Introduction
William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, first performed around 1606, presents a tragic exploration of ambition, power, and moral decay through its titular character. This essay examines Macbeth as an embodiment of Machiavellian strategies, drawing on the political philosophies outlined in Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince (1532). Machiavelli advocates for pragmatic, often ruthless tactics to acquire and maintain power, emphasising that a ruler should be feared rather than loved, and that deception and force are tools for success (Machiavelli, 2005). By analysing Macbeth’s actions, this study argues that while he initially employs Machiavellian principles to seize the throne, his ultimate downfall reveals the limitations of such strategies when undermined by personal guilt and poor judgement. The essay will first outline key Machiavellian concepts, then explore their application in Macbeth’s rise and fall, supported by textual evidence and scholarly interpretations. This approach highlights the relevance of Renaissance political thought to Shakespearean tragedy, though it acknowledges the play’s broader themes of fate and morality.
Machiavelli’s Key Principles and Their Relevance to Renaissance Literature
Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince serves as a foundational text for understanding political pragmatism in the Renaissance era. Written as advice to rulers, it posits that effective leadership requires a willingness to prioritise power over ethical considerations. For instance, Machiavelli argues that “it is much safer to be feared than loved” because fear ensures obedience, whereas love can be fickle (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 59). He also endorses the use of cunning (what he terms “fox-like” qualities) alongside brute force (“lion-like” strength), suggesting that a prince must adapt to circumstances, even if it means employing cruelty or deceit to eliminate threats (Machiavelli, 2005). These ideas were controversial in their time, challenging traditional Christian virtues, yet they influenced literary depictions of ambition and tyranny.
In the context of Shakespearean literature, scholars have noted parallels between Machiavellian thought and characters like Macbeth. As Bradley (1904) observes in his analysis of Shakespearean tragedy, Macbeth’s trajectory mirrors the Machiavellian archetype of a ruler who uses expediency to gain power but struggles with the consequences. This connection is not coincidental; Shakespeare, writing during the Jacobean period, was likely aware of Machiavellian ideas circulating in England, often vilified as “Machiavel” figures in Elizabethan drama (Ribner, 1955). However, the play does not merely endorse these strategies; it critiques them through Macbeth’s psychological torment. Indeed, while Machiavelli emphasises the need for a prince to appear virtuous without necessarily being so, Macbeth’s internal conflicts expose the human cost of such duplicity. This section establishes the framework for examining how Macbeth embodies these principles, albeit imperfectly, in his quest for kingship.
Macbeth’s Application of Machiavellian Strategies in His Rise to Power
Macbeth’s initial ascent to the throne exemplifies several Machiavellian tactics, particularly the use of deception and calculated violence to secure authority. From the outset, Macbeth is portrayed as a valiant warrior, earning praise for his bravery in battle against Norway and the traitorous Thane of Cawdor (Shakespeare, 1623, Act 1, Scene 2). However, upon encountering the witches’ prophecy that he will become king, his ambition ignites, leading him to adopt a more cunning approach. This shift aligns with Machiavelli’s advice that a prince should seize opportunities ruthlessly, as “fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her” (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 87). Macbeth, influenced by Lady Macbeth’s manipulation, decides to murder King Duncan, framing the act as a necessary step to fulfil his destiny.
A key Machiavellian element here is the strategic use of cruelty. Machiavelli contends that acts of violence, if employed decisively and sparingly, can stabilise power: “Injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less” (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 32). Macbeth follows this by swiftly killing Duncan and the guards, eliminating immediate threats and consolidating his claim. Furthermore, his manipulation of others—such as convincing the murderers to assassinate Banquo by appealing to their grievances—demonstrates the “fox-like” cunning Machiavelli praises (Shakespeare, 1623, Act 3, Scene 1). As Ribner (1955) argues in his study of Shakespeare and Machiavellianism, this scene illustrates Macbeth’s attempt to maintain power through indirect control, avoiding personal blame while ensuring loyalty through fear.
However, Macbeth’s strategies are not purely Machiavellian; they are tainted by supernatural elements and personal hesitation. Unlike the ideal prince who acts with unwavering resolve, Macbeth is plagued by visions and doubts, such as the dagger hallucination before Duncan’s murder (Shakespeare, 1623, Act 2, Scene 1). This internal conflict suggests a limitation in applying Machiavellian principles, as it reveals Macbeth’s inability to fully detach from moral qualms. Nevertheless, his rise demonstrates a sound, if flawed, grasp of power dynamics, drawing on Machiavelli’s emphasis on adaptability and force to overcome obstacles.
The Downfall of Macbeth: Limitations and Critiques of Machiavellian Strategy
While Macbeth initially succeeds through Machiavellian means, his downfall underscores the vulnerabilities of such an approach, particularly when it neglects the long-term maintenance of power and public perception. Machiavelli warns that a ruler must balance fear with avoiding hatred, stating that “men ought either to be well treated or crushed” to prevent revenge (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 9). Macbeth fails this test by escalating his tyranny, such as ordering the slaughter of Macduff’s family, which breeds widespread hatred and rebellion (Shakespeare, 1623, Act 4, Scene 3). This excessive cruelty alienates his subjects, contrasting with Machiavelli’s advice to use violence judiciously to foster stability.
Scholarly critiques highlight this as a subversion of Machiavellian ideals. Bradley (1904) notes that Macbeth’s paranoia, manifesting in his reliance on the witches’ ambiguous prophecies, erodes his strategic acumen, leading to irrational decisions like the attack on Macduff. Furthermore, Ribner (1955) points out that Shakespeare’s portrayal critiques the amoral pragmatism of The Prince, showing how unchecked ambition leads to isolation and defeat. Indeed, Macbeth’s famous soliloquy—”Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow”—reflects the emptiness of power gained through deceit, as life becomes “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” (Shakespeare, 1623, Act 5, Scene 5). This existential despair illustrates the psychological toll that Machiavelli arguably underestimates, suggesting that human conscience can undermine even the most calculated strategies.
Arguably, the play also incorporates elements of fate, which complicate a purely Machiavellian reading. The witches’ influence implies that Macbeth’s actions are predestined, limiting his agency and highlighting the limitations of individual strategy in the face of supernatural forces. Therefore, while Macbeth embodies Machiavellian traits, his tragedy reveals the approach’s flaws in a dramatic context, where moral and emotional factors prevail.
Conclusion
In summary, Macbeth serves as a compelling instance of Machiavellian strategy, employing deception, cruelty, and cunning to seize power, as advocated in The Prince. However, his downfall—driven by guilt, excessive tyranny, and poor judgement—exposes the limitations of these tactics, particularly their neglect of human psychology and long-term stability. This analysis not only demonstrates Shakespeare’s engagement with Renaissance political thought but also critiques the ethical void of Machiavellianism, implying that true power requires more than mere expediency. The implications extend to broader literary studies, encouraging reflection on how ambition intersects with morality in tragic narratives. Ultimately, Macbeth warns that while Machiavellian strategies may yield short-term gains, they often lead to inevitable ruin, a theme resonant in both historical and modern contexts.
References
- Bradley, A.C. (1904) Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth. Macmillan.
- Machiavelli, N. (2005) The Prince. Translated by G. Bull. Penguin Classics.
- Ribner, I. (1955) ‘Macbeth: The Pattern of Idea and Action’, Shakespeare Quarterly, 6(2), pp. 147-155.
- Shakespeare, W. (1623) Macbeth. In: The First Folio of Shakespeare. Edward Blount and Isaac Jaggard.
(Word count: 1187)
