Darth Macbeth

1. Why do people who are not "evil" take the first step into evil? What, for instance, is involved in taking that first step "down the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire" (Macbeth, 2.3)? What are the consequences of the individual choosing evil (particularly the internal consequences)? Use examples from the text to support your opinion.

Macbeth was a soldier. Yeah, great intro.

In Macbeth Timeline, on "Macbeth's desire to kill", one wishes to place the first act at zero, but that is not correct, because in scene 2, he is described:

"Disdaining fortune, with his brandishe'd steel,

Which smoked with bloody execution,

Like valour's minion carved out his passage

Till he faced the slave;

Which ne'er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him,

Till he unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps,

And fix'd his head upon our battlements."

So, he split this guy open from the navel to the jaw and then stuck his head on a spike. From the second scene, Macbeth is vicious. This passionate slaughter is earned Macbeth his new position as Thane of Cawdor. Considering this, is it really surprising then, that in the attempt to rise to higher positions, Macbeth's solution is murder.

I am tempted to go ultra-liberal (ultra-liberal)  (ultra-liberal)   and use that quote that says that "war is organized murder" but killing is sometimes justified, and preserving a pretty good order is sometimes an okay reason. Also, I'm going to say that for someone to be "evil" they have to be self aware, not misguided.

So I will say that the first step into evil is to reenact a previous act without the context to make it justified. Would Macbeth have murdered Duncan if he had not killed a man in his life, I don't think so. Would America have spied on it's civilians if they had not been forced to spy during war time? No. Would Anakin Skywalker have murdered an entire village if he hadn't retaliated to evil acts like kidnaping with killing before? And, would he have murdered the jedi younglings if he hadn't killed the village's children? No, and no. Would children cheat if they had never been given group work? Of course, but that's because they were evil from the beginning. The same goes for Lady Macbeth, we're talking here about a good person who went ill.

To step into evil requires a similar action that was somewhat justified so that makes the evil deed less foreign.

However, after performing the act of evil, the righteous wo/man sees that what s/he did was wrong, and suffers for it. They reflect on their sins and see that it was the wrong thing to do. But eventually, they get to the state of mind where they are accustomed to the violence, and they are able to forge ahead toward the dark --- ending of the play.

Yeah, "Use examples from the text to support your opinion," but I just watched the prequels and I'm so hype right now!!! Anyway, they are really nice parallels.

But I digress. The first evil step is an indulgence, and it benefits them. I can understand why Macbeth murdered Duncan. I mean, who knows how much longer the King could have lived. Without action, Macbeth could have been king for 2 days and then dropped dead while Banquo's kids had a long reign. The first murder was sensible, but then, people get drowned in evil, and they continue in it even though it doesn't serve self interest. Macbeth, the Machiavellian Prince, don't make me laugh. The Lady is the cunning one. If Macbeth had followed her, who's home was in the bay of evil, he would have been fine, but no, after the first murder, he went swimming toward the depths.
"I am in blood - Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, - Returning were as tedious as go o'er." "Go o'er" isn't really to "continue in the quest to stay king" but to go on murdering in evil. After the first step in evil, people become mindless. Evil becomes synonymous with the beneficial, so they continue to commit evil when it's not necessary or helpful in the slightest.


(Further Wisdom:
The moral of the story is; if your evil, just do you. But if you're good, bruh, don't come down here.

And going back in here to get my ranting on. That joke about Macbeth and Banquo's kids getting married was so true. What the crap was Macbeth thinking?  "Banquo's kids will succeed you" (I'm paraphrasing here), who cares!! Lady Macbeth already showed that the position of king is more important than kids. Also, it seriously might be that they do have kids and people hook up.
The issue, really, is that Macbeth didn't have enough faith in the prophecy. Like, half of it came through, that can't have been for nothing. Just roll with it and make its details the best that you can. Send Banquo away on some mission and semi-adopt Fleance. It'll be great, I mean, no, it probably won't, but maybe it'll work out. Make intentions clear that Fleance will succeed you and the prophecy won't need to have some plot twist to be fulfilled.
When you really think about it, is saying that a specific person will succeed you that bad. You already know someone's going to succeed you! Like if the fates had said "Someone will succeed you", Macbeth would have been like "no **** Sherlock, let's make this monarchy stable enough so that it'll be 50 years from now." But because it has a specific person, he goes haywire and doesn't fight the war within the bounds of the prophecy.

Oh, and if no one who does the power question also includes the Batman v Superman trailer, I'm going to be very put out)

Dat Art Though

Henry Frederick (1594–1612), Prince of Wales, with Sir John Harington (1592–1614) in the Hunting Field, 1603
Robert Peake the Elder (British, ca. 1551–1619)
Oil on canvas, 79 1/2 x 58 in

The painting was made on the transition from the Elizabethan era (1558–1603) to the Jacobean age (1603–25), and, on a larger scale, between the Tudor (1485–1603) and Stuart (1603–49, 1660–1714) Periods. Jacob XI or I, depending on where you lived, came to the English throne the very year this painting was made, in 1603. King Jacob was Prince Henry Frederick's (who is standing) Father. The artist was an English artist who studied in London. The woods are probably fake as all get out. Just as the architectural background of Peake's portrayal of Queen Elizabeth was symbolically fabricated, the background was an artistic choice and was not a real scene. Peake later basically copied the image except inserted a new friend instead of the knight, and put a new background. It honestly felt intellectually dishonest.

    Starting with the title, the painting shows Henry Frederick, the Prince of Wales, and Sir John Harington in a Hunting Field after they have taken down a deer. Sir Harington, aged 11 is kneeling to hold down the stag while Prince Henry, aged 9, draws his sword to give a final blow. The sword has embedded jewels. The boys have clothes with fine embroidery and silk sashes, though the prince has much more as well as a frilled collar. The gold embroidery on the Prince's shorts resembles a cross. The both have horns, and the prince has a belt with a jewel of St. George. Near each boy is his coat of arms hanging from a twig. For each boy, there is also the date of creation, 1603, and each boy's age. In very fine gold print, on the hat and to the right of the stag, there there are the names of the boys. The Prince's says "Henry Frederick, Prince of Whales, Son of King James the 1st," signaling that Jame's has already ascended to the throne in England, and that Peake hails from the English perspective.

    There is also a dog, that likely helped in the hunt, as well as a horse. The horse wears fine fabric and golden stirrups. There is a man, likely a servant, who is mostly obscured by the horse. The woods in the background hold rolling hills, six other deer, a stream with some water coming through a rock, and a bridge. In the distance, there is a castle.

    The piece is a dual portrait, but with an outdoor setting that was pioneered by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, a Flemish contemporary of Frederick's. The piece,in respect to Prince Henry, exemplifies the full-length portrait, which became popular in the 1590's.

4/5. The piece uses a large amount of green, even with clothing, which emphasizes the natural setting. The rather novel outdoor setting shows a more informal and active representation of the prince. The use of gold detailing communicates the wealth of the subjects without being overly gaudy. There are several ways in which the artist marks the Prince as superior to the knight. The Prince has fancier embroidery and more silk, showing the Prince's comparative economic strength. The fact that the Prince is the one that will finish off the stag, showing his superior social roll in any proceedings, as does the Prince's physical position has higher in the piece. The fact that the knight's hat is on the ground also shows reverence to the Prince, like how gentlemen took of their hats to ladies during the period. And really, fancy hats is how all societies show the importance of specific individuals. The removal of the hat shows that the knight is nothing in the presence of the Prince. Prince's coat of arms is also shown as above Sir Harington's on the tree, signaling his family's greater importance. It is also significant that the arms are on trees, because, since European Royalty are all inbred (sorry for the harsh generalization, but it was fun to type), the two families are probably related somehow on the family tree. The use of the coat of arms shows the importance of family in the British Isles in the 1600's. Family is what got the prince his title, his fancy clothes and his servant in the background. (Went totally angry peasant right there)

The inferiority of the man behind the horse is heavily shown. He is not listed in the title, his name, arms and age are not given in the pices. Most of his body his hidden by the horse, and his clothing is plain. Through these methods, the artist does his best to marginalize the man in comparison to the two boys.