Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Everyman: The Weird Sisters or Nymphs? (Off topic)

[ Edited ]
OK 1611 if you like and yes I take what you say about Forman's being the first record of a performance of Macbeth. The first performance was recorded half a century later by John Aubrey, who knew some of the actors, and it was he who reported on the first 'curse', the death of the actor Hal Berridge at the opening performance on August 7th 1606 but Aubrey does not describe the actual play as Forman does. Aubrey also reports that Shakespeare himself stepped in to play Berridge's role of Lady Macbeth.

The question of the dates of Macbeth is a problem in itself. Legend has it that it was performed for King James at Hampton Court in 1606 but we have no evidence for that, which I find odd because reports of what our kings and queens did are usually well recorded. 1606 has been picked as a likely date of a performance before the King because of the Gunpowder plot of 1605 and the heightened public alarm about regicide etc., but again there is no evidence for this. Another report says that Shakespeare used an actual witchraft incantation in the play which supposedly brought on the 'curse' and upset King James, who refused to let the play be performed during his reign. He died in 1610 so maybe the 1610/11 performance reported by Forman is the first one after his death.

Given the number of alterations to the manuscript, both in S's hand and others, I think it is reasonable for those with or without Celtic ancestry :smileyhappy:to keep an open mind on the subject of nymphs/witches, particularly because of the known insertion of the Hecate scene. It seems entirely reasonable to me, given what we know about differences in the interpretations and productions of all plays, that changes were made from the original to suit the king, or thereafter to suit Queen Elizabeth (the Faerie Queen) for all we know. My preference for Nymphs/prophecy to Witches/evil is just because I am a good gel, not just because I am a Celt.:smileyvery-happy:

It has always proved a problematic play to stage, partly because of the 'curse' bad luck etc.;theatrical companies have been known to avoid it in our times so it must have been even more difficult in the 1600s. It was dropped from the theatrical repertoire in James' reign and the next recorded performance is the one by Davenant in 1663 which was a 'spectacle' with flying witches and songs, and a much enhanced role for Lady Macduff. This version was the one performed until David Garrick introduced another version in 1744 when he added previously expurgated speeches from the First Folio edition, retained two musical scenes added by Davenant, and added an eight line death speech for Macbeth written by himself! (And you complain about producers today!) Garrick's production was a definitive one for around a century and is probably nearer to most productions we see today.

In 1934 when Charles Laughton played Macbeth, the producer Tyrone Guthrie, cut the witches' scenes altogether, including the first one, because the influential actor/director/writer Harley Granville-Barker wrote that they were not written by Shakespeare. So no Nymphs and no Witches!

In our own time the Trevor Nunn/Ian McKellen/Judi Dench RSC performance in 1976 is thought to be the nearest to the original and I commend the DVD to you if you haven't seen it. Although you may prefer Trevor Nunn/Nicol Williamson/Helen Mirren RSC production of 1974 which had a more religious 'spin'. (I saw both these performances and the Laurence Olivier/Vivien Leigh one - at Stratford - in 1955.)

(I am meeting my daughter at the British Library tomorrow, on my way to a Fabian meeting at the HoC and will see if I have time to look at their quarto edition of the Macbeth manuscript of 1608 to see what I can glean from it. I undertake this meeting with trepidation because, if you remember, when I started out for the July HoC Fabian meeting in 2005, I was unable to proceed because of the London tube bombings - which I missed by only half an hour...)





Everyman wrote:


Choisya wrote:
Why is is 'right on target' when the only contemporary account we have of the first public performance in 1610 clearly states 'nymphs and fairies'?

First, this is the first record of the performance of the play, but it's unlikely to have been the first performance; the play was written, most authorities agree, in 1606; would S have left it sitting around unperformed for five years?

BTW, I have seen both 1610 and 1611 cited as the date of Forman's diary, but since the the Oxford Companion to Shakespeare and several scholarly journals use the 1611 date, I find that more likely.

However, it's clear, as you have said, that your Celtic blood cries out for these figures to be Celtic figures and not witches, I won't further try to dissuade you from your commitment to your ancestry.

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-11-200707:47 AM

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Everyman: The Weird Sisters or Nymphs? (Off topic)

My preference for Nymphs/prophecy to Witches/evil is just because I am a good gel, not just because I am a Celt.

If'n you say so.

Hope the London tube survives your Fabian meeting.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
LizzieAnn
Posts: 2,344
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters


stratford wrote:

My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical. You must be careful not to take single lines out of their context. If you go back to the beginning of that aside Macbeth is saying: This supernatural soliciting (“inviting”)/Cannot be ill, cannot be good. If ill,/Why hath it given me earnest of success,/Commencing in a truth? I am Thane of Cawdor:/If good, why do I yield to that suggestion/Whose horrid image doth unfix my hair/And make my seated (“fixed”) heart knock at my ribs,/Against the use of nature? (“Contrary to my natural way”) Present fears/Are less than horrible imaginings./My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical (“imaginary”),/Shakes so my single (“unaided”) state of man that function/Is smothered in surmise, and nothing is/But what is not. I simply do not see a scheming murderer here. I see a man who is greatly struggling with his thoughts because of what has just happened to him. I do not see him planning anything. I see him struggling to make sense of the situation, and I see him fearful of doing anything “against the use of nature.”
I understand what you're trying to say - but still, I see that murder springs to his mind. It's not the witches that mention it, but Macbeth. The idea probably frightens him - hences the heart palpitations. It's not an easy idea to contemplate, but I see it as coming to his mind.

One line later, after Banquo’s “Look, how our partner’s rapt,” Macbeth says: If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me,/Without my stir. THIS ASIDE IS CRUCIAL TO THE DISCUSSION AT HAND. Chance made Macbeth Thane of Cawdor. Chance may also make him king, and without any effort on his part (“Without my stir.”) He seems satisfied to wait things out. I see no proof of Macbeth having any “fascination with the idea of being king” at this point, and there are no “thoughts of murder.” In fact, it’s exactly the opposite. He will wait for chance to crown him.
Again, I see, and I agree he would rather it come to him naturally. He's also probably not yet planning it. But the point is murder did spring to his mind in connection with this. Not "It can't be" or "How could it be" but "Murder" and being upset about it.

The Prince of Cumberland! That is a step/On which I must fall down, or else o’erleap,/For in my way it lies. Stars, hide your fires;/Let not light see my black and deep desires:/The eye wink at the hand (“be blind to the hand’s deed”); yet let that be/Which the eye fears, when it is done, to see. For the first time Macbeth evidences some “black and deep desires.” But is the king the target of those desires? No; Malcolm is the target of these desires.
Macbeth sees that if Duncan is eliminated then Malcolm is his heir - so now there are two obstacles to his being king. Either he gives it up & lets Malcolm become king after Duncan (fall down) or he has to take care of Malcolm (o'erleap) so that Malcolm doesn't become king.

You say: LM gives him courage (if you want to call it that) when he falters and doubts, but the original fascination with the idea of being king & thoughts of murder are his.
Yes - but when he decides against it, she convinces him to go forward. They each thought of it first as they were told - Macbeth thought of murder when first told - Lady Macbeth when first reading Macbeth's telling of the witches comments.

The following exchange proves Macbeth’s innocence and Lady Macbeth’s blackness:
MACBETH: My dearest love,/Duncan comes here tonight.
LADY MACBETH: And when goes hence?
MACBETH: TOMORROW, AS HE PURPOSES.
LADY MACBETH: O, NEVER/SHALL SUN THAT MORROW SEE!.../He that’s coming/Must be provided for: AND YOU SHALL PUT/THIS NIGHT’S GREAT BUSINESS INTO MY DISPATCH (“management”);/Which shall to all our nights and days to come/Give solely sovereign sway and masterdom.
Macbeth lamely replies: We will speak further.
Lady Macbeth has the final words of the scene: LEAVE ALL THE REST TO ME.
LM may be more determined and ambitious, and perhaps even blacker, but Macbeth is no innocent nor victim. He did think of murder when first hearing the "prophecy" and he does allow himself to be "coaxed" into killing Duncan. I can't accept that Macbeth is so weak that he allows himself to be completely ruled by his wife into committing a murder. It just doesn't fit. If he were so set against, LM would not have been able to convince him of it; he wanted to be king badly enough to "let" his doubts be overcome.

His honor is so impugned by his wife calling him less than a man, but it's not impugned by committing murder for profit & gain - to go against those reasons he had just named for not killing Duncan? Duncan, his kinsman ~ Duncan, his guest ~ Duncan a good & compassionate king. I can't accept Macbeth as an innocent victim led astray by his wife - they are both equally culpable.
Liz ♥ ♥


Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested. ~ Francis Bacon
Frequent Contributor
stratford
Posts: 85
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters



LizzieAnn wrote:



They each thought of it first as they were told - Macbeth thought of murder when first told

That is not true.



He did think of murder when first hearing the "prophecy"

That is not true.

If he were so set against, LM would not have been able to convince him of it; he wanted to be king badly enough to "let" his doubts be overcome.

I don't think he wanted to be king that badly, especially knowing what would be entailed. I fear he only wanted peace in his household.



His honor is so impugned by his wife calling him less than a man, but it's not impugned by committing murder for profit & gain




Where in the play does it say Macbeth committed murder for profit and gain?
Frequent Contributor
LizzieAnn
Posts: 2,344
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters

Isn't becoming king "profit & gain"? (My words - not Shakespeare's) Macbeth gains a higher positions and every thing that goes along with being king. So if he kills Duncan to become king - he gains a higher place & profits from his actions & from his new station in life.



stratford wrote:

Where in the play does it say Macbeth committed murder for profit and gain?


Liz ♥ ♥


Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested. ~ Francis Bacon
Frequent Contributor
stratford
Posts: 85
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters

Not in Macbeth's case. It only leads to hallucinations, murder, insecurity, paranoia, madness, insanity, murder and more murder, and eventually death. I guess I am missing the profit and gain that you apparently see. You say you are using your words, not Shakespeare's. That is the whole problem. When a person critically examines a text he/she must support his/her opinions with factual material from the text itself, or those opinions remain only that, opinions. A person can't just say anything he/she pleases or anything that comes to mind. It must be factually supported by the text in order to be believed by others and back up claims made, opinions, etc.



LizzieAnn wrote:
Isn't becoming king "profit & gain"? (My words - not Shakespeare's) Macbeth gains a higher positions and every thing that goes along with being king. So if he kills Duncan to become king - he gains a higher place & profits from his actions & from his new station in life.



stratford wrote:

Where in the play does it say Macbeth committed murder for profit and gain?





Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters

I agree with LizzieAnn's interpretation and the text supports her. Macbeth profits from the death of Duncan by gaining a crown, before he succumbs to all the negative things you mention.:


Ross: Act 2:iv
...Then tis most like
The sovereignty will fall upon Macbeth
Macduff:
He is already named, and gone to Scone
To be invested.

Banquo: Act 3:i
Thou hast it now: King, Cawdor, Glamis all,
As the weird women promised...

That he loses the 'gain' when he dies does not negate the fact that he is/was a king. Suffering from hallucinations, madness, insanity etc do not prevent him from 'profiting' from being a king - an unhappy king maybe, but a king nevertheless - like Lear perhaps and certainly poor old George III. Kingship also confers lands and money so we can assume he had those things too, albeit briefly.






stratford wrote:
Not in Macbeth's case. It only leads to hallucinations, murder, insecurity, paranoia, madness, insanity, murder and more murder, and eventually death. I guess I am missing the profit and gain that you apparently see. You say you are using your words, not Shakespeare's. That is the whole problem. When a person critically examines a text he/she must support his/her opinions with factual material from the text itself, or those opinions remain only that, opinions. A person can't just say anything he/she pleases or anything that comes to mind. It must be factually supported by the text in order to be believed by others and back up claims made, opinions, etc.



LizzieAnn wrote:
Isn't becoming king "profit & gain"? (My words - not Shakespeare's) Macbeth gains a higher positions and every thing that goes along with being king. So if he kills Duncan to become king - he gains a higher place & profits from his actions & from his new station in life.



stratford wrote:

Where in the play does it say Macbeth committed murder for profit and gain?








Frequent Contributor
stratford
Posts: 85
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters

I am not disputing that Macbeth becomes king. I am disputing Liz' assertion that Macbeth got profit and gain from becoming king. Your quotes only show that he becomes king. That is not in dispute. If you agree with Liz' interpretation then you need to find evidence to support that interpretation. Liz admitted she was using her own words, not Shakespeare's. I am still waiting for factual evidence from the play from her and now you to support the interpretation you both now agree with that Macbeth got profit and gain from being king. I see no profit or gain. I see only pain and misery. You say he gains a crown before he succumbs to all the negative things I mention. Not true. He starts suffering from hallucinations (Is this a dagger which I see before me?) before he even kills the king. Any lands or money that may have been conferred were never enjoyed because of the immediate predicament that Macbeth found himself in, and from the apparent speedy timeline in the play would have been extremely short-lived anyway. Again, obviously he is king. Other than the "material fact" that he is king, where is the profit and gain? I have yet to see any textual support for that. Please don't confuse the mere title with the profit and gain that Liz asserts came with it. Again, any textual support would be greatly appreciated and I would be most happy to look at it.



Choisya wrote:
I agree with LizzieAnn's interpretation and the text supports her. Macbeth profits from the death of Duncan by gaining a crown, before he succumbs to all the negative things you mention.:


Ross: Act 2:iv
...Then tis most like
The sovereignty will fall upon Macbeth
Macduff:
He is already named, and gone to Scone
To be invested.

Banquo: Act 3:i
Thou hast it now: King, Cawdor, Glamis all,
As the weird women promised...

That he loses the 'gain' when he dies does not negate the fact that he is/was a king. Suffering from hallucinations, madness, insanity etc do not prevent him from 'profiting' from being a king - an unhappy king maybe, but a king nevertheless - like Lear perhaps and certainly poor old George III. Kingship also confers lands and money so we can assume he had those things too, albeit briefly.






stratford wrote:
Not in Macbeth's case. It only leads to hallucinations, murder, insecurity, paranoia, madness, insanity, murder and more murder, and eventually death. I guess I am missing the profit and gain that you apparently see. You say you are using your words, not Shakespeare's. That is the whole problem. When a person critically examines a text he/she must support his/her opinions with factual material from the text itself, or those opinions remain only that, opinions. A person can't just say anything he/she pleases or anything that comes to mind. It must be factually supported by the text in order to be believed by others and back up claims made, opinions, etc.



LizzieAnn wrote:
Isn't becoming king "profit & gain"? (My words - not Shakespeare's) Macbeth gains a higher positions and every thing that goes along with being king. So if he kills Duncan to become king - he gains a higher place & profits from his actions & from his new station in life.



stratford wrote:

Where in the play does it say Macbeth committed murder for profit and gain?











Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters



stratford wrote:
I am not disputing that Macbeth becomes king. I am disputing Liz' assertion that Macbeth got profit and gain from becoming king.
We really don't know, do we? Historically, he certainly gained; he had a quite good 22 year reign. Shakespeare isn't clear about how long a time elapsed between the murder and his death, but it had to be some time because the boys had time to grow up, put together an army, and invade Scotland. How long? Shakespeare doesn't say.

But it would seem, once he had met the witches and had his appetite whetted, he wouldn't be happy until the third prophecy had come true. He certainly wanted to be king, and he got it.

And in those time, living to late middle age was about all a warrior could expect. So would he have lived that much longer as an underling than he did as king?

Perhaps he was of Satan's mind; a short rule as king was better than a longer live under a king.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters

[ Edited ]
And I am supporting Liz's assertion by quoting text referring to his kingship. No textual support is needed for an interpretation of what happens to someone when they become king Stratford. It is a generally accepted fact that kingship confers honour, monies and lands and whether or not you are mad etc etc you 'profit' from these in the normal sense of the word, however briefly. Are you saying that, for instance, a person in a lunatic asylum who is left an inheritance, does not 'profit' from that because he/she is mad? Did King George III stop accumulating wealth because he was suffering from porphyria? Madness may prevent you from realising that you have 'gained' and it may seem to others that you have not but it does not alter the facts. If Macbeth had gone on to reign for a long time (as in real life and as with King George III) would you then say that he did not 'profit' from kingship?

I also think it is necessary within the context of the play for Macbeth to 'gain' from kingship so that it can be seen to be taken away from him via madness etc - a true nemesis arising from excessive hubris, without anagnorisis.




stratford wrote:
I am not disputing that Macbeth becomes king. I am disputing Liz' assertion that Macbeth got profit and gain from becoming king. Your quotes only show that he becomes king. That is not in dispute. If you agree with Liz' interpretation then you need to find evidence to support that interpretation. Liz admitted she was using her own words, not Shakespeare's. I am still waiting for factual evidence from the play from her and now you to support the interpretation you both now agree with that Macbeth got profit and gain from being king....

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-11-200709:12 PM

Frequent Contributor
stratford
Posts: 85
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters

All four of my sources say that the historical Macbeth had a 17-year reign: 1040-1057. Maybe you came across something different.

You say that he certainly wanted to be king. I am not sure he really wanted to be king, and I surely don't believe he wanted to become king in the way it happened. If you haven't already read my lengthy post above (reply number 80, I believe) I go into a fairly long explication of much of the cogent material in Act I relating to whether or not Macbeth truly sought the kingship and what eventually drove him to do so.



Everyman wrote:


stratford wrote:
I am not disputing that Macbeth becomes king. I am disputing Liz' assertion that Macbeth got profit and gain from becoming king.
We really don't know, do we? Historically, he certainly gained; he had a quite good 22 year reign. Shakespeare isn't clear about how long a time elapsed between the murder and his death, but it had to be some time because the boys had time to grow up, put together an army, and invade Scotland. How long? Shakespeare doesn't say.

But it would seem, once he had met the witches and had his appetite whetted, he wouldn't be happy until the third prophecy had come true. He certainly wanted to be king, and he got it.

And in those time, living to late middle age was about all a warrior could expect. So would he have lived that much longer as an underling than he did as king?

Perhaps he was of Satan's mind; a short rule as king was better than a longer live under a king.


Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters



stratford wrote:
All four of my sources say that the historical Macbeth had a 17-year reign: 1040-1057.

That's right. I was temporarily thinking of something else. Sorry.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters

The actual dates of Macbeth's reign are shrouded in mystery Stratford. The Chronicle of Melrose says 'Macbeth became King of Scotland for 17 years'. The Orkneying Saga says he reigned from 1040 until his death in 1056 and the Skene Chronicles say he died in 1057. So I don't think you can be definitive about this. Even his date of birth is unknown. So Everyman may be right and you may be right.







stratford wrote:
All four of my sources say that the historical Macbeth had a 17-year reign: 1040-1057. Maybe you came across something different.

You say that he certainly wanted to be king. I am not sure he really wanted to be king, and I surely don't believe he wanted to become king in the way it happened. If you haven't already read my lengthy post above (reply number 80, I believe) I go into a fairly long explication of much of the cogent material in Act I relating to whether or not Macbeth truly sought the kingship and what eventually drove him to do so.



Everyman wrote:


stratford wrote:
I am not disputing that Macbeth becomes king. I am disputing Liz' assertion that Macbeth got profit and gain from becoming king.
We really don't know, do we? Historically, he certainly gained; he had a quite good 22 year reign. Shakespeare isn't clear about how long a time elapsed between the murder and his death, but it had to be some time because the boys had time to grow up, put together an army, and invade Scotland. How long? Shakespeare doesn't say.

But it would seem, once he had met the witches and had his appetite whetted, he wouldn't be happy until the third prophecy had come true. He certainly wanted to be king, and he got it.

And in those time, living to late middle age was about all a warrior could expect. So would he have lived that much longer as an underling than he did as king?

Perhaps he was of Satan's mind; a short rule as king was better than a longer live under a king.





Frequent Contributor
LizzieAnn
Posts: 2,344
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters

Eventually. But he still gained from murdering Duncan - he became king. Becoming king is profit & gain. Don't think of profit & gain in terms of money; it can be used in other context. He profited (meaning to derive a benefit) from the murder in that he gained (meaning to gain possession) the crown.



stratford wrote:
Not in Macbeth's case. It only leads to hallucinations, murder, insecurity, paranoia, madness, insanity, murder and more murder, and eventually death. I guess I am missing the profit and gain that you apparently see. You say you are using your words, not Shakespeare's. That is the whole problem. When a person critically examines a text he/she must support his/her opinions with factual material from the text itself, or those opinions remain only that, opinions. A person can't just say anything he/she pleases or anything that comes to mind. It must be factually supported by the text in order to be believed by others and back up claims made, opinions, etc.


Liz ♥ ♥


Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested. ~ Francis Bacon
Frequent Contributor
LizzieAnn
Posts: 2,344
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters

Again, profit & gain is not only used in terms of money & accounting. I've used it in its other meanings. Macbeth became king (he gained the crown) after killing Duncan in order to do so (he profited from the death of Duncan in that he was able to obtain the crown).



stratford wrote:
I am not disputing that Macbeth becomes king. I am disputing Liz' assertion that Macbeth got profit and gain from becoming king. Your quotes only show that he becomes king. That is not in dispute. If you agree with Liz' interpretation then you need to find evidence to support that interpretation. Liz admitted she was using her own words, not Shakespeare's. I am still waiting for factual evidence from the play from her and now you to support the interpretation you both now agree with that Macbeth got profit and gain from being king. I see no profit or gain. I see only pain and misery. You say he gains a crown before he succumbs to all the negative things I mention. Not true. He starts suffering from hallucinations (Is this a dagger which I see before me?) before he even kills the king. Any lands or money that may have been conferred were never enjoyed because of the immediate predicament that Macbeth found himself in, and from the apparent speedy timeline in the play would have been extremely short-lived anyway. Again, obviously he is king. Other than the "material fact" that he is king, where is the profit and gain? I have yet to see any textual support for that. Please don't confuse the mere title with the profit and gain that Liz asserts came with it. Again, any textual support would be greatly appreciated and I would be most happy to look at it.


Liz ♥ ♥


Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested. ~ Francis Bacon
Frequent Contributor
mef6395
Posts: 57
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters

Is the place Scone that's cited in Macbeth Scone Castle just outside present-day Perth, Scotland? I visited the castle a couple of years ago.




Choisya wrote:
I agree with LizzieAnn's interpretation and the text supports her. Macbeth profits from the death of Duncan by gaining a crown, before he succumbs to all the negative things you mention.:


Ross: Act 2:iv
...Then tis most like
The sovereignty will fall upon Macbeth
Macduff:
He is already named, and gone to Scone
To be invested.

.






Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters



mef6395 wrote:
Is the place Scone that's cited in Macbeth Scone Castle just outside present-day Perth, Scotland? I visited the castle a couple of years ago.




Choisya wrote:
I agree with LizzieAnn's interpretation and the text supports her. Macbeth profits from the death of Duncan by gaining a crown, before he succumbs to all the negative things you mention.:


Ross: Act 2:iv
...Then tis most like
The sovereignty will fall upon Macbeth
Macduff:
He is already named, and gone to Scone
To be invested.

.











