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

Re: The Weird Sisters



stratford wrote:
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,...

I have acknowledged that my brain was wandering into other realms when I slipped in the 22 years there. I'm grateful that you caught my error, and I appreciate that you did so in a polite and respectful manner.
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
stratford
Posts: 85
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters



LizzieAnn wrote:
Eventually.

No, immediately. As I already pointed out in another post, Macbeth started suffering from hallucinations before he even killed the king.

But he still gained from murdering Duncan - he became king.

Macbeth became king, yes. But he "gained" nothing that I can see. "Gain" has a positive connotation. As I said in another post, all Macbeth "gains" is pain and misery. That is not gain; that is a shameful loss.

Becoming king is profit & gain.

You are generalizing. In this SPECIFIC instance I see no profit or gain. Again, I only see pain and misery resulting from attaining the crown. And I have yet to see any corroborating evidence from you or Choisya, who is presently championing your cause, to substantiate your claims of profit and gain.

Don't think of profit & gain in terms of money; it can be used in other context.

I'm not. I believe you are confusing me with Choisya who put forth the argument, I believe, that Macbeth gained in terms of money and lands. I have not put forth that argument because even IF he did receive money and lands along with the crown he was never able to enjoy (again, the positive connotation) them for the relatively short duration that appears to be indicated in the play.

He profited (meaning to derive a benefit) from the murder in that he gained (meaning to gain possession) the crown.

He "profited" from the murder in that he lost his life ALONG WITH HIS ETERNAL SOUL, and that was why he didn't want to commit the murder in the first place. I give you the fact that he became king and got the crown that came along with that title. But I personally do not see any profit and gain, nor have you pointed out any, so I have to assume at this point that you have not found any textual evidence to support your claim of profit and gain.





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

Sorry - I didn't mean 'you' personally - I meant people generally are best not to be definitive about it because the dates are so uncertain. 'Circa' is a good word to use when referring to Macbeth's dates IMO.




stratford wrote:
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.











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

Re: The Weird Sisters

This is just "doublespeak." As I have said in a prior post: "Please don't confuse the mere title with the profit and gain that Liz asserts came with it."



LizzieAnn wrote:
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.





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

Re: The Weird Sisters

I view it as interpretation not doublespeak.



stratford wrote:
This is just "doublespeak." As I have said in a prior post: "Please don't confuse the mere title with the profit and gain that Liz asserts came with it."


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

Agreed. But I had to quote those 4 sources EXACTLY as they appeared in my different books and I don't think any of them used "ca." I believe they all gave what they considered to be the definitive reign dates of 1040-1057.



Choisya wrote:
Sorry - I didn't mean 'you' personally - I meant people generally are best not to be definitive about it because the dates are so uncertain. 'Circa' is a good word to use when referring to Macbeth's dates IMO.




stratford wrote:
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.














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

Re: The Weird Sisters

If you actually read what you wrote that I was responding to, you will see that it is doublespeak. Again, please don't confuse the mere title (and the crown that may have come with it) with the profit and gain that you have repeatedly asserted came with it. You continue to confuse these things which can only lead to your interpretation being doublespeak.



LizzieAnn wrote:
I view it as interpretation not doublespeak.



stratford wrote:
This is just "doublespeak." As I have said in a prior post: "Please don't confuse the mere title with the profit and gain that Liz asserts came with it."





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

Re: The Weird Sisters

You're both great posters. Let's not have this turn into any sort of unpleasant argument, okay?

stratford wrote:
If you actually read what you wrote that I was responding to, you will see that it is doublespeak. Again, please don't confuse the mere title (and the crown that may have come with it) with the profit and gain that you have repeatedly asserted came with it. You continue to confuse these things which can only lead to your interpretation being doublespeak.



LizzieAnn wrote:
I view it as interpretation not doublespeak.



stratford wrote:
This is just "doublespeak." As I have said in a prior post: "Please don't confuse the mere title with the profit and gain that Liz asserts came with it."








_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Of Kingship and Hallucinations

[ Edited ]
Stratford wrote:-
I give you the fact that he became king and got the crown that came along with that title. But I personally do not see any profit and gain, nor have you pointed out any, so I have to assume at this point that you have not found any textual evidence to support your claim of profit and gain.


This boils down to opinion on all sides Stratford. In my opinion anyone who has kingship conferred upon them, whatever their mental or physical condition, 'gains' materially. With the crowns of Scottish kings automatically went jewels, gold, castles, land etc etc. - that is a fact which does not need textual evidence and nor would Shakespeare's Elizabethan audience need it. Macbeth was crowned at Scone, 'he is already named and gone to Scone' - a very great honour for a Scotsman therefore a 'gain'. (See my post re the Stone of Scone and the supposed biblical connections.) His wife had the honour of becoming a queen, his children had the honour of becoming princes/princesses, however briefly. He and his family 'gained' these things before he lost his his life or 'his eternal soul/jewel'. Hallucinations are transitory so therefore do not preclude 'gains': Macbeth 'saw' a dagger but still went to Scone. He banquets and drinks wine at the royal castle with his nobles - 'gains' even though he 'saw' Banquo's ghost. Had Macbeth dropped dead as he was being crowned I would agree with your interpretation but he didn't so there were, ipso facto, the traditional 'gains' of kingship.


(I find it peculiar that you think that an insane, hallucinatory person, or a murderer cannot 'gain' anything and wonder how you arrived at that conclusion. I can assure you from personal experience in an asylum - being treated for depression - a person can be hallucinating one minute, be given a ten pound note and go out to spend it the next! Murderers in our system 'gain' wages for their labour - and there is the expression 'ill gotten gains' to describe the profits which criminals undoubtedly make.)

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-12-200709:43 PM

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

Re: The Weird Sisters

[ Edited ]
Stratford wrote:
Please don't confuse the mere title with the profit and gain that Liz asserts came with it.

'Mere'??? A coronation at Scone which confers the title of King, 'mere'?

Why aren't a title and a crown, which are both honours, a 'gain'? In the UK the monarch confers many titles (like Sir or Lord) which do not come with any material gain but are nevertheless regarded as 'gains' in their own right. Nor are they considered 'mere', although a Sir is more 'mere' than a Lord and a Lord more mere than a Duke - our class system being what it is:smileyvery-happy:.

Are you perhaps basing your interpretation on Matthew xvi 26: 'What is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul'? That is fine, but it is not the interpretation I arrived at as an atheist, nor is there textual evidence to show that Shakespeare was quoting Matthew. I have no concept of the soul and I see many wicked people profiting from their murders/crimes. I therefore see Macbeth as one of them, albeit briefly, and I am entitled to that different opinion.

I am not at all confused Statford, I just disagree with you.:smileyhappy: And it is all interpretation - we are not dealing with the 'gospel truth' here.:smileysurprised:

BTW I think it is best not to use the word doublespeak because it is derogatory:-

http://www.bartleby.com/61/78/D0357800.html







stratford wrote:
If you actually read what you wrote that I was responding to, you will see that it is doublespeak. Again, please don't confuse the mere title (and the crown that may have come with it) with the profit and gain that you have repeatedly asserted came with it. You continue to confuse these things which can only lead to your interpretation being doublespeak.



LizzieAnn wrote:
I view it as interpretation not doublespeak.



stratford wrote:
This is just "doublespeak." As I have said in a prior post: "Please don't confuse the mere title with the profit and gain that Liz asserts came with it."







Message Edited by Choisya on 03-12-200709:50 PM

Frequent Contributor
KristyR
Posts: 379
Registered: ‎11-01-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Weird Sisters



Laurel wrote:


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


Laurel, I like your 3rd link best - YUM! (Now I have to go make a cup a of coffee and bemoan my sconeless state!)
Frequent Contributor
stratford
Posts: 85
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Of Kingship and Hallucinations

Choisya,

I am not talking about “anyone,” I am specifically dealing with Macbeth. He kills the king and ends up being the next king along with the accompanying title and, I assume, the actual and physical crown. Beyond this he gains nothing but the pain and misery that I have repeatedly mentioned. I still see no gain or profit. Gain and profit connote enjoyment. Macbeth enjoys nothing that results from the murder. He immediately has to kill 2 others in an attempt to cover up his crime. This act brings suspicions upon him by Macduff. He is also suspected by Banquo. He also has to worry about his “bloody cousins…bestowed/In England and in Ireland, not confessing/Their cruel parricide.” I know you don’t like “spoilers” so I won’t go into great detail but his life is ruined throughout the rest of the play worrying about Macduff, Banquo and son (and the escape of one of them), Malcolm and brother, and the actions he thinks he must take in order to protect the crown he has murderously stolen. You speak of him banqueting and drinking wine at the royal castle with his nobles. Some banquet. He can’t even sit down because the ghost of one of his victims “sits in Macbeth’s place” (stage direction III.iv). In the line just before the ghost enters the second time, Macbeth says, “Give me some wine, fill full.” I would probably also be “filling full” if I was encountering the ghost of someone I had just had killed while I was at dinner in the presence of my subordinates. And the nobles are all quickly ushered out by Lady Macbeth because they all think him mad. If you consider these things to be “gains,” then we surely have widely different definitions of the word “gains.” And from there things spiral even more quickly downhill, if that were even possible. As I have said before, profit and gain have positive connotations. I do not see how any of this can be referred to as profit and gain on the part of Macbeth. As I have said before he only gained pain and misery from his action of killing the king. Again, in return for committing the murder, he became king and received a title and crown. THE TITLE AND CROWN ARE NOT PROFIT AND GAIN IN AND OF THEMSELVES. They are only part and parcel of being the king. Other than being the king in title only, I see no evidence in the play that profit and gain accrued to Macbeth as a result of him being king. My argument is in thinking that someone can’t say that just being king is in itself the profit and gain. What profit and gain accrued to Macbeth from BEING the king?

You keep talking in generalities. I am not talking about ANY insane, hallucinatory person. I am talking about Macbeth. I am not talking about ANY murderer. I am talking about Macbeth. After getting the kingship, title, and crown, Macbeth, in my opinion, gains nothing but pain and misery. I do not account that as a gain.








Choisya wrote:
Stratford wrote:-
I give you the fact that he became king and got the crown that came along with that title. But I personally do not see any profit and gain, nor have you pointed out any, so I have to assume at this point that you have not found any textual evidence to support your claim of profit and gain.


This boils down to opinion on all sides Stratford. In my opinion anyone who has kingship conferred upon them, whatever their mental or physical condition, 'gains' materially. With the crowns of Scottish kings automatically went jewels, gold, castles, land etc etc. - that is a fact which does not need textual evidence and nor would Shakespeare's Elizabethan audience need it. Macbeth was crowned at Scone, 'he is already named and gone to Scone' - a very great honour for a Scotsman therefore a 'gain'. (See my post re the Stone of Scone and the supposed biblical connections.) His wife had the honour of becoming a queen, his children had the honour of becoming princes/princesses, however briefly. He and his family 'gained' these things before he lost his his life or 'his eternal soul/jewel'. Hallucinations are transitory so therefore do not preclude 'gains': Macbeth 'saw' a dagger but still went to Scone. He banquets and drinks wine at the royal castle with his nobles - 'gains' even though he 'saw' Banquo's ghost. Had Macbeth dropped dead as he was being crowned I would agree with your interpretation but he didn't so there were, ipso facto, the traditional 'gains' of kingship.


(I find it peculiar that you think that an insane, hallucinatory person, or a murderer cannot 'gain' anything and wonder how you arrived at that conclusion. I can assure you from personal experience in an asylum - being treated for depression - a person can be hallucinating one minute, be given a ten pound note and go out to spend it the next! Murderers in our system 'gain' wages for their labour - and there is the expression 'ill gotten gains' to describe the profits which criminals undoubtedly make.)

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-12-200709:43 PM




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

Re: The Weird Sisters

Choisya,

“Mere” merely in an attempt to dissociate the title itself from the profit and gain asserted to derive from the title.

The title and the crown AUTOMATICALLY came with being king once Macbeth had killed Duncan. I am trying to differentiate the title and crown that automatically came with being king from the supposed profit and gain that supposedly derived from being king. And I am not concerned with how things presently occur in the UK. That has no bearing whatsoever on the play “Macbeth,” and, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the UK has only been in existence since January 1, 1801. It did not exist in the historical Macbeth’s time, nor did it exist in Shakespeare’s time, so it obviously has no relevance to the play we are supposed to be discussing.

No, I am not basing my interpretation on the Bible. As I have mentioned definitely more than once, I am basing it on Act I, Scene VII, where Macbeth says: He’s here in double trust:/First, as I am his kinsman and his subject,/Strong both against the deed; then, as his host,/Who should against his murderer shut the door,/Not bear the knife myself. Macbeth, the character, assuming a Christian character, would know that his eternal soul would be consigned to hell for eternity should he murder the king, and Shakespeare and his audience would have been aware from Dante’s “Divine Comedy” that Macbeth was consigning himself to any of the 4 lowest Circles of Dante’s Hell. But now that you mention it, Shakespeare probably did have Matthew’s verse in mind while he was writing “Macbeth.” It fits perfectly.

To my knowledge, I never said you were confused. What you quote was, I believe, addressed specifically to Liz and not to you. It was just a plea not to confuse THINGS that I think are being confused. Besides that, what you quote from my post is still what is at the heart of this whole discussion. Please don’t confuse being king, the title, and the crown with the profit and gain that has been asserted to have come from these things. The kingship, title, and crown are “givens” once Macbeth has killed for them and gotten them. I am still trying to find out what profit and gain has accrued from getting these things. As I have said before, I see no profit and gain on Macbeth’s part; I only see misery and pain accruing from him having killed for the kingship.

I used the word doublespeak because I honestly thought it correctly described the situation I was referring to. I clicked on the link you provided and it says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the word being derogatory, nor did I mean it to be derogatory. It only gave the definition. If the definition correctly fits the situation the word was applied to, it is not derogatory. So I am not quite sure where you came up with that one. As always, I was only trying to be accurate. Reciprocity, of course, would be greatly appreciated.




Choisya wrote:
Stratford wrote:
Please don't confuse the mere title with the profit and gain that Liz asserts came with it.

'Mere'??? A coronation at Scone which confers the title of King, 'mere'?

Why aren't a title and a crown, which are both honours, a 'gain'? In the UK the monarch confers many titles (like Sir or Lord) which do not come with any material gain but are nevertheless regarded as 'gains' in their own right. Nor are they considered 'mere', although a Sir is more 'mere' than a Lord and a Lord more mere than a Duke - our class system being what it is:smileyvery-happy:.

Are you perhaps basing your interpretation on Matthew xvi 26: 'What is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul'? That is fine, but it is not the interpretation I arrived at as an atheist, nor is there textual evidence to show that Shakespeare was quoting Matthew. I have no concept of the soul and I see many wicked people profiting from their murders/crimes. I therefore see Macbeth as one of them, albeit briefly, and I am entitled to that different opinion.

I am not at all confused Statford, I just disagree with you.:smileyhappy: And it is all interpretation - we are not dealing with the 'gospel truth' here.:smileysurprised:

BTW I think it is best not to use the word doublespeak because it is derogatory:-

http://www.bartleby.com/61/78/D0357800.html







stratford wrote:
If you actually read what you wrote that I was responding to, you will see that it is doublespeak. Again, please don't confuse the mere title (and the crown that may have come with it) with the profit and gain that you have repeatedly asserted came with it. You continue to confuse these things which can only lead to your interpretation being doublespeak.



LizzieAnn wrote:
I view it as interpretation not doublespeak.



stratford wrote:
This is just "doublespeak." As I have said in a prior post: "Please don't confuse the mere title with the profit and gain that Liz asserts came with it."







Message Edited by Choisya on 03-12-200709:50 PM




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

Re: The Weird Sisters

I'm with you! I love scones & will have to pick some up.



KristyR wrote:


Laurel wrote:

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


Laurel, I like your 3rd link best - YUM! (Now I have to go make a cup a of coffee and bemoan my sconeless state!)

Liz ♥ ♥


Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested. ~ Francis Bacon
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Of Kingship and Hallucinations

We must agree to disagree Stratford. I believe that Macbeth gained, despite all his worries, and that's that.




stratford wrote:
Choisya,

I am not talking about “anyone,” I am specifically dealing with Macbeth. He kills the king and ends up being the next king along with the accompanying title and, I assume, the actual and physical crown. Beyond this he gains nothing but the pain and misery that I have repeatedly mentioned. I still see no gain or profit. Gain and profit connote enjoyment. Macbeth enjoys nothing that results from the murder. He immediately has to kill 2 others in an attempt to cover up his crime. This act brings suspicions upon him by Macduff. He is also suspected by Banquo. He also has to worry about his “bloody cousins…bestowed/In England and in Ireland, not confessing/Their cruel parricide.” I know you don’t like “spoilers” so I won’t go into great detail but his life is ruined throughout the rest of the play worrying about Macduff, Banquo and son (and the escape of one of them), Malcolm and brother, and the actions he thinks he must take in order to protect the crown he has murderously stolen. You speak of him banqueting and drinking wine at the royal castle with his nobles. Some banquet. He can’t even sit down because the ghost of one of his victims “sits in Macbeth’s place” (stage direction III.iv). In the line just before the ghost enters the second time, Macbeth says, “Give me some wine, fill full.” I would probably also be “filling full” if I was encountering the ghost of someone I had just had killed while I was at dinner in the presence of my subordinates. And the nobles are all quickly ushered out by Lady Macbeth because they all think him mad. If you consider these things to be “gains,” then we surely have widely different definitions of the word “gains.” And from there things spiral even more quickly downhill, if that were even possible. As I have said before, profit and gain have positive connotations. I do not see how any of this can be referred to as profit and gain on the part of Macbeth. As I have said before he only gained pain and misery from his action of killing the king. Again, in return for committing the murder, he became king and received a title and crown. THE TITLE AND CROWN ARE NOT PROFIT AND GAIN IN AND OF THEMSELVES. They are only part and parcel of being the king. Other than being the king in title only, I see no evidence in the play that profit and gain accrued to Macbeth as a result of him being king. My argument is in thinking that someone can’t say that just being king is in itself the profit and gain. What profit and gain accrued to Macbeth from BEING the king?

You keep talking in generalities. I am not talking about ANY insane, hallucinatory person. I am talking about Macbeth. I am not talking about ANY murderer. I am talking about Macbeth. After getting the kingship, title, and crown, Macbeth, in my opinion, gains nothing but pain and misery. I do not account that as a gain.








Choisya wrote:
Stratford wrote:-
I give you the fact that he became king and got the crown that came along with that title. But I personally do not see any profit and gain, nor have you pointed out any, so I have to assume at this point that you have not found any textual evidence to support your claim of profit and gain.


This boils down to opinion on all sides Stratford. In my opinion anyone who has kingship conferred upon them, whatever their mental or physical condition, 'gains' materially. With the crowns of Scottish kings automatically went jewels, gold, castles, land etc etc. - that is a fact which does not need textual evidence and nor would Shakespeare's Elizabethan audience need it. Macbeth was crowned at Scone, 'he is already named and gone to Scone' - a very great honour for a Scotsman therefore a 'gain'. (See my post re the Stone of Scone and the supposed biblical connections.) His wife had the honour of becoming a queen, his children had the honour of becoming princes/princesses, however briefly. He and his family 'gained' these things before he lost his his life or 'his eternal soul/jewel'. Hallucinations are transitory so therefore do not preclude 'gains': Macbeth 'saw' a dagger but still went to Scone. He banquets and drinks wine at the royal castle with his nobles - 'gains' even though he 'saw' Banquo's ghost. Had Macbeth dropped dead as he was being crowned I would agree with your interpretation but he didn't so there were, ipso facto, the traditional 'gains' of kingship.


(I find it peculiar that you think that an insane, hallucinatory person, or a murderer cannot 'gain' anything and wonder how you arrived at that conclusion. I can assure you from personal experience in an asylum - being treated for depression - a person can be hallucinating one minute, be given a ten pound note and go out to spend it the next! Murderers in our system 'gain' wages for their labour - and there is the expression 'ill gotten gains' to describe the profits which criminals undoubtedly make.)

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-12-200709:43 PM







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

Re: Profit and Gain

Again, we must agree to disagree. I still associate Macbeth's title and crown with gain and see no reason why I should not. This is not confusion, it is an differing opinion.

The kingship, title, and crown are “givens” once Macbeth has killed for them and gotten them.

Not so! Ross says 'Then 'tis most like/The sovereignty will fall upon Macbeth' and Macduff replies 'He is already named and gone to Scone.' It was not a given, it was 'most likely' and his Thanes had to 'name' him. A coronation involves ceremonies and oaths, it is not a 'given' - Macbeth did not pick the crown up on the battlefield and put it upon his head!

I am very well aware of my country's history and do not need to refer to Wikipedia! I use UK on these boards as a shorthand. The Acts of Union were in 1707 and that was when England and Scotland became The Kingdom of Great Britain. Before that we had shared a monarch since 1603 - James I/IV was king of both the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, which had separate Parliaments. The Act of Union of 1801 merged Ireland with Great Britain to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland had been part of the 1603 Unions and had been in union with England since 1542 when the Crown of Ireland Act proclaimed Henry VIII King of Ireland. So our monarchs have been conferring honours and giving lands to the Irish, Scots and English since 1542. I was pointing out, using the 'UK' as an example, the historicity of kingship conferring honours, jewels and lands and this was also the case in Macbeth's day. We know from the text that Macbeth gained the crown (with crowns go jewels) and castle (with castles go lands). It was the awarding of the title of King at Scone which conferred those gains but if you choose not to acknowledge that, OK. Again, I find it extraordinary that you think that Macbeth, as a mentally unbalanced person and murderer cannot 'gain' anything. I think the text shows that he did and I stick by that conclusion.

On the other point of Macbeth being a Christian character who would know his soul had been confined to hell - what about Redemption? What about Dante's Purgatory? You are also assuming that the audience believed in Dante's conception of Hell, which was a literary concept, not a biblical or sacred one. Not that Macbeth sought redemption or was redeemed but the Elizabethan audience would have thought there was a possibility until the end of the play - could have hoped for an anagnorisis, as happened in other dramas. Shakespeare's tragic characters commonly underwent an anagnorisis as a result of their difficulties and the Macbeth audience may have been hoping for this. If I had been reading/seeing this play for the first time, I would certainly have been hoping for it because I like to hope for the best.




stratford wrote:
Choisya,

“Mere” merely in an attempt to dissociate the title itself from the profit and gain asserted to derive from the title.

The title and the crown AUTOMATICALLY came with being king once Macbeth had killed Duncan. I am trying to differentiate the title and crown that automatically came with being king from the supposed profit and gain that supposedly derived from being king. And I am not concerned with how things presently occur in the UK. That has no bearing whatsoever on the play “Macbeth,” and, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the UK has only been in existence since January 1, 1801. It did not exist in the historical Macbeth’s time, nor did it exist in Shakespeare’s time, so it obviously has no relevance to the play we are supposed to be discussing.

No, I am not basing my interpretation on the Bible. As I have mentioned definitely more than once, I am basing it on Act I, Scene VII, where Macbeth says: He’s here in double trust:/First, as I am his kinsman and his subject,/Strong both against the deed; then, as his host,/Who should against his murderer shut the door,/Not bear the knife myself. Macbeth, the character, assuming a Christian character, would know that his eternal soul would be consigned to hell for eternity should he murder the king, and Shakespeare and his audience would have been aware from Dante’s “Divine Comedy” that Macbeth was consigning himself to any of the 4 lowest Circles of Dante’s Hell. But now that you mention it, Shakespeare probably did have Matthew’s verse in mind while he was writing “Macbeth.” It fits perfectly.

To my knowledge, I never said you were confused. What you quote was, I believe, addressed specifically to Liz and not to you. It was just a plea not to confuse THINGS that I think are being confused. Besides that, what you quote from my post is still what is at the heart of this whole discussion. Please don’t confuse being king, the title, and the crown with the profit and gain that has been asserted to have come from these things. The kingship, title, and crown are “givens” once Macbeth has killed for them and gotten them. I am still trying to find out what profit and gain has accrued from getting these things. As I have said before, I see no profit and gain on Macbeth’s part; I only see misery and pain accruing from him having killed for the kingship.

I used the word doublespeak because I honestly thought it correctly described the situation I was referring to. I clicked on the link you provided and it says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the word being derogatory, nor did I mean it to be derogatory. It only gave the definition. If the definition correctly fits the situation the word was applied to, it is not derogatory. So I am not quite sure where you came up with that one. As always, I was only trying to be accurate. Reciprocity, of course, would be greatly appreciated.




Choisya wrote:
Stratford wrote:
Please don't confuse the mere title with the profit and gain that Liz asserts came with it.

'Mere'??? A coronation at Scone which confers the title of King, 'mere'?

Why aren't a title and a crown, which are both honours, a 'gain'? In the UK the monarch confers many titles (like Sir or Lord) which do not come with any material gain but are nevertheless regarded as 'gains' in their own right. Nor are they considered 'mere', although a Sir is more 'mere' than a Lord and a Lord more mere than a Duke - our class system being what it is:smileyvery-happy:.

Are you perhaps basing your interpretation on Matthew xvi 26: 'What is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul'? That is fine, but it is not the interpretation I arrived at as an atheist, nor is there textual evidence to show that Shakespeare was quoting Matthew. I have no concept of the soul and I see many wicked people profiting from their murders/crimes. I therefore see Macbeth as one of them, albeit briefly, and I am entitled to that different opinion.

I am not at all confused Statford, I just disagree with you.:smileyhappy: And it is all interpretation - we are not dealing with the 'gospel truth' here.:smileysurprised:

BTW I think it is best not to use the word doublespeak because it is derogatory:-

http://www.bartleby.com/61/78/D0357800.html







stratford wrote:
If you actually read what you wrote that I was responding to, you will see that it is doublespeak. Again, please don't confuse the mere title (and the crown that may have come with it) with the profit and gain that you have repeatedly asserted came with it. You continue to confuse these things which can only lead to your interpretation being doublespeak.



LizzieAnn wrote:
I view it as interpretation not doublespeak.



stratford wrote:
This is just "doublespeak." As I have said in a prior post: "Please don't confuse the mere title with the profit and gain that Liz asserts came with it."







Message Edited by Choisya on 03-12-200709:50 PM







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

Re: Scones not Scone

Yesterday I had tea with my daughter at a very good hotel in Bloomsbury and was surprised to be served slices of stewed apple with my scones as well as jam:smileysurprised: My daughter and I concluded that this was a sign of the cosmopolitan nature of London, where immigrants are very heavily involved in our catering industry. Stewed apples are used in cakes in both Holland and Germany, for instance. I quite enjoyed apple instead of jam and commend it with your scones:smileyhappy:.




LizzieAnn wrote:
I'm with you! I love scones & will have to pick some up.



KristyR wrote:


Laurel wrote:

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


Laurel, I like your 3rd link best - YUM! (Now I have to go make a cup a of coffee and bemoan my sconeless state!)




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

Re: Scones not Scone

I'll have to try the stewed apples; it sounds delicious. I enjoy them all different ways - plain, with Devonshire cream (whenever I happen to come across that), or with jam. :smileyhappy:




Choisya wrote:
Yesterday I had tea with my daughter at a very good hotel in Bloomsbury and was surprised to be served slices of stewed apple with my scones as well as jam:smileysurprised: My daughter and I concluded that this was a sign of the cosmopolitan nature of London, where immigrants are very heavily involved in our catering industry. Stewed apples are used in cakes in both Holland and Germany, for instance. I quite enjoyed apple instead of jam and commend it with your scones:smileyhappy:.



Liz ♥ ♥


Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested. ~ Francis Bacon
Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Scones not Scone

Ah, yes! All the fiber in the apples will counteract the Devonshire cream, so you won't get fat--especially if they are Washington apples.



LizzieAnn wrote:
I'll have to try the stewed apples; it sounds delicious. I enjoy them all different ways - plain, with Devonshire cream (whenever I happen to come across that), or with jam. :smileyhappy:




Choisya wrote:
Yesterday I had tea with my daughter at a very good hotel in Bloomsbury and was surprised to be served slices of stewed apple with my scones as well as jam:smileysurprised: My daughter and I concluded that this was a sign of the cosmopolitan nature of London, where immigrants are very heavily involved in our catering industry. Stewed apples are used in cakes in both Holland and Germany, for instance. I quite enjoyed apple instead of jam and commend it with your scones:smileyhappy:.






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

Re: Scones not Scone

For me it will have to be New York apples!



Laurel wrote:
Ah, yes! All the fiber in the apples will counteract the Devonshire cream, so you won't get fat--especially if they are Washington apples.



LizzieAnn wrote:
I'll have to try the stewed apples; it sounds delicious. I enjoy them all different ways - plain, with Devonshire cream (whenever I happen to come across that), or with jam. :smileyhappy:




Choisya wrote:
Yesterday I had tea with my daughter at a very good hotel in Bloomsbury and was surprised to be served slices of stewed apple with my scones as well as jam:smileysurprised: My daughter and I concluded that this was a sign of the cosmopolitan nature of London, where immigrants are very heavily involved in our catering industry. Stewed apples are used in cakes in both Holland and Germany, for instance. I quite enjoyed apple instead of jam and commend it with your scones:smileyhappy:.









Liz ♥ ♥


Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested. ~ Francis Bacon
Top Kudoed Authors
Users Online
Currently online: 39 members 314 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: