Macbeth vs Hitler?

Macbeth is described as a tyrant in the play, and that got me pondering the connections between Macbeth and the real world. When you think about a tyrant in real life, who comes to mind? Personally, I think of Hitler right off the bat. I started to wonder if there could be any connections between the actions of Macbeth and the actions of Hitler, and if so, I'd need to do some major life reevaluation, because I didn't think that Macbeth was honestly that bad, so maybe if I can relate him to Hitler, I'll hate him more.

After the help of a bit of research, I noticed that Hitler and Macbeth actually do share a few similarities. They both started out as noble soldiers in battle, first off. They also both had a thirst for power that drove them to do immoral things, such as kill all those in their way. However, they both had different ideologies for why they wanted to be in power. Hitler, though going about it entirely wrong, wanted to serve his country. Macbeth merely wanted to serve himself. Another difference was in their tactics - Hitler was actually smart and could think for himself, whereas Macbeth rode on the coattails of his wife's cunning mind. Hitler also achieved numerous things for his country, and Macbeth had no plans to help his country. He only wanted to help himself.

So, as of right now, Macbeth seems like a shady little cockroach, and Hitler actually seems like he knows what he's doing and has a plan for the future. However, when faced with death, Macbeth steps forward and battles his enemies in a final display of courage. Hitler, like a coward, kills himself in a really pathetic manner so as to not face his horrible crimes. So, though these two people were rather similar, it seems Hitler was smarter but more of a coward, and Macbeth was generally stupid but would not step back from his fate. I still feel like Macbeth wasn't really that bad. I mean, mass genocide versus a few deaths... Yeah, it's clear Macbeth isn't all that bad here.

How accurate is Macbeth?

The tragic play of Macbeth is arguably one of Shakespeare's best works in the eyes of critics. It's a story based on the events of past history about a man driven insane by his own ambition, which has parallels to real life events. However, even knowing this, that doesn't mean that it's a perfect retelling of history itself. In fact, Shakespeare got a whole lot of facts wrong! First of all, Macbeth did have a legitimate claim to the Scottish throne. He was the son of a grandson of King Malcolm II, and was the cousin of Duncan. In Macbeth, Duncan is thought to be a strong ruler, but in real life, he only ruled for six years and his forces were defeated often, so he wasn't seen as being very strong. Macbeth did kill Duncan, but not in the way of the play. Instead, he defeated him in battle. Macbeth then ruled for seventeen years, only finally being killed in a battle by Malcolm III. As for Lady Macbeth, she was real, but there was little known about her. We do know that her name was Gruoch, though, so that's a thing. Finally, Banquo and Macduff were likely fictional and only added into the play to make it more interesting of a plot. So, Shakespeare - what gives? Well, I guess you can excuse him. It's more interesting in the play, honestly!

This thing's FULL of sins!

That's right, I'm talking about the seven deadly sins! In order for a villain to really be evil, they've got to have at least one of the seven deadly sins going for them, right? In the case of Macbeth, there are many sins present, and not all of them are Macbeth's own sins. For example, out of the seven sins of lust, greed, pride, gluttony, sloth, wrath, and envy, there are a total of five sins present in the play. These are lust, greed, pride, wrath, and envy. Lust is the least present, but it's still mentioned in there when Malcolm is testing Macduff. He says that he has insatiable lust for women, and that he sucks because of that, basically. That's about all there is for lust, but it's still in the play, so I'm counting it. For greed, Malcolm also says he has terrible greed, but he's not alone there. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are clearly greedy, and they are also envious as well. They are both greedy for the throne and envy the power that Duncan currently holds, hence why they murder the king to get the throne for themselves. As for pride, Lady Macbeth pushes Macbeth forward by wounding his pride, calling him feminine and weak in order to get him to do what she wants. Finally, wrath is a very obvious sin within the play, as Macbeth goes around murdering people. He also gets rather wrathful with the witches for doing what they did to him, and he screams "Filthy hags!" at them, which makes it obvious that he struggles with the sin of wrath. Wow, these characters sure are flawed, huh?

Is Macbeth a psychopath?

Many tend to go straight to calling Macbeth a psychopath whenever they talk about him and his infamous murders, but is that really a true statement? I don't think so. A psychopath is someone who needs stimulation. They are people who create a fake identity to further their goals and get what they want in life, and they are people who will stop at nothing to achieve said goals. They lack empathy and remorse, are charismatic and fake to anyone and everyone they meet, and can form themselves into whoever they want to be to please their prey, like a black spider sitting in the middle of a beautifully spun silver web, waiting for an entranced fly to come along and get stuck. Taking these factors into account, though, you come to see that Macbeth is nothing like a psychopath! Where psychopaths feel no guilt, Shakespeare's Macbeth is all about guilt. The guilt is what drives Macbeth to continue down his own path of misguided evil, driving him to the brink of sanity and causing him to commit the murders that people would assume would link him to psychopathy. So, in my opinion, Macbeth is not a psychopath. Macbeth is a good man turned evil by ambition, then driven insane by regret; don't go around calling him a psychopath, because he is a much more complicated and in-depth character than that.

Is justice served?

Is justice truly served at the end of Macbeth? Honestly, I'm not really certain it is. Sure, Macbeth dies in the end as everyone wanted, but the issue is, the damage Macbeth caused has already sunk in for good. He has killed people, and the scars of his actions will wound people even long after his actual death. For example, the kingdom will suffer due to the unstability of having a great king, to a bad king, to no king. Though Banquo's son, Fleance, is the rightful owner to the throne, it isn't for certain how or when he comes back. Another type of damage is the damage that Duncan's death put onto his people. They will likely be more untrusting after the death of their beloved king, and that will last for decades. Finally, there is the personal emotional pain that Macbeth left on people such as Macduff and Fleance. To have your family murdered, especially right in front of you, is a gruesome reminder that the world is a cruel, cruel place, and it's full of cruel and disgustng people. Though Macbeth died, I don't believe that justice was actually served. Justice is never served in the event of murder; evil is only stopped, never corrected.

So many types of power!

What do you think of when you hear "powerful"? I think of a lot of types of power, and strangely enough, most of those types of power actually show themselves in Macbeth. For example, Macbeth is shown to be physically powerful. He kills people with ease, and he even holds the throne after killing Duncan, but he lacks other types of power, such as emotional power. Lady Macbeth holds emotional power. She is able to lie and manipulate others to her will through her use of strong words, and though her body is not physically powerful, she is able to influence others through emotions alone without having to act on anything herself. A third type of power shown in Macbeth is the leaderly power Duncan had while he was ruling Scotland. With so many people who adore you following your every command, it's clear that you have the power of leadership on your side. Banquo holds power over Macbeth because their friendship is strong enough to haunt Macbeth after his death, too - there's just so many types of power present in Macbeth!

"Macbeth is gay." - Mr. Bryson, 9:55 AM, 12/7/18

Listen. Macbeth is gay. It's true, there's so much evidence. Truth be told, I didn't think of this until it came out of Mr. Bryson's mouth, but Macbeth is definitely gay, and there's totally a whole lot of evidence to point to this fact. Let's break it down.

The first piece of evidence: Mr. Bryson said he was. You see, Mr. Bryson is our almighty ruler of all things Shakespeare. Where we are novices in reading Shakespeare, this man has studied it with his heart and soul. He has read this play over and over again, analyzing it, deciphering its secrets, and he has found the answer at long last - Macbeth is totally gay.

The second piece of evidence: The relationship he has with the man he's gay for - that's right, it's Macbeth's very obvious tragic love for Duncan. You can see it in his eyes as he looks at the king. He adores him at the beginning of the play, serving him well as his thane. He fights battles for him, murdering people to protect his name and title. It's clear he adores him.

The third piece of evidence: The plot twist! When you least expect it, Macbeth must suddenly kill Duncan. Oh god, it's horrible. It's so tragic, and it's such a good plot twist for an angsty romantic tragedy. He has the initial thought of murdering Duncan, and how does he react? Well, it's clear - he's, as the cool kids say, 'shooketh'. He labels the thought as a dark, evil thought, and he clearly doesn't want to do it.

The fourth piece of evidence: How many times Macbeth refuses to kill Duncan. Macbeth is terrified of killing Duncan, which comes as no shock to anyone. How would you feel killing your crush? This is why Macbeth hesitates so many times! It's obvious! Lady Macbeth must push Macbeth into the murder, and even after he kills Duncan, he's horribly guilty and is eventually driven crazy by the paranoia afterward.

And finally: He has a man-wife. His wife is literally a man in a woman's body - he's always talking about her masculinity, her manliness, her... Baby-murdering fantasies. Lady Macbeth is definitely a replacement for the hole in Macbeth's heart that can't be filled by an actual man, considering he is not allowed to be gay in their society. It's all just so sad.

So, there you have it. Now we need to make them a ship name. Duncbeth? Muncan? Who knows. The ship will never sail... Rest in peace, Duncan. Macbeth misses you.

The point of no return!

What point is the point of no return in the tragedy of Macbeth, in terms of Macbeth actually being labeled as being insane? Well, the most obvious answer that someone would jump to would be the death of Duncan. After all, Duncan was the first one Macbeth murdered, and so people would probably assume it to be the point of no return. Macbeth has already committed a dark deed, and so he's done for, right? I wouldn't say that, though. I feel like rather than Duncan being the point of no return, the murder of Macduff's family is the point of no return for Macbeth. See, Duncan's death had a purpose, and that purpose was to further Macbeth's career and get him closer to his goals. It was meant to help Macbeth, but the murder of Macduff's family is simply cruel. They did absolutely nothing to Macbeth, and yet he gets them killed to hurt Macduff rather than simply going for Macduff himself. Lady Macduff even cries that she has done nothing to get in the way of Macbeth just before she is murdered, to make things worse, and it's true. She did nothing at all to hurt Macbeth or get in his way, and neither did her children. Forget Duncan's death, this has to be the point of no return for Macbeth - he's just killing people to kill people at this point in the play.

Macbeth isn't the real murderer.

I have a question. Who's really to blame for Duncan's death? It's a question that's hard to answer, to be honest. First, you have Macbeth. Macbeth is the man who physically followed a ghostly knife to Duncan, taking his life in his sleep in the most underhanded and dishonorable way possible. However, was he really to blame? There are so many factors as to why he killed Duncan, but none of them were truly because of him. Yes, he wanted to kill Duncan for the throne, because if you recall, he had the thought to kill Duncan soon after he was told that he could be the king of Scotland. However, Macbeth was afraid of murdering Duncan! If not for his wife, actually, he likely wouldn't have even gone through with it. Now, let's move on to the real murderer that we should be talking about, rather than a coward like Macbeth.

Lady Macbeth is a very deceptive and intelligent character, and though she wasn't the one to physically murder Duncan, she was the brains behind it all. She urged Macbeth into doing the deed each time Macbeth was uncertain of what he was doing. She made the plan to kill the king in his sleep. She rang the bell to give Macbeth the cue. She framed the guards when Macbeth was shaken from guilt following the murder. All of this points to the fact that Macbeth technically did not kill Duncan at all - instead, it was Lady Macbeth who killed Duncan. If Lady Macbeth did not exist in the first place, Duncan would likely never have died. After all, Macbeth questioned his own motives not once, but twice before he killed Duncan. He knew what he was doing was wrong, and if he had followed his own conscience and made his own decisions for himself, Duncan would probably not have died. Dang you, Lady Macbeth! You broke Macbeth. It's all your fault.

Macbeth could be the new "IT"...

I'm just going to say it; Macbeth would scare me in a theater. There's just this... Vibe. There have actually been a few movies based on Macbeth already made, but I don't think any of them were done with an actual horror theme in mind. I feel like it could really work if it was adapted into a horror theme, though! In good 'ol Mr. Bryson's class, for example, we began watching a movie based around Macbeth, and it was set in a modern war scenario. That's cool and all, but the real thing I'm focusing on is the witches in this movie. Though the movie isn't as high-budget as the new horror movies being created today, these witches are straight up TERRIFYING. I don't know what it is about them. Maybe it's the crazy jump cuts and grungy atmosphere, or maybe it's just the lines ripped straight from the play - Shakespeare puts his words very eloquently, and they translate very well into live action. They may seem a little confusing on paper, but when a witch is rasping them as she tears the still-beating heart out of a dying corpse, they hold a certain kind of weight to them that would do fantastic in a horror movie. I mean, come on, people! It's a tragic play, and it's full of murder, deception, and generally creepy characters. It has a plot to it that would go fantastically with the feelings of wariness and tension, it has the supernatural beings it needs to captivate the audience, and so much more... We just need a modern horror movie Macbeth. We neeeeeed it.

The influence of telling people their futures...

RUINS THEIR FUTURE.

Listen. 99.9% of the time in any movie, when you tell someone their future, what do they do? They either try their very hardest to avoid it, or they try to further themselves to their goal, right? Now, let me tell these people why they're stupid: YOU CANNOT CHANGE YOUR FUTURE! If you have some magical being telling you that you're going to die at midnight tomorrow, you have two options. You can either sit in your house and do what you normally do, pretending you never heard the news, but then you choke on your potato chips and die in your underwear while watching reruns of The Office. Your other option is actively avoiding dying at midnight through being overly careful and locking yourself in your room, but then you die of a heart attack (You should really stop eating potato chips. They give you high blood pressure.) because no one was able to get into your room due to you locking the door, which you could have avoided if you'd never heard the news. No matter what you do, if your fate says that something will happen, it's going to happen.

I feel like this was how it was in the case of Shakespeare's Macbeth. Would Macbeth have actually become a king if he'd never been told? Honestly, I doubt it. The witches were likely just pulling a prank on him - it was a sick, twisted joke, and they knew the outcome. Macbeth could have lived his life happily while being the thane and a trusted warrior serving under Duncan, then eventually would have maybe become the king naturally, but instead, he followed the word of some random chicks and killed his own chance at a happy life. He should have just been like Banquo, playing it cool and allowing his life to come to him. After all, it's his fate, right? If he chose to do nothing, he would have still become king if being king was his fate, because in that alternate universe in which he did nothing, he'd have somehow gotten the position as well. The point is, DON'T TRY AND CHANGE YOUR FATE. You can't run from it, even if you already know what's going to happen. 'Nuff said.

Which murder is worse: Banquo or Duncan?

Two men betrayed, two men murdered, and one culprit. Banquo and Duncan were Macbeth's allies in the beginning, with Duncan being the king that Macbeth did everything for, and Banquo being his ally and friend. And yet, all because of the witches and their dumb prophecy, both were doomed to be killed by Macbeth himself. However, I have a question. Which one is arguably a worse death? Is it Duncan, the king of Scotland and a person everyone respects and adores, or Banquo, Macbeth's own friend who simply saw too much? I feel like in a general sense, through the eyes of the people of Scotland, the king's death would have hit them harder. After all, everyone knew Duncan and loved him, and the reactions from the people who saw his corpse were less than pleasant. However, despite this, I feel like Banquo's death hit Macbeth himself way harder than Duncan's. Yes, Macbeth was horribly guilty after murdering Duncan - but after he murdered Banquo, the guy literally haunted his mind, manifesting as a ghost to Macbeth and making him have a breakdown in front of everyone at his dinner party. I feel like that's a pointer to Macbeth thinking, "Oh God, I killed my friend." I mean, how would you feel if you killed your own friend just because you were scared of what they would do? Would you react how Macbeth did, being haunted and afraid? I feel like I would... Banquo's got to be the worst death in Macbeth's opinion!

Death count! :D

I wanted to get a death count going for our good friend Macbeth, and better yet, I wanted to remember all the ways in which these nice folks died. After all, what's the fun in forgetting the good part of Macbeth? We've got to remember all the murder! Okay, so let's start.

First and foremost, Macbeth killed Macdonwald, right? Macdonwald was the leader of a rebel force, and for being against Duncan, Macbeth politely cuts him from his belly button all the way up to his jaw with a sword. Ouch, talk about savage. Though this first death was pretty barbaric, though, it was Macbeth's only honorable murder, as in he was fighting for the king and not for himself.

The second one to die to Macbeth was Duncan himself, the good old king of Scotland and a huge driving force of the plot. Duncan's death isn't hard to remember - he basically invited himself over to his own downfall, after all! With the help of Lady Macbeth's planning, Macbeth kills Duncan in his sleep, then blames the murder on the guards.

Funnily (Sadly?) enough, the next two to die are the king's guards! Pretending to be horrified and angered by Duncan's death, Macbeth goes and kills the guards ruthlessly. The plan was to make it seem like they did it, kill them, and get all the suspicion off of their shoulders, but unfortunately for the Macbeths, this only put more suspicion on them.

Macbeth's fifth victim was Banquo, Macbeth's own ally. However, technically, Macbeth did not kill Banquo himself. Instead, he hired murderers to do it, because Macbeth is a huge sissy. The murderers murder Banquo, but his son escapes, which is another major plot point in the play, considering the fact that Banquo's sons are to be kings for generations. Unfortunate, huh? Also, side note, this guy showed up as a ghost in Macbeth's house. I feel like he felt the worst about this one; after all, how would you feel to have to kill your own friend because he saw too much?

The sixth victim is more of a group. Lady Macduff and her family were the next to be slaughtered by Macbeth's word, and though he did not kill them himself, this one is truly in cold blood. Lady Macduff and the children did absolutely nothing to Macbeth, and yet he gets them killed because Macduff is a threat. It's horrible, and at this point, I feel like Macbeth has gone too far past his ambition. He's now at the edge of sanity.

Siward is Macbeth's seventh victim. He was in the final battle to kill Macbeth once and for all, and Macbeth easily killed him from the front just before his battle with Macduff. At least he wasn't backstabbed, right? He dies honorably in battle, so Macbeth at least tried to be slightly less terrible than usual. Good job, Macbeth. Proud of you.

Though Macbeth did not kill or want to kill Lady Macbeth, I feel like she should also be mentioned as the eighth victim to Macbeth's whims. If not for this whole Macbeth-being-king thing, she wouldn't have been driven to commit suicide due to her guilt of the whole murdering thing. So, I'm counting it here - you killed your own wife, Macbeth! Congrats.

Gender roles, gender shm'oles!

Thinking about it, Shakespeare didn't really follow the traditional gender roles in Macbeth, did he? Lady Macbeth was a very dominant character, and Macbeth... Well, he was way more sensitive and "girly" than I imagined he'd be. But you know, I think that's a good thing. If their roles had been swapped at the time of writing, I doubt readers of Macbeth would bat an eyelash. Men are always portrayed to be much more powerful than women in society, and if Shakespeare had gone the route of 'manipulative man uses his dominance to force a woman to do what he wants', I believe this story would have been much more bland in comparison to what we have now. A wife who is more intelligent and conniving than her husband, now that's a story! Anyway, moving on. Lady Macbeth kind of has this... Obsession with masculinity and femininity. She refers to breast milk as "human kindness", talks about being "unsexed" and wanting all of her own milk taken from her, and worst of all, she talks about killing babies. And I'm not even talking about some sissy way of killing babies, I mean she literally wants to bash a baby's skull into a wall. Talk about insane. She just... REALLY wants to be a man, it seems, because being a woman is just horrifying in her head. Which, yeah, I kind of get it. It sucks, not going to lie. You can get away with a whole lot more when you're a man than when you're a woman, and if she wants to star in the American drama, How to get Away with Murder, she needs to be a man, hands down. But still, killing babies? Talk about weird.

Just the birds.

Riddle me this. Why are there so many references to birds in Macbeth? It's like every time something bad is going to happen (or has already happened), there's some weird reference to a type of bird, and generally the type of the bird is always linked to a specific character. For example, Macbeth was always referred to as an owl. In quotes such as, "A falcon, towering in her pride of place, was by a mousing owl hawk'd at and kill'd.", that's totally referring to Duncan (a falcon) being killed by Macbeth (an owl). Isn't that weird? Then there's Lady Macbeth's many references to ravens and crows whenever she's planning something evil, such as "The raven himself is hoarse, that croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan under my battlements." The bird reference that sticks out in my head, though, is when Macduff cries out over his children and wife having been murdered. He calls them "all my pretty chickens", which is really quite sad. Shakespeare made a whole lot of connection to birds, and there's even more than this! Kites, geese, wrens, eagles... That's a bunch of birds. Maybe Shakespeare wanted to be a bird watcher. I don't know, could have been a passion of his. Side-job? We'll never find out.

I STRONGLY DISLIKE LADY MACBETH.

After reading this entire play, I have to say it. Lady Macbeth? Worst character. Hear me out - she sucks. That's the gist of it. ...Psh, no, I'm kidding. I'll actually say why I dislike her so much, and it's for a somewhat petty reason. I'm going to be honest, she's a great character. She has probably the most depth of any female character in any of Shakespeare's plays, because she shows how to be strong and ambitious, but she also has a sensitive side to balance out her personality. Her words are powerful, she's manipulative and dark, she's far more intelligent than Macbeth is, and generally, she's just a very intense character. She has a very clear character arc, too! She's not just meant to push Macbeth forward and then fade into the background; Lady Macbeth is meant to push her husband to kill out of love for him, but as she's shut out of his plans, she realizes that she has released a monster, which is a huge turning point in the story. Macbeth begins to kill innocent people without planning with Lady Macbeth, and the guilt of it all drives her to kill herself. She's a powerful character and is written extremely well. However, still, I hate her. See, I tend to dislike ramblers. My attention span is about the same level as a walnut's, and I can't sit there and listen to someone talk and talk and talk and NEVER STOP. I'll give her the credit, she's awesome as a written character! She just... Really isn't my cup of tea because of her grueling dialogue. Sorry, Lady Macbeth, but I'm kind of glad you're dead. R.I.P. Lady Macbeth.

Okay, I admit it. I was rooting for the wrong guy.

Whenever I read a story, I tend to of course get attached to whoever the main character is. Most people do, right? Well, in this case, the character I thought I was going to root for was Macbeth. Obviously, I see the title of Macbeth and I think that this is going to be a story about a great, good-hearted king who has to go through danger and problems to protect his title and yadda-yadda, king story stuff. That was, uh... Very far from the truth! Duncan is the kind of person I was expecting Macbeth to be, but instead, Macbeth turned out to be a murderer who couldn't think for himself, made horrible decisions because of peer pressure, didn't know how to deal with any sort of situation appropriately, and generally was a very, very flawed character. I just don't know how that makes me feel. I was really expecting him to be the protagonist, but honestly, he's hardcore antagonist, and it did take me by surprise, considering I've never actually read many of Shakespeare's plays. It really irked me when Macbeth did literally anything, because in his position, I would have done things so differently that it actually hurts me to read about him being a complete moron, and all because of his stupid wife. I mean, really? Doesn't he know that you have to think about every angle of the situation if you're messing with magic and whatnot? If you had one wish and you wished to be king, what stops the almighty being from allowing you to be king for only one day before killing you in some way? I mean, jeez. Talk about a stupid king. Definitely was rooting for the wrong dude.

Stereotypical witches? Who'd have thought!

Yeah, I'm calling you out, Shakespeare. Actually, I'm calling everyone out. How many witches have to be portrayed like crazy cauldron-stirring, riddle-tongued women before the world learns? Witchcraft is actually still practiced today, and though they aren't magical by any stretch, there's plenty of people who strut around saying they're witches, just like how people strut around saying they're Christian, or vegan, or a dog, for all I care. It's a way of life more than a magical being. According to 'real life witches' of today, doing something as simple as throwing some bath salts into your bath water and lighting some nice-smelling candles is obviously a self-care spell. Why? Well, if you're someone who has the drive to change your own emotions and life, or even the lives of the people around you, you can apparently label yourself a witch. You don't have to be able to cast a spell to change a life, and that's what modern witches believe. Yes, they may try to do some crazy chanting every so often, but that's because people who attempt to practice this way of life are likely blinded by the way the media and history portrays witchcraft. Magic isn't real, after all - but the thing is, it's super fun to think about, and Shakespeare knew that. So, he followed the bandwagon to please the crowd, and we were left with the whole "Double, double toil and trouble; fire burn and cauldron bubble..." chant. Thanks Shakespeare, I guess. Really makes modern witch movies great.

Macduff or Macbeth? Come on, people!

Okay, this is just a little bit pathetic. There's an error in the footnotes of Macbeth, which has been around for what, how long? Well, if it was written in 1606, and it's 2018 now...  That's 412 years in which someone could have fixed this error! Now, I know we didn't start putting footnotes until the play was read over by experts long after Shakespeare was dead, but still, there's a huge error in one of the footnotes on the second scene of act one. It says, and I quote from the book itself, "There the king of Norway, along with the thane of Cawdor, met Macbeth (described as the husband of Bellona, the goddess of war). Macbeth, in heavy armor (proof), challenged the enemy and achieved victory." Now, let's break this down. First of all, Macbeth and Macduff were in completely different places while this footnote is taking place. To make things worse, they're both fighting their own battles! Last I checked, Macbeth can't teleport, nor can he fight two battles at once. Already, this footnote doesn't make sense. Secondly, let's take a look at Macbeth vs Macduff's fighting styles. Macbeth is described as being a savage fighter, while Macduff is said to be strong, but fair. That's another weird detail that makes this footnote confusing. I believe this is what confused whoever wrote this footnote - after all, you would expect Bellona's bridegroom to be rather savage, correct? This could have been where they went wrong. Even factoring that in, though, there's still one big detail we can't look over. If Bellona's bridegroom defeated the thane of Cawdor, then why is Macbeth shocked when he's given the title? Shouldn't he already know he defeated the thane of Cawdor, if he had been the one to do it? It's all just so obvious. Change your footnote, people! Come on!

The Witch-Man, James I

After reading the first scene of act one of Macbeth, a question quickly popped into my head. With all this talk about witches gathering and doing witchy things, you've got to wonder why Shakespeare was so interested in this topic - interested enough to base a whole play around the effects of witchcraft. Well, after doing a little research, it turns out that Shakespeare put so much effort into portraying his witches (in the most stereotypical way possible) because he knew his audience well. See, James I, the king at the time, had an early interest in witchcraft due to the manner in which his mother was executed, according to History. Apparently, her death and severed head was seen in Scotland before it even happened. Following that, two years afterward, James was to marry a woman named Anne, who lived in Denmark. When they sailed to meet each other, their boats were battered twice by storms, nearly killing James and his betrothed both times. James I assumed that he'd been cursed by witches, and quickly called for a massive witch hunt. He was one of the biggest advocates for the death of witches, and Shakespeare clearly knew this. He knew his audience and wrote a play just to please the biggest fish in the pond - talk about a sellout! ...Or a very clever writer. Yeah, we'll go with that.