Most of us have read enough of “Macbeth” by now to know that violence is a central part of the play. What I found really interesting is Shakespeare’s emphasis on the connection between violence and manhood.
Right from the beginning, before Macbeth even shows up on stage, he is described by King Duncan as “valiant” and a “worthy gentleman” (1.2.23) for killing enemy soldiers in a ruthless, grotesque fashion. This part sets the tone for the rest of the play but the scene where Lady Macbeth questions Macbeth’s manliness (1.7.35-44) is what really captures my attention. After Macbeth decides against murdering his king, Lady Macbeth reasons with him as to why he should do it by attacking his manhood. According to Lady Macbeth, not being able to commit the violent crime means there are problems with his innate, male self. She even attacks Macbeth’s ability to make love.
I understand Lady Macbeth’s argument and her motives for saying such things. Do you agree that Macbeth would have been less of a man if he had not gone through with his promise to murder King Duncan? Which takes more courage to do — standing by your words or admitting that you are wrong and taking a step back?
This is an excellent question. Elizabeth’s post on Macduff and Macbeth offers a good response: part of what this play seeks to define is what it means to be a man. The catalogue of dogs reminds us that human begins are animals, and perhaps they can be relegated to different sets of behaviors as are greyhounds, mongrels, curs, and so on (3.1.92-103).