Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
MacBeth, Act 1- February 15
Update: my PC has got over that funny turn with the help of the pc man downtown! Hopefully it will be OK for now.Hello, everyone. My goodness, a stirring discussion has begun already, with fascinating comments from everyone.
That's interesting about the issue of does Lady Macbeth seduce Duncan? Does Macbeth play the complaisant husband? I may be being obtuse, but what would he gain by it? Duncan already feels safe enough in the castle because Macbeth fought valiantly on his side against the other rebel.
There may well be a good politic reason which I have missed. Jim suggests there are hints you can build up, sleuth like...
My only original comment so far about further on in the play, is about the 'I have given suck' famous lines of Lady Macbeth. The edition I have, which frankly isn't very good for discussion, makes little of this. But after all, in Mediaeval times, unfortunately, the death rate of babies was high, and Lady Macbeth and Macbeth may have recently had a baby who died. This may have been common, but still had a strong emotional effect on the mother, and is this the explanation for her extraordinarily savage behaviour?
It is not as if Macbeth thinks that they are unlikely to have more, though, as he makes that speech about how such a woman should bring forth only boys.
The whole business about the superstition about speaking the name 'Macbeth' and saying 'The Scottish Play' instead, except in acting, in the theatre is interesting. Some even go to the extent of saying that Shakespeare borrowed a curse from witches, who then cursed him.
Far fetched stuff indeed. No doubt my PC breaking down twice has to do with the curse...
It has been suggested that it is more likely that the church started that rumour to give credence to the current witch trials, and that if financial misfortunes happened to a theatre staging the play it was because they were losing money already, and so staged the play as a crowed drawer.
In the first scene, the witches obviously set the sinister tone. They state ambiguously that they will meet again: 'When the battle's lost and won,' that they will meet Macbeth, and that 'Fair is foul, and foul is fair'.
As usual with Shakespeare, he really gets on with the action at once, with the witches flying off : 'Hover through fog and filthy air' and the second scene beginning with a 'bloody sergeant' staggering in from the fighting between the forces in support of Duncan and the usurper Macdonwald's supporters, praising Macbeth's outstanding valour.
It has been suggested that Shakespeare had to change the original source of the King of Denmark to the King of Norway, so as not to offend him.
Mod
I thought I would quickly add some online sources for reading MacBeth...
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/macbeth/fu...
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/macbeth/
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/pla...
http://www.literaturepage.com/read/sh...
On the "foul is fair" issue, I'm struck by how absent principles seem to be. Duncan's calling for the (original) Thane of Cawdor's execution ("Go pronounce his present death") and Macbeth's fairly quick consideration of regicide seem routine in this world. I suppose loyalty is the one principle that appears to matter so far, with Duncan punishing its being thrown aside and Macbeth readily pondering throwing it aside through a mix of superstition, ambition, and being egged on by his honeybunch.
Typing this from the library. PC crashed after all.I know what you mean,Jim. I find it hard to relate to the notion that the life of a king is worth so much more than that of anyone - not being a monarchist. I assume Shakespeare was following the equivalent of government guidelines of the time, in the light of the recent Gunpowder Plot? The attitude towards political assassination in Julius Caesar (though he is not a king only aspiring to be an equivalent) is far more sympathetic - and that in the repressive age of Elizabeth I. Of course, monarchs of that age and much later made a point of executing all traitors horribly and publicly to discourage it - ie Damiens in the reign of Louis XV.
PRINCE EDWARD.
Let Aesop fable in a Winter's Night,
His Currish Riddles sorts not with this place.
— Henry VI, Part 3 (not The Winter's Tale)
Shakespeare combined allegory, metonymy, and parallelism to build omens.
DUNCAN.
Dismayed not this our Captains, Macbeth and Banquo?
CAPTAIN.
Yes, as Sparrows, Eagles;
Or the Hare, the Lion:
Sparrows are Norweyan arms, Eagles are Macbeth and Banquo; however, the singular Hare and Lion with definite article look suspicious. They come from Aesop's Fables: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Ha...
or Antisthenes' mockery of Athenian democracy's equality (quoted by Aristotle).
Banquo is the Hare, Macbeth the Lion ("Be Lion mettled"). The Captain is foretelling Banquo's fate. Shakespeare could have written "Hares, Lions"; he didn't. Some might say this could be a coincidence, so he planted another.
Owl and Cricket
MACBETH.
I have done the deed:
Did'st thou not hear a noise?
LADY MACBETH.
I heard the Owl scream, and the Crickets cry.
Did not you speak?
Aesop's Owl and Cricket says, a cricket cried noisily and woke an owl. The owl asked the cricket to be quiet but was rejected. The owl ate the cricket. Here the singular Owl is Macbeth, the plural Crickets are the two guards of Duncan. He kills them.
MACBETH.
There is one did laugh in his sleep,
And one cried "Murther," that they did wake each other:
I stood, and heard them: ...
Lucinda wrote: "Update: my PC has got over that funny turn with the help of the pc man downtown! Hopefully it will be OK for now.Hello, everyone. My goodness, a stirring discussion has begun already, with fascin..."
Whenever I read, "I have given suck", I wonder if Lady Macbeth means she has suckled her own baby or someone else's baby. When mothers' milk ran out due to starvation times or sickness, other lactating women often filled in--sometimes for pay, sometimes for love.
When wet nurses were chosen, they were chosen for their health and their character. Character was thought to be communicated through the milk. A choice of nurses were not always available. A sudden death of a mother of a several-months old baby or the sudden drying up (sorry if TMI) of milk/sudden lowering of milk quality due to infectious disease would make any any wet nurse desireable. Even a woman as cold-hearted as the woman who would become/who was Lady Macbeth might become a wet nurse. Whoever she nursed, she hated and would have "dashed his brains out". (Just noticed: a man-child).
Here's the deal. For a woman to lactate before the scientific discovery and the medical adminsitering of oxytocin and prolactin, she had to be far enough along in pregnancy to start producing milk. So Lady Macbeth coild have issued forth a live baby or a stillborn baby in order to lactate.
So Lady Macbeth at some point was pregnant. Who she suckled, we do not know. Not likely Macbeth's. The love she bears Macbeth at the beginning of the play would have spilled over at least somewhatocer to her child from Macbeth. It is just how love works.
If the child were Macbeth's child, he might have said something less automatic/generic than "Bring forth men-children only" (Act I, scene 7, line 73). He would likely have had a feeling about a possble heir to his wealth and titles. If the man-child has been his, he woud have been upset that Lady Macbeth spoke so disrespectfully of his son, his legal heir. I think the child Lady Macbeth suckled was a child she suckled from before her marriage. Maybe as a peasant she had been forced to suckle a baby of a landowner she hated.
Macbeth knows the value of male children. He seeks to kill Banquo's sons. He knows--of course he would--that the kingship will pass from him due to a lack of his own sons. Although I do not remember him saying so directly, Macbeth seeks to kill Banquo's sons to give him an opportunity to sire his own legimate heir(s).
Hi everyone! I have not participated in a discussion for a long while. Looking forward to Macbeth, one of my favorites!
Cynda wrote: So Lady Macbeth at some point was pregnant. Who she suckled, we do not know. Not likely Macbeth's. The love she bears Macbeth at the beginning of the play would have spilled over at least somewhatocer to her child from Macbeth..."Hi Cynda! Interesting take on Lady Macbeth/ baby. I always took this passage to mean that Lady Macbeth was challenging Macbeth because he threatened to give up on murdering the King.
MACBETH: We will proceed no further in this business:
He hath honour'd me of late; and I have bought
Golden opinions from all sorts of people,
Which would be worn now in their newest gloss,
Not cast aside so soon.
After he tells her this, she says:
I have given suck, and know
How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me:
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have pluck'd my nipple from his boneless gums,
And dash'd the brains out, had I so sworn as you
Have done to this.
I took it to mean -- she had breast fed, but lost a baby (death being so common among infants). She brings up to subject to further make Macbeth fell guilty about her loss. (He owes her something because, after all, she lost the baby.) Then she goes on to say that she would just as soon have killed the baby herself if she had promised Macbeth she would do so. (Because she is more loyal than him!) The whole speech is designed to guilt Macbeth into agreeing once again to kill the King.
The part about boys:
MACBETH: Bring forth men-children only;
For thy undaunted mettle should compose
Nothing but males.
I took it to mean that, because Lady Macbeth has the "masculine" trait of decisiveness (undaunted mettle) even in a case of murder, she should therefore only be expected to deliver boys, and not girls.
Lucinda wrote: "... I find it hard to relate to the notion that the life of a king is worth so much more than that of anyone ..."The Divine right of Kings asserted that the King derived the right to rule directly from the will of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_...
Christine wrote: "Cynda wrote: So Lady Macbeth at some point was pregnant. Who she suckled, we do not know. Not likely Macbeth's. The love she bears Macbeth at the beginning of the play would have spilled over at le..."Okay then. Thanks Christine :-)
I am learning agreat deal here. I am glad I found you all.
Tim wrote: "Lucinda wrote: "... I find it hard to relate to the notion that the life of a king is worth so much more than that of anyone ..."The Divine right of Kings asserted that the King derived the right to rule directly from the will of God. ..."
Tim, agreed! Royalty thought they were appointed by God, and I get the idea that a king's life was considered more important than that of any commoner. Folk were put to death for even talking about or predicting the death of a monarch.
Knowing this, it seems a little weird that Macbeth is so quick to ponder regicide when he gets to prophecy from the witches.
I found this article. The Scottish Kings tradition was to elect a King from the extended royal family. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/th...
Mod
name given to a cat, especially an old she-cat, 1620s, as in, or from, Shakespeare's Gray-Malkin, in "Macbeth" (1605); from gray (adj.) + Malkin, diminutive of fem. proper name Matilda or Maud.
Mod
PRINCE EDWARD.
Let Aesop fable in a Winter's Night,
His Currish Riddles sorts not with this place.
— Henry VI, Part 3 (not The Winter's Tale)
Shakespeare combined allegory, metonymy, and paralleli..."
My goodness Jim, this is fabulous work you have done here. Thank you for this insight.
I think this is helpful in understanding English Renaissance (and Medieval) thinking:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_c...
The most popular interpretation on the "given suck" lines seems to be that there was a son who died before the first scene of the play, either as a child or as an adult. There are some productions that have him as a casualty in the battle which Macbeth has just won.If it seems shocking that LM would talk that way about a child she had actually had, that's because it is. LM is shockingly evil. You could argue that this is one of S.'s more sexist plays in that Macbeth commits the crimes, but LM seems to take more of the blame.
I've brought this up elsewhere, but I like confirmation, so I'll ask:"Weird" is pronounced "weyard" in this play, right? As in, it would rhyme with "day bird?"
Shakepearean pronunciation would have taken place before the "Great Vowel Shift" that made English vowels different from other European languages--speakers in Shakespeare's London probably sounded more like ( very generally!) modern Irish or Scots than Modern Londoners--with their rolled arrs and more generous pronunciation of both vowels in a dipthong, like your weird. I would have said weird would be more pronounced like "wayeerd". If you know the pronunciation of vowels in any European language, it would be more similar to those, approximately..that is a=ah, e=ay, i=ee, o and U is more or less same but softer? (they all kinda are) . This is my understanding from learning the pronunciation of Chaucer's Middle English. Example: "day" and "eye" would have been pronounced, in 1300ad, as "dahee" and "ayeeeay". so. I'm guessing Shakespeare's was just a slight adjustment from that 200 years later. There's some sample files at the end of this Wiki if you're curious in this regard.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_V...
I'm so excited! I'll be reading this with my students in a few weeks. Our focus will be on relationships. Hope it goes well. Can't wait to see what everyone has to say!
I may have more to add once I re-read the scene, but I have always interpreted LM's "I have given suck" line to mean be her manipulation of Macbeth - to contrast her sense of loyalty to his. Yes, it is supposed to be shocking, because how could a mother who loves her child kill it on a mere promise? But it's probably notable that this statement comes after her soliloquy, when she asks the spirits to "unsex" her and "take her milk for gall."
She has abandoned her traditionally feminine instincts - or she is trying to - in order to encourage Macbeth to secure his fated position.
Casey wrote: "I'm so excited! I'll be reading this with my students in a few weeks. Our focus will be on relationships. Hope it goes well. Can't wait to see what everyone has to say!
I may have more to add o..."
That's a pretty traditional reading, and works with the whole concept of LM as an example of what the people of the times would have considered "unnatural" behavior, according to this Chain of Being" idea. Good people were "natural" which kind of follows the concept of accepting God's will--keeping within the place you were given on the chain. Bad people, sinners, broke the chain, resisted and rebelled against the natural order, and would thereby perpetuate tragedy on themselves and others until order was restored--usually by eliminating them. MacBeth himself does the same by not patiently waiting for his proper rights in the order to become king. He's a usurper for forcing the issue through sin. So many Shakespeare plays become clearer with that reading, especially the tragedies--which is not necessarily a philosophy us modern folk accept or understand.
I would add--to reinforce your interpretation of LM's manipulation--she doesn't always walk her talk--so perhaps she's prone to hyperbole. For example, that scene where "they", really, MacBeth, go through with the murder--and she spouts all sorts of cant about how she's so hot she would have done the murder herself--except he looked like her father.... MacBeth later in the play seems to recognize she's weaker-minded than she claims about being capable of such rebellious behavior. She puts me in mind a bit of Raskolnikov in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT who eventually confesses his own misdeeds.
I think it is also good to recognize, as is very clear by the 2nd scene in Act I that being a rebel in Medieval times (MacBeth is set in very early Medieval times) was quite frowned upon--sinful, even, going against God's orders, etc., even if in Shakespeare's day that was beginning to unravel a bit with the Cath/Protestant conflicts and all.
Tracy wrote: "That's a pretty traditional reading, and works with the whole concept of LM as an example of what the people of the times would have considered "unnatural" behavior, according to this Chain of Being" idea..."I'm late to the party it seems, and what a party it is... great discussions!
I've read Marjorie Garber's discussion of MacBeth in her book Shakespeare After All, and she has a lot to say about the "natural" vs. the "unnatural" in this play... and that there is a constant contrasting of qualities (ie fair is foul, foul is fair etc) which is all about equivocation. This is that, or, that is this... ambiguity throughout, which indicates the schisms in both MacBeth and his Lady. They are both tormented by the schisms they harbor.
She also mentions that what is natural, is good, and what is unnatural is evil. People who follow their natural tendencies do not commit murder. That is an unnatural act. Both MacBeth and LM are at war within themselves.
There is a lot of reference to nature in the play: birds, seeds, growth, harvest, etc. People who follow their natures are aligned with the bounties and beauties of nature. Unnatural people bring about drought and pestilence and failed harvests, etc (I think there is some reference to this in later acts). This reminds me of Arthur, and the Grail -- as the king flourishes (true to his nature), so flourishes the land and the people
My first inclination in this Act 1 was to see Lady MacBeth cast in the role of Eve. The Weird Sisters do not really have the power to make things happen, they are more like the Fates than like witches. They prophesy, but it is ambiguous. It is MacBeth who decides that something has to happen to bring about the prophecy... but then, his conscience wars with his egoic ambition, and it remains a fantasy that he in fact rejects after he thinks it. (does Adam wonder about breaking the rule?)
It is Lady MacBeth, however, who jumps right on that, immediately after hearing of the prophecy. She instantly decides what must be done to make things happen. She'll take that apple, and make Adam eat it too.
I to watch this enacted while I read it. I also hope this play does not turn into a mysogonistic sexist attack on women (which doesn't seem Shakespearean).
Tim wrote: "I found this article. The Scottish Kings tradition was to elect a King from the extended royal family. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/th..."
Thanks for the article Tim! Interesting that the real Macbeth and Duncan were actually relatives. I never knew that!
Tracy wrote: "I think this is helpful in understanding English Renaissance (and Medieval) thinking:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_c..."
Fascinating article, thanks Tracy! I guess we'd never see any vegetarians in Medieval and Renaissance times :-)
Christine wrote: "Tim wrote: "I found this article. The Scottish Kings tradition was to elect a King from the extended royal family. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/th......"
They are in the play, too. It's why he calls him cousin, which was a generic term for relative in those days. most of the main players in the story are blood related.
Mod
And thrice again, to make up nine.
Peace! the charm's wound up.
Banquo: How far is't call'd to Forres? What are these
So wither'd and so wild in their attire,
That look not like the inhabitants o' the earth,
And yet are on't? Live you? or are you aught
That man may question? You seem to understand me,
By each at once her chappy finger laying
Upon her skinny lips: you should be women,
And yet your beards forbid me to interpret
That you are so.
Oooohhh.... I love the numbers in this small section. My head spins at the potential numbers in this play.
Three, thrice.
"Forres" A Scottish Castle..(4's or fours)
30 (Their fingers)
30 divided by 3 (3 chappy fingers, or is it 10 divided by 1?)
Distance "how far is it to Forres? (how far is is it? the mileage between Brodie Heath Castle and Forres?)
Mod
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-ori...
Mod
I love some of these images....this has been such a rich first act.
I love "temple-haunting martlet"
"This guest of summer,
The temple-haunting martlet, does approve,
By his loved mansionry, that the heaven's breath
Smells wooingly here: no jutty, frieze,
Buttress, nor coign of vantage, but this bird
Hath made his pendent bed and procreant cradle:
Where they most breed and haunt, I have observed,
The air is delicate."
And does this have a double meaning...one that the crest of a martlet is found in a church....suggesting conflict of interest between government/monarchy and church....or blending of interests.
How sweet the idea of a bird entering a church and flying around...either trapped....or at play. It could be either which is disturbing again.
Then also the idea that an animal or wild one is hanging in a place it should be inside. Like someone entering a social circle they are not welcomed int?
Fascinating comments, everyone.I am so frustrated that my PC is still down and I am having to type a short note from the library. I typed one on Saturday, and was chased off the system, which was closing, before I could post it.
Interesting comments about 'giving suck'. As above, as someone else says, I do think in a time of high child mortality that Lady Macbeth probably had a baby who died, and it would affect her mental balance. Maybe Macbeth is being insensitive? I don't think Lady Macbeth could have been a peasant widow forced to suckle, though - while the class structure was not feudal before the Norman conquest, it wouldn't have been flexible enough for an ambitious man like Macbeth to marry anyone of 'low' birth; he'd marry for land and influence, and affection might come later, or be incidental.
And on that - I am puzzled. As I understand it, there were no castles in the UK before the Norman Conquest as it was introduced as a feudal instrument of war imposed on the conquered population, yet this legend is set in Glamis Castle. Perhaps it is meant to be more of a fortified manor house?
It is interesting the many interpretations of Lady Macbeth. Sarah Siddons, it seems started the 'virago' interpretation, but
others have depicted her differently - I have only seen Vivian Leigh's - I believe the famous Harriet Walter depicted her as doting.
I so agree about the Divine Right of Kings influencing this play. James would insist that was acknowledged, to an extent that even Elizabeth wouldn't - so perhaps that is why this discussion of kingship is so different from some of Shakespeare's earlier treatment.
As I say,great comments from everyone.
I am finding so many wonderful descriptions in this. There are a great number of references to birds, as someone said.
*Tracy* I am wondering about the misogynistic aspect myself. Does it depend on how it's played, I wonder?
I do hope to be able to read everyone's comments in full soon.
A word on the witches.Given James I's belief in witchcraft - at the time, because by the time Shakespeare died he was a bit more ambivalent on the subject - I often teach the witches' part of Act I on the basis that Shakespeare had to make them believable to his audience, or else they would be ridiculous and thereby reduce the overall impact of the play.
To that end, the scenes in which they appear can be distilled into a fairly comprehensive list of what the EMP audience, and to an extent we (if my students are anything to go by) believe are the powers of witches.
Two books I've read recently helped to confirm this:
AF Scott's Witch, Spirit, Devil: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...
and
Thomas Cogwell's James I; The Phoenix King: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
The first in particular is a kind of anthology of contemporary documents relating to witches. Really useful if you want to find interesting quotations for your students, especially about Agnes Sampson, burnt outside Edinburgh Castle for confessing to the attempted assassination of James on his voyage back from Denmark, after collecting his wife, Anne.
Lucinda wrote: "I so agree about the Divine Right of Kings influencing this play. James would insist that was acknowledged, to an extent that even Elizabeth wouldn't ..."Newes from Scotland is an interesting document: the confessions of the witches state that their attempt to assassinate James was unsuccessful because of his piety, and at their sabbat at North Berwick, the Devil told them that James was his foremost enemy on earth.
All super propaganda for the notion that James was indeed God's deputy.
Just had a quick look through. Really intriuging comments and linkl, everyone. On witches, who as people know tended to be medicine women or herbalists, sometimes midwives, whom the church seems to have largely ignored for a long time, and then turned against particularly round the time of the Inquisition - the odd thing is, that here Shakespeare makes them very sinister - there even seems to be an implication that they are controlling Macbeth's behavoiur - and after all, if his, then why not that of his wife? - but this contrasts with Shakespeare's ironical attitude towards demonology and witchcraft in the ramblings of Edgar as 'Poor Tom' in King Lear. It is obvious there, that he doesn't take much of this supposed evidence about the nature of witches seriously at all. And yet, there is something ridiculous about the First Witch demanding chesnuts from the 'rump fed ronyon' sailors wife, and being refused. I believe that you weren't meant to give food to a witch as it gave her power of entry or some such,but why she should have wished for it in an comparatively poor dwelling contrasts oddly with their power over Macbeth.
Is he just using witchcraft as an additional feature to make a good gothic play?
I'll have to look it up, but my vague recollecton is that James I's attitude towards witchcraft was different to that of Elizabeth - he went in fear of it.
It's almost too easy to say so, but I think we have to concede that Macbeth was in several ways a play tailored to James, in the same way that The Dream and Love's Labour's Lost were written for particular occasions.It's not simply the Scottish setting, the witches, Daemonologie, etc, but also the treatment of Banquo: an entirely different, and less favourable character in historical record, and said to be an ancestor of James. Note too how when the extended line of kings is presented, there is a specific nod to James there. It's possible Shakespeare felt that particular debt had been paid by the time he came to write Lear? I'm also wondering if this helps date the work. When Elizabeth died there was an awful long interval before James arrived in London, and additionally before the theatres reopened as a result of plague. Perhaps this interlude, and the uncertainty surrounding it, was the perfect time to write Macbeth?
In the AF Scot work I referred to in my original message, we also see James becoming increasingly ambivalent about witches. By 1616 he was berating some judges for their errors in wrongly identifying and executing some women for witchcraft!
Another thought - Macbeth, and the witches, represent rebellion within the kingdom. Lear, I think, is a play about FAMILY, and so when we have insurrections by children, we don't need the battleground to be fogged with any supernatural stuff?
Synchronicity, Abel. I have just been reading this: [[http://www.historyextra.com/period/el...]]
This is disturbing. One doesn't like to think of Shakespare, who was capable of such elevated thought, as dancing (writing) to the King's tune...
That's a great article - thanks for sharing!I find it difficult to condemn the playwrights who bent in the new direction the wind was taking with James's accession. Bums on seats (or feet in the pit, at 1 penny a time) was all very well, but royal patronage - especially if tasted under Elizabeth - was probably a heady brew. But, you're correct - it isn't nice to think of Shakespeare 'selling out' ...
That said, he was deliberately ambiguous all the way through his career, and one part of the play which I think IS challenging to James is the 'king-becoming graces' speech, later on. Put it another way: it either flatters him, or rebukes him.
Anyway, a great discussion all round. I'm really glad I found this group :)
Lucinda wrote: "Synchronicity, Abel. I have just been reading this: [[http://www.historyextra.com/period/el...]]
This is disturbing. One doesn't like to t..."
Wow, heard James was obsessed with witches, but never knew it ran this deep! Such good and interesting info! No wonder the play opens as it does . The rivalry to Marlowe and Jonson I'm sure didn't hurt either. And of course he must've fueled the Puritan obsession in America not much later.
Lucinda wrote: "Just had a quick look through. Really intriuging comments and linkl, everyone. On witches, who as people know tended to be medicine women or herbalists, sometimes midwives, whom the church seems to..."One of my old MacBeth copies (maybe Riverside, maybe my school text?) speculates that the "rump-fed Runyon ", the sailor's wife, is a reference to Lady MacBeth--there's all that about the sailor's(moral) compass being wrecked, tempest tossed, etc. , which is pretty much what the witches do to MacBeth to create the chaos they do. There's the reference to the magic number of things done in threes again--"munched and munched and munched"--which seems Shakespeare's signal that magic is being done.
Tracy: that's a wonderful insight.Abel: he could have been given a 'little nudge in the right direction' on the lines that his earlier stuff had been a bit too ambiguous.
Marlowe was rumoured to be a government spy; a few years earlier their fellow playwright Thomas Kyd had been imprisoned and tortured for being in posession of 'atheistical literature' which Kyd always maintained had been left there by Marlowe. Poor old Kyd died a year after that. Free speech was unheard of...
Abel wrote: "That's a great article - thanks for sharing!I find it difficult to condemn the playwrights who bent in the new direction the wind was taking with James's accession. Bums on seats (or feet in the ..."
Abel, I agree about not being too hard about condemning Shakespeare for appealing to patronage, especially since he was so agile at making great art out of it. And it's not just this play; I've heard many analyses that point out that so many strong female characters (and some who resist marriage!) in Shakespeare's many plays, especially the comedies, were a tacit nod to Elizabeth, and the world is all the richer for this anomaly amongst Elizabethan playwrights. He also sent up the Puritans (Malvolio in TWELFTH NIGHT), and the Yorks--so many of his villains are Yorks, promoted the Lancasters(not so distant relatives of the Tudors) turned Henry V into an English icon for hundreds of years...he was definitely had an ear for the politics of his time.
The man got paid! He was not like Franz Kafka scribbling away in the evenings and hiding most of his work; he was a businessperson who wrote what would bring in the money. The fact that he did it brilliantly and artistically (most of the time) is just that much more impressive.
Abel wrote: "Another thought - Macbeth, and the witches, represent rebellion within the kingdom. Lear, I think, is a play about FAMILY, and so when we have insurrections by children, we don't need the battleground to be fogged with any supernatural stuff? ."The witches seem to highlight a chaotic universe, and that much of the "kingdom" isn't under control at all, with very independent souls going about their lives. Without the witches, it might be too much of a family event, with cousins jockeying for position, rather than nobles trying, perhaps in vain and to their folly, to harness a world that's very, very wild.
And Phil: touchée! It's so remarkable that Shakespeare could be a crowd pleaser in his time AND present turns of phrase, insights into character, etc. that still make us read on in wonder so many generations later!
Phil wrote: "The man got paid! He was not like Franz Kafka scribbling away in the evenings and hiding most of his work; he was a businessperson who wrote what would bring in the money. The fact that he did it b..."There was a time, and a place, where art was widely commissioned and an artist could earn a living. Besides, it was a good way to be fed ideas.
According to Marjorie Garber in Shakespeare After All, James I was actually a scholar of witchcraft, and was the author of a book called Daemonologie (1597).
I am really impressed by all the insights here. Two things have struck me - belatedly, as usual. In the preface to the edition I have, a violent protest of James' Queen Anne of Denmark is mentioned. Their infant heir Henry had been taken from her, as was the custom for James; James would not listen to her protests, so reputedly, she went to the place where he had been taken, and beat on her belly until she miscarried the next baby which she was already carrying. James relented. This was some years before Shakespeare wrote Macbeth, but in a way, Lady Macbeth's 'giving suck' speech must have made the King uneasy, though there is a big difference between a living baby and an early pregnancy.
The second thing is that while 'Macbeth' appears to take a Crowd Pleasing attitude towards witchcraft and demonology, King Lear does not, as above, seemingly to mock the solemn accounts of nonsense by various sources. and yet, in dates they are not so far apart. Macbeth was, I think, 1605, King Lear 1605-1606.
Wickipedia can be useful at times! This is what it says:
'James became obsessed with the threat posed by witches and wrote Daemonologie in 1597, a tract inspired by his personal involvement that opposed the practice of witchcraft and that provided background material for Shakespeare's Tragedy of Macbeth.[45] James personally supervised the torture of women accused of being witches.[46] After 1599, his views became more sceptical.[47] In a later letter written in England to his son Henry, James congratulates the prince on "the discovery of yon little counterfeit wench. I pray God ye may be my heir in such discoveries ... most miracles now-a-days prove but illusions, and ye may see by this how wary judges should be in trusting accusations".[48]
Mod
I am also fascinated by that link about James and witches....and I need more time to think. I've just been really trying to take in all the great comments here. So inspiring everyone!!!
Lucinda wrote: "I am really impressed by all the insights here. Two things have struck me - belatedly, as usual. In the preface to the edition I have, a violent protest of James' Queen Anne of Denmark is mentione..."
Wow, I never heard that story about Anne of Denmark--that gives great context! Old James must've have had quite the tumultuous life. If you are familiar with the story of his Mother, Mary Queen of Scots, you would know his childhood was quite traumatic. Depending on whose version of the story you believe, some of the following happened. His mother, a strong Catholic, married an Englishman, supposedly to strengthen her ties to the English throne to the chagrin of her cousin Elizabeth, who wore her crown uneasily against her Catholic subjects who didn't acknowledge her as Queen. That Englishman was James I's father, and as the story goes, he was killed by a Lord Bothwell (who possibly mother Mary was having an affair with) who Mary subsequently rode off with into the middle of the night and later married, under the strange argument that he had raped her, and therefore she may be carrying an heir to a number of European thrones (she claimed Scotland, England, and at one point France since her 1st husband was the Dauphin) .
James was abandoned by her at 13 months, Scotland replaced her with the son on the Scottish throne as a result of all this mess, and Elizabeth declared her a criminal of the state of England for participating in the murder of an Englishman. (James' 1st son and heir was named for this Englishman--the baby mentioned in Lucinda's message, who was taken from Anne for showing signs of Catholicism) Hence Mary Q of Scots was enticed to the Tower of London by her cousin when France refused to take her back, and Elizabeth had her locked up as a prisoner there for many years, debating with her advisors whether or not she had the stuff to behead her for treason.
The Babbington Plot solved that, a letter was found in Mary's writing conspiring with Catholics to rescue her and kill Elizabeth.
The most chilling element of all this was that Elizabeth, who had raised the abandoned James in her court to ensure his loyalty to Protestantism, also raised him to believe his mother killed his father. When Elizabeth was still feeling troubled about executing a fellow queen who was her cousin, she gave young James the final say. She was executed, as we all know.
Now that's a lot of politics and family feuding for Shakespeare to navigate, and helps to explain some of James' odd character. Maybe James believed his mother had been possessed by demons. If Shakespeare had really wanted to go out on a limb, he could have given the actor playing Lady MacBeth a red wig...
Tracy, that's a wonderful summing up. I had practically forgotten that abduction (possibly rape) aspect, and that James was largely raised at Elizabeth's court. You feel for him, even in the midst of dismay at his engaging in a witch hunt for so some years.
Phil wrote: "The man got paid! He was not like Franz Kafka scribbling away in the evenings and hiding most of his work; he was a businessperson who wrote what would bring in the money. The fact that he did it b..."Phil, I agree! We love to think of Shakespeare as an "Artist" and we dread to think of him as selling out. However, much evidence points to the fact that he was really obsessed with money.
When young Will was only about 12 years old, his father underwent economic hardship. The family was disgraced and I think Will never got over it. Although he was a brilliant playwright, every decision he made was about how to obtain more money.
When he became rich enough, he purchased a Coat of Arms for his family so he could finally acquire the status of "Gentleman". He spent all his life buying real estate and even was part owner of the theater. He died wealthy and even his will and epitath listed him as "Gentleman" rather than "Poet".
Also, he was never arrested for any of his plays. I believe this was because he catered to the monarchy, regardless of how ambiguous the work was. As was mentioned, he wrote scenes specifically to flatter Elizabeth and James. He has also been called a spokesman for the Tudors -- glorifying the Lancaster line and painting Richard III (York) as a villain. I heard that Anthony and Cleopatra was written only after Elizabeth died because he would not write of a queen's death while she was still alive.
He was an artist but I'd say he was definitely an opportunist!
Lucinda wrote: "Tracy, that's a wonderful summing up. I had practically forgotten that abduction (possibly rape) aspect, and that James was largely raised at Elizabeth's court. You feel for him, even in the midst ..."Are we sure that James was raised in Elizabeth's court? That is the first I've heard of it. Every biography I've read says they never met, although they had a long history of letter writing.
Article on The Correspondence of Queen Elizabeth I and King James VIhttp://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/7777...
It mentions they never met.
Shakespeare Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
Shakespeare After All (other topics)Shakespeare After All (other topics)
Looking forward to this group read.