A Cross Analysis Of Shakesperean Tragedies: Hamlet And Macbeth
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteed
Order Now
William Shakespeare came down in history as one of the greatest playwrights of from his times and for generations to come. His legacy included the best works of literature, even in the present age. Hamlet and Macbeth were two tragedies that he had written that reflected his place literature. This paper would present these two plays according to their similarities and relationship to Shakespeare.
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE: THE PLAYWRIGHT AND HIS PLAYS
When it came to English literature, the name William Shakespeare abounds and remains one of the most influential writers even in the 21st century. The relevance of his works provided him this place in history. Born in 1564, he left his wife and three children behind to become an actor and playwright in London. He was one of the monarch’s favorites and he was publicly and critically acclaimed for his work. When he died, his works were declared to be timeless. This paper would discuss two of Shakespeare’s classic plays, Hamlet and Macbeth.
Context and Historical Background
Hamlet
This play was created in the earlier period of the 17th century. During those times, tragedies were a common theme in the theater. There were several different sources that served as Shakespeare’s inspiration for this play because of the common practice of borrowing for other texts. Shakespeare created two different versions of this play or two quartos. The First Quarto was enacted as a play as early as July 1602 and was printed in 1603 (Lewis 20). The Second Quarto was released in 1604 (Lewis 20).
There were different theories that came out about the creation and interpretation of Hamlet. Theoretical conception could not explain Shakespeare’s Hamlet. There was the assumption that Shakespeare knew his characters and if they seemed unintelligible, the readers and critics were to be blamed, as Shakespeare remained to be trustworthy for the fidelity of his dramatic vision (Lewis 19). Hamlet was merely a rewriting of an older tragedy. He rewrote it by installments in such a way that the older tragedy was lost and the play was recognized as “an imperfect fusion of diverse elements” (Lewis 20).
The First Quarto and the Second Quarto differed specifically on the important point of morality. It seemed that the first version was free from moral scruples. They were not a part of Shakespeare’s original conception of the play. The question of man’s conscience did not exist in the first version. However, in the second version of Hamlet, Shakespeare displayed several instances wherein his imagination worked within a world that was controlled by the superstitions of medieval Catholicism (Lewis 25). Hamlet, the character was consistent with this implication as he constantly questioned if there was life beyond the grave in the Second Quarto.
The story of a Danish prince served as the raw material for Shakespeare’s play (“Hamlet” par. 5). His uncle, who later on married his mother and claimed the throne, murdered the prince’s father. The prince appeared to be without knowledge of this crime in order to throw his uncle off guard. He was able to avenge his father’s death by killing his uncle. Shakespeare changed the emphasis of his play by turning Hamlet into a philosophical thinker who delayed his actions because of uncertain knowledge of his uncle’s guilt (“Hamlet” par. 5). Shakespeare was able to change the details and emphasis of his source story in order to infuse a common revenge story with the popular themes and problems of the Renaissance period (“Hamlet” par. 6).
There was a movement that was called the Renaissance Humanism, which produced a renewed interest for human experience and attaining a greater scope for human understanding. The world of in Hamlet was confronted with this search for realities. Hamlet was faced with the task of retribution for an injustice wherein he could never have enough knowledge of (“Hamlet” par. 8). The play demonstrated the struggle during that period wherein there was difficulty of full understanding and knowing the truth about men. In this play, it was symbolized by the difficulty of knowing about the guilt or innocence of the characters, the states of their sanity and their true motivations and feelings.
Macbeth
The play Macbeth was recognized as Shakespeare’s bloodiest of all the tragedies he had written. It was also almost half the length of Hamlet (Levin 114). It was estimated to be written in 1606 during the reign of King James I of the English throne (“Macbeth” par. 4).
The ruler during the time this play was written played a significant influence in the play. Macbeth focused on Scottish history. King James I was formerly King James VI of Scotland (“Macbeth” par. 4). Shakespeare also paid homage to the king’s cultural lineage through the creation of this play. The king was also a descendant of the historical Banquo; in the play, the witches prophesied how a the Banquo would produce a line of king (“Macbeth” par. 4).
During the latter part of the 1500s, Scotland was filled with witch stories and there were many people that were accused and condemned for witchcraft without any physical evidence (Friedlander par. 66). James I was included in those who supported the witch hysteria and wrote a book about the hidden world of witches, Demonology. The witches in the play were obviously placed in the fictionalized story of Macbeth for the pleasure of the king as well.
The plot for Macbeth was said to be based from Raphael Holinshed’s Chronicles and altered it in order to clear Banquo of any complicity in the murder (Friedlander par. 20). These chronicles were later on declared to be works of fiction, however, there was no record whether Shakespeare knew that the stories from the chronicles were not facts. When Macbeth dealt with the fictional ancestors of the Stuart heritage with Banquo and Fleance, he shifted away from the Holinshed treatment. In the chronicles, the Banquo was presented as the active accomplice of Macbeth. Instead, in Macbeth, Banquo was revealed to play a more favorable role than the historical version.
Personal Relationship with Plays
Shakespeare could not be considered as an inventor of incident as he was one who made use of the Elizabethan license of borrowing and utilized plots that were readily available wherever inspiration struck him (Lewis 70). He usually made little alterations and placed heavier emphasis on certain themes and characters but all would be for an ulterior purpose. He was not in the business of creating plot material; instead, he was in the business of producing realization for the characters (Lewis 70). Shakespeare’s gift was how he made the characters of Macbeth and Hamlet alive, which was beyond retelling the histories by which their stories were based from. This process enabled Shakespeare to produce new and original characters from borrowed plots. There was no surprise that the plot was old in Hamlet. When he remodeled materials that were already dramatized, he would usually retain to the original outlines and alter certain minute details to the scenes. He was fond of putting “new wine in the old bottles” (Lewis 71).
SHAKESPEAREAN TRAGEDIES
Before going into a cross-analysis of Hamlet and Macbeth, it was important to discuss each play individually in order to appreciate them as separate masterpieces that came from one creator.
Hamlet
Hamlet was a man that struggled with different problems internally and externally. The play was a dramatization of how this character would go about solving his problems. This character was described to touch civilization in such a manner that no other play had been analyzed as extensively as it has been (Cahn 69). The first line from the play introduced the text’s concern with identity with the question “who’s there?” This presented the primary dilemma for every individual and his place in the world. Shakespearean tragedies were marked with similar sufferings from this crisis of identity (Cahn 69). Hamlet’s dilemma was particularly overwhelming in the manner that it constantly shifted from one perspective into another. The play was defined by moments wherein the hero constantly tried to establish a certain level of acceptance for how and where he fit in the circumstance he was in. However, a certain moral system provided him difficulty in these attempts.
Main Characters
The source of the play’s plot was the story of the Danish prince. Hamlet and Laertes represented the Danish prince, characters in Hamlet, who found themselves wit the need to avenge the death of both of their fathers (Sadowski 98). There was a similarity in the characters in terms of being avengers, however, the plot reflected differences in the manner by which they performed their filial duties.
Hamlet. Hamlet was not a traditional hero, something that the prince himself knew through his comparison of himself to Hercules, just like his father was not like his uncle. He was observed to be spontaneous in his acts that included impulsive violence as evidenced by Polonius’ death. When Hamlet does commit heroic acts, they were not a result of a calculated plan but were also committed out of a spur of a moment decision (Sadowski 108). Furthermore, there were observations as to playwright’s treatment of the characters in the
Shakespeare famously clothed his hero’s exostatic temperament in the guise of melancholy, that Elizabethan malady which, according to Timothy Bright’s Treatise of Melancholy (1586), produced a character “not so apt for action, ” sad and fearful, full of “distrust, doubt, diffidence, or despair, sometimes furious, and sometimes merry in appearance” (Sadowski 109).
Shakespeare’s multi-facetedness was displayed in Hamlet’s characterization. The ghost’s revelation to him reflected that Hamlet’s state of mind was not mentally stable to begin with. Even other characters gave insight as to Hamlet’s unstable nature. From Polonius’ warnings and Laertes’ brotherly advice, Hamlet was not someone who was predictable and in turn he was also unreliable on a number of levels.
Hamlet’s frustrations came from his expectations of the world and for it to be nobler that what it actually was. He was perceived to carry some level of emotional polarization in the way he viewed other people and was often left disappointed with the world because it did not live up to his expectations. Even when Hamlet did not know of his uncle’s crime, his contempt for him was deeply rooted from his childhood. He was often seen to overreact to circumstances, as most Shakespearean heroes had the tendency for.
Claudius. In public, Claudius to appear to be more dignified, responsible and reliable in comparison to Hamlet. Nevertheless, his hypocrisy was something that constantly surfaced. Hamlet perceived his uncle to be habitually intemperate, voluptuous and self-indulgent. The fact that he was an excessive drinker provided a clear moral implication for this character (Sadowski 109). Most of his actions were reactions to his insecurities and fears. As the king, he was the only one who was afraid of Hamlet, who served as his political rival. While others were just concerned with Hamlet’s mental health and Polonius was jealous about his daughter’s virtue, Claudius was paranoid about the extent of Hamlet’s knowledge of his political crime.
The Ghost. The ghost introduced the theme of justice and revenge. It was presented as the traditional heroic character in the play because of its display of “royal majesty and martial dignity” (Sadowski 106). His call for Hamlet to avenge his death was seen as a plea to correct an injustice that was done, instead of just a mere call for personal revenge. Critics noted that the mistake the Ghost made was to treat his son as a reflection of himself, wherein there was virtually nothing in common between them but their names (Sadowski 106).
Laertes. For Laertes, revenge was the goal in itself. He was a static character that exuded balance and the presence of a give-and-take in his relationships with other people (Sadowski 101). They had a genuine faith in order and justice and this moved them to follow a certain path that was not characterized by opportunism or conformity. He was an embodiment of official and filial duty and obedience. He was noted to give a well-meaning lecture to her sister about the inappropriate relationship she had with Hamlet that was drawn from conventional wisdom and moral clichés (Sadowski 102). He was unlike his father whose lectures he had been given by were hollow and hypocritical that was born out of Polonius’ conniving character.
Gertrude. The queen was also considered to be static character, however, she was a weak one. Even if she had no hidden agenda, she passively went along with the flow of events without initiative to make decisions or change circumstances (Sadowski 141). The only struggle she was given was her knowledge of Hamlet’s strange behavior and her fear that he was going insane. There was always the question as to her knowledge of her second husband’s crime. However, as a static character, it could be assumed that she was oblivious to it and that she accepted everything at face value without doubt of her husband (Sadowski 142).
Polonius. This character revealed himself within a private and familiar context through his talks with his son Laertes on proper conduct as he goes abroad. However, compared to his son, he lectures about being cautious and to stay clear of danger, as well as to keep his eyes and ears open, and to be careful with his money. While Laertes’ treatment of his sister was armed with mutual respect and warmth, Polonius treated his daughter like a police interrogating a source for more information. He also manipulated his daughter into actions without thinking of how she might feel. It was observed that Polonius constant badgering about the relationship Ophelia and Hamlet had was not entirely out of fatherly concern but from selfish anxiety of the consequences of this relationship on him as a high court official (Sadowski 137).
Ophelia. Ophelia belonged to the group of static characters that were predictable throughout the story. She had the sense of modesty, a sense of propriety, and adherence to the norms and principles of society that included filial and wifely loyalty (Sadowski 147). She was submissive and obedient within a familial dimension. She was a transparent character wherein the audience can expect of her to be consistent in her actions and predict her moves according to what she had shown in the past. She followed the rules of filial obedience strictly and spoke nothing but the truth when questioned. Nevertheless, this was her weakness because this made her susceptible to her father’s manipulation; abuses and unintentional loyalty when the rules she follows collided (Sadowski 147).
Macbeth
Macbeth was known as the shortest of the tragedies Shakespeare produced. However, its brevity provided benefits for this play because it allowed for the concentrated tension in this play and enabled it to be one of the most horrific tragedies Shakespeare had ever created (Cahn 179). While other plays presented their own level of goriness and murder scenes, Macbeth was a play that was extremely preoccupied with the planning of murder, the concept of it and the outcome of such an act. It was even made more chilling by the clear motivation behind this series of murders that were observed in this text. It was the obsession of Macbeth to stay and maintain his power that he was willing to kill others in cold blood to get his way. As previously noted, the play was based on the Holinshed Chronicles. Shakespeare made several deviations from the original source in order to create psychological and moral implications.
Main Characters
Macbeth. The nature of Macbeth’s dilemma was frequented by the debate in the history of the play about the inconsistencies in the characterization of the figure. The question of how a man who was capable of the horrific nature of his actions continues to carry them out. Macbeth cannot be denied of a moral conscience. He committed on evil did after another but suffered living with a guilty conscience (Sadowski 275). His character presented an exhibition of the psychological development of the characters in Shakespearean tragedies, even if later on Shakespeare was accused of sacrificing psychological consistencies for more effective theatrics.
There were several instances wherein the audience witnessed the progression of Macbeth’s alienation from his own life. One of which was his indifference to the news of his wife’s death (Sadowski 283). He also held an unconscious desire to place himself outside the natural scheme of things by becoming immortal and invulnerable. This was said to be the ultimate dream of a character that cannot tolerate any loss of power as it sustained the character’s life (Sadowski 284). Macbeth had an illusion that he could live forever. The small consolation for the victims of his tyranny was that despite all their power, they would eventually die like their victims did.
Lady Macbeth. During the times wherein Macbeth experienced moral dilemmas, his wife provided a voice that torn him to one side of the decision. When Macbeth’s nerve was failing, Lady Macbeth would provide a firm decision to help Macbeth carry out the plans. She constantly stepped up to play a motherly and protective role of her husband, as she constantly perceived him of being dependent on her (Sadowski 286). There were critics that observed Lady Macbeth’s “unconsciousness maleness” and how it forced her husband to adopt a role of a yielding female (Sadowski 286). She was also witnessed to taunt her husband with effeminacy and to humiliate his manliness by presenting herself as more of a man.
Banquo. His skepticism towards the witches’ prophecies served as a contrast to Macbeth’s growing excitement. When Duncan was murdered, Banquo took over a more dramatic role. This was a character that provided much confusion for the critics. While some perceived him as a static character, others perceived him otherwise. While in the Holinshed Chronicles he was Macbeth’s accomplice, Shakespeare later on exonerated him for political reasons (Sadowski 292).
Macduff. This character counterbalanced Macbeth’s illusion that he possessed a special status as a man that was immuned to injury or death. He served as Duncan’s ultimate avenger after he discovered the murder. He was the first one to enter the murdered King Duncan’s chamber. It was his character to voice a public outcry for this murder that made him a static character (Sadowski 295). It remained consistent even in his decision to leave his family behind to escape to England to gather political support. He chose patriotic duties over familial obligations.
Comparison of Tragedies: Hamlet and Macbeth
The intimate links between the Shakespearean tragedies, there was sufficient external evidence that linked Macbeth to Hamlet. There were certain elements in these plays that provided significant discussion for the comparison of these tragedies.
Elements of a Tragedy
A review of the elements of a tragedy would provide the different points of similarity for the plays Hamlet and Macbeth. The Shakespearean tragedy could involve a number of persons in the cast. Nevertheless, it was still the story of one hero. In some instances, a heroine such as in Romeo and Juliet shared the stories. However, in plays like Hamlet and Macbeth they both served as single stars in their stories (Bradley 8).
The tragedy also involved the death of the hero. It was observed that there was no Shakespearean tragedy that left the hero alive at the end of the story (Bradley 8). The themes of such tragedies were evidently that of suffering and calamities. These tragedies were said to befall on conspicuous persons by which they were unexpected and contrasted with a previous life of happiness or glory. A Shakespearean tragedy was then defined as “a story of exceptional calamity leading to the death of a man in high estate” (Bradley 9).
It was also noted how heroes, in one way or another contributed to their deaths or the disaster they encountered. Even heroes could become primary agents or authors of their woe. This could modify, though would not cease, the fear and pity that audience had for the hero. Hamlet did not ask for his father’s murder. He did not ask to be torn into confusion if he would avenge his father. Nevertheless, it was his impulsive violence that placed him in a sword duel with Laertes that ultimately brought him to his death. Macbeth was oblivious to any obsession with the throne before the prophecy. It was this prophecy, as well as his wife’s purging, that caused him to commit a series of murders in order to make this prophecy come to pass. Macbeth’s obsession with the crown brought him to his death. Although, the level of pity that the audience had for Macbeth and Hamlet were different; it existence for both characters could not be denied. The main interest behind this was to provide the characters with a psychological interest that made these tragedies relevant even in the present age.
Shakespeare constantly infused the need to provide developments of insanity, illusions, and other abnormal conditions of the mind to create the progression of the tragedy and not to present his characters as crazy. Macbeth did not murder Duncan because he saw the dagger in the air, instead, he said the dagger because he was about to murder Duncan (Bradley 13). If Hamlet was insane in any time in the story, it would eliminate him from becoming a tragic character.
The presence of the supernatural in his tragedies such as ghosts and witches contributed to the action in the story. The supernatural was placed close with the hero or the lead character. It did not provide a compulsive action. Instead, it builds up in the characters the problems that heroes needed to face. It provided for them accountabilities for how they dealt with their problems. They serve as the means by which the main characters would find themselves in a psychological dilemma by which they were forced to deal with the story’s conflicts.
Construction
There were also some similarities in the construction of the two plays. In Hamlet and Macbeth, scenes were constructed with great boldness that was squeezed into short scenes. In the play Hamlet, the first appearance of the Ghost was created with such an effect that Shakespeare was able to introduce it within little lines. The second appearance was filled with tension. Although, there was not much action, the long scene involved all the dramatis personae for the character (Bradley 44). In an even more remarkable manner, the opening of Macbeth found no parallel in other tragedies. However, in a similar bold manner of construction, the senses and imagination of the audience were assaulted by a thunder and supernatural alarm. This scene was so effective that Shakespeare was allowed to follow it with a long scene with a narrative about the report of Macbeth’s battle (Bradley 43). Shakespeare used similar techniques for both plays wherein he used short and bold scenes that were followed by long and narrative ones to balance the progression of the story.
Characters
There were certain elements that were present for Shakespeare tragedies that made his works classics that stood the test of time. There was a “residue of hyperbole” for the Shakespearean tragic hero that was often perceived as an overstater and that “man’s reach must always exceed his grasp and everything costs not less than everything” (Mack 235). There was also someone who would provide a perspective to balance the heroes’ hyperbolic perspective in a rather less upsetting manner. There was always someone who would personify this role in the hero’s immediate entourage such as the wife, the friend and so on.
When it came to the character of the heroes, Macbeth and Hamlet had screaming differences. Macbeth was a murderer and a tyrant, while Hamlet was planning to avenge his father’s death against someone who was a murderer and a tyrant. Fewer audience members would expect the kinship with Macbeth than they would with Hamlet. However, while most individuals would not be tempted to murder, almost everyone experienced having a divided soul. Critics found Macbeth and Hamlet to be similar in such as way that their only difference was Macbeth began where Hamlet left off the mental and moral confusion they’ve encountered (Bloom 8). Furthermore, there was more Macbeth in Hamlet than people would acknowledge. The Macbeth in Hamlet meant would be translated into the deeds or the actualization of his thoughts. The only difference was there was still something left of Hamlet that he kept the “Macbeth” in him in his thoughts; however bloody thoughts served as the seed of bloody deeds as the tale of Hamlet was concluded (Bloom 9).
In the same manner, Hamlet was in Macbeth in his nervous irritability, his hysterical passion and his gifts for visualization and imaginative expression. These two characters revealed themselves to be similar in their mental struggles and dilemmas. They were torn within themselves that may them dynamic characters. They were evidently imperfect individuals that aroused the pity and interest of the audience because of the relevance of their moral confusion. Their motives and intentions for their murders may have been different but it was this division within themselves and triumph to kill that surfaced in the end of each of these tragedies.
Works Cited
Bloom, Harold. William Shakespeare’s Macbeth. New York: Chelsea House, 1987.
Bradley, A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth. London: Macmillan, 1905.
Friedlander, Ed. “Enjoying ‘Macbeth’, by William Shakespeare”, 2009. Accessed on 15 May 2009 <http://www.pathguy.com/macbeth.htm>.
“Hamlet.” Sparknotes, 2009. Accessed on 15 May 2009 <http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/hamlet/context.html>.
Levin, Harry. “Two Scenes from Macbeth.” in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Bloom, Harold (ed). New York: Chelsea House, 1987.
Lewis, Charlton. The Genesis of Hamlet. New York: Henry Holt, 1907.
“Macbeth.” E-notes.com, 2005. 15 May 2009 <http://www.enotes.com/macbeth/>.
“Macbeth.” Sparknotes. 2009 15 May 2009 < http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/macbeth/context.html>.
Mack, Maynard. “The Voice in the Sword” in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Bloom, Harold (ed). New York: Chelsea House, 1987.
Sadowski, Piotr. Dynamism of Character in Shakespeare’s Mature Tragedies. Newark, D.E.: University of Delaware Press, 2003.
Annotated Bibliography
Bloom, Harold. William Shakespeare’s Macbeth. New York: Chelsea House, 1987.
Bloom provided an extensive review of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. He discussed different aspects of the play, including its relationship with Shakespeare’s other works. This source provided the links between Macbeth and Hamlet. This book was a compilation from different authors that discussed about the different elements of Shakespeare’s play. It also included in-depth insights for the characterization that were presented in the play.
Bradley, A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth. London: Macmillan, 1905.
Bradley provided significant lectures on Shakespearean tragedies. The literary form was discussed according to the plays Shakespeare had written. There were numerous comparisons that were done across the different plays. This was a significant source for understanding tragedy and how Shakespeare was able to use it in his works.
Cahn, Victor. Shakespeare the Playwright: A Companion to the Complete Tragedies, Histories, Comedies, and Romances. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996.
Cahn analyzed the different plays that Shakespeare produced and at the same time described his style as a playwright. He provided a broad perspective in discussing the tragedies, histories, comedies and romances while he discussed Shakespeare’s most significant masterpieces. It was a valuable reference because of the in-depth and well-round analysis that it provided for the construction and content of Hamlet and Macbeth. They were also discussed according to the context of the Elizabethan period.
Friedlander, Ed. “Enjoying ‘Macbeth’, by William Shakespeare”, 2009. Accessed on 15 May 2009 <http://www.pathguy.com/macbeth.htm>.
This website was dedicated to the details regarding Shakespeare’s Macbeth. It tackled about the historical background and other interesting facts about the play. It provided helpful insights as to how Shakespeare was able to form a play out of a story he had heard of in the past. This webpage had other unique insights and interpretations regarding the play.
“Hamlet.” Sparknotes, 2009. Accessed on 15 May 2009 <http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/hamlet/context.html>.
This webpage discussed about the context by which the play Hamlet was constructed. It discussed how the originality of this play’s plot and how Shakespeare took advantage of borrowing from existing plots and maintaining its original outline. This source extended the writer’s understanding for the Shakespearean process of writing and a greater understanding of the period by which the play was written.
Levin, Harry. “Two Scenes from Macbeth.” in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Bloom, Harold (ed). New York: Chelsea House, 1987.
This was a chapter in Bloom’s book that discussed about the significance of characters in the play Macbeth. He discussed the importance of the characters in their actions, intentions and thoughts in how the play was given more meaning. Levin discussed Hamlet and Macbeth’s significance for each of their respective plays. He also discussed the speed at which the stories moved and how it characterizes the plays mentioned.
Lewis, Charlton. The Genesis of Hamlet. New York: Henry Holt, 1907.
Lewis provided different theoretical concepts by which Hamlet was interpreted and analyzed. There were opposing views for interpretation that were presented. It served as a significant source because of the in-depth analysis of the different elements of the play based from different literary critics. It also provided a strong background regarding the play.
“Macbeth.” E-notes.com, 2005. 15 May 2009 <http://www.enotes.com/macbeth/>.
This webpage discussed the different elements about the play. It gave an extensive analysis of the different things that students of literature must known about this classic. This was useful because it served as a source guide regarding the play. It provided basic knowledge regarding the play’s characters, plot, settings and theme.
“Macbeth.” Sparknotes. 2009 15 May 2009 < http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/macbeth/context.html>.
This webpage discussed about the context by which Macbeth was created. It provided points of history by which the play was based and how Shakespeare was able to construct the story based from existing plots. This served as a helpful guide in the understanding of the context of the play.
Mack, Maynard. “The Voice in the Sword” in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Bloom, Harold (ed). New York: Chelsea House, 1987.
This was a chapter from Bloom’s book that discussed about the significance of setting and scenes in the construction of Shakespearean plays. It presented the imagery and the ideas that specific scenes conveyed. Mack also compared the Macbeth scenes to other Shakespearean plays to explore the symbolisms behind such settings. This served as a significant source for understanding the imagery and content in Shakespeare plays.
Sadowski, Piotr. Dynamism of Character in Shakespeare’s Mature Tragedies. Newark, D.E.: University of Delaware Press, 2003
Sadowski provided a concrete character analysis of the tragedies that Shakespeare had written. He followed a certain structure in characterization analysis. It was helpful because he had created the psychology of the characters from both Hamlet and Macbeth and provided comparisons between them. He also presented the significance and roles of these characters in the tragedy plots.
