Supernatural

During the opening of Act 1 Scene 3, the witches meet and discuss a recent incident: A sailor's wife refused to give one of them chestnuts, and so the witch travelled to the sailor and cast a spell which drained him of his energy but take away his ability to sleep. He would "dwindle" - which means to get weak - "peak" - which is going through fits of high energy - and "pine" - which is to long for something. Finally, although she couldn't take away his "bark" she would create violent storms that would make him "tempest tossed."

This scene is generally removed from plays because it breaks up the flow of the opening, and besides an article from the British Library describes is like this: Shakespeare uses this passage, then, to demonstrate the Witches’ vindictive nature, leaving the audience in no doubt as to their connection with the powers of evil.

Given that this passage is really only there to show that the witches are horrible it's no surprise that it gets cut out so regularly. But what if the British Library is wrong and this is one of the most significant sequences in the play?

My argument:

In any play featuring magical characters, you need a moment of exposition to explain what the characters are capable of. Before you've seen a Star Wars film you need some kind of explanation of the rules of the Force so you can understand what a Jedi can do. The same is true here: we don't know what kind of magic the witches are capable of, so Shakespeare has this scene which explains what magic powers they have.

My argument is simply this: if, at the beginning of a play, a group of magical character reveal what powers they have and then the rest of the play is someone going through exactly the same experience, then it's reasonable to assume that there is a connection. In short: this scene is simply the witches revealing what they are about to do to Macbeth; and if that's the case then the storyline of the whole play is completely different. Below you'll find the original speech describing what they did to the sailor next to how it happened to Macbeth:

I will drain him dry as hay: - Macbeth was constantly tired and drained

Sleep shall neither night nor day

Hang upon his pent-house lid; - Macbeth loses the ability to sleep

He shall live a man forbid: - he is denied the things he really wants

Weary se'nnights nine times nine

Shall he dwindle, peak and pine: - I'm not sure how long Macbeth's reign was, but he did "dwindle, peak and pine" quite a lot

Though his bark cannot be lost,

Yet it shall be tempest-tost. - by the end he was still shouting and screaming (his bark wasn't lost) but he had certainly been through an emotional storm!

What's also essential to take away from this is that the witches are able to control other people's actions and feelings. They're not just viewers in this story; they have agency and that's essential for our understanding of the rest of the play.

One of the most important parts of the witch's speech is when she clarifies that she stops the sailor being able to sleep, because this is something that happens to Macbeth later in the play. Often revision sites suggest that Macbeth couldn't sleep because of a feeling of guilt but this doesn't really make sense, for two reasons:

Firstly, the witches make it very clear that they can stop someone from sleeping and it would seem strange to have that clarified as a part of their magical tool-box, and have it happen later in the play, unless there was going to be a connection. If it was guilt that meant Macbeth couldn't sleep, we really would have to assume that the witch's speech was a piece of misinformation from Shakespeare, which would make no sense at all.

And secondly, just after Macbeth has killed Duncan he doesn't just lose the ability to sleep. He finds his wife and says "Methought I heard a voice cry 'sleep no more, Macbeth hath murdered sleep.'" He then goes on to repeat variations on that line, but always confirming that he heard someone else say it - and Shakespeare even puts the lines in speech marks.

So Macbeth, having killed Duncan, hears someone else say that he has murdered sleep. Now you could argue that this is just him going a bit mad, but when it's combined with the understanding that this is something the witches could do it makes MUCH more sense to argue that it was the witch's magic spell that made this happen.

I've got two nominations here, though both come in the same scene.

The first is Macbeth's first line in the play:

So fair and foul a day I have not seen.

This line paraphrases (which is an almost exact quote) the witches opening lines. So Macbeth's first line in the play almost directly quotes a key line from the witches. Surely this was designed to deliberately setup the idea that the witches are already in control of him? I've read revision websites before that have argued that this just implies that Macbeth, like the witches, is a bit evil - but he's almost quoting them! Surely this suggests more than just a connection, it's a control.

The second one is more complex:

Why do I yield to that suggestion

Whose horrid image doth unfix my hair

And make my seated heart knock at my ribs,

Against the use of nature?

In a nutshell, this means: why I am i giving in to something that makes my hair stand up in horror, and my heart start to race in an uncomfortable way - and which is, most importantly: against my very nature.

So, in this short speech he says that the idea of killing Duncan makes him so scared that his heart races, and is against his very nature - the most fundamental part of who he is. So he's basically saying why is he starting to want to do this thing?

But the key words in the speech are "yield" and "suggestion." And the fundamental question is: can you "yield" to a "suggestion" that has come from yourself?

It's worth just clarifying what these words mean:

Yield: to give way to arguments, demands, or pressure.

Suggestion: an idea or plan put forward for consideration.

So: can you "give way to an argument, demand or pressure" and agree to "an idea or plan put forward for consideration" if that plan was your own?

Surely you can only "give in" to an "idea" that has come from someone else... and if that's the case then the idea of killing Duncan didn't come from Macbeth - it came from the witches.

And if that's the case, then the entire play takes on a completely different meaning.

Some people tend to find this one really obvious, other people think it's far more debatable. For myself, I think so much of her character arc is missing that I struggle to formulate a complete opinion about her. There's enough evidence of her being a witch in her opening scene to say that she's certainly established as one, but then Shakespeare seems to do so little with it that I'm not sure what to think. It is worth picking up on a few key things:

Come you spirits! - If you watch a Star Wars movie and someone comes on screen dressed in a long robe and carrying a lightsaber then it's reasonable to assume they're a Jedi. If almost the first thing someone does on-stage is cast a magic spell, during a play that features witches in prominent roles, then it's reasonable to assume that she's a witch. If she's not supposed to be one, then I really have no idea what Shakespeare thought he was doing have her cast a magic spell straight away.

Hereafter - King that shalt be - Hereafter - when Lady Macbeth comes on stage she's reading a letter from her husband, which tells her about his encounter with the witches. BUT: the letter misquotes the witches. Macbeth says that they called him "King that shalt be" when they really said "All hail Macbeth, thou shalt be king hereafter." This doesn't seem like a big deal except that when his wife meets him, she says "Greater than both by the all hail hereafter." So she uses the "hail" and the "hereafter" that the witches used, even though Macbeth got the quote wrong.

Beyond that, though, there's no real references to her being a witch or casting any magic spells at all, except perhaps one...

When she performs her original magic spell she asks that the spirits "stop up the passage to remorse" which means that the spell stops her feeling any guilt. In A3 S5 Hecate, the Queen of Witches, becomes angry at what the witches have done and demands that they bring an end to the whole thing. Just after this, we see Lady Macbeth and she's sleepwalking and consumed by guilt. Is it possible that Hecate cancelled out the magic spell that had been cast earlier on, which would have meant that Lady Macbeth felt her guilt all of a sudden? This is possible, and it's probably the best explanation for her character flip that I've ever heard though it's still pretty thin...

At the end of the play, Macbeth does something unusual: he gives one of his servants a NAME. There are a number of other messengers or gentlewomen in the play - even a doctor - but they never get names.

But then, for no reason, at the end of the play he calls out "SEYTON." Now, bearing in mind that Macbeth was meant to be seen and not read, it seems really strange to give a character a name that rhymes with Satan, in a play about witchcraft, if that character isn't going to actually be Satan.

It's also doubly interesting as he says the name three times before Seyton appears - twice in quick succession, and then suddenly he appears. The idea of saying someone's name three times before they appear is a reasonably classic trope, and here it is with Satan.

Seyton!--I am sick at heart,

When I behold--Seyton, I say!--This push

Will cheer me ever, or disseat me now.

I have lived long enough: my way of life

Is fall'n into the sear, the yellow leaf;

And that which should accompany old age,

As honour, love, obedience, troops of friends,

I must not look to have; but, in their stead,

Curses, not loud but deep, mouth-honour, breath,

Which the poor heart would fain deny, and dare not. Seyton!

Enter Seyton

Given the nature of the play and its focus on witchcraft - and the fact that a few scenes earlier we'd seen the arrival of Hecate, the Queen of Witches - it doesn't seem unreasonable that this is actually Satan who's arrived.

Other than ranking up the supernatural elements in the play, this doesn't really have a massive impact on the play except in one key possible area.

Look over this section from A5 S5:

A cry of women within

MACBETH

What is that noise?

SEYTON

It is the cry of women, my good lord.

Exit

MACBETH

...

Re-enter SEYTON

Wherefore was that cry?

SEYTON

The queen, my lord, is dead.

So it is Seyton who discovers the Queen's body - or, possibly, was it him or his minions who killed her?

The most common understanding is that Lady Macbeth killed herself, but bear in mind that we only assumed she did because Malcolm's says that Macbeth's "fiend-like queen, / Who, as 'tis thought, by self and violent hands / Took off her life."

So basically, it could well be that Lady Macbeth killed herself, but I'd bet there were people who left the theatre thinking that Seyton / Satan had something to do with it...

The following is an extract from an article that's been published on the British Library's website, you can find the whole thing here: https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/manhood-and-the-milk-of-human-kindness-in-macbeth

The article looks at the role of masculinity in Macbeth, but takes a very different slant to my interpretation. During this extract, the author argues that the witches have no real power over Macbeth but only ignite his own passion. I've colour coded it and responded to his argument below. Crucially though, I'd argue (without meaning to offend the author) that this passage - which is written by a very well respected professor - is entirely reliant on some quite astonishing assumptions, none of which are actually backed up by any evidence from the play.

It's an interesting read as it gives some clues as to how we've come to the place we have:

It’s important to stress that Macbeth’s fate is not dictated by the witches. None of the malign spells cast by the bearded handmaids of Hecat, as they dance round their bubbling cauldron with its gruesome ingredients, has any power over Macbeth. The Weird Sisters ‘can look into the seeds of time’ (1.3.58) and foretell his future in deceitful language, whose full meaning emerges only in retrospect. But they can’t compel Macbeth to do anything.

This section stresses that the witches have no powers over Macbeth. It says they can't compel him to do anything, but then - really - if you read it, it just repeats this statement without actually referencing the text in any meaningful way. It seems like the author just ignores the power the witches had over the sailor, and ignores the fact that Macbeth enters the stage almost repeating what the witches have previously said. This kind of academic writing is designed to sound clever, but it's not actually dealing with the text. You could almost say it was an example of confuscation, which is something that's made deliberately confusing, often to hide the fact that it has nothing to say.

Shakespeare makes that clear from the outset, when the grim trio greets Macbeth with titles he has yet to acquire, and Banquo sees him ‘start, and seem to fear / Things that do sound so fair’, and then become strangely ‘rapt withal’ (1.3.51–2, 57). Before the scene is over, Macbeth’s first soliloquy leaves us in no doubt that what has startled and struck fear into him is the witches’ open voicing of the ‘black and deep desires’ (1.4.51) already brewing secretly in his heart.

My ears perked up at this bit as I hoped that he would provide some evidence - he says that Shakespeare makes it clear that the witches have no power. But then you read it and there's nothing there - again! The fact that Macbeth seemed to "fear" what the witches said, or that he then fell into a "rapt" state does NOT mean that the witches had no control over Macbeth! And where he claims "leaves us in no doubt that" I can say categorically that I had serious doubts about this interpretation. In fact, he references a soliloquy from A1 S3 but then uses a quote from the next scene!

Like the spirits that Lady Macbeth commands in the next scene to ‘unsex’ her and purge her of compassion, the witches ‘tend on mortal thoughts’ (1.5.41; my emphasis): they serve the evil thoughts they find in mortal minds, they don’t plant them there.

Here, he's using a quote from Lady Macbeth who says that the spirits she calls only "tend" on mortal thoughts, which suggests that they don't control them, they just look after them - in the way we might tend a garden or a loved one. BUT this is Lady Macbeth and not the witches, so the fact that Lady Macbeth has no real power over someone's behaviour says nothing about the witches. Also, the use of the "Like" conjunction at the beginning suggests that there will be some connection between the thoughts presented, but Lady Macbeth asks for the spirits to "unsex" her and take away her compassion, both of which are them doing something, not simply responding to the "evil thoughts they find in mortal minds."

And that's the end of his argument.

But if I look back over his argument I see someone making a very broad statement about the play: the witches have no control over Macbeth; and then backing it up with very limited evidence, that ignores significant portions of the plot, and just 'sounds' good as he uses long words and complex sentences.

The fact is that if you introduce the supernatural elements of the play to the degree that they can actually control Macbeth's behaviour, you end up with a play about the effects of witchcraft, which just isn't that interesting to an audience four hundred years later. I think a lot of people are working very hard to make Macbeth seem infinitely more interesting and complex than it actually is.