. Living most of the time in a dream
existence, he has started viewing the world with a demand for idealism. Universal
brotherhood and mutual tolerance is what he advocates and thinks necessary for a
peaceful, perfect and ideal world. Primarily a pessimist and purposeless soul, he is
searching for some source of optimism and purpose in existence.
Subject: Interpretive Criticism
Topic: The Existential Themes in some Selected
Plays of William Shakespeare.
Thesis Statement
The proposed thesis is an attempt to trace the existential element and themes
in selected plays of William Shakespeare. It also attempts to study early
Existentialism in the works of William Shakespeare.
Delimitation
The proposed thesis is not a study of pure philosophy, i.e., Existentialism, in the
works of William Shakespeare. It is focused, rather, only on some existential
themes which have often been a point of interest for almost every thinking human
being. Shakespeare, though primarily a dramatist and not philosopher, shows
himself to be not only aware of these existential questions, but seems also to have
a definite personal view in this area. The researchers main focus is to find out
this view and to see what for Shakespeare are the springs of human grace and
human creation, and what are the forces available for the repair of tragic ruin and
for the renewal of human life. The thesis will also attempt to interpolate some
existentialist themes in the works of Shakespeare.
The thesis is not concerned with all the plays of Shakespeare. It deals in detail
with the four great tragedies, and the last play The Tempest.
Rationale
William Shakespeare possessed perhaps one of the best literary minds in the
history of world literature. Almost four centuries of Shakespearean criticism have
not been able to show the true and versatile nature of his genius. This criticism,
day by day, unfolds the layers of versatility which lie in the work of Shakespeare.
If nothing else, it has enhanced the value of the true greatness of Shakespeare.
The main purpose behind this thesis on Shakespeare and existence, is to bring into
the forefront one more tantalizing feature of the multi-faceted genius of
Shakespeare. Personal interest in the works of William Shakespeare and curiosity
about the nature and purpose of existence in this world, motivated the researcher
to combine his interest and curiosity, in order to trace the views that William
Shakespeare held on this area.
Abstract
Since all human beings in their capacity of being human, are equal, they face
almost similar problems and go through like mental processes while living in this
world and interpreting human life. Shakespeare is no exception. His plays
represent the world in miniature, showing all its absurdity and purposelessness.
Shakespearean tragedy is nothing, but a picture of the futility of human life and
action. His plot revolve around the elite grand human being (kings, queens,
princes, courtiers, etc.) and their high and low actions. He shows the ultimate
worthlessness of both human action and life. His plays show that man is nothing,
not only in himself but also before the all-powerful and incomprehensible
workings of Nature. Here Shakespeare appears to be echoing some of the modern
existentialist themes in their nebulous form. Shakespeare may not be the
propounder of modern Existentialism, but he certainly falls in the rank of those
writers and philosophers whose works or ideas inspired modern Existentialism.
The present thesis, while discussing the existential element, will try to establish a
relationship between Shakespearean existential views and 20th century
existentialist philosophy.
Introduction
a. About Subject and Topic:
The Renaissance period represents a time of great shift and change not only in the
social setup of western society but equally in the literary and philosophical
scenario. It challenged the old established authoritative doctrines which had
hidden the face of reality, being ideas which were consulted for consolation when
it was unbearable to face the truth. The new learning questioned the authenticity
of such doctrines and beliefs. It challenged the validity of everything whether it
be a moral convention or a religious or a social law. The individual questioned
societys hold upon him. This gave birth to a spirit of freedom, which later on
became inevitable for the assertion of ones self in the realization of the inner and
outer worlds. Thus the advent of humanism caused a gradual loosening of the
authoritative hold of social values and beliefs upon the individual, and enabled
him to tear down the veils from the face of reality, and to see and realize his
individual position in relation to others, and to the universe. Instead of collective
society or humanity, the individual became the focus of attention.
The general iconoclasm obviously created a vacuum. With the rejection of
venerable values, and no commonly acceptable ones to replace them, sensible
thinkers started feeling a kind of negativity in thought and belief. Nothing now
was accepted as indisputable. Critical thinking corroded faith.
In this atmosphere most intellectuals started doubting the possibility of any
absolute value. They pointed to the nothingness of every thing, and when
Descartes said Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), he categorically
showed his distrust of the existence of any thing else but the individual. This
concept of the isolated individual enabled him to see mans forlorn and wretched
position in the universe. The sufferings of life challenged the age-old idea that life
is a gift of divinity.
Writers of great genius and acute perception realized all this and gave at least a
hint of this in their works. Shakespeare though one of them, differed from the
others, as he was not only ahead of the rest in representing such themes, but he
also posed many new questions regarding the nature of existence, of universe, and
of man in it. He discussed the part of fate in determining human life, the life-
before-birth and life-after-death, and so on. He not only challenged the established
religious or moral views in such matters but tried also to provide answers with his
own profound genius. The main concern of the present thesis is to find out the
views of Shakespeare on fundamental existential questions, as presented in his
plays.
Jean Paul Sartre says that Man has a human nature; this human nature, which is
the concept of the human, is found in all men, which means that each man is a
particular example of a universal concept, man. In Kant, the result of this
universality is that the wild-man, the natural man, as well as the bourgeois, are
circumscribed by the same definition and have the same basic qualities. In other
words all men are equal in their nature of being human as their conceptual
formation is the same. One the basis of this one can say that some basic qualities
of Shakespeare from the sixteenth century Renaissance age are similar to , if not
the same as, those of a twentieth century Existentialist. In simple words the
questions which Shakespeare raised or the problems that he faced are almost same
with which the Existentialism of the twentieth century deals. This idea is further
supported by Sartres remark that Existentialism was never invented, it has always
existed as the ultimate foundation.
The secondary concern of this thesis is to establish a sort of relationship between
Shakespeares existential views and the modern philosophy of Existentialism. A
clarification between existential and existentialist must be made here. Apparently
both these terms seem to have similar meanings. However the researcher will take
them as slightly different from each other. Here the word existential means only
of or relating to existence, the nature or purpose of existence etc. Under the topic
existential views of Shakespeare subjects such as life, death, free will or choice,
fate, nature of cosmos, dual nature of being, etc., will be discussed. Whereas
existentialist is a more specific term which denotes the treatment of the same ideas
in a systematized philosophical form i.e., the Existentialist philosophy of the
twentieth century.
b. Research Methodology
The present thesis focuses on two inter-related areas of research in the selected
plays of William Shakespeare. These are:
1. Tracing the Existential element in Shakespeare
2. Relating it with the philosophy of Existentialism.
To accomplish these aims the researcher has divided his chapters according to
Shakespeares views on the main existential themes, e.g., Shakespeare on
existence, on fate etc. Each chapter gives an interpretation of the dramatists
views on that one topic. These chapters, wherever possible, relate Existentialism
with the existential ideas of Shakespeare but a final comparison and contrast is
made in the fifth chapter, where some major themes of Existentialism are also
interpolated in the works of Shakespeare. The last part of the thesis is comprised
of a summary and a conclusion.
Table of Contents
Researchers Submission iii
Acknowledgment vi
Dedication vii
Bio-data Brief viii
Thesis Statement x
Delimitation xi
Rationale xii
Abstract xiii
Introduction xiv
a. About Subject and Topic: xiv
b. Research Methodology xvi
Table of Contents
xvi
i
CHAPTER ONE 1
Introducing Existentialism and Shakespeare 1
Introduction: 1
Introducing Existentialism 3
a. Brief Introduction 3
b. Brief History of Existentialism 5
c. Basic Themes of Existentialism: 7
d. Major Exponents of Existentialism 13
Introduction to Shakespeare and Elizabethan Society. 20
a. Shakespeare: The Man 20
b. Shakespeares Reading 23
c. Social, Religious, Political and Intellectual Background 25
End Notes 29
CHAPTER TWO 31
Shakespeare on Existence: 31
Nature of Existence 31
Futility of Existence 39
Purposelessness 44
Self-Created Purpose: 45
Death 49
End Notes 51
CHAPTER THREE 52
Shakespeare on Fate and Free will 52
End Notes 65
CHAPTER FOUR 66
Shakespeare on Other Existential Themes 66
Dual Nature of being 66
Limitations of Human beings 73
Pains of Knowing 75
Unmerited Sufferings 76
End Notes 80
CHAPTER FIVE 81
Studying Existentialist Themes in Shakespeare 81
Alienation 81
Anxiety or Anguish: 86
Nausea 87
Bad Faith 89
End Notes 91
CHAPTER SIX 92
Conclusion 92
Summation of All Existential & Existentialist Ideas. 92
a. A Summary of Existential Themes: 92
b. Summing Existentialist Themes. 97
Conclusion and recommendation. 99
Select Bibliography
10
1
Chapter One
Introducing Existentialism and Shakespeare
Introduction:
Human life is in itself one of the greatest mysteries of the universe. What it is, how
it started, what is its exact nature, nobody can ever know. Almost the same is the
case of the outer environment and the objects that human beings face in their lives.
The question of existence is one of the basic questions in all human thinking.
Mankinds desire of being perfect is only possible when one knows the answers
to questions which are normally, and unfortunately, limited to metaphysics. The
very title metaphysics seems to suggest that the subject matter does not have any
relation to the real, ordinary and everyday life. But this is not the case. Seeking
answers to such questions is the problem of almost all human beings and not of
just some specially trained or learned scholars.
Human endeavors to reach the ultimate reality can be conducted on more than
one level. The most common and important of these are scientific and
philosophic.
The emphasis in these lines is not on the ghost but on more things in
Heaven and Earth which are not yet known and are not within the
comprehension of the human brain. Shakespeare shows his distrust of beliefs
which are accepted before reason can analyze them. In the play Hamlet first
Hamlet considers the ghost as one of the things in Heaven and Earth and later on
he tests its authenticity through the mouse trap. Why does Shakespeare do all this?
He wants that before blindly accepting something as truth, one should analyze it
on the touchstone of human reason and only then should it be accepted as truth.
So, in other words, most prevalent Christian and classical doctrines about the
existence and the nature of universe would need to be tested before being accepted
as valid universal truth(s). Secondly more things in Heaven and Earth refer, on
one hand to Copernicuss discoveries and on the other hand to exploration of the
earth the discovery of new lands and the possibility of new discoveries in all
fields. Shakespeare could transcend the normal values with his intellectual eye
which allowed him to see beyond the horizons of sky and earth.
Later in the play Hamlet talks about the grandeur of the universe and yet
decadence that this goodly frame the earth, this most excellent firmament, this
majestical rood fretted with fire seems to him a sterile promontory and a foul
and pestilent congregation of vapours. The lines are uttered when Hamlet is in
the midst of a crisis. Interpreting on the subjective plane of Hamlet these lines
show that the outer goodness and beauty of the universe and the world around,
depend upon ones own relation to them. For Hamlet, whose only motive in living
is to take revenge, the beauty and grandeur of the universe are useless because
these are not of his immediate concern. Interpreting these lines from a
contemporary point of view, these show Hamlets as well as Shakespeares doubt,
and question the purpose and use of the whole universe.
Shakespeare gives very few references to religion and God. This suggests that he
does not believe much in the Christian doctrines which say that the whole universe
was created for man, and the Elizabethan view that man is the centre of the
universe. Is it possible to be the centre of the universe by being a prisoner in it?
Hamlet: Let me question more in particular: what have you my
good friends, deserved at the hands of Fortune, that she sends you
to prison hither?
Guildenstern: Prison, my lord?
Hamlet: Denmarks a prison.
Rosencrantz: Then is the world one.
Hamlet: A goodly one, in which there are many confines,
wards, and dungeons; Denmark being one o th worst.
Hamlet (II, ii)
Hamlets view that the world is a prison should not be taken lightly. A prison
implies confinement where one does not any freedom of action and where one is
often bound to act as others command him; where certain limits are imposed and
one is not allowed to cross them. For Hamlet, who is a student of philosophy,
Denmark rather the whole world is a prison which imposes certain limitations
upon his action. Shakespeare is in fact talking of human limitations which can not
be overcome. Just as Hamlet is not sure of his purpose of existence i.e., revenge,
similar is the case of man who does not seem to have any purpose of existence.
Secondly just as Hamlet is incapable of action because of certain reasons beyond
explanation same is the case of man whose limitations are a great barrier upon his
actions. Similar to this is the idea expressed by King Lear:
Lear: When we are born, we cry that we are come
To this great stage of fools.
King Lear (IV, vi)
where earth is compared to a great stage of fools whose actions and ideas have no
rationale or reason. Why is this crying? Certainly because one does not want to
come to this prison of sufferings and torments. This crying is crying for the mercy
that one should not be sent to this world and later crying in life is crying of pain
and sufferings which one faces while living in the world. Comparable to Lears
views are the ideas of Pascal who said:
"When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the
eternity before and after, and the little space I fill, and even can see,
engulfed in the infinite immensity of space of which I am ignorant,
and which knows me not, I am frightened, and am astonished at
being here rather than there, why now rather than then."
Hamlet, Lear, and above all Shakespeare all are ignorant (in the above mentioned
sense). Their little life is rounded with a sleep. Lear and Hamlet are ignorant of
the laws that govern the universe and they have made themselves unable to
understand the laws that govern human life in the world. Their sufferings are not
due to the thought beyond the reaches of our soul, but more because of their own
fault in not understanding the world around them. Shakespeare is also ignorant
of the laws governing the universe but, perhaps, he knows sufficient about the
other i.e., the human life and the laws governing it in the society. But there is in
him a search of the universal laws as well. This search is shown through the
questions raised by his characters. Hamlet and Lear are two of many such
characters. Since there is not much which can be said as the subjective views of
Shakespeare there is a strong possibility that whatever objective appears in his
work carries the overtone of subjectivism. Regarding Shakespeares objectivity
William Hazlitt writes:
He (Shakespeare) was nothing in himself, but he was all that
others were, or that they could become. He not only had in himself
the germs of every faculty and feeling, but he could follow them by
anticipation, intuitively, into all their conceivable ramifications,
through every change of fortune or conflict of passion, or turn of
thought
Was Shakespeare nothing in himself or he created such detached characters which
give no hint of his own personality and thinking? Perhaps the second stance is
more true. This objectivity of Shakespeare is in fact his subjectivity which he
hides with the help of his craft. King Lear, Hamlet and others are not mere
characters but are also a part of his own individual personality as they are his
creation. The distrust of the established views as expressed in his plays through
situations, actions, and characters is (can be / may be) in fact his personal
distrust. So to say that such and such views are not of Shakespeare but of Hamlet,
or Lear or anybody else will not be very much true. In fact on a wider plane such
views are proposed or even directed by Shakespeare who is the sole creator of all
these. The time when Shakespeare lived was of great upheavals. So, is it possible
for a man of this much genius and intellect to keep himself reserve and quite, by
not giving any hint of/to contemporary society. Was Shakespeare not of his age?
To say that he was not influenced by contemporary environment is, perhaps, not
true.
Coming back to Shakespeares views about existence, a very important speech
occurs in The Tempest which is so profound and subtle that one feels as if it has
come from the mouth of a pure philosopher. In fact Prosperos remarks sum up
the whole view of Shakespeare regarding existence.
We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
The Tempest (IV, i)
At the last stage of his life when Shakespeare was about forty-six and he had
observed most of his life with all its absurdities and uncertainties. Every thing
appeared to him just the product of human brain and not having any absolute,
intrinsic value. The we of the speech includes not only the human beings but
also everything that exists in the universe. The whole speech can be interpreted in
two ways. One that conscious life is similar to the nocturnal life but the ordinary
people do not feel the dreamy nature of their existence. However men of genius
like Prospero (who has great metaphysical powers) and Shakespeare (who has
great intellectual powers) do understand it. Second that everything that exists is
not real but the product of the human brain just as the visual and auditory images
in a dream are produced by the brain. So everything that appears to exist and
seems to be real does not, in fact, exist. Ones mind makes it appear real. Similar
theme of dreams and shadows is expressed in Hamlet:
Hamlet: A dream itself is but a shadow.
Rosencrantz: Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality,
that it is but a shadows shadow.
Hamlet (II, ii)
A dream is just a shadow of something whose own existence is not sure. To
Hamlet a dream itself is but a shadow. A shadow of what? The reply comes
from Rosencrantz, that it is a shadow of another shadow. What is this second
shadow? Human beings or their respective brains. If it represents human beings
than it resemble Prosperos stuff which makes dreams as well as it makes we.
So to Shakespeare whole human existence is but a shadowy existence whose real
is, at least, no known, if it does exist. This shadow of shadow resembles Platos
theory of double imitation. Plato held that reality exists in heavens and what
appears real according to five senses is fake and imitation of the real in heaven.
So in order to achieve ones own reality one must transcend these five senses and
reach the real which lies in heaven. For this one must first realize that one is
living a fake, shadowy and imitated life. In the above speech Hamlet and
Rosencrants have realized their dreamy, shadowy rather double shadowy existence
and have come to know that this is not real and that they must strive for achieving
the real self.
It is interesting to note that Prospero does not say that things appear as if they
appear in dreams, i.e., he includes human beings also in it. In other words human
beings are also made of similar stuff which is used in the making of dreams. Like
as the existence of dreams is bound with a brain and its visualizing and
understanding of it similar is the case of human beings whose existence is bound
with another persons understanding of it. Developing Descartes formula of
Cogito Ergo Sum Aldous Huxley said:
Cogitatur ergu est(Latin)
Something is thought about therefore something is (i.e., exists).
Similar is the case here. If human beings and other things are like dreams then
their existence depend upon their understanding which ultimately depends, just as
dreams existence and understanding depends upon the same individual, upon a
thinking brain somewhere. e.g., to say that Hamlet exists, somebody other than
Hamlet should say that his brain is signaling an appearance of what he calls
Hamlet. It is a very existentialist stance as existentialist say that to exist is to be
understood by others as existing. Sartre in his Being and Nothingness gives an
interesting example in order to explain this point. An eavesdropper comes to
know about the existence of another person when she finds that someone is
observing her. The element of fear that is produced in her mind or brain is the
guarantee, according to Sartre, that the other fellow (the observer) exists. Similar
is the case in Prosperos speech, thinking that other exists is the guarantee of
his/her/its existence.
The second part of Prosperos speech our little life is rounded with a sleep is also
very profound. What does Prospero (or Shakespeare) mean by sleep. This sleep is
the sleep of death (non-existence) and ignorance (knowledge of nothing). The
non-existence is infinite on both sides. This sleep is perhaps the sleep of eternity.
To Pascal (mentioned earlier) life is swallowed up in the eternity before and
after. Similar idea is expressed in Troilus and Cressida:
Whats past and whats to come is strewd with husks
And formless ruin of oblivision.
(IV, v)
King Lears cries when he has come to this stage of fools suggest that he had a
pre-existence, and the following remark of Queen Gertrude
Thou knowst tis common, all that lives must die,
Passing through nature, to eternity.
Hamlet (I, ii)
suggests that there is also eternity after death. The very word passing suggest
that there is some voyage (of life or existence) from which man comes. Secondly
it also suggests that, similar to the eternity where man goes after death, there is
eternity from where man comes before birth. So man is caught up between two
infinities. The infinity of life-before-birth and the infinity of life-after-death. But
this infinity is of nothingness of sleep.
Montainge in one of his essays writes:
The frailest and most vulnerable of all creatures is man, and at the
same time the most arrogant. He sees and feels himself lodged here
in the mud and filth of the world, nailed and riveted to the worst, the
deadest and most stagnant part of universe, at the lowest story of the
house and most remote from the vault of heaven, with the animals of
the worst condition and he goes and sets himself in imagination
above the circle of the moon, and brings heaven under his feet.
Shakespeare reflects the same idea in the speech of Hamlet where he say:
I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth, forgone all
custom of exercise; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my
disposition; that this goodly frame the earth, seems to me a sterile
promontory; this most excellent firmament, this majestical roof,
fretted with golden fire: why, it appears no other thing to me, then a
foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.
Hamlet (II, ii)
It will be interesting to compare and contrast Prosperos speech that we are such
stuff as dreams are made on with Hamlets. Prospero reaches this conclusion that
we are such stuff as dreams are made on through deep meditation, observation of
the universe around him and through intensive studies. But how did Hamlet reach
the conclusion that everything is a foul pestilent congregation of vapours. Even
if he did find out that everything is a congregation of vapours, why is it pestilent
and foul to him and not so for Prospero. Is there any intuition through which
Hamlet discovers that all is vapours? One is not sure. But, despite the similarities
in their conclusion, there is vast difference between Prospero and Hamlet. To
Hamlet it is pestilent and foul because of his own subjective life which is a
torment for him. He is purely subjective in drawing this result, while Prosperos
view is more mature, profound and objective. He does not attach any negative
attributes with this dreamy nature of existence. He remains neutral. To him,
perhaps, life or existence is what one himself makes it to be because he started a
new life, after coming on the island, with the help of his own will, and conquered
everything in the island. To him nature or things around are not foul but for
Hamlet they are, perhaps because:
Hamlet: there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it
so:
Hamlet (II, ii)
It is his personal thinking and understanding, and his own subjective response to
the universe around him which is reason for the appearance of universe as foul and
pestilent to him. In other words, in the earlier mentioned existentialist sense, his
mind is making something foul and pestilent whose reality nobody knows. For
him just the idea or thinking that universe is foul and pestilent is sufficient to make
him believe in it, and he does so. His totally subjective stance brings him in
comparison with the modern man.
Here the subjectivism of Hamlet is signally betrayed, and
subjectivism is his intellectual sin. Thereby he proclaims himself the
archetype of modern man.
Futility of Existence
there is no permanent existence, either of our being or that of the
objects. And we, and our judgment, and all mortal things, incessantly
go flowing and rolling on.
Related to the idea that human beings are living a dreamy life in a universe which
is a congregation of vapours is the idea, in the Shakespearean plays, of the futility
of existence. Futility of existence carries three important notions under it
worthlessness of everything, futility of life, and futility of action. If all existence
is dream-like and shadowy and the exact nature of existence is not known and is
not in the comprehension of human beings than it is futile to exist in such a
universe and suffer such a purposeless life. In a universe, where the position of
man is not exactly known and whatever is known is full of torments and suffering,
to live is to suffer. Reflecting upon the worthlessness of everything these are the
views of Hamlet:
Oh, that this too too sold flesh, would melt,
Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew:
Or that the Everlasting had not fixd
His cannon gainst self-slaughter. O God, O God!
How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable
Seems to me all the uses of this world!
Fie ont! Oh fie, fie, tis an unweeded garden
That grows to seed: things rank, and gross in nature
Possess it merely.
Hamlet (I, ii)
To him all the uses of this world appear to be weary, stale, flat and unprofitable.
For him it is an unweeded garden as whatever he does, does not bring any fruit.
All his actions are futile as they do not serve the purpose. These lines reflect more
upon the worthlessness of everything in its universal context and not just the
human flesh, life or actions. Everything in the world is subject to decay. Things
rot before their purpose is comprehended. Man is nothing before the all
incomprehensible power of universal forces. Hamlet is right in his views where he
compares the (supposed) grandeur of man with this power of nature. He says:
What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in
faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action,
how like angel! In apprehension, how like a god! The beauty of the
world, the paragon of animals; and yet to me, what is this
quintessence of dust?
Hamlet (II, ii)
It is not, in fact, to him only that man is the quintessence of dust. In truth man is
so. He is nothing before incomprehensible Nature. Hamlet is unable to
understand the relation between mans greatness and his depressed position in the
world.
The tensions between antithetic images of man, between divinity
and dust, are not unique concerns of Hamlet, but form a focal theme
of the Shakespearean world experience.
Here Hamlet is caught in a conflict between mans grandeur and his wretched
position.
He (Hamlet) is caught between the sight of human potential, a
potential, that may come to realization in supreme moments and
supreme individuals and, on the other side, the reality of mans
condition, his corporeality and corruption, his domination by flesh and
by time in the flesh, the inescapable decay that undermines and
makes meaningless his project.
No doubt man is noble in reason, infinite in faculty, admirable in form, like angels
in actions, the beauty of the world and the paragon of animals yet he is nothing
before the mighty universe about which Hooker, a medieval scholar, said:
If the celestial spheres, should forget their wonted motions, and by
irregular volubility turn themselves away what would become of
man himself, whom all these things do not serve.
Man is not the centre of the universe and a very tiny part of universe is under his
control, so if the remaining huge part sets on a revolt against man, he will perish
like a bubble. An important point in Hamlets speech is this that he considers man
the paragon of animals, in other words he does not believe in the religious
doctrine which consider man the best of all creation, and the classical views that
man is the centre of universe. By calling man the best of animals Shakespeare
implies that, no matter he is best, he is still an animal. King Lears description of
Edgar is in fact a true description of man in the world. He says:
Lear: Thou wert better in a grave, than to answer with thy uncoverd
body, this extremity of the skies. Is man no more than this? Consider
him well. Thou owst the worm no silk; the beast, no hide; the sheep,
no wool; the cat, no perfume. Ha? Heres three ons are
sophisticated. Thou art the thing itself; unaccommodated man, is no
more but such a poor, bare, forked animal as thou art
King Lear (III, iv)
In fact this is the exact position of man, and he is no more than this. World is the
place where by suffering and torture he is made to rot and pine. A very
pessimistic view though, but for those who are pessimistic about the whole
universe, world as a place for rotting and suffering is not difficult to conceive. For
those who know that life is to suffer, that the world hath not a sweeter creature
and that there are no stones in heaven but what serves for the thunder, suffering
and pining is everywhere so why not now, at this very time and here at this very
place.
Gloucester: No further sir, a man may rot even here.
King Lear (V, ii)
Both Hamlet and Lear give references to prison. Hamlets view is a mature one
where he thinks this world as a prison as it imposes so many limitations on ones
freedom. However when Lear is sent to the prison, after Cordelia has lost the
battle, these are his remarks:
Lear: come lets away to prison,
We two alone will sing like birds i th cage:
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies: and hear (Poor rogues)
Talk of Court news, and well talk with them too,
Who loses, and who wins; whos in, whos out;
And take upons the mystery of things,
As if we were Gods spies: and well wear out
In a walld prison, packs and sects of great ones,
The ebb and flow by th moon.
King Lear (V, iii)
In his insanity Lear represents the common masses. In the cage of this world these
are what most human beings (ordinary, common) indulge in. Not realizing that
they are in prison they sing, pray, tell old tales, laugh, make merry and, greatest of
all, they try to forget that they are in prison and so, do not strive for their freedom.
The do not understand the nature of the world as a prison, and think that they have
freedom in it. Most people do not try to even think about the world as a prison, as
they find consolation in the pet ideas that their society and/or religion provides to
them.
Just as Shakespeare talks and questions much about the nature of the whole
universe and its worthlessness, similar is the case of human life. In fact it is quite
difficult to separate certain ideas and treat worthlessness of existence and of life as
two separate subjects. Hamlet initially calls man the quintessence of dust dust
which is useless, dirty and the product of decay. This theme is further elaborated
in the grave diggers scene, where Hamlet, while examining the skeletons and
skulls delivers a fine speech:
Theres another (skull): why might not that the skull of a lawyer?
Where be his quiddits now? His quillets? His tenures, and his tricks?
Why does he suffer this rude knave now to knock him about the
sconce with a dirty shovel, and will not tell him of his action of
battery? Hum. This fellow might be ins time a great buyer of land,
with his statutes, his recognizances, his fines, his double vouchers,
his recoveries: is this the fine of his fines, and the recovery of his
recoveries, to have his fine pate full of fine dirt? Will his vouchers
vouch him no more of his purchases, and double ones too, than the
length and breadth of a pair of indentures? The very conveyances of
his lands will hardly lie in this box, and must the inheritor himself
have no more? Ha?
Hamlet (V, I)
While Hamlet is pondering over the skull and skeletons, the basic question behind
all his speech is of worthlessness and impermanence of human action. Whatever
a man does in his life is useless to the individual once he is dead. He himself is
transformed into nothing and all his deeds and actions are of no use to him.
Another underlying theme in Hamlets speech is that of the ceaseless flow of time.
Nothing is permanent in the world or universe of time and every thing is bound to
change except change itself which is the only constant thing in this universe.
When the flux of time sways, men pass into the next world which Sartre calls
complete non-existence, and which for Shakespeare is eternity. On another
occasion Hamlet also considers mans life with that of a beast.
Hamlet: What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more:
Hamlet (IV, iv)
An animal is not conscious of its existence in the sense human beings are. Most of
the animals behaviour is innate, so predetermined, but in the case of man, perhaps
this is not the case. When Lear and Hamlet compare Human life with that of
animals in fact they mean that just as animals do not have any sublime purpose of
existence and have no great faculties the same is the case of man, who despite
having large discourse, noble reason, is base and cheap like animals. He can not
escape the set course of his existence and is forced to live like animals are forced
to live without any knowledge of their existence.
Perhaps the most tragic and profound are the views of Macbeth about life. When
he has lost everything in his struggle for keeping his throne, he comes to realize
the true nature of life. Had he realized this earlier his catastrophe would not have
happened. Now he has relaized the pettiness, futility and worthlessness of life.
Macbeth endures an awareness of nothing, a death-consciousness,
and we see a positive and active symbolism of his experience in his
acts of destruction. An awareness of essential nothingness produces
acts of nihilism.
His little speech covers all the aspects of futile life the role of time in the decay,
shadowy nature of existence, pettiness of human action even pre-determinism in
human action, confinement in the world, limitation of action and many more. One
marvells how profound, deep and true is his description of life.
Macbeth: Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in the 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!
Lifes but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth (IV, ii)
All this, i.e., calling man the quintessence of dust, a beast, useless; considering life
as a prison, a stage for fools, a tale told by an idiot etc., are ideas which carry the
meaning of the futility of life. Just as the purpose of the whole universe is not
known, and all appears to be worthless, similar is the case of life which appears to
be futile. It is futile because it is purposeless. All this relates to the idea that
human being are living a dreamy life in a universe which is a congregation of
vapours.
Purposelessness
The above mentioned arguments lead to the formation of view that Shakespearean
characters certainly lack purpose in their existence. By purposelessness it does not
mean in its modern sense where it refers to a sort of alienation and lack of
direction in ordinary life, here it refers to the purpose on a wider level the
purpose of the existence of universe, and mans living in this world.
Shakespeares characters do not live for a divine purpose. Perhaps, they do not
much believe in divinity and have realized that they have a dreamy and shadowy
existence and live in a congregation of vapours. The hostile nature of the world
around them has made them aggressive towards life. They have realized its
worthlessness and futility, so there is no great desire to live after knowing that life
is nothing but sufferings and torments. This desire not to live and the idea of
purposelessness is best expressed in Hamlets soliloquy.
To be or not to be, that is the question:
Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die to sleep,
Hamlet (III, i)
Hamlet is weary of this world and the pains in it. He has come to know that life is
futile and there is no sublime or divine purpose of existence. He seriously
considers about committing suicide which he thinks will end all his ailments. He
knows (or thinks) that the task assigned to him is greater than his capacity and
ability. This is why, like an escapist, he looks for other ways. His very
procrastination in revenge is, perhaps, due to his escapist nature. He realizes that
there is no way through which he can accomplish his task easily and this is why he
thinks about death. Similar to Hamlets blindness (from facts and reality) is the
blindness of the Earl of Gloucester who says:
Gloucester: I have no way, and therefore want no eyes:
I stumbled when I saw.
King Lear (IV, i)
Life has become, also, a torment for Gloucester, so he has also lost his desire to
live. He has also realized that reason is not something which can save him
against incomprehensible Nature. When he had eyes, i.e., reason, he committed
mistakes, and now when he has lost his eyes he knows that now there is nothing
which can save him. He has accepted that now he has no way i.e., purpose.
Self-Created Purpose:
Human existence is not enacted on a timeless stage, but in a
mutable world, where time alters the appearance of all and,
therefore, where, in order to attain the coherence and substance of
an identity, an imaginative realization must be rooted in something
more than the particularity of things and the changeable wills that
fasten on them. It must shape itself along lines that withstand the
shifts of time, and it must accord with commitments and values that
remain firm; for it is their constancy, their failure to dissolve and
vaporize, that distinguishes imagined life-shapes from real.
Most of Shakespeares characters live life without a divine or sublime purpose.
They create a purpose to live in this purposeless universe. Hamlet creates the
purpose of revenge, Macbeth creates the purpose of getting the throne and then
retaining it, Prosperos purpose is multi-folded to exist; to bring up his
daughter, Miranda; to take revenge from his brother who usurped his dukedom;
and perhaps to gain knowledge and power as well. Othellos purpose is to love
Desdemona and for him there is chaos without Desdemona. King Lear is a
different case in this regard. However Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth and Prospero
have self-created purposes for their existence and their accomplishment of success
or losing in the case of failure is the point where their purpose of existence finish
and they cease to exist. Among these characters one (Hamlet) dies after
accomplishing his purpose, the other (Macbeth) dies after semi-accomplishment,
semi-failure, and Prospero succeeds in fully achieving his purpose but he no
longer wishes to live. Their purpose is the only truth for them and they try their
best to reach it.
All this, i.e., realizing purposelessness and then creating a purpose for ones
existence in this world, is like modern Existentialism which talks of choice,
commitment finding the raison detre. Kierkegaard held such views about the
self-created purpose for existence. The web site The Realm of Existentialism
writes:
Kierkegaard once remarked that "I must find a truth that is true for me
... the idea for which I can live or die." Other existentialist writers
have echoed Kierkegaard's belief that one must choose one's own
way without the aid of universal, objective standards.
For Hamlet the only truth in the world is this that his father was murdered by his
uncle, Claudius, and the only course of action that is left for him and which he
must adopt as his ultimate purpose of existence is to take revenge. This, in fact, he
does. He devotes his whole life to this one purpose. His own nature is the biggest
hurdle in the easy and quick accomplishment of this purpose and thus it is his own
nature which is the root cause of the catastrophe. At the outset of the play Hamlet
does not have this purpose, rather he is aimless and is thinking about what to do
after his father has died and his mother remarried. The visit of the ghost defines
the path of his action. He initially devotedly tries to establish the veracity of the
ghosts message. When he is sure of its truth, revenge of the most foul murder
becomes his only purpose in life. He never thinks what will happen after the death
or assassination of King Caludius, he never imagines himself to be a king except
once when in rage and anger against Claudius he mentions his lawful inheritance
of throne after the death of his father. The greatness of Hamlet lies in his pursuit of
this purpose and his subsequent failure because of the lack of potential, courage
and abilities.
In the case of Macbeth, he is incited, initially by the witches. At the start of the
play he is satisfied with the way his life is going, but the germs that the three
witches implant in his mind set a new course for him. In his calm and steady life
there comes a desire of change. The built in morality and ethics try to subdue
these desires for some time but when reinforced by Lady Macbeth they form the
new purpose of life for Macbeth. He does everything possible to get the throne
and then keep it. To him King Duncan, other generals, dignitaries and their
respective families are simple impediments to be eliminated on his way towards
his purpose. He achieves his aim ultimately, but at great cost, where the whole of
life appears to him as a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing.
Out of the self created purposes Prosperos purpose is most apparent and clear.
His whole life is in a sense devoted to his daughter, Miranda. Initially it was she
who was the root cause of Prosperos existence as he lived to nourish her, to bring
her up, and it was she who, in a sense, encouraged him by being a source of
permanent motivation. Prosperos replay to the Mirandas question, that in his
early days on the island she might have been a trouble for him, reflects his true
purpose. He said:
O, a cherubin
Thou wast that did preserve me. Thou didst smile
Infused with a fortitude from heaven,
When I have decked the sea with drops full salt
Under my burden groaned; which raised in me
An undergoing stomach, to bear up
Against what should ensue.
The Tempest (I, ii)
But, to say that Mirandas upbringing was the only purpose of Prosperos life
might not be true. To get restitution was the other main purpose of his existence.
Since his brother had usurped his throne and made him almost die, he could not
forget all this. His whole study of magic conducted at the island is to attain such
power as to make him invulnerable. At last he succeed in getting this much
power. When Ariel on his command raises a storm in the sea, it is the final point
of Prosperos these self-created purposes. His brother appologises and returns his
dukedom to him and Miranda finds an excellent match in the person of
Ferdinanad. So Prosperos two main purposes are accomplished. What next?
And here Prospero is again faced with the problem of purposelessness. The last
part of the Epilogue which ends the play requests freedom by final death. He has
realized that the purpose he has created for his life has been fully fulfilled. Now
he wants to die with peace.
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant;
And my ending is despair
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so, that it assaults
Mercy itself, and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardoned be
Let your indulgence set me free.
The Tempest. (Epilogue)
Hamlet and Macbeth die in their struggle for accomplishing or retaining the
position which was, in other words, their purpose of existence. Prosperos case is
strange. After he has accomplished all he wants, he no longer attempts to create
fake purposes for existence. Rather by realizing the ephemeral nature of
existence, he wants to embrace death and end his dream.
Othello loves Desdemona because he wants to avoid the chaos which he may face
when she is no longer there.
Othello: But I do love thee; and when I love thee not Chaos is
come again
(III.iii)
This is his self-created purpose of existence. To exist implies coming out of
chaos and this is what Othello is trying to do. By loving Desdemona he is trying
to overcome the chaos that one feels when one is out of his existence.
Death
Last of all there is the theme of death. For most Shakespearean characters death is
an escape from the torment and sufferings of life. Hamlet reflects upon this theme
in his main soliloquy.
to die to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to? tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressors wrong, the proud mans contumely,
The pangs of dispizd love, the Laws delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make,
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
Hamlet (III, I)
Similar to Hamlets views are the views of Roderigo, who considers death as a
physician when life is nothing but torments and sufferings. To him:
It is silliness to live when to live is torment and then have we
prescription to die when death our physician.
Othello (I, i)
For Hamlet and Roderigo, death is something which will end their pains but they
cant embrace it because
the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Hamlet (III, I)
To some extent Hamlet and Roderigos views about death resemble Sartres
definition of it. He calls death as the complete negation or turning into nothing as
complete nihilism.
What is death, he asks? Death is my total nonexistence. Death is as
absurd as birth-- it is no ultimate, authentic moment of my life, it is
nothing but the wiping out of my existence as conscious being. Death
is only another witness to the absurdity of human existence.
This non-existence implies that there wont be any sufferings after death as one
will cease to exist.
So, to conclude one may say that although Shakespeare was not a philosopher he
certainly had the dimensions of one. The philosophical overtones that his plays
carry suggest that his view of the world was not an ordinary or nave one. In fact
his thinking is more profound than that of many philosophers. In outline his
views about the existence of the universe are as under. First of all there is the
basic stance that nothing is certain, i.e., whatever is known, its reality can not be
verified. Secondly human existence is dream-like in which man is not fully aware
of his position and his subsequent actions. Thirdly whatever is, appears to be
purposeless as its true nature is not known and, perhaps, can not be known.
Fourthly since everything is purposeless so living life is futile. Fifthly since there
is no known or divine purpose for existence one must create a purpose for oneself
in order to live in the world. Finally the event of death is mostly considered as a
point where one ceases to exist as most characters agree that after death their
torments and sufferings will finish. What there will be after death, no body knows
or talks about. Whether there will be nothingness or non-existence, or something
like Heaven or Hell, Shakespeare has little to say. These are some of the basic
themes which relate to existence that have been treated in this chapter. Numerous
other themes will be discussed in the coming chapters.
End Notes
Chapter THREE
Shakespeare on Fate and Free will
The study of the role of fate in determining human life as depicted in the tragedies
of Shakespeare, and its contrast with the theme of free will in the same plays is an
interesting one. No doubt Fate plays a vital part in bringing the catastrophe of the
hero, yet to say that in Shakespearean tragedies a hero suffers because he was
fated to suffer would be subject to controversy. Even when it appears that this
particular hero is fated to suffer, he does not accept this and decides to follow his
own course of action. In fact his greatness lies in not accepting what is fated for
him and choosing what he thinks best for himself. They are, in a sense,
challenging the destiny unshunnable, and their courage to challenge it is one
main reason of their magnanimity. This courage is the thing which distinguishes
them from other characters who consider what fruits or ills fate brings for them as
their wretched fortune.
There appears to be two types of fate as presented in the plays of William
Shakespeare. Before coming to them it would be suitable to discuss what is
normally meant by fate. It is an ancient mythological concept which says that
human destinies, the span of a persons life and his allotment of misery and
suffering is determined before hand, i.e., all this is decided in advance. The main
point behind the concept of fate is the pre-determinism of everything: behaviour,
action, events etc. How is this pre-determinism implemented? In Shakespearean
tragedies two ways are proposed. Though both agree on the point that theres a
Divinity that shapes our ends, according to one view the pre-determinism is
instantaneous as the gods in the heavens are deciding what should be (the) next
move in a particular persons life. The other view says that when a child is born, it
carries certain features which determine his future course of action and his
behaviour. This view resembles Ben Jonsons theory of humours. Before
discussing these two types in detail, it is interesting to note a striking point that a
character comes to the realization of the part played by fate only when he suffers a
lot. It happens very seldom, in the plays, that a success is regarded as the will of
the gods, whereas sufferings, specially unmerited, are always considered to be sent
by the gods. Why it is so? Shakespeare here touches a very basic instinct of man,
who (it is perhaps a psychological problem [or predicament] with him) considers
his success as his right because of his personal merits, and the sufferings as sent by
mighty gods who treat men as pawns for their own fun. A very important feature
of Shakespeares treatment of fate is his doubt and criticism of the established
view about it. Perhaps it was hard for Shakespeare to believe that the life of a
creature which is noble in reason, infinite in faculty, in action like angels, the
beauty of the world, does not have free will. But since there was no evidence
through which Shakespeare could prove that there is nothing like fate, he restricted
himself in showing his doubt and skepticism about it. It can also be said that he
wanted his audience to think about the role and nature of fate in determining ones
life, that is why he gave this much importance to fate in his plays. Nothing can be
said with certainty but it is sure that Shakespeare presents multiple and contrasting
views about fate. His purpose is perhaps to find its truth and exact reality by
analyzing the concept through various angles and to invite his audience to think
about it.
Hamlet: Our indiscretion sometimes serves us well,
When, our deep plots do pall, and that should teach us,
Theres a Divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will
Hamlet (V, ii)
Hamlets realization that there is a divinity that shapes our ends is pretty much
different from other heroes. Hamlet is relatively polite in his mentioning of fate.
The reason is that he is going to describe the good effects of a bad action: he has
recently, and almost accidentally, escaped the death plot of King Claudius by
sending Rosencrantz and Gulidenstern to the death prepared for him in England
instead of going himself. Before this realization in the final scene of the play,
Hamlet does not remark much about the part of fate in determining his or anybody
elses life. Hamlet, it seems, is not conscious of the worth of the words he is
speaking. It is certain that your indiscretion will not always serve you well and
leaving this matter aside, Hamlet is blind to the fact that if there is divinity which
shapes ones ends, how can one be called responsible for ones actions; how does
one have freedom of action? Hamlet is not conscious that by believing in a
divinity who is shaping ones end he surrenders his individual freedom which is
the last thing the Prince of Denmark would like to do. Why is Hamlet not
considering it a mere chance that he escaped death and why is he relating it with
divinity? This is a question most difficult to answer. Hamlet is a person who does
not regard the murder of his father, the incestuous and hasty marriage of his
mother and the crowing of his uncle instead of himself who was the rightful heir to
the throne as determined by fate. He never scolded divinity for deciding all this.
And now when he has realized that there is something like fate, why is he still
wanting revenge. Why does not he simply accept that his fathers murder, his
mothers marriage and his uncles crowning is all that divinity has shaped and
there is nothing which anybody can do in this regard. As stated earlier the
greatness of Shakespeares tragic heroes lies in their challenge to fate. They know
that their destiny is unshunnable yet they strive to change it. The consequent
catastrophe is not the result of their blindness or overambitiousness but their
courage to challenge what is pre-decided and their desire to have freedom. It is
their challenge and desire which lends them greatness.
In the four great tragedies of William Shakespeare, two heroes accept their fate as
they find it and do not sritve to change it perhaps because of the nature of the
tragedy it is difficult to have that sort of action, the other two heroes, even after
realizing that there is something known as fate, do not accept it and strive to have
their own course of action and try to have their own choices. One such case,
Hamlet is mentioned above. The other is of Macbeth who resembles Hamlet quite
a lot. He also challenges what is fated for him. At the final stage of the play, he
has realized that fate is against him, that he is on the wrong side, yet he does not
accept it and fights desperately to choose what he himself wants and not to follow
what fate has written for him. His greatness lies in his fall like that of Hamlet. At
the final stage of the play Hamlet has realized that theres a divinity which shapes
our ends, but in Macbeth in the first act Lady Macbeth encourages Macbeth to get
the crown because
Lady Macbeth: fate and metaphysical aid doth seem
To have thee crowned withal.
Macbeth (I, v)
It is ironical that in the first half of the play Macbeth strives to get what is fated for
him. Initially he murders Duncan and other lords just to get the throne and to
sustain it. In the second part he does his best to avoid what is written for him in
the book of fate. In the first part he succeeds but in the second he fails simply
because first fate wished him success and later it had failure for him. Macbeth
overcomes all the hurdles that he faces in the first part and fails to overcome the
difficulties in the second part because the book of fate willed only this and nothing
more than this. When he succeeds initially he does not say that his success is due
to his fate, (rather he considers it his right) but in the second part, where the
prophesies of the witches prove to be opposite what they apparently meant he
realizes the inevitability of fate. He realizes the pettiness of life where everything
is determined and nothing is in mans hands.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Macbeth (II, i)
From this point onward Macbeths unconscious has started being alienated from
the conscious part. The hallucinations that Macbeth suffers are all products of his
alienated unconscious. Later in the play, when Macbeth sees the ghost of Banquo
in the banquet scene (III, iv) it is again his unconscious which is reproaching the
conscious part on it bloody and murderous actions. Here what Macbeth sees in
the air is the product of this distant unconscious which has lost its relation with the
conscious. The case of Lady Macbeth is not much different. It was she who
instigated Macbeth to kill Duncan and become the king himself. Her part in the
murder of King Duncan is great for her unconscious which later on works against
the conscious part. There also comes a split between her conscious and
unconscious. When she sees a damned spot of blood on her hand, it is her
unconscious that reminds her of her deadly deed.
Out, damned spot; out, I say. One, two, why then tis time to dot.
The Thane of Fife had a wife. Where is she now? What, will these
hands neer be clean? No more o that, my lord, no more o that.
Heres the smell of the blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not
sweeten this little hand. O, O, O!