New Historicist Criticism: Macbeth and the Power Essay

unornamented of Shakespe ars poetic style and skilful characterization, Macbeth is revealed as little much than a petty tyrant. Like Machiavellis Prince, Macbeth callks power as an land up in itself and sees any means as righteousified provided it helps him achieve his goal. It is a standard image of power an individual, or small group, occupying a property of leave from which he (seldom she) attempts to force his will upon others. Todays akin of a feudal milkweed butterfly is the power-hungry politician, the cult attracter, or the ruthless art tycoon. But the newfound historicist c at a timeption of power is different rather than be a top-down affair that originates from a specific place or individual, power comes from all around us, it permeates us, and it influences us in many clear-sighted and different tracks. This idea of decentralized power, heavily indebted to post-structuralist philosophy (see Derrida and Foucault), is sometimes difficult to understand because it seems to have an intangible, mystical quality. Power appears to operate and fight back itself on its own, without any identifiable individual actually working the image levers. This new historicist notion of power is evident in Macbeth in the way in which Macbeths apparent subversion of authority culminates in the re-establishment of that identical type of authority under Malcolm.A ruthless king is replaced with another(prenominal) king, a less ruthless one, perhaps, but that is due to Malcolms beneficent disposition, not to any reform of the monarchy. Similarly, the subversion of the plays chaste order is catched, and the old order reaffirmed, by the righteous response to that subversion. In other words, what we see at the beginning of the playan established monarch and the strong Christian set that legitimize his sovereigntyis the same as what we see at the end of the play, only now the monarchy and its supporting values are steady more firmly entrenched thanks to the brief disruption. It is almost as if some outside force carefully orchestrates events in order to strengthen the existing power structures. Consider, for example, a military leader who becomes afraid of the peace that undermines his position in society. In response to his insecurity, he creates in large numbers minds the fear of an impending enemywhether genuine or imaginary, it doesnt matter. As a consequence of their new feelings of insecurity, mint desire that their leader remain in power and even growth his power so that he can better defend them from their new II enemy. II The more evil and threatening our enemies are do to appear, the more we believe our own aggressive response to them is justified, and the more we see our leaders as our valiant protectors (Zinn,Declarations of Independence 260-61,266).Military or political power is strengthened, not weakened, when it has some kind of threatening subversion of contain ( Greenblatt 62-65). The important focalise astir(p redicate) the new historicist notion of power, however, is that it is not inevitable for anyone to orchestrate this strengthening of authority. Duncan certainly doesnt plan to be attain in order that the crown will be more undecomposed on Malcolms head after he deposes Macbeth. The witches can be interpreted as manipulating events, but there is nothing to indicate that they are motivated by a concern to increase the power and authority of the Scottish crown. It is not necessary to believe in conspiracy theories to excuse how power perpetuates itself the circular and indirect, rather than top-down, way in which power operates in society is enough to ensure that it is maintained and its authority reinforced. The battleground illustrates this point in that the Renaissance theaterits subject matter, spectacle, emphasis on role- playingpull its energy from the life of the approach and the affairs of statetheir ceremony, royal pageants and progresses, the spectacle of overt executio ns (Greenblatt 11-16).In return, the theater helped legitimate the existing state structures by emphasizing, for example, the maestro position in society of the aristocracy and royalty. These are the class of people, the theater repeatedly showed its audience, who deserve to have their stories told on constitute, while common people are not worthy subjects for serious drama and are unremarkably represented as fools or scoundrels. Revealing the inherently theatrical aspects of the court and affairs of state runs the risk of undermining their authorityif people on stage can play at being Kings and Queens, lords and ladies, then there is of all time the possibility that the audience will suspect that real Kings and Queens, lords and ladies, are just ordinary people who are playing a role and do not actually deserve their position of wealth and privilege. But the precise existence of the theater helped keep the threat of rebellion under reserve by providing people with a legitimate , though restricted, place to express other unacceptable ideas and behavior (Mullaney 8-9). Within the walls of the theater, it is acceptable to mock the actor playing a king, but never the king himself it is acceptable to contemplate the collide with of a theatrical monarch, but never a real one.Macbeth deals with the murder of a king, but Shakespeare turns that potentially subversive subject into support for his king, crowd together I. Queen Elizabeth died without a direct heir, and a power vacuum is a recipe for domestic turmoil or even war. The consequences of Macbeths regicide and authoritarianism illustrate the kinds of disruption that were prevented by the peaceful ascension to the throne of James, male child of Mary, Queen of Scots. The good king of England ( 4.3 .147) who gives Malcolm sanctuary and supports his cause as the just successor to the Scottish crown is an indirect reference to James I. Macbeth is about treason and murder, but Malcolms description of the n oble king (147-59), and the spartan contrast between him and Macbeth, reinforces the idea that good subjects should see their king as their benefactor and protector. Shakespeare was not coerced into flattering his king. There was official censorship in his time, but it is unlikely that he needed anyone to tell him what he could or could not write he knew the types of stories that were acceptable to authority and desirable to his paying public.Whether or not Shakespeare felt constrained by these limitations, or even consciously recognized them, is not the point the point is that he worked inside a set of conventions and conditions which relied upon and reinforced the governing power relations of his time, and so there was no need for him to be manipulated by a regime censor looking over his shoulder. If Shakespeare had not known the boundaries of the acceptable, or had not conformed to the demands of power, he would never have become a successful playwright. correspond to new hist oricism, our own relationship to power is similar to that of Shakespeares we get together with the power that controls us. Without necessarily realizing what we are doing, we help create and sustain it, so reducing the need for authority figures to remind us what to do or think. Once we accept the cultural limitations imposed on our thought and behavior, once we believe that the limits of the permissible are the extent of the possible, then we happily guard ourselves. .