Jessel August Costa III EngLit1900: Junior Seminar: Macbeth Professor Susan Smith January 23, 2008 Inversion

and Power in Shakespeares Macbeth Of all the ambiguities in Shakespeares Macbeth, perhaps the most interesting is the way in which power is distributed throughout the play. The main concern of the present examination is to uncover how, to what extent, and to whom this aforementioned power is distributed. Primarily, the focus will rest on Lady Macbeth and the Witches the plays female influences. These influences, while not directly acting in all of the plays murders (that is, none of the abovementioned characters actually kill any of the other characters in the play) I will argue drive the plays actions more than any other character. While Macbeth is typically seen as the plays agent of ambition, I will argue that, in fact, ambition, as well as the power to produce the means to that ambitions end, lie not within Macbeth, but in his wife and the witches. To begin, I will visit Kenneth Muirs article, Image and Symbol in Macbeth. In said, Muir discusses the use of infant imageryas well as other prominent images, such as those of light and darkness throughout the play, and follows this through the use of specific quotations. Insofar as the images of babies are concerned, Muir focuses largely on quotations of Lady Macbeth taken from early in the play, and makes the point that these particular quotes use the child to symbolize "pity, and the necessity for pity" and that mothers milkin those quotations that deal with breast-feedingsymbolizes "humanity, tenderness, sympathy, natural human feelings, the sense of kinship, all of which", he claims, "have been outraged by the murders". As I read it, Muir argues that Macbeth and Lady Macbeth,

through the use of these images in connection with their bloody act of regicideas well as Lady Macbeths hypothetical act of infanticideviolate humanity, tenderness, human kindness, et cetera, and ultimately upset the natural order of the play. Once inverted, Lady Macbeth and the witches gain poweras women, and in the witches case, supernatural demons, they would have been lower than Macbeth on the Chain of Being, however, upon inversion, they receive higher status, and as such, allow for a number of crossed typical gender-boundaries. For this discussion, I will also consult the readings

of Joan Larsen Klein and Diane Purkiss, as well as some historical documents. In the readings of Klein and Purkiss, I do not believe that Lady Macbeth, or the witches; have been properly situated as the primary sources of agency that they truly are throughout the play. Lady Macbeths characterization as a terrible, insane mother (Klein) and the witches categorization as cinematic commodity or sooth-sayer (Purkiss) do not pay proper attention to the full scope of these characters influence, autonomy, or agency in the plays actions/events. While I do not take issue with Purkiss view of the witches (in and of themselves) I do have a problem with the way, as she points out, images of witches and witchcraft have been appropriated by those in power for political ends. With this in mind, I will seek to reclaim some of Macbeths power and influence for these characters, because it is ultimately my contention that the plays actions do not rise and fall with the character of Macbeth, but rather, it is Lady Macbeth and the witches that serve as the primary agents. Though Macbeth does carry out the physical acts of murder (in some cases) in the playor has those acts carried out in his stead in the cases of the Macduff family and BanquoI would argue that, without Lady Macbeths ambition, and without the witches incendiary inspiration, he would not have done so.

Beginning with Muirs article, Image and Symbol in Macbeth, I would like to point to an incredibly important aspect of baby imagery that has been somewhat ignored: the idea of motherhood. Muir is incredibly interested in the image of the baby and the nurturing thereof (the quotations dealing with breast-feeding), however, he seems to ignore an aspect that is central to any discussion of babies or childhood, and that is, the discussion of the parent(s)in this case, the mother. I believe that it is this aspect of the image that is the most important, especially to any discussion of Lady Macbeth as a figure of power, autonomy, and influence in the play. I would like to pick up on the second quotation that Muir uses in his article. In it, Lady Macbeth evokes the image of a child in an attempt to incite her husband to stay firm in his resolve to expedite his political rise. Lady Macbeth declares, I have given suck, and know/ how tender tis to love the babe that milks me/ I would, while it was smiling in my face/ have pluckd my nipple from his boneless gums,/ and dashd the brains out, had I so sworn as you/ have done to this (1.7.54-59). There are two incredibly important aspects of this quotation: first, one must notice the way in which this image depicts Lady Macbeth as a woman, wife, and mother, and second, with the aforementioned in mind, one must notice, as Muir points out, that Lady Macbeth is denying her real nature (Muir 255) as a woman. Here, if one is to focus on the mother/child aspect of this image, one will notice that the effect of the image is incredible. Muir notes that Shakespeare may have noticed in the general description of the manners of Scotland included in Holinsheds Chronicles that every Scotswoman would take intolerable pains to bring up and nourish her own children (Muir 254). Clearly Lady Macbeths actions in the play run directly counter to this conception of how

the typical Scotswomancertainly a royal Scotswomanprizes her children, and Shakespeare uses them for a very dramatic purpose (Muir 255). Lady Macbeth is literally dashing the brains out of her own motherhood, thus sublimating her "womanhood" or femininity, thereby increasing her ability to attain power in the context of the play. This is to say that, because Lady Macbeth is a woman, she has been proscribed a natural, primary, societal rolethat of a motherand in dashing the babys brains out, she is literally doing the opposite of what it is that her natural roleor the common conceptions thereofdictates, that is, to preserve the life of her child by any means necessary. Therefore, in the act of dashing out the babys brains, Lady Macbeth disassociates herself from the image of motherhood. Furthermore, this is one of the plays many early examples of inversion. From the plays first lines, Shakespeare brings up the idea of inverting the worlds natural order this can be seen as early as the witches chant of fair is foul and foul is fairand at no point in the play is there a more clear inversion of nature than the quotation of Lady Macbeth being discussed above. Again, the idea of dashing out the brains of a child is the antithesis of what it is to be a traditionally good mother, more, Lady Macbeth is inverting one of the most fundamental and necessary parts of nature, that is, reproduction and nurturing of offspring. In this quotation, Lady Macbeth effectively places (in terms of importance or priority) her ambition to be queen higher than her natural human call to motherhood. I will posit that it is this toying with nature that ultimately leads to the destruction of the Macbeth family as a whole. Both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth chose to engage in activity that was contrary to their traditional station in naturee.g. a host kills his guests; a thane betrays his king; a woman/mother destroys her child for blind

ambitionthus, they seem to enter into a situation in which they are re-writing nature itself, and therefore, their deaths (that is Macbeth and Lady Macbeths deaths) are a way of righting the wrong that has been done to nature. With such a natural schism made, Lady Macbeth is able to take on actions that are traditionally viewed as masculine, and even, at times, seem to possess more masculine power, authority, and rationality than her husbandtake for example her steadfast adherence to the plot to make a king of her husband; her careful cleaning and concealment of the weapons used to kill Duncan; her actions when Macbeth sees Banquos ghost; et cetera. The reason for such a schism, as I see it, is also to allow the reader view Lady Macbeth as something other than traditionally feminine, as something other than a traditional womanfor the acts in the play (deception and murder as a tool to gain social stature) are not seen as traditionally feminine, and thus, bring with them a fear of female autonomy/power in a society that did not necessarily welcome the aforementioned. In separating Lady Macbeth from the traditional view of the matronly female, Shakespeare is able to allay a fear that women are capable of such power and autonomy as Lady Macbeth demonstrates throughout the play by suggesting that Lady Macbeth exists outside of conventional womanhood, that is, she is somehow woman and not woman simultaneously. To this end, also consider a direct quote from her husband, that Lady Macbeth would be best to bring forth men-children only,/ for thy undaunted mettle should compose/ nothing but males (1.7.72-74). Here, Macbeth is literally saying that her courage, her ambition, her mettle is that of a man; further even, that she is, herself so full of this masculine mettle, that even her children must be male.

I also believe that this is one of the reasons that Shakespeare did not chose to bequeath (directly and explicitly in the text as it is offered) a child to Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, as this would greatly complicate the aforementioned reading of Lady Macbeth. Succinctly, a child would, in and of itself, support the normative role of Lady Macbeth as a typical female and mother of the time, thus, taking away fromif not completely destroyingthe autonomy and power afforded her by the abovementioned inversions. Not to mention, a child of the Macbeths would only further problematize the monarchical descent that follows Macbeths death and ultimately leads to the reign of the sons of Banquo. Moving now to Joan Larsen Kleins article, The Womans Part, I will attempt to further break away from an interpretation of Lady Macbeth as maternal and irrational and, instead, show through many of the same examples invoked by Klein, that Lady Macbeth actually abandons her own maternity and also clearly demonstrates her rationality throughout the play. Further, I would like move past these examples of what Lady Macbeth is not (not a good mother, not typical of 16th century female) to those examples of what she is: ambitious, rational, and powerful. I would like to focus, first, on he claims made in Kleins article that Lady Macbeth typifies the passive female in sixteenth century society, because, as the discussion above indicates, I believe that Lady Macbeths power rises from her abandonment of her traditional gender roles. Klein counters this line of thought by making constant reference to Lady Macbeths female traits as evidence that she cannot possibly be a driving force for action and power in the play; however, one example that she uses heavily in her article, when closely examined, reveals the opposite to be true,

and actually demonstrates Lady Macbeths sheer ambition and lust for powerespecially when it is accrued by spilling the blood of the innocent. Klein specifically cites Lady Macbeths dialogue from Act 1, Scene 7 (typed in full above), and in said passage, Klein argues, Lady Macbeth demonstrates her human kindness and maternal love; further, that Lady Macbeth knows how tender tis to love the babe that milks her (Klein 245). This is, however, the same passageKlein chose to end her quotation mid-paragraphin which Lady Macbeth declares that she would dash the self-same babys brainsagain, the passage ends with I would, while it was smiling in my face,/ Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums,/ and dashed the brains out, had I sworn as you/ have done to this (1.7.54-59). I do not believe that, taken as a whole, this quotation can be seen as Lady Macbeths traditional, feminine gentility. Clearly, the argument must be made that this is an assertion of the power of Lady Macbeths resolve, and returns to the points made above about the connection (or lack thereof) between Lady Macbeth and ideas of typical motherhood of the time. Also, regarding the cleaning of her hands and general attention to detail surrounding the murders, Klein sees these actions as proof-positive that Lady Macbeth is irrational, even crazy; however, to me these are, in fact, instances of her rationality at work, and further, in these same scenes, one will see Macbeth as infirm of purpose. Take, for example, her actions immediately following the Death of Duncan. While Macbeth is hallucinating, seeing daggers that do not exist, and hearing cries of sleep no more, Lady Macbeth is busy with the task at hand. Lady M: Who was it that thus cried? Why, worthy thane. You do unbend your noble strength to think So brainsickly of things. Go get some water,

And wash this filthy witness from your hand. Why did you bring these daggers from the place? They must lie there. Go carry them and smear The sleepy grooms with blood. Macbeth: Ill go no more. I am afraid to think what I have done. Look ont again I dare not Lady M: Infirm of purpose! Give me the daggers. The sleeping and the dead Are but as pictures; tis the eye of childhood That fears a painted devil. If he do bleed, Ill gild the faces of the grooms withal. For it must seem their guilt. (2.2.47-59) Lady Macbeth methodically carries out her role in the plot to murder her king, as well as the subsequent cover-up (in the washing of the daggers and frame-up of the servants after the Duncan murder), all while Macbeth nearly falls apart under the pressure of the deed actually, as seen in the quotation above, Macbeth does, to some degree, fall apart at the seems, actually refusing to finish out the entirety of the murderous task that he undertook. As mentioned, Macbeth sees visions, hears voices, all the while, Lady Macbeths actions are those of a woman who, to put it in the most simple terms, does not want to be caught. I fail to see such actions as irrational, rather, if anything, I would deem such careful attention to detail as super-rationalafter all, it was not Macbeths idea to clean the daggers, fresh with the blood of their king, nor was it his brainchild to create suspicion around his (Duncans) guards. Later in the play, as Lady Macbeth begins to walk in her sleepor to mime washing her hands in her sleepKlein points to overwhelming guilt and remorse as the catalyst for her fall into madness and states, remorse and guilt finally overtake Lady Macbethindeed, Lady Macbeths preparations for and clearing up after Duncans murder become a frightening perversion of Renaissance womans domestic activity

(Klein 245). Again, I see this part of the play much differently than Klein. While I would agree that Lady Macbeths actions can be read as a frightening perversion of Renaissance womans domestic activityId say that this is another way of phrasing the points made above about Lady Macbeths status as a motherI do not see any sense of overwhelming guilt in her actions. Lady Macbeth is strong, purposeful, and knowledgeable of that which must be done to ensure her and her husbands safety. Insofar as the washing of her hands is concerned, Lady Macbeth, now less involved in her husbands actionsas she becomes a smaller part of the later murdersrecreates, if only in a subconscious state, the actions of the primary murder, that of Duncan, in which Lady Macbeth had an incredibly active role. Washing her hands in this late scene can be seen as mirroring the washing of the hands and daggers immediately following the murder of Duncan, and as an attempt by Lady Macbeth to wash her hands of or purify the later murders. It is at this point that it must be noted that only the plays first murder was bereft of complications. If one were to follow the course of the deaths from Duncan to the Macbeth, one would surely notice that as Lady Macbeths role is diminished, the murders become less and less acts of clear and concise planning and more and more acts of senseless violence and/or careless execution. As mentioned, Lady Macbeths role in the murder of Duncan is a large one. Not only does she become heavily active in the planning thereof, but she also takes on additional responsibilities once Macbeth is unable to proceed any farther in his own actions. Consider now the murder of Banquo, in which Lady Macbeth had a much less active roleshe was not present, nor was she fully informed, at least not explicitly in the text as she was with the Duncan murder, of

Macbeths plans. The group of assassins sent by Macbeth to execute both Banquo and his son, Fleance, fail to complete their task; only managing to kill Banquothe worst foreseeable circumstance, as the ultimate goal was to ensure that Fleance would not gain the Scottish throne, something that the death of Banquo would certainly not accomplish. Further, consider the murder of the Macduff family in which Lady Macbeth had no real role whatsoever. First and foremost, this murder seems to be nothing more than a senseless act of violence, as there are no prophecies and/or no harmful consequences for the Macbeth family involved in the slaying of an innocent wife and child. One also not help but notice that, once Lady Macbeth has died, Macbeth suffers a similar fate upon the very next occasion of violence. He says it himself, she should have died hereafter (5.5.17). Clearly this demonstrates Lady Macbeths importance to and intelligence involving the plays primary murder, and offers an explanation as to why the latter attempts are less successful. The above should come as no surprise if one considers the plays first act. Briefly, Macbeth is greeted by the witches, given his newest title (a testament to the witches prophecies), and sends word home to his wife immediately thereafter. The tone of Macbeths letterin which he details some of what has happened to himis knowing and joyous. The king-to-be seems assured in the word of the witches, that is, he seems reasonably convinced thatbecause of their previous knowledge of his appointment to thane of Cawdortheir predictions will come true. Consider the closing passage from Macbeths letter, read aloud by Lady Macbeth: this have I thought good to deliver thee, my dearest partner in greatness, that thou mightst not lose the dues of rejoicing by being ignorant of what greatness is promised thee. Lay it to thy heart, and farewell (1.5.10-

12). In this quotation, one has evidence of Macbeths certainty of the witches prophecies; he makes sure that his wife not lose even the happiness of the modest amount of time it would take for him to deliver the news by hand, and further, he instructs her to lay this news to her heart, too keep it, to treasure it. Surely Macbeth, if he were not convinced that the actualization of the witches prophecies were undoubtedly forthcoming, would not have written in such a way to his wife, would not have set his dearest partner in greatness up for a potential disappointment if, in fact, he did not become king. The point should then follow that nowhere in this letter does Macbeth show the slightest need, inclination, or desire to kill the present king and expedite his own reign. As above, he seems certain of his eventual fate and is content to wait it out. Lady Macbeth, on the other hand, in her first true lines (she speaks, but only to read Macbeths letter aloud earlier in the scene, these are her first autonomous words) in the play, has already turned her mind to nefarious deeds. The first few lines of her soliloquy is essential if one is to argue, as I am, that Lady Macbeth and the witches are the primary agents for action in the play.

Lady M:Glamis thou art, and Cawdor, and shalt be What thou art promised. Yet do I fear thy nature; It is too full o th milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way. Thou wouldst be great, Art not without ambition, but without The illness should attend it (1.5. 13-18) There are a multitude of things to point out in this passage. First, one must notice the way in which Lady Macbeth, too seems certain of Macbeths eventual rise to kingship, as is evidenced in the first two lines above. Her only concern, however, is that Macbeth

does not possess the appropriate initiative to accelerate the process toward the aforementioned. Next, one must pay close attention to the use of the words milk of human kindness. To begin, this can be seen to revisit the idea of inversion and an inverted chain of being. If, as it has been suggested, that the natural order of things has been turned upside-down, it would follow that, in fact, Macbeth would be the one predisposed to kindness and sympathy, to milk. Indeed, the very use of milk in this passage speaks again to claims made in Muirs article that milk symbolizes humanity, tenderness, sympathy, natural human feelings, the sense of kinship (Muir 255). Put simply, the inversion of nature would justify Macbeth as having the metaphorical milk and likewise Lady Macbeths masculine lust for power via violenceand as such, surely not the mastermind of a plot to overthrow his king. It was not only Lady Macbeth that planted the seed from which the plays murders would sprout, but it must be argued that Lady Macbeth was also the lone gardener. Take for example, the plays first conversation between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. Macbeth: My dearest love, Duncan comes here tonight. Lady M: And when goes hence? Macbeth: Tomorrow, as he purposes. Lady M: Oh, never sun shall that morrow see! Your face, my thane, is as a book where men May read strange matters. To beguile the time, Look like the time; bear welcome in your eye, Your hand your tongue. Look like th innocent flower, But be the serpent undert. *** Macbeth: We will speak further. Lady M: Only Look up clear. To alter favor ever is to fear.

Leave all the rest to me (1.5.58-71). Again, one should notice that it is Lady Macbeth that immediately steers the conversation towards unpleasant topics. Without explicitly making an order for Macbeth to kill Duncan, Lady Macbeth has told her husband that, first, Duncan shall never again see the light of day, second, that he (Macbeth) must learn how to lie, and lie very well, third, that he must become snake-like, and finally, that he must leave all else to her. All of the aforementioned are spoken with commanding verbslook, leave, beand while this may not seem like the most important linguistic aspect to pick up on, it must be noted that Lady Macbeth is giving the ordersessentially, wearing the pants. I would direct attention back to the discussion of the inversions of nature and the chain of being, in this case, considering the fact that the woman/wife in this situation is the one that is, again, bloodthirsty and power-hungry, but also commanding, straight-forward, and authoritative. Furthermore, there is no textual evidence of Macbeths involvement in any of the planning stages of the murder of Duncan. When Lady Macbeth gives the directive to leave all the rest to me [sic], Macbethinsofar as the text is concernedtruly does as he is told. In the conversations between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth up until the time of the murders, Lady Macbeth is the only one of the two to speak of any details thereof. More than just the idea, further than the planning, Lady Macbeth is also the sole motivator all Duncans murder. Look first at Macbeths soliloquy to begin Act 1, Scene 7. Here he weighs his potential actions, but rather than offer a comparison of whys to why nots, Macbeths language is doubtful, afraid. The word but resounds, and forces one to notice Macbeths hesitance and indecision. His reasons to go against his wifes directives were numerousI am his kinsman and his subjecthath borne his faculties

so meek, hath been/ so clear in his great office (1.7.13-18)but his reasons to kill the king were nowhere to be found. When Lady Macbeth enters, Macbeth immediately peppers her with questions; scared, unsure of what to do, inclined towards inaction. Once the time has come for Macbeth to go through with the deed, he refuses to go on. Lady Macbeth is forced to take loud, forceful, catalytic action. Lady M: Was the hope drunk Wherein you dressed yourself? Hath it slept since? And wakes it now to look so green and pale At what it did so freely? From this time Such I account thy love. Art thou afeard To be the same in thine own act and valor As thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have that Which thou esteemst the ornament of life, And live a coward in thine own esteem, Letting I dare not wait upon I would, Like the poor cat i th adage Macbeth: Prithee, peace! I dare do all that become a man; Who dares do more is none. Lady M: What beast wast, then, That made you break this enterprise to me? When you durst do it, then you were a man; And to be more than what you were, you would Be so much more the man. Nor time, nor place Did then adhere, and you would make both. They have made themselves, and that their fitness now Does unmake you. Here, Lady Macbeth directly incites her husband to action. Her words are strong, direct and forceful. There are a few sections in particular that warrant further discussion. First, Lady Macbeth directly questions his ambition and desire, furthermore, she does so in a string of phrases that portray Macbeth as duplicitous. That is, Lady Macbeths first section of text (and even Macbeths response follows the trend) shows Macbeth as, on one hand, a man of far-reaching ambitions and goals, but on the other hand, a man of

crippling indecision. I would like to make the point again that nowhere in the text is there an indication of this bad side of Macbeth, and I would argue that, if anything, this side is Lady Macbeth. Next, one must return again to the idea of inversions of nature and the great chain of being. Lady Macbeth, in her second section of text above, suggests that Macbeth is not a man, but a beast. There are comments made by both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth about becoming more of a man, less of a man, or no man at all. All of these play with the natural order of things, and all point back to this familiar topic. And what is to be made of the witches? The witches, like Lady Macbeth, offer a view of women that is not typical of the time of the play, and they also draw upon a large quarry of supernatural loreand should stand, as Lady Macbeth has done, to benefit from and inversions of the great chain of being, as witches are not high on the chain. One way of viewing the witches positions them as the focus of spirituality in the play, thus, making them gods in a senseand Macbeth and Banquo the prophets or figureheads for major religions. This claim is made considering the lack of religious figures in the playa doctor visits Lady Macbeth when she is ill, but no priest; there are no religious figures of any type present, and this stands in a bit of contrast with most of Shakespeares other works, so one must believe that this was an intentional construction. Also, there is the fact that the witches are the sources of all supernatural knowledge in the pay. They are the seemingly omniscent, possibly omnipotent forces that are followed blindly by Macbeth and Banquo. In this line of thinking, Macbeth and Banquo serve, as manifestations of popular religious thought about how it is that one attains heaventhe Kingdom of God is juxtaposed with the Kingdom of Scotland. Banquo, here seemingly representing

Protestantism, accepts the witches decree as predetermined, and he acts accordingly until his death. Banquo does not, as Macbeth, the Catholic representation, actively pursue his fate. An interesting point to consider here is that when Macbeth, later in the play, becomes more passive in his relationship with the witches, specifically when he speaks to the witches regarding his eventual demise, is when he becomes vulnerable. This reading takes on another layer when one considers the fate/free will conversation. Essentially, with Macbeth as the Catholic representative in the play, he would also represent free will. Likewise, with Banquo as the Protestant representativeas Calvinist predestination is a major tenant of most, if not all Protestant denominationshe would represent fate or determinism. Thus, with the witches situated as Gods and Macbeth and Banquo situated within their respective religions, one will notice that a wider commentary begins to emerge. If the witches are given the power of this reading, it would further reinforce the idea of an inverted chain of being. Again, with the witches so near the bottom of the chain of beingas evil, as super-natural, as womenany inversion would reposition them at or near the top. Further, if the witches are in fact the plays gods, then they have all the while been leading Macbeth to his own demise and Banquo to his. With the inverted chain, evil and not good would occupy the top position, and anarchy not political stability would ruleas it does at the plays end. If one is uncomfortable with affording the witches so much power as is suggested above, then the witches can serve the function of sooth-sayer in the play. As such, the witches are essentially leading Macbeth to his fate with only the smallest suggestion. This seems to be a reading that even Banquo could have supported, as one can see in his

text immediately following his and Macbeths encounter with the witches. Banquo warns Macbeth that, oftentimes to win us to our harm,/ The instruments of darkness tell us truths,/ Win us with honest trifles, to betrays/ In deepest consequence (1.3.124-126). The first thing to notice is how eerie a prediction Banquo has made. In fact, the idea is a reasonable one when considering the actions directly following. Macbeth immediately sends notice of these predictions to his wife, complete with the honest trifles of Glamis and Cawdor; Lady Macbeth wastes no time in taking the action from there. Yet another way of explaining the witches is discussed in the article Macbeth and the All-singing, All-dancing Plays of Jacobean Witch-vogue by Diane Purkiss. Here, it is suggested that the witches, appropriated by James I are, in fact, little more than props, used as a commodity; the plays action does not rise nor does it fall with the witches in this scenario, because their power has ultimately been stripped by James I. An example of such stripping of power is given in the Purkiss article, in the real-life case of Agnes Thompson. An accused witch, Thompson was made to act out her own behavior, to turn the case against her into a theatrical event, to transform a tune which might have been freighted with occult significance into a pastime for a ruler (Purkiss 217). This points, however, to the very influence that James I wishes to censure. The mere fact that James I would consciously position this witch as an entertaining commodity in order to lessen her societal impact suggests that there must be a wide-spread belief in witches that Thompsons activity might, in some way, incite. Ultimately, James I would not intentionally demystify the witches if they did not pose a threat to begin with, and if they pose a threat, they must first, have power.

One cannot ignore the cultural component of this issue. Purkiss demonstrates that witches were a real issue in the time of Macbeth, and this is evidenced in many of the writings on the subject from the late 1500s and early 1600s to present scholarship. For example, there was an Act against Conjuration, Witchcraft, and Dealing with Evil and Wicked Spirits published in 1604 by the king of England. In said act, the king stripped from the citizenry the ability to practice, use or exercise of witchcraft, enchantment, charm, or sorcery (Carroll 328). The penalty for witchcraft was one year in prison, with intermittent time spent confessing ones unlawful acts to the entirety of his/her town in the public square. This points to a wider cultural acceptance of the existence of witches and of the general power associated therewith. Furthermore, Purkiss article points to the widespread acceptance of the truth of these prophecies as indicative of their (the witches) commodification and diminished importance in the play; however, I would argue that the high cultural believability of these real-world witches would only increase the importance of their counterparts in Macbeth. Evidence of this can be found in historical accounts of witches prophecies, such as the following written by Francis Bacon in 1625:

There was also another prophesy before the year of eighty-eight, which I do not well understand: here shall be seen upon a day,/ Between the Baugh and the May,/ The black fleet of Norway./ When that is come and gone,/ England build houses of lime and stone,/ For after wars shall you have none. It was generally conceived to be meant of the Spanish fleet that came in eighty-eight, for

that the king of Spains surname, as they say, is Norway (Norton 343).

Though Bacon and others go on to say that these prophesies cannot be believed because they are the work of the devil, and thus, should not be trusted, it does not discount the fact that these prophesies were an enormous part of culture, and if anything, the very existence of doctrines that preach against the evils of witchcraft and prophesy, in and of itself, suggests that a problem exists, for which this doctrine is the cure. The cure, however, is often seen as unrelated to the sickness insofar as the treatment of these witches is concerned. That is, many sawand continue to seethe treatment of witches as symptomatic of a wider concern for female power and autonomy in society. The treatment of real-world witches, like that detailed above in the case of Agnes Thompson, can be seen as a direct reaction to the idea of a burgeoning female autonomy. Feminine agency in art, literature, political speech, and sexuality among others was seen as cause for patriarchal concern and so, was removed via the widespread killing of women under the umbrella term of witch. Consulting the article Womens Madness: Mysogyny or Mental Illness? By Jane Ussher ,one will see the aforementioned remedy detailed historically.

Whilst persecution of individual witches is part of womens history within patriarchy, the organized witch trials which are commonplace, if not endemic, in Europe and North America from the late fourteenth century until the seventeenth century were notably different from individual persecutions which may have gone before. The trials have been seen as the embodiment of a hatred of women, organized and ritualized through patriarchal

dictate, resulting in the torture and death of millions of women under the catch-all term witch: the ultimate in misogynistic annihilation (Ussher 43). The witches are seen as a threat to god and church, they are viewed as an other and a scapegoat. This type of wide-spread hatred, again, must rise from fear. If not a fear of the witches power, then a fear of what their power might represent to the millions of other women in societynot to mention the patriarchal structure of the same. This is why, explains Ussher, witches have always been women, in reality and in imagination: as have the mad (Ussher 43). It is an easy way to provide a scapegoat for national problems and turmoil, but more importantly, it gives the reigning patriarchy control over the ever-growing female populationfor, to establish one as a witch is to make a suspect of the group as a whole. To close, this examination of Shakespeares Macbeth rises and falls with the power, autonomy, and influence of both Lady Macbeth and the witches. Lady Macbeth, through multiple inversions of the great chain of being is able to gain ultimate control of the plays actions, if only for a short amount of time. This is clearly demonstrated in her interactions with her husband, as well as the image of her as an agent of infanticide. Furthermore, through the same natural inversion, the witches, likewise gain positions of power and influence in the play. Whether they are viewed as one of two polar extremes (either unchecked power as deities or no technical power whatsoever as sooth-sayers) or as representations of the hatred of an entire gender, the fact remains, that they were an incredibly important and long-standing cultural component, and should share some of that cultural currency in the play.

Works Cited

Klein, Joan L. "Lady Macbeth "Infirm of Purpose"" The Woman\'s Part: Feminist Criticism of Shakespeare: 240-251. Muir, Kenneth. "Image and Symbol in Macbeth." Shakespeare Survey 19 (1966): 45-54. Purkiss, Diane. "Macbeth and the All-Singing, All-Dancing Plays of Jacobean WitchVogue." Shakespeare, Feminism, and Gender (2001): 216-230. Ussher, Jame. "Witchcraft -- Wickedness or Woman Hatred." Women\'s Madness: Misogyny or Mental Illness? (1991): 42-61.