Skip to main content

Reading Macbeth

I spent an enjoyable three hours at the recent first meeting of the Plymouth Shakespeare Reading Group yesterday. My thanks to Prashant Andrade for forming this group. You can read more about it in a previous entry in this blog.

I and twelve other hardy souls (most of them students from Salem High School in Plymouth) tackled Macbeth. We got through it with virtually no difficulties and I think everyone had a great time. I myself was able to be Banquo in Acts I and II, Macbeth in Act III scenes 1 and 2, Lady Macduff in Act IV (scene 2) and a messenger in Act V, scene 5 (an important part-how else would Macbeth know about Birnam Wood approaching Dunsinane?)

In order to be properly prepared, I brought along my copy of Richard Whalen's Oxfordian edition of Macbeth (available from Llumina Press, www.llumina.com). In between waiting for my cues, I was able to scan most of Whalen's excellent annotations. Of course, many of these are the sort of annotations found in any good edition of the play, but Whalen does put in great explanations of the many Oxfordian implications.

For example, orthodox scholars continue to state that Shakespeare wrote the play to please the new King James. Actually, there is no record of the play being performed during the reign of James (it was first printed in the First Folio) and it does seem strange that someone would write a play about the murder of a Scottish king by an usurper who consorted with witches to please a Scottish king (James) who was terrified of witches and was always fearful of personal attacks. The play refers to things that James detested (such as the practice of the monarch "touching for the evil" [scrofula]).

The play reveals the author's knowledge of Scottish geography, weather, laws, and customs, something easy to explain for Oxford who was actually in Scotland on a military expedition and less easy to explain for Stratford Will.

The play makes use of the chronicle of William Stewart (1531-5) for some details not found elsewhere, a document only available in manuscript form and held by the Scottish royal family. Only someone in royal circles, like Oxford, would have had access to it.

There is also the introduction of the character Lennox (not in any historical accounts), perhaps to honor Oxford's friend the 4th Earl of Lennox who was Elizabeth's regent in Scotland?

The author is familiar with court intrigue, as evidenced by the political machinations of the character of Ross.

I could go on like this, but I will stop here. I have to keep a little back for discussion purposes later.

I would recommend that more of the Oberoners consider attending a meeting of the Plymouth Shakespeare Reading Group. The next meeting is December 21, when we will be reading Twelfth Night (unfortunately I don't have an Oxfordian edition of this play so I'm on my own).

In the meantime, I note that both the Chicago Shakespeare Theater and the Stratford Festival are doing Macbeth in their upcoming seasons. Maybe there's still an opening for the messenger in Act V. I'm on it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Was King Richard III a Control Freak? Science News ... from universities, journals, and other research organizations   Mar. 4, 2013 — University of Leicester psychologists believe Richard III was not a psychopath -- but he may have had control freak tendencies. University of Leicester psychologists have made an analysis of Richard III's character -- aiming to get to the man behind the bones. Professor Mark Lansdale, Head of the University's School of Psychology, and forensic psychologist Dr Julian Boon have put together a psychological analysis of Richard III based on the consensus among historians relating to Richard's experiences and actions. They found that, while there was no evidence for Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III as a psychopath, he may have had "intolerance to uncertainty syndrome" -- which may have manifested in control freak tendencies. The academics presented their findings on Saturday, March 2 at the University

What's a popp'rin' pear?

James Wheaton reported yesterday in the Jackson Citizen Patriot that the Michigan Shakespeare Festival high school tour of Romeo and Juliet was criticized for inappropriate content -- " So me take issue with sexual innuendoes in Michigan Shakespeare Festival’s High School Tour performances of ‘Romeo & Juliet’" : Western [High School] parent Rosie Crowley said she was upset when she heard students laughing about sexual content in the play afterwards. Her son didn’t attend the performance Tuesday because of another commitment, she said.  “I think the theater company should have left out any references that were rated R,” Crowley said. “I would say that I’ve read Shakespeare, and what I was told from the students, I’ve never read anything that bad.”  She said she objected to scenes that involved pelvic thrusting and breast touching and to a line in which Mercutio makes suggestive comments to Romeo after looking up the skirt of a female. The problem with cutting out the naug

Winkler lights the match

by Linda Theil When asked by an interviewer why all the experts disagree with her on the legitimacy of the Shakespeare authorship question, journalist and author Elizabeth Winkler  calmly replied, "You've asked the wrong experts." * With that simple declaration Winkler exploded the topic of Shakespearean authorship forever. Anti-Stratfordians need no smoking gun, no convincing narrative, no reason who, how, when, or why because within the works lies the unassailable argument: Shakespeare's knowledge. Ask the lawyers. Ask the psychologists. Ask the librarians. Ask the historians. Ask the dramaturges. Ask the mathematicians. Ask the Greek scholars. Ask the physicists. Ask the astronomers. Ask the courtiers. Ask the bibliophiles. Ask the Italians. Ask the French. Ask the Russians. Ask the English. Ask everyone. Current academic agreement on a bevy of Shakespearean collaborators springs from an unspoken awareness of how much assistance the Stratfordian presumptive would h