Would anyone be so kind as to read through this english essay?
What would you reward this essay on Macbeth as a powerful Character? I'm aiming for A*/8
To what extent does Shakespeare present Macbeth as a powerful Character?
It is, I think, a matter of no great contention to affirm that Shakespeare's famed tragedy "Macbeth" is fundementally a morality play,whereby the playwrite endevours to impart to us, both his contempory and modern audience, the undeniably ecclesiastical values of his era.
This being said, and well understood, I shall now attempt to answer the question asked of me in predicating to you that Shakespeare does not, contary to what many others have argued, present his titular character, Macbeth, as continually *powerful in and of himself but only when he is governed and subject to some external, masculine influence; be that good,as in the preliminary introduction of the character, or evil as in the mid-latter parts of the drama.
During the audiences preliminary introduction to the character of Macbeth shakespeare informs us, by way of the Sergeant, that both fortune and "the multiplying villanies of nature" are, combined, "too weak for brave Macbeth." The power wherewith the playwrite endues Macbeth, and all other influencial characters for that matter, is directly preportional to his percieved masculinity; his epiphet of "valours minion" is earned only by way of "bloody execution"and brandished steel.*
The word "execution" is itself multifaceted in its meaning as, depending upon its usage,* it can refer either to the act of murder or else to the accomplishment of ones will; both interpretations are here relevant as it is only through the assassination of Ducan that Macbeth's ascent to the throne is realised. This is, perhaps, a method which shakespeare employs in order to subtly convey to his audience the inseparable relationship which exists between violence, moral degradation and power.
Futhermore his victory over Bellonna and Fortune, two pagan female deities, is indicative of the contemporary attitude that virtue is attained through the supression of stereotypically femine characteristics*; a point later exemplified in the person of Lady Macbeth, her unwomanly renunciation of her feminity* and resultant downfall.
*(Ref; Dæmonologie, "for he [the devil] is all the more familiar with that sex.")
Ergo it should come as no suprise to us that it is after Macbeth's first encounter with the wyrd sisters, by Banquo's reckoning, bearded wyrd sisters and his acceptance of their diabolical council, that Macbeth is seen to loose his initial masculinity and, by extension, his power/virtue.
*In the seargents report to Duncan Macbeth is described as "destaining fortune" an attitude which is later contridicted by his assertion that fortune will "crown [him] king." This fundemental contradiction in the character of Macbeth is undoubtedly one of the most* pivotal issues of the drama; Macbeth is, simultaneously, the archetypal tragic king and the boy, "infirm of purpose" whom his wife is able "chastise with the valour of [her] tongue" and by way of "pouring [her] spirits into his ear" coax into becoming a regicidal traitor, distinct from the former thane of Cawdor only in one regard; that he achieved his "fell purpose" where the former thane could not. And yet, despite this difference, they both meet the same eventual fate; decapitation which itself is indicative of a loss of control. (Ergo the popular idyom; to lose ones head)
In conclusion I would argue that Shakespeare presents Macbeth as powerful only in so much as he is masculine and that it is, ironically, his ambition to attain kingship that initially leaves him subject to the goading, feminine influences such as the witches and Hecate which not only weaponise his manhood him through the person of Lady Macbeth (eg. "When thou durst do it, then thou wert a man") but ultimately use his position as king* in order to destroy him.
To what extent does Shakespeare present Macbeth as a powerful Character?
It is, I think, a matter of no great contention to affirm that Shakespeare's famed tragedy "Macbeth" is fundementally a morality play,whereby the playwrite endevours to impart to us, both his contempory and modern audience, the undeniably ecclesiastical values of his era.
This being said, and well understood, I shall now attempt to answer the question asked of me in predicating to you that Shakespeare does not, contary to what many others have argued, present his titular character, Macbeth, as continually *powerful in and of himself but only when he is governed and subject to some external, masculine influence; be that good,as in the preliminary introduction of the character, or evil as in the mid-latter parts of the drama.
During the audiences preliminary introduction to the character of Macbeth shakespeare informs us, by way of the Sergeant, that both fortune and "the multiplying villanies of nature" are, combined, "too weak for brave Macbeth." The power wherewith the playwrite endues Macbeth, and all other influencial characters for that matter, is directly preportional to his percieved masculinity; his epiphet of "valours minion" is earned only by way of "bloody execution"and brandished steel.*
The word "execution" is itself multifaceted in its meaning as, depending upon its usage,* it can refer either to the act of murder or else to the accomplishment of ones will; both interpretations are here relevant as it is only through the assassination of Ducan that Macbeth's ascent to the throne is realised. This is, perhaps, a method which shakespeare employs in order to subtly convey to his audience the inseparable relationship which exists between violence, moral degradation and power.
Futhermore his victory over Bellonna and Fortune, two pagan female deities, is indicative of the contemporary attitude that virtue is attained through the supression of stereotypically femine characteristics*; a point later exemplified in the person of Lady Macbeth, her unwomanly renunciation of her feminity* and resultant downfall.
*(Ref; Dæmonologie, "for he [the devil] is all the more familiar with that sex.")
Ergo it should come as no suprise to us that it is after Macbeth's first encounter with the wyrd sisters, by Banquo's reckoning, bearded wyrd sisters and his acceptance of their diabolical council, that Macbeth is seen to loose his initial masculinity and, by extension, his power/virtue.
*In the seargents report to Duncan Macbeth is described as "destaining fortune" an attitude which is later contridicted by his assertion that fortune will "crown [him] king." This fundemental contradiction in the character of Macbeth is undoubtedly one of the most* pivotal issues of the drama; Macbeth is, simultaneously, the archetypal tragic king and the boy, "infirm of purpose" whom his wife is able "chastise with the valour of [her] tongue" and by way of "pouring [her] spirits into his ear" coax into becoming a regicidal traitor, distinct from the former thane of Cawdor only in one regard; that he achieved his "fell purpose" where the former thane could not. And yet, despite this difference, they both meet the same eventual fate; decapitation which itself is indicative of a loss of control. (Ergo the popular idyom; to lose ones head)
In conclusion I would argue that Shakespeare presents Macbeth as powerful only in so much as he is masculine and that it is, ironically, his ambition to attain kingship that initially leaves him subject to the goading, feminine influences such as the witches and Hecate which not only weaponise his manhood him through the person of Lady Macbeth (eg. "When thou durst do it, then thou wert a man") but ultimately use his position as king* in order to destroy him.
(edited 4 years ago)
I've read your piece and my first thoughts are to shorten your sentences and simplify them.
Original post by ATH781996
What would you reward this essay on Macbeth as a powerful Character? I'm aiming for A*/8
To what extent does Shakespeare present Macbeth as a powerful Character?
It is, I think, a matter of no great contention to affirm that Shakespeare's famed tragedy "Macbeth" is fundementally a morality play,whereby the playwrite endevours to impart to us, both his contempory and modern audience, the undeniably ecclesiastical values of his era.
This being said, and well understood, I shall now attempt to answer the question asked of me in predicating to you that Shakespeare does not, contary to what many others have argued, present his titular character, Macbeth, as continually *powerful in and of himself but only when he is governed and subject to some external, masculine influence; be that good,as in the preliminary introduction of the character, or evil as in the mid-latter parts of the drama.
During the audiences preliminary introduction to the character of Macbeth shakespeare informs us, by way of the Sergeant, that both fortune and "the multiplying villanies of nature" are, combined, "too weak for brave Macbeth." The power wherewith the playwrite endues Macbeth, and all other influencial characters for that matter, is directly preportional to his percieved masculinity; his epiphet of "valours minion" is earned only by way of "bloody execution"and brandished steel.*
The word "execution" is itself multifaceted in its meaning as, depending upon its usage,* it can refer either to the act of murder or else to the accomplishment of ones will; both interpretations are here relevant as it is only through the assassination of Ducan that Macbeth's ascent to the throne is realised. This is, perhaps, a method which shakespeare employs in order to subtly convey to his audience the inseparable relationship which exists between violence, moral degradation and power.
Futhermore his victory over Bellonna and Fortune, two pagan female deities, is indicative of the contemporary attitude that virtue is attained through the supression of stereotypically femine characteristics*; a point later exemplified in the person of Lady Macbeth, her unwomanly renunciation of her feminity* and resultant downfall.
*(Ref; Dæmonologie, "for he [the devil] is all the more familiar with that sex.")
Ergo it should come as no suprise to us that it is after Macbeth's first encounter with the wyrd sisters, by Banquo's reckoning, bearded wyrd sisters and his acceptance of their diabolical council, that Macbeth is seen to loose his initial masculinity and, by extension, his power/virtue.
*In the seargents report to Duncan Macbeth is described as "destaining fortune" an attitude which is later contridicted by his assertion that fortune will "crown [him] king." This fundemental contradiction in the character of Macbeth is undoubtedly one of the most* pivotal issues of the drama; Macbeth is, simultaneously, the archetypal tragic king and the boy, "infirm of purpose" whom his wife is able "chastise with the valour of [her] tongue" and by way of "pouring [her] spirits into his ear" coax into becoming a regicidal traitor, distinct from the former thane of Cawdor only in one regard; that he achieved his "fell purpose" where the former thane could not. And yet, despite this difference, they both meet the same eventual fate; decapitation which itself is indicative of a loss of control. (Ergo the popular idyom; to lose ones head)
In conclusion I would argue that Shakespeare presents Macbeth as powerful only in so much as he is masculine and that it is, ironically, his ambition to attain kingship that initially leaves him subject to the goading, feminine influences such as the witches and Hecate which not only weaponise his manhood him through the person of Lady Macbeth (eg. "When thou durst do it, then thou wert a man") but ultimately use his position as king* in order to destroy him.
To what extent does Shakespeare present Macbeth as a powerful Character?
It is, I think, a matter of no great contention to affirm that Shakespeare's famed tragedy "Macbeth" is fundementally a morality play,whereby the playwrite endevours to impart to us, both his contempory and modern audience, the undeniably ecclesiastical values of his era.
This being said, and well understood, I shall now attempt to answer the question asked of me in predicating to you that Shakespeare does not, contary to what many others have argued, present his titular character, Macbeth, as continually *powerful in and of himself but only when he is governed and subject to some external, masculine influence; be that good,as in the preliminary introduction of the character, or evil as in the mid-latter parts of the drama.
During the audiences preliminary introduction to the character of Macbeth shakespeare informs us, by way of the Sergeant, that both fortune and "the multiplying villanies of nature" are, combined, "too weak for brave Macbeth." The power wherewith the playwrite endues Macbeth, and all other influencial characters for that matter, is directly preportional to his percieved masculinity; his epiphet of "valours minion" is earned only by way of "bloody execution"and brandished steel.*
The word "execution" is itself multifaceted in its meaning as, depending upon its usage,* it can refer either to the act of murder or else to the accomplishment of ones will; both interpretations are here relevant as it is only through the assassination of Ducan that Macbeth's ascent to the throne is realised. This is, perhaps, a method which shakespeare employs in order to subtly convey to his audience the inseparable relationship which exists between violence, moral degradation and power.
Futhermore his victory over Bellonna and Fortune, two pagan female deities, is indicative of the contemporary attitude that virtue is attained through the supression of stereotypically femine characteristics*; a point later exemplified in the person of Lady Macbeth, her unwomanly renunciation of her feminity* and resultant downfall.
*(Ref; Dæmonologie, "for he [the devil] is all the more familiar with that sex.")
Ergo it should come as no suprise to us that it is after Macbeth's first encounter with the wyrd sisters, by Banquo's reckoning, bearded wyrd sisters and his acceptance of their diabolical council, that Macbeth is seen to loose his initial masculinity and, by extension, his power/virtue.
*In the seargents report to Duncan Macbeth is described as "destaining fortune" an attitude which is later contridicted by his assertion that fortune will "crown [him] king." This fundemental contradiction in the character of Macbeth is undoubtedly one of the most* pivotal issues of the drama; Macbeth is, simultaneously, the archetypal tragic king and the boy, "infirm of purpose" whom his wife is able "chastise with the valour of [her] tongue" and by way of "pouring [her] spirits into his ear" coax into becoming a regicidal traitor, distinct from the former thane of Cawdor only in one regard; that he achieved his "fell purpose" where the former thane could not. And yet, despite this difference, they both meet the same eventual fate; decapitation which itself is indicative of a loss of control. (Ergo the popular idyom; to lose ones head)
In conclusion I would argue that Shakespeare presents Macbeth as powerful only in so much as he is masculine and that it is, ironically, his ambition to attain kingship that initially leaves him subject to the goading, feminine influences such as the witches and Hecate which not only weaponise his manhood him through the person of Lady Macbeth (eg. "When thou durst do it, then thou wert a man") but ultimately use his position as king* in order to destroy him.
Also do not use "I" to show what you think in an essay or exam. For example instead of saying "In conclusion I would argue" you could use "in conclusion, it could be argued that".
Original post by JDINCINERATOR
Also do not use "I" to show what you think in an essay or exam. For example instead of saying "In conclusion I would argue" you could use "in conclusion, it could be argued that".
I understand, what grade do you think the essay is worthy of? To try and gadge my minimum working level.
Original post by ATH781996
I understand, what grade do you think the essay is worthy of? To try and gadge my minimum working level.
I'm not a teacher and I'm more used to the old grading system but I think you've done well enough to get a high grade. I just think if you tighten up and simplify your sentences as well as taking out needless additions to your sentence like in your first sentence you could simply say "Shakespeare's Macbeth is fundamentally a play based on moral concepts that echo the ecclesiastical values of his era".
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by JDINCINERATOR
Also do not use "I" to show what you think in an essay or exam. For example instead of saying "In conclusion I would argue" you could use "in conclusion, it could be argued that".
Not necessarily. Using I sparingly to express your views or argument is more than fine. Even academics do it.
Original post by Quick-use
Not necessarily. Using I sparingly to express your views or argument is more than fine. Even academics do it.
Ok but I'm thinking examiners will be picky on stuff like that.
Original post by JDINCINERATOR
Ok but I'm thinking examiners will be picky on stuff like that.
Only if it's redundant which it actually was in OP's essay. That said, however, it's more than fine to use it when it serves a purpose.
Most teachers tell their students to stop using I as a universal rule simply because they over-use it without knowing its purposes within academic writing.
(edited 4 years ago)
(I'm not a teacher, so please don't take anything I say as gospel, but I did my GCSEs last year and got a 9 in both Englishes.)
Sounds good to me. Good use of quotations, and a nice conclusion. The way you write is impressive and far more sophisticated than how I wrote at GCSE (and write now...). Just a few things:
-Generally, in an English essay, I would say to use impersonal voice more often than not. So instead of using "I think that", for example, use "it could be thought that" or "this could be considered as"-- at least more often than you use "I".
-Shorten your sentences. Even if they're good, like these are, it's easy to lose the thread of the point if a sentence is too long, and if there are many like that, it makes it difficult to read. Similarly, although your style is very assured, I think you could actually simplify your language a great deal. It will slow you down in an exam. Your first sentence, for example, could be shortened to something like:
"Shakespeare's "Macbeth" is fundamentally a morality play, whereby the playwright endeavors to show both his contemporary and modern audience the ecclesiastical values of his era."
Good luck with your exams!
Sounds good to me. Good use of quotations, and a nice conclusion. The way you write is impressive and far more sophisticated than how I wrote at GCSE (and write now...). Just a few things:
-Generally, in an English essay, I would say to use impersonal voice more often than not. So instead of using "I think that", for example, use "it could be thought that" or "this could be considered as"-- at least more often than you use "I".
-Shorten your sentences. Even if they're good, like these are, it's easy to lose the thread of the point if a sentence is too long, and if there are many like that, it makes it difficult to read. Similarly, although your style is very assured, I think you could actually simplify your language a great deal. It will slow you down in an exam. Your first sentence, for example, could be shortened to something like:
"Shakespeare's "Macbeth" is fundamentally a morality play, whereby the playwright endeavors to show both his contemporary and modern audience the ecclesiastical values of his era."
Good luck with your exams!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- NEED HELP from people who took WJEC English GCSE Of Mice and Men Higher IN 2023
- Tips on improving Sociology A level grade and English Lit for aqa
- how to revise for english lit a-level
- grow your grades 2023!!!!
- Help me with my choice for A Level (aspiring law student)
- A-level English Study Group
- Grow your Grades blog 23/24!
- [Official] Cambridge English Applicants 2022
- A Level resits mature student advice
- Gcse english language
- Research Paper!
- I’m rlly bad at English lit and lang
- Brighton College Entrance exam for 16+
- A-level English Literature Study Group 2023-2024
- How do you like to revise for english lit and lang?
- 4th A Level option to study Economics at uni
- Any tips on how to get an A*/A in English literature alevel?
- I got all 9s in GCSEs 2022 - ask me anything
- Aiming not to fail - a year 13 student trying her best
- how to study for national 5 English
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Goldmansachs Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Lloyds Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official: Brighton and Sussex (BSMS) A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 5 minutes ago
KPMG Audit Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
LSE politics and Economics 2023/2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official University of Bristol Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 6 minutes ago
Home Office: Immigration Enforcement Casework Support AO 2024Last reply 6 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 10 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 11 minutes ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 13 minutes ago
Official University of the West of England, Bristol Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 13 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A101 EMDP 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1043
Trending
Last reply 19 hours ago
Based on 2023 GCSEs, will grade boundaries be higher or lower in 2024?GCSEs
12
Last reply 22 hours ago
went from 3s to 9s with (literally) night before revision - ask me anythingGCSEs
56
Trending
Last reply 19 hours ago
Based on 2023 GCSEs, will grade boundaries be higher or lower in 2024?GCSEs
12
Last reply 22 hours ago
went from 3s to 9s with (literally) night before revision - ask me anythingGCSEs
56
