The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Killing Swine in Macbeth - are we losing Shakespeare?

Killing Swine in Macbeth - are we losing Shakespeare?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
In Act I, Scene 3 of Macbeth, the witches meet to plot and cause mischief. The first witch asks the second "where hast thou been, sister?", to which the second replies "killing swine".

For some reason, this line has always grated on me - it seems so completely pointless and, as such, out of place in an otherwise tight and purposeful script. The other witches go on to describe their own dastardly deeds, but the witch who does nothing but kill swine remains strangely mute. No commentaries of the text (or, at least, commentaries that I have seen) have ever explained this line to me. I can only assume that killing swine was something terrible in Jacobean England, but has lost its significance today.

Which brings me to my point: is Shakespeare gradually slipping away from us? Is the author, long held to be the paragon of English literature, gradually losing his meaning and, therefore, his value? If so, does it matter? Who will replace him?

Just some light thoughts for a Thursday night, as I carefully avoid marking students' essays on Macbeth.
Posted by Otokonoko, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:38:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I attended a Marist Brothers school many years ago. Although I did "Julia Ceasar", My class touched on other Shakesperian plays. My recollection of this passage of "Macbeth" was compared with the Owellian novel "Animal Farm". The swine referance was a reference to the upper classes.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 18 June 2010 10:28:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otonoko....hmmmm "it's a marxist plot" :)

Who will replace Shaky ? *meeeee*

Jayb..I think ur on the money there. 0_^
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 19 June 2010 6:42:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure Shakespeare has been particularly relevant to many people at all over the past few centuries- merely social contract that one must pretend Shakespeare is a pinnacle of our culture (along with Dickens and Plato) to appear part of society (and not get fail marks and scorn for blasphemy at pointing out contrary).
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 19 June 2010 8:06:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko - Macbeth is one of my favourite Shakespeare plays. I once was in the audience for a wonderful rendition of it at the old quarry at West End in Townsville. Excellent night, wonderful ambiece - bagpipes on the slopes of Castle Hill and all :)

As far as "killing swine" goes, in Shakespeare's day witchcraft accusations were rife in England, and were often precipitated by such crises as the otherwise unexplained death of domestic pigs. In preindustrial England, pigs ("swine") were valuable household possessions, but they were vulnerable to any number of pathogens that were floating around in those days.

The phenomenon of witchcraft accusations in Europe (and indeed the colonies) is a fascinating phenomenon that has been well explored and documented. Interestingly, much the same beliefs and scapegoating occur throughout the developping world today. I've seen a supposed "witch" chased down the road in PNG, less than 20 years ago - she was held responsible for the unexplained death of some pigs belonging to someone from another subclan.

I think Marxist readings of Shakespeare tend to be revisionist, although they were popular in the 60s and 70s. Mind you, the anthropologist Marvin Harris published an excellent Marxist analysis of European witchcraft accusations in the 70s, entitled 'Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches'. It's been torn apart now, but it was a pretty neat analysis for its time.

As for those who dismiss Shakespeare's relevance today - clearly your education was lacking :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 19 June 2010 8:40:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Take the obvious meaning which is that a witch is an evil creature who in her spare time would be doing wrong things to people and property. This witch spent her free hours causing loss to honest people by causing disease or other harm to their valued animals, pigs.

The audience would recoil in horror and hiss at this awful apparition who was shown acting according to type.
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 19 June 2010 8:41:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Otokonoko,

The following website explains it
beautifully:

http://homepages.tesco.net/~eandcthomp/macbeth.htm

"Macbeth, King James, and the Witches."
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 20 June 2010 7:52:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the suggestions. I guess it has always puzzled me because it is so succinct (where else in Shakespeare can you find a statement so short) and seems almost benign as the other witches have been running ships aground and conjuring storms, and so on. I suspect that this is one of the many cases when reading too much into the script can be a bad idea. The line just seems to stick out and jar with me.
Posted by Otokonoko, Sunday, 20 June 2010 7:57:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I know that later in the script is a scene involving the witches, which is generally believed to have been by someone other than Shakespeare. I forget which it is, but once it is pointed out to you, it is quite obviously different, the verse is of a lower quality, and is quite insipid and jingly. This means that we do not have the original script, and it is possible that other parts of the play, including witches' parts, were incompletely transmitted to us, or erroneous. That first scene does seem to be all Shakespeare's; however perhaps that particular line was originally misquoted?
Posted by Sienna, Sunday, 20 June 2010 9:33:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, at secondary school we were told that someone else had written the witches' scene in, just to add a light touch to all the gore and psychosis of the murders. Wasn't it the scene with the cauldron bubbling, toil and trouble and all that?
Since a lot of Shakespeare was satirical, killing swine might have referred to those to whom the pearls were cast, but that is probably too subtle in this context. As Cornflower says, it's probably best taken at face value.
I suspect that Wm Shakespeare was the pen name of a syndicate, meaning Freelance. It might just as easily have been Willy Wagstaff if they had found someone with that name to be the front man.
I like Brenda James's idea that 'he' was (or included) Henry Neville the English ambassador.
Posted by Polly Flinders, Tuesday, 22 June 2010 12:56:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko

Have A look here to see what the usual diet of peasants was in Shakespeare's time and I think you will agree with him that a witch killing a pig 'just because' was a shameful act of violence and waste.

http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodfaq3.html#peasants

The language is simple and blunt because the playwright aimed that bit directly at the many peasants and others in the 'front' rows. You will notice that Shakespeare's language and images change often subtly to suit the character and in this case a large section of the audience. The wanton destruction of a pig says a lot to those on a subsistence diet, who rarely see meat on the table and are at the mercy of the elements (and their betters).

Understand it as a clever line because that is what it is. Listen to skilled politicians whose rhetoric is studded with little gems everywhere to appeal to various sections and interests of the audience.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 22 June 2010 4:44:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy