GB&F: Macbeth Reading Response

1. The issues of Macbeth relate to Machiavelli and Platos by the search to obtain power. In the book/play Macbeth is told he will become king, and there are two ways he can do this. The first being what he does by taking the Machiavelli route and moving his way up aggresivly killing the killing and the people that threaten him to remain in power. This takes Macbeth down the path of killing Macduff's family and anyone else who would stand against him, and makes Macbeth look more like a killing monster devoid of emotion rather than a prince. Then there is the way by Plato (Socrates)where he had the opition to become the king without abandoning his morals and not hungering for power. This aprroach would have been more peaceful, followed the laws, and been more logical from Socrates view. I believe that the issue of power is the overlaping factor in this book and touched points on both writers views snd how that power should be used.

3. Macbeth is a implict critcism to Machiavelli's Prince becuase Macbeth starts to fail as a ruler. Machiavelli would want the people to be happy, but the prince or king can be feared. However this isn't supposed to get to a point of rebellion like it does in Macbeth. Macbeth also turns into to an emotionless monster who kills all in his path without remorse at the end of the book (Duncan was an exception). Macbeth is killing families and kids and doesn't care the people are angry. This causes the people to plan against him, and is the opposite of what Machiavelli wanted. According to MachiavelliMacbeth should keep things under control and not show the crazy deranged side to the public if he has one. The play itself is a criticism because Macbeth gains his power by a Machiavelli style, but then the book shows him slowly turn into a emotionless monster who seems to be ruining his kingdom and is out of control. Macbeth doesn't even realize this until the end of the book, and shows how that kind of power can get out of hand very quickly.

I believe that Shakespeare leans away from Machiavellian government because of the fate of Scotland’s government under Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. Lady Macbeth, and to an extent, Macbeth are supposed to be Machiavellian rules. They do not shy away from cruelty to gain and maintain their rule over their state. Yet I think Shakespeare is critical of this style of governing because at the end of the play Macbeth loses his reign. Morals may not have an important place in government according to Machiavelli, but Macbeth was a good man until he way corrupted by politics and even then he did not become a good leader. He and his wife were excessively cruel, and often without any particular purpose, and they are driven mad by their own actions. Both of these things mean Shakespeare may believe that what will really happen to a leader who consciously abandons his morals is that his state will fail and he will be punished for the immoral things he has done.

Q5.
For Machiavelli’s Price religion’s purpose within government is solely to please the people and to give the impression that the Prince has the same values as his citizens, otherwise it should have no impact on politics. In Plato’s philosophy a man should never abandon his morals, or by extension, his religion, for anything including politics and government. From what I can tell from the excerpts of Macbeth Shakespeare seems to lean towards Machiavelli’s placement of religion in government. Religion isn’t mentioned often except in passing by Malcolm, so it seems that Shakespeare recognizes that religion is not a very important item on a ruler’s agenda. Still, if one is going to rule a country of religious people, like Malcolm will, it would be beneficial to appear religious. Shakespeare would agree that it is better to be loved, like the virtuous Duncan, than hated, like the tyrant Macbeth, which is easier to achieve if one looks moral and good.

Q1. The issues in Macbeth overlap with both Plato’s Apology and Machiavelli’s Prince. The more obvious of the two is it’s relation to The Prince. In the beginning the protagonist, Macbeth, struggles with the morals of killing his king, Duncan. As the play progresses however, Macbeth becomes less and less morale as he assumes more power. A direct association with Machiavelli’s Prince is that when he strikes against an enemy he doesn’t half-ass it. At one point Macbeth attempts to kill on of his nobles, Macduff, along with Macduff’s entire family. Although he fails this demonstrates that he follows Machiavelli’s principal of not letting someone get back up after striking them down. Macbeth’s relation to The Apology was harder to find. Basically the character Macbeth from the earlier part of the book follows closer to Plato’s Apology. In the beginning of the story Macbeth is reluctant to commit a crime for the attainment of more power. In one scene he agonizes over killing Duncan. Macbeth doesn’t want to kill Duncan because he is not only his king but also a guest in his house. This breaks two traditional rules which fits nicely with Plato’s view on what is just. Also Macbeth’s obedience to the three witches shows a devotion to his religion which echoes Socrates visit to the Oracle at Delphi in Plato’s Apology.

Q.4
The scene from Macbeth where Macbeth is told that he will be king by the witches is very similar to Socrates visit to the oracle of Delphi. I feel that the two men’s reactions to the situation with the witches would be very different. In Macbeth the protagonists, Macbeth, just accepted plainly that what the witches said was true. I think that it would have been in Socrates nature to immediately question the witches. If he was willing to question his own gods with the oracle it seems obvious that he would question witches who aren’t connected with the Olympian gods.

7. In Shakespeare’s Macbeth, many characters are conflicted with the choice of either practicing their leadership through the views and beliefs of Machiavelli or Plato. Should they rule with the basis of morality or should they rule without (doing anything in their power in order for their country to be benefited, because morality has no place in politics). In the case of Lady Macbeth, her acts prove to be supported by the Machiavellian view. She influences her husband, Macbeth, to commit horrid acts such as murdering King Duncan, his two chamberlains, Banquo, and Lady Macduff and her children. Lady Macbeth sees her husband’s future as Thane of Cawdor, and with determination, she strives to make this happen. She does anything to convince her husband to do what is “right” in order for her husband to rule.

Lady Macbeth’s views exemplify Machiavelli’s teachings, which ignore all moral ends of organized life (doesn’t discuss moral rules) and emphasizes the need to maintain sovereignty at all costs, even if killing someone is what it takes. Machiavelli also states that there are four ways in which a prince, or in this case a nobleman, can attain political power. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth show this this 1. through his/her own abilities (“do it yourself” method) and 2. his/her wicked conduct and outright crime. Machiavelli doesn’t condemn the ruler who succeeds by using criminal techniques. He even states, “If the situation is one requiring cruelty for the realization of power, then the prince must do what is necessary.” This proves that through Lady Macbeth’s involvement in this crime, and sharing no regret for taking part in the murders, she follows the Machiavellian view. She believes that the cruelty that she has committed is neither good nor bad. Lady Macbeth and Macbeth committed these acts for for their own benefit, not for the benefit of the people. And that is one thing that Machiavelli would disagree with. Machiavelli believes that in order to commit acts such as these, you need to be doing them for the benefit of your people, not yourself.

With the pressure of his wife, Macbeth questions what is morally right. And when Macbeth kills Duncan, he is filled with regret (we see this in his conscience and self). But, this doesn’t stop him. He proceeds to become dissatisfied until he truly possesses the throne, and this can only happen until he eliminates the future generations. And Macbeth’s madness continues with his sense of insecurity. Macbeth seems to follow the views of Machiavelli; but in reality, his regret and conscience proves that deep inside, he believes in the views of Plato. And at the end, when Lady Macbeth commits suicide and Macbeth is killed by Macduff. This proves that there is a possibility that Shakespeare could have favored Plato’s view on life and morality, because those who followed Machiavelli’s views were punished and their justice was served.

8. Malcolm will avenge whatever he believes is wrong. He believes what he is sure is true. But, Macduff argues with Malcolm that even someone with a good and virtuous nature might give way to a royal command, just like Macbeth. Malcolm and Macduff do not escape Socrates‘ charge that politics is corrupting. This is evident when they discuss the acts of Macbeth and how a good man can crumble with the thought of power. They witness how Scotland is sinking under Macbeth’s oppression. And even if Macbeth is punished for his acts, the country will still be plagued by evil and suffer worse and in more ways than ever under the reign of the king who follows him.

Another example that shows that politics is corrupting is the instance when Malcolm questions Macduff to prove that he is a honorable and trustworthy man. Malcolm was afraid that Macduff was siding with Macbeth, and he was just making sure that he wasn’t being tricked or lured into the power of Macbeth. When Malcolm feels satisfied with Macduff’s response, he explains to him that he is still a virgin, isn’t jealous of another’s possessions, has never broken a promise, is truthful, and would never betray even the devil himself etc. This proves that even betrayal and lies are involved in the addition of why politics are corrupting. It makes you think that with Malcolm’s perfect record, will he be able to remain a good man as king? Although Malcolm is of royal blood, has ingenious tactics and good will, and shares loyalty to his people, the challenges that he will have to face in the future may prove to be difficult, especially escaping the immortality it takes to become a leader.

(Question 1)
Shakespeare’s play Macbeth initially shows promise of following values similar to those addressed in The Apology, written by Plato speaking for Socrates. Socrates believed in following one’s morals and values because sacrificing them would be lying to oneself. Macbeth does follow his values, but only to an extent. When faced with temptation and the possibility of ruling his country, Macbeth gives in to his greed and betrays the very beliefs that Socrates preached. Macbeth does feel regret after killing Duncan, his higher, which shows that his morals affected his conscience after the event. I think Macbeth and Socrates would agree that morals and politics need be separated because politics will eventually corrupt a man and cause him to betray his own values, therefore betraying himself.

Macbeth seems to follow Machaivelli’s ideas expressed in The Prince at first glance. But after closer examination, it becomes clear that Macbeth is in fact not following the writings of Machaivelli. Machaivelli does say that disregarding one’s morals is acceptable, but only under certain circumstances. Macbeth commits the crimes that violate his morals because he is greedy and wants power. Machaivelli would never advocate those intentions, but instead writes about violating one’s morals only if it will help the country to run successfully. Since there was no need for Macbeth’s murders, Machaivelli would argue that he put the state in danger of rebellion by upsetting the people. Machaivelli would not approve of Macbeth’s actions because Macbeth attempts to justify his unnecessary behavior, something about which Machaivelli clearly states his disapproval. I believe Machaivelli and Macbeth would agree that politics and morality cannot co-exist at all times, but Machaivelli would disapprove of Macbeth’s overuse of brutality because it was not beneficial to the country.

(Question 2)
As mentioned in my previous post, Machaivelli would not approve of Macbeth's actions. Machaivelli does not support unnecessary brutality, and he would advise Macbeth to be more careful because many enemies are being made in Macbeth's quest for power and the state is being put at risk of rebellion. Macbeth demonstrates the complete removal of morality from life, whereas Machaivelli writes about the disregarding of morals only when necessary to benefit the country.

5. Religion serves some function in all the texts we have read. In Machiavelli’s the prince, it is explained that religion and politics shouldn’t be mixed since they are not compatible. The purpose of religion is to make a person more virtuous by believing in a god, doing this however would yield a ruler very ineffective. Since a ruler must sacrifice the sanctity of his soul for his purpose he should not concern himself with where his soul will go in the afterlife. Machiavelli argues that leaders should only go to church for image purposes, so your followers think that you are a religious person, but that’s where it ends. In Plato's Apology he argues that no one should ever give up their religious views to be a ruler, in fact people shouldn’t be rulers since they have to give up their souls. This is why Socrates was never a ruler, because he didn’t want to be an immoral person. Religions place in Macbeth is a skewed one, because on one hand we have Macbeth listening to witches in the forest and then we have him praying for help with his assignation. Macbeth doesn’t really follow his morals in the story, as he goes on a killing spree, and eventually kills himself when he realizes what has happened to his soul.

In the story Macbeth Banquo is the most Socratic figure we see. We see him as a Socratic figure because he doesn’t concern himself with being ahead. He doesn’t sacrifice his soul to become king; he’s very relaxed. He doesn’t experience the insecurity that Macbeth experiences; he therefore doesn’t go on a killing spree at the end

LINCOLN
Q2.
The task of his generation at the time was that they were a mob rule and the mob rule wasn’t a just way of doing things and was chaotic. Instead of building the nation they are now going to have to fix it. This might make it seem less ambitious then the founding generation. Lincoln makes it seem more ambitious because now they will be saving thousands of lives from hangings and have just trails, and this should better organize the people. Then Lincoln explains that if they succeed their names will go down in history and the people will be remembered.
Lincoln makes this a greater task than the founding generation because it will shape the government for the future and give everyone a fair shot rather then people seeing their family killed and leaving them feeling unprotected. Lincoln also states that after all of this success it will awaken their nations Washington and will rise up to be the great nation that it once was.