That it is. I remember seeing the Stone of Scone in Westminster Abbey long ago, and much to my surprise it is now back in Scotland.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9611/15/stone.of.scone/

Here's the Scone Palace site:

http://www.scone-palace.net/palace/index.cfm

And here are my preferred scones:

http://www.stickyfingersbakeries.com/specialty_food_scones.asp
"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it." ~~G.K. Chesterton
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters

Well put Lizzie Ann.



LizzieAnn wrote:
Eventually. But he still gained from murdering Duncan - he became king. Becoming king is profit & gain. Don't think of profit & gain in terms of money; it can be used in other context. He profited (meaning to derive a benefit) from the murder in that he gained (meaning to gain possession) the crown.



stratford wrote:
Not in Macbeth's case. It only leads to hallucinations, murder, insecurity, paranoia, madness, insanity, murder and more murder, and eventually death. I guess I am missing the profit and gain that you apparently see. You say you are using your words, not Shakespeare's. That is the whole problem. When a person critically examines a text he/she must support his/her opinions with factual material from the text itself, or those opinions remain only that, opinions. A person can't just say anything he/she pleases or anything that comes to mind. It must be factually supported by the text in order to be believed by others and back up claims made, opinions, etc.





Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters

Yes is it and the Stone of Scone was originally there and was used to crown Scottish Kings. However, it was 'stolen' by England and put in the Queen's Coronation chair at Westminster Abbey but was returned to Edinburgh in 1996. Lots of legends are attached to it:-

http://members.aol.com/Skyelander/stone.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6183050.stm





mef6395 wrote:
Is the place Scone that's cited in Macbeth Scone Castle just outside present-day Perth, Scotland? I visited the castle a couple of years ago.




Choisya wrote:
I agree with LizzieAnn's interpretation and the text supports her. Macbeth profits from the death of Duncan by gaining a crown, before he succumbs to all the negative things you mention.:


Ross: Act 2:iv
...Then tis most like
The sovereignty will fall upon Macbeth
Macduff:
He is already named, and gone to Scone
To be invested.

.









Frequent Contributor
stratford
Posts: 85
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters

I wasn't being definitive about this. I only referred to four other sources. THEY were being definitive about it, to use your terminology, as I believe all four of them agreed with the reign dates of 1040-1057. So, yes, Everyman may be right, and my four sources may be right, but in the post immediately BEFORE this post of yours, Everyman replied, "That's right. I was temporarily thinking of something else. Sorry."



Choisya wrote:
The actual dates of Macbeth's reign are shrouded in mystery Stratford. The Chronicle of Melrose says 'Macbeth became King of Scotland for 17 years'. The Orkneying Saga says he reigned from 1040 until his death in 1056 and the Skene Chronicles say he died in 1057. So I don't think you can be definitive about this. Even his date of birth is unknown. So Everyman may be right and you may be right.







stratford wrote:
All four of my sources say that the historical Macbeth had a 17-year reign: 1040-1057. Maybe you came across something different.

You say that he certainly wanted to be king. I am not sure he really wanted to be king, and I surely don't believe he wanted to become king in the way it happened. If you haven't already read my lengthy post above (reply number 80, I believe) I go into a fairly long explication of much of the cogent material in Act I relating to whether or not Macbeth truly sought the kingship and what eventually drove him to do so.



Everyman wrote:


stratford wrote:
I am not disputing that Macbeth becomes king. I am disputing Liz' assertion that Macbeth got profit and gain from becoming king.
We really don't know, do we? Historically, he certainly gained; he had a quite good 22 year reign. Shakespeare isn't clear about how long a time elapsed between the murder and his death, but it had to be some time because the boys had time to grow up, put together an army, and invade Scotland. How long? Shakespeare doesn't say.

But it would seem, once he had met the witches and had his appetite whetted, he wouldn't be happy until the third prophecy had come true. He certainly wanted to be king, and he got it.

And in those time, living to late middle age was about all a warrior could expect. So would he have lived that much longer as an underling than he did as king?

Perhaps he was of Satan's mind; a short rule as king was better than a longer live under a king.








Top Kudoed Authors
Users Online
Currently online: 47 members 1,203 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: