Review of the play Macbeth. Purely English history

The tragedy "Macbeth", like many of Shakespeare's dramatic works, was created on the basis of the legend of the tyrant king, whose image was so skillfully embodied by the author. However, researchers of Shakespeare's work and historians have come to the conclusion that the pathos and plot of the work contradict historical facts. During the reign of King Macbeth of Scotland, poet-bards belonging to opposition circles created a story about a murderous ruler, which served as the source for writing the play.

The work was created in the classical staged genre, which is achieved by a heap of scenes, an expanded system of images and a dynamic development of the plot. This was the reason for the high popularity of the work. From the time of Shakespeare to the present day, the tragedy "Macbeth" has been included in the repertoires of theaters around the world, and there are also numerous film adaptations of the work.

"Macbeth": a summary of Shakespeare's play

The play opens with a conversation between three witches. They set up the next meeting when one of the commanders defeats the other. In the wasteland where the gathering of witches will take place, according to them, Macbeth will certainly come.

A sergeant arrives from the battlefield, who informs the Scottish king Duncan about the glorious victory of his relative and one of the best generals, Macbeth, over the Irish. The Scottish army is attacked by Norwegian troops, united with Duncan's former ally, the Cawdor Thane. And again, a brilliant military leader defeated the enemy. The king orders the execution of the defector, and the title of Cawdor tan is deservedly bestowed on the winner.

Three witches met again in a wasteland in stormy weather. They are noticed by the generals Macbeth and Banquo moving towards Duncan's residence. The witches hail Macbeth as Thane of Gdamis, his rightful title, Thane of Cawdor and future King of Scotland. Flattered, Macbeth asks them to tell him about Banquo's future. They see him not as a king, but as an ancestor of future monarchs.

The subjects of the king congratulate the generals on the victory, and Macbeth also on the new title. It seems to him that the prophecies of the witches have begun to come true. In his dreams, Tan already sees himself on the throne, but, respecting the king, he will not be able to decide on a vile act.

The king praises the winners and distributes honors. To show his respects to Macbeth, the monarch promises to stay at his castle. And he declares his son Malcolm his heir. Macbeth is enraged by this fact. Seeing his rival in the prince, he is already ready for anything, just to get the throne.

Lady Macbeth receives a message from her husband, from which she learns about predictions. She believes that there is no better candidate for the throne, but her husband lacks determination. She decides to take matters into her own hands. As soon as Macbeth arrived, his wife firmly stated that the king should be destroyed on the only night he would spend here. Macbeth is afraid of committing a crime and being punished for it. The wife, accusing him of cowardice, stubbornly prepares a plan: to intoxicate the royal retinue with a potion and kill the sleeping king with their daggers, thereby averting suspicion from herself.

Duncan arrives at Macbeth's castle and presents everyone with gifts. After dinner, he goes to the bedroom, where Macbeth enters and kills his royal relative. Tan is overcome with excitement, he can come to his senses because of what happened, so his wife has to cover up the traces of the crime.

Suddenly there is a knock on the door. One of the the most influential people Scotland - Macduff and Lenox. In nightly attire, under the guise of a hospitable host, Macbeth escorts the guests to Duncan, where a picture of murder is on the face. In a fit of imaginary outburst of anger, Macbeth kills servants stained with blood, after which no one doubts their guilt, except for the sons of the king. They decide to flee: Malcolm to England, and Donalbain to Ireland, which makes Macduff think that they are guilty of killing their father for the sake of the throne.

As the witches prophesied, Macbeth becomes the new king. The childless new monarch remembers the words of the witches and about Banquo, who has a son. He decides to confront fate by destroying both. The royal couple give a feast, before which Banquo must leave on business, promising to return to the celebration. He is accompanied on the trip by his son. Upon learning of this, Macbeth sends two assassins after them. They attacked Banquo, and the son escapes to avenge his father's death. At the feast, Macbeth sees the bloodied ghost of Banquo sitting in his place. The king is beside himself, and Lady Macbeth explains this with illness.

Macduff did not appear at the feast, whom Macbeth considers a traitor based on the denunciations of his spies. Scottish nobles gather in the palace and, discussing the escape of Macduff to England, consider the power of the king as tyranny.

Macbeth goes to the witches again. They summoned the spirits, who said to beware of Macduff. They assured him that no one born of a woman would kill him. And they added that the king is invincible until Birnam Forest moves on his castle. The pleased king asked if Banquo would rule, after which images of future monarchs came out to the music, behind which walked the ghost of Banquo, proud of his great-grandchildren.

Macbeth, having learned about the flight of Macduff, sends mercenaries to destroy his family. Lady Macbeth goes mad with remorse and dies. Meanwhile, in England, Macduff persuades Malcolm to return and overthrow Macbeth, the commander Sivart, the uncle of the prince, comes to their aid. The rebellious Scottish people join their army. Upon learning of the murder of his wife and son, Macduff wants personal revenge. Before the assault, while in Birnam Forest, Malcolm tells the soldiers to pull out a branch and carry it in front of them to hide the size of the army.

Believing in the prophecies, Macbeth does not even worry. But he learns: in infancy, Macduff was taken out of his mother's womb, that is, he was not born a woman, and the messenger said that Birnam Forest was moving towards the castle. The prophecies came true: the enemies fought to the death, and Macduff brought the tyrant's head. Malcolm's army won, and the rightful heir invited everyone to the coronation ceremony.

Characteristics of heroes

The creation of the character system, like the history of writing, has a biographical basis. In fact, King Macbeth was not a tyrant and a murderer. He defeated Duncan in a fair duel and ruled safely for many years, surrounded by the respect of his people. According to researchers, Shakespeare created his tragedy in order to please a distant relative of the same Banquo - King James, who especially reveres the theater and is fond of writing treatises on witches and witchcraft. That is why in the work the image of Macbeth takes on an emphatically negative connotation, and Banquo is shown as a true knight.

Symbolism in the play

A special role in the development of the plot and the ideological content of the work is played by the synthetic inclusion in the composition of the play of scenes with the participation of witches, in which the procession of future monarchs from the Banquo family is shown with special pathos.

The skill of the author in creating the characters of the tragedy lies in the development of images during the course of the play. A brave commander and loyal subject, Macbeth becomes a murderer and tyrant under the influence of poisonous thoughts about fame and the persuasion of his wife. After the first kill, he is confused, but later getting blood on his hands is no longer so scary for him. The image of Malcolm is also changeable. After the murder of his father, he runs away to save his life, but in the end he is not afraid to die for the well-being of his native country.

In the image of the most ordinary woman Katerina Lvovna, who comes from an ordinary, petty-bourgeois environment, the writer shows how a passionate feeling that has flared up completely transforms her and she rebels against the conventions of the world in which she had previously spent her whole life. From the very beginning of the essay, the author writes that Katerina's life in the house of her wealthy husband was extremely boring, the young woman was literally strangled by monotony and melancholy.

While still a very young and inexperienced girl, she was married to the merchant Zinovy ​​Borisovich, she never had any feelings for him, her parents gave Katerina in marriage only because this particular groom was the first to woo her, and they considered him a suitable party. Since then, a woman has actually been spending five years of her life in a dream, every day reminds the previous one up to a minute, she has no friends or at least acquaintances, Katerina is increasingly seized by such longing, from which she literally wants to “choke herself”.

A woman dreams of a child, because with a baby in the house she will at least have something to do, joy, a goal, but in her dull marriage, fate never brings her children.

But after these five years, in the life of Katerina, an ardent love for the worker, her husband Sergei, suddenly arises. This feeling is considered to be one of the brightest and most sublime, but for Izmailova it becomes the beginning of her death and leads a too passionate and ardent woman to a sad ending.

Katerina, without hesitation, is ready for any sacrifices and violations of all moral standards. A woman, without any remorse, kills not only her father-in-law and husband, who have long been disgusted with her, but also the boy Fedya, who has not caused any harm to anyone, an innocent and pious child. The all-consuming passion for Sergey destroys in Katerina the feeling of fear, compassion, mercy, because before they were inherent in her, like almost any representative of the weaker sex. But at the same time, it is this boundless love that gives rise to her previously unusual courage, resourcefulness, cruelty and the ability to fight for her love, for her right to constantly be with her beloved and get rid of any obstacles that prevent the fulfillment of this desire.

Sergei, Izmailova's lover, also appears as a man without any moral rules and principles. He is capable of committing any crime without hesitation, but not out of love, like Katerina. For Sergei, the motive for his actions is that he sees in this woman the opportunity to ensure a further comfortable existence for himself, because she is the wife and legitimate heiress of a wealthy merchant, coming from a higher, wealthy and revered class in society than himself. His plans and hopes really begin to come true after the death of his father-in-law and Katerina's husband, but another obstacle suddenly arises, a little nephew of a merchant named Fedya.

If before Sergey served only as an assistant in the murders, now he himself offers his mistress to get rid of the child, which remains the only obstacle for them. He inspires Katerina that in the absence of the boy Fedya and the birth of her child before the expiration of nine months after the disappearance of her husband, all the money of the late merchant will go entirely to them, and they will be able to live happily without any worries.

Katerina agrees with her lover, his words actually have a hypnotic effect on her, the woman is ready to do literally everything that Sergey wants. Thus, she turns into a real hostage of her feelings, a trouble-free slave of this man, although initially Izmailova occupies a more significant social position than her husband's worker.

During the interrogation, Katerina does not hide the fact that she committed several murders solely for the sake of her lover, that her passion pushed her to such terrible deeds. All her feelings are focused only on Sergey, the born baby does not cause any emotions in her, the woman is indifferent to the fate of her child. Everything around is absolutely indifferent to Katerina, only a gentle look or a kind word from her beloved can have an impact on her.

On the way to hard labor, the woman notices that Sergei is clearly growing cold towards her, although she is still ready for anything, just to see him once again. However, the man feels deeply disappointed both in Katerina and in life in general, because he never achieved what he wanted, he will never have to see any wealth with the help of the merchant Izmailova. Sergei, without embarrassment, meets with the depraved Sonetka in front of his mistress, he openly showers Katerina with insults and humiliations, trying to take revenge on her for the fact that she, as he believes, broke his fate and completely ruined him.

When Katerina sees that her lover, for whom she sacrificed everything she had earlier, is flirting with another woman, her mind does not stand the test of cruel jealousy. She does not even understand the meaning of bullying by other prisoners, primarily Sonetka and Sergei, but they have a profound destructive effect on her already completely broken psyche.

Her victims appear before Katerina's mind, the woman is unable to move, speak, live on, almost unconsciously she decides to commit suicide in order to get rid of the unbearable torment that her whole existence has become. Without hesitation, she also kills Sonetka, believing that it was this girl who stole her lover from her. In her last moments, Katerina believes that she has nothing more to do in the world, because her love, the meaning of her life, is completely lost to her. Because of the boundless passion, the personality of a woman is completely destroyed, Katerina Izmailova becomes a victim of her own feelings and inability to manage them.

The play Macbeth was written by Shakespeare in 1606. The tragedy is named after the Scottish king, a noble feudal lord and military leader, who killed his relative King Duncan and seized his throne. The events of the tragedy take place in the 11th century, the scene of Scotland, England.
"Macbeth" is a play about the trial and moral fall of a great man, ruined by an indomitable thirst for power.
In the play, conflict is in human nature, Shakespeare explores unresolvable questions. Is it possible to betray for the sake of a high idea? Does fate exist and is it possible to resist it? There is something that always excites here: true male friendship and betrayal, power seized by force and innocent victims, love and justice, ghosts and witches.
Shakespeare introduces fantastic images into the tragedy Macbeth. This is not only the ghost of the murdered Banquo, who appears to Macbeth at a feast, but also fairy-tale witches. These scenes reflect the hot topic of witchcraft at the time. In 1603, James of Scotland became King James I of England and soon issued a decree on the persecution of witches, which sharpened the British interest in the topic of witchcraft.
The protagonist of the play is Macbeth, the leader of the royal army.
At the beginning of the play, he appears as a brave warrior, a skilled commander, saving the Scottish kingdom from the evil machinations of enemies. Precisely because Macbeth is a mighty, victorious man, the seeds of lust for power begin to emerge in the depths of his soul.
However, Macbeth did not immediately become the embodiment of evil. Lady Macbeth, like him possessed by an unbridled desire for power, breathed into him her ferocious spirit. From a brave military leader, saving the state from enemies, Macbeth turns into a despot, into a gloomy tyrant who kills children and women. Scotland has been turned into a solid grave by him.
The development of Macbeth's internal crisis as the main driving force of the tragedy is a force that inevitably leads to the death of a once mighty personality.
Among the characters in the poster, it is not without reason that Macbeth is presented in the first place, but Duncan, King of Scotland, as a symbol of justice. Macbeth stands only after Duncan's children - Malcolm and Donalbaim. The author shows that the heirs of the king will still rule the throne. Immediately after Macbeth comes Banquo, a military leader like Macbeth and his faithful friend, who will be devoted to him to the last. All women participating in the play are listed at the end, as a sign that men were in the first place at that time.

Act One The scene of the first act begins with thunder and lightning, Shakespeare shows that there will be deceit and betrayal in the play.
In the first act, the plot begins when Macbeth and Banquo, after winning the battles, go to Forres and meet three witches in the steppe. They predict the fate of both. Macbeth crown, and Banquo be the ancestor of kings. Banquo does not pay much attention to these words: “The earth creates bubbles like moisture”, but Macbeth shows interest in this prediction: “Sorcerers, stop! Your speech is slurred”…, “The bodily appearance melted in the air, like a sigh in a gust of wind. I'm sorry." And when Ross meets them and says that the king rewards Macbeth for his courage with the Cawdor Thane, he understands that the predictions are beginning to come true: “So, it means that it can be dishonest?” It is at this moment that the thirst for power begins to emerge in him.
Here you can also understand that the strong, strong warrior Macbeth has internal contradictions in his soul, which stem from the following remarks: “I don’t remember a harsher and more beautiful day.” "This miraculous call can conceal neither evil nor good."
And when King Duncan tells him that he is raising his son to the Prince of Cumberland, he again begins to be tormented by doubts: “Shall I stumble or step over? Let there be something that the eyes fear.” This shows once again that contradictions struggle in him.
In the first act, Shakespeare introduces us to Lady Macbeth and we immediately understand that she is a strong, cunning, power-hungry woman who, without a drop of doubt, is planning a murder and at the same time does not doubt it for a second. Macbeth looks against her background ...

Shortly after the production of King Lear, London audiences saw new premiere Shakespearean play. It was the "Tragedy of Macbeth" - the last of the works that are traditionally included among the great tragedies of Shakespeare.

Until the beginning of this century, the high appreciation of the artistic merits of "Macbeth" - a tragedy, which, according to Goethe's already mentioned opinion, is "Shakespeare's best theatrical play" - did not raise objections from researchers. However, in the 20th century, this view was called into question in the works of such Shakespeare scholars as Quiller-Kuch, Mark van Doren and some others.

In this work, there is no need to analyze the arguments that were expressed in the course of the controversy about Macbeth, especially since Soviet Shakespeare studies are unanimous in their appreciation of Macbeth, and the brilliant stage history This play decisively refutes the arguments of scientists who see in it certain inconsistencies with the canons of dramatic art.

From our point of view, it is much more important to consider the shifts that took place in Shakespeare's work at the end of the tragic period and were reflected primarily in the appearance of new features that distinguish Macbeth from the somewhat earlier King Lear. The nature and depth of these shifts helps to feel not only the comparison of "Macbeth" with "King Lear", but also the identification of a number of features that bring the tragedy of Macbeth closer to the "Coriolanus" written about a year later.

In the development of Shakespeare throughout the tragic period of his work - from "Julius Caesar" to "King Lear" - one important element can be felt without much difficulty. This is a gradual but constant increase in the playwright's interest in the analysis of the forces of evil and injustice that leave a decisive imprint on the fate of society and its individual representatives, an increase in the role of representatives of the forces of evil in the play and a deepening of the characteristics that these representatives are endowed with.

This side of the evolution of Shakespeare - the tragic poet - led to the fact that in the works created immediately after King Lear - in Macbeth and Coriolanus - the bearer of evil becomes the main character of the play. It was this construction of the tragedy that allowed Shakespeare to most fully concentrate the attention of the audience on the internal patterns that are inherent in characters of this kind, determine the evolution of these characters and, ultimately, their fate, as well as the fate of other characters.

It was not the first time Shakespeare resorted to the method of constructing a play, chosen for Macbeth and Coriolanus. Among the early works of Shakespeare there is a chronicle, the compositional features of which largely anticipate the composition of the two later tragedies mentioned above, - this is "The Life and Death of Richard III", a play in the center of which is the image of a bloody criminal who paved his way to the throne.

The chronicle of Richard III has a number of features that prove the relationship of this play with other works that are indicative of the early stage in the development of Shakespeare as a playwright and thinker. At the same time, this play marks a decisive step forward in the development of Shakespeare's creative method. "Richard III" was the first work that revealed the remarkable skill of the playwright in depicting the evolution of human character.

Attention to the evolution of the image of the protagonist in many ways brings the chronicle of Richard III closer to the mature tragedies of Shakespeare. And yet, the image of Richard Gloucester, created at an early stage of his work, differs to a large extent from the images of tragic heroes in the works of the second period.

As the catastrophe approaches, the motif of self-condemnation, generated by pangs of conscience, more and more clearly invades Richard's remarks; this motif, accompanied by an expression of pity towards oneself, sounds especially clearly in the words of Richard, which he utters in Act V:

“My conscience has a hundred languages,
All different tell tales
But everyone calls me a scoundrel.
I broke my vows - how many times!
I have lost count of the terrible murders.
My sins - there are no blacker sins -
The court is crowded and shouting: "Guilty!"
Despair! Nobody loves Me.
No one will be sorry when I die"
      (V, 3, 193-201).

These words introduce a tangible dissonance into the image of Richard as a tragic hero. In the tenth article about Pushkin, V.G. Belinsky accurately formulated one of the most important requirements that a tragic hero must meet: "... truly dramatic villains never argue with themselves about the disadvantages of an unclean conscience and the pleasantness of virtue." In this case, the motive of repentance, which sounds in the words of Richard, enters into a tangible contradiction with the whole appearance of this character. The reasoning put into Richard's mouth "about the disadvantages of a bad conscience and about the pleasantness of virtue" is in no way in harmony with either the previous or subsequent development of this villain. Therefore, the image of Richard III would be best defined as a remarkable result creative pursuits Shakespeare, who was attracted by the opportunity to create the image of a tragic hero-criminal, but who at this stage has not yet found a consistent artistic solution for this.

Shakespeare returned to this artistic task a decade and a half later.

For all the plot and ideological closeness that exists between Richard III and Macbeth, the late tragedy is marked by a number of features that could only arise as a further development of the tendencies characteristic of the tragic period in Shakespeare's work. And although at first glance at "Macbeth" the features that distinguish this tragedy from the play about the legendary British king are striking, a more in-depth comparison of the two tragedies allows one to feel the inner relationship and continuity between both works.

Just as in King Lear, in Macbeth the starting point for the development of the plot is the clash between a representative of the old, patriarchal forces and personalities guided in their behavior by selfish egoistic interests, clothed this time in the form of all-penetrating ambition. We are referring to the conflict between King Duncan and Macbeth, which is developing with incredible swiftness.

In the tragedy of Macbeth, this conflict takes place in an even more naked form than main conflict in King Lear. In the first scene of King Lear, the British ruler undoubtedly bears a significant share of the blame, and Lear's behavior provides enough reason for the viewer, in the words of Dobrolyubov, to feel "hatred for this dissolute despot." And Duncan, if he deserves reproach for anything, is perhaps for being too soft, even love relationship to people, as well as in the gullibility resulting from the purity of the soul of the Scottish king himself. About these aspects of Duncan's character, Macbeth himself speaks most expressively, preparing to kill his relative:

"Besides, the rules
Duncan so softly, was in high rank
So pure that his virtues
Like the angels of the Lord will trumpet
To avenge the mortal sin of murder ... "
      (I, 7, 16-20).

The crime committed by Macbeth was not in the least prepared by that good old king who became the first victim of the ambitious. It turns out that in order for the forces of evil to set in motion, it is not at all necessary that the object to which these forces are directed in the first place, itself allowed any deviations from the norms of virtue and justice. In other words, Macbeth cannot find to justify his actions even those formal arguments that Regan and Goneril resort to, claiming that their father has fallen into childhood and therefore is not able to answer for his decisions.

But if the above circumstance helps to establish the difference between the images of Macbeth and the evil daughters of King Lear, then at the same time it emphasizes with particular expressiveness the continuity that exists between the images of Macbeth and Edmund.

The deep reason that prompts each of the characters to embark on the path of villainy is undoubtedly rooted in the soul of the characters themselves. But Shakespeare each time builds the play in such a way that the audience becomes a witness turning point in the fate of the characters; viewers seem to see a barrier that separates the previous stage in the development of characters from the new, criminal stage. In each of the above cases, the hero must overcome this barrier in front of the audience; and every time the hero is brought to this barrier by the inexorable logic of consistent egoism.

Edmund overcomes this barrier very quickly: in a monologue addressed to Nature, Edmund proves that he is no worse, but better than children conceived in a boring marriage bed; by this he justifies his right to seize, by any means, everything that should belong to his brother. What consequences the implementation of such a concept brings to life is shown in the section on "King Lear".

In "Macbeth" this barrier is expressed even more clearly, and it takes a very long time for the hero of the tragedy to overcome it; the depiction of this process is distinguished by remarkable depth and rightfully belongs to the highest artistic conquests of Shakespeare. However, before proceeding to the analysis of this process, it is necessary to specify some points, disputes about which have become (or, in any case, were) traditional. It's about about the nature of the relationship that exists between the image of the protagonist and such characters of the tragedy as witches and Lady Macbeth.

In this work, there is no need for a self-contained study of the very interesting problem of the origin of images of witches, their dependence on folklore sources and from the mythological motifs that came to Western European Renaissance literature from ancient monuments and even their roles change throughout the play. To understand the evolution of the protagonist, it is most important to answer the question: what is the meaning of Macbeth's first meeting with the witches?

Without delving into the controversy on this issue, we point out that we fully agree with the opinion of V.G. Belinsky, who resolutely stated: "Shakespeare had every right to the terrible and poetic personification of the passions of Macbeth in the form of witches, whose existence was still believed in his time."

The observation, so succinctly formulated by the great critic, is distinguished by remarkable insight. The critic's assertion that witches are the personification of Macbeth's passions shows that the source of evil, which becomes the driving force of the tragedy, must be seen not in the insidious prophecies of the "prophetic sisters", but in the soul of the hero himself. Witches put into distinct verbal form the designs of Macbeth, which, perhaps, were not yet sufficiently clear to the hero; thus, Macbeth's encounter with the witches serves as an impetus that helps the hero move from the realm of ambitious dreams to action. But the dreams themselves had long been rooted in Macbeth's mind.

The second preliminary reservation concerns the question of the relationship between the character of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. In this case, we can simply mention that we share the view, now strengthened as a result of detailed textual studies, according to which Macbeth himself is the true source of evil, while his wife acts in the play as a kind of catalyst for Macbeth's ambition. Lady Macbeth performs, in preparation for Duncan's assassination, essentially the same function that the witches were assigned to when they first met Macbeth; but if the "prophetic sisters" act as a symbolic-fantastic (or, in the words of Belinsky, "terribly poetic") factor contributing to the transition of Macbeth from plans to criminal deeds, then Lady Macbeth influences her husband in a different way - in terms of realistic , psychologically motivated impact.

The stage history of the tragedy about Macbeth convincingly proves the legitimacy of interpreting the image of the protagonist as a person in whom ambitious plans have matured even before the moment from which the play begins. Particularly instructive in this regard is a production staged at the Shakespeare Memorial Theater in 1955 by the then chief director of the theater, Glenn Bye-Shaw, with Laurence Olivier as Macbeth and Vivien Leigh as Lady Macbeth. As R. David rightly described this performance, "The Byam Show presented us with Shakespeare's tragedy in all its inner perfection"; therefore, in the future we will have to mention this production in connection with the analysis of certain aspects of Shakespeare's tragedy. Here it is appropriate to follow the construction of the scene in which Macbeth first appears before the audience.

In the middle of the dimly lit stage, the prophetic sisters, huddled together, tell each other about their gloomy adventures. Dressed in gray rags, with long flowing gray hair, they almost merge with the earthy background of the hill rising in the center of the stage, and seem to justify Banquo's remark that they are "bubbles of the earth" with their appearance. At the sound of the drum, anticipating the exit of the generals, the witches run down the slope of the hill to the front right corner, even more dimly lit, and freeze there in anticipation of a meeting with Macbeth.

Macbeth and Banquo, played in this performance by Relph Michael, appear from the opposite side of the stage and, having risen to the top of the hill, stop, bathed in the reddish rays of the setting sun. Now all the attention of the audience is focused on the faces of the warriors and mainly on the face of Macbeth, standing somewhat in front.

Noticing the witches, a sober Banquo calmly addresses them; even a somewhat contemptuous attitude towards strange creatures, mixed with a hidden mockery of his own frustrated imagination, comes through in his intonation. At this time, Macbeth, frowning slightly, examines the witches, and then in the voice of a man accustomed to command, he demands that they speak. While he listens to the predictions of his own fate, his face remains motionless; only his eyes change: now he does not study the witches, but looks in their direction with an almost unseeing gaze, more and more immersed in his own thoughts. From this state he is brought out by a prophecy that Banquo will become the progenitor of kings. Banquo perceives this news with skeptical distrust, and Macbeth, having heard it, demands further clarification from the witches. And although notes of haughty orders continue to sound in Macbeth's voice, something new appears in him - anxiety and hope for help from the witches, which is necessary to resolve the internal conflict between thought and passion, suddenly aggravated in his soul: logic does not allow him to believe in the feasibility of the prophecies; but they coincide with the ambitious dream that had already matured in his chest, and this dream pushes Macbeth to believe the witches and take them as his allies.

Banquo, who was not very excited by the mysterious encounter, wants to explain the appearance of witches as a kind of mirage, as a result of an unhealthy state of the brain:

“Did we really see them with you?
Didn't we eat a drunken root,
Which mind has shackled us?
      (I, 3, 83-85).

But Macbeth no longer hears his companion. Without looking at Banquo, almost to the side, slowly and somewhat monotonously, like a man completely absorbed in solving a difficult task, he says: “Your descendants will be kings” ( I, 3, 86). And the audience understands that Macbeth's thought has already rushed far, far away; she reaches out to the Scottish crown, sees the obstacles standing in the way of her cherished goal, and, perhaps, gropes for the means to eliminate them.

And Macbeth's immersion in the thought-swap and the psychological contrast that manifests itself in the different reactions of Macbeth and Banquo to the predictions they have just heard cannot fail to convince the audience that the desire for supreme power in the state is a product of Macbeth's own passion that has taken possession of the brain glorious commander even before meeting with the witches. Faced with the prophetic sisters, Macbeth only heard about his own plans from the lips of others.

This ends the first stage in the exposition of Macbeth. The second stage of the exposition begins immediately in the same scene, when Ross announces to Macbeth that King Duncan elevated him to the rank of Thane of Cawdor. Even the sensible Banquo is surprised that the devil can speak the truth. Macbeth himself perceives the prediction of witches as two truths, foreshadowing his possession of the Scottish throne:

"Two truths were told,
Like a prologue to a solemn action
dominion"
      (I, 3, 127-129).

Of course, in the future, the viewer will understand that there is a tragic irony in the words of Macbeth. But Macbeth himself apparently does not put any ironic content into them; he really sees two specific truths: one of them - that Macbeth should become the Tan of Cawdor - has already been embodied in reality, the other - the prediction that he is destined to become king - is still waiting to be realized.

However, the exposition of Macbeth does not yet indicate that the hero has already matured the decision to embark on the path of crimes in the name of capturing the crown. Despite all his ambition, he still takes a wait-and-see attitude, counting on the fact that fate (or chance) will give him Scottish troy:

“Let fate, promising me a crown,
Marries me herself"
      (I, 3, 143-144).

Such a hope was very real to Macbeth. She was, on the one hand, prepared by the reputation of Macbeth as a great warrior, and, perhaps, the savior of the fatherland, and on the other hand, by the fact that Macbeth was the closest adult relative (cousin) of the king. Therefore, Macbeth had good reason to count on the crown; as stated in the chronicles of Holinshed, “according to the ancient law of the state, there was an institution according to which, if the heir was unable to answer for himself due to age, the closest relative of the king should take the throne”; it is this law that allows Macbeth to hope that "chance may crown" him.

Only in the next scene there is a turning point in the hero's soul. Duncan joyfully greets the victorious Macbeth and utters a very significant remark:

"Be a welcome guest!
Starting to raise you, I will try
For you to flourish"
      (I, 4, 27-29).

For the hero, in whose head "two truths" are salted, the words of the king that Macbeth is destined to "bloom in full bloom" should sound quite definite: Duncan has already made him Thane of Cawdor, and now, having promised him, the closest adult relative, further exaltation , intends, apparently, according to the law, to proclaim him heir to the throne. But suddenly Duncan solemnly declares instead:

“Children, brothers, thanes, - All of you, whose place is next to the path, know that from now on we are called to inherit Our first-born Malcolm and we raise him to the rank of Prince of Cumberland” ( I, 4, 35-39).

Only now Macbeth faces a concrete obstacle. Up to this point, Macbeth, thinking about the dark predictions of witches, in all likelihood, tried to penetrate the mysterious meaning of the prophecy that he would become king, but the children of Banquo would be kings. And at the moment when Duncan proclaims the young Malcolm as his heir, Macbeth, who can no longer get rid of the idea that he is destined to be king, with lightning speed matures a criminal plan that plunges him into awe:

“Prince of Cumberland - here it is, a barrier!
Or fall, or crush it I need!
O stars, do not pour light from the sky
Into the bottomless darkness of Macbeth's plans!
Fading, my eyes, since you are afraid
What the hand will accomplish at any cost!
      (I, 4, 48-53).

It is at this moment that a striking similarity appears in the positions of Edmund and Macbeth: each of the heroes, seeing that other people stand in his way to exaltation, decides, following the wolf laws of society, to take possession of what should belong to another person at any cost.

Macbeth's closeness to the younger generation makes it possible to establish the continuity that exists between "King Lear" and the tragedy of the Scottish usurper of the throne. Macbeth, like Edmund, Goneril and Regan, is the product of new individualistic, self-serving forces that oppose the patriarchal principle. But these same circumstances help to determine the cardinal difference between Macbeth and all the other mature tragedies of Shakespeare.

In all the tragedies written before Macbeth, the main subject of the author's research was the positive hero. Such are Hamlet and Othello, such is Lear - a character who, through delusions and suffering, comes to a positive outcome. And only in "Macbeth" does the villain become the main character of the tragedy, and, accordingly, the main object of research. Such a construction of the play opened up to the playwright the most complete possibilities for showing inner world and the evolution of a person who has embarked on the path of bloody crimes.

The decision to seize the throne at the cost of killing Duncan, ripening in Macbeth's mind when he learns of the proclamation of Malcolm as heir, cannot yet be called a turning point in the evolution of the hero of the tragedy. This moment comes a little later, in the final scene of Act I, when Macbeth finally casts aside the pangs of conscience that until then had kept him from committing murder, and announces to his wife that he "made a decision and is ready for a terrible step" ( I, 7, 79-80). But a few moments before, when conscience, moral principles, or, to use the most general terms, everything good that existed in the soul of Macbeth, tries to last time stop the hero, he is forced to utter the most significant words:

“I dare everything that a person can.
Who dares more is not a man"
      (I, 7, 46-47).

Neither Iago nor Edmund could have uttered such words, for they were deeply convinced that the wolf laws of a society in which everyone is ready to bite everyone's throat are natural, consecrated by Nature itself, and that therefore there is a fundamental difference between a predator armed with claws, and a predator in human form does not exist. Unlike these villains, Macbeth understands that in order to satisfy his ambition, he must turn from a man into a beast.

But, knowing this truth, Macbeth cannot cease to be a man. The whole subsequent history of Macbeth is, in essence, a picture of a deepening spiritual crisis that the hero is experiencing as a result of the fact that the human principle of his soul has come into irreconcilable conflict with the path that he has chosen for himself - the path of a predatory beast.

How understanding of this internal conflict turns out to be fruitful for the stage embodiment of the image of Macbeth, testifies to the huge success of Laurence Olivier, who performed in the already mentioned performance at the head of a wonderful ensemble of performers.

Having boldly based his acting decision on the correct idea that Macbeth is a real tragic hero, or, using Belinsky’s words, “a villain, but a villain with a deep and powerful soul, which is why instead of disgust he excites participation”, - Olivier managed to fully reveal the tyrannical pathos of tragedy. Macbeth is a powerful personality, endowed with a number of valuable qualities and having no rivals who could defeat him in a one-on-one clash; but he too, embarking on the path of crimes and tyranny, comes to complete spiritual emptiness, which inexorably predetermines his death.

The decision taken by Olivier put him in serious difficulties. The fact is that Macbeth fully meets the requirement that Belinsky made for "truly dramatic villains": Macbeth nowhere argues with himself about "the disadvantages of a bad conscience and the pleasantness of virtue." In the role of Macbeth, it is impossible to find a single line that openly and directly reflects the struggle between good and evil principles in the hero's soul. Olivier was able to show this struggle as a result of a deep penetration not into the letter, but into the spirit of Macbeth's remarks, into that most important philosophical overtones with which they are saturated.

Above, we have already talked about how Olivier builds the exposition of the hero. At this moment, Olivier reveals that combination of inner strength and irresistible ambition that serves as the initial state of Macbeth. Macbeth is looking forward; he only dreams of a crown; it is not yet possible to suppose that there are any sides in this character that will be indignant at the need to resort to villainy. Olivier's skill is largely determined by the fact that the actor abandoned a convenient stencil: Macbeth was a glorious warrior, a noble man, but then he met witches and became a criminal. The performer chooses a more difficult, but also more rewarding path, showing that as Macbeth plunges into a sea of ​​cruelties, positive sides his souls, once smothered by ambition, begin to speak ever louder. But they can no longer change the fate of Macbeth, because the pattern of his development draws him through new and new crimes to an inevitable catastrophe.

To reveal the second stage of the evolution of Macbeth, Laurence Olivier, quite naturally, is served by the scenes associated with the murder of Duncan. If earlier the crown attracted Macbeth with a distant false radiance, now the hero stands before a deep moral abyss, where the murder of a noble king should overthrow him. It is not fear that keeps Macbeth, but the best parts of his soul are indignant against his ambitious plans. Therefore, the first monologue of the 7th scene of Act I sounds very restrained and thoughtful. The viewer sees how the criminal plan recedes into the background before the best intentions; and Macbeth utters the last lines of his monologue even with a hint of calm relief.

But the criminal intent did not die. He just needs to be spurred on... And then Lady Macbeth appears.

In interpreting the image of Lady Macbeth, Vivien Leigh to some extent relied on the opinion of Sarah Siddons, who believed that Macbeth's wife should be a small and graceful woman, combining physical charm with great strength of character. But, unlike Siddons, Vivien Leigh makes the leitmotif of her role not the cruel will that suppresses Macbeth, but selfless love for her husband - the passionate, sensual love of a woman who is ready to do anything for the happiness of her beloved.

This leitmotif determines all further sounding of the scene. Lady Macbeth enters the courtyard of the castle, in her first remarks addressed to her husband, mockery and defiance are heard; but Macbeth, standing at a distance, does not seem to hear them; and it seems that Lady Macbeth will not be able to return him to the path of crime. Then she slowly approaches her husband and, in a frenzy that betrays the pain she inflicts on herself, speaks of the cruelties that she is ready for for him, Macbeth. He abruptly turns to her and, standing with his back to the audience, takes her by the elbow. In this gesture, indignation at her words is felt, but it somehow imperceptibly turns into a mean, hot caress of a strong man. Then Macbeth leaves his wife again, but his last objection is "what if we fail" ( I, 7, 59) sounds muffled and uncertain; his face returns to that petrified, frozen expression that was on it when Macbeth listened to the witches. At this moment, Lady Macbeth takes two or three quick, springy, almost cat-like steps and, with passionate tenderness, clinging to her husband, whispers in his ear about how easy it is to realize today cherished dream. Macbeth's eyebrows slowly move and the corners of his large, beautiful mouth drop. Turning back to his wife, he says to her with a grim smile: "Give birth to me only sons." He made a decision - and again became stronger than this woman. Heading with his wife to the side wings, he begins a rhymed couplet that concludes the scene - and suddenly in the last line:

"Let the lies of the hearts cover the lies of the face" ( I, 7, 82) - viewers who have just seen how Macbeth finally decided on a crime hear the terrible despair of a man condemned to eternal torment.

The need to hide one's thoughts, to lie and be hypocritical throughout the whole future life - all this causes unbearable spiritual suffering to a brave warrior.

Such an interpretation of the last line, which allows Olivier to show that even at the moments of the greatest determination in Macbeth's soul there is a deep struggle, is not a free conjecture, but a bold discovery of the actor; further text of the tragedy and especially the 2nd scene III The act convinces that Macbeth again and again returns to the painful thought for him about flattery and hypocrisy, to which the criminal king is forced to resort.

The same internal struggle is filled with Macbeth's monologue in the 1st scene of Act II ( 33-64 ). After a flash of passion that seizes Macbeth when he imagines a bloody dagger, his voice drops to a strangled half-whisper, as if he is out of breath. At the same time, he, afraid to look in the direction he was going, slowly and uncertainly, like a man groping his way to complete darkness, approaches the door leading to Duncan's bedchamber. In front of the door are several stone steps; climbing on them, Macbeth, hunched over, stretches out his hands to them with a plea, conjuring them to be silent. The bell rings. Macbeth takes his eyes off the stones and, still not looking at the fatal door, slowly pronounces the last lines of the monologue:

"Duncan, don't listen. They call for you
And you go to heaven or hell
      (II, 1, 63-64).

If Macbeth didn't care where Duncan ended up after death, he would have delivered the final line with his usual intonation, raising his voice a little on the word "heaven" (sky). But such intonation contradicts the concept of the image, which adheres to Laurence Olivier. Macbeth is sure that paradise awaits the innocently murdered virtuous king. Therefore, the words “That summons thee to heaven! (“and you go to heaven”) sound like an unconditional statement. They are followed by a long pause, and only after it - with an intonation of doubt and a question: "Or to hell?" ("or to hell"). Meanwhile, Macbeth's dilated eyes fill with horror: hell awaits him, and for the first time he feels fear at the thought of his fate beyond the grave.

It is no coincidence that we stopped twice on the analysis of the intonation with which Olivier pronounces the rhyming lines that end the scene. More convincingly than many solid scholarly works, the artist's manner proves that the rhyming pairs of lines so often used by Shakespeare to close individual scenes are not at all a simple theatrical convention of Elizabethan times, which arose in a theater that had no curtain and was intended to indicate to the viewer where the scene ends. A pair of rhyming lines in a tragedy - like the closing couplet of a Shakespearean sonnet - carries a complex, concentrated thought; revealing it, Olivier penetrates into the innermost corners of the soul of his hero.

After killing Duncan, final stage in the evolution of the protagonist of the tragedy. Now Macbeth goes to new crimes without hesitation, without devoting his wife to his plans and without even giving himself the trouble to think them over properly. And although he still does not see the forces that really threaten his power, the proud challenge that Macbeth throws down to fate is not full of confidence in victory, but of the determination not to fall into the hands of the enemy alive. He is ready to go against the whole world - but his courage is no longer the result of his initiative; he is not free to make decisions, and therefore his courage is akin to that violent ability for self-defense, which a beast driven into a trap possesses.

The significance of such a device, in which decisive words are more and more sharply at odds with the intonation and external pattern of the role, expressing the growing spiritual emptiness of Macbeth, increases as the denouement of the tragedy approaches.

Laurence Olivier's use of this device as the main means of expressing the internal crisis of his hero is fully justified: it harmonizes perfectly with the leitmotif of the tragedy, in which the hero is constantly confronted with the presence of two opposite meanings in seemingly categorically formulated statements. Already at the beginning of the tragedy, the prophetic sisters tell Macbeth two truths, and he is free to draw any conclusions from these truths. But the theme of "two truths" contained in the same words is most fully revealed after Macbeth's visit to the cave, where he is predicted that none of those born of a woman will harm him h that he will not be defeated until the forest of Birnam moves to Dunsinan Hill . Macbeth clings to the external truth of the predictions and only at the very end does he learn the hidden truth of these words, fatal to him; before that, he makes plans for the future, understanding not the true meaning of the prophecies, but their outer shell. And the technique that Olivier uses with such success to expose Macbeth's spiritual emptiness also shows that the bold and decisive words in his mouth, which once conveyed the power of his spirit, are now only an external shell that does not hide any inner strength underneath.

What rich possibilities for the actor are fraught with this technique, the 3rd scene shows. III act in which the ghost of Banquo appears at Macbeth's feast. The construction of this scene often causes discussion among the directors of the tragedy; some theaters do not bring the ghost on the stage at all, resorting, however, to various tricks of a technical nature - for example, by directing a beam of death-violet color on a chair that is intended for Banquo. Similarly, these theaters tend to focus the attention of the audience on the protagonist. K. Zubov, who staged "Macbeth" at the Maly Theater, spoke about this with complete categoricalness: "We believe that the appearance of a ghost will interfere, distract the attention of the audience from Macbeth." However, the experience of the Shakespeare Memorial Theater, in which the ghost comes to the fore, convincingly proves that there can be no place for such doubts, if, of course, the performer of the role of Macbeth is strong enough to focus the attention of the auditorium on himself.

Under the heavy pointed vaults of the banquet hall, the depth of which sinks into darkness, there is a long table, almost the entire width of the stage, laden with goblets and illuminated by the flickering light of torches. Behind the table, on a dais, are the thrones of the king and queen. Rising from his throne, Macbeth greets the guests and expresses feigned regret at Banquo's absence. He speaks about him in an almost calm voice, but at this time his eyes are cautiously searching the audience. In the words of Macbeth - not boasting of his villainous prowess; he seems to want to convince himself that he has succeeded in defeating Banquo.

Instead, he is convinced of the opposite: just as Brutus, having plunged his dagger into the body of Caesar, could not kill the "spirit of Caesar", so Macbeth was powerless before the spirit of Banquo. The ghost appears from behind the left wings; on his face, which retains a frozen expression of death agony, is a bloodstain; glaring at Macbeth with a motionless, glazed look, he slowly walks to the middle of the table and sinks down on a free bench with his back to the audience.

Macbeth's reaction to the first appearance of the ghost is relatively simple: a fleeting and hesitant attempt to justify himself and prove his innocence in the physical attack on Banquo is replaced by terrible confusion; Macbeth sees with his own eyes that the blow of the knife does not yet free the murderer from his victim. But even after the spirit of Banquo leaves the stage, Macbeth cannot calm down. He is seized by a desire to check whether the ghost of the murdered person will really haunt him every time he remembers him. And when, for the second time, and as slowly as the first time, he sits down on his bench, Macbeth is seized with fury. Some invisible force throws him on the table; he stands on it, his legs slightly bent at the knees wide apart and his arms outstretched to the sides with cramped fingers. In a voice almost breaking, he shouts out his threats and assurances that he is not afraid of Banquo; but his posture, his voice, his unseeing eyes filled with animal horror show more clearly than any words how terrible the ghost is to him.

Macbeth does not even notice that the ghost has disappeared, and when he comes to his senses, still not fully understanding what has happened, he looks at his hands in bewilderment and fright, then slowly looks at the table, at the faces of the guests, in which he reads everything growing suspicion, and only after this protracted pause squeezes out the words: “Well. He's gone and I'm human again "(III, 4, 107-108).

It is not surprising that Macbeth, losing his mind with horror, did not notice the disappearance of the ghost. But it turns out that the audience did not see how Banquo got up from his bench and headed for the exit: before their eyes there was only the figure of Macbeth, broken by inhuman suffering.

The artistic device that Olivier put at the basis of the stage interpretation of the image of Macbeth acquires a special ideological significance in the finale of the tragedy. If we try to establish at what moment Macbeth reaches his final development, then this moment will not be the final duel, but the events that took place a little earlier. Macbeth himself sums up his life and work immediately after the news of his wife's death in a famous short monologue, one of the highest poetic masterpieces of Shakespeare:

"Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, -
And the days creep, and now in the book of life
We read the last syllable and see
That all yesterday only lit up the way
To a dusty grave. Come on, bastard!
Life is just a shadow, comedian
clown on stage for half an hour
And then forgotten; this is a story
Which the fool retold:
There are a lot of words and passion in it, there is only no meaning.
      (V, 5, 19-28).

Life turned out to be a fairy tale told by a vicious idiot and meaning nothing. A person who has come to such a conclusion can only think of leaving this fairy tale, of ceasing to be the jester of time.

But, on the other hand, Macbeth dies, resisting to the last limit. As Belinsky noted, “only to fall with honor depended on his will - and he fell, smitten, but not defeated, as it suits a guilty, but great in her guilt husband.” And if you listen only to the external truth of the words with which Macbeth goes towards his death, then it is difficult to catch the thought of suicide in them:

"Although Birnam went to Dunsinane,
Although you, my enemy, were not born a woman,
Until death, I will not throw my abusive shield.
Macduff, let us begin, and let the sword judge us.
Who will be the first to shout: "Stop!" - he will be damned!
      (V, 8, 30-34).

However, Laurence Olivier chooses as a key for the final scene the words that Macbeth utters a few moments before - the words about the double meaning of the prophecies; accordingly, he reveals the double meaning of the words of Macbeth himself.

last moments last fight. Macbeth had just learned of the death of the only being he loved and loved; one after another, the hopes inspired by the ambiguous predictions of the witches are crumbling. And here he is - face to face with a blazing thirst for revenge Macduff. The pride of a warrior, which has become a habit for Macbeth, makes him fight to the end; in obedience to her, he throws Macduff a bold challenge that once made his enemies tremble. But in the eyes of Macbeth - Olivier - the terrible longing of a suicide; eyes, not words, tell Macduff the true truth: quickly, quickly finish your work ...

The inner turmoil of Macbeth, revealed by Olivier, serves as the most important, but not the only means for expressing the atmosphere of doom that thickens over Dunsinan. In this regard, the scene of somnambulism, brilliantly performed by Vivien Leigh, is of great importance and is the actress's biggest success in this performance.

In the depths of a narrow, completely dark corridor, squeezed on both sides by gloomy stone walls, a weak flame of a candle lights up. As they approach, the spectators gradually begin to distinguish the face of Lady Macbeth, illuminated from below; shuddering shadows on it emphasize the immobility of wide-open, unblinking eyes. Lady Macbeth's first line comes from the darkness of the corridor before she comes out to the front of the stage, dimly lit by moonlight streaming through the castle windows. She almost literally repeats the words with which she once tried to spur her husband's will; but now these terrible words are completely devoid of their former energy, impetuosity; they reflect only terrible visions, a succession of flashing through her foggy brain.

Lady Macbeth's movements are slow, there is not a single sweeping gesture; her thin fingers uncertainly and powerlessly touch her hand, on which she imagines blood stains, as if she no longer hopes to wash it. And just as powerlessly sounds the voice of Lady Macbeth. Not a single shout, not a single harsh intonation. But when Vivien Leigh spoke about the fact that all the aromas of Arabia would not perfume her small hand, and her voice on a high note began to tremble more and more - this softly spoken phrase conveyed the spiritual tragedy of a woman broken by an overwhelming burden more than the most piercing cry. which earlier, helping her husband, she carried so proudly. And when Lady Macbeth, ending the last remark with the words: "What's done can't be redone" ( V, 1, 66), slowly turns and dissolves in the darkness of the corridor, and from there, separated by long pauses, all muffled-sounding words are heard: “To bed ... to bed ... to bed”, - the viewer understands that Lady Macbeth is gone, never to return that this is the first stage of the catastrophe, which must be followed by the inevitable death of Macbeth, who is still continuing hopeless resistance.

Determining the general impression made on the viewer by the image of Macbeth, Belinsky wrote: “Shakespeare's Macbeth is a villain, but a villain with a deep and powerful soul, which is why instead of disgust he excites participation; you see in him a man in whom there was the same possibility of victory as of fall, and who, in a different direction, could have been a different person. Regardless of whether Glen Byam-Shaw was familiar with this statement of the great Russian critic, his production contained all the elements that made it possible to interpret the image of Macbeth precisely in the plan proposed by Belinsky.

However, it does not at all follow from this that the director and performer idealize Macbeth to some extent. The efforts of not only Olivier and Vivien Leigh, but also of the entire cast are aimed primarily at showing the degradation of Macbeth, which is expressed most clearly in the senseless cruelty of the usurper. As Macbeth's soul empties out, so does the severity of his crimes.

To convincingly show this on stage, one had only to carefully read the text of Shakespeare's tragedy. From the very moment when Macbeth enters the path of crime, he must hide his deeds and his plans. Having become a murderer and having seized the throne, he finds allies only from among the hired killers, whom Macbeth himself likens to dogs, or paid informants, whom he keeps in the homes of the Scottish nobility; about the last way to control the behavior of his subjects, Macbeth tells his wife:

“In all the houses of the nobility, someone
From the servants bribed by me "
      (III, 4, 131-132).

And the play is constructed in such a way that the criminal deeds of Macbeth become more and more obvious both for the actors of the tragedy and for the audience.

Only Macbeth and his wife are involved in Duncan's murder; and the murder itself takes place in night darkness behind the scenes. The second crime is committed in front of the audience; but the assassins attack Banquo in the darkness of the night, scattered only by the light of the torch, which goes out at the very moment of the assassination. The viewer may be outraged not so much by the cruelty of this quick, desperate battle, but by the treacherous way of attacking the commander. In addition, Macbeth does not completely succeed in dealing with his potential enemy: Fliens, to whom his father bequeathed revenge, slips out of the hands of the killers, and his salvation creates an optimistic perspective, which should ultimately lead to the triumph of justice.

The setting in which the extermination of Macduff's family takes place is in stark contrast to the circumstances of Banquo's death. The killer who attacked a brave and experienced warrior in the dark risked his life. The murderer sent by Macbeth in broad daylight to a house where a defenseless woman with young children was left runs no more risks than a butcher about to slaughter a lamb...

The senseless, unjustified, disgusting in its cruelty and impunity, the murder of a child committed in broad daylight - this is what Macbeth came to in his futile attempts to get rid of everyone who could threaten him.

Thus, in "Macbeth" the inevitable internal crisis, to which the bearer of an evil, selfish principle comes, is shown more consistently and more convincingly than in any other Shakespearean tragedy. And this is the most important prerequisite for the optimistic sound that fills the finale of Macbeth.

The second prerequisite for the optimism of this tragedy lies in the dynamics of the development of the opposing camps. However, in this case, the formulation of this problem requires some essential reservations.

The fact is that there is no camp of evil, similar to the one that develops with frightening self-confidence in the first acts of King Lear, in the play about the Scottish usurper. Entering the path of crimes, Macbeth dooms himself in advance to complete isolation from human society; paid informers and hired killers, of course, do not count.

True, Macbeth has a wife who selflessly loves him and who is ready to commit the most terrible crimes for the sake of exalting her husband. But even the connection between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth weakens very soon.

As repeatedly and quite rightly pointed out in Shakespearean writings, the playwright emphasizes that after the murder of Duncan, Lady Macbeth, in essence, is no longer involved in the crimes committed by her husband. The murder of Banquo (as, apparently, the extermination of the Macduff family) Macbeth commits without discussing his plans with his wife.

This is, of course, not only because Lady Macbeth wants no more crimes; it only proves that, having usurped the throne, Macbeth begins to act in complete solitude. Thus, already in the middle of the tragedy, the union of like-minded people, which previously consisted of a married couple, is destroyed. Or, in other words, the playwright gets the opportunity to subtle artistic means portray Macbeth's ever-increasing isolation.

As a result, the evolution of the image of the protagonist with exhaustive completeness shows that an individualist who decides to achieve power over society at any cost remains completely alone and comes to a deep internal crisis; and this predetermines his death. However, if ideological content tragedy was exhausted by the evolution of the protagonist, it would be difficult to refute the opinion of researchers who emphasize the proximity of "Macbeth" to such a genre as morality. To understand the philosophical meaning and realistic nature of the tragedy helps to correlate the image of Macbeth with the forces opposing him.

To determine the atmosphere of the play, no less, and perhaps more important than the meeting with the witches, is the succinctly outlined, but very unambiguous characterization of the initial political situation in which the tragedy begins.

Scotland is torn apart by feudal strife, making the country an object of desire for foreign invaders. Just in the west, they managed to suppress the uprising of MacDonald, who used the Irish to oppose the king. Following that, troops loyal to Duncan are forced to engage in battle with the Norwegian king, supported by another rebel, the Tan of Cawdor. Reports of these uprisings, clearly testifying to the strength and influence of centrifugal aspirations in the state, create a tangible spirit of general disunity at the beginning of the play.

In both cases mentioned, the winner of the rebellious thanes is Macbeth. But this is not a solution to the problem; it is the victory of one individualist over another, or, to put it differently, it is an event that does not change the situation in essence.

By the way, Duncan's attempt to weaken the rebellious spirit of the feudal lords, securing the throne for his son, does not meet in the play with any active support from the people present on the stage: none of the many thanes who witnessed the proclamation of Malcolm as heir to the throne, does not show on this about no enthusiasm.

The modern audience is unlikely to pay attention to this seemingly insignificant circumstance. But if we agree with the opinion of researchers who believe that Macbeth was written to be presented in front of Jacob, a Scotsman who only a few years before put the English crown on his head, and if we take into account that Jacob’s son Charles was about eight years, the silence of the thanes at such a solemn moment could seem very eloquent to Shakespeare's contemporaries - at least no less expressive than the silence of London citizens repeatedly mentioned in various literary works during the accession to the throne of King Richard III.

This state of affairs in the country continues to persist at a time when Macbeth commits his crimes one by one. There is no doubt that when Malcolm, who is in exile, remarks with regret:

"Lord, remove the barrier
Between us and the fatherland"
      (IV, 3, 162-163) -

he laments not only that Macbeth turned the Scots into emigrants. Just before uttering the words quoted above, Malcolm, seeing Ross enter, remarks:

“It looks like our fellow countryman, but I don’t know who”
      (IV, 3, 160).

From this remark it is clear that Malcolm puts a broader meaning into his complaint: fellow tribesmen are strangers to each other, strangers (we note in brackets that for the same reason Malcolm cannot believe in the sincerity of Macduff's words for so long); and this is the breeding ground that gave birth to Macbeth, and the source of the troubles that have befallen Scotland.

But it is from this moment - as a reaction to the acts of the extreme individualist Macbeth - that the camp of good begins to rapidly consolidate. Macbeth's opponents manage to overcome the disunity that separated them from each other, and in the finale Macbeth faces a camp bound by close internal solidarity.

The camp of good in Macbeth is depicted in such a way that at least some of its representatives receive a detailed characterization, which includes elements of essential evolution. This applies mainly to the images of Macduff and Malcolm.

The exposition of the image of Macduff shows that this character belongs to the number of people who prefer to independently think about what is happening and make independent decisions. In Act II, Scene 4, Macduff tells Ross the results of his investigation into the circumstances under which Duncan's murder took place. Outwardly, he accepts the official version, according to which suspicion fell on the sons of the king, who fled from Scotland; but at the same time he refuses to be present at the erection of Macbeth to the Scottish throne. The words of Macduff, addressed to Ross, who decided to go to the coronation in Scone, sound more than ironic:

“Well, be healthy. One thing I can say
Look, do not regret the old dress"
      (II, 4, 37-38).

Perhaps it is too early to interpret these words as evidence that Macduff had already begun to suspect Macbeth of Duncan's death; knowing the ardent nature of Macduff, in such a case one would expect open rebellion from him. But one way or another, Macduff's remark indicates that the hero has not yet worked out his final position and at the same time does not intend to accept official reports on faith.

We didn't call Macduff a hero by accident. As soon as he makes a decision, he makes a terrible mistake, characteristic of a tragic hero. Realizing the need to act against the tyrant, Macduff goes to England, leaving his family at home. Such a decision can only be interpreted as a manifestation of Macduff's idealism: he intends to fight Macbeth, as a knight should; and he cannot imagine what senseless meanness and cruelty a tyrant is ready to commit when he senses the approach of a fatal catastrophe.

All further behavior of Macduff confirms the correctness of the words said about this character by the modern researcher J. Walton: "So it turns out that Macduff has those feelings naturally inherent in a person that Macbeth's individualism trampled on." And so the final duel between Macbeth and Macduff rises to the level of a symbol denoting the inevitability of the downfall of the individualist.

But, of course, the most leading role in the characterization of the camp opposing Macbeth, the image of Malcolm plays.

Malcolm is a young man, which is emphasized throughout the tragedy. This is proved by the first acquaintance with him, when the viewer learns about his unsuccessful attempt to join the battle, and his childishly direct reaction to the death of his father, and, finally, the attitude towards him from Macbeth. Should Malcolm come of age, he would at once prove to be the main obstacle in Macbeth's way to the throne; therefore, Macbeth would have been forced to simultaneously kill Duncan and destroy his eldest son.

But even at that stage in the development of the image of Malcolm, when he becomes the banner under which all the forces opposing Macbeth gather, he speaks of himself as a youth. Outwardly, at the beginning of the conversation with Macduff, Malcolm behaves like a diplomat, checking the intentions of the person who came to him for negotiations. However, some character traits betray a child in him. An experienced diplomat in this case would first of all pretend that he believes the interlocutor; this would help him get the most information from his partner, which he could evaluate and draw a conclusion about how this information corresponds to reality. And Malcolm, instead, directly declares to Macduff that he is not inclined to believe him - primarily because he left his wife and children in Scotland; this is the natural reaction of a man who has only recently ceased to be a beloved son himself. And when Malcolm compares himself to a defenseless innocent lamb, in those sincere words, spoken before Malcolm believed Macduff:

“I'm young;
By betraying me, you will please him.
Direct calculation - humble the wrath of the deity
Let's slay the defenseless lamb"
      (IV, 3, 14-17) -

it is impossible to catch the diplomatic sophistication; they sound like the gullible confession of a young man in his youth and inexperience.

For the same reason, when Malcolm, believing Macduff, gives himself frank characterization, the motif of youth is again clearly felt in it:

"Until this day
I did not know women, I did not break oaths,
He did not guard his own jealously,
There was a word of faith so that even the devil
I wouldn't give out to other devils, and the truth
Loved like life"
      (IV, 3, 125-130).

There is a deep ideological meaning in the repeated clarification of Malcolm's age. Having resorted to such a technique, Shakespeare was able to clearly show that among the young, emerging generation one can meet not only Iago, Edmunds and Macbeths, but also people who are pure in spirit, who are also capable of effectively resisting the forces of evil.

And yet, even though Malcolm remains a young man throughout the tragedy, we have the right to speak of a certain evolution of this image.

Malcolm starts his independent life in a period of complete disunity of the forces of good. Reality itself forces him to hide - as far as he is able to do - his true intentions. This continues until his decisive explanation with Macduff. Only from that moment on does he reveal the qualities inherent in his soul and which are the complete opposite of the spirit of Macbeth.

In the course of a conversation with the Scottish thanes, Malcolm sets out his credo, which has absorbed the best aspects of humanistic morality. If we add to this the political aspect of Malcolm's worldview, that is, his proclamation in the final scene of the program to restore justice in his native country, then it becomes clear that Malcolm grows into Macbeth's main ideological opponent.

Walton's article cited above contains very convincing evidence that some of the elements of Shakespeare's political conception, reflected in Macbeth, do not fit into the framework of the official political doctrine of James I. To Walton's correct observations, one should only add that the conflict resolved in the tragedy , reflects Shakespeare's negative attitude towards tyranny as such.

The issue of tyranny was widely discussed during the Renaissance, and some prominent thinkers, as a result of certain historical and political prerequisites that prevailed in their countries, saw tyranny as a possible path for the progressive development of the state. Machiavelli, as is well known, was one of these thinkers; the great Florentine considered one of the conditions under which tyranny can become beneficial for the people, the correct, in his opinion, way of reprisal of the tyrant with his opponents. It was Machiavelli who put forward the thesis of “well-applied atrocities”, which read: “Well-applied cruelties (if you can only say about the bad that it is good) can be called those that are committed only once because of the need to protect yourself, after which they do not they persist, but extract from them all possible benefit for their subjects. They are badly used if at first they are rare, but in the course of time they all grow, instead of running out ... Therefore, it must be well remembered that,

taking over the state, the invader must think about all the inevitable cruelties and commit them at once, so that he does not have to repeat them every day and can, without resorting to them again, calm people and attract favors to himself ... The fact is that insults should be inflicted at once , because then you feel less of them separately, and therefore they embitter less; on the contrary, good deeds must be done little by little, so that they are better imprinted. But the ruler - and this is the most important thing - must be able to live with his subjects in such a way that no accidental circumstances - unfortunate or happy - force him to change. After all, if such a need arises in the days of failure, then the evil will no longer be in time, and the good will also turn out to be useless, because it will be considered done involuntarily, and there will be no gratitude to you for it.

Shakespeare's view, as the story of Macbeth shows, is fundamentally the opposite. Tyranny appears to him as a continuous road of blood, leading the tyrant from one villainy to another; it is an endless chain of secret crimes, hourly giving rise to new and new enemies of the tyrant. Evil tries in every possible way to disguise itself, but the very movement of history reveals the essence of tyranny. Machiavelli admits the possibility in which a person, becoming a tyrant, will be able to immediately destroy everyone, including potential opponents, thereby establishing a strong centralized authority in the state, which serves as a guarantee of tranquility and peace. And Shakespeare, excluding such a possibility, argues that good, opposing tyranny, even forced at some stage to resort to disguise, gradually reveals its true essence and in the course of this disclosure wins a natural victory.

Therefore, the image of Malcolm, according to the ideological load assigned to him, cannot be put on the same level with such images. Shakespearean works like Richmond or Fortinbras. Firstly, Malcolm does not appear at the end, but directly or indirectly participates in the action of the tragedy throughout its entire duration. Secondly - and this is the main thing - Malcolm speaks in the final, proclaiming quite certain principles. The audience cannot suspect (this impression, by the way, is also promoted by the innocent youth of Malcolm) regarding the sincerity of this hero; so Malcolm's triumph in the final reveals a genuinely optimistic perspective. As for Fortinbras, as we have tried to show, the funeral of Hamlet, organized by him according to all the rules of military etiquette, in no way contributes to clarifying the perspective that arises in the tragedy of the Prince of Denmark.

The picture of the collapse of the individualist Macbeth - even talented, even once glorious - is one of the most remarkable and convincing evidence of the strengthening of elements of an optimistic worldview in Shakespeare's later tragedies.

Notes

. Quiller-Kuch, Arthur(Quiller-Couch, Arthur; 1863-1944) - English professor, literary critic.

. Siddons, Sarah(Siddons, Sarah; 1755-1831) - English tragic actress.

Not without reason, bringing Macbeth closer to Edmund and, in general, to representatives of the “new people” armed with the psychology of bourgeois society (Antony, Octavia, Achilles, Iago), Yu.F. Shvedov in his dissertation put forward a hypothesis about their insignificant age difference. Shakespeare has no direct indication of the age of Macbeth, but due to the theatrical tradition coming from the first alleged performer of this role, Burbage (who was about 50 years old at the time) and from subsequent performers (when this role was usually entrusted to experienced, not the first youth actors) , a stamp of perception was created: Macbeth is a relatively elderly person. The age of Shakespeare's heroes Yu.F. Shvedov attached great importance, he is an argument for him in establishing the genetic connection of negative characters. Sing arguments in defense of the hypothesis, based on circumstantial evidence provided by the play itself and the alleged distribution of roles in the first productions of Macbeth, Yu.F. Shvedov wanted to confirm with data from demographic studies, but this work remained unfinished, which did not allow him to include the accumulated material in the book. For more details, see the dissertation of Yu.F. Shvedova, pp. 763-769. (See note on page 174.)

Cit. according to the translation of M. Lozinsky.

The tragedy was first printed in the folio of 1623. There is information about its presentation, which took place in 1611. But it was written much earlier - in 1605-1606, which is established both by indications of style and by the reference in the gatekeeper's speech to a certain "crook" who "threw his oath on both cups of the judicial scales" (II, 3). Researchers have shown that this implies a certain David Garnet, who was executed in May 1606.

Macbeth is one of the most short plays Shakespeare. In short, her only "Comedy of Errors" and "The Tempest". It is assumed that this is a text, abridged, perhaps for a court performance. Two songs of witches (III, 5 and IV, 1) are also found in the play by Shakespeare's contemporary T. Middleton "The Witch". Due to the uncertainty in the dating of both plays, it is impossible to say who borrowed them - Shakespeare from Middleton or vice versa.

The source of the plot is "Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland" by R. Holinshed.

The very beginning of the tragedy introduces us to its atmosphere. A terrible round dance of witches portends a monstrous trampling of humanity. Witches embody the basest things in nature. Their ugliness is a symbol of everything ugly in life. They have their own terrible humor, their monstrous jokes are associated with death, the highest joy for them is the chaos of senseless murders and cruel suffering. They giggle at the sight of the hanged and rub their bony hands, smelling the smell of human blood.

The speeches of witches are full of nonsense, but it should be so, because they embody that element of life where the mind is powerless, where blind passion reigns and a person turns out to be a toy of dark instincts that await that fateful moment when they can completely take over his soul.

And, as it always happens in the great works of Shakespeare, one detail, like lightning, illuminates everything with its flash. Witches appear simultaneously before Macbeth and Banquo. But how differently both thanes perceive them. The words of prophetic women awaken Macbeth's evil passions, they are his own dark thoughts, and for Banquo their sinister figures are just "bubbles that the earth gives birth to, like water" (I, 3).

What a truly Shakespearean image! No wonder Alexander Blok felt his poetic power so.

For Banquo the witch is something torn out of her depths by nature, as alien and evil. But this is not how Macbeth looks at them. He regrets that this vision has disappeared, he would like to listen to the prophetic wives more and more in order to find out the details of his fate predicted by them. That which was vaguely hidden in his soul suddenly appeared before him in all its dazzling temptation. The specter of power beckoned him, and the passions of Macbeth began to boil, the bubbles of his ambition rose. But Macbeth knows that his desires are contrary to nature and humanity. He needs support for his aspirations; like other ambitious people, he believes that his fate is destined by higher powers, and this should justify him in his own eyes and in the opinion of others.

The poetic symbolism of the tragedy emphasizes from the very beginning the struggle between good and bad principles * . The round dance of witches, which serves as a prologue to the tragedy, ends with the words: "The beautiful is disgusting, and the disgusting is beautiful" (Fair is foul, and foul is fair. - I, 1). And the same motive in the first words of Macbeth, when he appears before us: "There has never been such a beautiful and disgusting day for me" (I, 3). The whole tragedy is really filled with the struggle of these two principles: life can be both disgusting and beautiful, and a person can be the same.

* (For an analysis of the poetic imagery in Macbeth, see G. Wilson Kight, The Wheel of Fire, London, 1949, p. 120-139.)

The struggle of these two principles takes place in the soul of Macbeth.

Macbeth does villainous deeds, but he is not a villain like Richard III, Iago and Edmond. Those were deprived of nature or society, felt infringed, aware of their inferiority. Macbeth is not harmed in any way. He appears before us at first as the embodiment of genuine human power. His valor is universally admired, success accompanies him, and his deeds are rewarded according to their true worth. Richard, Iago and Edmond did not receive anything from life, they had to wrest from her gifts that would compensate for the inferiority of their natural data or social position. It is enough for Macbeth to be himself for his life to be full.

But the fact of the matter is that the worm of ambition nests in his soul. The more he gets, the more he wants. And although he is truly beautiful as he is, it begins to seem to him that his human dignity is not truly appreciated. He has no equal in the valor that adorns a warrior. He is a royal person. Next to him, even King Duncan himself looks small, with all his kindness and respect for other people's merits.

Macbeth's soul burns with a desire to crown his human royalty with a royal dignity. In this he is the exact opposite of Lear. He wanted to assert his human greatness by giving power and the crown. Macbeth yearns to establish himself as a man by becoming king.

But there is no direct and honest path for Macbeth to the throne, as he has always walked until now. The road is blocked not only by Duncan himself, but also by the heir named by the king - Prince Malcolm. A struggle begins in Macbeth's soul.

Although Macbeth has become for us the same embodiment of ambition, as Othello has become a type of jealous, the fact of the matter is that ambition was not the main thing in the nature of the hero. Just as jealousy awakens in Othello under the influence of Iago's slanders, so Macbeth's ambition, not being initially the mainspring of his behavior, becomes such due to a combination of circumstances. His nature was dominated by the desire to freely exercise his human power. However, he faced a contradiction - the dignity of a person is not combined with an equivalent social position. In this respect, Macbeth differs decisively from Richard III. The cruel hunchback had no formal and human rights to become the highest in the country. He usurped those rights in an act of cunning and cruelty. Macbeth also has no legal rights. But he believes that he has a natural right to this due to his personal merits.

The tragedy reveals one of the deepest contradictions in the position of the individual in class society. Bourgeois development in the Renaissance had one of its results a high self-consciousness of the individual. The titanic abilities of man, unfettered by bourgeois progress, however, ran into obstacles that remained in force, since there was only a change in the class structure of society, but not the disappearance of classes as such. A criterion for evaluating a person according to his personal merits had already arisen, but a somewhat transformed social hierarchy was also preserved, within which the value of a person was determined by origin, rank, and wealth. Real social force remained with the holders of various privileges. Human dignity, not supported by titles and wealth, remained a disembodied illusion. And people who had matured to the realization of their human value wanted this to be realized by their social position. Since the conditions were already bourgeois in their essence, even cultural figures - artists, scientists, philosophers - combined creative exploits and discoveries with what we can only characterize as careerism and money-grubbing. Christopher Columbus, who plundered the West Indies when he became its viceroy, and Francis Bacon, who took bribes when he was Lord Chancellor, may be the most striking, but by no means the only examples of the ugly and contradictory development of personality in the conditions of bourgeois progress in the era Renaissance.

The tragedy of Macbeth belongs to such phenomena. No greater error rather than just being a villain. In that case, there would be no tragedy. It consists precisely in the fact that a beautiful, truly great person perishes.

Macbeth's ambition is not born of empty, unfounded vanity. It is just as ugly a perversion of the concept of human dignity as King Lear's. But we see Lear from the very beginning already in the grip of false concepts, from which he later, having gone through suffering, is freed. His Way of the Cross is a tragedy of purification. The tragedy of Macbeth is that he embarks on the path of crimes that defile his soul. He sinks deeper and deeper into the mud of inhumanity, reaching a complete stupefaction of feelings.

According to his actions, Macbeth is no different from such a power-hungry villain as Richard III. But their characters are completely different. Richard III is a man without a conscience. He is a villain, so to speak, by vocation. Macbeth is also power-hungry, but he has a sensitive nature. By nature, he is not malicious and not Cruel person. We see in the tragedy how Macbeth's healthy nature is gradually being distorted. His soul is clouded with bad passions, but at the same time, paradoxically, the basis spiritual world Macbeth is knowledge of authentic moral values, and he can't help but feel bitter about trampling them.

The essence of Macbeth's character is revealed to us by his wife when she says that there is too much "milk of human kindness" in him (I, 5). In her eyes, this is a flaw, but we understand that it is this "weakness" that not only makes Macbeth human, but also causes his tragic mental anguish. Shakespeare's Machiavellian villains did not recognize human values. They believed neither in love, nor in friendship, nor in duty, nor in honor. And Macbeth knows the price of all this. While doing evil, Richard III and Iago do not experience any feeling, except for the satisfaction that their deceit is bearing fruit. They fearlessly trample on humanity, while Macbeth shudders at the mere thought that he will violate moral laws.

But the fact of the matter is that in the mind of Macbeth there was a mixture of true and false values. What effect does Lady Macbeth have on him? The temptations of power? No. She appeals to his proud faith in his human dignity: "When you conceived this, - I translate literally, - you were a man, and, having become more than you are, you would have become just as much a man" (I, 7).

To rise as a man is what Macbeth wants. But, as we know, the path he chose turned out to be false. The presentiment of this from the very beginning lived in the soul of Macbeth. He is aware that he must violate the duty of a subject, the duties of hospitality, the law of honor, but, most importantly, the very principle of humanity. There is no lack of masculinity in him. The beginning of the tragedy shows us Macbeth the warrior. Without hesitation, risking his life, he went into battle. It cost him nothing to rip open the insides of the enemy, cut off his head and hoist it on a spear over the tower. He did this by winning a fair fight against a rebel. But now he himself is a rebel, and he does not fight openly, but with the treachery of a traitor, and kills the defenseless. This way of acting is contrary to the nature of Macbeth. Therefore, he hesitates before killing Duncan, and after spilling his blood, he is shocked.

From now on, his soul will not know peace. He realizes that he has forever deprived himself of it, "killed his dream." By dishonorably killing another, Macbeth committed moral suicide. But the tragedy is not only this. Already in the first big monologue, Macbeth speaks of a poison that destroys not the body, but the soul:

Retribution With a dispassionate hand, a cup with our poison Offers us the same ...

(I, 7. Translation by Yu. Korneev)

One kill leads to more. The very first villainy of Macbeth turns out to be not single: he kills not only Duncan, but also the servants who guarded the king. And then begins an orgy of murders, more and more vile and cruel - Macbeth's victims are his friend Banquo, wife and son of Macduff. It is true that Macbeth does not finish them off with his own hands, but that does not make him any less guilty. The blood of the victims stains him, and if those who do the will of Macbeth do it with cruel indifference, then he himself feels the moral burden of atrocities.

Where does Macbeth come from? To the most terrible tragedy for him. Its originality is determined by the fact that Macbeth remains a heroic personality to the end. The strength of his character is not broken. But his soul is empty. He retains all the signs of an outstanding personality - unbending will, mind, understanding of things. Only one thing remains - the purpose and meaning of existence. The main thing that Macbeth aspired to, he destroyed with his own hands: instead of the fullness of consciousness of his humanity, he feels a gaping emptiness. Macbeth realizes that he has doomed himself to the most terrible loneliness - the loneliness of a man forever cut off from other people -

Companions, so necessary to us in old age, - Friends, love, honor and attention - I do not see; but around the curse, Quiet, but terrible, and flattery ...

When he asks the doctor if he can save Lady Macbeth from madness, he thinks not so much about her, but about the incurability of the disease that struck his own soul:

Think of How to heal an ailing consciousness, How to weed sadness out of memory, How to erase the letters of anguish in the brain...

He harbored the hope that the day would come when the torment generated by his own deeds would end. But countless "tomorrows", "tomorrows", "tomorrows" turned out to be only a cross way of suffering, leading to a fatal moment when death comes and nothing more can be corrected. He committed crimes, confident that, having won the throne, he would make his life beautiful, but it turned out that he burned himself, and now only a miserable decaying cinder remains. Therefore, his whole life has lost its meaning, it has become a ghostly existence, and he compares himself with an actor who does not grimace for a short time on stage, and then disappears, and nothing remains of the human appearance that he embodied. Shortly before the end, Macbeth evaluates his life as follows:

It's a story that a fool told: There are many words and passion in it, there is only no meaning.

His last refuge is courage. This is the only thing he has left. And although everything is against him - earth and sky, nature and people, and although he has nothing to fight for, he does not give up. He does not rush into battle in order to find death. Survive, win, no matter what - that's what he wants even when he realizes that, in fact, he has nothing to defend, except his devastated "I". But the last thing Macbeth has left - his courage - turns out to be broken when he meets in battle with Macduff and he says that he was not born of a woman (he was removed from her womb by caesarean section). Now only the fury of despair possesses Macbeth when he fights with Macduff and dies.

The death of Macbeth is a death without moral purification, which illuminated the suffering path of Lear, and without enlightening reconciliation, which overshadowed Othello's last breath. This is complete and utter destruction. In this sense, "Macbeth" is the darkest of all the tragedies of Shakespeare, for it represents the complete moral death of man.

Lady Macbeth is in many ways like her husband. She's no ordinary villain either. Among women, she stands out for her beauty, as Macbeth rises above all his manly virtues. They are worthy of each other with their external perfection and in this sense form an ideal couple. Just as Macbeth wanted to crown his valor with power, so she dreams of her beauty being crowned with a crown.

But this regal woman's heart turned to stone. Just like Macbeth, she lives only for herself, for her beauty. It is often incorrectly imagined that she alone is to blame for the fact that Macbeth embarked on a bloody path. No, in this they were united and equal. If you believe her words, then it was Macbeth who initially ignited the fire of ambition in her (“What kind of beast pushed you to brag to me?” she asks him; I, 7).

All her feelings are subordinated to ambition. Even her love is ambitious. She loves Macbeth because he is superior to all other people. What matters to her is not the joy that loving woman receives from the reciprocal feelings of a man, and his ability to exalt himself and at the same time her. She wants to be the wife of the first man in the state. Such love happens, it can be sincere and strong in its own way, but, of course, it is a perversion of true love.

What sets her apart from Macbeth is her decisiveness. Her ambition is indeed a passion, blind, impatient and indomitable. She is an iron woman, a devil in a beautiful female form. If Macbeth's ambition is a passion fighting his moral consciousness, then it is a mania that has destroyed all other feelings. She is completely devoid of moral concepts. Macbeth is aware of the criminality of his actions, but for her there are no moral obstacles: water will wash away the stains of criminally spilled blood from her hands (II, 2). It is only necessary to make sure that there are no visible traces of the atrocity, and then it does not exist.

But if Lady Macbeth is neither heart nor mind able to understand that she has crossed the line of humanity, then nature itself is outraged in her. She broke her laws and is paying for it with madness.

The obsession characteristic of her in her sound state turns into a mania - to erase invisible blood stains from her hands, but not only water is not able to wash them off, all the aromas of Arabia will not wash them away. She was convinced that all traces of the crime could be destroyed. It turned out that they are indestructible. The trace remains in the person himself, and he cannot escape from this. The emptiness of her soul had set in long before it happened with Macbeth. Everything in Lady Macbeth is soulless - her beauty, femininity, love, ambition and her madness. That's why she never evokes sympathy for a moment.

Lady Macbeth is Shakespeare's most concentrated expression of the evil that has taken possession of a human being. From Richard III, Tamora and the Moor Aron ("Titus Andronicus"), a thread stretches to the Scottish queen. Shakespeare did not have a single villain or villainess who embodies evil in human nature to the utmost. And there is no image in Shakespeare that causes equal indignation for its inhumanity. Even Richard III is humanly interesting at times; something still remains in Iago that makes it possible to at least understand him. But Lady Macbeth evokes a cold aloofness. She is perceived as a creature of a different breed than man. And this is all the more so because she is a woman. The most beautiful thing that we habitually associate with femininity, love and motherhood is betrayed by her in the name of the specter of power and illusory greatness. Her love is aimed only at inciting Macbeth to crime, and she herself admits that she would tear her baby from her chest and break his head, if only not to violate the criminal oath to kill the king (I, 7).

A woman capable of killing her own child - nothing can be more terrible and inhuman than this. In tragedy, these are only words, an image put into the mouth of Lady Macbeth. But she is really capable of killing the most precious thing: she poisons the soul of Macbeth, and at the moment when she could save him, she pushes him to the abyss, into which she falls with him.

Macbeth and his wife show how terrible the evil that is human souls. But evil is not omnipotent. If in one respect Macbeth is the darkest of Shakespeare's great tragedies, in another it is more hopeful than Hamlet, Othello, or King Lear. In none of them are so many people opposed to evil as in Macbeth, and nowhere are they as active as they are here.

Against Macbeth and his wife, trampling on humanity, the whole society rises. They are fought not by individuals, but by the whole country. Macbeth's enemies are aware that they are fighting not so much for someone's dynastic interests against the usurper king, but for a person in general.

We see this most clearly in the episode of the meeting between Malcolm and Macduff (IV, 3). The significance of this scene cannot be underestimated just because the dialogue between Malcolm and Macduff is borrowed almost verbatim from Holinshed's chronicle. The rather flat moralizing of the chronicler acquires in Shakespeare deep meaning, for actually here the social meaning of the moral problem facing Macbeth is revealed.

As the reader knows, Malcolm tests Macduff by slandering himself and accusing him of all sorts of vices.

All that colors the king - Moderation, courage, justice, Tolerance, piety, kindness, Courtesy, mercy, nobility - Are not peculiar to me at all. But on the other hand, I am a collection of all kinds of vices. If I had power, I would pour out the sweet milk of consent into hell, I broke peace on earth and doomed Her to strife.

When, after this "confession", Malcolm asks: "Confess, then, that you are not worthy to rule such as I," Macduff replies:

Not that to rule - to live.

It is not only about the qualities of the monarch, but about the person in general. The vices listed by Malcolm are many times more dangerous when they possess a person in whose hands all power is concentrated, but they are intolerable in people who do not occupy such a high position.

We feel here the militancy of Shakespeare's humanism. The struggle waged against Macbeth by his enemies is a holy war for humanity. Both Malcolm and Macduff have personal reasons to hate Macbeth: from the first he killed his father and took the throne, from the second he killed his wife, son and took away possessions. But they fight not out of a sense of revenge, but driven by a desire for justice.

What does the suffering of Macbeth mean compared to the suffering of his victims? Shakespeare does not want us to forget about the tragedy of society and the people behind the tragedy of Macbeth. Macbeth is doubly guilty - both in the fact that he destroyed himself, and in the fact that he brings death to everyone else.

In none of the great tragedies is the victory of justice over evil as complete and real as in Macbeth. There is no need to prove how unjustified the optimistic ending of the tragedy was for Shakespeare's time. Perhaps it was even the author's concession to transient circumstances. For us, this has a different meaning - and it did not remain hidden from Shakespeare's contemporaries either - namely, that there is and cannot be any justification for the desire of a person to rise above others through bloody atrocities; no imaginary greatness is able to block the fact that, acting in this way, a person opposes himself to all mankind and comes to complete moral death.