×

Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να βελτιώσουμε τη λειτουργία του LingQ. Επισκέπτοντας τον ιστότοπο, συμφωνείς στην cookie policy.


image

Crash Course: English Literature, Free Will, Witches, Murder, and Macbeth, Part 1: Crash Course Literature 409 - YouTube (1)

Free Will, Witches, Murder, and Macbeth, Part 1: Crash Course Literature 409 - YouTube (1)

Hi, I'm John Green, this is Crash Course Literature and today we'll be discussing

Macbeth.

Some people... ...call it the Scottish play or the Bard's

play because allegedly, back in the 17th century a coven of witches cursed the play to punish

Shakespeare for including their spells.

But that's just not credible.

So I'm going to call it by it's real name.

While acknowledging that there have been maybe a lot of riots, deaths and accidents associated

with Macbeth in performance.

But this is a YouTube ch...You know what?

Maybe we should call it the Scottish play.

For the record, I did my own stunts in that bit.

Anyway, today we'll discuss the historical background for the play, the political and

religious context in which it was written, the play as a likely collaboration, and Macbeth's

famous dilemma.

All right, time to find out just what all that sound and fury signifies.

INTRO Let's just go straight to the Thoughtbubble.

As the play begins, the Scottish generals Macbeth and Banquo have defeated the invading

armies of Ireland and Norway.

Great work, Scotland!

They meet three witches who tell Macbeth, the Thane of Glamis, that he's going to

become Thane of Cawdor and then king.

They tell Banquo that while he won't become king, his sons will.

Macbeth calls these witches “imperfect speakers” and says that all this talk “stands not

within the prospect of belief,” but then Macbeth almost immediately does become Thane

of Cawdor, so he writes to his wife, and she's like, we're going to be royalty!

There's just the small matter of killing the king.

The king, Duncan, comes to stay at Macbeth's castle, and the Macbeths plan his murder.

They kill the king, but the second half of the plan, killing Duncan's sons, goes Shakespearenly

awry.

So Macbeth has to worry about those sons; he also has to worry about Banquo's son,

so he hires some murderers.

Banquo is killed, but his son escapes.

Macbeth starts hallucinating at dinner parties, so he goes to visit the witches and they tell

him: stay away from Macduff (another Thane), no man born of woman can hurt you, and you'll

be fine as long as Birnam Wood, the forest outside Macbeth's castle, stays put.

And Macbeth is like, trees can't travel, I got this.

Still he becomes crueler and more paranoid, executing Macduff's family and trying to

quash a growing resistance.

Lady Macbeth, haunted by her part in the king's murder, can't get an invisible spot of blood

out of her dress, begins to sleepwalk and then dies, a probable suicide.

Macduff, in league with Duncan's son Malcolm, brings an army to fight Macbeth.

The army uses branches from Birnam Wood as camouflage.

Macbeth holds out until he and Macduff meet on the battlefield.

He says no one of woman born can hurt me and Macduff's like, “I was a C-section baby!”

Then he lops off Macbeth's head.

Thanks, Thought Bubble.

So Macbeth is a tragedy, but it's also a history play.

Kind of.

Like Cymbeline or King Lear, it's based on historical sources.

But these sources have their own problems and Shakespeare takes plenty of liberties,

some of them artistic, some of them having more to do with the politics of his day and

the preferences of his patron.

Most of what we know about the real Macbeth comes to us from Holinshed's Chronicles,

published in 1577 and a source for a lot of Shakespeare.

The Chronicles tell us that Macbeth and Duncan were kinsmen in medieval Scotland, and that

Macbeth was a great general, although maybe too cruel and Duncan was a compassionate king,

although maybe too nice.

The chronicles tell us that he was so nice that the country went to the dogs because

Duncan couldn't enforce the rule of law.

Also after a battle, Macbeth and Banquo meet “thrée women in strange and wild apparell.”

So far, so Macbeth.

But then Shakespeare makes some pretty substantial changes: In Holinshed, Banquo helps Macbeth

slay the king and Macbeth actually becomes a pretty good ruler, at least for a while.

In the Chronicles, “he set his whole intention to mainteine iustice, and to punish all enormities

and abuses, which had chanced through the féeble and slouthfull administration of Duncane.”

/ And Macbeth maintains this justice and punishes

enormities for ten years--before become eventually becoming paranoid and cruel.

So Shakespeare probably made some of his changes out of narrative necessity--murder and tyranny

make for a better story than boringly effective kingships.

He also, of course, wanted to explore how ambition and prophecy and heirs shape human

experience.

But he probably left Banquo out of the murderous plotting for one very specific reason:

King James I was Shakespeare's patron at the time, and King James I just happened to

trace his lineage back to Banquo, who by the way, is probably a made-up figure.

So obviously, Macbeth the king killer had to be bad, and Banquo the king's ancestor

had to be good, unless you're the kind of playwright who'd rather live out the rest

of his career in a dungeon.

Also King James I's men had just foiled a pretty serious assassination plot, the Gunpowder

Plot, which you may remember because it involved Guy Fawkes and Remember Remember the Fifth

of November and that massively overrated movie V for Vendetta.

Macbeth was probably first performed the following year, so the killing of kings was a touchy

subject, even touchier for James because his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, was killed by

Queen Elizabeth and his father was assassinated.

So in this context, it makes sense that Shakespeare would highlight the dire consequences on offer

when someone assassinates a divinely crowned king.

James I as a patron also may help to explain the text's emphasis on the supernatural,

because James I was super into the supernatural.

So into it that in 1597 he published a book on witchcraft, called “Daemonologie.”

The book really caught on; after it, people in England became a lot more willing to believe

in witches, and fairies, and ghosts, and demons.

Daemonologie also helped perpetuate witch hunts all over Europe.

James, in fact participated in witch hunts himself, most of which targeted vulnerable

women, particularly the poor and the elderly.

So taking the witches seriously is another way to flatter and interest his patron.

Although it should also be noted that Macbeth taking the witches seriously leads to disaster.

Oh, it's time for the open letter?

An open letter to witch hunts.

But first, let's see what's in the secret compartment today.

Oh my gosh!

It's Yoda, who almost certainly would have been prosecuted as a witch in 17th century

England.

I mean aside from the magic and the cryptic speech patterns, there's just something

to his look that I suspect wouldn't have gone over well.

Dear witch hunts, I'm gonna take the controversial opinion that I am opposed to the social order

blindly attacking the weak.

That's what a witch hunt is.

The power structure looking to defame and/or murder people who cannot defend themselves.

the publication of direct and accurate quotations, even if they're unflattering?

Not an example of a witch hunt.

Legal investigations into actual non-supernatural crimes?

Not a witch hunt.

And lastly, if you travel to a bunch of different locations to find certain items, that is not

a witch hunt.

That's a scavenger hunt.

In short, witch hunts, I am opposed to you, but I am also opposed to wrongful characterizations

of you.

Best wishes, John Green.

All right.

Let's turn to a moment to authorship.

All of Shakespeare's plays were written by Queen Elizabeth.

And yes, that includes the ones that were written after she died.

What's that?

Oh, Stan informs me that most scholars agree that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays.

But it's possible that Macbeth was written in part by someone else, too.

For a while scholars have been arguing about whether another Jacobean playwright, Thomas

Middleton, contributed to a later revision of the play.

This wouldn't have been unusual.

Collaboration was common at the time and some of Shakespeare's early and late plays were

collaborations.

Middleton almost certainly contributed to Timon of Athens, for instance, a Shakespeare

play that is famously not as … what is the adjective I'm looking for … finished as

Macbeth.

Evidence for Middleton's collaboration includes the fact that the witches' songs show up

in his own play The Witches.

Also, a couple of the stage directions sound like Middleton's, as do the diction and

the meter in a few cases.

But even the most enthusiastic Middleton cheerleader only credits him with at most a hundred or

so lines.

But of course who wrote the play is only tangentially related to what's in it--and Macbeth has

survived through the centuries not primarily because it was written largely by Shakespeare

but because it is, you know, great.

So as the play begins, Macbeth has just won an important battle.

He's the hero of the day—a day still steaming in blood.

And then he meets the witches, who have been laying in wait for him and they give him the

prophecy.

Now we might wonder if the witches are real, actual witches or just some embodiment of

Macbeth's own ambitions and desires, though the fact that Banquo sees them argues for

reality.

But maybe they're both real and metaphorically resonant.

We should also wonder if their prophecy is true.

Can they really see into the future or are their words a way to mess with Macbeth and

tempt him to do something terrible?

Is Macbeth's fall inevitable or could he have avoided it if he'd ignored the witches'

pronouncements?

Now I'd argue that this is not just a problem for Macbeth--all of us would like to know

if our future is fated or our will is free.

In some way, Macbeth learning his future seems to change his future--

Like was he going to be King before he found out he was going to be king?

Well that gets into the question of predestination, which was one of the central religious debates

of the era in Europe-- are you predestined to go either to heaven

or to hell, or do we have free will to choose our eternal fates?

Shakespeare's England was at the center of these conversations--it was officially

newly Protestant but deeply religiously divided.

And one of the geniuses of Macbeth is that it explores how difficult it can be to tell

fate from choice-- I mean Macbeth and his wife make a lot of

choices, but they also fulfill every single prophecy

Macbeth knows he shouldn't kill the king.

This is a very important idea in both Game of Thrones and 17th Century England.

James I believed in a divine right of kings, the idea that kings are ordained by god to

rule

Undercutting that idea was very dangerous for political stability, because then anybody

could be king, or maybe we don't even need kings.

and Shakespeare basically upholds this idea.

So on the one hand then you have moral prohibition, the risk of earthly punishment, and eternal

damnation.

And on the other side you have the opportunity to become the king of scotland, the 732nd

most important kingdom at the time.

Deciding between doing what you should do and doing what you want to do shouldn't

be that difficult--but it is, as anyone who has ever lived an actual human life can tell

you.

In the end, Macbeth cannot resist his ambition.

But once he's made the decision, he sees a dagger hovering in the air in front of him:

“A dagger of the mind, a false creation,/ Proceeding from the heat-oppressèd brain.”

Now, is Macbeth insane and hallucinating things or is this another supernatural goad?

I mean, Macbeth feels conflicted about his choice and the appearance of a dagger both

shows his distress, but he interprets it as legitimizing his choice to kill the king.

Free Will, Witches, Murder, and Macbeth, Part 1: Crash Course Literature 409 - YouTube (1) Свобода волі, відьми, вбивство і Макбет, частина 1: Прискорений курс з літератури 409 - YouTube (1)

Hi, I'm John Green, this is Crash Course Literature and today we'll be discussing اهلا انا جون جرين هذا كراش كورس للأدب اليوم سنتكلم عن مكبث

Macbeth. البعض يسميها المسرحية الاسكتلندية او مسرحية الشاعر

Some people... ...call it the Scottish play or the Bard's

play because allegedly, back in the 17th century a coven of witches cursed the play to punish لانه يزعم ان في القرن17مجموعة من السحرة لعنوها

Shakespeare for including their spells. لعقاب شكسبير لضم تعويذهم

But that's just not credible. لكن هذا ليس ذا مصدقية فساطلق عليها اسمها الحقيقي

So I'm going to call it by it's real name.

While acknowledging that there have been maybe a lot of riots, deaths and accidents associated بالعلم ان حدث الكثير من المظاهرات, و حالات وفاة, وحوادث

with Macbeth in performance. ذات صلة بمكبث خلال عرضها

But this is a YouTube ch...You know what? ..لكن هذة مجرد قناة يو

Maybe we should call it the Scottish play. اتعلموا, لنطلق عليها المسرحية الاسكتلندية

For the record, I did my own stunts in that bit. للعلم, اني اديت بعض الخدع في ذلك المشهد

Anyway, today we'll discuss the historical background for the play, the political and علي أي حال, اليوم سنناقش الخلفيةالتارخية للمسرحية والسياق السياسي والديني المبنية عليها

religious context in which it was written, the play as a likely collaboration, and Macbeth's و تعاونهم المحتمل في المسرحية مع مأساه مكبث المعروفة

famous dilemma. حان وقت معرفة ما معني هذا الضجيج

All right, time to find out just what all that sound and fury signifies.

INTRO Let's just go straight to the Thoughtbubble. لنتجه مباشرة الي فقاعة التفكير اليوم

As the play begins, the Scottish generals Macbeth and Banquo have defeated the invading

armies of Ireland and Norway. احسنتم عملا! اسكتلاندا

Great work, Scotland!

They meet three witches who tell Macbeth, the Thane of Glamis, that he's going to ثم التقوا ب3 سحرة اخبروا مكبث حاكم جليمس انه سيصبح حاكم كودور ثم الملك

become Thane of Cawdor and then king.

They tell Banquo that while he won't become king, his sons will. و اخبروا بانكو انه لن يصبح ملكً لكن ابناؤه سوف

Macbeth calls these witches “imperfect speakers” and says that all this talk “stands not دعاهم مكبث بالمتحدثات الناقصات و قال ان كل هذا الكلام

within the prospect of belief,” but then Macbeth almost immediately does become Thane "لا يتماشي مع مبدأ ايمانه" لكن بعد ذلك مباشرة يصبح حاكم كودور بالفعل

of Cawdor, so he writes to his wife, and she's like, we're going to be royalty! فيرسل لزوجتة, فتتصرف كانهم من الاسرة المالكة

There's just the small matter of killing the king. هناك فقط مسألة قتل الملك

The king, Duncan, comes to stay at Macbeth's castle, and the Macbeths plan his murder. الملك دانكن يذهب للبقاء في قلعة مكبث و يخطط مكبث لقتله

They kill the king, but the second half of the plan, killing Duncan's sons, goes Shakespearenly لكن الجزء الثاني من الخطة و هو قتل اولاده انحرف باسلوب شكسبير المعروف

awry. فيجب عليه القلق حولهم, والقلق من ابن بانكو فيكلف قتلي

So Macbeth has to worry about those sons; he also has to worry about Banquo's son,

so he hires some murderers.

Banquo is killed, but his son escapes. فيقتل بانكو لكن ابنه يهرب

Macbeth starts hallucinating at dinner parties, so he goes to visit the witches and they tell يبدأ مكبب بالهلوسة في حفلة عشاء فيزور السحرة و يخبروه ان

him: stay away from Macduff (another Thane), no man born of woman can hurt you, and you'll ,(يبتعد عن مكدف(حاكم اخر .لن يأذيك رجل ولد من امرأة

be fine as long as Birnam Wood, the forest outside Macbeth's castle, stays put. ستكون بخير طالما غابة بيرنام, الغابة التي بخارج قلعة مكبث بقيت ماكانها

And Macbeth is like, trees can't travel, I got this. .فكر مكبث ان الاشجار لا تتحرك, ساتولي ذلك

Still he becomes crueler and more paranoid, executing Macduff's family and trying to مع ذلك اصبح قاس و مذعور اكثر فاعدم عائلة مكدف

quash a growing resistance. كمحاولة منه لسحق المقاومة المتزايدة

Lady Macbeth, haunted by her part in the king's murder, can't get an invisible spot of blood زوجة مكبث يطاردها دورها في خطة قتل الملك فلا يمكنها مسح نقطة دماء وهمية من فستانه

out of her dress, begins to sleepwalk and then dies, a probable suicide. و تبدأ السير خلال نومها و تمت منتحرة تقريبا

Macduff, in league with Duncan's son Malcolm, brings an army to fight Macbeth. يتحالف مكدف مع مالكم ابن دانكن و يجهزون جيش لمحاربة مكبث

The army uses branches from Birnam Wood as camouflage. يستخدم الجيش غصون من غابة برنام كتمويه

Macbeth holds out until he and Macduff meet on the battlefield. يصبر مكبث حتي يلتقي بمكدف في ساحة المعركة

He says no one of woman born can hurt me and Macduff's like, “I was a C-section baby!”

Then he lops off Macbeth's head. شكراً, فقاعة التفكير

Thanks, Thought Bubble.

So Macbeth is a tragedy, but it's also a history play. فمكبث تراجيديا لكن ايضا مسرحية تارخية

Kind of. مثل كينج لير و سمبلين فهي مبنية علي مصادر تارخية

Like Cymbeline or King Lear, it's based on historical sources.

But these sources have their own problems and Shakespeare takes plenty of liberties, اخذ شكسبير الكثير من الاصوات

some of them artistic, some of them having more to do with the politics of his day and بعضهم فني و بعض يرتبط اكثر بالسياسة في عصره او ما يفضله راعية

the preferences of his patron.

Most of what we know about the real Macbeth comes to us from Holinshed's Chronicles,

published in 1577 and a source for a lot of Shakespeare. و هي مصدر للكثير من اعمال شكسبير

The Chronicles tell us that Macbeth and Duncan were kinsmen in medieval Scotland, and that ايدت السجلات ان مكبث و دانكن كانوا ذو قربة في اسكتلاندا في العصور الوسطي

Macbeth was a great general, although maybe too cruel and Duncan was a compassionate king, و ان مكبث كان جنرال عظيم لكن قاس جداً و دانكن كان ملك رحيم

although maybe too nice. ربما كان طيب جداً

The chronicles tell us that he was so nice that the country went to the dogs because تخبرنا السجلات انه كان طيبً لدرجة ان الدولة انهارت

Duncan couldn't enforce the rule of law. لانة لم يستطع فرض اي قانون

Also after a battle, Macbeth and Banquo meet “thrée women in strange and wild apparell.” و ان مكبث و بانكو التقوا ب 3 نساء بهيئة غريبة و برية بعد معركة

So far, so Macbeth. حتي الان فهو يشبه المسرحية

But then Shakespeare makes some pretty substantial changes: In Holinshed, Banquo helps Macbeth لكن شكسبير يحدث تغيرات مهمة ففي هولانسهيد بانكو يساعد مكبث

slay the king and Macbeth actually becomes a pretty good ruler, at least for a while. علي قتل الملك وان مكبث يصبح ملك جيد لمدة علي الاقل

In the Chronicles, “he set his whole intention to mainteine iustice, and to punish all enormities ذكر"انه سخر كل نواياه لتحقيق العدل و لعقاب المضرون و المنتهكون

and abuses, which had chanced through the féeble and slouthfull administration of Duncane.” الذي انتهذوا فرصة ضعف و كسل ادارة دانكن

/ And Macbeth maintains this justice and punishes و ان مكبث يحافظ علي العدل و يعاقب المنتهكون لعشر سنوات

enormities for ten years--before become eventually becoming paranoid and cruel. ثم يصبح مهوس و قاس لاحقا

So Shakespeare probably made some of his changes out of narrative necessity--murder and tyranny

make for a better story than boringly effective kingships.

He also, of course, wanted to explore how ambition and prophecy and heirs shape human بالطبع اراد ايضا كشف كيف الطموح و النبوءة و الوراثة يحددو تجارب الانسان

experience. من المحتمل انه لم يضمن بانكو في الخطط القاتلة لسبب محدد

But he probably left Banquo out of the murderous plotting for one very specific reason:

King James I was Shakespeare's patron at the time, and King James I just happened to

trace his lineage back to Banquo, who by the way, is probably a made-up figure.

So obviously, Macbeth the king killer had to be bad, and Banquo the king's ancestor وبانكو سلف الملك عليه ان يكون صالح

had to be good, unless you're the kind of playwright who'd rather live out the rest الا اذا كنت من الكتاب الذي يفضلون تمضية بقية حياتهم في زنزانة

of his career in a dungeon.

Also King James I's men had just foiled a pretty serious assassination plot, the Gunpowder تسمي بمؤامرة البارود

Plot, which you may remember because it involved Guy Fawkes and Remember Remember the Fifth التي قد تتذكروها لانها تضمن جاي فوكس و تذكر تذكر الخامس من نوفمبر

of November and that massively overrated movie V for Vendetta. و ذلك الفيلم المبالغ فية ف ل فيندتا

Macbeth was probably first performed the following year, so the killing of kings was a touchy

subject, even touchier for James because his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, was killed by

Queen Elizabeth and his father was assassinated.

So in this context, it makes sense that Shakespeare would highlight the dire consequences on offer

when someone assassinates a divinely crowned king.

James I as a patron also may help to explain the text's emphasis on the supernatural,

because James I was super into the supernatural. لانه كان مؤمن بشده بها

So into it that in 1597 he published a book on witchcraft, called “Daemonologie.” لدرجة انه نشر كتاب في 1597عن السحر يسمي"دراسة الشياطين"

The book really caught on; after it, people in England became a lot more willing to believe

in witches, and fairies, and ghosts, and demons.

Daemonologie also helped perpetuate witch hunts all over Europe.

James, in fact participated in witch hunts himself, most of which targeted vulnerable

women, particularly the poor and the elderly.

So taking the witches seriously is another way to flatter and interest his patron.

Although it should also be noted that Macbeth taking the witches seriously leads to disaster.

Oh, it's time for the open letter? انه وقت الرسالة المفتوحة لمطاردة السحرة

An open letter to witch hunts.

But first, let's see what's in the secret compartment today.

Oh my gosh! !يا الهي, انه يودا

It's Yoda, who almost certainly would have been prosecuted as a witch in 17th century الذي شبة مؤكد انه كان سيحاكم كساحر في انجلترا في القرن ال17

England. بجانب السحر و انماط الكلام الخفي هناك شئ في شكله

I mean aside from the magic and the cryptic speech patterns, there's just something

to his look that I suspect wouldn't have gone over well. يجعلني اشك انها لم تكن ستمر بسلام

Dear witch hunts, I'm gonna take the controversial opinion that I am opposed to the social order

blindly attacking the weak.

That's what a witch hunt is. فهذا هو مطاردة السحرة هيكل السلطة يقدح او يقتل

The power structure looking to defame and/or murder people who cannot defend themselves. الذين لا يستطعون الدفاع عن نفسهم

the publication of direct and accurate quotations, even if they're unflattering? فتعميم اقتباسات مباشرة ودقيقة حتي لو كانت غير لائقة

Not an example of a witch hunt. ليس مثال لمطاردة السحرة

Legal investigations into actual non-supernatural crimes? تحقيقات قانونية في جرائم فعلية ليست خارقة لا يعتبر مطارة للسحرة

Not a witch hunt. و اخيرا اذا سافرت لمناطق مختلفة للبحث عن عن اشياء محددة

And lastly, if you travel to a bunch of different locations to find certain items, that is not

a witch hunt.

That's a scavenger hunt. باختصار فانا ضدد مطاردة السحرة و ايضا ضدد التوصيف الخاطئ لها

In short, witch hunts, I am opposed to you, but I am also opposed to wrongful characterizations

of you. مع اطيب التمنيات جون جرين

Best wishes, John Green.

All right. حستا, دعونا نتجه قليلا الي التاليف

Let's turn to a moment to authorship.

All of Shakespeare's plays were written by Queen Elizabeth. فكل مسرحيات شكسبير كتبت من قبل الملكة اليذابيث ذلك يضمن الذي كتبوا بد مماتها

And yes, that includes the ones that were written after she died.

What's that? ماذا؟يخبرني ستان ان مغظم العلماء ان شكسبير كتب مسرحياته

Oh, Stan informs me that most scholars agree that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays.

But it's possible that Macbeth was written in part by someone else, too.

For a while scholars have been arguing about whether another Jacobean playwright, Thomas لمدة اختلف العلماء سواء هناك كاتب يعقوبي اخر ام لا

Middleton, contributed to a later revision of the play. فتوماس ميدلتون ساهم في نسخة لاحقة للمسرحية

This wouldn't have been unusual. ذلك لم يكن غريب لان التعاون في ذلك الوقت كان شائع

Collaboration was common at the time and some of Shakespeare's early and late plays were فبعض مسرحيات شكسبير الحديثة و القديمة كانت بالتعاون

collaborations. فساهم ميدلتون بالتاكيد في مسرحية شكسبير تيمون اثينا علي سبيل المثال

Middleton almost certainly contributed to Timon of Athens, for instance, a Shakespeare

play that is famously not as … what is the adjective I'm looking for … finished as

Macbeth. دليل علي تعاون مدلتون مع مكبث يضمن حقيقة ظهور اغنية السحرة

Evidence for Middleton's collaboration includes the fact that the witches' songs show up

in his own play The Witches.

Also, a couple of the stage directions sound like Middleton's, as do the diction and ايضا بعض الارشادات المسرحية والالقاء والالحان تشبه ميدلتون في بعض الحالات

the meter in a few cases.

But even the most enthusiastic Middleton cheerleader only credits him with at most a hundred or لكن حتي مشجعين ميدلتون بحماس ينسبون الية حوالي 100 سطر بالكثير

so lines. اظن ان هذا يستحق الملاحظة لكن بالطبع من كتب المسرحية

But of course who wrote the play is only tangentially related to what's in it--and Macbeth has شئ مهمش بالنسبة الي محتواها

survived through the centuries not primarily because it was written largely by Shakespeare ان مكبث صمدت عبر القرون ليس لكونها كتبت معظمها بقلم شكسبير

but because it is, you know, great. لكن لانها كما تعلمون...رائعة

So as the play begins, Macbeth has just won an important battle. ففي بداية المسرحية انتصر مكبث في معركة مهمة للتو

He's the hero of the day—a day still steaming in blood. انه بطل اليوم.يوم مازال ملئ بالدماء

And then he meets the witches, who have been laying in wait for him and they give him the ثم التقي بالسحرة الذي كانوا بانتظاره و يخبروه بالنبؤه

prophecy. الان قد نتساءل اذا كانوا سحرة الفعليون

Now we might wonder if the witches are real, actual witches or just some embodiment of

Macbeth's own ambitions and desires, though the fact that Banquo sees them argues for فان رؤية بانكو لهم يعطيها شئ من المصداقية

reality. لكن ربما كلاهما, حقيقة ومجاز صوتي. قد نتساءل ايضا اذا كانت النبؤة حقيقية.

But maybe they're both real and metaphorically resonant.

We should also wonder if their prophecy is true.

Can they really see into the future or are their words a way to mess with Macbeth and

tempt him to do something terrible?

Is Macbeth's fall inevitable or could he have avoided it if he'd ignored the witches' هل انحضاره محسوم ام كان يمكنه تجنبه اذا اهمل تصريحات السحرة

pronouncements?

Now I'd argue that this is not just a problem for Macbeth--all of us would like to know انا اظن انها ليست مشكلة مكبث فقط فجميعنا نود ان نعرف

if our future is fated or our will is free. اذا كان مصيرنا محدد ام ارادتنا حرة

In some way, Macbeth learning his future seems to change his future-- بطريقة ما معرفة مكبث لمستقبلة .تبدو انها غيرت مستقبله

Like was he going to be King before he found out he was going to be king? هل كان سيصبح ملك قبل معرفته انه سيصبح ملك؟

Well that gets into the question of predestination, which was one of the central religious debates

of the era in Europe-- are you predestined to go either to heaven

or to hell, or do we have free will to choose our eternal fates?

Shakespeare's England was at the center of these conversations--it was officially انجلترا في عصر شكسبير كانت مركز هذة المناقشات

newly Protestant but deeply religiously divided. فكانت رسميا من البروتستان الجديدة لكن منقسمة دينيا بعمق

And one of the geniuses of Macbeth is that it explores how difficult it can be to tell ان احد نوابغ مكبث هي استكشاف مدي صعوبة التفرقة بين القدر والاختيار

fate from choice-- I mean Macbeth and his wife make a lot of

choices, but they also fulfill every single prophecy

Macbeth knows he shouldn't kill the king. فأن مكبث يعلم انه لا ينبغي ان يقتل الملك

This is a very important idea in both Game of Thrones and 17th Century England. هذا مفهوم مهم في كلا من صراع العروش وانجلترا في القرن 17

James I believed in a divine right of kings, the idea that kings are ordained by god to ان جيمس الاول كان مؤمن بحق الملوك الالهي وهي فكرة ان الملوك مقدرون من الله للحكم

rule الخفض من هذا المفهوم كان خطر للثبات السياسي

Undercutting that idea was very dangerous for political stability, because then anybody

could be king, or maybe we don't even need kings.

and Shakespeare basically upholds this idea. شكسبير يدعم فكرة حق الملوك الالهي

So on the one hand then you have moral prohibition, the risk of earthly punishment, and eternal من ناحية هناك الحظر الاخلاقي ومجازفة العقاب الدنيوي و العنة الابدية

damnation. من ناحية اخري هناك فرصة ان تصبح ملك اسكتلندا

And on the other side you have the opportunity to become the king of scotland, the 732nd

most important kingdom at the time.

Deciding between doing what you should do and doing what you want to do shouldn't الحسم بين ما عليك فعلة وفعل ما تشاء

be that difficult--but it is, as anyone who has ever lived an actual human life can tell لا ينبغي ان يكون صعباً لكنه كذلك فأي شخص عاش حياة بشرية فعلية يمكنه اخبارك ذلك

you. في النهاية مكبث لا يستطع مقاومة طموحاته

In the end, Macbeth cannot resist his ambition.

But once he's made the decision, he sees a dagger hovering in the air in front of him: لكنه بمجرد ان اخذ القرار رأي خنجر يحوم في الهواء امامه

“A dagger of the mind, a false creation,/ Proceeding from the heat-oppressèd brain.” خنجر وهمي و زائف خلقة العقل المرهق

Now, is Macbeth insane and hallucinating things or is this another supernatural goad? هل مكبث مجنون و يهلوس ام ان ذلك دهاء خارق اخر؟

I mean, Macbeth feels conflicted about his choice and the appearance of a dagger both اعتقد ان مكبث يشعر بالنزاع تجاه اختياره وظهور الخنجر يوضح ضيقه

shows his distress, but he interprets it as legitimizing his choice to kill the king. لكنه يفسر ذلك باضافة الشرعية .لقراره لقتل الملك