Is Macbeth childless?
Janet T. O'Keefe
questions. Freud seems to believe that Lady Macbeth was barren,
although he admits the time frame of the play doesn't support it. I
don't think it is quite that clear that they have no children, and I
wonder if it is truly so.
The evidence that they are childless comes, in part, from the fact that
no child is featured or mentioned in the play. Further evidence comes
from Macduff's statement from Act 4 Scene 3 "He has no children."
However, there is also textual evidence that Lady Macbeth, at least,
has given birth to a child. If she had never given birth she could not
say, in Act 1 Scene 5, "I have given suck, and know How tender 'tis to
love the babe that milks me:" It is biologically impossible, or as
improbable as makes no odds, for a woman who has never given birth to
nurse a child. It is possible that the child has since died, but
clearly Lady Macbeth cannot be said to be barren.
So, what is the real answer? I think we have to look at the text for
other clues. Freud stated in his essay that he felt the story of
Macbeth made more sense in Holinshed because Macbeth was king for 10
years before he went bad and he had time to find out that he and his
wife could not have children. He felt that it was out of bitterness
over this that Macbeth killed Banquo. He also felt that barrenness
contributed to Lady Macbeth's breakdown and the difficulties in their
marriage.
I have to say that Freud take on this is the opposite of what I think
and it makes no sense to me. If Macbeth was had no child or no hope to
have one then he clearly could not have started a dynasty. If he knows
he cannot pass the crown onto a child of his own then why wouldn't
Banquo's children be a good a choice as Duncan's children or anybody
else's? Killing Banquo and Fleance is only useful if Macbeth does
believe he will have his own child to inherit the throne. This is even
more true in the time frame of the play wherein Macbeth kills Banquo
immediately after he has assumed the throne. And it is clear from his
remarks to Lady Macbeth in Act 1 Scene 7 that he does believe they will
have children:
"Bring forth men-children only;
For thy undaunted mettle should compose
Nothing but males"
I think that Macbeth does believe that he will have an error and
murders Banquo because of it. Freud believes that Macbeth cannot have
an heir and murders Banquo out of that frustration. What do all of you
think?
Janet
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Eric Ingman
Shakespeare did not complete this play before his death. There are
inconsistencies in the plot that must be smoothed over to produce a coherent
story.
Given that, we may also speculate that the MacBeths' family could have been
clarified by the final draft.
Janet T. O'Keefe wrote in message <7pjvio$ed$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>I think that Macbeth does believe that he will have an [heir] and
>murders Banquo because of it. Freud believes that Macbeth cannot have
>an heir and murders Banquo out of that frustration. What do all of you
>think?
>
>Janet
Geralyn Horton
evidence comes
> from Macduff's statement from Act 4 Scene 3 "He has no children."
> However, there is also textual evidence that Lady Macbeth, at least,
> has given birth to a child. If she had never given birth she could not
> say, in Act 1 Scene 5, "I have given suck, and know How tender 'tis to
> love the babe that milks me:"
When I was "getting up" the part of the LadyM, I read
that the historical queen on whom the character was
based had been previously married, and that her child
or children died during the war that made her a widow.
If she has had children, as she says, it is reasonable
for Mac to believe that she may bear another with him.
If she doesn't, it would be stressful for both--
possibly a retributive judgment on their deeds.
Geralyn Horton, Playwright
Newton, Mass. 02460
<http://www.tiac.net/users/ghorton>
John W. Kennedy
>
> questions. Freud seems to believe that Lady Macbeth was barren,
> although he admits the time frame of the play doesn't support it. I
> don't think it is quite that clear that they have no children, and I
> wonder if it is truly so.
In real history, they had no children, but she had a son by a previous
husband. Also in that same real history, that son ruled, briefly, after
his stepfather's death, before Malcolm put paid to him, too.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
John W. Kennedy
>
> It is useful to bear in mind the evidence of the First Folio that
> Shakespeare did not complete this play before his death.
There is no such evidence that I'm aware of; it sounds like yet another
anti-Strat myth. However, there is evidence that the text may have been
more than usually tampered with.
Clark
has the Macbeth character childless, and willing to accept the Banquo
character's son as his heir. It is only when the Lady Macbeth character
tells him that she's pregnant that "Macbeth" decides to kill "Banquo" and
his son to ensure his own dynasty.
Later, "Lady Macbeth" loses the child, and "Macbeth" realizes that he had
killed "Banquo" for no purpose. Kurosawa makes another change to
Shakespeare's story, in that "Banquo's" son survives the assasination
attempt, and assumes the Malcom role. He's the one who becomes lord after
"Macbeth's" death, thereby fulfilling the prophecy that "Banquo" will beget
a king.
Of course, in Shakespeare's play, the part about Banquo begetting kings was
just thrown in to flatter James I, since it was erroneously believed that he
was descended from Banquo's family.
- Clark
Visit my Shakespeare website at:
http://members.home.net/cjh5801/Shakespeare.htm
Janet T. O'Keefe wrote in message <7pjvio$ed$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I've digested what Freud had to say about Macbeth and it brings up some
>questions. Freud seems to believe that Lady Macbeth was barren,
>although he admits the time frame of the play doesn't support it. I
>don't think it is quite that clear that they have no children, and I
>wonder if it is truly so.
>
>The evidence that they are childless comes, in part, from the fact that
>no child is featured or mentioned in the play. Further evidence comes
>from Macduff's statement from Act 4 Scene 3 "He has no children."
>However, there is also textual evidence that Lady Macbeth, at least,
>has given birth to a child. If she had never given birth she could not
>say, in Act 1 Scene 5, "I have given suck, and know How tender 'tis to
>I think that Macbeth does believe that he will have an error and
>murders Banquo because of it. Freud believes that Macbeth cannot have
>an heir and murders Banquo out of that frustration. What do all of you
>think?
>
>Janet
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Julia
>I've digested what Freud had to say about Macbeth and it brings up some
>questions. Freud seems to believe that Lady Macbeth was barren,
>although he admits the time frame of the play doesn't support it. I
>don't think it is quite that clear that they have no children, and I
>wonder if it is truly so.
>
>The evidence that they are childless comes, in part, from the fact that
>no child is featured or mentioned in the play. Further evidence comes
>from Macduff's statement from Act 4 Scene 3 "He has no children."
Am I the only one who interprets this scene differently? Malcolm and
Macduff are together when Ross brings the news of the murder of
Macduff's wife and children. Malcolm (crassly in my opinion) says,
Be comforted:
Let's make us med'cines of our great revenge,
To cure this deadly grief.
Macduff: He has no children. -- All my pretty ones?
Did you say all? -- O Hell-kite! -- All?
What, all my pretty chickens, and their dam,
All one fell swoop?
Malcolm: Dispute it like a man.
Macduff: I shall do so;
But I must also feel it as a man:
. . . . . . . .
Malcolm: Be this the whetstone of your sword: let grief
Convert to anger; blunt not the heart, enrage it.
In my opinion Malcolm emerges as an absolute monster of selfishness,
(frequently, almost universally a royal trait) insisting that Macduff should
now concentrate on his, Malcolm's interests as a way of getting his
revenge.
When Macduff says "He has no children" it seems to me that he is
speaking to Ross, about _Malcolm_, not Macbeth, saying that Malcolm
does not understand the nature of his grief. The play therefore contains
_no_ reference to the Macbeths being childless and two references to
their children, actual and future:
Lady Macbeth: "I have given suck, and know
How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me
and Macbeth: Bring forth men-children only!
Are those the words of a man to thinks he will have no heirs? (Act I sc vii).
It seems to me perverse to suggest the Macbeths are, and expect to
remain, childless.
It can be argued that to say, "He has no children." about his future king is
very un-courtierlike behaviour, but Macduff has just received a severe
blow, and it would be simple to show him speaking aside to Ross at this
point.
>However, there is also textual evidence that Lady Macbeth, at least,
>has given birth to a child. If she had never given birth she could not
>say, in Act 1 Scene 5, "I have given suck, and know How tender 'tis to
>love the babe that milks me:" It is biologically impossible, or as
>improbable as makes no odds, for a woman who has never given birth to
>nurse a child. It is possible that the child has since died, but
>clearly Lady Macbeth cannot be said to be barren.
>
>So, what is the real answer? I think we have to look at the text for
>other clues. Freud stated in his essay that he felt the story of
>Macbeth made more sense in Holinshed because Macbeth was king for 10
>years before he went bad and he had time to find out that he and his
>wife could not have children. He felt that it was out of bitterness
>over this that Macbeth killed Banquo. He also felt that barrenness
>contributed to Lady Macbeth's breakdown and the difficulties in their
>marriage.
>
I agree with Freud on this; the Lady's breakdown and Macbeth's isolation
and desperation make more sense after the interval of 10 years
mentioned in Holinshed.
>I have to say that Freud take on this is the opposite of what I think
>and it makes no sense to me. If Macbeth was had no child or no hope to
>have one then he clearly could not have started a dynasty. If he knows
>he cannot pass the crown onto a child of his own then why wouldn't
>Banquo's children be a good a choice as Duncan's children or anybody
>else's? Killing Banquo and Fleance is only useful if Macbeth does
>believe he will have his own child to inherit the throne. This is even
>more true in the time frame of the play wherein Macbeth kills Banquo
>immediately after he has assumed the throne. And it is clear from his
>remarks to Lady Macbeth in Act 1 Scene 7 that he does believe they will
>have children:
>"Bring forth men-children only;
>For thy undaunted mettle should compose
>Nothing but males"
>
>I think that Macbeth does believe that he will have an error
I detect the fell hand of electronic intervention here: 'error' instead of 'heir'.
Do you dictate your text, Janet? Interesting it should make such a
Freudian slip :-) I now use a spelling checker. It proposed changing
'Macduff' to 'madcap'!
>and
>murders Banquo because of it. Freud believes that Macbeth cannot have
>an heir and murders Banquo out of that frustration. What do all of you
>think?
>
>Janet
I respect Freud's views but believe his argument is based on a
misinterpretation of "He has no children."
--
Julia
Kingpin444
>>
>> It is useful to bear in mind the evidence of the First Folio that
>> Shakespeare did not complete this play before his death.
>
>There is no such evidence that I'm aware of; it sounds like yet another
>anti-Strat myth. However, there is evidence that the text may have been
>more than usually tampered with.
There is convincing evidence for interpolations and abridgements in the First
Folio text (of the sort that King Lear suffers in the same source). Since
other plays that were further from completion were also completed by others,
and Thomas Middleton contributed to Macbeth, it's a good inference to suppose
that the author died before he was able to completely work out every wrinkle of
this play.
Caius Marcius
<Ju...@mistylaw.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> Janet T. O'Keefe <j_t_o...@my-deja.com> writes
>>I've digested what Freud had to say about Macbeth and it brings up
some
>>questions. Freud seems to believe that Lady Macbeth was barren,
>>although he admits the time frame of the play doesn't support it. I
>>don't think it is quite that clear that they have no children, and I
>>wonder if it is truly so.
The play therefore contains
>_no_ reference to the Macbeths being childless and two references to
>their children, actual and future:
>
>Lady Macbeth: "I have given suck, and know
> How tender 'tis to love the babe that
milks me
>
>and Macbeth: Bring forth men-children only!
>
>Are those the words of a man to thinks he will have no heirs? (Act I
sc vii).
>It seems to me perverse to suggest the Macbeths are, and expect to
>remain, childless.
But if there were a Macbeth Junior, wouldn't Macbeth feel more
confident about his descendants maintaining their hold on the throne?
Perhaps M and Lady M had only a daughter? We all know about Mary Q. of
S. - but what would the status of a potential female claimant to the
Scottish throne in 11th Scotland?
- CMC
John Dean
Caius Marcius <cori...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> <Ju...@mistylaw.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > Janet T. O'Keefe <j_t_o...@my-deja.com> writes
> >>I've digested what Freud had to say about Macbeth and it brings up
>
> Perhaps M and Lady M had only a daughter? We all know about Mary Q. of
> S. - but what would the status of a potential female claimant to the
> Scottish throne in 11th Scotland?
>
> - CMC
Similar, probably, to that of the Maid of Norway in the C13 - in MacBeth's
day there was no consistent tradition of lineal descent of the Kingship -
hence in real life MacBeth's title to the throne was not significantly worse
than Duncan's & in real life MacBeth's son Luloecan ruled for a year after
Canmore killed Macbeth before being himself killed. As long as you could
show royal blood, and that was quite widespread among the nobility of the
time, were physically unblemished and could claim sufficient support, the
throne was yours for as long as you could keep it.
--
John Dean -- Oxford
I am anti-spammed -- defrag me to reply
john...@msn.com
Symposium1
Macbeths had lost a child to illness or accident. It's not at all suggested in
the text, although it makes an interesting undertone to their characters --
people who are compensating for their unspeakable grief by fixating on power
and status, plus the ability to appear to disregard human life.
--Ann
Julia
> Julia><Ju...@mistylaw.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> Janet T. O'Keefe <j_t_o...@my-deja.com> writes
>>>I've digested what Freud had to say about Macbeth and it brings
>>>up some questions. Freud seems to believe that Lady Macbeth
>>>was barren, although he admits the time frame of the play doesn't
>>>support it. I don't think it is quite that clear that they have no
>>>children, and I wonder if it is truly so.
>
>>childless and two references to their children, actual and future:
>>
>>Lady Macbeth: "I have given suck, and know
>> How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me
>>
>>and Macbeth: Bring forth men-children only!
>>
>>Are those the words of a man to thinks he will have no heirs?
>>(Act I sc vii). It seems to me perverse to suggest the Macbeths are,
>>and expect to remain, childless.
>
>confident about his descendants maintaining their hold on the throne?
>
children' he wasn't referring to Macbeth.
>Perhaps M and Lady M had only a daughter? We all know about Mary Q. of
>S. - but what would the status of a potential female claimant to the
>Scottish throne in 11th Scotland?
>
> - CMC
Actually, succession in Scotland at this time wasn't necessarily from
father to son, anymore than it was in Denmark. (See various 'Hamlet'
threads on the subject.) The real Macbeth defeated Duncan in battle,
but the real Lady Macbeth, Gruoch was influential in entitling Macbeth
to the throne. Here, by David Ross, is a better explanation than I could
give:
"TANISTRY
Inheritance in Celtic Scotland was not a matter of the eldest son
assuming the rights and titles of his father. Primogeniture was
established gradually in the twelfth century, in an imitation of Norman
practice. Even then, it was at first only used in the royal succession,
and other lordships continued to be inherited by the former system.
This method has acquired the name of Tanistry:
The tanist was the heir presumptive, and his right to the throne was
conferred not by his father but by his mother. Matrilinear succession, in
one form or another, was typical of the Celtic kingdoms. The tanist
was very often the son of the reigning king's sister. Whatever the roots
of the custom, its effect was to ensure that a capable adult was
available to take over -- a vital consideration when the king was the
war-leader. The defect of the system was the often murderous rivalry it
promoted when there were a number of possible successors."
Would Macbeth have agonised over the succession? I don't know. I
find I can no more appreciate matrilinear succession than
Shakespeare could. It doesn't change the play, merely Freud's
interpretation of it. I repeat, I'm simply pointing out that IMO when
Macduff said 'He has no children' he wasn't referring to Macbeth.
--
Julia
ACorbelle
intended to help them reach immediate political power. I never get a sense
of dynastic dreams. Both seem interested in personal power.
Eric Ingman <ein...@lamb.com> wrote in message
news:7pk26v$n1p$1...@shadow.skypoint.net...
> It is useful to bear in mind the evidence of the First Folio that
> Shakespeare did not complete this play before his death. There are
> inconsistencies in the plot that must be smoothed over to produce a
coherent
> story.
>
> Given that, we may also speculate that the MacBeths' family could have
been
> clarified by the final draft.
>
> Janet T. O'Keefe wrote in message <7pjvio$ed$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >I think that Macbeth does believe that he will have an [heir] and
> >murders Banquo because of it. Freud believes that Macbeth cannot have
> >an heir and murders Banquo out of that frustration. What do all of you
> >think?
> >
> >Janet
>
>
John W. Kennedy
> In my opinion Malcolm emerges as an absolute monster of selfishness,
> (frequently, almost universally a royal trait) insisting that Macduff should
> now concentrate on his, Malcolm's interests as a way of getting his
> revenge.
Errr.... No. It's a guy thing. You wouldn't understand.
> When Macduff says "He has no children" it seems to me that he is
> speaking to Ross, about _Malcolm_, not Macbeth, saying that Malcolm
> does not understand the nature of his grief. The play therefore contains
> _no_ reference to the Macbeths being childless and two references to
> their children, actual and future:
>
> Lady Macbeth: "I have given suck, and know
> How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me
In actual historic fact, Macbeth and Gruoch (her real name) had no
children, but she had a son by a previous marriage, who was (in
expectation and in fact) Macbeth's heir.
And, to be a bit brutal, only someone living in the 20th century could
find any contradiction between having had children and not having
children.
> and Macbeth: Bring forth men-children only!
>
> Are those the words of a man to thinks he will have no heirs? (Act I sc vii).
> It seems to me perverse to suggest the Macbeths are, and expect to
> remain, childless.
What does Macbeth's hope of a future heir have to do with Macduff's
considerations of the present?
Janet T. O'Keefe
rri...@ibm.net wrote:
> Julia wrote:
> > When Macduff says "He has no children" it seems to me that he is
> > speaking to Ross, about _Malcolm_, not Macbeth, saying that Malcolm
> > does not understand the nature of his grief. The play therefore
contains
> > _no_ reference to the Macbeths being childless and two references to
> > their children, actual and future:
> >
> > Lady Macbeth: "I have given suck, and know
> > How tender 'tis to love the babe
that milks me
>
> children, but she had a son by a previous marriage, who was (in
> expectation and in fact) Macbeth's heir.
>
> And, to be a bit brutal, only someone living in the 20th century could
> find any contradiction between having had children and not having
> children.
>
> -rri...@ibm.net
I assume this last comment is directed at me, so I will respond. I do
not find any contradiction between having had children and not having
children. It occurred to me both that Lady Macbeth may have had a
child from a previous marriage and that she and Macbeth may have had a
child that died. Since there is no evidence of this in the play
WHATSOEVER, I decided that it was too much speculation on my part.
However, what you do not seem to credit is that any evidence of a
former child is proof that Lady Macbeth is not barren and therefore
gives Macbeth cause to hope that they will have a child together. That
is the point I was trying to make, not that since she had given birth
they must have a child now.
Janet
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
John W. Kennedy
>
> In article <37C3204E...@ibm.net>,
> rri...@ibm.net wrote:
> > Julia wrote:
> > > speaking to Ross, about _Malcolm_, not Macbeth, saying that Malcolm
> > > does not understand the nature of his grief. The play therefore
> contains
> > > _no_ reference to the Macbeths being childless and two references to
> > > their children, actual and future:
> > >
> > > Lady Macbeth: "I have given suck, and know
> > > How tender 'tis to love the babe
> that milks me
> >
> > children, but she had a son by a previous marriage, who was (in
> > expectation and in fact) Macbeth's heir.
> >
> > And, to be a bit brutal, only someone living in the 20th century could
> > find any contradiction between having had children and not having
> > children.
> >
> I assume this last comment is directed at me, so I will respond. I do
> not find any contradiction between having had children and not having
> children. It occurred to me both that Lady Macbeth may have had a
> child from a previous marriage and that she and Macbeth may have had a
> child that died. Since there is no evidence of this in the play
> WHATSOEVER, I decided that it was too much speculation on my part.
> However, what you do not seem to credit is that any evidence of a
> former child is proof that Lady Macbeth is not barren and therefore
> gives Macbeth cause to hope that they will have a child together. That
> is the point I was trying to make, not that since she had given birth
> they must have a child now.
This whole thread has whirled around so many times that I'm not sure
anyone knows what point anyone else is trying to make.
The suggestion that, "He has no children," is, all alone, addressed to
Ross and refers to Malcolm seems foreign to Shakespeare's usual
stagecraft. It also rings false psychologically to me: in
Shakespeare's world, for Macduff to react so to Malcolm's words would be
effeminate -- even whiny. No one in Shakespeare says, "You wouldn't
understand my feelings," except in utter contempt.
In any case, for purposes of the play, Macbeth has no children; if he
did, they'd be a plot point. And in history, his only child was his
stepson, Lulach, who left behind him no reputation (I believe he was
called "King Lulach the Simple" or something of the sort) and who
reigned for only a few months. Shakespeare chose (wisely) to expunge
him from the record; it was the least of his alterations, after all, for
Duncan was Macbeth's own age and a rather inept king, whom Macbeth
killed in battle, proceeding to rule for 17 mostly successful years.
Julia
>Julia wrote:
>> In my opinion Malcolm emerges as an absolute monster of selfishness,
>> (frequently, almost universally a royal trait) insisting that Macduff should
>> now concentrate on his, Malcolm's interests as a way of getting his
>> revenge.
>
No I don't. Can you explain?
>
>> When Macduff says "He has no children" it seems to me that he is
>> speaking to Ross, about _Malcolm_, not Macbeth, saying that Malcolm
>> does not understand the nature of his grief. The play therefore contains
>> _no_ reference to the Macbeths being childless and two references to
>> their children, actual and future:
>>
>> Lady Macbeth: "I have given suck, and know
>> How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me
>
>In actual historic fact, Macbeth and Gruoch (her real name) had no
>children, but she had a son by a previous marriage, who was (in
>expectation and in fact) Macbeth's heir.
He was the Tanist. As I explained in a reply to Caius Marcius:
"Succession in Scotland at this time wasn't necessarily from
father to son. The real Macbeth defeated Duncan in battle,
but the real Lady Macbeth, Gruoch was influential in entitling Macbeth
to the throne. Here, by David Ross, is a better explanation than I could
give:
"TANISTRY
Inheritance in Celtic Scotland was not a matter of the eldest son
assuming the rights and titles of his father. Primogeniture was
established gradually in the twelfth century, in an imitation of Norman
practice. . . . .
The tanist was the heir presumptive, and his right to the throne was
conferred not by his father but by his mother. Matrilinear succession, in
one form or another, was typical of the Celtic kingdoms. The tanist
was very often the son of the reigning king's sister. Whatever the roots
of the custom, its effect was to ensure that a capable adult was
available to take over -- a vital consideration when the king was the
war-leader".
>And, to be a bit brutal, only someone living in the 20th century could
>find any contradiction between having had children and not having
>children.
That makes no sense to me. Is it what you _meant_ to say? Or have
you left something out?
>
>> and Macbeth: Bring forth men-children only!
>>
>> Are those the words of a man to thinks he will have no heirs? (Act I sc vii).
>> It seems to me perverse to suggest the Macbeths are, and expect to
>> remain, childless.
>
>What does Macbeth's hope of a future heir have to do with Macduff's
>considerations of the present?
>
Nothing. It has been claimed that, *in the play* Macbeth has no
children because Macduff says "He has no children", but he said that
in the presence of Malcolm, not Macbeth. I believe that he was
referring to Malcolm, not Macbeth, therefore his statement can not be
taken as proof that *in the play* Macbeth had no children.
--
Julia
Gary Kosinsky
Julia <Ju...@mistylaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>When Macduff says "He has no children" it seems to me that he is
>speaking to Ross, about _Malcolm_, not Macbeth, saying that Malcolm
>does not understand the nature of his grief.
FWIW: I notice that a similiar line pops up in 3H6 V:v
with a little added.
Margaret has just watched the York brothers murder her
son, and cries out:
"You have no children, butchers! If you had,
The thought of them would have stirred up remorse:"
If we assume the line has the same intent in Macbeth as
it does in 3H6, it would mean Macduff is referring to Macbeth, saying
that if Macbeth had had children, he could never have ordered the deaths
of Macduff's children.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kosinsky gk...@vcn.bc.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Kennedy
> >And, to be a bit brutal, only someone living in the 20th century could
> >find any contradiction between having had children and not having
> >children.
>
> That makes no sense to me. Is it what you _meant_ to say? Or have
> you left something out?
It was _precisely_ what I meant to say. Only someone born after the
invention of modern medicine sees anything the least bit unusual about
someone who used to have children, but doesn't any more.
> >
> >> and Macbeth: Bring forth men-children only!
> >>
> >> Are those the words of a man to thinks he will have no heirs? (Act I sc vii).
> >> It seems to me perverse to suggest the Macbeths are, and expect to
> >> remain, childless.
> >
> >What does Macbeth's hope of a future heir have to do with Macduff's
> >considerations of the present?
> >
> Nothing. It has been claimed that, *in the play* Macbeth has no
> children because Macduff says "He has no children", but he said that
> in the presence of Malcolm, not Macbeth. I believe that he was
> referring to Malcolm, not Macbeth, therefore his statement can not be
> taken as proof that *in the play* Macbeth had no children.
But which is it that you're trying to prove? That Malcolm isn't
speaking of Macbeth? Why not? It's the obvious interpretation, and far
more in keeping with Shakespeare's usual stage technique. That Macbeth
has children? But in historic fact he didn't, and none are mentioned in
the play, despite many opportunities.