Analysis of The Three Witches in 'Macbeth'. #gcse #igcse

In this video, I'll be talking about how to answer a question on The Witches from Shakespeare's Macbeth. This is great prep if you are sitting the Edexcel IGCSE English Literature exam. It's also great for AQA. But if you just want to be able to write about the witches in great detail, you've come to the right place. I do recommend you have a pen and paper ready to make lots of notes cuz there's lots to say about the witches. It's always a good idea to start, especially with characters, to think about when we first see these characters. And so Shakespeare, I would argue, uses the witches as a dramatic device by opening the play with them. And that's really to capture the audience's attention and to immediately establish this dark atmosphere of the play. It's worth keeping in mind that in Shakespeare's time, the theater audience were lively, they were unruly, it's not like theater today. Particularly the groundlings who paid the cheapest price, they would stand directly in front of the stage. So you'd have about 800 of these spectators known for shouting, booing, even throwing food onto the stage. So opening the play with three mysterious witches would have been a really effective way to immediately seize their attention. The play also begins in media res, which means in the middle of things, as the witches are finishing a conversation. And so that also instantly creates intrigue as the audience are thrown in the middle of an unexplained situation. For a Jacobean audience, this would have been especially unsettling because many people genuinely believed in witches. Witchcraft had been made a capital crime in 1603. So the presence of witches on stage could represent a real and frightening threat. Shakespeare intensifies this sense of danger through pathetic fallacy as well, as you notice that the stage directions describe the weather as thunder and lightning. This is weather that's traditionally associated with chaos and destruction. And those who believed in witchcraft may even have seen this as proof of the witches' supernatural powers because it was widely believed among among the believers, they would also believe that witches could control the weather. Also, the witches plan to meet at the set of sun, and that just further emphasizes their connection to darkness and evil. And it reinforces this sense that they operate outside the normal moral world, right? Normal people are going to bed at night. They are meeting up to cause chaos. So, suspense is also created through their intention to meet Macbeth upon the heath. That immediately raises questions for the audience. Why are the witches interested in the play's protagonist? They haven't even met him yet. So, does he know them? Does he Has he already dabbled in witchcraft? So, it just creates a lot of unanswered questions at this point in the play. Thinking about where they want to meet him upon the heath, the heath itself, that's a barren, infertile land. So, that symbolizes disorder and imbalance. So, this again links to the Jacobean belief in the great chain of being or the natural order. They believed that God had created a strict hierarchy in the universe with everything in its proper place. So, you have God at the very top, then kings, then nobles, then ordinary people, then animals, and then nature. So, any disruption to this order was believed to cause chaos in both society and the natural world. And by placing the witches in this bleak landscape and associating them with storms and darkness. Right at the beginning of the play, it's really Shakespeare just foreshadowing that they are going to have great influence in disturbing the natural order, which is going to lead to widespread disorder and tragedy, which is what the audience are about to view and see unfold throughout the play. One thing that's clear about the witches is they are definitely otherworldly figures, but the play never really defines exactly what they are, and that invites the audience to explore multiple interpretations of their nature. And I encourage you, if you get a question on on the witches, to make sure you do the same in your answer, okay? You don't have to have solid answers about the witches. They are supposed to be mysterious and not fully understood. One of the clearest ways that Shakespeare establishes their strangeness is through their language. So, unlike most characters in the play who speak in iambic pentameter or sometimes prose, the witches speak in trochaic tetrameter. So, this is a rhythmic pattern in which each line consists of four trochees. It basically is a stressed syllable followed by an unstressed syllable, whereas iambic pentameter is the other way around. Um don't worry if you look at examples of their speech and you can't see it. The important thing, if I'm being honest, is that you remember that they they speak in this, and it's okay not to explain it in your answer. Um but but you have to obviously go beyond just saying that they speak in tro- trochaic Sorry, trochaic tetrameter. It's a bit of a tongue twister. Um but what you need to do is also explain what is the effect. So, it's quite a chant-like way to speak. So, if you look at double, double, toil and trouble. So, this rhythm creates a harsh incantatory sound and it resembles a spell or chant and that immediately sets them apart from the natural speech of the other characters and therefore emphasizes their supernatural nature. Their otherness is also reinforced by the fact that there are three of them and that they frequently speak in triads. In Jacobean belief, the number three had unsettling connotations when associated with witchcraft because it was viewed as a perversion or dark imitation of the Holy Trinity, reinforcing this idea that the witches represent a corrupt force. And subversion is a real key feature of their characterization. They're not In other words, they're not normal, okay? Their physical appearance confuses Banquo in Act 1, Scene 3 because he observes, "You should be women and yet your beards forbid me to interpret that you are so." So, this suggests that they exist outside normal human categories such as gender. And this sense of inversion continues in their grotesque ingredients of their hell broth that they're stirring in Act 4, Scene 1. They put a ton of ingredients in there. The two that I would focus in on is the finger of the birth-strangled babe and the sow's blood that hath eaten her nine farrow. I think both of these images disturbingly provide a a disturbingly distorted idea of motherhood and nurture. We've got a a baby who's been strangled. And um and baby pigs basically that have been eaten uh by their mother. Um so, this may have had particular resonance for a Jacobean audience because during this period there was increasing anxiety and prosecution surrounding cases of infanticide, in other words, killing your own children. And this was particularly common among poor and unmarried mothers. Who knows if these things if there was really any basis to these these prosecutions. We also know this was a time when people were put to death for being a witch, but there was definitely anxiety and belief around this. Um I think what Shakespeare is doing in this sense is he's saying that the witches represent not only supernatural evil, but also the darkest fears and hidden crimes within human society itself. Even the witches seem unable to to or unwilling to define their own nature. As an example in Act 1 Scene 3, Macbeth asks, you know, explain who you are, and they simply vanish. And then in Act 4 Scene 1, they describe their actions as a deed without a name. This could be just them being deliberately deceptive, right? They're hiding the mechanisms of their manipulation. But it could also point to the limitations of human language. Perhaps something truly outside the natural world cannot exist or be explained or categorized by human language. In this way, Shakespeare ensures that the witches remain mysterious. They're unsettling figures. They resist clear definition, reinforcing their role as forces that exist beyond the boundaries of ordinary human understanding. And so the best thing you can do in your response is just to explore the multiple interpretations we have. Now, a good question to ask yourself is do you believe that what Macbeth did would have happened had he never met the witches? I think most people believe it would never have happened. They are the characters that plant that seed and therefore I think we can confidently call them catalysts. Powerful catalysts in fact because they initiate and accelerate Macbeth's moral decline by awakening this kind of sleeping ambition within him and also by distorting his sense of reality. So in Act 1 Scene 3 their prophecy that he will become Thane of Cawdor and King hereafter operates as an inciting incident. Use that, refer to it as an inciting incident. It is the moment where everything changes for Macbeth because it disrupts his previous stable identity as a loyal nobleman. Remember before this we've heard all these amazing things about Macbeth being this great warrior, being so loyal to King Duncan and so on. So this disruption is immediately evident when Banquo observes Macbeth after speaking with the witches in Act 1 Scene 3. He notices that he looks rapt. That suggests both intense absorption and maybe to a Jacobean audience who who could be deeply influenced by beliefs in witchcraft, maybe even supernatural enchantment. Macbeth's own soliloquy uh when he says, "Why do I yield to the to that suggestion?" Cuz he's thinking about he immediately thinks about killing King Duncan and he's saying, "Why do I just yield to that immediately?" That reveals the witches' catalytic power. The verb yield in particular implies a really troubling susceptibility in Macbeth. It exposes his weakness beneath his heroic exterior and that is that he's impressionable and I think this is what the witches prey on. He also describes his seated heart is um now knocking at his ribs. So, here he's using hyperbolic imagery to convey an overwhelming emotional turmoil, and that indicates that the witches have ignited a dangerous internal conflict. You know, think about this man who's this brave warrior who stays so calm and collected on the battlefield, and all it took was for these witches to say he's going to become king for his heart to be knocking at his ribs like this. So, in line with Jacobean fears of the devil, um this basically the Jacobean audience believed that the devil was within everyone, and it's an an internal corruptor. So, this moment suggests that the witches they didn't implant ambition in Macbeth. It was always there. All they do is awaken and intensify it. And we see that influence continue in Act 4, Scene 1, where their equivocal prophecies, one being um that none of woman born shall harm Macbeth, um fosters a fatal overconfidence in him. And also they tell him, they instruct him to be confident, right? They say, "Be bloody, bold, and resolute." The imperative be creates a commanding tone, and the triplets give it a spell-like quality, and that both emphasizes the great influence they have on Macbeth. The effect of these prophecies and their instructions is clear to see. By Act 5, Scene 3, he's receiving all these troubling reports about an army marching their way. There's people giving up. Their soldiers are running away. And he doesn't seem to be bothered. He says, you know, "My heart will never sag with doubt nor shake with fear." reflecting how fully he has internalized the witches' manipulative assurances. The rhyming couplet in his speech underscores his full certainty and the declarative sentence reflects his conviction. But, it could of course be argued that it's quite ironic for him to say that his heart cannot be influenced by fear because his leadership has actually been driven by paranoia, which has been fed by the witches. While so while he intends to present himself as unwavering in this moment, I don't think the audience are convinced. I think they feel like they're looking at a weak and unwise man who is simply acting in accordance with the witches' words from Act 4, Scene 1 in telling him to be bold, basically. Be bloody, be bold, be resolute. So, I think he's just mindlessly following their instructions. So, through this, Shakespeare highlights how equivocation, you know, that's not saying telling half-truths, basically, um manipulate individuals by giving them a false sense of certainty certainty, sorry. Macbeth chooses to interpret these statements in the most favorable favorable way, so it tells us a lot about him, right? This reveals not just the witches' power, but also his own willingness to be deceived. For a Jacobean audience, this message would have been particularly significant. Equivocation was a really important um term at this point because it was linked to contemporary events such as the Gunpowder Plot, where deceptive language had been used to conceal treason. So, I think ultimately, Shakespeare presents equivocation through the characters of the witches as a tool of evil that distorts truth and encourages self-destruction, creates chaos, affects the chain of being, all of those things. That just reinforces this idea that there are terrible consequences associated with equivocation. Now, we've already mentioned that Shakespeare does not provide any definitive answer about the witches. So, it's absolutely worthwhile exploring the possibility that they are actually ultimately in control. They're not just influencing, of course, the previous paragraph with the referring to them as catalyst really highlights the way that they can influence and manipulate situations. But, there's a possibility that they are actually completely in control. So, let's explore the evidence for this. And you could argue there's some compelling evidence um that they are in control of of both events and characters. So, significantly, one thing to mention is they're never actually called witches within the dialogue itself. Witches is written on the script, but of course, plays were not written to be read. They were written to be viewed on stage. So, the audience members would only have heard these witches, as we call them, being referred to as weird sisters. Specifically, the word weird is important because it's a term derived from the old word weird, w y r d, which means fate. So, it could be argued that weird sisters is actually an allusion to the three fates of classical mythology. Basically, three figures that represent the ability to control destiny. So, for a Jacobean audience, they are not just merely supernatural beings. They are actually embodiments of of destiny. This association's reinforced when you think about the accuracy of their prophecies. I know they're equivocal, but the real but the truth is that they do come true. And so that either suggests they know the truth and the future or they have to a to a greater degree, they actually have authority over the future. They can decide what happens. There's linguistic influence as well that we see infiltrated in other characters. I think the most notable would be Macbeth when he echoes their paradox. Remember they start open the play saying "Fair is foul and foul is fair." And then when we see Macbeth, he says "So foul and fair a day I have not seen." And that might imply a subtle psychological domination before they've even met. Their control may extend even further when you think about Macbeth's supposed hallucination of a dagger floating in front of him. Maybe he wasn't hallucinating. Maybe it truly was there. Okay, he says "Thou marshal'st me the way." In other words, the way to Duncan's chamber. The passive construction of the verb marshal'st, right? It's marshaling me, it's guiding me, reflect reflects the perceived uh loss of Macbeth's agency in this moment, right? He feels like he's being guided by an external force. Additionally, the witches' earlier declaration that they will deprive a man of sleep as revenge foreshadows Macbeth's torment after the murders. As a reminder, at the beginning of the play, one of the witches says she's unhappy with the woman. She won't share her chestnuts with me. I'm going to make sure that her husband can't sleep. I think it was for like 81 days or something. Um so we know they have control over uh how people can sleep or not. And then when Macbeth murders King Duncan, he says that he heard a voice say Macbeth shall sleep no more." So, that suggests their influence continues beyond their physical presence, right? They're they're a voice also in his head. Um the use of the third person in that voice, right? "Macbeth shall sleep no more." reiterates the sense that Macbeth again is no longer in control. Even the structure of the play reinforces their dominance. They open the play, and they reappear at key turning points, and each time they appear, they seem to shape the trajectory um as if they are puppeteers or orchestrators of chaos. However, while this is there seems to be that these this evidence that we've just discussed um towards this idea that they have control, Shakespeare does leave room for ambiguity. Everything we've just discussed could also be interpreted as Macbeth's um own decisions, right? That his downfall is really self-driven. Um which would imply that they don't have complete power, but it's open, and I think the important thing is is that Macbeth didn't want us to walk away from the play with a definitive answer. He wanted that to wanted it to spark a discussion. For the Jacobean audience who may have Some of them would have believed in witches, some won't have. Maybe a discussion of whether witches really exist, but I think more than that, I think he was encouraging a discussion about human capacity. Are we truly capable of evil? Does it really come from ourselves? Personally, I think the most convincing evidence is for the argument that the witches are actually limited in their power. Like I said, it is open to interpretation. My advice is to end on the point that you think is the most convincing. So, for me, that's why I'm ending with this argument that they are limited. Um I think this is established as early as act one, scene three, when one witch admits, "Though his bark cannot be lost, yet it shall be tempest-tossed." Here, she's talking about um messing with the weather to um hurt a sailor, basically, right? The dependent clause there emphasizes her restriction, right? She cannot destroy the sailor's life. She cannot sink the ship. But, she can disturb his journey by controlling the natural elements. And this reflects contemporary beliefs, particularly those of King James the first, actually, that witches could manipulate natural elements like the weather. As an example, he believed witches were responsible for sinking one of his ships that was sailing from Denmark back to England. You could see this as a greater metaphor. It suggests that the witches can create conditions that shape human experience, but they can't dictate choices. And of course, we can then link that to what they did with Macbeth. And I think that limitation is reinforced when we look at the um with with Banquo, okay? First of all, he describes them as instruments of darkness. So, zooming into the word instruments implies that they are merely tools of a greater power rather than the ultimate authority. Um this hierarchy becomes explicit, actually, when we are introduced to Hecate, um who condemns them and calls herself the mistress of their charms. Of course, the title mistress signals her dominance as the true source of their power. Furthermore, the contrasting reactions of Macbeth and Banquo reveal the witches' influence depends on the individual and how susceptible they are. Banquo resists them, he asserts, "I will neither beg nor fear your favors nor your hate." So, we've got beg and fear here emphasizing his refusal to submit, and that makes him a dramatic foil for Macbeth. He becomes increasingly consumed by their words in stark contrast. Crucially, the witches later refer to Macbeth as "something wicked this way comes." This is before they give those three further equivocations in Act 4, Scene 1. So, that tells us that actually the capacity for evil existed within him prior to their final interference. And so, they didn't create his ambition, they simply exploited it. And we've, of course, focused on that when we looked at how they are catalysts. And then finally, their disappearance after Act 4, Scene 1, I think symbolizes um the fact that the necessity of their presence is diminished, okay? By this point, Macbeth is acting independently. He's driven by internalized ambition and by paranoia, and of course, they have fed all of those things, but I don't think they are there with the puppet strings at that point. I think they planted a seed, and that seed has flourished, and um and now Macbeth is off creating his own tragedy. Uh and this presentation also aligns with the waning and increasingly contested belief in witchcraft during the Jacobean era. I don't read this much in students' work, but it is important to note that not everyone believed in witches. So, there was definitely a fear of witches, but that seemed to peak in the late 1500s, and we can see that with the high levels of persecution, but attitudes did start to shift during the early 1600s, so that the Jacobean era, with some people questioning the beliefs as irrational and even stating that they are they were un-Christian. So, but by portraying the witches as limited and subordinate, rather than all-powerful, I think Shakespeare reflects the cultural uncertainty and the debate that was taking place in this time. And I think ultimately, he's suggesting that e- if supernatural forces do exist, they may tempt us and they may disturb the peace, but ultimately, the responsibility lies within us and our human choice. So, that brings this video to a close. Please feel free to share your own thoughts in the comment section. You can always reach out to me as well, mrsrumsey@mrsrumsey.com.