Macbeth as Third Murderer...
Timothy Ouimet
Hello
I'm currently studying Macbeth In my Grade 12 English class at school, and
I'm inquiring about a comment raised during a discussion. Is there any
possibility that the "Third Murderer" in Act 3 Scene 3, is Macbeth himself?
If you have any criticisms or essays, or rough ideas on this very topic
please send them to me...I am in a current power struggle with my stubborn
english teacher, and I really want to win this argument.
TImothy OUimet
P.S. Your name will be used during my presentation, if you wish for it to
be, if not, your confidentiality will be my number one priority.
Wolfgang Preiss
"Timothy Ouimet" <tim...@cnwl.igs.net> wrote:
>I'm currently studying Macbeth In my Grade 12 English class at school, and
>I'm inquiring about a comment raised during a discussion. Is there any
>possibility that the "Third Murderer" in Act 3 Scene 3, is Macbeth himself?
>If you have any criticisms or essays, or rough ideas on this very topic
>please send them to me...I am in a current power struggle with my stubborn
>english teacher, and I really want to win this argument.
Hi Timothy!
I have no essays at hand on this topic, only my personal ideas and
some stuff that was discussed in this group a while ago. (You might
want to do a search for "Macbeth" and "murderer" in www.dejanews.com
Be sure to use the comprehensive database, not the "last two weeks"
one.)
The 3rd murderer has often been interpreted as Macbeth himself. The
rationale behind this is to emphasise the paranoia of the play and the
title character: Macbeth can't trust anyone, and later on, no-one can
trust anyone any longer. In my personal opinion, this reading doesn't
hold water, though. Compare the beginning of the "banquet scene", when
one of the murderers reports to Macbeth: Macbeth seems genuinely
surprized / horrified that Fleance escaped - if MB had been there, he
would have known this, right?
Another, more plausible explanation is that the 3rd murderer is
someone who has been sent by MB - just as the murderer says. This
interpretation equally underlines the growing mistrust, but doesn't
contradict the banquet scene.
My favourite interpretation neglects the "growing mistrust" theme, but
has other merits: what if the 3rd murderer is actually one of the
witches? She joins the murderers and makes sure Fleance can escape, so
the prophecy ("father of many kings") can be fulfilled. Obviously,
this reading depends on your interpretation of the witches. If they
are extraordinarily "supernatural," they couldn't be bothered with
such mundane tasks. If they are a bit more "down to earth," however,
it is a possible and quite interesting interpretation.
>P.S. Your name will be used during my presentation, if you wish for it to
>be, if not, your confidentiality will be my number one priority.
Quote me if you want to. I'm afraid, however, that my name won't
overly impress your teacher. :)
--
Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.
wopr"at"stud.uni-sb.de \ There is no "2" in my real e-mail address.
Uni des Saarlands \ Sorry for the inconvenience. You know why.
Goddard
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 15:54:47 GMT wo...@stud.uni-sb.de2 (Wolfgang Preiss) posted
article <3498e09...@news.rz.uni-sb.de> to
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:
"Timothy Ouimet" <tim...@cnwl.igs.net> wrote:
Hi Timothy!
There are bodies lying left right and cetnre, the Lady is a spotlit nutter, and
you want to ignore the 'growing mistrust'? What drama is there in the play,
then?!
has other merits: what if the 3rd murderer is actually one of the
witches?
Oh, that drama... interesting...
...what colour is the sky on your planet?
You leave young Tim alone, Wolfie: he only asked for a hand with his homework,
so don't pick on him. Maybe his Mum and Dad don't read Shakespeare, maybe this
is his only chance of a helping hand into litereary realsm. You're holding his
hand to stamp on his feet.
She joins the murderers and makes sure Fleance can escape, so
the prophecy ("father of many kings") can be fulfilled. Obviously,
this reading depends on your interpretation of the witches. If they
are extraordinarily "supernatural," they couldn't be bothered with
such mundane tasks. If they are a bit more "down to earth," however,
it is a possible and quite interesting interpretation.
Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.
wopr"at"stud.uni-sb.de \ There is no "2" in my real e-mail address.
Uni des Saarlands \ Sorry for the inconvenience. You know why.
Lee Goddard
lee.g...@btinternet.com
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk
Uni of Sussex
Wolfgang Preiss
l...@jove.u-net.com (Goddard) wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 15:54:47 GMT wo...@stud.uni-sb.de2 (Wolfgang Preiss) posted
>article <3498e09...@news.rz.uni-sb.de> to
>humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:
> My favourite interpretation neglects the "growing mistrust" theme, but
>
>There are bodies lying left right and cetnre, the Lady is a spotlit nutter, and
>you want to ignore the 'growing mistrust'? What drama is there in the play,
>then?!
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my words. I was just talking about the
question who the third murderer is, not about the play as a whole.
Don't you think there is enough mistrust and 'fair is foul' without
having MB double as the 3rd murderer?
> has other merits: what if the 3rd murderer is actually one of the
> witches?
>
>Oh, that drama... interesting...
>
>...what colour is the sky on your planet?
Bright magenta, funny you should ask. It seems you're looking for a
flamefest. Keep searching.
>You leave young Tim alone, Wolfie: he only asked for a hand with his homework,
>so don't pick on him. Maybe his Mum and Dad don't read Shakespeare, maybe this
>is his only chance of a helping hand into litereary realsm. You're holding his
>hand to stamp on his feet.
L., I'm not picking on Timothy. I'm trying to be helpful. What exactly
is your excuse? And actually, he was looking for material to challenge
his teacher's opinions. Who knows, maybe this teacher is into your
kind of litereary realsm.
--
Peter Hillyar-Russ
Goddard <l...@jove.u-net.com> wrote in article
<67dntc$7cj$1...@news.u-net.net>...
> You leave young Tim alone, Wolfie: he only asked for a hand with his
homework,
> so don't pick on him. Maybe his Mum and Dad don't read Shakespeare,
maybe this
> is his only chance of a helping hand into litereary realsm. You're
holding his
> hand to stamp on his feet.
>
This isn't a fair rejoinder!! I love Wolfgang's homework replies, which
are an art form in their own right, but this one isn't one of the classic
put downs. Tim asked an honest question - and everything in the answer is
relevent, meaningful and worth exploration. I hope Tim reads it, looks up
the passage and rejoins battle with his teacher, who will - I trust - be
delighted to discuss Wolfgang's suggestions.
Neil Perlman
In my grade 12 English class, we too discussed Macbeth as the third
murderer. One reason for this is that he arrives late and is not shown
talking to Macbeth with the other two murderers. He also seems to know
the exact manner in which Banquo would approach the palace (slowing down
for the last mile). Good luck with your arguement.
Timothy Ouimet
Acutally folks...my parents do read shakespeare....my mom thinks its
macduff, and my dad thinks it's ross...Personally i think because of the
time line it has to be macbeth, because he's so paranoid....and cause he
doesn't trust anyone...
TIMOTHY
Goddard
Wolfgang Preiss posted:
> My favourite interpretation neglects the "growing mistrust" theme, but...
I:
> There are bodies lying left right and cetnre, the Lady is a spotlit nutter,
> and you want to ignore the 'growing mistrust'? What drama is there..?
Wolfgang:
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my words. I was just talking about the
question who the third murderer is, not about the play as a whole.
Don't you think there is enough mistrust and 'fair is foul' without
having MB double as the 3rd murderer?
I:
Good Lord, no! Neither do I think you can ignore any one part of this play
in relation to any other part: this is not some HAMLET of peices we're dealing
with, is it? Your selective reading may be a useful reappropriation for your
upcoming Hollywood production, but I don't think it's going to help a
new reader of the play to appreciate what goes on.
Wolfgang:
> has other merits: what if the 3rd murderer is actually one of the
> witches?
Lee:
>Oh, that drama... interesting...
>
>...what colour is the sky on your planet?
Wolf:
Bright magenta, funny you should ask. It seems you're looking for a
flamefest. Keep searching.
I:
Hmm. No, I'm not looking to flame you, I reserve that for other n/gs: but you
are leeding young Tim astray: what _use_ are your ideas? What to they propose?
Divine intervention? C'mon!
I:
>You leave young Tim alone, Wolfie: he only asked for a hand with his homework,
>so don't pick on him. Maybe his Mum and Dad don't read Shakespeare,
>maybe this is his only chance of a helping hand into litereary realsm. You're
>holding his hand to stamp on his feet.
Wolfgang (shortening a three letter name to two letters):
L., I'm not picking on Timothy. I'm trying to be helpful. What exactly
is your excuse?
I:
Excuse me Wolfie, calm down now and have a cup of tea. All I was saying,
admittedly with a little more zeal than was appropriate, was that you cannot
ignore the main theme of the play - growing mistrust and mental instability,
increasing subversion and corruption for power, not to mention sycophancey to
the English - you cannot ignore these themes because you think it's bleak enough
already. It is a bleak play. That is Macbeth. Come ON!
Wolf:
And actually, he was looking for material to challenge
his teacher's opinions. Who knows, maybe this teacher is into your
kind of literary realism.
I:
Actually, I would not call it realism but an attempt at honesty to the collage
which passes for a text.
Lee Goddard
University of Sussex
Goddard
On Sun, 21 Dec 1997 16:42:50 -0500 "Timothy Ouimet" <tim...@cnwl.igs.net>
posted article <67k2d0$iut$1...@news.igs.net> to
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:
Hey, Tim: I reckon you're spot on, summing up the King's character at that stage
and finding a good demonstration of it in the play.
If you wish to use only this scene to demonstrate the point, look at:
line 2: speaks not of 'the King', or 'Our Lord' but
of 'Macbeth' as if a familliar or equal;
it is murderer III who is most attentive, who hears horses;
but most convinvingly, it is murderer III who is concerned the most,
apparantley at level of personal involvement, that 'the son is fled' (line 19).
Good luck
Lee
Chide your folks.
Wolfgang Preiss
l...@jove.u-net.com (Goddard) wrote:
> Neither do I think you can ignore any one part of this play
> in relation to any other part: this is not some HAMLET of peices we're dealing
> with, is it?
Hmm, we have a patchwork of a text, with only one surviving version
and some quite obviously un-original passages, and you're saying it's
only o.k. if we see it as a unified whole? To quote you: Come on!
> Your selective reading may be a useful reappropriation for your
> upcoming Hollywood production, but I don't think it's going to help a
> new reader of the play to appreciate what goes on.
Fair enough. But do you think that "Who is the Third Murderer?" is one
of the central questions a novice to Macbeth should or would ask? To
me it's in the same league as "How many children had Lady Macbeth?"
Interesting in a way, but nothing that is essential to a general
understanding of the play. I took it Timothy was past the stage where
he needed help understanding the main plot.
>Hmm. No, I'm not looking to flame you, I reserve that for other n/gs: but you
>are leeding young Tim astray: what _use_ are your ideas?
If you're asking about the *worth* of my ideas, I don't know about
that. My aim, however, was to present as many possible answers to the
"Third Murderer question" as I could come up with. That's what I
understood Timothy was asking for.
>What to they propose? Divine intervention? C'mon!
Not necessarily. As I said, it depends on the interpretation of the
witches. One possible way to see them (no, I won't say it's my
favorite interpretation) is to interpret them as real, mean, but not
as powerful as they would like to believe. Not divine, but rather
mundane.
If you see them as Norns, however, this reading hardly makes sense.
>Wolfgang (shortening a three letter name to two letters):
Well, Lee, if you call me "Wolfie", and your name is Lee, what do you
expect? Lee-o-bee? Don't call me Wolfie, and you won't see any more
attempts of abusing your name.
>Excuse me Wolfie, calm down now and have a cup of tea.
I'd rather have some coffee, if possible. And don't call me - but we
had that.
>All I was saying,
>admittedly with a little more zeal than was appropriate, was that you cannot
>ignore the main theme of the play - growing mistrust and mental instability,
>increasing subversion and corruption for power, not to mention sycophancey to
>the English - you cannot ignore these themes because you think it's bleak enough
>already. It is a bleak play. That is Macbeth. Come ON!
Your view of the play certainly is valid. But do you actually propose
that there's only one single correct reading of _Macbeth_? I'm not
proposing "anything goes", certainly, but there are more ways than one
of interpreting a work of literature. Regarding the question of
murderer #3, and assuming that you think Macbeth is this guy in
disguise, tell me this: what do you make of the dialogue between
Macbeth and the First Murderer in III.iv, lines 13 - 30? If Macbeth
attended the assassination of Banquo, what is the point of this
dialogue? It's not for the benefit of the audience - they saw what
happened and heard the comments about Fleance's escape. Macbeth was
there also, and so was the First Murderer. No-one else is supposed to
hear it. If Macbeth was there, his rage and despair must be acting.
But why should Macbeth be play-acting to deceive a common murderer? It
just doesn't make sense to me. Tell me why I should buy the "Macbeth
as Third Murderer" version.
> And actually, he was looking for material to challenge
> his teacher's opinions. Who knows, maybe this teacher is into your
> kind of literary realism.
>
>I:
>Actually, I would not call it realism but an attempt at honesty to the collage
>which passes for a text.
Actually, you brought up the term literary realism. I don't get the
rest of your sentence; in particular I do not understand how "honesty"
comes into the equation. Please explain.
This could be interesting. It's no fun arguing with people who share
my beliefs. Don't be overly zealous and we can have a nice discussion.
And don't call me Wolfie. The name is Wolfgang.
Lee Goddard
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 09:27:52 GMT wo...@stud.uni-sb.de2 (Wolfgang Preiss) posted
article <34a38345...@news.rz.uni-sb.de> to
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:
l...@jove.u-net.com (Goddard) wrote:
> Neither do I think you can ignore any one part of this play
> in relation to any other part: this is not some HAMLET of peices
> we're dealing with, is it?
Hmm, we have a patchwork of a text, with only one surviving version
and some quite obviously un-original passages, and you're saying it's
only o.k. if we see it as a unified whole? To quote you: Come on!
Touché. But, are we doing a full investigation here, or helping a young lad
with his essay? The 'un-original passages' are not strictly relevant to the
topic; neither were you earlier remarks, hence my post.
> Your selective reading may be a useful reappropriation for your
> upcoming Hollywood production, but I don't think it's going to help a
> new reader of the play to appreciate what goes on.
Fair enough.
I admire your grace!
But do you think that "Who is the Third Murderer?" is one
of the central questions a novice to Macbeth should or would ask? To
me it's in the same league as "How many children had Lady Macbeth?"
Interesting in a way, but nothing that is essential to a general
understanding of the play.
I agree.
I took it Timothy was past the stage where he needed help understanding
the main plot.
Well, maybe he is, but I didn't get that impression. Anyway, how would the
witch/murderess idea help if that was so?
I think once past 'understanding the main plot,' the only useful understanding
can be aided without watching various productions of the play is to undertake a
examination of the play's historical scenerio.
>...No, I'm not looking to flame you, I reserve that for other n/gs: but you
>are leeding young Tim astray: what _use_ are your ideas?
If you're asking about the *worth* of my ideas, I don't know about
that. My aim, however, was to present as many possible answers to the
"Third Murderer question" as I could come up with. That's what I
understood Timothy was asking for.
Heheheh! Well, surely if he's past trying to work out the plot he could provide
random answers to the question himself? Simple computer program:
LET possible$=TRUE
LET number_of_characters_in_play=your choice ...
DIM character_name$(number_of_characters_in_play)
DIM suggestion$(3)
DATA Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, all the other characters ...
PRINT "Three suggestions for the third murderer:"
FOR I=1 TO 3
LET possible$=INT(RND(1)*number_of_characters_in_play)
IF (NOT (possible$=suggestion(1))
AND (NOT (possible$=suggestion$(2))
THEN suggsetion$(I)=possible$
PRINT suggstion$(I)
NEXT I
END
>What to they propose? Divine intervention? C'mon!
Not necessarily. As I said, it depends on the interpretation of the
witches. One possible way to see them (no, I won't say it's my
favorite interpretation) is to interpret them as real, mean, but not
as powerful as they would like to believe. Not divine, but rather
mundane.
Well, I won't point out that they were 'old hags' and that a hag is a woman...
And sure, one interpretation is as you say: but was that the intention?
And does the intention matter? More, does it matter that in percieving the old
hags as mortal and as a possibility for the third murderer, we deny that the
play's contemporary audience's belief in the power of the supernatural? and
their oppression by that belief? and the value of the play's revelation that
the supernatural witches were incorrect?
If you see them as Norns, however, this reading hardly makes sense.
What's a Norn, Wolfgang?
>Wolfgang (shortening a three letter name to two letters):
Well, Lee, if you call me "Wolfie", and your name is Lee, what do you
expect? Lee-o-bee? Don't call me Wolfie, and you won't see any more
attempts of abusing your name.
The father of my friend Anke is called Wolfgang, and shortening his name winds
him up a bit too: we only do it in fun. I'm sorry: didn't mean to cause offence,
was just smiling. BTW, the same effect can be achieved for a short name be
lengthening it: for example, Lee would become Leornard.
>Excuse me Wolfie, calm down now and have a cup of tea.
I'd rather have some coffee, if possible. And don't call me - but we
had that.
Heheh.
>All I was saying,
>admittedly with a little more zeal than was appropriate, was that you cannot
>ignore the main theme of the play - growing mistrust and mental instability,
>increasing subversion and corruption for power, not to mention sycophancey to
>the English - you cannot ignore these themes because you think it's bleak
enough
>already. It is a bleak play. That is Macbeth. Come ON!
Your view of the play certainly is valid. But do you actually propose
that there's only one single correct reading of _Macbeth_? I'm not
proposing "anything goes", certainly, but there are more ways than one
of interpreting a work of literature. Regarding the question of
murderer #3,
Of course I agree that multiple appropriations can be made, but whethere or not
they should be made is another matter, and depends on the context in which the
question is put. In this case I'm with you: why ask about the third murderer?
What use would the answer be? Well, if it's not obvious, I suppose it encourages
one to read again, but...
...and assuming that you think Macbeth is this guy in
disguise, tell me this: what do you make of the dialogue between
Macbeth and the First Murderer in III.iv, lines 13 - 30? If Macbeth
attended the assassination of Banquo, what is the point of this
dialogue? It's not for the benefit of the audience - they saw what
happened and heard the comments about Fleance's escape. Macbeth was
there also, and so was the First Murderer. No-one else is supposed to
hear it. If Macbeth was there, his rage and despair must be acting.
But why should Macbeth be play-acting to deceive a common murderer? It
just doesn't make sense to me. Tell me why I should buy the "Macbeth
as Third Murderer" version.
Against: surely if it were Macbeth who attended the murder of Banquo, it would
be mentioned it the directions? This works against it being any previously
encountered character.
But: not identifying the character adds to the atmosphere, forces the audience
to think as we are thinking - what? who? That the secrative third murderer
should be Macbeth himself is most logical.
One of the play's themes observered and highlighted somewhat earlier in the
thread of this converstzion was that of mistrust and deceit. If we can agree
upon the importance of this, the Macbeth's denial of his role illustrates his
lack of trust even for the assassins in his employment, just as in the murder
scene, previous to this, he does not reveal himself.
> his teacher's opinions. Who knows, maybe this teacher is into your
> kind of literary realism.
>
>Actually, I would not call it realism but an attempt at honesty to the collage
>which passes for a text.
Actually, you brought up the term literary realism. I don't get the
rest of your sentence; in particular I do not understand how "honesty"
comes into the equation. Please explain.
Hmm: thought I said cultural realism, at least that was my intention. Honesty to
what? To the play as it was intended, though I don't pretend that to be a simple
matter, and I must say that I haven't read the play in the current half of my
life, so have not researched it.
This could be interesting. It's no fun arguing with people who share
my beliefs. Don't be overly zealous and we can have a nice discussion.
Yes indeed. Perhaps we could hunt out some of the problems of RICHARD II, as
I'm about to undertake some reading around the play for MY next course!
And don't call me Wolfie. The name is Wolfgang.
Ah so.
Veil grusse und tschuss!
L.
Wolfgang Preiss
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk (Lee Goddard) wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 09:27:52 GMT wo...@stud.uni-sb.de2 (Wolfgang Preiss) posted
>article <34a38345...@news.rz.uni-sb.de> to
>humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:
[snip, others will follow and not be announced]
> My aim, however, was to present as many possible answers to the
> "Third Murderer question" as I could come up with. That's what I
> understood Timothy was asking for.
>
>Heheheh! Well, surely if he's past trying to work out the plot he could provide
>random answers to the question himself? Simple computer program:
>
> LET possible$=TRUE
> LET number_of_characters_in_play=your choice ...
> DIM character_name$(number_of_characters_in_play)
> DIM suggestion$(3)
> DATA Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, all the other characters ...
> PRINT "Three suggestions for the third murderer:"
> FOR I=1 TO 3
> LET possible$=INT(RND(1)*number_of_characters_in_play)
> IF (NOT (possible$=suggestion(1))
> AND (NOT (possible$=suggestion$(2))
> THEN suggsetion$(I)=possible$
> PRINT suggstion$(I)
SYNTAX ERROR variable "suggstion$" has not been defined! :)
> NEXT I
> END
I really have to be careful how I phrase my sentences... It's been a
long time since I coded Basic programs on my ZX 81, so I can't be sure
if I interpret your program correctly. But it seems as if it only
provided three random character names from the play. When I said
"possible", I meant of course "possible and reasonably probable"
(where "reasonably probable" needs to be defined more clearly, of
course.) I think that one of the witches is a better candidate for 3rd
murderer than most other characters in the play. Lady Macbeth, for
instance, is not a likely suspect. She doesn't know her husband is
about to kill Banquo: "Be innocent of the knowledge, dearest chuck,
'til thou applaud the deed..." The witches have the opportunity and a
motive (make the prophecy come true). I know I probably wouldn't have
an air-tight case in court against them on *that* charge, however.
>Well, I won't point out that they were 'old hags' and that a hag is a woman...
>And sure, one interpretation is as you say: but was that the intention?
>And does the intention matter? More, does it matter that in percieving the old
>hags as mortal and as a possibility for the third murderer, we deny that the
>play's contemporary audience's belief in the power of the supernatural? and
>their oppression by that belief? and the value of the play's revelation that
>the supernatural witches were incorrect?
Slllloooowly. So many questions. Let me sort them out first.
>And sure, one interpretation is as you say: but was that the intention?
Most likely, no.
>And does the intention matter?
Depends on what purpose you have. If your purpose is to divine the
impact the play had on its original audience, or if you are interested
in the historical cultural background in general, perceived
(authorial) intention can be very important. But if you're trying to
stage an appealing production of the play, or if you're just doing
some l'art- pour-l'art thinking, or have a battle of wits with your
teacher, I believe you can ignore it.
>More, does it matter that in percieving the old
>hags as mortal and as a possibility for the third murderer, we deny that the
>play's contemporary audience's belief in the power of the supernatural?
Contemporary to Shakes or to us? (Or would that be "contemporaneous"?
I never got that distinction.) I'll assume you mean "contemporary to
the author." Well, I'm not denying the old Elizabethans or Jamesians
anything. Of course, the majority of the audience back then must have
had a particular understanding of witches and the supernatural. This
understanding probably excluded "my" version. After all, King James
himself had written a book on witchcraft; some poor deluded souls had
admitted to trying to sink a ship by summoning a storm etc. Yes, many
of those people believed in witchcraft. But should that prevent us,
today, from looking at the play from a different angle? I don't claim
exclusivity, I don't claim it's what the author intended of what the
original audience understood it to mean. All I'm saying it that it's
an interesting idea that does not contradict the text. It contradicts
the historical context - but for my purpose, I have to ask "So what?"
>and their oppression by that belief?
See above. Murder, boundless ambition, treason, many themes covered in
the play still are very topical. Witchcraft and the fear of it is not,
thank goodness.
>and the value of the play's revelation that the supernatural
>witches were incorrect?
In what way were they incorrect? All prophecies come true, don't they?
Macbeth "shall be king". Check.
Banquo "root and father of many kings". Check.
"none of woman born" Macduff "was from his mother's womb untimely
ripped". Check.
"Birnam's wood do come to Dunsinane..." Check.
Did I forget one?
>What's a Norn, Wolfgang?
Good thing I looked them up before I posted, of I would have felt
cornered for a moment. :)
From the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia
Norns
Norns, Norse FATES, who spun and wove the web of life. They
were usually three: Urth (Wyrd), past; Verthandi, present; and
Skuld, future. The three weird sisters in Shakespeare's
Macbeth are probably Scottish equivalents of the Norns.
>Of course I agree that multiple appropriations can be made, but whethere or not
>they should be made is another matter, and depends on the context in which the
>question is put. In this case I'm with you: why ask about the third murderer?
>What use would the answer be? Well, if it's not obvious, I suppose it encourages
>one to read again, but...
Why, if it encourages someone to read the play again, that's reason
enough for me. The reason I was giving this question some thought is
that I directed a student theatre production of the play last year (no
not in Hollywood. :) In this postition, with a limited (in more ways
than one) cast, you're asking yourself "Who's going to *play* the
third murderer?" rather than "Who *is* he?" I decided against Macbeth
(the poor guy is on stage quite a lot as himself, there's no need
giving him extra work) and for one of the weird sisters. That's when I
asked mayself if a witch couldn't be in fact the third murderer, who
deliberately lets Fleance escape. She appeared dressed as a murderer,
not as a witch. My reasoning was that it would be nice if some of the
audience asked themselves "Wasn't that the witch?" and ""Does it
*mean* anything, or didn't they have enough actors?" It wasn't my
intention to give a definitive answer to that question. I doubt
anybody noticed this, though.
> Tell me why I should buy the "Macbeth
> as Third Murderer" version.
> Against: surely if it were Macbeth who attended the murder of Banquo, it would
>be mentioned it the directions? This works against it being any previously
>encountered character.
Given how sparse the original stage directions are, this is not even
necessarily the case.
> But: not identifying the character adds to the atmosphere, forces the audience
>to think as we are thinking - what? who? That the secrative third murderer
>should be Macbeth himself is most logical.
Macbeth has no alibi ("...till dinner time alone..."), only his wife,
and we know how much *that* is worth, :) but yet...
> One of the play's themes observered and highlighted somewhat earlier in the
>thread of this converstzion was that of mistrust and deceit. If we can agree
>upon the importance of this, the Macbeth's denial of his role illustrates his
>lack of trust even for the assassins in his employment, just as in the murder
>scene, previous to this, he does not reveal himself.
I agree with everything you say, but still I can't see why this
interview is in the play if Macbeth is himself the murderer. If this
involvement of Macbeth is clear to the audience, the scene is
redundant as far as information goes. The audience knows what
happened, and they know how Macbeth feels about it.
And is it in keeping with Macbeth's character that he reveals so much
of his feelings ("here comes my fit again...") to the murderer? Isn't
the theme of mistrust served equally well, if not better, if the 3rd
murderer remains unidentified? Add to this some murder-mystery
considerations: It takes two or three common murderers to successfully
ambush a noble thane like Banquo. But with Macbeth's help, how can
they fail to kill both father and son? If anything, Macbeth is quite
proficient when it comes to killing. And how should Macbeth manage to
get back to the castle, dress, shower (to get rid of the same blood
that's still on the 1st murderer's face) and appear at the banquet on
time? No, I'm still not convinced. But it really isn't that important,
is it?
>Hmm: thought I said cultural realism, at least that was my intention. Honesty to
>what? To the play as it was intended, though I don't pretend that to be a simple
>matter, and I must say that I haven't read the play in the current half of my
>life, so have not researched it.
In the red corner, we have the defending champion, Mooooderated
DeconsTRUCtionism! And in the blue corner, the challenger, undefeated
in seven previous fights, Quuuuualified New HistORIcism! :)
Seriously, I'm more interested in what the play can give me today than
in the question of what it meant to earlier generations. Notice that I
say "more", not "exclusively". I can see your point.
>Yes indeed. Perhaps we could hunt out some of the problems of RICHARD II, as
>I'm about to undertake some reading around the play for MY next course!
But not before we have quarreled about this interesting problem: Who
is the guy ("A MESSENGER") who warns Lady Macduff prior to her
untimely death? I propose it is Seyton, Macbeth's devout servant from
Act V, who is actually playing a dark and sinister game of his own...
:)
>Veil grusse und tschuss!
Frohe Weihnachten and a happy new year!
Lee Goddard
On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 01:11:52 GMT wo...@stud.uni-sb.de2 (Wolfgang Preiss) posted
article <34a38be0...@news.rz.uni-sb.de> to
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:
[snip, others will follow and not be announced] - to which I would like to add
that I hereby knowingly contravene all USENET etiquette, and cut left right and
centre, though not without consideration for correctness (!): anyone wants to
know more, look up the preceding posts on www.dejanews.com.
> My aim, however, was to present as many possible answers to the
> "Third Murderer question" as I could come up with. That's what I
> understood Timothy was asking for.
>
>Heheheh! Well, surely if he's past trying to work out the plot he
>could provide random answers to the question himself? Simple computer
>program:
[ * * * ]
I really have to be careful how I phrase my sentences...
Me too, but I so often fail that I won't hold
any abruptness against you, Wolfgang.
It's been a
long time since I coded Basic programs on my ZX 81, so I can't be sure
if I interpret your program correctly. But it seems as if it only
provided three random character names from the play. When I said
"possible", I meant of course "possible and reasonably probable"
(where "reasonably probable" needs to be defined more clearly, of
course.)
Yes, that is what I missed. But glad to see you read the program and got the
deliberate mistake..!
I think that one of the witches is a better candidate for 3rd
murderer than most other characters in the play. Lady Macbeth, for
instance, is not a likely suspect. She doesn't know her husband is
about to kill Banquo: "Be innocent of the knowledge, dearest chuck,
'til thou applaud the deed..."
Agreed.
The witches have the opportunity and a
motive (make the prophecy come true).
Agreed, I'll come back to that if you'll bear with me.
I know I probably wouldn't have
an air-tight case in court against them on *that* charge, however.
OK, I shan't prosecute it just now.
[ * * * ]
Slllloooowly. So many questions. Let me sort them out first[:]
>And sure, one interpretation is as you say: but was that the intention?
Most likely, no.
>And does the intention matter?
Depends on what purpose you have. If your purpose is to divine the
impact the play had on its original audience, or if you are interested
in the historical cultural background in general, perceived
(authorial) intention can be very important. But if you're trying to
stage an appealing production of the play, or if you're just doing
some l'art- pour-l'art thinking, or have a battle of wits with your
teacher, I believe you can ignore it.
Well, let's discount the art-for-art's-sake first: bourgeois tosh we can well do
without, as it help no-one. As for an 'appealing production', we must decide to
whom - or what - we wish to appeal. May I take it that we are not appealing to
aesthetic considerations? They could take us anywhere, and most likely
achieve little. The other points we'll get to in a moment.
>More, does it matter that in percieving the old
>hags as mortal and as a possibility for the third murderer, we deny that the
>play's contemporary audience's belief in the power of the supernatural?
Contemporary to Shakes or to us? (Or would that be "contemporaneous"?
I never got that distinction.) I'll assume you mean "contemporary to
the author."
Forgive me if this seems brash, and if I am treating a German as a
native-speaker of English, but in the questioned sentance, the subject of
'contemporary audience' is as you correctly sumise, that which preceeds it,
'play' in its possessive form. Not a very clear phrase I agree, but the best I
could muster after several attempts...
Well, I'm not denying the old Elizabethans or Jamesians
anything. Of course, the majority of the audience back then must have
had a particular understanding of witches and the supernatural. This
understanding probably excluded "my" version. After all, King James
himself had written a book on witchcraft; some poor deluded souls had
admitted to trying to sink a ship by summoning a storm etc. Yes, many
of those people believed in witchcraft.
Further more, their existed the death penalty for 'witchcraft' for many years to
come, despite John Dee's being awarded Royal Patronage for dubious studies.
But should that prevent us,
today, from looking at the play from a different angle? I don't claim
exclusivity, I don't claim it's what the author intended of what the
original audience understood it to mean. All I'm saying it that it's
an interesting idea that does not contradict the text. It contradicts
the historical context - but for my purpose, I have to ask "So what?"
Again, I'll get to that below, if you'll bear with me.
>and their oppression by that belief?
See above. Murder, boundless ambition, treason, many themes covered in
the play still are very topical. Witchcraft and the fear of it is not,
thank goodness.
Now I must disagree with you and ask several questions of you. What was
'witchcraft'? Why were folk accussed of it? Which folk were accussed of it and
by whom? I guess you've read Miller's THE CRUCIBLE, in which case I'll guess
you've got the answers to the above, and will understand the many, many
contemporary reflections of 'witchcraft' and witches. But, let's not get onto
Umberto Eco and Thomas Pynchon just yet!
>and the value of the play's revelation that the supernatural
>witches were incorrect?
In what way were they incorrect? All prophecies come true, don't they?
Macbeth "shall be king". Check.
Banquo "root and father of many kings". Check.
"none of woman born" Macduff "was from his mother's womb untimely
ripped". Check.
"Birnam's wood do come to Dunsinane..." Check.
Did I forget one?
No you didn't. But here I'd like to raise again your earlier point: if one of
the witches did intervene to ensure her prophecy came to be, it would lessens
the role of the supernatural 'Norns' (a word I love, thank you for the
definition, and a word I shall use in relation to A CHRISTMAS CAROL too!). That
would change the imperative of the play from that of our current working-thesis
concerned with trust and trechery and greed, to the reality of the supernatural.
This is not as unlikely an intention as some may claim: consider that (as far as
can be established) the Shakespearian play to preceed MACBETH was KING LEAR...
[ * * * ]
>Of course I agree that multiple appropriations can be made, but whether
>or not they should be made is another matter, and depends on the context in
>which the question is put. In this case I'm with you [as you asked our
>enquirer]: why ask about the third urderer? What use would the answer be?
>Well, if it's not obvious, I suppose it encourages one to read again, but...
Why, if it encourages someone to read the play again, that's reason
enough for me.
No!
The reason I was giving this question some thought is
that I directed a student theatre production of the play last year (no
not in Hollywood. :) In this postition, with a limited (in more ways
than one) cast, you're asking yourself "Who's going to *play* the
third murderer?" rather than "Who *is* he?" I decided against Macbeth
(the poor guy is on stage quite a lot as himself, there's no need
giving him extra work) and for one of the weird sisters. That's when I
asked mayself if a witch couldn't be in fact the third murderer, who
deliberately lets Fleance escape. She appeared dressed as a murderer,
not as a witch. My reasoning was that it would be nice if some of the
audience asked themselves "Wasn't that the witch?" and ""Does it
*mean* anything, or didn't they have enough actors?" It wasn't my
intention to give a definitive answer to that question. I doubt
anybody noticed this, though.
That is interesting, and I like the way you handled it.
> Tell me why I should buy the "Macbeth
> as Third Murderer" version.
> Against: surely if it were Macbeth who attended the murder of Banquo, it
> would be mentioned it the directions? This works against it being any
> previously encountered character.
Given how sparse the original stage directions are, this is not even
necessarily the case.
> But: not identifying the character adds to the atmosphere, forces the
> audience to think as we are thinking - what? who? That the secrative third
> murderer should be Macbeth himself is most logical.
Macbeth has no alibi ("...till dinner time alone..."), only his wife,
and we know how much *that* is worth, :) but yet...
> One of the play's themes observered and highlighted somewhat earlier in the
>thread of this converstzion was that of mistrust and deceit. If we can agree
>upon the importance of this, the Macbeth's denial of his role illustrates his
>lack of trust even for the assassins in his employment, just as in the murder
>scene, previous to this, he does not reveal himself.
I agree with everything you say, but still I can't see why this
interview is in the play if Macbeth is himself the murderer. If this
involvement of Macbeth is clear to the audience, the scene is
redundant as far as information goes. The audience knows what
happened, and they know how Macbeth feels about it.
Never stopped such scenes appearing in Shakespearian plays before!
But I think it does add emphasis to the following scene of the ghost.
And is it in keeping with Macbeth's character that he reveals so much
of his feelings ("here comes my fit again...") to the murderer? Isn't
the theme of mistrust served equally well, if not better, if the 3rd
murderer remains unidentified? Add to this some murder-mystery
considerations: It takes two or three common murderers to successfully
ambush a noble thane like Banquo. But with Macbeth's help, how can
they fail to kill both father and son? If anything, Macbeth is quite
proficient when it comes to killing. And how should Macbeth manage to
get back to the castle, dress, shower (to get rid of the same blood
that's still on the 1st murderer's face) and appear at the banquet on
time? No, I'm still not convinced. But it really isn't that important,
is it?
No, but... Macbeth does like to kill, and does not do so in the scene in
question, so problems with the clearing up.
>Hmm: thought I said cultural realism, at least that was my intention. Honesty
>to what? To the play as it was intended, though I don't pretend that to be a
>simple matter, and I must say that I haven't read the play in the current half
>of my life, so have not researched it.
In the red corner, we have the defending champion, Mooooderated
DeconsTRUCtionism! And in the blue corner, the challenger, undefeated
in seven previous fights, Quuuuualified New HistORIcism! :)
...and I can never decide whcih I am! Are they exclusive? No, I'm both.
Seriously, I'm more interested in what the play can give me today than
in the question of what it meant to earlier generations. Notice that I
say "more", not "exclusively". I can see your point.
Danke sho:n! Aber... back to the witchcraft/'witchcraft' and supernatural
themes, cf. LEAR, Pynchon, Eco, Miller... Perhaps here lies the real import of
the play? Hell, I've always read it as a minor, easy-to-grasp piece, but now...
>...Perhaps we could hunt out some of the problems of RICHARD II, as
>I'm about to undertake some reading around the play for MY next course!
But not before we have quarreled about this interesting problem: Who
is the guy ("A MESSENGER") who warns Lady Macduff prior to her
untimely death? I propose it is Seyton, Macbeth's devout servant from
Act V, who is actually playing a dark and sinister game of his own...
AAAHHH!
>Veil grusse und tschuss!
Frohe Weihnachten and a happy new year!
Et toi, mon ammie: bon muzzulah! Shalom Hanukah!
Lee Goddard
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk - University of Sussex
lee.g...@jove.u-net.com
lee.g...@btinternet.com - can't find a good ISP for love nor money
Lee Goddard
On 20 Dec 1997 09:56:48 GMT "Peter Hillyar-Russ" <peter...@lineone.net>
posted article <01bd0d2d$6863c3e0$6b3363c3@default> to
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:
Goddard <l...@jove.u-net.com> wrote in article
<67dntc$7cj$1...@news.u-net.net>...
> You leave young Tim alone, Wolfie: he only asked for a hand with his
homework,
> so don't pick on him. Maybe his Mum and Dad don't read Shakespeare,
maybe this
> is his only chance of a helping hand into litereary realsm. You're
holding his
> hand to stamp on his feet.
>
This isn't a fair rejoinder!! I love Wolfgang's homework replies, which
are an art form in their own right, but this one isn't one of the classic
put downs. Tim asked an honest question - and everything in the answer is
relevent, meaningful and worth exploration. I hope Tim reads it, looks up
the passage and rejoins battle with his teacher, who will - I trust - be
delighted to discuss Wolfgang's suggestions.
Oh... ooh.... well, I too hope Tim stands up to the teacher, but will Wolfgang's
earlist suggestion help? Were they meant to? Have I been had? Bugger.
Anyway, it was fun.
Wolfgang Preiss
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk (Lee Goddard) wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 01:11:52 GMT wo...@stud.uni-sb.de2 (Wolfgang Preiss) posted
>article <34a38be0...@news.rz.uni-sb.de> to
>humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:
[snippetry]
> >And does the intention matter?
>
> Depends on what purpose you have. If your purpose is to divine the
> impact the play had on its original audience, or if you are interested
> in the historical cultural background in general, perceived
> (authorial) intention can be very important. But if you're trying to
> stage an appealing production of the play, or if you're just doing
> some l'art- pour-l'art thinking, or have a battle of wits with your
> teacher, I believe you can ignore it.
>
>Well, let's discount the art-for-art's-sake first: bourgeois tosh we can well do
>without, as it help no-one.
But it can be fun.
>As for an 'appealing production', we must decide to
>whom - or what - we wish to appeal.
The audience, first and foremost.
> >More, does it matter that in percieving the old
> >hags as mortal and as a possibility for the third murderer, we deny that the
> >play's contemporary audience's belief in the power of the supernatural?
>
> Contemporary to Shakes or to us? (Or would that be "contemporaneous"?
> I never got that distinction.) I'll assume you mean "contemporary to
> the author."
>
>Forgive me if this seems brash, and if I am treating a German as a
>native-speaker of English, but in the questioned sentance, the subject of
>'contemporary audience' is as you correctly sumise, that which preceeds it,
>'play' in its possessive form. Not a very clear phrase I agree, but the best I
>could muster after several attempts...
Yeeees, BUT: the play is still there. It is not first and foremost a
thing of the past, at least in my understanding. It is a cultural fact
in our society today, and as such "contemporary" in a way (though it's
not a "contemporary play", of course.) If you'd have said
"Shakespeare's contemporary audience", I wouldn't have had a problem
understanding it instantly. "The play's contemporary audience" is a
slightly different case, isn't it? Shakespeare is dead, the play
"lives". I'm not just quibbling with words - maybe this difference of
concepts is more central to the debate than one would think.
> >and their oppression by that belief?
>
> See above. Murder, boundless ambition, treason, many themes covered in
> the play still are very topical. Witchcraft and the fear of it is not,
> thank goodness.
>
>Now I must disagree with you and ask several questions of you. What was
>'witchcraft'? Why were folk accussed of it? Which folk were accussed of it and
>by whom? I guess you've read Miller's THE CRUCIBLE, in which case I'll guess
>you've got the answers to the above, and will understand the many, many
>contemporary reflections of 'witchcraft' and witches.
Hmmm, good point. But there's a difference between using people as
scapegoats for any sort of problems one has and blaming and putting to
trial innocent women who practice traditional medicine as "witches",
or writers as "communists" on the one hand (yes, the first part of the
sentence ends here :) and self-professed, convinced and
straightforward witches as we find them in Macbeth or fairy tales on
the other hand.
There certainly was a connection between the two phenomena at the time
the play was written (People see the play and its "real witches", come
home and blame Goody Smith from next door for the death of a cow.),
but that connection doesn't work anymore. A parallel would have been a
play from the McCarthy era depicting an evil communist plotting all
kinds of mischief, or, in today's Germany for instance, a play
featuring a criminal asylum seeker. Miller's play, OTOH, works because
it criticizes the scapegoat mentality. Criticism can be subtle,
propaganda has to be blunt. Name the enemy, don't circumscribe him.
The weird sisters *are* "real", evil witches. At least they think so
themselves. People in Shakespeare's time were afraid of them,
audiences today aren't anymore - at least not more than of the ghosts
in "Poltergeist". That's why I think that the theme of the witches as
a "reality" for the spectators / readers has waned (among other key
issues that stopped working in the meantime. Ask me what they are.)
> In what way were they incorrect? All prophecies come true, don't they?
>But here I'd like to raise again your earlier point: if one of
>the witches did intervene to ensure her prophecy came to be, it would lessens
>the role of the supernatural 'Norns' (a word I love, thank you for the
>definition, and a word I shall use in relation to A CHRISTMAS CAROL too!).
It fits precisely there. Never thought of this.
>That
>would change the imperative of the play from that of our current working-thesis
>concerned with trust and trechery and greed, to the reality of the supernatural.
I'm not sure I understand this correctly. Let me try to paraphrase and
correct me if I'm misinterpreting you: If the witches are bodily
influencing the course of events (instead of doing this by talking to
Macbeth and summoning spirits; or if they just know beforehand what's
going to happen anyway), they become less spiritual, less
supernatural, and more mundane. O.k., no problem with that. But now:
this changes the focus (don't know what to make of the "imperative")
of the play from trust etc. to the reality of the supernatural.
Hmmm, does it? In what way? If we (as audience) simply accept the
witches as supernatural, the reality of the supernatural is not an
issue. Witches exist, period.
If the sisters behave more "natural", we question their supernatural
status and the reality of the supernatural in general, so it becomes
an issue to deal with and shifts the focus of the play away from the
other, more interesting questions. Is that what you're saying? If so,
I'll address it later on - if not, please rephrase.
>This is not as unlikely an intention as some may claim: consider that (as far as
>can be established) the Shakespearian play to preceed MACBETH was KING LEAR...
What are you alluding to? Gloucester's fall from the cliffs?
> Why, if it encourages someone to read the play again, that's reason
> enough for me.
>
>No!
Yes! In hindsight, I'm often grateful for infuriating rubbish I had to
read if it made me read great literature again. I may not find the
answer I was looking for, but revisiting good books is always
worthwhile.
> I agree with everything you say, but still I can't see why this
> interview is in the play if Macbeth is himself the murderer. If this
> involvement of Macbeth is clear to the audience, the scene is
> redundant as far as information goes. The audience knows what
> happened, and they know how Macbeth feels about it.
>
>Never stopped such scenes appearing in Shakespearian plays before!
Could you name one? I can't think of a proper example right now.
>But I think it does add emphasis to the following scene of the ghost.
I'm just now trying to imagine how the pace and shape of the play
would change without this sub-scene. ... Yes, it would be a loss to
cut it. Hey, I now see a way to stage the two related scenes
coherently with Macbeth as 3rd murderer: Once Banquo is dead, the two
murderers (who did not recognize their companion) continue to hunt
Fleance, while Macbeth/3rd murderer returns to the castle (exit other
side of stage.) This way, MB has to ask about Banquo in order not to
expose his double play *and* has a real reason to inquire after
Fleance - after all, it could be that the two others finally got
Fleance... That could work.
> In the red corner, we have the defending champion, Mooooderated
> DeconsTRUCtionism! And in the blue corner, the challenger, undefeated
> in seven previous fights, Quuuuualified New HistORIcism! :)
>
>...and I can never decide whcih I am! Are they exclusive? No, I'm both.
So am I.
>Danke sho:n! Aber... back to the witchcraft/'witchcraft' and supernatural
>themes, cf. LEAR, Pynchon, Eco, Miller... Perhaps here lies the real import of
>the play? Hell, I've always read it as a minor, easy-to-grasp piece, but now...
I said I would come back to the question I understand you asked
earlier: does the "mundanization" of the weird sisters shift the focus
of the play from greed/mistrust/etc. to the question of the reality of
the supernatural? I don't think it has to. Let us look at a very
conventional, black and white understanding of the play first:
There are three "parties" involved:
1) The supernatural beings: The weird sisters, Hecate (if we grant her
permission to be in the play - I didn't), the apparitions. They are
inscrutable, but mostly evil.
2) The bad guys: Lady Macbeth, the murderers, and Macbeth himself.
Macbeth is a cross-over from the next group, his downfall is the main
theme of the play.
3) The good guys: everybody else.
Macbeth is urged by his wife, the weird sisters, and his own ambition
to become a bad guy and kill his king. This causes confusion among the
Good Guys as they don't know anymore who belongs to them and who
doesn't. At the end, they figure out who the enemy is, kill Macbeth,
and everything is fine again.
I'm not saying this was the intention of the author. But I believe
that most of Shakespeares contemporaries understood the play that way.
Now, this interpretation was much too easy, to clear-cut for my
liking. I therefore decided to actually *add* to the theme of
confusion and mistrust by making a few changes in my interpretation.
For various reasons, very few of those changes became obvious to the
audience.
1) The witches could have relations to the supernatural, but they
don't have to. Their apparent power over Macbeth (and Banquo, to a
degree) has more to do with psychology than para-psychology. Maybe
they have a political agenda of their own? Are they "real" witches? Or
do they just think they are? I left those questions open to the
audience.
2) The second group remains more or less "as is", but they get some
more sympathy than in the standard interpretation above.
3) The "good guys" cease to be good guys, and cease to be a homogenous
group. The mistrust they have for each other is not groundless, since
many of them have a seriously flawed character. There are many hints
in the play, and I tried to moderately emphasize them whenever
possible: Lennox is nearby when Macbeth kills Duncan, and when he
visits the weird sisters. Sometimes he's loyal to Macbeth (and stays
at his court longer than most), sometimes he loudly voices his disgust
for the usurper. Can we trust him? Ross, likewise, is apparently loyal
to whatever ruler he's close to. He visit's Lady Macduff, "takes [his]
leave at once", and enter the murderers. Coincidence? I don't think
so. :) Macduff is honest, but dangerously stupid. He's a toy in the
hands of whoever can manipulate him. Malcolm, finally, is awfully sly.
Consider how he instrumentalizes Macduff's feelings: "Let grief
convert to anger!" (And do my dirty work for me!) He isn't trustworthy
either. Will Scotland be better off under his reign than under
Macbeth's? In the final scene, I mixed the weird sisters into the
crowd and had them cheer the new king with the others. They remain on
stage when the crowd exits, looking somewhat satisfied, in order to
indicate that not all is well.
I know this interpretation is bleaker than most; it sounds a lot like
Pyncheon, and a lot of it didn't work on stage as intended, but I
still kinda like it.
> But not before we have quarreled about this interesting problem: Who
> is the guy ("A MESSENGER") who warns Lady Macduff prior to her
> untimely death? I propose it is Seyton, Macbeth's devout servant from
> Act V, who is actually playing a dark and sinister game of his own...
>
>AAAHHH!
Oh, I forgot: in my staging, it *was* Seyton who warned Lady Macduff.
He's also all the servants and messengers at Macbeth's different
households, so he probably understands more of his master's affairs
than any other character. It never becomes quite clear what side he's
on, or what his own intentions are. Unnecessary to mention that he has
sense enough to sit out the final battle and cheer King Malcolm in the
end. :)
> >Veil grusse und tschuss!
>
> Frohe Weihnachten and a happy new year!
>
>Et toi, mon ammie: bon muzzulah! Shalom Hanukah!
I ran out of tongues / faiths to say "Merry Christmas / holiday of
your choice" in. Wait, Spanish (I think) "Feliz Navidad" (or
something).