Shakespeare Fans discussion

Lets begin discussion of MacBeth Act 1 here on Nov 13

Others discussions of Acts will have their coresponding threads.

Let's do this scary play!

More than any other of the plays in his folio Macbeth seems like Shakespeare's most considered rumination on time. I think what makes it "scary", as Candy puts puts it, is that the fact that we are all creatures of time, fated to a temporary existence and the terror of this fact is what drives Macbeth over the edge. My feeling is that he doesn't recognize the limits of knowledge (what anyone can "know") and tries to outwit the inevitable - death; not death on the physical plane but death of the psyche. It's a particularly human fear. And it does seem odd, initially, that a successful Thane of Scotland would possess such a mind set after - undoubtedly - many battles on the field where death is ever present. Act 1 could not have been the first time, for instance, that Banquo, Macbeth's seeming compatriot and companion, noticed Macbeth's mental distraction. If the sight and babble of witches causes a normally stalwart warrior to lose his composure to such an extent that he drifts off into reverie can this be the first time he's encountered witches? If he's encountered them before why should he pay attention to them now? If the answer is because he stands to personally profit from what they profess then it's reasonable to assume he's been preoccupied to some degree his entire career with the desire for power. That kind of desire is almost always based on fear. I think that's what Shakespeare is asking us to consider. And in that world of fear psychological time (as opposed to the passing of the clock or seasons) is the most oppressive element. The play is riddled with allusions to it beginning with the very first line,

First Witch
When shall we three meet again
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?
Second Witch
When the hurlyburly's done,
When the battle's lost and won.
Third Witch
That will be ere the set of sun.
First Witch
Where the place?
Second Witch
Upon the heath.
Third Witch
There to meet with Macbeth.

It sets the tone and tenor of what were about to experience. Not only are we in for bad weather but the timeliness of events are likely to be of some consequence. As I see it it's the first indication of precipitated events that are already or self-determined. And the question begs, to what extent can we manipulate experience or in seeking to influence experience are we inevitably manipulated?

It's like that passage from W.H. Auden's Friday's Child:

The self-observed observing Mind
We meet when we observe at all
Is not alariming or unkind
But utterly banal.

Though instruments at Its command
Make wish and counterwish come true,
It clearly cannot understand
What It can clearly do.

Macbeth admits as much in Act 1, Scene 7 with

If the assassination
Could trammel up the consequence, and catch
With his surcease success; that but this blow
Might be the be-all and the end-all here,
But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,
We’d jump the life to come. But in these cases
We still have judgment here, that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return
To plague th’ inventor: this even-handed justice
Commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice
To our own lips.

In other words, not only can you not escape the consequences of your actions but, on a deeper level, thought cannot escape its own designs. Macbeth is the absolute victim of his own projections. The weird sisters instigate the whole affair but Macbeth doesn't have to listen. And he's doomed suffer the consequences of one deceptive projection after another because he's unable to stop the process he began. Or he believes he can stop it with another projection and elude the very process that continues to operate! More than simple superstition I think Shakespeare is illuminating the inherently deceptive nature of thought - or time as a human concept.

It's interesting that Lady Macbeth, though she uses the metaphor of time when addressing her husband, doesn't seem to have the same consciousness of its deceptive quality:

Thy letters have transported me beyond
This ignorant present, and I feel now
The future in the instant.

It's as if she aware of what the future projects but not of what it is made - so the full ramifications of its enfoldment are hidden to her. Macbeth, on the other hand, is aware of the entire process and remains stymied:

I'll go no more:
I am afraid to think what I have done;
Look on't again I dare not.

Funny how their perspectives and use of language will almost completely interchange by the end of the play.

Bravo Marlin! Great introduction to this discussion about Macbeth. 'Let us ruminate on time' for sure, so much in this play about time. I wasn't going to join in the discussion but after reading your opening thoughts I've changed my mind and if there are no objections I'm coming on board for the ride. Going to read through the first chapter and think more about what you've been saying. I'll be back.

Speaking now only of actions and dialogue up to and including scene 3 act 1.

Macbeth and Banquo are vassals to the King. This is their role in life and they live a good life with some riches and prestige. The downside is that they regularly have to do their duty as vassals by killing and maiming people. This is hard on their souls and it is dangerous as each time they go to battle put their own lives at risk.
Still they do not dare to question the status quo because actually the rewards are excellent and they live in the top echalons of society.
They may fantasize about having greater powers, being richer, even being the king. But never would they imagine themselves striving to attain this.

And so at a low ebb and vulnerable to negative thoughts, returning exhausted from battle and I would suggest sickened or numb from what they have done; unnatural cruelties - they are accosted by 'witches' who encourage them to think the unthinkable. And the seed is sown.

If the witches were portrayed as angels then this could be seen as a test of integrity perhaps?

The prophesy that Macbeth will become Thane of Cawdor is really I suggest, a guise to help the seed 0f aspiration and ambition to sprout.

Macbeth and Banquo could have found themselves on a lonely heath in bad weather, returning from a terrible battle. No weird sisters - just Banquo saying to Macbeth " After all of that you deserve to be the Thane of Cawdor". Or maybe Macbeth could have thought it and spoken his thought to Banquo.

Thinking out loud.

JamesD wrote: "Bravo Marlin! Great introduction to this discussion about Macbeth."
Thanks. And welcome! Glad to hear that it inspired you to join the discussion (I see you've already started to explore some ideas). Looking forward to some interesting interchange!

JamesD wrote: "They may fantasize about having greater powers, being richer, even being the king. But never would they imagine themselves striving to attain this."

Why not? As you point out, they may be vassals to the king but that does not necessarily make them unimaginative by default. On the contrary, I've found Macbeth to be one of Shakespeare's most poetic characters. I see it as part of the tragedy that a character which such a hightened level of consciousness feels the need to resort to treachery and homicide to carry out his ends. If he were an ordinary bloke, not only would he not be set up for high military honor due to feats in the field but, more importantly, he couldn't let us into the inner workings of his mind with such dexterity.

Interesting point about considering the suggestion of witches as angels in regard to Macbeth's and Banquo's ruminations about the throne. Because they open the play their perspective obviously has import but judgements about their evil vs. good intentions are problematic. To begin with, Shakespeare never refers to them witches, but weird sisters - secret, black and midnight hags by Macbeth later in the play (their listings as "Witch 1, 2 & 3 are John Heminges and Henry Condell First Folio tags). I'd say they're more mysterious (definitely ambiguous) than evil. But they're being evil is, more than likely, the default judgement not only of contemporary readers and/or audiences but certainly of the Puritan influenced Elizabethans. But I see them more as suggestors than influencers on the two warriors. If there's any obviously ill influence on the mind of Macbeth I'd say it's his wife before I'd paint the weird sisters with it. More than anything, ambiguity envelops Macbeth in Act 1, including the three apparitions, who, in my opinion do more to put Macbeth's true nature in relief than impress him with some specifically evil influence. Note the language he uses -

So foul and fair a day I have not seen.

Cannot be ill, cannot be good:

nothing is
But what is not.

Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?

Much of the initial horror in the play stems from Macbeth's (and several of the other character's) inability to get a firm hold on anything in a world rife with ambiguity. However, it does put in relief, as Macbeth conveys above, the nature of the mind observing it.

Are you saying that the problem is the rifeness of ambiguity in Macbeth's world? I don't see that.
I see a man who's taken his eye off the ball for a few minutes and is struggling to re-focus on the ball of doing the right and honourable action.
Up to this point in life Macbeth has been a happy tool of the king. He risks his life and kills, without question, when he is ordered to. He takes no responsibility for his murderous acts and he gladly puts his life on the line.
But when he puts himself in the position of deciding to murder and taking responsibility for it he suddenly sees how complicated life is.

JamesD wrote: "Are you saying that the problem is the rifeness of ambiguity in Macbeth's world? I don't see that."
Why not? Nothing is as it appears to be in Act 1. Not only does Macbeth state as much (as I have pointed out) but Banquo, in first seeing the weird sisters, can't quite make out what he's encountered:

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.

King Duncan admits that he was gravely mistaken in putting trust in one of his most stalwart Thanes:

There's no art
To find the mind's construction in the face:
He was a gentleman on whom I built
An absolute trust.

Shakespeare is painting the portrait of a land torn by ambiguity and mistrust - even before Macbeth commits his treasonous act. And he writes it in accord with the tenor of the uncertain and treasonous time of the failed Gun Powder Plot against the then King James 1. Audiences would have easily been able to relate to the events occuring in Macbeth as not even a year had passed before the failed assasination attempt against a Scottish king had occurred! But even without that contemporary allusion the play itself opens with charcters who in the first scene of the play most memorable exclaim -

Fair is foul, and foul is fair

If that's not ambiguity what is it ?

JamesD wrote:
"I see a man who's taken his eye off the ball for a few minutes and is struggling to re-focus on the right and honourable action.
Up to this point in life Macbeth has been a happy tool of the king. He risks his life and kills, without question, when he is ordered to. He takes no responsibility for his murderous acts and he gladly puts his life on the line."

Where's the textual evidence of any of this?

The weird sisters, hand in hand,
Posters of the sea and land,
Thus do go about, about:
Thrice to thine and thrice to mine
And thrice again, to make up nine.
Peace! the charm's wound up.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_s...

For me I think this idea that this play is the most sucessful rumination on time is apt. I believe all of Shakespeares play are time-based and time-centric.

All art is time-based...as film is 24 frames per second, and a painting is one second of time. Stonehenge is time-based...and in cave paintings we see "counting"....with hand prints on the walls as well as drawings of animals (five digits per hand!)

Thin veil season thin veil of autumn....between end of October and beginning of November.

Marlin wrote: "JamesD wrote: "Are you saying that the problem is the rifeness of ambiguity in Macbeth's world? I don't see that."
Why not? Nothing is as it appears to be in Act 1. Not only does Macbeth state as m..."

What struck me was in Scene 3 where, after recieving the news that the weird sisters prophesy that Macbeth will indeed be named Thane of Cawdor, that Macbeth becomes withdrawn, thinking hard about the ramifications and possibilities.
Banquo notices; "Look how our partner's rapt" he observes.
And then after more surmises by Macbeth in asides Banquo calls out to him "Worthy Macbeth, we stay upon your leisure".
And Macbeth, not quite transparently replies "Give me your favour, my dull brain was wrought with things forgotten".
In comparison to Banquo who seems to have taken the turn of events in his stride, Macbeth has been greatly affected and is in a state.

I'm still mulling over this part of Act 1. The very conscious ambiguity in the prophesies, how they potentially put a strain on Macbeth and Banquo's friendshhip. This seems to be the intention of the unkown weird sisters. Are they acting on their own or from some higher/lower power?

And when Macbeth declares in scene 2 " So foul and fair a day I have not seen". What does he mean? On the British Isles we are well aquainted foul and fair days. Has the weather turned suddenly, inexplicably 'weird' on the heath due to the weird sisters?

Will get on to Lady Macbeth and Macbeth's arrival home to her. Things do move rather quickly. Not much time for character development.

Candy wrote: "Thin veil season thin veil of autumn....between end of October and beginning of November."

are you suggesting that this is when the play is set in act 1?

Candy wrote:
"The weird sisters, hand in hand,
Posters of the sea and land,
Thus do go about, about:
Thrice to thine and thrice to mine
And thrice again, to make up nine.
Peace! the charm's wound up.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_s..."

Thanks for the link, Candy.

The weird sisters' talk of the two numbers, 3 and 9, is interesting, though not clear in relation to the rest of the play. Another instance of its appearance:

First Witch
A sailor's wife had chestnuts in her lap,
And munch'd, and munch'd, and munch'd:--
'Give me,' quoth I:
'Aroint thee, witch!' the rump-fed ronyon cries.
Her husband's to Aleppo gone, master o' the Tiger:
But in a sieve I'll thither sail,
And, like a rat without a tail,
I'll do, I'll do, and I'll do.

Second Witch
I'll give thee a wind.
First Witch
Thou'rt kind.
Third Witch
And I another.

First Witch
I myself have all the other,
And the very ports they blow,
All the quarters that they know
I' the shipman's card.
I will drain him dry as hay:
Sleep shall neither night nor day
Hang upon his pent-house lid;
He shall live a man forbid:
Weary se'nnights nine times nine
Shall he dwindle, peak and pine:
Though his bark cannot be lost,
Yet it shall be tempest-tost.

Now, in his film Orson Welles effectively edits and pastes part of the First Witches' speech (I will drain him dry as hay) alongside a visual revealing a clay figure representing Macbeth to indicate that his mental deliberations (mostly, to secure the throne he stole) will leave him without sleep. But now that we're reading it I see that the weird sisters' reference is actually to a sailor husband of a woman who had cursed her. I think Welles was right to leave the rest out but what did Shakespeare mean by placing this passage here, just before the "wicked" Macbeth enters? And why the 9 times 9, 81 day reference? I heard one scholar, Stephen Greenblatt, I believe, attribute the 91 days to the time Macbeth will have on the throne before he's killed but obviously that's not correct. Do you have any ideas?

three 14 times (3x 14=42)
Murder 62 tims
thrice 3 times
nine 3 times (9x3=27)

Hi James, no I was not thining of what time the play is set...I am sorry I posted rather vaguely LOL

I was thinking we are reading it before the release of new film...and how that is in the holiday season. I was thinking that we just passed the time of year that has the magical idea of being the time where the veil between our dimension and "the other side" of heaven and earth...is thinest in some folk lore.

Totally random post sorry about that LOL

Thisis such a powerful spell....

Two withches summon threes by the repeatative (or incantatory, if you will) "munched munched munched"

Eating/consuming is a powerful spell casting. 81 is a magical number containing nines. 8+1=9 And 81. It is also a tribonaci number, which is a "cousin" to a fibonaci number. The tribinaci numbers also create a "self-same" figure. Self-same nature, art and objects...from the branches in a tree, to Persian carpets, to fractals, to stupas, to nautilus shells...are powerful motifs in art and magic.

There are two references to comapsses...as tribinaci numbers createa navigational "pathway" for predicting travel. And "shipments card" is the "star" shaped circle a navigator would put under a needle and magnet.

"I myself have all the other,
And the very ports they blow,
All the quarters that they know
I' the shipman's card.
I will drain him dry as hay:
Sleep shall neither night nor day
Hang upon his pent-house lid;
He shall live a man forbid:
Weary se'nnights nine times nine
Shall he dwindle, peak and pine:
Though his bark cannot be lost,
Yet it shall be tempest-tost."

It' sso interesting, off the tops of my head, that this verse ends with some fun about trees "pine" and "bark"...and I can't help but think of navigation motifs and a divineing rod. "tempest-tost" is amazing because that means time will be scrambled!

I don't know if that plays out in the play...but the tribinaci number...of nine by nine...supports the motif of a mathematical action put into motion...predicting the outcome.

It's such brilliant poetry and images, I'm totally humbled. It's much more complex and layered than it first appears!

JamesD wrote: "I'm still mulling over this part of Act 1. The very conscious ambiguity in the prophesies, how they potentially put a strain on Macbeth and Banquo's friendshhip. This seems to be the intention of the unkown weird sisters. Are they acting on their own or from some higher/lower power?

And when Macbeth declares in scene 2 " So foul and fair a day I have not seen". What does he mean? On the British Isles we are well aquainted foul and fair days. Has the weather turned suddenly, inexplicably 'weird' on the heath due to the weird sisters?"

First of all, with regard to Macbeth, I don't see any evidence of the weird sisters' intentions toward him except to deliver a prophecy. As with any ear how the prophecies are received is determined by the hearer. Banquo, for instance, receives them in a very different manner from Macbeth. But that doesn't implicate the witches with having specific intentions.

It seems quite clear to me that Shakespeare is painting a world of total ambiguity ; not just the appearance and prophecies of the weird sisters, or the weather or the inability of King Duncan to discern loyal followers from traitors or the two very different responses to the weird sisters from Macbeth and Banquo but the aggregate of all those elements. I don't think you need to be a native of the British Isles to recognize it.

I haven't spent as much time thinking about what Lady M says here...but it is a sort of spell she is casting too.

I think it is super fascinating in all the times we have seen diguise of gender and identity...to see this turn for murder. Often it is madcap comedy when someone changes genders in Shakespeare. But the similarity is....that women attain autonomy by turning into men. Women can become free, vocal and powerful once they change their genders. Its funny today to read this here...as I'm so used to this convention in comedy.

"The raven himself is hoarse
That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan
Under my battlements. Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood;
Stop up the access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
The effect and it! Come to my woman's breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature's mischief! Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark,
To cry 'Hold, hold!'"

A few minutes earlier she summons "golden round" a king crown. I love it that then she says fill me from crown to toes. She is casting another powerful spell in this play. And the idea that changing genders is associated with magic. With theatre and disguise and fantasy of course...but also with actual magical powers to move in the world differently.

Great stuff here!!!


I feel like I'm reading this play for the first time! So much fun!!!

Candy wrote: "I can't help but think of navigation motifs and a divineing rod. "tempest-tost" is amazing because that means time will be scrambled!

I don't know if that plays out in the play...but the tribinaci number...of nine by nine...supports the motif of a mathematical action put into motion...predicting the outcome.

It's such brilliant poetry and images, I'm totally humbled. It's much more complex and layered than it first appears!"

Quite. I don't understand the naval references in the relation to the rest of the play or to the character of Macbeth. He isn't a seaman and there are no battles at sea in the background (like there are in Othello, for instance) so why the navigation vocabulary? Perhaps we'll discover it later on.

I think you've made a good point about the spells of the witches. Are they controlling? Or they prophesizing? I think they are seeing and observing...not controlling. Their spell isn't to control. Thats not what mysticism is used for. Mysticism, mystics, hamd readers and spell casters...are opening themselves, often through poetery (incantations) and math, science...meditation to be able to see. Prophesy gets confused with seeing. The witches spell is strong as in spell=letters...language . The word spell is associated with magic because poetry is metric memory structure. Put into spell the math constructs the verse and is powerful to remember. And to sit and through ritual be more sensitive and perceive things. To spell is t speak. We have the adage "spell it out for me." as meaning tell me it in detail.

When you say Marlin that "a world of total ambiguity"...I take this to mean...that there isn't an applied morality. To see the world without judgement. Cormac McCarthy used the pharase "optical democracy" in his novel BLOOD MERIDIAN.

The Impressionists painted with an optical democracy...rejecting the classical theories of the Renaissance. If MacBeth is creating such a world that is quite a major accomplishment and very modern concept.

I look forward to exploring this more.

I am reminded of one of my favourite works of literary theory...SEVEN TYPES OF AMBIGUITY by William Empson.

Here is a delightful video portrayal about this work...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7QUL...

Candy wrote: "Thisis such a powerful spell....

Two withches summon threes by the repeatative (or incantatory, if you will) "munched munched munched"

Eating/consuming is a powerful spell casting. 81 is a magica..."

And for me the whole passage is an artful device to show how malevolent and vengful the sisters are. The one sister did not like being called a witch by a woman and not being offered any nuts by her so she was happy to bring the woman's husband, who happened to be in a port in Syria (Aleppo), a whole load of grief if not death. And the sisters are in solidarity about this and offer her help.
The curious line at the end of this passage where one sister declares " Here I have a pilot's thumb, wrecked as homeward he did come" suggests to me use in a spell to mislead Macbeth in his life.
This further suggests to me that the sister are more than simply prophesying. They are trying to stir things up. Their meeting with Macbeth and Banquo is timely - chosen to make a prophesy that immediately comes true, and so making the prophesy of Macbeth to be king to seem more plausible.
Clever stuff and not at all innocent.
It could be a test. If Macbeth had questioned the sisters about how he would become king, and for how long whe would reign and if it would be a happy time. Their prophesy would lose some of its power.
Or if the sisters had prophesied that Macbeth and his wife would murder Duncan in their own home, this would probably have saved Duncan's life and and many other lives including Banquos's.
But it wouldn't have made as entertaining a story.

JamesD wrote: "Candy wrote: "... for me the whole passage is an artful device to show how malevolent and vengful the sisters are."

But there's not one line which suggests that the weird sisters have any ill intention toward Macbeth. Their ill designs were directed specifically at the woman who called them "witches". If anyone is bent on seeing them as malevolent they can't put it on Shakespeare. :)

Candy wrote: "I think they are seeing and observing...not controlling. Their spell isn't to control. Thats not what mysticism is used for. Mysticism, mystics, hand readers and spell casters...are opening themselves, often through poetery (incantations) and math, science...meditation to be able to see."

Quite. But they were written when elements from what was perceived as paganism were antithetical to the Christian Church. Shakespeare had to stride a very delicate balance. After all, it was his chief patron, King James I, who authored Demonology, a treatise which claimed that witchcraft was a "high treason against God".

Candy wrote: "When you say Marlin that "a world of total ambiguity"...I take this to mean...that there isn't an applied morality."

Of course not. This is Shakespeare, not some hack. And I don't mean to be flippant but he never descended to taking moral sides on any issue in his plays. And to present them is not the same as taking sides or promoting any specific moral, though some insist he hides behind equivocations of morality.

We have yet to touch on the subject of equivocation in this play, especially in regard to the prophecies of the witches, though the outcomes of their predictions occur later on. It's a central theme, though.

Thanks for the Empson link. Looks intriguing.

Fear pervades the play. Fear,fears,afeard,fearful occurs 48 times.

Banquo 4
Ross 4
Macbeth 24
Macduff 2
Malcom 1
Lady Macbeth 9
Hecate 1
Lady Macduff 3


Not King Duncan though. He seems oblivious to the darkening atmosphere.

Do you mean in the whole play or the first act Tim?
Duncan is offed before he has a chance to notice any 'atmospheres' I think.
Duncan wouldn't imagine that his new champion Macbeth, who he has just promoted will turn on him that very night.
Lucky for the Macbeth's that Duncan came visiting with his wife. That would have been much more complicated for enacting the murder.

Without his wife I meant.

Marlin wrote: "JamesD wrote: "Candy wrote: "... for me the whole passage is an artful device to show how malevolent and vengful the sisters are."

But there's not one line which suggests that the weird sisters ha..."
Hi Marlin. You are correct that Macbeth's name does not come up in the story about the woman not sharing her nuts and who has a husband on board a ship in faraway Aleppo.
I assumed that the gratuitous story was inserted only to point out how dire, mean and evil the weird sisters are. For us the audience to appreciate this..

JamesD wrote: "Do you mean in the whole play or the first act Tim?
Duncan is offed before he has a chance to notice any 'atmospheres' I think.
Duncan wouldn't imagine that his new champion Macbeth, who he has jus..."

Fear pervades the play. The whole play.

That's the fear word count for the whole play?

JamesD wrote: "That's the fear word count for the whole play?"
Yes. Broken down it looks like this.

Fear,fears,afeard,fearful
Banquo 3,1,0,0
Ross 3,0,1,0
Macbeth 18,5,0,1
Macduff 2,0,0,0
Malcom 1,0,0,0
Lady Macbeth 6,1,2,0
Hecate 1,0,0,0
Lady Macduff 2,1,0,0

Hey hi!

Wow, a lot of posts 20 since I was last here...soI'm going to try to catch up.

Marlin said...

"I don't understand the naval references in the relation to the rest of the play or to the character of Macbeth."

I'm not sure I would see the navigation motifs as foreshawowing....but as a great "literal" motif.

And this goes out to James as welll...

the practice of spells isnn't about prophesy. Thts a misunderstanding.

Spells are "to speak". Now it's true that to speak something may make it more real. Many people believe that.

The three women are religious mystical people. Of course they would be insulted at being called withces. Can you imagine what people would feel if someone called the Pope a warlock? It's rude and wrong.

These nuns, these religious mystics are performing a ritual. It is is neither evil nor good. And for people who are mystics...hand readers, astrologers, rutual spell casters...NONE of them prophesize. That is an ethonocentric opinion outiside of the community.

So the witches metaphor...of navigation...s recognizing a "steerage" and set of actions and energies...that "set off" a direction.

I'm not sure if that has a repeated motif in the rest of the play...but it does show at least twice in this forst act.

I suggest looking at the ritual as a witness to "cause and effect." One may be skeptical or afraid of ancient religions but its not appropriate to aplpy mistaken ideas to them, especially from ones own culture and apply it to a different culture.

They are spiritual mystics. They don't practice controlling the future they practice mysticism and trying to understand the human condition. In a way they are "the chorus"....helping us feel the gravity of karma.

James wrote..."Lucky for the Macbeth's that Duncan came visiting with his wife. That would have been much more complicated for enacting the murder. "

I don't remember a murder in Act 1. Sorry am I confused or are you jumpig ahead of Act 1?

No, the Macbeths are talking about about murder. It would have been more complicated to contemplate if Duncan was accompanied by a wife.

Candy wrote: "the practice of spells isnn't about prophesy. Thats a misunderstanding."

That the three weird sisters are mystics of a kind is understood. That their intentions are not specifically malevolent to Macbeth is understood. That their appearance, in general - at least, on a literary/cultural level - is meant to illuminate aspects of the human condition is understood.


Nonetheless, strictly in terms of Shakespeare's narrative, Macbeth receives their expression as prophecy - as does the audience. Now, you may say it's his, the audience's or a general widespread misunderstanding but that misunderstanding is part of the ambiguity in the storyline. Let's face it, Shakespeare isn't interested in defining precisely who the weird sisters are but what effect they have on those in Macbeth's world.

Marlin, I completely agree with you.

My clarification for their role was to James...as I nderstood James was saying the weird sisters were maliecious or supernatural or psychic of creating the murder...etc.

I was actually agreeing that the first Act has the feeling of ambiguity.

The motif f navigational tools was a metapor for "predicting" the direction of a ship..or the action of a play/character (as opposed to the literal actions of "the ship" or play or chracters)

:)

I know - and I agree with you about their almost misrepresentation by Shakespeare in an effort to fuel his story. This YouTube poster, a Wiccan (https://youtu.be/VOjOKmOkERk), is exactly right when she says that in 1600 England shouting "witch!" in a town square would be the equivalent of walking in an airport and shouting, "bomb!" ;)

They mostly serve a narrative and thematic purpose, for as we'll see a bit later on, their actual spell-casting, compared to the historical practice, is literally (and literarily) laughable.

Oxymoron, "lost, and won."

1ST WITCH.
When shall we three meet again?
In Thunder, Lightning, or in Rain?

2ND WITCH.
When the Hurly-burly's done,
When the Battaile's lost, and won.
. . .
DUNCAN.
No more that Thane of Cawdor shall deceive . . .
What he hath lost, Noble Macbeth hath won. [Exeunt.]

[Thunder. Enter the three Witches.]

Right after Duncan's "lost . . . won" comes the three witches' meeting to satisfy the 2nd witch's "meet again . . . lost, and won."

Witch's "Hurly-burly" indicates the battlefield report to Duncan, and later the murder of Duncan. The word hurl has the usage of to remove with violence; burl of to dress by removing knots and lumps.

What Thane of Cawdor has lost, Macbeth has won.

What King Duncan has lost, Macbeth has won.

This design of "lost, and won" is prepared for witch's "fair is foul" also revealed by Duncan.

Similar to lost and won, tracing the word fair and foul may see what Shakespeare tried to seal in this play, like a detective novel.

ALL WITCHES.
Paddock calls anon: fair is foul, and foul is fair,
Hover through the fog and filthy air.

I like this idea of a detective novel. I tend to read like that and look at art like that...that clues have been placed. I'm not sure I will be able t deduce your knowledge of these words Jim...I'm just a thick rock compared to your knowledge. But this comes to mind...

Fair can be old use of a religious holiday ro rite. Which ties in nicely with what the women are doing. And fiar and foul immediately suggest to me more navigtion clues...as those are terms in sailing and weather.

The two words are linked as opposites and also indicate a moral position clear new like a spirng season and oppsite like a terrible wet dark heavy season.

I take lost to be "lost soul". How does "won" relate when we are being pure of heart, there is no promise or expectation of merit?

Candy wrote: "I like this idea of a detective novel. I tend to read like that and look at art like that...that clues have been placed. ..."

You're very polite. The ambiguity of Shakespeare comes from triple readable scripts, for audiences, riddlers, and decoders (the way to reason seemingly tedious words). The "fair is foul, and foul is fair" may apply to both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. It's more intriguing for Lady Macbeth.

DUNCAN.
Where's the Thane of Cawdor?
We coursed him at the heels, and had a purpose
To be his Purveyor: But he rides well,
And his great Love (sharp as his Spur) hath holp him
To his home before us: Fair and Noble Hostess
We are your guest tonight.

LADY MACBETH.
Your Servants ever,
Have theirs, themselves, and what is theirs in compt,
To make their Audit at your Highness' pleasure,
Still to return your own.

DUNCAN.
Give me your hand:

Cawdor: spelt as Cawder in Holinshed's Chronicles. Cawdor can be a perfect anagram of coward; Cawder cannot. The sometime cowardness of Macbeth comes only after "Macbeth hath won" the title Thane of Cawdor.

The word coward (-ly, -ize, -ship) appears over 140 times in the 1623 folio, only two in this play and both to Macbeth:
– Lady Macbeth: "And live a Coward in thine own Esteem?"
– Macduff: "Then yield thee, Coward."
This anagram may be a coincidence, unless there are more to come.

Where's the Thane of Cawdor? . . . home before us: a suspicious arrangement. King Duncan knew Macbeth is in the castle, but it's Lady Macbeth alone to receive Duncan. Shakespeare tried to tell us something. Duncan appears no more on the stage after this scene.

To be his Purveyor: emphasizing the absence of Macbeth, who should be King Duncan's purveyor (not the reverse) and come out to receive his King.

his great Love (sharp as his Spur): sharp as his dagger too (spur for horse, dagger for man).

Fair and Noble Hostess: The fair (gracious) hostess will do a foul deed to be a foul queen, and will have a fair (justified) ending.

themselves: Duncan himself uses royal we. He can treat Lady Macbeth's fake royal plurals to singulars and see her intention. She provides a list of offerings to Duncan including herself.

pleasure: This word will come later with a diamond.

Give me your hand: Duncan catches her seducing and replies with a fake marriage proposal.

An example of Macbeth's cowardness:

MACBETH.
I'll go no more:
I am afraid, to think what I have done:
Look on it again, I dare not.

The word purveyor (or purvey) appears only once in all Shakespeare's works. I wonder why it's used here.

If Cawdor as a wordplay of coward by changing one letter from Cowder is indeed Shakespeare's intention, then Duncan's "We coursed him" can be "We cursed him"; and "his purveyor" can be "his surveyor."

Just out of the blue - as it's been preying on my mind for years.
Why Lady Macbeth?
Why not Lady Jane Macbeth (and her husband John Macbeth thane of Glamis)?
As Lady Macbeth she has no other identity other than 'female' and 'Macbeth'. She can't be herself because she has no self other than that of her husband.

Macbeth leaves early the banquet and leaves his wife alone to entertain King Duncan, a suspicious arrangement the second time.

LADY MACBETH.
He has almost supped: why have you left the chamber?

MACBETH.
Hath he asked for me?

LADY MACBETH.
Know you not he hath?

No host would leave his noble guest without a good reason. This alerts Duncan to question again. What answer can Lady Macbeth satisfy Duncan?

Item 6 in William Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity: When a statement says nothing and the readers are forced to invent a statement of their own, most likely in conflict with that of the author.

JimF wrote: "The word purveyor (or purvey) appears only once in all Shakespeare's works. I wonder why it's used here.

If Cawdor as a wordplay of coward by changing one letter from Cowder is indeed Shakespeare'..."

I love this word play. Well spotted. I did some research on the name and came up with to facts. One is that there are many Calder place names and names of people in Scotland (and there are in England too - I live not far from Calderdale in Yorkshire). The second observation (by sonmeone else) is that a main sourceo of historical information (or misinformation) for shakespeare was written by Holinshead I believe, and he used the spelling Cawder. Perhaps an anglicisation of Scottish Calder. There is also a rumour that an english aristo who came into the possession of Cawder (or Calder?) years ago,but after Shakespeare's time, actually changed the name of the castle to Cawdor in respect of Shakespeare.
Cawder to Cawdor is only one letter for Shakespeare to change to make the coward word play possible.

So, is Macbeth an example of a coward? His lady certainly seems to think so in the first act. But will his actions show him to be a coward as the story moves along?

JimF wrote: "Oxymoron, "lost, and won."
1ST WITCH.
When shall we three meet again?
In Thunder, Lightning, or in Rain?

2ND WITCH.
When the Hurly-burly's done,
When the Battaile's lost, and won.
. . .
DUNCAN.
No..."

Could not the battle being 'lost and won' be ambiguously ambiguous, as all battles, unless there is no winner or loser, are lost and won?
And then there's the 'done' that needs a rhyme.

JamesD wrote: "JimF wrote: "The word purveyor (or purvey) appears only once in all Shakespeare's works. I wonder why it's used here. If Cawdor as a wordplay of coward by changing one letter from Cowder is indeed..."

Some naming changes for your reference. Weyward Sisters are not witches in Holinshed's Chronicles.

Holinshed::Shakespeare
– weird sisters, goddesses of destiny::weyward or weyard sisters, witches
– a witch Makbeth trusted::weyward or weyard sisters
– Makbeth::Macbeth
– wife of Makbeth::Lady Macbeth
– Makduffe::Macduff
– wife of Makduffe::Lady Macduff
– Sinell::Sinel
– Duncane::Duncan
– Malcolme Cammore::Malcolm
– Donald Bane::Donalbaine
– Banquho::Banquo
– Makdowald::Macdonwald
– Sueno::Sweno
– Siward::Seyward
– Glammis::Glamis
– Cawder::Cawdor
– Lennox::Lenox
– Fleance::same
– Menteith::same
– Rosse::same
– Cathnes::same
– Angus::same
– Colmekill::same
– Scone::same
– Fife::same

JamesD wrote: "JimF wrote: "Oxymoron, "lost, and won." ...."

Shakespeare's "lost, and won" targets two opposite sides. The first line is mentioned by Duncan. The other two are for readers to deduce, quite straightforward, so I think it's a hint to trace other potential oxymorons.

What Thane of Cawdor has lost, Macbeth has won.
What King Duncan has lost, Macbeth has won.
What Macbeth has lost, Malcolm has won.

Macbeth is being called "coward" twice by his wife and Macduff, and the word "coward" appears only twice in this play. I believe Shakespeare used word's logic as a clue to seal hidden plots and wordplays.
– Lady Macbeth: "And live a Coward in thine own Esteem?"
– Macduff: "Then yield thee, Coward."

Here is a short one:

ROSSE.
Will you to Scone?

MACDUFF.
No Cousin, I'll to Fife.

In the play Macduff does not go to Fife to save his family. Scone sounds like scorn, Fife like fie.

I'm confused when you say 'in the play' Macduff does not go to Fife.

JamesD wrote: "I'm confused when you say 'in the play' Macduff does not go to Fife."

This comes later. Macduff is the Thane of Fife. According to the play,
Macduff tells Rosse he will "to Fife" (act 2 scene 4);
Lenox reports that "Macduff is fled to England" (act 4 scene 1);
Rosse comes to Fife to warn Macduff's wife (act 4 scene 2).

Macduff might go to Fife first (to warn his wife?) then to England, but this isn't shown in the play. Macduff is a liar, according to his wife.

SON OF MACDUFF.
Was my Father a Traitor, Mother?

LADY MACDUFF.
Ay, that he was.

SON OF MACDUFF.
What is a Traitor?

LADY MACDUFF.
Why one that swears, and lies.