Macbeth Act 1.4

The opening line of 1.4 provides an interesting scene juxtaposition–”Is execution done on Cawdor?” First, Macbeth spoke the last line of 1.3, and Duncan speaks this first of 1.4, neatly placing the two men/”rivals” side-by-side (it’s worth noting here that on Shakespeare’s stage the action was continuous; there would be no break, thus making the juxtapositioning even more significant). “Execution” ties in with the blood-laden imagery that permeates the play as a whole, and it also foreshadows Duncan’s murder/execution, not to mention Macbeth’s ultimate fate. Duncan is, of course, talking about the former Thane of Cawdor, but Macbeth is also the new Thane of Cawdor, and so there’s is some irony (given how events play out) in Duncan tying execution and Cawdor together, almost as a signel concept–had the new Thane been executed the play could have ended here and now!!!!!!!

The former Thane, notably, confessed his “treasons,” another shorthand method of raising issues of kingship and obedience that receive some emphasis in the second part of this scene. Irony again occurs when Duncan mentions he has “built an absolute trust” on the old Thane just at the moment that Macbeth arrives on stage and whom Duncan addresses as “worthiest cousin.” The greeting evokes another speech (from Macbeth) that delineates the relationships between monarch and subject: “The service and loyalty I owe, / In doing it pays itself. Your Highness’ part / Is to receive our duties, and our duties / Are to your throne and state children and servants, / Which do but what they should by doing everything /  Safe toward your love and honor.” Again, in retrospect, the speech is grossly ironic.

Duncan’s announcement of Malcolm as his (natural) successor provokes an aside from Macbeth that reveals he is already thinking actively about fulfilling the Witches’ prophecies, rather than just letting events take their own course: “that is a step / On which I must fall down . . . Let not light see my black and deep desires.”

See The Shakespeare Diaries.

Romeo and Juliet Act 3.1.1-135

The opening section of 3.1, not surprisingly given how much playing time has been consumed already, proves to be the turning point in the tragedy; by now an audience expects things to go wrongly a) because the initial Prologue/Chorus said it would, b) because Romeo and Juliet have been united–exactly the sort of catalyst for events to turn upon. Indeed, and once more fulfilling the promise of his name, Benvolio indicates that all is not well; “the day is hot, the Capulets abroad, / And if we meet, we shall not ’scape a brawl.” It is exactly the sort of day when “mad blood” stirs, and reason falls by the wayside. We might expect Mercutio to demonstrate a little commonsense and agree with Benvolio; after all, he seems both older and more imaginative than the other young fellows, and he does chide Benvolio for what appears to be his somewhat hypocritical attitude towards fighting–”why, thou wilt quarrel with a man that hath a hair more or a hair less in his beard than thou hast.” However, it’s Mercutio’s witty punning and provocative banter with Tybalt that brings events to the brink, which might have passed but for the fortuitous arrival of Romeo. (It’s worth considering how much of the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet hinges on character and how much on “if only such and such an event had not occurred at the particular moment, i.e. chance or “fate.” Tragedy based on character is more moving and effective than when based on mere circumstance and happenstance?) Ironically, Romeo is the one person to back down (initially) in the face of Tybalt’s challenges (because of his undeclared “reason I have to love thee”–i.e. his marriage to Tybalt’s kinswoman, Juliet). Thus it is Romeo’s “calm, dishonorable, vile submission” (72) that spurs Mercutio into his duel with Tybalt, a duel that might not have proved fatal but for Romeo’s fortuitous but well-meaning intervention.

Mercutio’s brief “death scene” is notable for its imaginative sarcasm when he describes his wound as a “scratch” and yet as deep as a well and as wide as a church door–sufficient to do the job of killing him. Mercutio also reminds us that the senseless feud is the root cause of all the dissension–”a plague a both your houses.” In comparison, Romeo appears merely weak–”I thought all for the best”–and inclined to see events as fate-driven: “This day’s black fate on more days doth depend; / This but begins the woe others must end.” The latter proves an ironically suitable cue for the return of Tybalt, and the ensuing fatal duel with Romeo. Without reducing it to quite the same level, this sequence can, in contemporary terms, remind one of gang warfare of various kinds, and captured notably well in the movie adaptation, West Side Story.

Tybalt dead, Shakespeare provides Romeo with the brief lame line: “O, I am fortune’s fool.” Is he a mere toy of fate? Does his character contribute to the tragedy? Is he simply a “woe is me” whiny teenager? And thinking back to what we’ve seen previously of Juliet’s character–how does he stack up against her?

Check out The Shakespeare Diaries.

Macbeth Act 1.3.79-157

The disappearance of the Witches leaves both Banquo and Macbeth to muse upon their significance, and to reveal some essential aspects of their own respective characters. Macbeth wishes “they had stayed” (82), while Banquo wonders whether the encounter has actually taken place–”or have we eaten on the insane root / That takes the reason prisoner?” (84-85). The crucial word here (and in much of Shakespeare) is “reason,” the essential faculty that mankind exercises, or rather must exercise if things are to be as they should be. (As an aside, one might ponder the quasi-philosophical “notion” of an audience watching something which has its reality only in a theatrical context, or a reality created by a reader reading the text on the page–is that “real” as the Witches’ appearance to Macbeth and Banquo is real. Is there really a supernatural? But that’s only an aside, and not something an audience in a theatre will think about since, usually, action is paramount–what happens next?)

The catalyst arrives in the form of Ross bringing news that confirms some of the Witches’ prophecies, which gives rise to a series of (almost ungainly) asides from both Macbeth and Banquo. Macbeth’s mind is clearly already whirling on the possibilities, although “the greatest is behind” (117)–i.e. the ultimate prediction (of kingship) has yet to be fulfilled. Now a rational man might well at this point think that since a couple of prophecies have been fulfilled without any action taken by Macbeth, it would be as well to allow the third to come to self-fruition. And indeed, Macbeth weighs this possibility: “If chance will have me King, why chance may crown me / Without my stir” (142-43). And, for now, that is the conclusion he adopts, although he does want to talk further with Banquo. However, before reaching that conclusion, Macbeth has mulled over some less worthy ideas in his speech beginning at 130 that contains a series of connecting and opposing words–ill, good, success, truth, horrid, fears, horrible, murder–that so confuses his thought that “nothing is / but what is not.” A self-reduction into a state of nothingness, indecision, convoluted thought, the ungraspable, or as Banquo puts it: “Look how our partner’s wrapt” (142). Banquo’s own conclusion about the prophecies is a much more straightforward “the instruments of darkness tell us truths, / Win us with honest trifles, to betray’s / In deepest consequence”–the idea of the archetypal seduction (a small reward leading on to ever larger evil deeds of profound consequence). Nevertheless, at this stage in the tragedy, Macbeth has still not committed any irrevocable act, though arguably his present thoughts are almost father to the deed.

See The Shakespeare Diaries.

Julius Caesar Act 1.2.178-214

This brief “interlude” is notable for its dramatic techniques. Just previously Cassius and Brutus have been talking about Caesar and the audience has heard an off-stage “flourish” connected with the games and Caesar. Now “Caesar and his Train” re-enter so that the audience sees him and them again physically, solidly, rather than as what might be called a concept. And lest we don’t notice this, Brutus tells us directly “The games are done, and Caesar is returning.” This statement, in addition to its obvious content, makes it clear that, so far as staging goes, Brutus and Cassius are meant to stand to one side of the stage, quite separately from Caesar and his train. In fact, they also become an on-stage audience, observing Caesar and his entourage. That, in turn, also means (as is obvious a few lines later) that Caesar and Antony stand on another, separate part of the stage and observe and comment upon Brutus and Cassius. Thus the audience is presented with a physical representation of the growing political division.

Other aspects of the dramatic techniques involved include Cassius asking Brutus to “pluck Casca by the sleeve” in order to find out what has occurred, thereby setting up the next sub-scene. Brutus’s observations also include some word-painting–”the angry spot doth glow on Caesar’s brow,” “Calphurnia’s cheek is pale” (etc). Clearly such matters are not really possible on stage, but the audience is beguiled into thinking these things are so by being told they are so.

On the other side of the stage, we get some useful commentary– Caesar’s fears/concerns about Cassius (“Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look”) and Antony’s reassuring “he is a noble Roman,” a crucial concept, but a fallacious and ironic comment in the circumstances. Indeed, Caesar’s analysis of Cassius is more thorough and perceptive and includes metatheatrical ideas: “He loves no plays / As thou dost, Antony; he hears no music.” One is tempted to observe that Shakespeare’s Puritan contemporaries fell into the same category.

And thus, the sub-scene ends, leaving Casca to take up with Brutus and Cassius in another conspiratorial (and hence intimate) sub-scene.

See The Shakespeare Diaries.

Romeo and Juliet Act 2.5, 2.6

The first eleven lines of 2.5 (as Juliet, alone, awaits the return of the Nurse from seeing Romeo and learning his plans) are notable for their emphasis on time–particularly its quick passage–and on other forms of swiftness. For example, Juliet sent the Nurse at nine o’clock, and expected her to return in thirty minutes. Thoughts are conceived of moving “ten times faster” that sunlight. Cupid has “wind-swift” wings. The daily rotation of the sun is mentioned, and finally, Juliet pinpoints the current time–it’s 12 noon, and the Nurse has yet to return. All this serves to place Romeo and Juliet’s love and actions in a swift, temporal context, and thereby we are reminded how hasty and rather ill-considered everything is. And yet that is also the nature of young love, where the “affections and warm youthful blood” prevail.

The Nurse’s return injects a comic tone into the scene, a suitable counterpoint to Juliet’s own hasty concerns. On another level, the Nurse’s behavior is exactly what we would expect from her, as are her comments about Romeo (she declares him “a simple choice”). Her statement is two-edged–she could be serious, or she could be merely teasing Juliet about Romeo. Her other tangential remarks that further delay her news (e.g. asking where Juliet’s mother is) do seem to be part and parcel of her character, rather than a deliberate ploy on her part. Of course, it’s all an integral part of Shakespeare providing variety of tone and interest–which is more likely to keep an audience captivated–the Nurse entering and revealing Romeo’s plans immediately, or the Nurse entering and delaying the news?

2.6 follows on quickly from 2.5, although an unspoken amount of time must have passed, since Juliet has to move from her home to Friar Laurence’s cell. (Also, on the prosaic/literal level, she would have had to wait until the time when she had “got leave to go to shrift to-day”). Regardless, the theatrical impression is one of speed and hastiness, which is taken up by both Romeo and the Friar. Romeo talks of the intensity of joy that “one short minute” of seeing Juliet provides, and also that being able to call Juliet his own surpasses everything else: “Then love-devouring death do what he dare– / It is enough I may call her mine.” His sentiment here finds an echo later on in the canon in Othello’s declaration on his arrival in Cyprus: “If it were not to die / ‘Twere now to be most happy” (2.1.187-88). Both utterances are equally silly and irrational–as indeed Desdemona points out: “The heavens forbid / But that our loves and comforts should increase / Even as our days do grow.” Similarly the Friar offers Romeo some sound advice on being moderate in love for “violent delights have violent ends.” Furthermore, as if to drive home the point, when Romeo and Juliet do meet in this scene, it is Juliet who provides rational thought on love, etc–”Conceit, more rich in matter than in words, / Brags of his substance, not of ornament” (30-31). What is really important is the real substance of their love/relationship; words can be but external ornamentation, not the real thing itself. It is the solid column that holds a building up, not the fragile, delicate, decorative fretwork.

Check out The Shakespeare Diaries.

Macbeth Act 1.3.1-78

The opening of this scene obviously combines elements from what we have seen already, though significantly it is the three witches that provide the tone as they detail what they have been doing in the time since we saw them last (note how fluid the passage of time “on stage” is depicted). Macbeth’s entrance is preceded by the sound of a drum reminding us of the battles described in 1.2, and subliminally of the “bloody” captain who was the messenger (Macbeth too has been/is/will be a “bloody man”). Before actually seeing the Witches, Macbeth declares “So foul and fair a day I have not seen.” While on one level this sentence is a swift moment of verbal scene painting (a frequent Shakespearean technique), it also echoes very strongly what the Witches said at the end of 1.1. Thus there is more than a suggestion that Macbeth is somehow attuned to them, instinctively, psychically, or however it might be described. He sees and feels what they do. However, it is worth noting that Banquo sees and describes the witches first, thereby lending some reality to their presence. Banquo also describes Macbeth’s reaction to their prophecies: “Good sir, why do you start and seem to fear / Things that do sound so fair?” (51-52). This in a nutshell captures the crux, the nub of the play. Macbeth is a “good sir,” at least as far as we know so far, and might indeed have remained so but for the Witches. In retrospect, the phrase will be grossly ironic. Why does Macbeth “fear” the prophecies? Has it awakened in him some latent tendency, some harbored ambition? Banquo sees the prophecies as good, presumably because he sees them being fulfilled in some sort of naturally evolving  fashion. Can Macbeth conceive of their fulfillment only in violent, unthinkable terms? (Underlying this is the notion of kingship, and how one becomes king–the chain of being idea. There is a natural, ordained, orderly mode of succession. Usurpation or violent overthrow can only result in further disorder and chaos. In a sense, Macbeth’s reported reaction here is a shorthand indication of a firmly embedded Elizabethan/Jacobean theory/notion.) Interestingly and naturally, Banquo wants to know his own fortune, and receives a supernaturally paradoxical reply (65-68), which an alert audience will suspect will be fulfilled too. Finally, Macbeth responds by wanting to know how their prophecies will be fulfilled. His “curiosity” is provoked because he knows that part of what the Witches have said is already true, but “to be King stands not within the prospect of belief,” is, so far as he can conceive, an impossibility. What indeed can render it possible?

See The Shakespeare Diaries.

Romeo and Juliet Act 2.4

This fairly long scene has an interesting shape or form. The action moves from one grouping to another in such a way as to reveal the fundamental shift that Romeo is undergoing. The scene opens with an exchange between Benvolio and Mercutio that reminds us of earlier (bawdy) exchanges between the young men, and that also focuses on Romeo (especially because they still think Romeo is enamored with Rosaline. Further, we are reminded of the fiery Tybalt (“more than Prince of Cats”), and thus of the feud that forms an essential background to the whole play and is never long absent.

Mercutio’s speech (line 37) when Romeo appears re-invokes his Queen Mab speech; it is bawdy, witty, punning, yet his allusions to Dido etc demonstrate something of a worldly knowledge that Romeo certainly lacks. Mercutio is yet again an imaginative force in the play, and once he is absent from the play that force and what it might do is lost forever.. In joining them, Romeo also engages with Mercutio’s witty banter and gives almost as good as he gets; the result is “Now art thou sociable, now art thou Romeo; now art thou what thou art, by art as well as by nature” (84-85). This notion of who Romeo is and how he is that entity should remind us of Juliet’s earlier utterances on the balcony–what’s in a name, etc. Here Romeo’s wittiness makes him (to Mercutio) the Romeo of old, and yet the audience knows that Romeo has also changed because of his encounter with Juliet. Thus in many ways his witty outward show belies his true inner nature.

The “young guy witty banter” business continues with the entrance of the Nurse (which should also remind us of Romeo and Juliet’s encounter since the Nurse was present then, albeit “off-stage”). Unsurprisingly (given the Nurse’s bawdy conversation in 1.3), the Nurse enjoys the men’s company, especially Mercutio’s “prick of noon” jest (107). That contrasts with her plain-spoken concern for Juliet’s welfare once she and Romeo finally talk together, a duologue that signals Romeo’s shift or transference from his friends to his newly-discovered relationship with Juliet, etc. Her concern even extends to her expressing her belief that “Paris is the properer man” (193) in comparison to Romeo. Nevertheless, she still goes along with the elopement plan, and thus a parallel between her and Friar Laurence is suggested.

See The Shakespeare Diaries.

Macbeth Act 1.2

“What bloody man is that?”

Thus Duncan opens the second scene, and immediately sets another aspect of  the play. Notably Duncan, the king, is the first “human” to speak, and so our attention is focussed on him just as the play is to be focussed on the whole notion of “kingship.” His remark is formed as a question, a grammatical mode that will be quite pervasive in ensuing scenes (and just as questions arose with the three witches previously). “Bloody” sets the tone of much else that will ensue, and blood imagery is likewise pervasive. It’s also noteworthy that the man lacks apparent identity (although in fact he is a “mere sergeant/captain”), and that too can be linked with the theme of kingship as well as spectral apparitions in that both are elusive.

This scene is also takes the form of “reported action,” that is to say, instead of actually staging  a battle (always a rather difficult feat on any stage, and even more so given the somewhat limited resources of Shakespeare’s own company–e.g. the number of actors available), the battle is “conveniently” reported by someone who has witnessed it. (The technique also goes back to Greek tragedy in which violent action always took place off stage and was reported by a messenger, or some such person).

Noteworthy in the Captain’s report is that “Fortune” (chance, fate, or one’s lot) is mentioned as is Macbeth himself; indeed the two are linked since Macbeth disdained Fortune (or the odds of battle) and fought bravely against the rebel Macdonwald (the notion of rebellion instantly conjuring up the ideas encapsulated in the concept of the chain of being, and, of course, is not a “good thing”). Further evidence of Macbeth’s bravery (this time combined with that of Banquo) occurs around  line 35 when a fresh assault failed to dismay the two men. This is described through images embodying an apparent inversion of the natural scheme of things (rebellion being the other so far)–”as sparrows eagles, or the hare the lion.” (That is to say, the assault dismayed Macbeth as much as a hare would dismay a lion, but initially the Captain had framed the idea in the affirmative.)

The scene is rounded out with another report of the rebellion in which “that most disloyal traitor” the Thane of Cawdor took part.  Here again we have crucial notions of rebellion, disloyalty, and treachery in the worst form, that of being a traitor (for which the punishment is, obviously, death). Ironically, Duncan,in stripping the Thane of Cawdor of his title, confers the title on Macbeth–and as we shall see treachery is also transferred with the title (but that not being Duncan’s intent).

Check out The Shakespeare Diaries.

Romeo and Juliet Act 2.3

Friar Laurence opens the scene with a 30 line soliloquy (although Romeo overhears his words from his entrance at line 23). Thus much of the speech serves as a pause and contrast to what has just preceded it–the youthful exuberance of Romeo’s encounter with Juliet–the very length of the Friar’s speech slows down the tempo, and provides variety (always a good technique when the audience is given so much to listening). However, the Friar is connected imagistically somewhat with Romeo’s use of “light” imagery at the beginning of the preceding scene, thus providing perhaps a subliminal link between the two men (after all, the Friar is Romeo’s confidant and adviser). The Friar is also associated with natural elements–he is collecting various and sundry herbs, and comments on their properties, and their variable effects (depending upon usage). Although he is talking about herbs, his thoughts have a more universal sense, captured especially in “Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, / And vice sometime’s by action dignified” (21-22). This is a continuing concern in Shakespeare’s thought, how virtually everything has the power to take on its opposite form, a notion that tends to render existence itself a fragile and elusive thing. However, the notion is given specific import by Romeo’s entrance just at the moment when the Friar turns to muse on how “the infant rind of this weak flower” can be either a poison or a healing medicine (yet again, a hint of what is to follow later in the play).

The exchange between the Friar and Romeo has some humor in it, certainly a light touch–such as the Friar’s remark that Romeo being up so early in the morning must indicate that he has not actually been to bed the past night. Since the Friar refers to Rosaline it is clear that Romeo has talked with the Friar previously about her, and that in turn gives the Friar the opportunity to voice an opinion on Romeo’s newly-found love for Juliet (obviously one purpose of Shakespeare writing the scene, though it also reveals more of Romeo’s character). The Friar’s opinion is emphasized by the use of rhyming couplets (although the switch actually occurs at line 51 just about at the moment when Romeo begins to refer to Juliet): “Young men’s love then lies / Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes.” Also significant is the Friar’s comment that he had earlier chided Romeo for “doting” on rather than loving Rosaline. Doting implies a lack of reason, that essential quality that divides man from animals, that should rule his existence.

Then, and most remarkably, the scene ends very swiftly with Friar Laurence agreeing to help Romeo because “this alliance may so happy prove / To turn your households’ rancor to pure love.” His reason is so blatantly facile and hardly credible, one might wonder why would Shakespeare arrange things thus? The answer is surely a pragmatic one–plot, and the necessity to move on with the story.

Check out The Shakespeare Diaries.

Macbeth Act 1.1

Some critics have thought this opening scene is spurious–an interpolation by another dramatist (as Hecate in 3.5 definitely is and, in all probability, by Thomas Middleton). However, brief as it is, the scene has everything to do with the remainder of the play, and there seems little reason to doubt its authenticity.

Its brevity does raise a question about the attentiveness of Shakespeare’s own audience, because if it were not paying close attention the scene would be finished before people had settled down. So perhaps they were indeed attentive.

This supernatural element is (again in all probability) included as a gesture by Shakespeare to King James’s own interests in witchcraft and other similar topics (James had published a book, Daemonologie, in 1599, a possible source, as was Reginald Scot’s The Discovery of Witchcraft [1584]). Other contemporary connections with James and English politics will emerge in due course.

First and foremost, the scene sets the tone, provides the pervasive atmosphere for the play. The opening (and original) stage direction calls for “thunder and lightning,” effects achieved easily in Shakespeare’s day. The thunder alone would perhaps be enough to quieten the audience, but flashes of lightning (ignited gunpowder and some chemical perhaps?) would finish the trick. And the physical appearance of the witches themselves should be arresting (and the audience was probably much more superstitious in such matters than later).

So there is physical disturbance in the elements, a parallel to human events–there is a battle somewhere after all. Then the witches declare that they will meet Macbeth, the title character–a curious mingling of the supernatural with the real (Macbeth is a historical figure: he lived c.1005-57, and was King of the Scots 1040-57, and not quite the “bad” figure portrayed in the play). So, in yet another sense, Shakespeare will depict that blurring of reality and illusion, as the final couplet makes so evident:

Fair is foul, and foul is fair.

Hover through the fog and filthy air.

Who knows what might happen when the two become indistinguishable?

Some further background to the play (including the Gunpowder plot) can be found in the entries for 1605 and 1606 in The Shakespeare Diaries.  [And remember, remember, the fifth of November, gunpowder treason and plot. Only the English could celebrate, on bonfire night, the failed attempt of Guy Fawkes to blow up the Houses of Parliament on 5 November 1605).