Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
MacBeth, 2021. Act 4 Dec 4
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Candy
(new)
Nov 12, 2021 08:44AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
What a scene the 'midnight hags' as Macbeth now calls them make in scene one. Like for on a stage or inside one's head i.e. Macbeth's head it is delicious with weirdness and highly entertaining. Macbeth entertaining himself with all these thoughts; all these distractions. Perhaps?
I've always felt the weird sisters' cauldron spell-casting comically ridiculous:First Witch
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.
ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Second Witch
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Third Witch
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.
ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Second Witch
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
It's a poet having fun with folklore (even then) and wordplay: a generalized and mocking spook show meant to enchant Macbeth (and the audience) into his own reflection. It's precisely why we see the successive march of Scottish kings after Macbeth, all descendants of the man who he had killed, including a figure meant to be a likeness of King James I:
And yet the eighth appears, who bears a glass
Which shows me many more; and some I see
That two-fold balls and treble scepters carry:
Horrible sight!
The two-fold balls and treble sceptres, of course, refer to the coronation of James I representing the realms of Scotland and England! I feel the entire scene was written as a kind of appeasement to Shakespeare's royal benefactor who wrote the damning treatise on witchcraft and a plot device which anticipates the drama to follow. For in addition to the macabre pageantry we have Macbeth making further inquiries about the fate of his reign. When the sisters claim an ambiguous "He" as a source of their information (the audience can only make assumptions about who this he is) and describe the seemingly impossible conditions under which Macbeth can expect a threat to his throne his anxiety is abated. But Macbeth (and the audience) knows he cannot live forever so the rest of the act is set up for a trip through some fairly dark mental territory.
My contention is that this dark territory is where Macbeth has been during the entire course of the play. Unlike James, who suggests that Macbeth was an honest and obedient servant of King Duncan prior to Cawdor's treasonous behavior (and the play's start) set upon by dark forces which unduly influence him, I think Macbeth (certainly Lady Macbeth) always had the leanings of treachery in him and took advance of an opportunity to act on his darker thoughts. It's a bit too easy to pin the blame on the weird sisters or his wife when considering the unconscious nature of Macbeth. I think it's in this act (and the beginning of Act V) where we see his truest character. Isn't it a truism that under duress one's true nature comes to the fore? Even without imminent danger (after the sisters inadvertently reassure him with a tricky seond and third prophecy) would the mental deliberations that come from Macbeth easily have come from Banquo, who at the outset on meeting the weird sisters warned his friend that "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."? Duncan might have given Cawdor's title to Banquo and my speculation there is that we would undoutedly have had a very different play in story and tone.
Thank you Marlin. Glad to have some discussion. Sure do concur with you about the crazy spells. I'd say that Shakespeare would not have wanted to exhibit a deep knowledge of spells. He had no wish to be branded a witch himself. Though I venture to say that his plays themselves do cast spells on whole audiences.Yes I did/do see Macbeth as an unquestioning vassal to the king. This makes his struggles with concience more powerful. Lady Macbeth could easily have swayed him to take the less bloody path.
But so often people in partnership act in ways they would never do on their own. Is this another theme?
My opinions about the 'weird sisters' are based on how they are portrayed in Act 1. Both Macbeth and Banquo talk about them as being otherworldly and to put it mildly, not to be trusted.
The three gals are intimidating to the weary warriors who are unsure what to think and they are very wary; until the message from Duncan arrives to declare Macbeth the new Thane of Cawdor. Then Macbeth mind starts to boggle.
How we are lead by the script to percieve the witches changes in Act 3 when Hecate materialises and adds a to me a Midsommer Night's Dream flavour to the proceedings. I'm reminded of the disagreements by the rulers of the fairy world in that play.
But we have hardly discussed Act 3.
Act 3 shennaigans suggests to me that individuals in the immortal world are just as unpredictable as persons of mortal limitations. The immortals in this case are also wittier and more prepared for song and dance. (always good to have some light relief to punctutate the histrionics and mortal bloodletting).
For a mortal to cause the death of another can often be life changing. Once you have done it then you can do it again. The taboo is broken and you are no longer held by it.
I'm going to go back to Act 3 and post a few interesting to me lines. Tomorrow.
JamesD wrote: "Yes I did/do see Macbeth as an unquestioning vassal to the king. This makes his struggles with concience more powerful. Lady Macbeth could easily have swayed him to take the less bloody path.But so often people in partnership act in ways they would never do on their own. Is this another theme?"
With all due respect I think that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of our main character. What is a vassal?
noun HISTORICAL
a holder of land by feudal tenure on conditions of homage and allegiance.
It's really more of a contractual/functional definition than character trait. If by vassal you mean someone with unquestioning obedience to a king/overlord that would be to make an inference about said character that lies outside the definition. I believe this is what you're doing. It's certainly not Macbeth. He's clearly a thoughtful, independent leader whose consciousness, not mention ambition (certainly, imagination) shows itself all throughout the play. I think his wife sums it up best (from Act I):
LADY MACBETH
Art thou afeard
To be the same in thine own act and valour
As thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have that
Which thou esteem'st the ornament of life,
And live a coward in thine own esteem,
Letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would,'
Like the poor cat i' the adage?
She egging on a man who she knows to be full of desire for the crown. If he was the unquestioning vassal that you suggest her entreaties would hardly have persuaded him to do much more than silence her (in one way or another) for making the suggestion. And that would be the end of it. You can't work on something that isn't there. And Macbeth is far from stupid so the argument of unquestionable loyalty tainted by an evil partnership simply doesn't hold up.
JamesD wrote: "My opinions about the 'weird sisters' are based on how they are portrayed in Act 1. Both Macbeth and Banquo talk about them as being otherworldly and to put it mildly, not to be trusted."
Ah! There's a difference between reading prophecies with discernment and not trusting the weird sisters. The weird sisters aren't the problem. The problem is how Macbeth receives the prophecies. He goes his own distorted way with what he has heard. Banquo doesn't begin to think murderous thoughts when he hears the same message from the sisters. No, it's not the weird sisters but Macbeth who can't be trusted - as Banquo, to his peril, will find out!
JamesD wrote:"But we have hardly discussed Act 3."
Haha. It's true. I think Candy's scheduling, obviously intended for organizational purposes, may be hampering freewheeling discussion a bit. No crime to back and forth, though. :)
I like the way the discussion is organised one act per week and not discussing ahead. But the discussion stopped in Act 3 after initial comments from Candy and me and I've been wondering.I know that it's happened before. people drift away for their own reasons. I wish a few would come back though.
Some of us are lurking in the shadows, listening but not saying anything, biding our time...
Mod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9XoZ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amnvz...
Mod
I'm enjying this discussion and journey so much!!!
I got a bit behind but isn't that the joy of online discussions...we can mull and then find our own reading and posting schedules.
I am so grateful for these discussions!
Mod
"Both Macbeth and Banquo talk about them as being otherworldly and to put it mildly, not to be trusted."
For me...it is the kingdom and society that creates this kind of environment that is not to be trusted. The only wise and intelligent common sense people in this play are the holy women and their culture.
Part of what I learn in this play is that even in Shakespeares time he knew something was wrong with patriarchy. (see my comments and quotes in Act 3 thread)
I don't have any confidence in either MacBeth as narrator or Banquo. I don't seethem as reliable sources, but as regular people who can only see the world as defined by their own sense of self-worth...or in this plays suggestions in their lack of self-worth.
Mod
". It's true. I think Candy's scheduling, obviously intended for organizational purposes,"
We came up with the One Act per week format around 2009...as a way to organize certainly. But more to allow us to take our time if need be. And to take time t ponder ...or maintain "the real world" obligations that get in the way of reading LOL If you look back at the discussions over the years the format does not seem to correlate with pacing or discussions.
It does seem that the more the merrier is the best approach...but with only four or five of us...the discsusions depend on us maintianing our own interest..
Hopefully we might inspire others to read along...pipe in if they feel liek it...or plan for future readings.
I think we are doing jolly well considering there are only a few of us!
I myself had obligations in the real world and could not get to Act 3 in a timely manner so sorry to all of the participants. I had to travel to Tenenssee for a couple of days. I've more than made up with my tardiness by posting a LOT about women, community and freedom in the Act 3 thread LOL
I'm back at my desk now...happy to see all the comments.
The discussion of the witches in Macbeth has been quite interesting. My view is a bit different, however. Though panned by film critics, Roman Polanski's 1971 film version made an astute association between Lady Macbeth and the witches by showing both naked in the last acts of the play. The women share a common point of view about human nature. Robert Heilman, in an excellent book about Othello, suggests that that play associates love and magic, something that the Moor fails to understand. Similarly, Lady Macbeth completely perverts the notion of love with her "unsex me" speech and the one about dashing out the brains of her suckling child. Her love for her husband is a perverted type of magic, which she uses to persuade a husband who had just resolved not to murder Duncan. In a very real sense, she is the 4th witch tempting Macbeth to his doom.
Mod
I see Lady MacBeth as a failed woman/witch. In POlanski's version that is a brilliantly hopeful ending...but not sure it is the ending here or reconciliation....I don't think Lady MacBeth CAN be part of a community.
Her references to "unsex" me and milking her husband...are symbolic of her complete slavery to pthe dominant culture and economy at thetime (patriarchy). So I see her wish to be unsexed is the kind of eunuchness...of her being a part and volunteer oto patriarchy.
Unlike POlanski's hopeful ending...she is NOT part of the community. The witches are free because they live as outsiders to the dominant culture and economy. They have each other. They have friendship and community .
Poor Lady MacBeth sold her soul to the devil to be in a patriarchal society...where the only sense of fredom and power for her would be to be married to a king.
I agree that with you that Lady MacBeth has magic but she is an aspirant to the witch life...she has failed.
The prophesy of this play for me is predicing what it takes to feel freedom in dominant oppressive socieies. It takes walking away and recreating a new community and support system. Powerful portraits for women!
Candy,While I detect the influence of current academic thinking in your reply, we are coming at this play from quite different directions. It seems to me that Shakespeare had a very clear idea of what we as humans were supposed to be like, an idea that was certainly shaped by the culture in which he lived. That very egalitarian idea applied equally to both men and women. When Macbeth and Lady Macbeth make choices that put them outside any acceptable definition of society, they pay the price for those choices. As you state, she (and he, too) have set themselves apart from the community around them. Though I don't know for sure, I assume this is what you mean by Polanski's "hopeful" ending -- the eventual reassertion of a more just society.
I admit that I have trouble with the idea that Shakespeare had any notion of patriarchy and the consequent subjugation of women, particularly in light of such female characters as Juliet, Rosalind, Cordelia, and, most especially, Cleopatra. Even Lady Macbeth exercises considerable power over her husband in that scene where she persuades him to murder Duncan. This is why, to my mind, it's helpful to examine the part that she plays in that decision and to see her connection to witchcraft-magic.
Beyond that issue, I would also point out that, after the murder, both Lady Macbeth and her husband struggle mightily with a guilty conscience. Though it drives her mad, her husband challenges fate into the list. Despite his earlier awareness of how the murder would blow the horrid deed in every eye, he deals with the consequences in a much different manner than she does. The temptation scene and what follows says a lot about different types of strength and weakness.
Mod
Tom " admit that I have trouble with the idea that Shakespeare had any notion of patriarchy and the consequent subjugation of women, particularly in light of such female characters as Juliet, Rosalind, Cordelia, and, most especially, Cleopatra."
This is what I mean...actually. So not different. I am defending the witches portrayal in the play as being a healing feminist portrayal AS OPPOSED to Lady MacBeth's portrayl.
Shakespeare didn't have to use the contemporary term "feminist" to be such. His diverse develpment of female characters, who are strong and find ways to "beat the system" in order to be autonomous is one of the main reasons he is still relavent centuries later.
My difference to Polanski's version is that Lady MacBeth WAS NOT part of the female community. I think he made a mistake by portraying that.
The point I'm trying to feebly make is the witches have moved outside the norm of the dominant culture. They are free to live a creative life with friendship. They have rejected the dominant society.
Whereas Lady MacBeth is a servant of the dominant society. Her desire for autonomy, voice, power is found, she believes, by having a king for a partnet.
I'm not being academic, I'm looking at the portrayals and action.
The three woman get voices, a livlihood, free thought and community friendship by rejecting the status quo.
MacBeth and Lady MacBeths downfall is by their believing in the society and its hierarchies.
For me its wonderful seeing thisin a old story...as it's something that became more prevalent a hundred years ago...fifity years ago.
Lady MacBeth is susing magic to achieve power within a powermade culture. Thats not cool...and there is only demise for misuse of art and creative acts. Theres a price to pay for trying to use creativity for material gains.
Mod
It's possible that many people, just like now, do not experience it's corruption or oppression in the way we observe that in mainstream culture today.
However, Shakespeare is such a god example of how patriarchy isn't just bad for women, it's also bad for men.
Thank you for helping me understand your perspective on the witches and Lady Macbeth better. Though we may disagree, I'm very excited and happy to see that people not only read his plays but take them seriously enough to engage in thoughtful discussions of them. Given your perspective on LM, who can be seen as giving up her femininity to align herself with her husband's fate, the witches become almost ancillary, a mere thematic alternative of feminine freedom to LM's surrender of self to a man. That makes a certain amount of sense. Where we disagree, however, is the power that the witches exercise over Macbeth's mind, his ability to reason out a course of action. In 3.5.22-33, they explain the purpose of their charms:
Great business must be wrought ere noon:
Upon the corner of the moon
There hangs a vap'rous drop profound,
I'll catch it ere it come to ground;
And that, distill'd by magic sleights,
Shall raise such artificial sprites
As by the strength of their illusion
Shall draw him on to his confusion,
He shall spurn fate, scorn death, and bear
His hopes 'bove wisdom, grace, and fear;
And you all know, security
Is mortals' chiefest enemy.
This seems pretty clear that the witches, like LM, are agents that exercise a power over him, not just mere thematic alternatives to a wife's willing subjugation to her husband.
But perhaps we've spent sufficient time on this topic for now. I didn't mean to distract you from the main discussion for such an extended conversation, but I have enjoyed the exercise.
Mod
I'm just finishing up Act 5 now...and looking forward to what others think...
