![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A few days ago I was listening to the local classical music radio station and I heard an interview with the director of a Boston-area production of Verdi's opera, "Macbeth." The director said that, in his interpretation, the witches had all the power and that Macbeth was basically a cat's paw to them. I am unfamiliar with Verdi's opera, but this comment made me think of all the versions of "Macbeth" I have seen in which the witches and/or Lady Macbeth, who is sometimes considered to be the fourth witch in the play, seem to manipulate a malleable Macbeth into the violence he commits. I feel torn about this sort of interpretation for, on the one hand, it is gratifying to see strong female characters; however, on the other hand, it is not so gratifying to see these female characters portrayed as femme fatales or manipulators who are made culpable for the evil acts which Macbeth commits. In addition, the female characters are not seen that much in the second half of the play, so how are we to interpret Macbeth's increasingly savage murders?
Thus, I went searching for books which address the various possible meanings of the witches in "Macbeth." Gary Wills's book, _Witches and Jesuits_ (1996), jumped out at me, especially as it also explored the links between "Macbeth" and the Gunpowder Plot. With yesterday being Guy Fawke's Day, it seemed particularly timely.
Early in this short book (Wills originally wrote this as a series of lectures to be delivered at the New York Public Library), Wills addresses how "the Scottish play's reputation for being unlucky is associated with the unbalanced nature of how the title role is interpreted in modern productions. Wills links this difficulty in interpretation to the somewhat ambiguous role of the witches in modern versions, and Wills attempts to overcome this difficulty by linking the witches in "macbeth" to a number of other Jacobean plays which emerged at the same time in the 1606-1607 play season, which came soon after the execution of the man accused of being the leader of the Gunpowder Plot. James I had written and spoken about how he interpreted his narrow escape from the assassination attempt, and in his official interpretation, it was his own expertise in theology and of witchecraft in particular which allowed him to realize the plot in time to save himself. James's interpretation, and the specific language he used, became part of how the event was interpreted, and Wills explores this language closely. He also explores how the use of witches in plays was linked to political plotters and to the Jesuits, with a discussion on what was perceived as Jesuit rhetorical practices of equivocation.
Wills is a Catholic writer who has often found his literary subjects in Catholicism, so he may not be an entirely objective interpreter (if such a person exists at all), but James I was a king who based much of his rule upon theological rather than secular grounds, and Wills interpretation does help to make sense of much that is often confusing about "Macbeth." Perhaps most intriguing is Wills's claim that Macbeth himself is a male witch, and that his invocations of the witches are precisely that: magical invocations. In light of this interpretation, Wills gives a close reading of Macbeth's language as it is concerned with darkness, magic, and time.
While somereaders may disagree with Wills's interpretations, I found this book very useful for clarifying the (intentionally, as it turns out) convoluted language of "Macbeth," and an excellent book for Guy Fawkes's Day.
Thus, I went searching for books which address the various possible meanings of the witches in "Macbeth." Gary Wills's book, _Witches and Jesuits_ (1996), jumped out at me, especially as it also explored the links between "Macbeth" and the Gunpowder Plot. With yesterday being Guy Fawke's Day, it seemed particularly timely.
Early in this short book (Wills originally wrote this as a series of lectures to be delivered at the New York Public Library), Wills addresses how "the Scottish play's reputation for being unlucky is associated with the unbalanced nature of how the title role is interpreted in modern productions. Wills links this difficulty in interpretation to the somewhat ambiguous role of the witches in modern versions, and Wills attempts to overcome this difficulty by linking the witches in "macbeth" to a number of other Jacobean plays which emerged at the same time in the 1606-1607 play season, which came soon after the execution of the man accused of being the leader of the Gunpowder Plot. James I had written and spoken about how he interpreted his narrow escape from the assassination attempt, and in his official interpretation, it was his own expertise in theology and of witchecraft in particular which allowed him to realize the plot in time to save himself. James's interpretation, and the specific language he used, became part of how the event was interpreted, and Wills explores this language closely. He also explores how the use of witches in plays was linked to political plotters and to the Jesuits, with a discussion on what was perceived as Jesuit rhetorical practices of equivocation.
Wills is a Catholic writer who has often found his literary subjects in Catholicism, so he may not be an entirely objective interpreter (if such a person exists at all), but James I was a king who based much of his rule upon theological rather than secular grounds, and Wills interpretation does help to make sense of much that is often confusing about "Macbeth." Perhaps most intriguing is Wills's claim that Macbeth himself is a male witch, and that his invocations of the witches are precisely that: magical invocations. In light of this interpretation, Wills gives a close reading of Macbeth's language as it is concerned with darkness, magic, and time.
While somereaders may disagree with Wills's interpretations, I found this book very useful for clarifying the (intentionally, as it turns out) convoluted language of "Macbeth," and an excellent book for Guy Fawkes's Day.
