The Marginalised Female Characters in ‘Macbeth’

A Detailed Criticism and Evaluation of the Marginalised Female Characters in ‘Macbeth’: the Three Witches, Lady Macduff and Lady Macbeth

An Introduction:
Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” was written around 1605-1606. ‘The Scottish Play’ as it is usually called
is both highly complex and vastly studied. Classified as both a ‘Tragedy of Character’ as well as a
‘Tragedy of Destiny’, ‘Macbeth’, one of Shakespeare’s most widely read plays, was primarily
designed to show that there is great temptation in the world for a man who is over-ambitious. It
achieves this by following the life of the titular character, the Thane of Cawdor and Glamis,
Macbeth. It is interesting to note that Shakespeare designed the plot of most of his plays around
the public taste of the time and, fascinatingly, by the needs of the actors for whom he wrote. The
plays he wrote from 1603 onward were all dominated by the personality of the great tragic actor
‘Richard Burbage’. A public favourite, he required a great tragic part for the expression of his
abilities. The parts of Lear, Othello, Hamlet and Macbeth were first rendered famous by him.
Therefore, it seems in the highest degree possible, that in the conception and creation of these
characters, Shakespeare had to keep the needs of Burbage in mind.

What is remarkable in ‘Macbeth’ though, is that in his attempt to highlight the skill of a favoured actor, he created a character who was in many aspects weak and therefore, depended on other characters to drive the plot ahead. These five marginalised characters, all female and all strong in their own ways, are the Three Witches- weird sisters whose predictions give rise to the plot, Lady Macbeth, the protagonist’s wife whose goading drives the plot forward and Lady Macduff, whose wronged murder leads to the eventual death of the protagonist. Although Lady Macduff is a foil to Lady Macbeth, they are not entirely opposites. Like Marvin Rosenberg says in his paper ‘The Masks of Macbeth’, the two “share some basic qualities but diverge in others”. These five female characters
are incredibly potent in their own ways. They have the makings of being strong leads with their
own gripping stories; and yet, they all manage to get side-lined in various aspects through the
course of this tragedy in order to truly bring forth the ‘Tragedy of Macbeth’, the story of our weak-
willed, overambitious protagonist. Another aspect of marginalisation that this paper will consider is
how Shakespeare attempts to direct the audience’s sympathy toward Macbeth through the
villainization of most of these female characters.


A Historical Background:
The Scottish Play was first performed around 1606. It is however set in 11th Century Scotland. It is
interesting to note that, contrary to popular opinion, Shakespeare never thought of making up
fresh plots. He searched stores of old British history, folk lore and the literature of ancient Greek
and Roman sources or other nations until he found a story which seemed like good material for a
successful play. Shakespeare’s end products ultimately bear little resemblance to their original
sources. The plot of ‘Macbeth’ was drawn from Holinshed’s ‘Chronicle’, a record of the early
history of Britain. He combined two episodes from Holinshed’s records, selecting what seemed to
be the most suitable from each, changing and making such additions of his own as he deemed
desirable. That being said, he makes very little effort to retain the facts of Holinshed’s story. We
find differences in the case of Macbeth, himself amongst others. Holinshed speaks of his
(Macbeth’s) ‘worthy doings and princely acts’, while Shakespeare did not do justice to the real
Macbeth, who is described by a Scottish historian as “the greatest king that early Scotland had,
respected by his enemies, honoured by the church, beloved by the Scottish people.” Intriguingly,
King James, I ascended the throne of Britain during the period of ‘Macbeth’s composition.
Therefore, it is quite possible that Shakespeare wrote his play to please his new monarch. This
can be derived from both the play’s Scottish background and its supernatural elements, both
elements extremely personal to the then reigning king. The role of women in 17th century Britain
as well as that of 11th century Scotland has had a major influence on the play. In Elizabethan
Britain, the role of women was primarily to be subservient. Women were not permitted to go to
university. Any education that women gained would be of languages like Latin, Greek, Italian and
French through private tutors at home. This limited education was then further restricted only to
the nobility. The study of music and dance was considered to be essential. The common women in
the 17th century would have received no formal education at all. Her education would have been

purely of the domestic nature in order to prepare her for the only real career option for a girl at that
time- marriage. Single women were often looked upon with suspicion and even thought to be
witches. Women were required to bring a dowry to the marriage and expected to run the
household and provide children. Large families were the norm as the mortality rate for children
was extremely high. They were believed to be inferior to men and were completely dominated by
the men in their family not just their fathers or husbands but also their brothers. The punishment
for disobeying was the whipping stool- Elizabethan women were beaten into submission and
disobedience was seen as a crime against religion. They could not inherit titles. Those would pass
from father to son or from brother to brother. The only exception being the monarchy. In 11th
century Scotland, the role of a noblewoman would be to manage the household, keep the servants
in check, order in any supplies needed that could not be supplied from the home farm, act as a
gracious hostess to visitors, and run the estate in the absence of her husband. A lady would also
supervise the upbringing and education of her children. Lower down the social scale, spinning and
weaving were skills that most women were expected to be proficient in, they would make the cloth
for their family's clothing and make the clothes as well. Taking care of the poultry and the dairy
were usually female specific tasks as well as making butter, cheese and brewing ale. Women
were also expected to be able to make home remedies for illness, and treat the sick. This brief
background on Shakespeare’s inspiration and motives for “Macbeth”, as well as the historical
treatment of women in both Scotland and England effect, to some extent, the portrayal of the
marginalized female characters in his play. They will greatly contribute to the villainization of Lady
Macbeth in particular.


The Witches:
The three witches open ‘The Tragedy of Macbeth’ with their minute scene in Act One.
Shakespeare starts the play by immediately introducing them as prophets. (“When shall we three
meet again…” “…When the battle’s lost and won” “That will be ere the set of the sun”). They also
set the tone of the play and introduce the audience to the theme by delivering one of
Shakespeare’s most iconic dialogues- “Fair is foul and foul is fair.” A reference to the fact that
appearances can be deceiving. Macbeth, who is seen as a valiant and honourable gentleman in
the beginning is a cruel and ruthless king in the end. Perhaps by that logic, the ‘foul’ witches are
the sense of ‘fair’ play when it comes to Macbeth’s prophecies. In addition, the three are referred
to as ‘witches’ only once through the course of the play. They are more commonly known as the
‘Three Weird Sisters’. It is important to note that at that point in history, witch hunts were quite the
common occurrence. However, the means of correctly identifying a witch were not. In a 2010
meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr Quintanilla was able to match the symptoms
of people condemned as witches with associated neurological and psychiatric disorders, such as
epilepsy and hysteria. Based on this research, it is perhaps possible that the three witches in
Shakespeare’s play, modeled after popular examples of women burned at the stake were, like
their counterparts, not witches at all just women suffering from hysteria (the overreaction of the
chestnut incident). Perhaps, in their delusion, they make up predictions that could be absolute
hogwash and unfortunately, Macbeth’s gullibility leads him to believe them to be true. Similarly,
their prediction about Macbeth’s murderer could also be completely false helping only to lure him
into a false sense of security. Thus by establishing the weird sisters as witches in the play,
Shakespeare, in my opinion, attempts to direct some of the blame for Macbeth’s tragedy onto
these women. On the other hand, the story is fictional and the witches could be real prophets and
actually be predicting Macbeth’s fate. However, this prediction was not one that mentioned murder
or foul play that Macbeth does ultimately use. The decision to kill was his own and the witches,
although putting the idea in his head, cannot be blamed for his circumstances as they usually are.
Thus our three ‘witches’ are the center of the ‘fate vs. free will’ debate that the play caters to. Right
from the first page till their last appearance, this question remains unanswered and is a topic of
heavy debate amongst scholars and philosophers even today. Thus, these 3 marginalized sisters,
only present for about 3 scenes in the whole play, having only placed the seeds of doubt in the
protagonist's mind, either through dementia or through actual prophecy are given part of the
blame. This is done by increasing their villainy so that the audience ends up feeling a greater
sympathy for the character of Macbeth when he degenerates into nothingness.

Lady Macduff:
Lady Macduff appears in the play for only one scene in Act 4 and yet her appearance has been, to
a certain extent, vital to the plot. In addition to the importance of her role, the fascination that
audiences had with her character has led to later playwrights even adding to her role. Sir William
Davenant, a 17th century poet and playwright, especially, added 4 extra scenes to his operatic
adaptation of ‘Macbeth’ in order to better establish her character as a foil to that of Lady
Macbeth’s. This, in my opinion, is the mark of great writing- when a marginalized character in a
particular writer’s work has inspired a generation of new writers to further explore the character’s
potential. As far as the representation of Lady Macduff goes in Shakespeare’s original ‘Macbeth’,
there is not much context from which we can draw conclusions. All we know from the scene is that
Lady Macduff is a fierce woman and mother. She her love for her children comes across blatantly
in the scene; so does the love she has for her husband, although that is masked by fury and her
feelings of betrayal. She is a woman, unafraid to speak her mind, whatsoever be the
consequences. She speaks out brazenly against her husband’s disloyalty to his family exclaiming
“He loves us not!” She does not lose this quality even when faced with the murderers. She is, as
far as we see in this scene, a strong willed woman with a clear-cut idea of where her loyalties lie
and a sharp and candid tongue. She is considered to be, in many ways, a foil to Lady Macbeth’s
character, even though in many ways the two are quite similar. This has been one of the primary
reasons for a great deal of interest in this character from the performance point of view. The
various revisions made in the adaptations of the play, to increase Lady Macduff’s role, were done
to further establish her as a foil to the Lady Macbeth, with Lady Macbeth being dedicated to evil
and Lady Macduff dedicated to good. As far as similarities go, the two are both incredibly strong
characters with their own opinions and thoughts. However, while Lady Macbeth enjoys total
control in the beginning of her weak-willed husband, Lady Macduff does not. Her husband leaves
his wife and children without consulting her or giving her even a slight explanation. Both these
women have a strong sense of domestic responsibility. However, while Lady Macbeth’s is fueled
primarily by her ambition for herself and her husband, Lady Macduff’s is powered by genuine love
and concern for her husband and children. While neither of the two completely understands their
respective husbands, they happen to abhor the exact characteristic, the other wishes her husband
would possess. Lady Macbeth constantly questions her husband’s masculinity stating that he is
too full of the ‘milk of human kindness.’ Which is exactly what Lady Macduff would want from the
Thane of Fife who left his children and wife quite unkindly without a goodbye or an explanation. It
is also said that Macbeth’s cruel murder of Macduff’s family is his undoing in the end of the play. It
is speculated that if the Macbeth had not ordered the murder of Macduff and his family, the Thane
of Fife having no passion for revenge might have spared the king. This, in my opinion can be
debated. Duncan’s sons were already joining in rebellion with England to overthrow Macbeth.
Although the prophecy, if the readers choose to believe in it’s validity, limits the amount of people
actually able to kill him, the play already shows that their words and it’s appearances can be
interpreted in various ways (‘fair is foul and foul is fair’). Perhaps Macbeth wouldn’t have been
slain in battle ‘ by a man of woman borne’ at all, but the prophecy mentions nothing about him
falling, or drowning, or killed by a woman or even a boy instead and therefore, in my opinion, his
Macbeth’s death was practically guaranteed. The murder of Lady Macduff and her children just
sped along the process and was used as a dramatic tool to show the degeneration of the
protagonist’s moral compass.


Lady Macbeth:
If we look at the stage time Lady Macbeth’s character gets throughout the play, we cannot
consider her to be marginalized. Appearing in about 10 scenes, she has a great number of
powerful, memorable monologues and is for all intents and purposes, the female protagonist. It is,
however the changes her character goes through that classifies her as marginalized. Her
character is the one undergoing the greatest transformation. She begins the play with full strength
and a dominating personality. Her ‘unsex me’ speech in act 1 scene 5 is iconic. Through that
monologue, we get our first glimpse into the mind of Lady Macbeth. On first reading, it seems
more witchlike than anything the three witches say through the play. But it has more than just calls and references to ravens, spirits and black magic, things that previous female protagonists in
Shakespeare’s plays would never speak of. But she actually calls on these spirits to unsex her; i.e-
she asks them to take away everything that makes her feminine. (“…Make thick my blood…Stop
up the access and passage to remorse, …And take my milk for gall”). Femininity at that time was
associated with compassion and kindness while masculinity is associated with ruthlessness and
ambition. The inexperienced plotter Macbeth, who the Lady Macbeth already sees as effeminate,
therefore, needs a ruthless agent to spur him on. That is a role gladly fulfilled by Lady Macbeth.
Without the incentive of her strong will to push him forward, Macbeth would never have committed
the crime, therefore making her the more dynamic character in the beginning. This was completely
out of keeping with the concept of womanly character at that time, and therefore, there was a
danger of making her an inhuman monster. However, Shakespeare had no intention of making her
a mere figure of horror. He wanted to make her a human being, no matter how wicked. Unlike the
characters of Goneril and Regan in King Lear, who was purposefully left as underdeveloped
wicked characters, Lady Macbeth was given a touch of humanity. This is seen in numerous
places; no matter how bold her words were, she needed the stimulus of wine before Duncan’s
murder (“That which hath made them drunk hath made me bold”). When the murder is underway
and her hands are deeply plunged in guilt, Shakespeare deliberately gives her an element of
sentiment (“Had he not resembled my father as he slept, I had done’t.”). It seems to me, that she
isn’t quite the iron character she portrays herself to be. To put it simply, in the first part of the play,
she has to assume the qualities she believes her husband lacks in order to attain what they both
equally desire and she therefore crushes the what she calls her ‘womanly weakness’ and acts for
her husband’s benefit. However, it is this crushing of humanity and her conscious that comes back
to her, almost in a feral way. When she finds out that Macbeth has slain the servants of Duncan’s
chamber, she faints. It is this fainting, it has been said, this touch of nature that is one of the finest
things in the play. Up till act 2 scene 1, Lady Macbeth was the driving agent of the action of the
play. After the first murder, however, Macbeth no longer needs the sharp lash of her tongue to
drive him to crime. Killing suddenly becomes more natural to him. After this, the dynamics
between the two changes. He thrives on the murders he plans himself. Thus in a sense, depriving
Lady Macbeth of her occupation. Deprived of the stimulus by the increasing independence of her
husband and his ability to kill without urging, she is left now with nothing to do but reflect on her
own thoughts. It is then that her outraged moral nature asserts itself. The part of her personality,
highlighted above, that she tried so hard to push down now asserts itself after the due course of
adrenaline runs out and her assumed ‘masculine’ strength has failed. Her final collapse comes by
natural stages. She seems to gain back a little bit of her former gusto when Macbeth is disturbed
by the appearance of Banquo’s ghost. But when she eventually fails in her aim and the lords
depart, her short and almost uninterested answers reveal her utter weariness. When we see her
next she is on the verge of, if not already in the throes of lunacy because of the very sin she said
‘a little water’ would clear them off. We then find out that she dies by her own hand, wracked by
guilt and driven insane by the ambition. Even her death takes place offstage. In such a way that it
is quite difficult to feel a great sense of sympathy for the character. On her death, Macbeth
delivers one of the plays most memorable soliloquies (“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow”)
which is strategically placed to elicit feelings of sympathy from the audience for this man whose
manipulative wife has just died and against whom entire armies are marching. On further analysis
of her character, it seems to me that her moral compass, although deeply hidden was greater than
that of Macbeth’s. While Lady Macbeth guilt begins after the first murder, Macbeth’s morality
seems only to deteriorate since then. He commits more and more murders becoming almost
indifferent to them towards the end, while Lady Macbeth, unable to stand the guilt of plotting just
one murder, hallucinates and even kills herself. Who then had the stronger sense of morality?

Conclusion:
Therefore, in conclusion, I’d like to state, ‘The Tragedy of Macbeth’ is a dramatic masterpiece. It’s
morals are relevant even today, it’s dialogues and soliloquies, quotable and its characters
memorable. However, in his attempt to create the ‘blameless’ protagonist, Shakespeare
ultimately sidelines and villianises various strong female characters. From a feminist perspective
is it important to note that all five of these marginalized characters are formidable, individualistic women, who do not compromise on their beliefs, for better or for worse and they all, unfortunately,
meet a very horrid end. He does, however, create well rounded grey characters with both faults
and redeeming qualities that have stood the test of time and remain, till today, some of the
greatest works of literature we have on our shelves.

- Ayesha Z. Mehta