Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If only after Macduff's revelation Macbeth had put his hands on his hips in a hissy fit and said, "Oh well now hang on just one damned minute! Not of woman born?!!"

That's a performance I would like to see!
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The whole idea of not being of woman born and being 'untimely ripped from his mother's womb' (i love the goryness of that image!!) fits in with the theme of natural vs unnatural that runs through the play, things being out of balance because of the disruption of the Chain of Being. In the time in which the play is set, being ripped from your mother's womb would have been seen as being extremely unnatural, perhaps even tantamount to witchcraft itself. Maybe I'm just gullible but because of this the 'of woman born' bit makes sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's definitely a good point gg106, very interesting. Plus, remember that there was intensive witch trials in Scotland around the time that this play was being written, and James I's had a deep interest and fear of the occult and witches. Many of those 'witches' being persecuted were midwives - so certainly a unnatural birth would have carried great significance, doubly so that the witches spoke of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Woke early this morning and found myself listening to this programme at 05.45. Unfortunately it was the third of four programmes, concentrating this week on the history behind Shakespeare's inclusion of the witches.

 

Unfortunately time seems to have run out for part one on Listen Again, and I expect part two will be lost to us as soon as this morning's episode is made available.

It would appear that this series was broadcast last summer, too, so maybe it will be repeated again at some point.

 

I really ought to read The Radio Times more thoroughly, as there are all sorts of little gems I only discover after they have been broadcast :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole idea of not being of woman born and being 'untimely ripped from his mother's womb' fits in with the theme of natural vs unnatural that runs through the play, things being out of balance because of the disruption of the Chain of Being.

Good point.

 

As far as I've ever been able to find out, a 16th century Caesarian Section was usually only carried out if the mother was dead and this was the only way to save the baby. Maybe this has some bearing on the 'of woman born'.

 

I consider my 3 Caesarean babies to have been of woman born, but then I was alive at the time - a woman, not a corpse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes it sound even more plausable, the idea that his mother would have already been dead when he was taken from her and in fact makes a lot of sense. I am not sure that medical science at that time would have been able to perform C Sections as we know them today!!

 

As to the Lady Macbeth and the child reference, I always assumed that the Macbeths had had a child that had died in very early infancy, a situation that again was not unusual in Shakespeare's time. Hence her reference to 'I have given suck. etc'

 

We are given a clue during the murder scene that Lady Macbeth is perhaps not as strong as she appears to be when she makes reference to the fact tht she would have comitted the murder herself had Duncan not reminded her of her father.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Scottish play. The bloody play. How's about the bloody good play?

 

I think this play has always been a favourite of mine because I am naturally drawn to the more violent and macabre aspects of story-telling, but I never really appreciated quite how torn Macbeth was till re-reading now. The balance of holding sympathy and horrifying the reader/audience is quite a complex and satisfying achievement.

 

Agreed, though Hamlet is its counterpart and an equal favourite with me. Macbeth is all action and ambition, while Hamlet is a brooder with no ambition for worldly conquest whatever. He is essentially a philosopher who loses 'the name of action.' I love the poetry of both and find so many closing couplets embedded in my consciousness: 'Stars hold your fires/ Let not light see my black and deep desires.' 'Hear it not Duncan, for 'tis the knell/That summons thee to Heaven or to Hell.' 'The play's the thing/Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king.' Hope I've got them right, though inevitably memory distorts. Sure, some kind BGO friend will put me right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Typing my notes just now for Macbeth, and have come across this snippet from Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles (1587), the primary source for much of Shakey's histories. It confirms that Shakey himself wasn't being 'convenient' with the whole Macduff/Section thing:

 

I am even he that thy wizards have told thee of, who was never borne of my mother, but ripped out of her wombe: therwithall he stept unto him, and slue him in the place
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

This has been the first play I have ever read by Shakespeare. It has been a good first approach, because I really enjoyed the reading.

So the Scottish Play deals with murder and treason, remorse and madness.

I wonder if Macbeth really ( or how much? ) has been his wife's puppet. This could seem obvious during the two opening acts, but during the remaining part of the play, when he decided to walk down the path of the perdition, he seems to be more conscious of his action ... I mean he only needed Lady Macbeth to start to walk that path.

But, surely, Lady Macbeth is a ruthless woman...I wonder if it is only the ambition that makes she so cruel.

Whatever has happened during her past, Shakespeare chose to show her to us at the acme of her cruelty. It will crush her away (with qualms of conscience and fears about her doom).

The blood she washed away from her hands: it could be cleaned away, but the truth is that the actions could not be deleted by our mind as they were bloody spots.

 

Ps: The fact that Macbeth can be killed only by a "not woman born" has reminded me a chapter of the Lord of the Rings (the fight between Eowyn and the WitchKing)...It is a quite similar part...I wonder if Tolkien thought to Macbeth when he wrote his masterpiece...hmm... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
As to the Lady Macbeth and the child reference, I always assumed that the Macbeths had had a child that had died in very early infancy, a situation that again was not unusual in Shakespeare's time. Hence her reference to 'I have given suck. etc'

 

I believe that Lady Macbeth had a child by a previous marriage. A friend of mine at school claimed to be descended from her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that Lady Macbeth had a child by a previous marriage.
The only indication, in the play, is when she is trying to steel Macbeth to action, and she says that she has "given suck" to a child. No firm proof that it was hers from a previous marriage or relationship, or if she just nursed another's child - or even, if she was just speaking rhetorically. One critic, can't remember who, says we should concern ourselves with the characters' lives outside the play.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't focus my attention on this matter during the reading: we just know Macbeth's sons couldn't rule, as told by the prophecy of the three witches.

Anyway his actions against Banquo and Fleance could be interpreted as the ones a father does in order to guarantee the succession to his heirs.

I can't be sure, but this, with the fact that Lady Macbeth herself said to "have given suck", made me think they had children...I've thought their ambition is aimed even to give a reign to their heirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway his actions against Banquo and Fleance could be interpreted as the ones a father does in order to guarantee the succession to his heirs.

Although the question of whether they once had children is murky in the play it seems clear they have none now. Macbeth notes of the witches' prophecy about Banquo:

 

They hail'd him father to a line of kings:

Upon my head they placed a fruitless crown,

And put a barren sceptre in my gripe,

Thence to be wrench'd with an unlineal hand,

No son of mine succeeding. If 't be so,

For Banquo's issue have I filed my mind;

For them the gracious Duncan have I murder'd;

Put rancours in the vessel of my peace

Only for them; and mine eternal jewel

Given to the common enemy of man,

To make them kings, the seed of Banquo kings!

 

His fruitless crown and barren sceptre show he has no heirs and his actions against Banquo and Fleance are more wrapped up in his terrible guilt. Having gained the crown he's not content and now sees his actions as having gained it for Banquo and his heirs, transferring a sense of responsibility onto them to ease his own. I think his sense of inadequacy in not having fathered an heir is part of the insecurity exploited by both the witches and Lady Macbeth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also thinking to the lines you've written!

 

I thought that to try to give another interpretation key, to try to link the "I've given suck" Lady Macbeth said, to the lines you've written now...

 

Hmm...I supposed that even if Macbeth had a million children his crown has to be judged, anyway, a fruitless one, because he knows his heirs will not rule.

Macbeth must believe it, 'cause the prophecy has been true: and he's the living proof, because he becomes Thane of Cawdor and, then, King.

I think that for these reasons Macbeth is sure he will lose the crown, or he won't (or won't have the possibility to) give it to an heir.

 

But in the end I understand what you mean...and you're right...but I like to analyse things by different views (my teacher says I've got too much imagination) ;) ... I only add that also what I have supposed gives space to the sense of inadequacy you wrote about...or not? :confused:

 

Ps: I wonder if the Scottish law gave the possibility to a Lady Macbeth's son, born before she married Macbeth, to become king....I don't know that...hmmm...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take the terms "fruitless" and "barren" to mean that Macbeth is sterile or impotent, which makes the possibility of him having his own children, heirs or not, impossible. It also makes Lady Macbeth's taunts against his manhood and manliness all the more salient/powerful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not mean that he himself is barren or fruitless, he is talking metaphorically about his kingship which is destined not to extend beyond his lineage, the witches have given him a 'fruitless crown' and 'barren sceptre'.

 

The sexual tension in the persuasion scene does not suggest to me that the Macbeths have any problems at all in the bedroom dept, indeed if I remember rightly Lady M hints at withdrawing sexual favours if he does not agree to murder Duncan.

 

Lady Ms taunts against his manliness refer to the fact that he is considered to be a powerful soldier, we are introduced to him as 'brave Macbeth'; she is implying that this is not so if he is not willing to 'do the deed'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...if I remember rightly Lady M hints at withdrawing sexual favours if he does not agree to murder Duncan.
Really? I don't recall anything at all on the lines of a "sex-strike", either in Macbeth or indeed anywhere else in Shakespeare.

 

What Lady Macbeth clearly does imply, however, is that failure to act on her husband's part will be equated with a lack of essential virility verging on effeminacy, and that is something that no Shakespearean hero worthy of the name can even vaguely contemplate...

 

I always thought the "I have given suck" was one of those little inconsistencies that crop up here and there, like Leonato's wife Innogen in Much Ado About Nothing, who is mentioned in the entry-directions in at least one manuscript, but neither speaks nor does anything, nor is even as much as mentioned by any of the other characters.

 

Coming back to Macbeth, I still think that "dead baby" image is one of the most powerful in the whole canon:

I have given suck, and know

How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me;

I would while it was smiling in my face

Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums

And dashed the brains out, had I so sworn as you

Have done to this.

One can imagine her, breast hanging out, smashing the baby's skull against a brick wall... I have a wonderful audio recording where the actor rolls the "r" in "bRRRains" in a most terrifying way.

 

Macbeth is full of wonderful images; one of my favourite is:

Light thickens

And the crow makes wing to the rooky wood.

The whole ethos of the play encapsulated in just two words: Light thickens. Fabulous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? I don't recall anything at all on the lines of a "sex-strike", either in Macbeth or indeed anywhere else in Shakespeare.

 

Ok, ok maybe I am reading too much into it but I do think that is an 'unspoken' threat - after all she uses all her feminine wiles to get what she wants - and in my opinion a more valid reading of the text than the discussion that assumes Macbeth is sterile because of the reference to a 'barren sceptre' - but I have already expounded my views on that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Similar Content

    • By Hazel
      Hard to believe this is the first thread for one of the Bard's works, but I am sure it won't be the last.
       
      The first play of my Shakey course this year and a nice way to start. The fairyland intrudes on the human world after the humans intrude in the fairyland.
       
      There are many strands to this play but a quick synopsis of the plot goes like this. Theseus intends to marry Hippolyta. Egueus approaches Theseus for help with his wilful daughter Hermia, who refuses to marry Demetrius as she loves Lysander. Egeus wishes to exercise Athenian law which allows him to kill his daughter should she not marry Demetrius. And this is a comedy?! Helena loves Demetrius but he doesn't love her. Lost in the forest the four young lovers are met with mischief at the hand of Robin Goodfellow whom acting upon the wishes of Fairy King Oberon, drugs the wrong man and the ridiculousness and flippancy of young love is presented at its most comical.
       
      Meanwhile, Oberon drugs his wife, the Fairy Queen, Titania, to fall in love with the first beast she spies on waking up, who happens to be an artisan called Bottom wearing as ass's head (see michevious Robin Goodfellow).
       
      Now it's quite difficult to discuss or review a complex play such as the ones Shakey was wont to create, in isolation, so I do hope that fellowe Shakey fans in the BGO membership join in and an interesting discussion ensues.
       
      I will say that, while I enjoyed the play very much, and love the malevolence in Fairyland, I wasn't immediately sold on Act 5 - the artisans' playlet Pyramus and Thisbe - it just seemed a little unnecessary and detracted form the main thrust of the play. Of course my study books quickly put me right, but study never entirely changes your opinion. My particular highlight was the details of Robin's error - it was deliciously mischevious.
    • By Hazel
      Argubly, Shakespeare's most famous work, Hamlet is a tragedy and definitely one of my favourite plays. Young Hamlet is tortured by the death of his father and immediate marriage of his mother, Gertrude, to his Uncle Claudius. His father appears to him as a ghost and tells Hamlet that he was murdered by Claudius and that Hamlet is to revenge his father.
       
      The many soliloquies and near-perfect lines have almost become cliches themselves, and a good performance, to me, is judged by its ability to make you forget that these lines have been repeated to death. Last year, I think, I saw a theatre performance that didn't quite stop me from cringing at the lines; "to be or not to be...alas poor Yorick...get thee to a nunnery...".
       
      This weekend, in addition to reading the play text itself, I have watched 2 film productions of the play; Branagh's Hamlet, and Franco Zefirelli's. First up was the Zefirelli. Mel Gibson plays Hamlet, and quite a surprising performance it was too. I expected to see flashes of his Lethal Weapon character, but none was evident. He is a brooding, immature, sulky, petulant Hamlet from the off. We are presented with a medieval Elsinore, drab, cold, and grey and much of the 'ghost' action is played out on top of the castle on the battlements. It made for a great stage.
       
      What I didn't like about this production was really all down to Helena Bonham-Carter's Ophelia. There is no attempt made to make you believe that Hamlet and Ophelia were ever in love and there is very little sense of why or how she is sent mad.
       
      There is a preponderance of doors, windows and staircases in this film. Most of the characters, at most points in the play, are framed by at least one of these. It reinforces the sense that for Hamlet Denamrk is a prison. It illuminates the corridors of Hamlet's mind and he struggles to find his way. The doorframes, banisters, and window frames provide Gibson with 'props' with which to act against, show the restraints he exercises over his thoughts, and the prisons he acts against.
       
      The highlight, for me, was the 'to be or not to be' soliloquy which is delivered in the tomb vault which contains the sarcophagus of his father. A perfect setting for Hamlet's consideration of suicide, death, and the escape of dreams. Excellent stuff.
       
      Onto Branagh's. A completely different look and set. A colorful, modern, vibrant royal court set inside a snowbound landscape. The coldness outside is carried through indoors in the blue and white marble of Elsinore. Regal and lavish dress adorns the royals, and grand military garb for the courtiers. Hamlet is much more the insolent brat, playful with words, becoming the court jester at times, and much less the sense that he is wrestling with the torment of his father's murder.
       
      Ophelia though, wonderfully, is just as I would have her. In flashback, we are privy to her and Hamlet's lovemaking before the events that take place now. There is no doubting that they were a loving couple. The dramatic events following the 'rememberances' discussion is brutal, cruel, and soul-destroying - we see exactly how much Hamlet has hurt her and her abuse and sense of being used at the hands of Claudius and Polonius is apparent. She is also witness to her father's body being removed. So, here we see why and how Ophelia is driven mad - we feel for her and understand why she is a victim. Nothing like the Zefirelli production in which her madness is completely inexplicable.
       
      Out of the two, I'd say I prefer the Zefirelli version, I liked the setting, Gibson's Hamlet, and the use of the set to embellish the speeches. The Ophelia is awful and if I could transport Branagh's/Winslet's Ophelia to Zefirella's Elsinore, I would.
    • By Hazel
      It's taken me a fair few days to get to grips with this play. One read through was just not enough for me to understand, and it took 2 film performances for me to finally click with Lear.
       
      Lear, full of pride, pomp, and a hint of narcissism, asks his 3 daughters to declare how much they love him. Goneril delivers a speech that so impresses her father that he gives her a third of his lands. Regan, outdoes her sister, by simply saying that Goneril spoke too small of her love, and earns herself a third of his lands. Cordelia cannot bring herself to declare as they do, simply acknowledges that she loves Lear as a daughter should love her father. Why do women, like her sisters marry, if it is true that all their love is for their father? Lear gives her third to the sisters, marries Cordelia off to France, and banishes her.
       
      What a mistake. Goneril and Regan involve themselves in the business of driving Lear mad, and seizing the power for themselves. Meanwhile, Edmond, bastard son of Gloucester, conspires to rid himself of his half-brother Edgar (full son of Gloucester), and in doing so is involved in the two sisters' machinations. Edgar is banished, under the mistaken belief that he has been traitorous and plotted his father's demise, and pretends to be mad to go unrecognised.
       
      While, quite frankly, some of the lines are enough to send you mad, there are some wonderful pieces, so engaging and visceral in performance. I loved the declarations at the outset, for their thinking, their calculations, and their endless performability. I loved Gloucester's torture at the hands of Goneril and Cornwall - so brutal and frightening.
       
      This won't be one of my favourites by any means, but it's hard to find fault with the plotting of the antagonists.
       
      And so to the performances. First up, I watched a 1976 Thames Shakespeare Collection film directed by Tony Davenall. This was old-school Shakey - no innovations, RP, standard sets and props...and a booming, poised, and perfectly enunciating Patrick Magee as Lear. Boring, staged, and over-rehearsed. This is the very thing that drives people screaming from Shakey.
       
      Next up, a viewing requirement of the OU, Grigori Kozintsev's (1971) King Lear, or Korol Lir, as it is in Russian. Brilliant stuff and finally brought the play alive for me. Gothic, gloomy, relentless and believable. The problem with the text and the Davenall film for me was that Lear's flaw as a tragic character was his pride and arrogance in his status and power. He so quickly goes from the declaration scene to the seeds of madness that it was hard to invest in the tragedy. But Kozintsev's film really spends time and visuals on creating the vastly powerful ruler, assured in his status and arrogant in his self-belief.
       
      Juli Jarvet, who play Lear, is a tiny man, especially so in comparison to the other cast members, and he does an amazing job of becoming this powerfully, arrogant ruler. Little by little, through costume and appearance the madness erodes him and he slowly, visibly pales on screen. Little changed about the outward appearance of Magee's Lear - a huge failure of the film.
       
      The storm scene, unlike Davenall's studio space with fake lightning and purple backlight, is played on cracked tundra, with ferocious rain and booming thunder you can feel to your toes. Lear is drenched as he pounds out those lines.
       
      Just an amazing accomplishment and one that will have me hunting out Kozintsev's Hamlet. I took one star off because I didn't think much of Edmond and Edgar - which was a disappointment. But I doubt you'll see a better Lear.
    • By kelby_lake
      Outrageous that there is no thread on it!
    • By mj_planet18
      Hey everyone!
       
      I'm an English Literature student and right now I have to write an essay comparing Sonnet 27 with Sonnet 130. So far, I've got two major differences, and one similarity (that they are both parodies). But I need another similarity please. The only thing I can come up with is the really obvious ones, which aren't what my tutor wants. (I'm thinking about iambic pentameter, sonnet structure, and that they're love poems).
       
      I also read somewhere (outside of college stuff) that the first so many sonnets (including 27) were addressed to a man.
       
      Outside of those points, I'd just like to hear what other people think of the sonnets in general.
       
      Thanks for reading!

×
×
  • Create New...