Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
Macbeth Reading Thread
message 1:
by
Ray
(new)
Mar 22, 2009 05:26AM
Hi, Sorry for starting this thread early, but I had a question. How is the Macbeth discussion to be conducted? I have the scene reading schedule, but is that only to give people guidance on getting through the play, or is it intended that the discussion will be done on a scene-by-scene basis? If the latter, some of the scenes are pretty short! Cheers, Ray
reply
|
flag
Mod
We had some very short scenes in All's Well That Ends Well and it didn't seem to stifle the discussion. Organically...despite the guideline...people will often discuss a number of past scenes or compare them to a current scene. A short section just gives us a day to take a break or catch up...
I'm not any authority...I'm just answering what came to mind this morning...pre-caffeine!
Hi, all. I just wanted to pass along the following link which has the text of Macbeth broken down scene-by-scene. Also, there are vocabulary notes available (but not obtrusive). If you're interested...http://www.clicknotes.com/macbeth/Sce...
Thank you, Ray, for the link.Though probably not first out of the starting gate for this read, I am at least not last into it. Here are the modest versions of the play that I will be reading, along with making reference to the online versions:
-- paperback, Signet Classic, edited by Sylvan Barnet, With New Dramatic Criticism and an Updated Bibliography, Penguin Books, 1987;
-- paperback, Cambridge School Shakespeare, edited by Rex Gibson, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
So where is everybody? Or is a scene of only 60 words not considered worthy of comment?March 27: Act 1, Scene 1: A desert place.
When shall we three meet again?
This metre (I don't know what it's called) with a beat on the first and last syllable, is often used in Shakespeare for song, and for verse inside the blank verse, and is common enough in Elizabethan lyric poetry generally,
As it fell upon a day
in the merry month of May
and so on, but it seems especially suitable for conveying magical ideas, of fairies,
Beetles black approach not near
Worm nor snail do no offence,
of goblins,
Churl, upon thy eyes I throw
All the power this charm does owe,
and spirits,
Of his bones are coral made,
Those are pearls that were his eyes.
It suggests chanting, if not singing. And Donne gets the same effect in a poem simply titled "Song",
Go and catch a falling star
Get with child a mandrake root,
Tell me where all past years are,
Or who cleft the devil's foot,
and so on.
Of this first scene, LC Knights (I'm sorry, but I must occasionally mention "How many children had Lady Macbeth") says of this tiny scene that every word deserves the closest scrutiny, but he leaves it to us to do the scruting!
You can attach many meanings to the loose syntax.
When shall we three meet again?
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?
Does this mean, when shall we meet again in weather this bad, or when we meet again, will the weather be this bad? Or are they choosing the part of the storm they wish to inhabit?
When the hurly burly's done,
When the battle's lost and won.
With no knowledge of the play, this suggests to me the play's end, so I expect a long witches prologue, and a final witches epilogue, with no witches between, but the next line shows that the meeting will be quite soon after all. So their predictions mislead. They give us the oxymorons of the devil worshipper: fair is foul, lost and won, filthy air. The witches are called by their familiars. Is it not usually the other way round?
I thought incidentally that "hover through the fog" was a contradiction, since hovering suggests no movement, but I took the trouble of looking it up in the Concise Oxford, and apparently in Shakespeare's time to hover could mean "to glide along".
Brief as it is, there are a couple of things I liked about this scene. First, it alerts the viewer or reader, this is not going to be like your run-of-the-mill history play. There are witches involved, and that can't be good... Also that's a nice bit where the witch says "when the hurlyburly's done, when the battle's lost and won." At first I thought this was a reference to Macbeth's shifting fortunes on the battlefield-- winning, then encountering reinforcements for the opposition (the losing), and then ultimately prevailing (winning again.) But now I don't think the witch's comment is focused on Macbeth at all. Rather, for malevolent creatures like the witches, the "hurlyburly," the bloody slaughter on both sides, is what's important. The "lost and won" just means that one side must lose in battle and the other win, but to the witches, it is the battle that matters, not the political outcome. They are indifferent to the causes of the two sides and only relish the turmoil.
This short scene also establishes that the battle is currently going on, and that when it is over, the witches will have some business with Macbeth. That's got to make one curious what their plans for Macbeth might be.
I was intrigued by the witches's familiars and wondered how far back the concept could be traced. In doing a little research, I discovered that familiars are considered "an identifying characteristic of early modern English witchcraft". (Wikipedia)I also learned that the origin of the Three Witches lies in "Holinshed's Chronicles", a history of the British Isles.(1587)
So now I know that the idea of witches's familiars are tied up with the English in history and folklore, as well as in Shakespeare.
As Ray says, it alerts the viewer or reader. No other Shakespeare play (or Elizabethan play that I know of) has an opening as startling as this.
I'm just wondering how the scene was staged in Shakespeare's day. I assume that special effects would have been minimal. Presumably, you would get some sounds to signify thunder, and maybe fireworks for lightning? I'm also trying to get into the mind of a member of the audience who comes to Macbeth totally innocent of knowledge of what the story is about. So, imagine if you will, an empty stage, onto which three old women appear. What is happening? Where are we? When are we?
The first witch's line sets the scene for the audience:
When shall we three meet again in thunder, lightning or in rain?
This can mean, "When is the next time we are meeting? Will it be a time of lightning, or of thunder, or of rain?" But can it also mean "When are we next meeting again during this storm?"
Such a reading describes for the audience the setting and climate of the scene. The tumult in the skies would also have signified a tumult in heaven and disorder on earth, which presages the battle that the witches next refer to.
Also, would the audience have been immediately have been able to identify who the three old women were? Or would they have needed more cues? Let's bear in mind how critical the witches are to the plot. This is something that Shakespeare needs to establish.
Let's look at the sequence with fresh eyes, in temporal order.
Our first clue would come from the statement, "That will be ere the set of sun." which is a prophecy of when the battle will end. That is the first clue that these three women have special powers.
The next clue comes on. We, as the virgin audience, would see one of three old women turn and harken to something (her hand against her ear?), and say, "I come, Graymalkin." Then, to underline that, the next old woman turns to a sound herself, (she lifts her head as if hearing something?) "Paddock calls." Both of these are familiar familiars' names. Our suspicions are beginning to be confirmed.
Then, finally, the line, "Fair is foul, and foul is fair" chanted by all three is our final clue, and ends the scene on high note of suspense heightened by the effect of chanting and the repetition of the breathy f's.
Such wonderful economy. We have our first hint of a battle. We are first alerted to Macbeth. We know that he must be someone important, and we will be on the lookout for him when he finally arrives. And we know very clearly that these are three witches. All this in what, less than five minutes? And so naturally done. Brilliant.
Mod
I am fascinated by these witches and I am so impressed that you all knew those were their familiars names.
I was also very curious about the question when shall we meet again. Martin and Whitaker, I really got a sense of how the line could be read a different way from your comments here.
I was also thinking...a storm has different timings. Lightening might be the beginning, so the question shall we involve ourselves in this tale at the beginning middle or end?
Witches also use weather for spells. End of day would be significant in a solstice ceremony.
I'm so excited there are already some wonderful comments and posts here.
I can imagine what it would feel like to see this play opening...it must have been mindblowing!
Another clue, Whitaker, must surely be "upon the heath" as a place of rendezvous. This is too vague to be useful to purely human intelligence. (we begin to suspect that the witches inhabit the spirit world.)I was wondering about the lightening. Thunder can be done by shaking a metal sheet. The use of gunpowder for lightening flashes is certainly not impossible, since it was a gunpowder accident, apparently, that caused the Globe Theatre to burn down in 1613. The stage direction (which is in the 1st Folio) might, I suppose, be "atmospheric" and picked up from line 2 of the play. The storm could also be represented by the actors -- leaning into the wind and so on. They must have been familiar with doing storms: there are big storm scenes in Lear and the Tempest of course.
I am so excited to be reading Macbeth! The discussion happening here has already made me look at the play in new ways. This scene has got to be one of the best opening scenes in all of drama. The sheer power of the language creates such a strong sense of atmosphere that we just know something terrible is going to happen, and it's going to happen soon. The mention of Macbeth's name casts a strong sense of unease, especially when we begin to read the following scene. A few comments:-This scene introduces the motif of things coming in threes that recurs through the play and is mirrored also in the language ("In thunder, lightning or in rain?"). Three was apparently linked to the occult and even to evil in Shakespeare's time, so the number of witches being three would have been highly significant to the original audience.
-The use of antithesis (juxtaposition of opposites) is another motif that recurs over the course of the play. In this case, we wonder who lost the battle, and who won the battle? Is it a simple case of the losing side and the winning side? Or does it mean something more sinister - perhaps that its culmination had ambiguous, possibly unsuspected results?
-Similarly, "Fair is foul and foul is fair,/ Hover through the fog and filthy air." makes us wonder what they mean. These words also introduce the theme of the overturning of the natural order, which is a major theme of the play. The words hang in the air, especially with the alliteration of 'f', and make an exceptionally dramatic conclusion to the scene. The dramatic juxtaposition caused by Duncan's entrance at the beginning of scene 2 perhaps foreshadows something... (are we allowed to mention later scenes?)
I really love this play. This group is great, the play is great, I can't wait to discuss some more.
Mod
I have spent a little time considering the 3 in Antony and Cleopatra with fun results.
In MacBeth...you are giving me someideas. 3 might have been a controversial number in Shakespeares time because of Catholocism...the holy trinity is significant. I think 3 can be significant for may things. In ancient statues of women they were often shown in threes.
Great stuff...
I am amazed and delighted by the sudden popularity of this thread. Welcome to Ray, Leshawn, Whitaker and Choupette, and thank you for the interesting posts!
When we were reading AWTEW (All's Well that Ends Well), I think we found towards the end that all the themes had been presented in Act 1 scene 1 -- a long, varied, and beautiful introductory scene. The line "Are you meditating on virginity?" seemed to be so inept as to be comic. But it got everyone discussing virginity, and how much it should be valued. As the read proceeded this emerged as one of the major themes of the play. In Macbeth, Act 1 scene 1 is tiny, but it has a similar function. I will be looking out for the number 3, but I would point out one other thing, that the reference to the setting of the sun, and the disappearance into the fog, introduces the idea of darkness, and the desire for darkness, which (having read ahead a bit) I find comes up repeatedly.
Incidentally, I am not at all familiar with Macbeth, so unlike the rest of you it is for me more like a first-time read.
In Shakespeare's Theatre, H.M. Richmond states, "It is certain that Shakespeare is aware of the Banquo play, Tres Sybillae, which King James I saw in Oxford [in August 1605:] before Macbeth was written." Anthony Holden calls the play an "entertainment ... in which forerunners of Shakespeare's Three Witches loyally hailed [James I's:] royal ancestry." After the play, states Holden, James "led a discussion of whether the imagination can produce real effects." Then there is James' own Daemonoligie of 1597.
Perhaps someone here with a large reference shelf has access to this material, which may suggest more ideas about the significance of 3 in Macbeth.
Mod
Like Martin, this is one play I'm not really familiar with of MacBeth's...even though it's one of the most familiar titles. I find I get lost and like checking into this list of dates and scenes:
March 27: Act 1, Scene 1: A desert place.
March 29: Act 1, Scene 2: A camp near Forres.
March 31: Act 1, Scene 3: A heath near Forres.
April 2: Act 1, Scene 4: Forres. The palace.
April 4: Act 1, Scene 5: Inverness. Macbeth's castle.
April 6: Act 1, Scene 6: Before Macbeth's castle.
April 8: Act 1, Scene 7: Macbeth's castle.
April 10: Act 2, Scene 1: Court of Macbeth's castle.
April 12: Act 2, Scene 2: The same.
April 14: Act 2, Scene 3: The same.
April 16: Act 2, Scene 4: Outside Macbeth's castle.
April 18: Act 3, Scene 1: Forres. The palace.
April 20: Act 3, Scene 2: The palace.
April 22: Act 3, Scene 3: A park near the palace.
April 24: Act 3, Scene 4: The same. Hall in the palace.
April 26: Act 3, Scene 5: A Heath.
April 28: Act 3, Scene 6: Forres. The palace.
April 30: Act 4, Scene 1: A cavern. In the middle, a boiling cauldron.
May 2: Act 4, Scene 2: Fife. Macduff's castle.
May 4: Act 4, Scene 3: England. Before the King's palace.
May 6: Act 5, Scene 1: Dunsinane. Ante-room in the castle.
May 8: Act 5, Scene 2: The country near Dunsinane.
May 10: Act 5, Scene 3: Dunsinane. A room in the castle.
May 12: Act 5, Scene 4: Country near Birnam wood.
May 14: Act 5, Scene 5: Dunsinane. Within the castle.
May 16: Act 5, Scene 6: Dunsinane. Before the castle.
May 18: Act 5, Scene 7: Another part of the field.
May 20: Act 5, Scene 8: Another part of the field.
Mod
Martin, said that the reference to the setting of the sun, and the disappearance into the fog, introduces the idea of darkness, and the desire for darkness, Yes, good point. The "end of the day" or "sun set" is also a metaphor for old age...or end of life. Maybe...death! When you say "desire for death"...I got a chill down my spine because that suggests to me the idea of thanatos...or "death drive/wish"...
from Wiki:
In classical Freudian psychoanalytic theory, the death drive ("Todestrieb") is the drive towards death, destruction and non-existence. It was first defined by Sigmund Freud in Beyond the Pleasure Principle as "an urge inherent in all organic life to restore an earlier state of things". (SE 18:36) The death drive opposes Eros, the tendency towards cohesion and unity. The death drive is sometimes referred to as "Thanatos" in post-Freudian thought, although this term has no basis in Freud's own work.
The Standard Edition of Freud's works in English confuses two terms that are different in German, Instinkt ("instinct") and Trieb ("drive"), often translating both as instinct. Freud actually refers to the "death instinct" as a drive, a force that is not essential to the life of an organism (unlike an instinct) and tends to denature it or make it behave in ways that are sometimes counter-intuitive. The term is almost universally known in scholarly literature on Freud as the "death drive", and Lacanian psychoanalysts often shorten it to simply "drive" (although Freud posited the existence of other drives as well).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in...
I went back and read the first scene...after refreshing myself with the idea of thanatos...death wish...and I felt something even more ominous in the witches deciding what time the they would meet with the "sun settting".
############################
Wow...I love some of the descriptions in scene 2
The multiplying villanies of nature
Do swarm upon him--from the western isles
Of kerns and gallowglasses is supplied;
And fortune, on his damned quarrel smiling,
Show'd like a rebel's whore:
the multiplying villanies of nature. Ouch...poor nature!
And what of a "rebel whore"? It's like "how dare a protitude be rebelious! And I must say...it is like nature..."mother nature"...and then a prostitude is not conforming...
I see a kind of twinning of mother nature and whore. Perhaps?
And what of comments about MacBeth deserving his name? "son of beth"
From Ελισαβετ (Elisabet), the Greek form of the Hebrew name אֱלִישֶׁבַע ('Elisheva') meaning "my God is an oath" or perhaps "my God is abundance". The Hebrew form appears in the Old Testament where Elisheba is the wife of Aaron, while the Greek form appears in the New Testament where Elizabeth is the mother of John the Baptist.
Among Christians, this name was originally more common in Eastern Europe. It was borne in the 12th century by Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, a daughter of King Andrew II who became a Franciscan nun and lived in poverty. In medieval England it was occasionally used in honour of the saint, though the form Isabel (from Provençal and Spanish) was more common. It has been very popular in England since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in the 16th century. Famous modern bearers include the British queen Elizabeth II (1926-) and actress Elizabeth Taylor (1932-).
Or is MacBeth "son of bethany"?
Means "house of figs" in Hebrew, from a biblical place name. In the New Testament the town of Bethany was the home of Lazarus and his sisters Mary and Martha. It has been in use as a rare given name in the English-speaking world since the 19th century, used primarily by Catholics in honour of Mary of Bethany. In America it became moderately common after the 1950s.
For brave Macbeth--well he deserves that name--
Disdaining fortune, with his brandish'd steel,
I got another chill down my spine...the idea of a "death wish" is associated with PTSD! Frued believed that soldiers may return home to play out the violence of battle. Or re-enact it if you will!!!
Could this be another potential aspect to inquiry of shakespeares content and how the plays explore war?
Time will tell...
One is amazed by the violence of the language in this scene,
with his brandish'd steel,
Which smoked with bloody execution,
Like valour's minion carved out his passage
Till he faced the slave;
Which ne'er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him,
Till he unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps,
And fix'd his head upon our battlements.
Is Shakespeare recreating the style of Marlowe here (as in the Player King's speech of the rugged Pyrrhus) to remind his audience that these events, like the style of Marlowe, are to be thought of as past? There is the same gorgeous energy in much of Tamburlaine
Then must his kindled wrath be quench'd with blood,
Not sparing any that can manage arms:
But, if these threats move not submission,
Black are his colours, black pavilion;
His spear, his shield, his horse, his armour, plumes,
And jetty feathers, menace death and hell;
Without respect of sex, degree, or age,
He razeth all his foes with fire and sword.
In Shakespeare's lines we almost see the hot blood steaming off the sword, the "carving out" of a passage through living men, the disembowelling and decapitation of Macdonald, and the possibility that Macbeth might have given the mutilated corpse a farewell handshake.
A more distant influence I presume is Homer. The Greek goddesses might have smiled on their favourites on the battlefield, but here the goddess Fortune is just a whore, a camp follower of the rebel Macdonald.
Candy, I think your remarks hang together as a very plausible way of seeing the play. The King applauds the battlefield Macbeth, but Macbeth will take what he has done there back into "civilian" life -- PTSD. The sense of death appears in the two spent swimmers. They stand for the opposite sides in the battle, but the image is of two exhuasted men drowning each other. It emerges again when the spring water that refreshes becomes a flood which drowns,
So from that spring, whence comfort seemed to come,
Discomfort swells.
-- which follows on from the image of the storms and thunder, that give us shipwrecks, coming from the place where the sun gives out its reflection (i.e. radiance). The idea again of drowning, and of light being obscured in darkness, and obviously coming from the language of the first scene.
I'm not so sure about the name "Macbeth" though ... I took it to mean that it was the epithet "brave" attached to "Macbeth" that Macbeth was supposed to have deserved. But perhaps I'm looking for the "easy" meaning there.
To me, this scene seems to be painted in red and black. Does anyone else get that feeling?
Candy, I never even thought of "well he deserves that name" as referring to his actual name! Like Martin, I just assumed it referred to the 'brave'. I think that's fascinating.Martin, I totally agree about the red and black. Red because of the bloodshed, and this scene is incredibly violent. The imagery used here is absolutely fantastic. Shakespeare uses language here to its utmost effect. It is so incredibly evocative that, even just reading it in our heads, we can practically smell the "brandished steel / Which smoked with bloody execution". Rhythm, repetition, alliteration, imagery, metaphor, balance, Shakespeare uses it all so skilfully here. I find the sheer beauty and power of the language breathtaking to the point of being moving.
From the point of dramatic progression, however, I believe this scene is designed to paint a very specific picture of Macbeth in the minds of the audience. Note that the captain says "I am faint, my gashes cry for help." at the end of his long speech. The fact that he took the time to say all that stuff, even while he was bleeding to death on the stage, is a mark of how important his words are, both to the literal progression of the play and in terms of establishing Macbeth's character. There are a couple of phrases which are especially important:
"Disdaining fortune" - Macbeth is someone who does not care about the forces of destiny and fate; if he did, he might give in and simply let himself be defeated by huge odds.
"Valour's minion" - this places Macbeth firmly on the side of the good. He is not just brave and so on, he fights for what is right.
"So they doubly redoubled strokes... memorise another Golgotha" (lines 37-39), hints at a certain recklessness and a disdain for all consequences.
All in all, the descriptions of Macbeth's actions on the battlefield reveal a person who is capable of extreme violence, even though he here uses it - from the point of view of the characters, anyway - for the forces of good.
These things may seem somewhat finicky and small, but they become very important later in the play. They work on a subconscious level to tweak our image of Macbeth into exactly the formation that Shakespeare wants it to be. If he knows exactly how you perceive Macbeth's character, then he can manipulate your feelings and emotions and expectations much more effectively than if you just had a general idea of Macbeth.
(By the way, please let me know if you don't like me referring to later parts of the play. I'm trying not to give spoilers, but I completely understand if you'd rather I just stuck with the scene at hand. It's just that a lot of what happens early on makes takes on a whole new dimension of meaning if you relate it to later events.)
Now on to the black (I think that's a truly brilliant way to describe this scene, Martin). You might have been made uneasy, or even a little queasy by the horrific violence portrayed here. Or you might have been caught up in the excitement and the nobility of the cause. I think I was a little of both - but anyway, either way it seems a little foreboding. What do you all think? Do you get a sense that all this death and destruction is only going to lead to something worse, or what?
Also, Duncan's words at the end of the scene seem very significant.
Go pronounce his present death
And with his former title greet Macbeth.
This use of rhyme is reminiscent of the way the witches speak. Is this a warning? A hint of evil? He closes the scene by saying "what he hath lost, noble Macbeth hath won." This directly mirrors what the witches said in scene 1: "when the battle's lost and won." It is uncanny, and ends this scene, which should have been about victory and triumph, on an uneasy note.
Mod
Wow, no this is some florid frightening language adnd violence all right. It's just incredible. I like the comparison you gave Martin between Tambourline and this scene.
I almost could start to see a painting forming in my mind with sky all red and blood on the ground and sillouettes of black horses...yes a "red and black scene"
There is soemthing awful about the idea that someone would distain fortune. I am not sure why I feel this yet Choupette. To me it isn't quite only someone turning down money literally...it's as if it means he wouldn't be able to take any pleasure from fortune...although I suppose ina way this could be interpreted in a couple of ways. He disdains good luck, happy tidings. He disdains material rewards. He disdains destiny...
In a way, considering faith of the time, someone who disdains destiny wouldn't that be a kind of "evil"...
I don't know, I don't know why that makes my skin crawl or if it's just the whole scene doing that.
The last line is significant or foreshadowing somehow isn't it Choupette?
I'm creeped out...
I'm not at all sure that the "deserved name" is "brave" Candy, after all, there seems to be no evidence that Macbeth was known generally as "brave Macbeth". I was just going for the easier reading. Stick to your guns, old girl!
As Choupette says, the scene is all about establishing Macbeth, and it is interesting that Macbeth really emerges here, even though the later Macbeth will behave so differently.
But I think, Choupette and Candy, one must distinguish between Fortune and Fate. Fortune makes our future random. In classical mythology she was a fickle lady -- and becomes a rebel's whore in the battle. The Fates make our future inevitable. In classical mythology the Fates were three old hags.
Now for a brief diversion...
I have at home Chalmers eight volume edition of Shakespeare of 1823. Although it is early 19th century, the spirit of the work is 18th century, and it is stuffed out with notes and essays by Pope, Warburton, Theobald, Johnson, Malone and the rest. It is often amusing. For example, Chalmers is very jealous of Malone's superior scholarship, and this comes out in angry footnotes.
Anyway, Warburton, in and erudite note, says that the witches were "the Fates of the Northern nations, the three handmaids of Odin". This is followed by a big slab of Latin, in which I can make out "Valkyriae". He then says that Shakespeare also mixed in classical ideas of the fates, plus English folk-lore ideas of witches.
But a futher note by Steevens says that Warburton got it wrong: the handmaids of Odin (the Valkyries) were more than three in number. But clearly Warburton's Latin quote mentions three names. Steevens also objects that the Valkyries were beautiful, while the witches were not.
End of diversion.
William brought in the idea of witchcraft generally, and of course this is a huge subject. If you can bear a one hour lecture, I would recommend,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiBBr6...
(and I've recommended Alan before, on "marriage"). The fun starts 2 mins into the talk, when he considers witchcraft. Surely the point to us about witchcraft is that the evil is real, but lies in the "moral panic" in society that creates the fear and persecution? So four hundred years after Shakespeare there is still evil in witchcraft. But Macfarlane shows us the modern equivalents ...
Candy, I think it's Shakespeare's purpose for you to be creeped out. He wants you to sense the unsavoury undercurrent beneath the good tidings and revelation. It's a bit disturbing to see grown men being so accepting of what is really just slaughter - because it is their side who is 'good', it's ok. I guess maybe it's a product of the times? I assume it was more of a kill-or-be-killed kind of world back then. Maybe that means my reading of the scene is wrong, or that I'm reading too much into it. Maybe what seems like senseless gore to us (and therefore it 'must' be symbolising/foreshadowing/meaning something) was just part and parcel of everyday life back then. Does anyone know?I actually thought your interpretation of "well he deserves that name" was great. Even if it's not correct (and who's to know, anyway?) it really made me look at it in a different way, and that's why I'm here. It's the same with the 'disdaining fortune' part. I never even considered that 'fortune' could refer to money. That was dumb of me.
Arrgh simultaneous posting! All that stuff is really interesting, Martin. What's your opinion on the nature of the witches? Valkyries, or what? Not knowing anything about it besides what you wrote, I don't see why the witches couldn't be... corrupted Valkyries or something. Like ones who had fallen into evil?What you say about fortune and fate is very interesting, and possibly has major implications for my reading of the text. I need to think about that...
The Valkyries is an interesting idea, and I've never heard that one before. Does the essay give any indication to how Shakespeare would have known this middle-German (or 13th cenutry Norse) saga? As several scholars have argued, Shakespeare knew his English history, probably knew (as Ben Jonson put it) a little Latin and lesser Greek (not quite the quote but close enough), and obviously was familiar with Italian plays/stories, such as Bocaccio -- the "circulation" (to borrow if incorrectly Greenblatt's term) of texts between Italy and England seems reasonably well documented at this point -- but the Valkyrie is intriguing! But I do agree -- the Valkyries tended to be beautiful and there were more than three -- although in Wagner's much later opera, there are only three Rhinemaidens (which obviously Shakespeare would not have known!) Although I there is a similar word in old English to valkyrie, perhaps from the Germanic/Norse, that some scholars think may have common roots.
What a great discussion, and only into the second scene! As others mentioned earlier, this is our first introduction to Macbeth, through the eyes of the wounded Sergeant. And although the Sergeant glows with admiration and praise, the picture he paints of Macbeth is not unmixed and presents some of the character tension that will continue through the play. The sergeant's description could bring to mind such noble epithets as "brave, resolute, undaunted, and fierce in battle." But as described, Macbeth appears to have these attributes in extreme excess, so that he might equally be called "reckless, ruthless, berserk, and bloodthirsty." While Macbeth may be a useful henchman for Duncan during times of war, Macbeth sounds like too wild and dangerous a man for times of peace. Ideally, a nobleman should be wild in battle but tame in peace; but that is a great span of behavior to encompass within a single person.I also thought it significant that King Duncan has to seek out an update from a wounded man about the course of the battle. While Macbeth, Banquo, and the other soldiers are in the thick of things fighting Duncan's battle, Duncan is not out there with them. And the Sergeant shows a surprisingly "familiar" attitude towards the king. When Duncan asks him if the enemy's Norwegian reinforcements dismayed Macbeth and Banquo, the sergeant gives a very waggish reply: "Yes, As sparrows eagles, or the hare the lion." This scene ultimately made me wonder if Duncan really had the respect of his people.
Choupette, I'll wait until I've seen more of the witches before daring an opinion, but I thought Warburton's idea interesting. It is nice to think of these wild ideas being hatched in the Age of Reason. Ray, I think Duncan may be not so much leaving the fighting to others as temporarily away from the action. It's clear from Malcolm's opening words the he (Malcolm) had been fighting and was almost captured.
Of course, we're thrown into a political situation where we have no knowledge of the background. Why are the Norwegians in Scotland? Who are Macdonald and the Thane of Cawdor, and why did they rebel? With so many unknowns there are endless ways a director might set up the relationships between the on-stage characters. I think Duncan could be portrayed as out-of-control, or equally as a competent general.
Except they meant to bathe in reeking wounds,Or memorize another Golgotha,
I cannot tell.
The first Christian reference in the play (as far as I can see) and very puzzling to me. It means, I take it, "Whether the meant to bathe in the blood of their enemies, or make another Golgotha remembered, I canoot tell". They would make another Golgotha remembered by sacrificing their own lives on the battlefield, just as Christ sacrificed his own life at Golgotha, but is it not irreverent for the speaker to be comparing Macbeth plus Banquo to Christ? Is this hyperbole in deliberate contrast to the sense of Satan given us by the witches?
Any ideas?
Ray, I read somewhere that the original Duncan on which this character was based was a bad king and Shakespeare changed it for the play, though maybe it was just a hypothesis. Possibly a hint of that comes in here? Though, in the context of the plot, I think it's important that Duncan is shown to be a good king. So I my feeling is that it's just incidental.What you said about Macbeth being too wild for times of peace is really interesting. I always got the impression that he was as good a leader at home as on the battlefield, but that could be wrong. I must remember to keep an eye out for that as we read further...
Martin, my copy of Macbeth has a glossary of difficult words and phrases, and it translates "memorise another Golgotha" as "re-enact a slaughter like Christ's execution". I've always assumed it meant pointless death, but now that I think about it, I'm not sure that works, because Christ's death was hardly pointless, from a Christian perspective.
What a man is our hero: "brave MacBeth", "Valour's minion", "valiant cousin", "worthy gentleman". Here's another view, which brought a smile to my face:"So Foul and fair a day I have not seen." On this flat note Macbeth's character tone is set. "Terrible weather we're having." "The sun can't seem to make up its mind." "Is it hot/cold/wet enough for you?" A commonplace man who talks in commonplaces, a golfer, one might guess, on the Scottish fairways, Macbeth is the only Shakespeare hero who corresponds to a bourgeois type: a murderous Babbitt."
McCarthy, Mary "General MacBeth." In Harper's Magazine (June 1962) reprinted in MacBeth. New York: Signet Classic, 1987.
Mod
I am looking forward to the link on withcraft...maybe tomorrow afternoon when I get home from work. Yes, I think you're right about not confusing Fortune with Fame...unless one of those reverse notions the witches warned us about shows up later...? You know what, that book of yours with the variety of essays...made me think. Can you imagine if those critics had a web board like this? They'd be snapping with each other in real time maybe ha ha. It sounds like a fantastic volume and thanks for your "diversion".
Choupette said: It's a bit disturbing to see grown men being so accepting of what is really just slaughter - because it is their side who is 'good', it's ok. I guess maybe it's a product of the times? I assume it was more of a kill-or-be-killed kind of world back then. Maybe that means my reading of the scene is wrong, or that I'm reading too much into it. Maybe what seems like senseless gore to us (and therefore it 'must' be symbolising/foreshadowing/meaning something) was just part and parcel of everyday life back then. Does anyone know?
I wonder if that isn't the nature of being a soldier? I am not so sure that war, violence and battle are aany different and it must take a certain amount of "bucking up" to resist moralizing the gore. It's a job for a soldier.
Jenna, good questions. I'm going to try to see if i can find anything around here on the subject of Valkyries, and if Shakespeare would be familiar. I believe he would be. Many of our tales and folk lores have not only traveled hundreds of miles...but thousands. On the Canadian west coast is a group called Haida...and I've read their classical myths translated...and it is freaky how some of the motifs in the stories have common structures and characters to fairytales in Europe. Also...some mythologers (is that a word?) some folklorists...say that the story of "krishna" is called the "strong boy story" and Hamlet and Christ are part of the "strong boy story" motif.
Ray, your comments really helped me grab on to the actual movements of the characters ...and what a good pointabout MacBeth so quickly seeming to be a severe manifestation of such a list of traits. I'm going back to scene 2 to read again with your comments in mind...I sometimes have to spend a lot of time trying to visualize and grab ahold of some characters...you've cleared up a question I even forgot to ask!
Martin Is this hyperbole in deliberate contrast to the sense of Satan given us by the witches? wow I don't know but I think it might be!
Choupette the idea of re-enacting a slaughter like Christs...gave me yet another chill! And...it makes me feel like it's related again to trama of battle. Which makes me feel my previous response to you in this very same post is way off. I think...we might be seeing a build up of criticism to how battle and war affects the homefront!
William, do you have that whole Harper's article, is it online somewhere it sounds very charming with the golf reference. I'd like to read the whole thing. Thanks.
But William, is it not obvious that Mary McCarthy has simply misunderstood the line? The "day" means the events of the day (as in "What a day!"), and refers to the battle, foul because of the slaughter, fair because of the victory. McCarthy has heard 20th century weather platitudes, and thinks this has to be one because it sounds like one, even missing the juxtaposition of "foul" and "fair" which shows that it has to be more than that. Equally obviously, the starting point for understanding the line is the telepathic tranfer of the witches' "Fair is foul and foul is fair" into Macbeth's mind. (Another shiver for Candy's spine!)William, what is your own reading of this? That is what I would like to know.
But I see we are on to I.3, and Choupette, thanks for pointing out the significance of the number three, which I think I'd have missed otherwise, but it runs all though the witches' speeches "I'll do, I'll do and I'll do" and so on.
In Scene 3 the struggle that we as humans must constantly face is made apparent. Do we practice the more difficult art of caution and discretion or do we embrace the things that will pay off quickly and without any detriment to ourselves?The witches promise Macbeth riches and ultimate power as King.
Banquo cautions, "and oftentimes to win us to our harm, The instruments of darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles, to betray's In deepest consequence".
So Macbeth must choose to be careful or to secure the promises of the Witches (whom he knows are not safe messengers of Truth).
Don't we all have to choose daily to practice moderation and balance if we wish to prosper?
Isn't the alternative seductive? And the alternative can even be presented in less than attractive terms (the Witches having beards are no glorious Sirens).
This is the stage on which "Macbeth" is played out and I always thought Shakespeare did a briliant job of exploring such a human struggle with such surreal characters; witches,ghosts and bloody Thanes, Oh My!
Mod
William, I think some of what Martin is interested in knowing is part of the reason why I would like to read the whole article by McCArthy...I had a feeling too that something seemed off. I needed more context. I like the golf reference...but need to see why it's helpful to comprehension. What interested you about the quote you shared?
Leshawn, guess what I thought of right away wile reading your inquiry ? n Scene 3 the struggle that we as humans must constantly face is made apparent. Do we practice the more difficult art of caution and discretion or do we embrace the things that will pay off quickly and without any detriment to ourselves?
I thought about the economic collapses with the banks!! It's an interesting question and one it seems like we know the answer that AIG, etc as the most notorious example of people choosing "things that will pay off quickly and without any detritment to ourselves" (but devastaing for their investors!)
Re: The Meaning of “brave Macbeth – well does he deserve that name” I too took “deserve” to mean “brave”. Re the significance of the name “Macbeth”, I believe that the play is itself historical. There was indeed a King Duncan, who was succeeded by a King Macbeth. And there was also a Banquo. Clicknotes notes that King James I of England is descended from Banquo and King Duncan, so there is some historical revisionism going on here in how the play develops, as well as some blatant sycophancy (not unusual for the time – Shakespeare fairly fawns on Queen Elizabeth in other plays).
A little more information on the historical Macbeth may be had at the BBC website and at this link on Scottish history.
Re: The Descriptions of Macbeth in Battle
I would not have regarded the way Macbeth is described in battle as being particularly violent, particularly for a soldier at that time. The ability to be strong, brave and determined in battle would surely have been regarded as virtues not faults. In contrast to the violence of the imagery, we have the measured cadences of the Captain’s speech (where the meter and rhythm are almost perfectly observed) which underscore and lend dignity to the description. It is not horror that he is feeling, but admiration.
By way of comparison, look at the meters and cadences of the witches’ speeches. Here’s one example from Scene III:
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 penthouse 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-toss'd.
Look what I have.”
The meter is very regular, but it’s seven syllables per line, which gives the lines a choppy staccato. This gives a sense of chanting and spells, but is also off-putting, unlike the meter and rhythm of the Captain’s blank verse.
To close, just to point out that strength and stalwartness as male virtues is a theme that will recur in the play. An early reference to a male/female dichotomy occurs in the next scene where Banquo says of the witches:
“you should be women,
And yet your beards forbid me to interpret
That you are so.”
Some Other Comments: The Natural vs the Unnatural
This leads us quite nicely to the growing theme of the natural vs the unnatural order of things. The witches are unnatural and run counter to the order of things. Hence, they are women, but look like men. Banquo later says of them that they are like bubbles of earth not air, again an unnatural image.
We see this question of nature earlier in the description of Macdonwald who is:
“Worthy to be a rebel, for to that
The multiplying villanies of nature
Do swarm upon him
A related image is that of what seems to be as opposed to what is (image vs reality). There is some mention of this in Scene II where the battle is described thus:
“As whence the sun 'gins his reflection
Shipwrecking storms and direful thunders break,
So from that spring whence comfort seem'd to come
Discomfort swells.
The question of seeming vs reality is alluded to once again when Banquo asks Macbeth in Scene III:
Good sir, why do you start, and seem to fear
Things that do sound so fair?
The prophecies “sound” fair, but are they really? And what does Macbeth’s reaction signify? Does he start because he is hearing the witches voice his own ambitions and desires?
Well, Martin, one thing is certainly obvious to me: Mary McCarthy's calling MacBeth "a murderous Babbitt" did not bring a smile to your face as it did to mine. :<)You ask about my own reading of the line. I don't have a reading of my own. I entertain McCarthy's conjecture for the same reason that I do yours and Candy's and those of others who struggle to get to the bottom of MacBeth, both the play and the man. I find them all entertaining.
McCarthy's comment, in particular, I find to be one with the observation, made in another play, that a man may smile and smile and be a villain. So a soldier may be valiant or merely violent. And if valiant, his bravery may be noble or merely animalistic. And still, McCarthy says, he may be as dull as dirt, if we care to notice.
I do care to notice. My enjoyment of the plays depends little on the comprehension about which Candy asks: I neither require nor anticipate that our musings here will pursuade the real MacBeth to stand up. I will settle for much less: an expansion of my understanding, not of either the play or of the character, but of the reader, of myself. The types of questions I ask are these: What are the many things (not the one true thing) that I might mean had I said that line? How might I, too, whether valiant or violent, noble or savage, be at the same time thoroughly pedestrian?
Well, we're not all here for the same reason, Martin--but I've said that before. My contributions, though intended to be interesting, perhaps even helpful, seem to inspire you to little more than the need to stamp out error, for which I am sorry.
Whitaker, yes, the spell creation comes out of the metre, but I think it is the way Shakespeare employs the metre rather than the metre itself. The other examples in post #5 show its versatility. You call it "off-putting", and I know what you mean. I can't think of a better adjective: "unheimlich" perhaps. (I'm being pretentious: I am not familiar with German.)
The witches show witchcraft from their own angle. You can imagine the story told from the human side. "An old woman came and asked for something to eat. I sent her packing and she cast a spell on my husband." Similarly the pranks of Puck and Ariel are told from the spirits' viewpoint. You get the feel of country people of that time and their stories about fairies and goblins in this,
Then to the spicy nut-brown ale,
With stories told of many a feat,
How Fairy Mab the junkets eat,
She was pinched, and pulled she said,
And he by Friars Lanthorn led
Tells how the drudging Goblin sweat
To earn his Cream-bowl duly set,
When in one night, ere glimpse of morn,
His shadowy flail hath threshed the Corn
That ten day-labourers could not end . . .
Here the poet sits with his ale, listening to the superstitions with a certain detachment. Shakespeare involves us by transferring the stories to the mouths of the demons themselves.
I.3 is full of prophecies -- not just the prophecies of the witches,His wonders and his praises do contend
Which should be thine or his,
The King's wonders (about what Macbeth has done), and his praises (of Macbeth) are shown as conflicting forces in the King. They "contend" or do battle. They fight about which one is due to Macbeth, or, eqaully, which one should belong to the King. But there is the seed of the idea that what the King has Macbeth can have.
Nothing afeard of what thyself didst make,
Strange images of death.
Macbeth is not frightened by the ghosts he creates on the battlefield. (But he might be frightened by ghosts created off the battlefield.)
Macbeth's terror of his ideas of the future, compared with his control of fear on the battlefield is brilliantly realised.
The witches in no way encourage evil. The evil is self-born in Macbeth. Not only is Banquo unaffected, he never imagines Macbeth might be.
I'm sorry William, I do I realise have the habit, like Malvolio, of treating bird bolts as cannon bullets.
Scene I.3Whitaker, you raised what is for me a key question:
Good sir, why do you start, and seem to fear
Things that do sound so fair?
" And what does Macbeth’s reaction signify? Does he start because he is hearing the witches voice his own ambitions and desires?"
Macbeth becomes rapt, and can't dispel the thought of being king himself after the witches' greeting. But his reaction is not just the idle dream of someone passively wishing to be president or a Hollywood star-- Macbeth's mind immediately runs to murder to achieve Duncan's kingdom, and only later tells himself that if fate would have him be king, it could accomplish that without his help. I even wonder if the fact that he "starts" in reaction to the witches prediction indicates that he is shocked to have his darkest (or even subconscious) thoughts **that are already present** expressed by the women. Macbeth may have already been mulling over murder before the witches addressed him. (Certainly a performer could choose to play the part this way.)
Choupette, back in scene 2. I didn't mean to imply that Duncan was a bad king, but merely a weak one. And given the rebellion amongst several of his nobles and the presence of foreign soldiers in his land, he certainly did not seem to have a firm grasp on his kingdom. Incidentally, I also read somewhere that Duncan in reality was a bad king, but I likewise don't remember where!
Well, I seem to be a couple of days late (and probably many dollars short), but I'd like to add my vote to the idea that it's the "brave" part of the name that Macbeth well deserves. He is, as Whittaker pointed out, based on an historical person named Macbeth, so I couldn't find any special meaning in his actual name. Also, in lines 16 through 19 of scene 2, we find this:"And Fortune, on his damned quarrel smiling"
That is, Macdonwald's rebellion is succeeding;
followed by this:
"For brave MacBeth (well he deserves that name),
Disdaining Fortune, with his brandished steel,"
That is, it seems to me, saying that MacBeth has bravely waded into the battle, even though it's clearly going against the forces of Duncan, and has killed the foe. It seems that Fortune refers here to something more akin to luck rather than to money, although it may have the double meaning, as W.S. loved those.
MacBeth's speech (lines 140-155) shows us, I think, that Macbeth regards his own ambition as dangerous, and that the idea of what he may have to do as terrifying. Then in lines 158-159, he hopes that he may become king without doing anything to help that along.
One thing I've found as we go along is that it's hard to limit the discussion to the current scenes without going on ahead if one is familiar with the play. However, this is a most enjoyable and enlightening thread.
Gail, welcome at last!Did you know the word "fortune" has come up 16 times in the thread so far? "Fortune, a much maligned lady!" But in defence of Candy ("fortune = wealth") is is interesting how the metaphor of what Duncan owes to Macbeth is financial:
We are sent
To give thee from our royal master thanks;
Only to herald thee into his sight,
Not pay thee.
says Angus. And later the King repeats,
Would thou hadst less deserved,
That the proportion both of thanks and payment
Might have been mine! only I have left to say,
More is thy due than more than all can pay.
with Macbeth's reply,
the loyalty I owe,
In doing it, pays itself.
But it is of course a metaphor, and thanks instead of payment a recurring idea, as in Twelfth Night,
I can no other answer make but thanks,
And thanks, and ever thanks -- oft good turns
Are shuffled off with such uncurrent pay. . .
Mmm....yes, Martin, I see that. Perhaps what sort of turned the edge of this interpretation for me was that Fortune in these few lines is spelled with an uppercase F, maybe indicating some sort of minor deity. Oh, I almost forgot: did anyone besides myself get the sense, right in the opening lines, that the Weird Sisters had been conducting some little meeting before the curtain opens? In other words, do you think that perhaps W.S. drops us "in medias res"? On about my fifth reading of Scene 1, I noticed that they begin the play by asking each other when they shall meet again--as though their current business, whatever it may have been, is now concluded.
Nice point Gail!It does seem as if the meeting was being conducted before the play started.
Okay, but remember that Fortune isn't established as a minor deity because Shakespeare gave her an upper case F, she's given an upper case F because Shakespeare's later editors decided she was a minor deity. Have a look at the thing as it first appeared,http://files.libertyfund.org/files/11...
Certainly Fortune is capitalised, but so is every other important noun. This was in fact the printing style until well into the 18th century, and of course in German today all nouns are capitalised.
But I agree with you that Fortune is a deity and she is "personified" here. But then Shakespeare is dense with personification ...
I think you are right about the witches at the start: it is a "departure" moment. Perhaps they walked onto Shakespeare's stage together to exit in different directions.
Mod
Oh yes, I believe the wtiches have been in the middle of practicng a solstice ceremony or ritual. I am still trying to see if I can find out which one. Gail, good point...and I wonder how...much we didn't hear might help us if we knew what they were all about that evening!?
Whitaker absolutely love the way you itemized your posts and your comments have me working and enjoying very much. It is quite exactly because MacBeth is based on, related or referencing a real King that I take the meaning of that line he suits his name so directed at MacBeth itself. I like the brave "name" interpretation too!
I am a person who gives great weight to peoples emotional responses to art and literature. I realize not everyone is that way, and Martin, I don't think you did anythng to apologize for...William has his own way of reading and now he has clearly shared he likes the entertainment and "be at the same time thoroughly pedestrian".
We are not required to read each others posts with equal rigor or heft.
:)
Everyone is different and certainly most of us have our own reasons for how we like to share and read.
It's all good!
Back at the ranch...Whitaker, some=thing else you have said has entranced me and given me a fair "heads up"
To close, just to point out that strength and stalwartness as male virtues is a theme that will recur in the play. An early reference to a male/female dichotomy occurs in the next scene where Banquo says of the witches:
“you should be women,
And yet your beards forbid me to interpret
That you are so.”
Yes,Whitaker, I shall take a lot of interest in watching for these insights or parts, thanks.
Candy, I entirely agree with you RE: learning about other people's reactions and interpretations of W.S. So often those responses open up avenues that we ourselves haven't pursued, or at the least, force us into exploring the reasons for our own intepretations.Martin, at one point in my checkered education I was aware of the use of uppercase for all important nouns, although it had slipped my mind. Fascinating that Fortune or fortune has ocurred so often in the thread. And you're right about the usage changing so much...we have a hard time, some of us, getting into the Elizabethan mindset.
About the witches: Candy, I wondered what they had been doing...discussing MacBeth's future? Doing their own little rituals? Maybe it was just the usual Friday coven thing.
Whitaker, yes, the male/female dichotomy is strongly expressed in this play. Lots of food for thought and discussion down the road a bit.
Call me bloodthirsty, but I loved the imagery of the "steel which smoked with bloody execution". Talk about a shiver!
Upon reflection I think that it being fortune rather than fate has little to do with my interpretation of the play. More on this later! Fascinating discussion, though.So, Act 1 Scene 3: The opening of this scene isn't very interesting to me, but note the recurrence of the number three: "I'll do, I'll do, and I'll do"; "Weary se'ennights nine times nine", and finally
"Thrice to thine, and thrice to mine,
And thrice again, to make up nine."
The multiplication of threes to make nine seems to compound the evil and supernatural elements in this scene, working to thicken the atmosphere of the scene.
As many have pointed out, Macbeth's opening words "So foul and fair a day I have not seen." mirror those of the witches. I wonder what exactly this means? Since the witches' chant ends with the words "Peace, the charm's wound up", I can't help but wonder if it is their magic working on Macbeth already. Alternatively, it could just be a device to show Macbeth's susceptibility to or capacity to do evil. But on a literal level, why would someone ever say something like that?
Macbeth and Banquo's entrance here is an interesting one because the audience already knows far more about the events that are occurring than they do. We know already about the outcome of the battle, about the witches' interest in Macbeth, and also about Duncan's intention to appoint Macbeth as Thane of Cawdor. I think this heavy use of dramatic irony is significant in some way, but I'm not quite sure how. Any ideas?
When the witches appear, Banquo immediately becomes suspicious of them. His lines 37-45 are full of distrust and worry. In contrast, Macbeth immediately seeks information, perhaps revealing a fatal attraction and terrible curiosity that will be his downfall. So maybe this already shows the strength of Banquo's moral fibre?
Gail wrote: “Maybe it was just the usual Friday coven thing.”LOL! (With a wee bit of Scots on the rocks too.)
Gail wrote: “Call me bloodthirsty, but I loved the imagery of the "steel which smoked with bloody execution". Talk about a shiver!”
And not just the imagery (which is fantastically done) but the sheer sound of it too! The alliteration of the ‘s’ and ‘l’, the way the ‘m’ just curls off the tongue, and the long vowels ee, o, oo followed by the short e, u sounds in ‘execution’.
Choupette wrote: “As many have pointed out, Macbeth's opening words "So foul and fair a day I have not seen." mirror those of the witches….But on a literal level, why would someone ever say something like that?”
I don’t know. In terms of content, personally, I didn’t find the words to be particularly out of place, whether he is talking about weather only or about the weather and the outcome of the battle. Just as we seem to catch the witches in mid-conversation, so too, we seem to do so here with Macbeth and Banquo. So, rendered in more modern English, maybe it went something like this:
Banquo: (exhausted) So, what a day, huh?
Macbeth: Yeah, what a roller coaster ride.
On a rhetorical level, the use of opposites for effect is not unusual. The best known example being, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” We also go, “I’ve got good news and bad news.”
Choupette wrote: I wonder what exactly this means? … I think this heavy use of dramatic irony is significant in some way, but I'm not quite sure how. Any ideas?”
Well, I just feel that it’s good drama. We’ve not really talked about how the play works as drama, and that’s a pity because it’s so very well done. And there is a great deal of technique that Shakespeare uses to heighten suspense. (If you want to learn technique as a playwright, you can do worse than starting with Mr S.)
Can you imagine this in lesser hands? We could start right in Scene III – Scenes I and II aren’t really necessary plot-wise. Macbeth and Banquo stumble on stage and see the witches who then announce their prophecies. Then, Macbeth and Banquo receive the news of Macbeth's new title. And then Macbeth and Banquo go, “OMG, it’s coming true.” How flat is that? Mr S has a great deal of exposition to get out of the way, and he does this in the way that most heightens the drama. We get teased and teased, with the suspense drawn out, and then "bang!" we get the closure of the suspense (i.e. Who is Macbeth? What do the witches want with him?) and a new complication -- is he going to kill the King?
Anyone out there seen this on stage? I think the whole witches thing must be very difficult to stage now, because of the risk of the “giggle” factor.
On Choupette's "dramatic irony" thing, I think one can add to Whitaker's comment by saying that Shakespeare is also creating an effect of battlefield confusion. In Julius Caesar, Cassius commits suicide at Philippi, thinking the battle is lost, whereas Brutus had major successes, and with Cassius alive it might have been won (this actually happened). Before the age of telephones, messages travelled slowly around a big battlefield. Duncan learns of his own victory from a casualty coming off the field. Angus brings the intelligence of Cawdor's death, but admits he does not know exactly why he is dying.There is confusion for the audience too: as Gail pointed out, I.1 is the end of a meeting of the witches. I.2 throws us into a political situation we do not understand. It is like beginning Richard III without the background of the Henry VI plays. Cawdor dies offstage with dignity, and we might suspect his grievances that caused him to rebel were just, but we don't find out. The play proceeds to unfold at breakneck speed.
Ray's suggests Macbeth may have had earlier murderous thoughts against the King, but the play being as it is, I don't think we can ever discover that. Macbeth does not tell us about his past, as Hamlet or Richard III or Helena of AWTEW do in their first soliloquies. He lives, like the witches' prophecies, in the present and the future. But taken at its face value, his "Why do I yield to that suggestion ..." speech suggests he is having these thoughts for the first time.
