Anger and Shakespeare

6
Anger: Stimulants, Reactions and
Reflections – A Shakespearean Perspective
Sumathi Shivakumar
According to Aristotle anger always surfaces from an injured self-esteem, or a punctured ego, or from some affront meted out to the individual directly or indirectly. This aspect of anger is captured by Shakespeare in his four great tragedies, with exceptional power, which in turn determines and governs the action of the play. If it is ambition and power mongering that drives Macbeth crazy, it is the choice to abdicate throne that drives King Lear out of his senses. If there is blood all over Macbeth and revenge all over Hamlet it is jealousy all over Othello. This article disseminates the stimulants, reactions and reflections of anger as encapsulated in these four great tragedies. That each one serves a lesson in itself adds value to the theme.

A

ristotle defines anger as: ... an impulse, accompanied by pain, to a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight directed without justification towards what concerns oneself or towards what concerns one’s friends 1. He reasons out that
1

Aristotle’s Republic.

© The Icfai University Press. All rights reserved.

52

MANAGING ANGER

anger always surfaces from injured self-esteem, or a punctured ego, or from some affront meted out to the individual directly or indirectly. He claims that, there are three kinds of insult possible: contempt, spite and insolence. An individual is enraged when there is disappointment, when events turn against one’s wishes breeding envy. It is normal for any human being to expect respect from his subordinates, when he is superior in birth, capacity goodness or anything. When that fails it is natural for the individual to be incensed.
It would certainly not be an overstatement to consider each of Shakespeare’s plays as sui generis2. Quite fittingly, as extensively diverse as his characters, plots and themes, Shakespeare has harvested some of the most powerful of human passions in his plays. In his tragedies, these passions—somewhat akin to the mainspring of a watch determines and governs the action of the play.
These passions are limited in number, yet, the stimulants and the course that each passion can take are as various and numerous as the human beings, who feel and experience them. That Shakespeare was aware of this is corroborated by the array of different situations he depicts as motivating his characters to experience and express powerful passions, coupled with the assorted channels they choose to pursue them. Among these select passions, anger and its repercussions as reflected in his plays are elucidated here. Anger can take many forms and to better understand why one situation, is so distinct from another, it is necessary to analyse the forces working on the different individuals, first to create the different factors that enrage them, that causes them to desire a certain form of expression as for instance, revenge and finally, to determine what would satisfy their craving for that wild kind of justice.
For a multitude of reasons, the Four Great Tragedies alone are taken up for analysis in this article.
Let us look at Macbeth first.
The corrupting power of unimpeded ambition is the main theme of Macbeth.
The devastation that ensues when ambition remains unchecked by moral constraints, discovers its most formidable expression in the play’s two main
2

A Latin term which means only one of its kind.

Anger: Stimulants, Reactions and Reflections – A Shakespearean Perspective

53

characters—Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. Macbeth is a gutsy Scottish general who is not inclined by nature to evil ways, yet a deep seated desire for power and advancement, forces him to commit evil. He slays Duncan much against his better judgement and later stews in uncompromising guilt and paranoia. Towards the end of the play he ascends into a kind of frantic, frenzied and a rather boastful madness. Lady Macbeth, conversely, pursues her objectives with enhanced determination, nevertheless finds herself less capable of enduring the repercussions of her immoral acts. Considered one of Shakespeare’s most compelling female characters, she provokes her husband to ruthlessly kill Duncan and urges him to be resilient to face the murder’s upshot. However, she is, in due course, distracted by the effect of Macbeth’s repetitive bloodshed on her conscience. It is obvious that, ambition, aided by the deceitful prophecies of the witches, propels them to commit even more terrible atrocities against the potential threats to the throne—
Banquo, Fleance, Macduff. Apparently, violence once tasted, always tempts to use the same means to dispose off them.
It is anger and its aftermath that differentiates two different individuals holding the same position of power—Kingship and Tyranny.
We can notice that in the play, Duncan is constantly referred to as a “king”, while Macbeth becomes known as the tyrant right form the moment he ascends the throne. We can find this difference between the two types of rulers expressed in Act IV, scene iii, when Macduff meets Malcolm in England. Essentially to ward off his suspicion on Macduff’s loyalty to Scotland, Malcolm pretentiously proclaims that, he would become much worse than Macbeth as a king. He conveys to Macduff his abhorrent qualities ranging from a thirst for personal power to a violent temperament, which unmistakably illustrate Macbeth to perfection.
In contrast, Malcolm says,
The king-becoming graces justice, verity, temp’rance, stableness,
Bounty, perseverance, mercy, lowliness 3
Macbeth, a complete foil to Duncan, ushers in only chaos to Scotland, represented by the ‘foul air’ and bizarre supernatural events that offer no real justice and making a habit of impulsively murdering those he believes to be a threat.
3

Macbeth Act IV. Sc. iii. Lines 92-94.

MANAGING ANGER

54

An embodiment of tyranny that he is, it necessitates an urgent need on the part of
Malcolm to overcome him, so that, Scotland can have a true king once more.
His unmatched anger is further clouded with hallucinations. Visions and hallucinations persist throughout the play and serve as gory reminders of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s joint culpability for the rising body count. Shortly before he kills Duncan, Macbeth sets eyes on a dagger floating in the air. Swathed in blood and pointed towards the king’s chamber, the dagger symbolizes the bloody course he is about to embark on.
When we take a closer look at the play, we realize that, the point of trigger of anger is not ambition by virtue of it being unchecked, but by the envy that arises out of the passing reference made by the witches to Banquo:
Lesser than Macbeth, and greater.
Not so happy, yet much happier.
Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none:
So all hail, Macbeth and Banquo!
Banquo and Macbeth, all hail! 4 though they have claimed initial happiness to Macbeth.
All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee, thane of Glamis!
All hail, Macbeth, hail to thee, thane of Cawdor!
All hail, Macbeth, thou shalt be king hereafter! 5
(I. iii.)
Macbeth fixates on the core details of the prophecy. “Your children shall be kings”, he says to his friend, to which Banquo responds: “You shall be king”
(I.iii.84) This small wayside exchange compels Macbeth to fulfil his ambitions through foul means. Duncan, Duncan’s chamberlains become his first victims.
After becoming the king, he still remains unsatiated. He is wary of Banquo, hence, orders his killing along with his son Fleance. Nevertheless, Fleance escapes.
Result? Lady Macduff, and Macduff’s son all come to bloody ends. By the end
4

Macbeth Act I. Sc. iii. Lines 64-69.

5

Macbeth Act I. Sc. iii. Lines 48-50.

Anger: Stimulants, Reactions and Reflections – A Shakespearean Perspective

55

of the action, blood seems to be everywhere. A small unauthentic word, breeds envy, envy breeds anger, anger breeds hatred and eventually hatred breeds insane violence. Progression of the plot can be summarised thus.
May be if both Macbeth and Banquo had ignored the words of the witches, they could have steered clear of such violent bloodshed. But then, we probably would have been deprived of this masterpiece of a play as well.
If it is ambition and power mongering that drives Macbeth crazy, it is the choice to abdicate throne that drives King Lear out of his senses.
Whilst the study of anger forms the central focus of King Lear, Shakespeare explores a number of related problems, such as punctured ego, anger and old age, anger and judgement, justice and so on.
This play is a rare amalgamation of goodness, madness and death, all resulting from a deep seated pride and ire. It thus makes it thorny to decide which triumphs in the end.
Lear’s critical error at the beginning of the play is quite apparent. He values appearances over and above reality. He demands kingly treatment, takes pleasure in the title, but he does miserably little to fulfil a king’s obligations of governing for the betterment of his subjects. He even abdicates the throne that was proverbially anointed by the Lord. His test of his daughters’ love reflects a classic case of sycophancy. A flattering public display of love would convince him of their fondness for him. Lear is ostensibly blind to the truth; Cordelia is his favourite daughter right at the beginning of the play, so presumably, he is aware that, she loves him the most. All the same, Lear does take in Goneril and Regan’s fawning over Cordelia’s genuine sense of filial obligation, with an overwhelming sense of pride. Her genuine filial love is too elusive for the King to detect, as he prefers an open testimony of it. He deprives her of her fortunes, banishes her from his kingdom and offers her share as well to the other two daughters, besides disclaiming her of his paternal care calling her his sometime daughter 6.
6

King lear Act I Sc. i, Line-125.

56

MANAGING ANGER

This tragic flaw in his character obstructs his vision to discriminate genuineness from deception as his pride and anger supersedes his judgement. Lear pays no heed to Kent’s plea to distinguish truth from deception with respect to his daughters.
Before long, Lear banishes those who truly care for him including Kent, a loyal servant to him and his erstwhile daughter Cordelia. In the absence of Kent and Cordelia, sycophancy smothers Lear leaving him extremely vulnerable to the evil forces. He is soon abandoned and estranged from his kingdom. Hounded by his two daughters he loses his sense of mental balance and is perched on the verge of insanity. While lost in his grief and self-pity, Lear’s sudden insanity, rage and anger are reflected by the thunderous inclement weather that lashes the country.
Lear’s terrified and unsheltered condition aggravates the suffering. The breakdown of power resulting in the commotion, re-emerges in Lear’s wanderings on the heath during the storm.
Lear’s inner turmoil and mounting madness at least in part, is echoed by the storm. It manifests the physical, turbulent natural reflection of Lear’s internal confusion. The storm at once symbolizes some kind of divine justice, endorsing nature’s anger on the events in the play wherein the meteorological chaos backlashes the political disarray that has engulfed Lear’s land.
Insanity, occupying a critical place in the play is allied to both chaos and hidden wisdom. The Fool proffers insight to Lear in a seemingly mad babble.
Later, in an unenviable state Lear’s personal tumult mirrors the chaos that has descended upon his kingdom. His overwhelming pride takes a heavy beating with the storm raging to humble him, providing him with vital acumen that shrinks him to his bare humanity, stripped of all royal pretensions. Lear thus discovers humility. Edgar’s feigned insanity, gives him company apart from comprising of a morsel of wisdom for the king to quarry.
From here it is a rapid and unforeseen crash landing on the understanding that he, much like the rest of humankind, is insignificant in the world when confronted with nature’s fury. In more ways than one, this realization coerces him to reprioritize his values to assume humility and care. Moreover, with this humility, Lear gains confidence to meet head-on the bedlam in the political realm as well.

Anger: Stimulants, Reactions and Reflections – A Shakespearean Perspective

57

The venomous sting in Lear’s life can be tracked down to the single most important judgemental error that he made. The choice to give up his throne is followed by the hands to which he hands it over. This one decisive sin has proven beyond redemption, to have colossal ramifications upon Lear, those around him and the kingdom. This eventually eliminates almost everyone involved. The established, secure, hierarchal order that Lear represents at the outset, collapses and mayhem swallows both the kingdom and Lear’s mental framework.
When elders are led to utter despair and death, the quick tempered youthful blood propels them to act in vengeance. And if actions are not guided by reason, the results are even more perplexing.
Revenge is one of the most powerful byproducts of anger. It instigates blind action through impulse, rather than through reason. It is based on the principle of an eye for an eye, but this principle as Mahatma Gandhi most succinctly put it, would render the world blind.
Hamlet is essentially a tragedy of revenge amongst three major families. These were the family of King Fortinbras, the family of Polonius, and the family of King
Hamlet. The family heads were all slain within the play. Fortinbras, King of
Norway, was killed by King Hamlet; Polonius an advisor to King Hamlet and later Claudius, was the father of Laertes and Ophelia. His inquisitive and arrogant nature, was coupled with a lack of trust in his children. He was killed by Prince
Hamlet while he was found snooping on a meeting between Hamlet and his mother. King Hamlet, the King of Denmark, and Hamlet’s father was killed by his brother, Claudius. Little surprising that, each of these events distressed the sons of the deceased in much the same way as it enraged them.
The three sons had a single note of commonality in avenging their respective father’s death. This was deemed a matter of honour in the times the play was set.
They swore vengeance and devoted their actions towards achieving this end.
Laertes on getting to hear of his father’s death, returns immediately to Denmark from France. Impulsive and seething, he instantaneously accuses the King
(Claudius) of the murder of his father. On realizing that, it was Hamlet and not the king who was responsible for his father’s death he concocts a ploy with Claudius

MANAGING ANGER

58

to kill Prince Hamlet. Hamlet dies of wounds from the poison tipped sword
Laertes used in the duel at the end of the play but unfortunately, their swords are swapped and Hamlet wounds Laertes with the same sword. That is the wound by which Laertes dies.
Hamlet, deeply saddened by his father’s death, is aggrieved further to note that it was a murder, by his uncle, Claudius. “The serpent that did sting thy father’s life now wears his crown”. Hamlet, dazed and benumbed, acts in vain to prove his uncle’s guilt, but overlooks the many chances that come by, to kill his uncle. In all these occasions his rage outweighs his intelligence; and he chooses to wait until providence interferes to enable him strike the king down into a world of eternal damnation. He eventually succeeds in killing him even as he is mortally wounded by Laertes during their duel.
The point envenomed too! Then venom, to thy work…Here, thou incestuous, murderous, damned Dane, drink off this potion,—is thy union here? Follow my mother 7 .
This left the King dead, and his father’s death avenged.
Young Fortinbras was acutely enraged by the death of his father, and quite naturally swings into action by attacking Denmark. Claudius sends messengers to talk to Fortinbras’ uncle, the new King of Norway. He diverts Fortinbras attention towards the Poles to vent his anger. Besides, he also prevails upon him against attacking Denmark. Fortinbras, quick to realize his folly, makes a vow before his uncle ‘never more to give the assay of arms against your majesty’.
Conferring an unproportioned thought its act 8 has led to the deaths of both
Laertes and Hamlet. Young Fortinbras conversely, regains his fathers land, sans violence, thereby averting death to himself. Hamlet names him new ruler of
Denmark before he dies, and Fortinbras regains much more than his father’s lost land, to emerge as the King of Denmark.
Both Laertes and Hamlet used their quick temper to quicker actions, while
Fortinbras used his aggression judiciously and effectively, that demarks their ends.
7

Hamlet Act V, Sc. ii, Lines 332-338.

8

Hamlet Act I, Sc. iii, Line 60.

Anger: Stimulants, Reactions and Reflections – A Shakespearean Perspective

59

Valor is the hallmark of a great warrior, not necessarily for a human being.
Valor in the battlefield, supplemented by wise counsel is what makes a human out of a warrior. Blind trust can torment the soul if found faulty.
That the play Othello smells of jealousy is apparent. According to Microsoft
Bookshelf, jealousy, by definition, means ‘resentful or bitter in rivalry’. This tragedy converges on the annihilation of Othello and the other major characters as a direct consequence of jealousy. Iago, ironically the most honest 9 (I, iii, 7) in the eyes of his companions utterly corrupts Othello’s life leading to his downfall.
What triggered Iago’s envy of Othello is the fact that, the latter preferred Michael
Cassio, a valiant10 Florentine... arithmetician 11, to himself as his lieutenant. At this point in time jealousy in Iago divorces him completely from rationality. He then plots to ruin Othello. Although Iago has a reputation of being full of love and honesty 12 As the first step he polluted Othello’s mind, alleging that his wife,
Desdemona, has committed adultery with Cassio and instantly, we see Othello emerge as one utterly possessed, calling out for blood and vengeance 13 and could never retrace his path from utter damnation. Death sentences are passed to both
Cassio and Desdemona with a cruel sense of commiseration to the latter, wanting her to die through some swift means of death 14.
Othello’s jealousy extinguishes his love through his hatred. Soon Iago’s deception unfurls. Othello apprehends the damage already done by believing
Iago, that has ensued in the deaths of Roderigo, Desdemona, and Emilia. He then smotes himself 15 (V, ii, 355) dying instantly. Poetic Justice is maintained in that the destroyer is by himself destroyed 16.
The entire sequence in Othello can be traced thus; trust begets blind belief; belief leads to suspicion; suspicion leads to jealousy; jealousy begets ire; ire begets
9

Othello Act II, Sc. iii, line 6

10

Othello Act II, Sc. i, Line 98

11

Othello Act I, Sc. ii, Line 20

12

Othello Act III, Sc. iii, Line 118

13

D R Godfrey

14

Othello Act III, Sc. iii, Line 479
Act V, Sc. ii, Line 355

15
16

D R Godfrey

MANAGING ANGER

60

hatred, hatred leads to murder and the subsequent downfall. If Othello had spent half as much time in verifying as he did in suspicion, the tragedy would never have happened. But in the end justice prevails over sinful actions.
Shakespeare has packed into his characters some of the finest features of human nature. We cannot escape the anger-based emotional conflicts the protagonists of the four great tragedies, endure. The basis for this anger and the results of the anger-induced behaviour illustrates in no mean terms the unethical characteristics which eventually lead to their ruin. We lesser mortals are left to ponder if a single wrong turn can leave Lear, Othello, Hamlet and Macbeth unto utter despair then what grueling corner may impinge on our lives.
(Sumathi Shivakumar is a Language Editor at the Icfai Business School Research
Centre, Chennai. She can be reached at sumathi.shivakumar@gmail.com).

References
1.

Knights, L. C. “How Many Children Had Lady Macbeth? An Essay in the Theory and
Practice of Shakespeare Criticism”. Explorations. New York U P, 1964.

2.

Bradley, A. C. Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth.
2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1905.

3.

Wilson, John Dover. What Happens in Hamlet Cambridge University Press; 3 edition
(Decembe, 1951).

4.

Knight, G. Wilson. The Wheel of Fire. London: Oxford University Press, 1930.

5.

Godfrey D. R. Shakespeare and the Green Eyed Monster, Neophilologus, Vol. LVI, No. 2,
April, 1972.

References: 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1905. Wilson, John Dover. What Happens in Hamlet Cambridge University Press; 3 edition (Decembe, 1951). Knight, G. Wilson. The Wheel of Fire. London: Oxford University Press, 1930. Godfrey D. R. Shakespeare and the Green Eyed Monster, Neophilologus, Vol. LVI, No. 2, April, 1972.