*****

Jess Lee is a student at the University of British Columbia. He channels his love for language and storytelling into his creative work, crafting poetry that delves into themes of identity, feeling, death, afterlife, and more. He also writes critical essays on English literature, engaging deeply with texts to explore their cultural, historical, and aesthetic dimensions. Beyond the classroom, Jess is the host of Jess’ Lit, a literature and music radio show on CiTR. On the show, he explores the rich intersections between written and musical art forms, highlights emerging and established creative works, and fosters engaging conversations about the transformative power of storytelling and sound.

*****

 Desire as a Virus in  Macbeth and Hamlet

William Shakespeare’s tragedies Macbeth and Hamlet are complex examinations of the
human psyche, exploring the profound and often destructive effects of unchecked desire.
Shakespeare’s portrayal of desire in these plays extends beyond personal ambition or yearning; it becomes a metaphysical virus that spreads beyond the individual, contaminating not only the characters’ lives but the very social, moral, and cosmic fabric surrounding them. In both plays, desire is not merely a psychological or moral failing; it is a cosmic contagion – an infection that distorts reality, warps moral order, and compels individuals to act in ways that ultimately lead to their undoing. I will argue here that Shakespeare, in Macbeth and Hamlet, uses desire as a cautionary tool to illustrate its insidious power, demonstrating how what begins as an innocent or subconscious impulse, when left unchecked, spirals into a devouring force that consumes everything in its path. Through the two works, desire becomes an all-consuming plague, devastating both the protagonists and the world around them, ultimately exposing the catastrophic consequences of surrendering to it without restraint.

Shakespeare portrays desire as a viral pathogen in Macbeth, demonstrating how a seemingly innocuous seed of ambition can rapidly mutate into a destructive force consuming both individual and societal moral landscapes. The witches’ prophecy introduces the initial vector of desire into Macbeth’s psyche, with his passive initial response revealing a latent susceptibility to this psychological infection:

If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me,
Without my stir (1.4.157–159).

Lady Macbeth’s provocative influence serves as the critical catalyst that transforms his dormant longing into active pursuit, effectively compromising Macbeth’s moral immune system and accelerating the viral spread of ambition. The murder of King Duncan marks the pivotal moment of metamorphosis, where Macbeth’s desire mutates from a contained infection to a full-blown epidemic that extends beyond individual corruption into a broader systemic breakdown. By illustrating how unchecked ambition can infect an entire social organism, Shakespeare creates a metaphorical exploration of desire’s capacity to destabilize not just personal integrity, but entire political and ethical frameworks, rendering desire a contagion more dangerous than any physical plague.

The initial act of violence in Macbeth is crucial, as it establishes a pattern of escalating
bloodshed driven by unchecked ambition and fear. Macbeth’s desire for power, once a private aspiration, mutates into a self-perpetuating cycle of violence, where each murder necessitates another to maintain his fragile authority. His decision to kill Duncan does not satisfy his ambition but instead deepens his paranoia, compelling him to eliminate Banquo and Fleance in an attempt to secure his reign. This shift is evident in his reflection, “To be thus is nothing, / But to be safely thus” (3.1.52–53), where kingship alone is rendered meaningless without absolute security. Here, Macbeth’s ambition evolves into a pathological need for control, one that demands continuous violence to sustain its illusion of stability.

Macbeth’s ambition functions as a corrosive force that extends beyond himself, entangling those closest to him – most notably, Lady Macbeth. While she initially wields ambition as a tool for power, urging Macbeth to seize the throne, her complicity in his rise ultimately renders her vulnerable to the very consequences of their unchecked desire. Her psychological unravelling in the sleepwalking scene in Act 5, Scene 1 illustrates how ambition, once unleashed, cannot be controlled or reversed. Her desperate attempt to purge imagined bloodstains – “Out, damned spot! out, I say!” (5.1.37) – reveals the futility of absolution, as the marks of their crimes exist beyond the physical. The hallucinated stains serve as a metaphor for the irreversible moral decay inflicted by their ambition, demonstrating that power pursued through transgression does not merely corrupt – it consumes. Lady Macbeth’s descent into madness underscores the self-destructive nature of desire; ambition, rather than being a means to control fate, erodes the very agency of those who seek to wield it.

As Macbeth and Lady Macbeth succumb to the contagion of unchecked desire, their
ambition metastasizes beyond their own psyches, destabilizing the very fabric of Scotland. The natural world becomes a symbolic register of this moral disintegration, manifesting in strange and ominous disturbances – unnatural weather, the deaths of animals, and the disruption of cosmic order. In Act 2, Scene 4, Ross describes the night of Duncan’s murder: “By th’ clock ’tis day, / And yet dark night strangles the traveling lamp” (2.4.8-9). This inversion of natural rhythms functions as a reflection of the disorder Macbeth has unleashed; his transgression against the legitimate rule is not merely a political act but a rupture in the moral and cosmic order. The transformation of Scotland from a stable kingdom under Duncan to a diseased and chaotic realm underscores the far-reaching consequences of ambition unmoored from ethical restraint, illustrating how Macbeth’s desire functions as a corrupting force that extends beyond the individual to infect the world around him.

In Hamlet, desire manifests not as a pursuit of power or physical dominance but as an
intellectual fixation that becomes corrosive. Hamlet’s relentless quest for knowledge and moral certainty functions as a form of contagion, infecting his thoughts and actions with a paralyzing need for absolute clarity. Rather than empowering him, this desire renders him incapable of decisive action, transforming his intellectual rigor into a self-destructive force. His obsession with uncovering the truth about his father’s death becomes less a path to justice and more an endless cycle of doubt and hesitation, demonstrating the destabilizing effects of unchecked introspection.

Hamlet’s soliloquy in Act 3, Scene 1, encapsulates this destructive intellectualism. When
he asks, “to be, or not to be: that is the question” (3.1.64), he articulates a fundamental
existential crisis – whether life, with all its suffering, is worth enduring. His pursuit of certainty, however, does not bring resolution; instead, it consumes him, distorting his judgment and undermining his ability to act. By fixating on the perfect alignment of justice and morality, Hamlet ensures his inertia. His refusal to avenge his father’s murder when the opportunity arises is not merely a delay but a consequence of his internalized need for intellectual and ethical coherence. This paralysis, fueled by his compulsive desire for knowledge, ultimately leads to his downfall, revealing the tragic consequences of an intellect that seeks certainty in a world resistant to it. Hamlet’s desire, much like Macbeth’s, operates as a contagion that extends beyond his psyche, shaping and destabilizing the emotional landscapes of those around him. Nowhere is this more evident than in Ophelia, whose tragedy is not merely a consequence of external manipulation but also a product of Hamlet’s intellectual obsession. His relentless pursuit of moral and philosophical certainty renders him emotionally inaccessible, and his rejection of Ophelia – both in words and actions – becomes a site where his internal conflicts manifest with devastating consequences. Ophelia’s descent into madness underscores the relational toll of Hamlet’s inertia; his fixation on abstract ideals isolates him from human connection, with destructive repercussions for those ensnared in his emotional orbit. The play thus presents desire not as an isolated force within the protagonist but as a volatile presence that permeates and disrupts the lives of others, exposing the inextricable relation between individual obsession and collective suffering.

Denmark’s disintegration functions as an externalization of Hamlet’s internal crisis,
illustrating the inescapable link between personal turmoil and political decay. Hamlet’s obsessive introspection and reluctance to act do not remain confined to his psyche; rather, they generate a ripple effect that destabilizes the kingdom. His intellectual paralysis, driven by an unresolved tension between moral idealism and pragmatic action, mirrors the broader collapse of ethical and political order in Denmark. The state’s descent into chaos – culminating in the violent eradication of its ruling class – reveals how Hamlet’s inability to reconcile his desires translates into tangible destruction. Like the corrupting ambition in Macbeth, Hamlet’s existential uncertainty functions as a contagion, eroding the structures that uphold both individual agency and state power, ultimately exposing the fragility of governance in the face of unresolved human conflict.

In both Macbeth and Hamlet, desire operates as a self-perpetuating force, consuming
those who indulge in it and expanding beyond their control. In Macbeth, ambition does not
simply drive action – it becomes a parasitic force that devours its host. Macbeth’s initial crime, the murder of Duncan, is not an end in itself but rather a catalyst for further bloodshed. As he reflects:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI am in blood
Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er (3.4.168-170).

Here, Shakespeare reveals that Macbeth’s desire is insatiable; having once transgressed moral boundaries, he finds himself unable to stop. Each act of violence reinforces his compulsion for dominance, transforming him into a figure who is both predator and prey – devoured by the very ambition that once empowered him. His unchecked desire ultimately unravels his psyche, his marriage, and his kingdom, underscoring the self-destructive nature of unrestrained ambition. Similarly, in Hamlet, desire manifests not as ruthless action but as intellectual paralysis. Hamlet’s obsession with certainty and moral justification becomes a recursive trap, preventing him from fulfilling his supposed purpose. He fixates on the need for the “perfect” moment to act, lamenting that “the time is out of joint: O cursed spite, / That ever I was born to set it right!” (1.5.209-210). His awareness of the disorder around him fuels his desire for a grand, calculated resolution, but this very impulse immobilizes him. Unlike Macbeth, whose unchecked desire leads to overaction, Hamlet’s intellectual self-consumption leads to perpetual hesitation. His inability to resolve the tension between thought and action spreads outward, ensnaring those
around him – Ophelia, Polonius, Laertes – until it culminates in the play’s catastrophic finale. In both tragedies, Shakespeare presents desire as a self-perpetuating force that does not merely drive the protagonist forward but instead consumes them, leaving destruction in its wake.

Both plays paint desire as a corrosive force that unravels not only the protagonists’
personal lives but also the mor al and cosmic order of their respective worlds. In Macbeth,
ambition operates as a destabilizing contagion, beginning with Macbeth’s initial temptation:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition” (1.7.25-27).

This ultimately escalates into a self-perpetuating cycle of violence. His unchecked pursuit of power dismantles Scotland’s natural order, reflected in the imagery of the “dunnest smoke of hell” (1.5.58) that shrouds his ambition, signaling its unnatural and destructive nature. Likewise, in Hamlet, the prince’s obsession with intellectual certainty and moral justification immobilizes him, transforming his desire for truth into a force that consumes both himself and the Danish state. His hesitance – “the native hue of resolution / Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought” (3.1.92-93) – underscores the self-destructive nature of his internal conflict, which ultimately results in Denmark’s collapse. Both plays depict inclination as an insatiable force that, once set in motion, resists containment, spreading like a contagion that dismantles individual agency and the stability of the world itself.
Furthermore, through Macbeth and Hamlet, Shakespeare conceptualizes desire as a
cosmic defiling – an insidious force that infiltrates the individual, destabilizes the social order, and wears away the natural world. As Macbeth and Hamlet succumb to their respective desires – Macbeth’s for power and Hamlet’s for vengeance – they become vectors of destruction, spreading an existential plague that unravels the fabric of reality. These tragedies serve as profound meditations on the metastasizing nature of unchecked longing, revealing how even the most intimate aspirations can spiral into a force that distorts the self, poisons the collective, and fractures the universe. Shakespeare compels readers to reckon with the perilous volatility of desire, illuminating its power to consume not just the dreamer but the dream itself, leaving behind a world infected by its ruin.

Works Cited:

Mowat, Barbara A., & Paul Werstine, editors. The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark. Folger Shakespeare Library.
https://socrates.acadiau.ca/courses/engl/rcunningham/resources/Shpe/Hamlet.pdf.
Mowat, Barbara A., & Paul Werstine, editors. The Tragedy of Macbeth. Folger Shakespeare
Library. https://socrates.acadiau.ca/courses/engl/rcunningham/resources/Shpe/Macbeth.pdf.

Back to the top