Ok, so I was interested in what others might think of this little detail from Macbeth. Why is it that this is a play where females play a large role, but Shakespeare refuses to give them any names? Lady Macbeth and the Witches have a huge role in actions taken by all characters in this play. For a play that emphasizes the importance of woman characters I am confused why they are not given any actual names. A few of ideas that I had: 1) Lady Macbeth controls Macbeth or at least has strong influence on his actions. So Shakespeare might possibly be connecting her identity to Macbeths, therefore sharing the blame between the two of them. 2) Because females have such a prominent role in this play, which might offend some males at the time, this was Shakespeare’s way of removing their identities. This could help satisfy the male egos that would be offended by such strong female presences within the play. 3) Lady Macbeth is a common way to refer to a woman of stature during the time this play was written or for when it what set. If that’s the case then I have obviously over thought this whole name thing. Let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I do think you have a point about Lady Macbeth's anonymity. The reason for Shakespeare to call her simply "Lady Macbeth" is historical and reflected in her character. During that time period, women achieved prestige through their husband's success. Lady Macbeth's character definitely reflects this attitude. Although she contains a lot of ambition on her own, women were solely dependent upon their husbands to achieve a higher status. That is why she is called Lady Macbeth, because her identity and power is still tied directly to her husband's achievements despite being a strong and ambitious character in her own right. She does not so much push her husband to murder Duncan for his own well being but rather for hers. She wants power, and Macbeth is not ambitious or conniving enough on his own. Also, that is not true that all of the women are anonymous, because you're forgetting Hecate, who is in charge of the witches.I don't think the witches can be examined in the same light. As Banquo observed,they are not of this earth, and because of this, the rules do not apply to them. That is why Hecate and the three witches are so powerful and mysterious. They are not human, and therefore they are not confined to the gender roles of humans.
I think the concept of Lady Macbeths’ anonymity and lack of name is really interesting. I agree with the previous post that attributes her title to “Shakespeare… connecting her identity to Macbeth’s, therefore sharing the blame between the two of them.” I too believe that with her husband’s name and no identification of her own, Lady Macbeth becomes directly associated with her husband. This emphasizes the important role she plays in convincing Macbeth to commit his horrible acts of murder. The first response to the original post argues that Shakespeare may have made her anonymous because women achieved prestige through their husband’s success. I agree to an extent, because Lady Macbeth hopes to gain power too with her husband on the throne, and that her connection to her husband through her name is what allows her this achievement. However, it is also possible to argue that Lady Macbeth is the main force behind the play’s events, which makes her success by Macbeth’s kingship the result of her own powers of persuasion.
I also agree that the fact that Lady MacBeth was solely referred to as such, and not by her own name is because of the fact that in general, women weren’t really granted much power in those days (although society has come a long way, we still deal with femininity issues similar to this now). I do find it ironic that in a play where she has so much power, she still isn’t given a real name, but I kind of think that’s the point. Even when a woman is gaining such a large amount of power over men, especially over her husband, she’s still only a woman and can’t really have that much power. I’m not sure if it’s really a matter of anonymity, or maybe I should look further into that, but I think it’s just more of a statement that even a powerful woman and only be so powerful- no matter what, she will always be at least that one rank under her husband. This is coming off very feminist but I’m more trying to understand what was in Bill’s head at the time, not just trying to preach my opinion. Again, this is way more of a back-in-the-day type of thing, women have obviously come a far way since the 1500s and 1600s.
Post a Comment