What do you think?
Rate this book
Witches and Jesuits: Shakespeare's Macbeth
In his Pulitzer Prize-winning 1993 book Lincoln at Gettysburg , Garry Wills showed how the Gettysburg Address revolutionized the conception of modern America. In Witches and Jesuits , based on his Oxford/New York Public Library lectures, Wills again focuses on a single document to open up a window on an entire society. He begins with a simple If Macbeth is such a great tragedy, why do performances of it so often fail? The stage history of Macbeth is so riddled with disasters that it has created a legendary curse on the drama. Superstitious actors try to evade the curse by referring to Macbeth only as "the Scottish play," but production after production continues to soar in its opening scenes, only to sputter towards anticlimax in the later acts. By critical consensus there seems to have been only one entirely successful modern performance of the play, Laurence Olivier's in 1955.
Drawing on his intimate knowledge of the vivid intrigue and drama of Jacobean England, Wills restores Macbeth 's suspenseful tension by returning it to the context of its own time, recreating the burning theological and political crises of Shakespeare's era. He reveals how deeply Macbeth's original 1606 audiences would have been affected by the notorious Gunpowder Plot of 1605, when a small cell of Jesuits came within a hairbreadth of successfully blowing up not only the King, but the Prince his heir, and all members of the court and Parliament. Wills likens their shock to that endured by Americans following Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination. Furthermore, Wills documents, the Jesuits were widely believed to be acting in conjunction with the Devil. We see that the treason and necromancy in Macbeth were more than the imaginings of a gifted playwright--they were dramatizations of very real and potent threats to the realm.
In this new light, Macbeth is transformed. Wills presents a drama that is more than a well-scripted story of a murderer getting his just penalty, it is the struggle for the soul of a nation. The death of a King becomes a truly apocalyptic event, and the witches on the heath, shrugged off as mere symbols of Macbeth's inner guilt and ambition by twentieth century interpreters, emerge as independent agents of the occult with their terrifying agendas. Restoring the theological politics and supernatural elements that modern directors have shied away from, Wills points the way toward a Macbeth that will finally escape the theatrical curse on "the Scottish play."
Rich in insight and a joy to read, Witches and Jesuits is a tour de force of scholarship and imagination by one of our foremost writers. It is essential reading for anyone who loves the language.
Drawing on his intimate knowledge of the vivid intrigue and drama of Jacobean England, Wills restores Macbeth 's suspenseful tension by returning it to the context of its own time, recreating the burning theological and political crises of Shakespeare's era. He reveals how deeply Macbeth's original 1606 audiences would have been affected by the notorious Gunpowder Plot of 1605, when a small cell of Jesuits came within a hairbreadth of successfully blowing up not only the King, but the Prince his heir, and all members of the court and Parliament. Wills likens their shock to that endured by Americans following Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination. Furthermore, Wills documents, the Jesuits were widely believed to be acting in conjunction with the Devil. We see that the treason and necromancy in Macbeth were more than the imaginings of a gifted playwright--they were dramatizations of very real and potent threats to the realm.
In this new light, Macbeth is transformed. Wills presents a drama that is more than a well-scripted story of a murderer getting his just penalty, it is the struggle for the soul of a nation. The death of a King becomes a truly apocalyptic event, and the witches on the heath, shrugged off as mere symbols of Macbeth's inner guilt and ambition by twentieth century interpreters, emerge as independent agents of the occult with their terrifying agendas. Restoring the theological politics and supernatural elements that modern directors have shied away from, Wills points the way toward a Macbeth that will finally escape the theatrical curse on "the Scottish play."
Rich in insight and a joy to read, Witches and Jesuits is a tour de force of scholarship and imagination by one of our foremost writers. It is essential reading for anyone who loves the language.
223 pages, Print on Demand Paperback
First published January 5, 1995
2 people are currently reading
190 people want to read
About the author
Garry Wills
154 books253 followersGarry Wills is an American author, journalist, political philosopher, and historian, specializing in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.
Wills has written over fifty books and, since 1973, has been a frequent reviewer for The New York Review of Books. He became a faculty member of the history department at Northwestern University in 1980, where he is an Emeritus Professor of History.
Wills has written over fifty books and, since 1973, has been a frequent reviewer for The New York Review of Books. He became a faculty member of the history department at Northwestern University in 1980, where he is an Emeritus Professor of History.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
October 28, 2017
I read this as preparation for reading Macbeth (a favorite of mine!), and it did provide some insights. I hadn't previously been aware of the play's historical context, premiering a year after the Gunpowder Plot...
After reminding readers of the powerful cultural impact of more contemporary events, such as Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy Assassination (the book was written in 1995), Wills examines this connection from various angles, demonstrating how aspects of the play, such as Malcolm's testing of Macduff, which may seem to modern readers to be diversions from the “main” story, would have been of keen interest to audiences in Shakespeare's day, showing how a shrewd ruler avoided betrayal. Similarly, Wills illustrates the connection between the witches and the Jesuits behind the Gunpowder Plot, drawing on material from a range of Gunpowder plays (I didn't even know there was such a thing!). I knew something before this about James I's concern with witches, but I would never have drawn the connections between Macbeth and witchcraft (aside from the obvious ones) that Wills points out. Admittedly, I didn't always find his readings convincing, and the stuff about the “curse” on the play just seems silly to me (I'm not a theatre person, so I have no idea whether this is something anyone, aside from Wills, actually takes seriously), but many of his arguments seemed convincing, and this will certainly add to my appreciation of the play. Three and a half stars.
Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t'was his intent
To blow up the King and Parli'ment.
Three-score barrels of powder below,
Poor old England to overthrow;
After reminding readers of the powerful cultural impact of more contemporary events, such as Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy Assassination (the book was written in 1995), Wills examines this connection from various angles, demonstrating how aspects of the play, such as Malcolm's testing of Macduff, which may seem to modern readers to be diversions from the “main” story, would have been of keen interest to audiences in Shakespeare's day, showing how a shrewd ruler avoided betrayal. Similarly, Wills illustrates the connection between the witches and the Jesuits behind the Gunpowder Plot, drawing on material from a range of Gunpowder plays (I didn't even know there was such a thing!). I knew something before this about James I's concern with witches, but I would never have drawn the connections between Macbeth and witchcraft (aside from the obvious ones) that Wills points out. Admittedly, I didn't always find his readings convincing, and the stuff about the “curse” on the play just seems silly to me (I'm not a theatre person, so I have no idea whether this is something anyone, aside from Wills, actually takes seriously), but many of his arguments seemed convincing, and this will certainly add to my appreciation of the play. Three and a half stars.
December 22, 2019
Macbeth has always been a difficult play for me to follow. In this book, Wills cracks open Macbeth in very interesting ways by positioning the play against the Gunpowder plot, where the Jesuits attempted a mass-assassination of James and his government.
The treasonous actions of the Jesuits and their attempts to equivocate and misrepresent the truth of their actions became fodder for numerous Elizabethan playwrights. Macbeth is one of these plays. Witches, male and female, are agents of equivocation and deceit in numerous of these Elizabethan plays. In this way they are directly analogous to the Jesuits of the time. While the Elizabethans clearly did believe in witchcraft in general, the supernatural aspects that the witches present appear to be subordinate to the verbal deceits that they offer to Macbeth.
The book is uneven. Overall I found it to be very informative and educational, and it did indeed open the play up for me. Though much of it was very clear and felt pretty compelling, sections of it (particularly the "outrun the pauser" chapter) were very difficult to follow.
The treasonous actions of the Jesuits and their attempts to equivocate and misrepresent the truth of their actions became fodder for numerous Elizabethan playwrights. Macbeth is one of these plays. Witches, male and female, are agents of equivocation and deceit in numerous of these Elizabethan plays. In this way they are directly analogous to the Jesuits of the time. While the Elizabethans clearly did believe in witchcraft in general, the supernatural aspects that the witches present appear to be subordinate to the verbal deceits that they offer to Macbeth.
The book is uneven. Overall I found it to be very informative and educational, and it did indeed open the play up for me. Though much of it was very clear and felt pretty compelling, sections of it (particularly the "outrun the pauser" chapter) were very difficult to follow.
March 14, 2021
Garry Wills has a true talent for close and learned readings. His examination is no exception. In this book, Wills sets MacBeth against the backdrop of the Gunpowder Plot, religious conflict, and concerns about witchcraft. It would seem that many recent books (On King Lear especially) owe a debt of gratitude to Wills.
October 16, 2019
As I continue to read about Macbeth, I found Gary Wills' study of the play, Witches & Jesuits, fascinating. He starts with the question, "Why are modern productions of Macbeth so bad?" which led to the play being considered cursed (anyone who works in the theater knows that you should never say the play's title aloud anywhere inside a theater, and instead refer to it as "the Scottish play"). He points out this is really only a twentieth-century phenomenon; no one considered it cursed when Sarah Siddons or Edwin Booth were playing it.
What I found most interesting about this book is how Wills put the play in context. Most scholars estimate that Shakespeare wrote Macbeth in 1606, so it would have come right on the heels of the Gunpowder Plot (November 5, 1605)--an attempt by radical Catholics to blow up Parliament, which would have killed King James and almost everyone else of importance. Wills compares it to a communist plot to blow up the Capitol on the night of the State of the Union address during the 1950s.
Anyone watching the play would have gotten the clues. Words like "vault" (Guy Fawkes was found in a vault underneath Parliament with all the gunpowder), "blow," (a word that James himself used as a clue from an anonymous letter warning of the attack, and most of all, "equivocator," a word tied to Jesuits, who were basically seen as henchmen to the devil. It's interesting to note that these men, seen as harmless today (Pope Francis is the first Jesuit to become Pope) were considered traitors and demons back in Shakespeare's day (think of them back then as some people look at Muslims today). Several of them were captured and executed for the crime in an England that was devoutly Protestant.
Wills goes through the play and finds evidence of Shakespeare using the Plot as fodder, such as the Porter's entire speech, in which he points out that it all refers to Henry Garnet, one of the conspirators (he claimed he only heard the plot in confession, and then couldn't reveal it). He also refers to several other plays from the period, largely forgotten today, that are of the same bent--The Whore of Babylon, by Thomas Dekker, and especially The Devil's Charter, by Barnabe Barnes, in which Pope Alexander VI (a Borgia) used necromancy to work his evil. Imagine someone writing a play today casting the Pope as a Satanic villain?
Wills also discusses the use of witches in the play. He reasons that many productions in modern times don't make full use of them, and some even present them as part of Macbeth's imagination (which can't be so, since Banquo sees them). Witchcraft was a hot topic in Shakespeare's day, James himself had written a book about it. "In fact, there is not a single play by Shakespeare that does not have some reference to witchcraft, some metaphor based on it, some terms associated with it in a technical sense." He also decries most productions for cutting the scene with Hecate, who instructs the witches on what to do.
For those who are deeply interested in Shakespeare, or Jacobean drama in general, this is a wonderful book. For anyone else, I would imagine this would be deadly dull. But of course I'm in the former camp.
What I found most interesting about this book is how Wills put the play in context. Most scholars estimate that Shakespeare wrote Macbeth in 1606, so it would have come right on the heels of the Gunpowder Plot (November 5, 1605)--an attempt by radical Catholics to blow up Parliament, which would have killed King James and almost everyone else of importance. Wills compares it to a communist plot to blow up the Capitol on the night of the State of the Union address during the 1950s.
Anyone watching the play would have gotten the clues. Words like "vault" (Guy Fawkes was found in a vault underneath Parliament with all the gunpowder), "blow," (a word that James himself used as a clue from an anonymous letter warning of the attack, and most of all, "equivocator," a word tied to Jesuits, who were basically seen as henchmen to the devil. It's interesting to note that these men, seen as harmless today (Pope Francis is the first Jesuit to become Pope) were considered traitors and demons back in Shakespeare's day (think of them back then as some people look at Muslims today). Several of them were captured and executed for the crime in an England that was devoutly Protestant.
Wills goes through the play and finds evidence of Shakespeare using the Plot as fodder, such as the Porter's entire speech, in which he points out that it all refers to Henry Garnet, one of the conspirators (he claimed he only heard the plot in confession, and then couldn't reveal it). He also refers to several other plays from the period, largely forgotten today, that are of the same bent--The Whore of Babylon, by Thomas Dekker, and especially The Devil's Charter, by Barnabe Barnes, in which Pope Alexander VI (a Borgia) used necromancy to work his evil. Imagine someone writing a play today casting the Pope as a Satanic villain?
Wills also discusses the use of witches in the play. He reasons that many productions in modern times don't make full use of them, and some even present them as part of Macbeth's imagination (which can't be so, since Banquo sees them). Witchcraft was a hot topic in Shakespeare's day, James himself had written a book about it. "In fact, there is not a single play by Shakespeare that does not have some reference to witchcraft, some metaphor based on it, some terms associated with it in a technical sense." He also decries most productions for cutting the scene with Hecate, who instructs the witches on what to do.
For those who are deeply interested in Shakespeare, or Jacobean drama in general, this is a wonderful book. For anyone else, I would imagine this would be deadly dull. But of course I'm in the former camp.
February 26, 2017
Garry Wills apparently thinks that the so-called "Macbeth curse" primarily involves artistic failures in the play's modern productions, failures he attributes to actors and directors emphasizing the play's first half and not knowing how to deal with its second half. In
Witches and Jesuits: Shakespeare’s Macbeth
, he offers an interpretation which he feels will allow performers and readers to correct that imbalance. Personally, I've never seen a bad production of Macbeth, and thought that the "curse" had more to do with physical accidents and unfortunate chance events which affected the play's performance rather than artistically unsatisfying productions. Wills' interpretation depends on knowledge of historic events at the time the play was written and the Jacobean understanding of witchcraft and sorcery.
Wills attempts to show the influence of the 1605 Gunpowder Plot and its aftermath on the language, imagery, and plot of Macbeth. Using speeches, trial testimony, sermons, pamphlets, and ballads about the plot, Wills makes a pretty good case that words like "vault", "train", and "equivocate" would have served as allusions to the Plot to contemporary ears, but many of the other elements in the play that he points to as inspired by the Plot, such as necromancy, regicide, and the ironic recoil of the Plot on the Plotters, are general elements in much of Shakespeare and other Elizabethan dramatists. Indeed, that last item seems much more relevant to Hamlet, a play unquestionably written before the Gunpowder Plot was hatched.
Like Sir Bedevere in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Wills is learned in the lore of witchcraft, and he displays his knowledge extensively in the book’s early chapters. However, much of his erudition is applied to analyzing certain speeches and actions with the goal of demonstrating that Macbeth himself is a “male witch”, which I did not find at all convincing. While Macbeth certainly damns himself by his actions, I get no sense, as Wills argues, that he does so in a formal, contractual sense, like Marlowe’s Faustus, nor do I think there is any textual evidence, as he asserts, that Macbeth has become a formidable magician by the time of the play's final act.
Wills’ knowledge of classical and folkloric witch-lore holds up well when explicating the Hecate* scenes of the play, and helps to explain many details of the spells and potions of the Weird Sisters, a trio to whom he consistently refers as the “Weyard Sisters”. However, as he described various Satanic initiations that witches underwent, I began to wonder about the relevance of the human backstory he was implying for the creatures depicted in the play. The basic nature of the sisters seems to me something particularly uncanny, not conforming to the contemporary beliefs that Wills cites. They strike Banquo, at least, as not of human kind; he says they, “look not like th’ inhabitants o’ th’ Earth / And yet are on ’t,” and tries to explain them in an analogy as enigmatic as the sisters themselves, “The earth hath bubbles, as the water has, / And these are of them.” They seem to me like particularly malevolent distant relatives of Midsummer Nights’ fairies.
Wills does make some interesting points concerning contemporary ideas about language and its relationship to reality; he details how Jesuits involved in the Gunpowder Plot studied to speak the truth in ways that led their listeners to misunderstand their testimony. He also offers a very convincing reading if the scene in Act 4 between Macduff and Malcolm, the latter a character he wishes to rescue from the blandness with which he is portrayed in most productions.
But in the end, Wills interpretation of the main character doesn't work for me. Wills claims that his understanding of Macbeth as a Faustian necromancer reconciles the supernatural and human elements in the play, a conflict he sees as responsible for the failure of most productions. Such a forced reading seems like a solution to a problem that does not exist, since I never felt any discord in having Macbeth as a purely earthly tyrant share the stage with elements of sorcery and prophecy.
*Some editors exclude this character altogether as a non-Shakespearean addition, but Wills, while granting that the scenes are not from the Bard’s pen, argues that they must have been inserted, probably with the author’s approval, in some later revival of the play to substitute for similar scenes, now lost.
Wills attempts to show the influence of the 1605 Gunpowder Plot and its aftermath on the language, imagery, and plot of Macbeth. Using speeches, trial testimony, sermons, pamphlets, and ballads about the plot, Wills makes a pretty good case that words like "vault", "train", and "equivocate" would have served as allusions to the Plot to contemporary ears, but many of the other elements in the play that he points to as inspired by the Plot, such as necromancy, regicide, and the ironic recoil of the Plot on the Plotters, are general elements in much of Shakespeare and other Elizabethan dramatists. Indeed, that last item seems much more relevant to Hamlet, a play unquestionably written before the Gunpowder Plot was hatched.
Like Sir Bedevere in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Wills is learned in the lore of witchcraft, and he displays his knowledge extensively in the book’s early chapters. However, much of his erudition is applied to analyzing certain speeches and actions with the goal of demonstrating that Macbeth himself is a “male witch”, which I did not find at all convincing. While Macbeth certainly damns himself by his actions, I get no sense, as Wills argues, that he does so in a formal, contractual sense, like Marlowe’s Faustus, nor do I think there is any textual evidence, as he asserts, that Macbeth has become a formidable magician by the time of the play's final act.
Wills’ knowledge of classical and folkloric witch-lore holds up well when explicating the Hecate* scenes of the play, and helps to explain many details of the spells and potions of the Weird Sisters, a trio to whom he consistently refers as the “Weyard Sisters”. However, as he described various Satanic initiations that witches underwent, I began to wonder about the relevance of the human backstory he was implying for the creatures depicted in the play. The basic nature of the sisters seems to me something particularly uncanny, not conforming to the contemporary beliefs that Wills cites. They strike Banquo, at least, as not of human kind; he says they, “look not like th’ inhabitants o’ th’ Earth / And yet are on ’t,” and tries to explain them in an analogy as enigmatic as the sisters themselves, “The earth hath bubbles, as the water has, / And these are of them.” They seem to me like particularly malevolent distant relatives of Midsummer Nights’ fairies.
Wills does make some interesting points concerning contemporary ideas about language and its relationship to reality; he details how Jesuits involved in the Gunpowder Plot studied to speak the truth in ways that led their listeners to misunderstand their testimony. He also offers a very convincing reading if the scene in Act 4 between Macduff and Malcolm, the latter a character he wishes to rescue from the blandness with which he is portrayed in most productions.
But in the end, Wills interpretation of the main character doesn't work for me. Wills claims that his understanding of Macbeth as a Faustian necromancer reconciles the supernatural and human elements in the play, a conflict he sees as responsible for the failure of most productions. Such a forced reading seems like a solution to a problem that does not exist, since I never felt any discord in having Macbeth as a purely earthly tyrant share the stage with elements of sorcery and prophecy.
*Some editors exclude this character altogether as a non-Shakespearean addition, but Wills, while granting that the scenes are not from the Bard’s pen, argues that they must have been inserted, probably with the author’s approval, in some later revival of the play to substitute for similar scenes, now lost.
February 13, 2019
Mr. Wills posits, right at the top, that the real curse of Shakespeare's "cursed play" is that modern productions aren't very good. That's a subjective position, as is any analysis of the works of William Shakespeare (or art in general), and bound to start a lot of readers off on the wrong foot. I, personally, don't agree with that assessment, having seen a number of great productions of "Macbeth" in my time, but that doesn't invalidate the cornerstone of this book nor does it have any effect whatsoever on the terrific research and presentation of the rich history surrounding the play, which is the real juicy meal of this book. It's very interesting. The larger connections of the Gunpowder Plot to English theatre at the time are staggering. The more minute analysis (specific words get entire pages dedicated to their use in Shakespeare's poetry) is fascinating as well. Whether you agree with Garry Wills' feelings on the piece or not, the history alone makes for a worth-while educational read.
November 14, 2020
The books is lively , stimulating for anyone who is fascinated by the play 'Macbeth', Interesting section on the superstitions surrounding its performances.It is good to see the focus on the missing scenes of Macbeth where the goddess Hecate appears. The author has a love of Shakespeare which makes the book jolly good fun to read.
The problems is that he seems to make so many assumptions about 'Macbeth' and the Gunpowder Plot connection. Yet Shakespeare plays are not easy to date- when they were written and when they were first performed - are disputed. We also know little about Shakespeare, what he read, what inspired him, what books he owned or read. It it is almost as if readers we have to accept the author's assumption that 'Macbeth' and the 'Plot are connected to 'get' the book.
There a couple of niggling errors- such as the Jesuit priest Edward Oldcorne was executed at Redhill not Richmond. It would have been Sir Thomas Tresham who was interrogated for harbouring Jesuit Edmund Campion in 1581, not the Gunpowder Plotter (his son) Francis Tresham.
The problems is that he seems to make so many assumptions about 'Macbeth' and the Gunpowder Plot connection. Yet Shakespeare plays are not easy to date- when they were written and when they were first performed - are disputed. We also know little about Shakespeare, what he read, what inspired him, what books he owned or read. It it is almost as if readers we have to accept the author's assumption that 'Macbeth' and the 'Plot are connected to 'get' the book.
There a couple of niggling errors- such as the Jesuit priest Edward Oldcorne was executed at Redhill not Richmond. It would have been Sir Thomas Tresham who was interrogated for harbouring Jesuit Edmund Campion in 1581, not the Gunpowder Plotter (his son) Francis Tresham.
August 16, 2022
Wills argues that contemporary reception of Macbeth was heavily informed by the notorious Gunpowder Plot of 1605, when a small cell of Jesuits nearly blew up the King and court. Wills likens their shock to that of Americans following Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination. I wasn't around for those; you judge how shocking they were. Wills seems to think they were received as nigh-apocalyptic destruction and havoc.
The king held that the Jesuits and the Devil were to blame, not the Catholic church or theology. The Devil was targeting England because it was the bastion of the Reformation.
Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are both witches because of the play's references to darkness and witch-like abilities. Jesuits are witches! because they had magical relics that gave them powers.
The ambiguous language of Macbeth is equivalent to the ambiguous language abhorred by Anglicans.
This all sounds kind of nutty and you'd think I'd remember reading it, but I don't. I just have these notes.
The king held that the Jesuits and the Devil were to blame, not the Catholic church or theology. The Devil was targeting England because it was the bastion of the Reformation.
Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are both witches because of the play's references to darkness and witch-like abilities. Jesuits are witches! because they had magical relics that gave them powers.
The ambiguous language of Macbeth is equivalent to the ambiguous language abhorred by Anglicans.
This all sounds kind of nutty and you'd think I'd remember reading it, but I don't. I just have these notes.
September 20, 2019
I chose this book to prepare to see a production of MACBETH at a favorite venue, an outdoor setting.
Immediately the book reminded me that the play is never called MACBETH by theater people but "The Scottish Play," due to belief in a curse. The production fails (or gets rained out), scenery falls, cast members sicken and even die.
I scoffed, but now believe. After an early morning start and a two hour drive, we arrived in a driving rain storm (complete with lightning) and discovered the company had been forced to cancel the show (a rare occurrence.) We felt disappointment at not seeing the play, but relief because we would not have enjoyed the play in the cold and wet. Henceforth, I will always refer to "The Scottish Play."
Therefore, I did not finish the book. It was too scholarly for me. Had I seen the play, I would have endeavored to finish.
Immediately the book reminded me that the play is never called MACBETH by theater people but "The Scottish Play," due to belief in a curse. The production fails (or gets rained out), scenery falls, cast members sicken and even die.
I scoffed, but now believe. After an early morning start and a two hour drive, we arrived in a driving rain storm (complete with lightning) and discovered the company had been forced to cancel the show (a rare occurrence.) We felt disappointment at not seeing the play, but relief because we would not have enjoyed the play in the cold and wet. Henceforth, I will always refer to "The Scottish Play."
Therefore, I did not finish the book. It was too scholarly for me. Had I seen the play, I would have endeavored to finish.
November 15, 2023
Interesting premise, but fell off the rails pretty quick when insinuating any "weaknesses" in Macbeth were because Shakespeare was trying to get out a political message.
Read
February 7, 2024the perfect beach read! really got me out of my reading slump
Read
May 6, 2023Garry Wills has a Phd in Classics, but has mostly spent his public career writing about politics, religion, and history. He’s most famous probably for a fallout with the “intellectual Conservatism” movement in the early seventies when he wrote a polemic against Nixon. He also won the Pulitzer Prize in the early 1990s for a book about the Gettysburg Address.
In this book, he begins his study of Macbeth by asking the question: why do so many performances of Macbeth fail? He doesn’t exactly ever spell out by what he means by the question itself in the sense of definition, but he does offer up some classic examples of productions of the play that failed to carve out a meaningful representation.
Then he begins to explore what is needed to fully grapple with Macbeth as a play and a text. For one, he discusses how too often the play is produced absent the context in London in 1606. The two biggest things I think matter here are the Gunpowder Plot, which is oddly romanticized now because of the Guy Fawkes mask and V for Vendetta, which happened in 1606. Not only was this a gigantic political event, where had it succeeded the entire royal line and much of parliament would have been destroyed but also deeply affected the culture of the time. He discusses numerous examples of “Gunpowder” play which are clearly referential to the plot or otherwise are inspired by it. The reason why this is so important according to this book is that it’s not just a political plot, but a plot tied to religious extremism, which he uses to discusses the play. The second, which is tied to the first, is that James I is on the throne and among other things he wrote, his book Daemonologie is and was influential to the understanding of evil and the supernatural.
Shakespeare’s play, whether some people like it or not, is tied to witchcraft. And while it seems likely that Thomas Middleton wrote in the character of Hecate, the witches are purely Shakespeare, so they must be reckoned with. Wills’s lament is that too many directors cut out the witches and other supernatural elements (and how, I have no idea) and this saps the play of its perverse religious sentiment, the witches (of which Macbeth can be considered one, along in part with Malcolm), and takes the life out of it, turning it into a simplistic moral tale. I can’t speak to the fullness and correctness of Wills’s argument, but I like it, and it’s definitely something I plan to bring in elements of in class discussions in the next few weeks.
In this book, he begins his study of Macbeth by asking the question: why do so many performances of Macbeth fail? He doesn’t exactly ever spell out by what he means by the question itself in the sense of definition, but he does offer up some classic examples of productions of the play that failed to carve out a meaningful representation.
Then he begins to explore what is needed to fully grapple with Macbeth as a play and a text. For one, he discusses how too often the play is produced absent the context in London in 1606. The two biggest things I think matter here are the Gunpowder Plot, which is oddly romanticized now because of the Guy Fawkes mask and V for Vendetta, which happened in 1606. Not only was this a gigantic political event, where had it succeeded the entire royal line and much of parliament would have been destroyed but also deeply affected the culture of the time. He discusses numerous examples of “Gunpowder” play which are clearly referential to the plot or otherwise are inspired by it. The reason why this is so important according to this book is that it’s not just a political plot, but a plot tied to religious extremism, which he uses to discusses the play. The second, which is tied to the first, is that James I is on the throne and among other things he wrote, his book Daemonologie is and was influential to the understanding of evil and the supernatural.
Shakespeare’s play, whether some people like it or not, is tied to witchcraft. And while it seems likely that Thomas Middleton wrote in the character of Hecate, the witches are purely Shakespeare, so they must be reckoned with. Wills’s lament is that too many directors cut out the witches and other supernatural elements (and how, I have no idea) and this saps the play of its perverse religious sentiment, the witches (of which Macbeth can be considered one, along in part with Malcolm), and takes the life out of it, turning it into a simplistic moral tale. I can’t speak to the fullness and correctness of Wills’s argument, but I like it, and it’s definitely something I plan to bring in elements of in class discussions in the next few weeks.
August 9, 2016
A strange but fascinating little book by Gary Wills who many consider to be a Catholic (upper case C) author. His knowledge is both deep and broad but he fails to convince with "Witches & Jesuits: Shakespeare's Macbeth".
"Macbeth" is knowm among people who work in the theater as "The Scots Play", since to call it by its actual name will invoke the curse that seems to plague every production of it. Wills sets out to show why it is such a jinx, accepting that it is (he is much more a literary than theater person). His explanation makes no more sense than any other other but his analysis of the structure of Macbeth is worth reading. The book touches on the Gunpowder Plot, comparing it to fears of Communism in the U.S. in the 1950s and goes into some detail regarding the Society of Jesus and their mission in England.
Wills claims that the key to the play is the witches and that because their appearances in the third and fourth acts are truncated or cut altogether that what is left is so different from what Shakespeare desired that it is unplayable. Therefore the constant difficulties that occur--actors becoming ill, getting injured onstage, curtains being dropped at the wrong time, light cues missed or confused, lines forgotten, entrances missed, etc.
It isn't a convincing arguement because it is so improbable. The first chapter "Gunpowder", the fifth "Jesuits" and the sixth "Malcolm" are worth reading.
"Macbeth" is knowm among people who work in the theater as "The Scots Play", since to call it by its actual name will invoke the curse that seems to plague every production of it. Wills sets out to show why it is such a jinx, accepting that it is (he is much more a literary than theater person). His explanation makes no more sense than any other other but his analysis of the structure of Macbeth is worth reading. The book touches on the Gunpowder Plot, comparing it to fears of Communism in the U.S. in the 1950s and goes into some detail regarding the Society of Jesus and their mission in England.
Wills claims that the key to the play is the witches and that because their appearances in the third and fourth acts are truncated or cut altogether that what is left is so different from what Shakespeare desired that it is unplayable. Therefore the constant difficulties that occur--actors becoming ill, getting injured onstage, curtains being dropped at the wrong time, light cues missed or confused, lines forgotten, entrances missed, etc.
It isn't a convincing arguement because it is so improbable. The first chapter "Gunpowder", the fifth "Jesuits" and the sixth "Malcolm" are worth reading.
November 28, 2014
Who would have guessed that if you're going to mount a production of "The Scottish Play" that you should start by "remember[ing] the fifth of November"? Garry Wills makes a persuasive argument that it's only by understanding the impact of the historical, political, and theological context of The Gunpowder Plot that the plot and magical elements of "Macbeth" can be fully understood.
The discussion requires genuine interest in Jacobean England, Shakespeare, and/or theological politics to be fully interesting, but I had two out of three and did okay with it.
For me, the best part was Wills' close examination of how the presentation of witchcraft in "Macbeth" fits into the historical context: the legal and popular understanding of what witchcraft was, especially regarding contracts with the devil. There are some great ideas about how to use the various "triple invocations" and circling actions to highlight themes when staging the play.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is going to be reading, viewing, performing, or studying "Macbeth."
The discussion requires genuine interest in Jacobean England, Shakespeare, and/or theological politics to be fully interesting, but I had two out of three and did okay with it.
For me, the best part was Wills' close examination of how the presentation of witchcraft in "Macbeth" fits into the historical context: the legal and popular understanding of what witchcraft was, especially regarding contracts with the devil. There are some great ideas about how to use the various "triple invocations" and circling actions to highlight themes when staging the play.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is going to be reading, viewing, performing, or studying "Macbeth."
June 13, 2011
I read this sometime in the 1990s when it came out. It literally fell off my shelf so I took it as a sign to re-read it. I finished teaching "Macbeth" a few weeks ago to seniors who either really didn't like it or could only think about prom and graduation or they aren't graduating at all and are filling in seats because otherwise they'd risk a truancy ticket. I wish I had re-read it earlier because Wills' book refreshed my memory of the historical context. Witches, explosions, equivocation and treason were in the air the winter after the Gunpowder Plot and Wills does a good job tying it all together with Jesuitical plotting. Now I wish I'd spun a better web to catch this senior class. Maybe next year. By the way some of Wills' comments about paranoia in government are almost prescient on this side of 9/11.
August 5, 2016
This is an interesting book that analyzes Macbeth and demonstrates how Shakespeare uses the events of his time to inform the play focusing on the Gunpowder Plot of the year prior to the play's first production. It also focuses on the use of witches throughout the play. It is an interesting book, offering insights into the play.
January 26, 2012
This was an interesting, albeit short interpretation of Macbeth. I would have liked to see more history, rather the author spends more time speaking about Macbeth in comparison to other plays. It was interesting but not very meaty.
October 25, 2013
Really interesting thesis (that I probably would have enjoyed even more were I more familiar with the Gunpowder Plot, and with the other plays performed by the court's troupe during the 1606 Christmas-Epiphany season), some sections were stronger than others, but still a good read.
December 16, 2009
An interesting companion read to Bill Cain's play "Equivocation" with some very plausible interpretations of how to play/read Macbeth in the context of Gunpowder Plot England.
March 1, 2010
Most excellent historical perspective. A bit dry, but well done.
November 3, 2013
Would have appreciated it more if I knew Macbeth better and more about the Gunpowder plot.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews