For my Teaching English
in the Secondary School class here at New Paltz, I’m constructing a unit plan
centered on Shakespeare’s Macbeth. In doing so, I’ve had to
beat Macbeth to death, analyzing many aspects which I’ve had
to include in my lesson plans. Since Macbeth is ever on my
mind, while reading the first act of Hamlet, I noticed a parallel
between the two plays that I couldn’t deny: the presence of
supernatural beings play a large role in their respective plots. I found the
connection very interesting, so much so that I’ve been eagerly awaiting the
opportunity to blog about it. Of course, after doing a bit of research online,
I quickly realized I certainly wasn’t the only one—let alone the first—to make
this connection. Nevertheless, I’ll proceed to highlight it here, continuing my
trend of scholar-supported propositions.
In Macbeth,
Macbeth and his friend Banquo encounter the three “weird sisters” in Act I,
scene iii, on their way to a heath. Though challenged by Banquo at first, the
Witches proceed to hail Macbeth, the “Thane of Glamis,” “Thane of Cawdor,” and
“king hereafter” (I.iii.46–48). These words that “sound so fair” are pondered
by Macbeth, who becomes obsessed with the notion of his kingship. As we all
know, this obsession sparked by the Witches’ prophecy consumes Macbeth, and his
actions following his meeting with them are all made with the intent of making
those prophecies come true. Had it not been for the
almost ghost-like Witches to appear, Macbeth might never have pursued
the throne, at least in the manner of taking it upon himself. Unlike Hamlet’s
Ghost, who merely wants his death avenged, the Witches harbor seemingly
unconditional ill intent for Macbeth; therefore, though sharing similarities,
the two supernatural beings serve rather different roles in their respective
plays.
In Hamlet’s
opening act, the officers Bernardo and Marcellus inform Horatio, Hamlet’s
friend, of a “dreaded sight… [an] apparition” in the form of Hamlet’s father,
the dead King Hamlet (I.i.23, 26). After Horatio, who at first doubted the
sight, sees the Ghost, he informs Hamlet of “a figure like [his] father”
(I.ii.199). Hamlet himself encounters the Ghost in scene iv, where it proceeds
to persuade him into taking action against a situation he is
already uncomfortable with: the Ghost incites Hamlet to take revenge on his
father’s death by killing King Claudius, his uncle, who is currently married to
his mother, Gertrude. What’s notable about this encounter is that, unlike
in Macbeth, the Ghost does not divulge a vague prophecy left to
interpretation but, rather, it proposes a specific direction. This explicit
direction serves as the impetus for Hamlet’s ensuing actions, whereas in Macbeth,
Macbeth’s actions are a result of his own ambitions and desire to proactively
fulfill the witches’ prediction. Hamlet wishes only to fulfill the ghost’s
desire to have his death avenged. (I’d argue that Hamlet’s actions in avenging
his father’s death are not completely self-serving but are primarily for his
father’s sake.) Whereas Hamlet’s Ghost guides the play’s
protagonist toward a (reasonably) morally just outcome, Macbeth’s
Witches guide its protagonist to an immoral journey to kingship, one that
ultimately fails miserably. Though Hamlet “fails” in that
he doesn’t survive at the end of his play, we, the audience,
sympathize with his character because we are more apt to feel for his cause.
Macbeth and the Witches are characters for whom we tend to feel less sorry, as
the Witches are malicious and Macbeth is overly ambitious.
Another interesting
connection between these two plays is the circumstances in which the
supernatural beings appear. In Macbeth, the Witches appear on a day
“so foul and fair,” in Macbeth’s opinion, as he’s ever seen (I.iii.37). Such an
observation indicates that, though it might be a pleasant day so far, there is
an inexplicable foulness about it, and it serves as the foreshadowing of
upcoming events that do indeed prove quite foul. In Hamlet, a similar sentiment
is uttered by Marcellus in the famous line, “Something is rotten in the state
of Denmark,” noting that things are quite obviously amiss (I.iv.67). The whole
atmosphere of both plays seems tense with the possibility of dark moments to
come; as the play progress, those moments come true. It only goes to show how
closely the supernatural beings are tied to the overall instability of the
environment in which they haunt.
Coming to some closure,
this observation of mine is merely a way of establishing a connection between
two of Shakespeare’s plays we are/will be reading in class. As I read Hamlet further,
I will look for more connections between the two, and depending on my findings,
I might revisit the subject in a future blog post. For now, I encourage you
(and myself) to be mindful of the supernatural and its effects in this play and
in Macbeth when we read it later this semester. (For more
information, check out this student’s Bachelor’s thesis; it gives a very
thorough look into the subject: is.muni.cz/th/153037/pedf_b/Thesis_Jana.doc)
