Like many of the most renowned scenes in the Shakespeare canon, the Macbeths' murder of King Duncan actually derives from Thomas North's life: specifically a true-crime tragedy involving his family
Thank you. This brings it in better focus. As my legal writing professor taught us, good persuasive writing is rewritten, and rewritten, and rewritten by tightening the argument with each iteration, narrowing the focus to the essentials, and then setting it aside for a while to pick it up again and read it with fresh eyes and a clearer mind. The old lawyers’ saw to the irritated judge faced with a lengthy brief, “Judge, I’d have made it shorter if I’d had more time.”
Not at all. Be my guest. There’s nothing original there. Just repeating wisdom from one of my many, many teachers. BTW, I included you in that category. No attribution needed.
Well, there's nothing original anywhere. But it is good to restate important truisms in different ways. I'll probably post it in a Note after my talk on Saturday. Thanks again.
"Like many of the most renowned scenes in the Shakespeare canon, the Macbeths' murder of King Duncan actually derives from Thomas North's life: specifically a true-crime tragedy involving his family."
The English teacher within me feels compelled to point out that "derives" implies North got the whole story from the Arden case. That's clearly true for Arden of Feversham, but somewhat less true for Macbeth.
You make a good case for some similarities of language (though the fact that a passage has both "out" and "blood" may be the result of coincidence). But as for Lady Macbeth, she's clearly a conspirator even in Holinshed, though she has a much less prominent role. It's possible that Mary Arden contributed to North's portrayal of her, but she is far from being the only literary woman with a murderous agenda. One thinks immediately of Medea, who conspired to kill her brother and did kill her own sons--recall how Lady Macbeth expresses a willingness to kill a child if she had one. Medea also engineering the murder of Pelias in an unsuccessful effort to get her husband, Jason, a throne. There's also Clytemnestra, who killed her own husband, just like Mary Arden. Clytemnestra's husband also happened to be a king just like Duncan. Sure, there are differences among these stories--but there are also differences between the Arden murder and Macbeth. As for the accusatory blood, the theme goes all the way back to the Genesis story of Cain and Abel and no doubt has spawned many parallels.
All of that said, an argument could certainly be made for North choosing to expand Lady Macbeth's role in the way he does could certainly have been influenced by Mary Arden. Perhaps it would be strange if she hadn't contributed in some way. But North may also have been influenced by his knowledge of Greco-Roman literature and by the Bible. The latter of which is often echoed in the texts.
In other words, I think your point has some validity but is perhaps presented in too absolute a way.
Great points, especially about Medea and other murderous women in history! Yes, certainly, I did not mean to and should not have implied that the Macbeth story had no other influences. Worse, it also appears I have ineffectively communicated how peculiarly unique the Arden/Macbeth parallels are.
Yes, there were murderous women in literature before Alice Arden; and yes accusatory blood also occurs in other classical and biblical stories. But nowhere else in the history of literature, do you have all these elements together: 1) a WOMAN CAJOLES her lover into a bloody murder AND 2) a KNOCK AT THE DOOR threatens discovery; AND 3) the WOMAN BARKS ORDERS: "GO ... [get some] WATER AND WASH ... THIS [blood away] (Just that line, linguistically, is unique). 4) and then WITH BLOOD STAINED HANDS, tries as hard as she can to wash away the blood but cannot: "HERE's .. THE BLOOD still" / "HERE his BLOOD remains". Also both plays: "THE BLOOD will not OUT" / OUT, damn spot. OUT, I say." So it's not just the coincidence of the words "blood" and "out;" it's ALL the very peculiar plot points and IMAGE of a woman with blood stained hands who cannot wash away the blood -- a scene so peculiar and so iconic, nearly everyone would identify it as Lady Macbeth (but it occurred with Alice Arden first.) After all, the real Lady Macbeth was not involved in the murder of Duncan. All this was invented. And I do think it is beyond all dobut that the seminal inspiration was "Arden of Faversham.'
[Finally, scholars have noticed other resemblances between "Arden" and "Macbeth." For example, the murder cause a similar ghostly vision: grinning or smiling faces with hair “BLOOD BOLTERED” or “BOLTERED HAIR” and DAGGERS. Also, at the end, both guilty men contend they are tired and ready for death: “I HAVE LIV’D LONG enough” / I HAVE LIVED too LONG.” ]
For the record, I wasn’t saying that your approach was ineffective (though I think perhaps the comment above is a little clearer). I was, in fact, being nitpicky, but there is method in my madness. Perhaps I should have been more explicit. I was not trying to suggest that your approach is drastically flawed. It clearly isn’t. What I was thinking at the time, though, is that when one is supporting a controversial view, it’s important to be clear in one’s advocacy. Otherwise, what happens is that your opponents will latch onto little points like that and not see the big picture.
In your books, you do an excellent job with that. In this particular post, where space is necessarily limited, you leave yourself open to more nitpicking. But that’s just a question of slight rewording to qualify a couple of statements that might be interpreted as too absolute otherwise.
I apologize for not making it clearer that I was suggesting a slight adjustment. I never intended to make a broader criticism. In general terms, you converted me to your position long ago.
Speaking of background influences, what you’re seeing in my comment is partly my experience as an English teacher, which gives me a different perspective on some things. I spent a lot of time teaching argumentation, persuasive strategies, and rhetoric, among other things. Consequently, when I see something like a commercial, part of my brain analyzes the intended audience, the sort of strategies being used, and the effectiveness of the pitch. When I see a persuasive essay, such as your post, part of my brain works up arguments for and against. (I was also at one point a debate coach.)
People with different experiences would process the same information differently. The reason I thought it was worth the nitpick in this particular case is that your chief opponents on the topic of Shakespearean authorship are college English professors, yes? Their experience is similar to mine. In some ways, their experience is like mine on steroids. As I recall from my own college professors, they will be sensitive to nuances and to exactitude of wording.
In other words, my hope was to be helpful, not to be critical. I’m actually an admirer of your work. If I came across differently, I’m sorry.
Dennis, what’s your response? Mr. Hiatt raises issues they are at the very heart of good intellectual discourse. I hope you will engage.
As requested
Thank you. This brings it in better focus. As my legal writing professor taught us, good persuasive writing is rewritten, and rewritten, and rewritten by tightening the argument with each iteration, narrowing the focus to the essentials, and then setting it aside for a while to pick it up again and read it with fresh eyes and a clearer mind. The old lawyers’ saw to the irritated judge faced with a lengthy brief, “Judge, I’d have made it shorter if I’d had more time.”
Do you mind if I quote you and post this as a "Note"?
Not at all. Be my guest. There’s nothing original there. Just repeating wisdom from one of my many, many teachers. BTW, I included you in that category. No attribution needed.
Well, there's nothing original anywhere. But it is good to restate important truisms in different ways. I'll probably post it in a Note after my talk on Saturday. Thanks again.
I hope your audience is receptive to and appreciative of your discoveries and analysis.
"Like many of the most renowned scenes in the Shakespeare canon, the Macbeths' murder of King Duncan actually derives from Thomas North's life: specifically a true-crime tragedy involving his family."
The English teacher within me feels compelled to point out that "derives" implies North got the whole story from the Arden case. That's clearly true for Arden of Feversham, but somewhat less true for Macbeth.
You make a good case for some similarities of language (though the fact that a passage has both "out" and "blood" may be the result of coincidence). But as for Lady Macbeth, she's clearly a conspirator even in Holinshed, though she has a much less prominent role. It's possible that Mary Arden contributed to North's portrayal of her, but she is far from being the only literary woman with a murderous agenda. One thinks immediately of Medea, who conspired to kill her brother and did kill her own sons--recall how Lady Macbeth expresses a willingness to kill a child if she had one. Medea also engineering the murder of Pelias in an unsuccessful effort to get her husband, Jason, a throne. There's also Clytemnestra, who killed her own husband, just like Mary Arden. Clytemnestra's husband also happened to be a king just like Duncan. Sure, there are differences among these stories--but there are also differences between the Arden murder and Macbeth. As for the accusatory blood, the theme goes all the way back to the Genesis story of Cain and Abel and no doubt has spawned many parallels.
All of that said, an argument could certainly be made for North choosing to expand Lady Macbeth's role in the way he does could certainly have been influenced by Mary Arden. Perhaps it would be strange if she hadn't contributed in some way. But North may also have been influenced by his knowledge of Greco-Roman literature and by the Bible. The latter of which is often echoed in the texts.
In other words, I think your point has some validity but is perhaps presented in too absolute a way.
Great points, especially about Medea and other murderous women in history! Yes, certainly, I did not mean to and should not have implied that the Macbeth story had no other influences. Worse, it also appears I have ineffectively communicated how peculiarly unique the Arden/Macbeth parallels are.
Yes, there were murderous women in literature before Alice Arden; and yes accusatory blood also occurs in other classical and biblical stories. But nowhere else in the history of literature, do you have all these elements together: 1) a WOMAN CAJOLES her lover into a bloody murder AND 2) a KNOCK AT THE DOOR threatens discovery; AND 3) the WOMAN BARKS ORDERS: "GO ... [get some] WATER AND WASH ... THIS [blood away] (Just that line, linguistically, is unique). 4) and then WITH BLOOD STAINED HANDS, tries as hard as she can to wash away the blood but cannot: "HERE's .. THE BLOOD still" / "HERE his BLOOD remains". Also both plays: "THE BLOOD will not OUT" / OUT, damn spot. OUT, I say." So it's not just the coincidence of the words "blood" and "out;" it's ALL the very peculiar plot points and IMAGE of a woman with blood stained hands who cannot wash away the blood -- a scene so peculiar and so iconic, nearly everyone would identify it as Lady Macbeth (but it occurred with Alice Arden first.) After all, the real Lady Macbeth was not involved in the murder of Duncan. All this was invented. And I do think it is beyond all dobut that the seminal inspiration was "Arden of Faversham.'
[Finally, scholars have noticed other resemblances between "Arden" and "Macbeth." For example, the murder cause a similar ghostly vision: grinning or smiling faces with hair “BLOOD BOLTERED” or “BOLTERED HAIR” and DAGGERS. Also, at the end, both guilty men contend they are tired and ready for death: “I HAVE LIV’D LONG enough” / I HAVE LIVED too LONG.” ]
For the record, I wasn’t saying that your approach was ineffective (though I think perhaps the comment above is a little clearer). I was, in fact, being nitpicky, but there is method in my madness. Perhaps I should have been more explicit. I was not trying to suggest that your approach is drastically flawed. It clearly isn’t. What I was thinking at the time, though, is that when one is supporting a controversial view, it’s important to be clear in one’s advocacy. Otherwise, what happens is that your opponents will latch onto little points like that and not see the big picture.
In your books, you do an excellent job with that. In this particular post, where space is necessarily limited, you leave yourself open to more nitpicking. But that’s just a question of slight rewording to qualify a couple of statements that might be interpreted as too absolute otherwise.
I apologize for not making it clearer that I was suggesting a slight adjustment. I never intended to make a broader criticism. In general terms, you converted me to your position long ago.
Speaking of background influences, what you’re seeing in my comment is partly my experience as an English teacher, which gives me a different perspective on some things. I spent a lot of time teaching argumentation, persuasive strategies, and rhetoric, among other things. Consequently, when I see something like a commercial, part of my brain analyzes the intended audience, the sort of strategies being used, and the effectiveness of the pitch. When I see a persuasive essay, such as your post, part of my brain works up arguments for and against. (I was also at one point a debate coach.)
People with different experiences would process the same information differently. The reason I thought it was worth the nitpick in this particular case is that your chief opponents on the topic of Shakespearean authorship are college English professors, yes? Their experience is similar to mine. In some ways, their experience is like mine on steroids. As I recall from my own college professors, they will be sensitive to nuances and to exactitude of wording.
In other words, my hope was to be helpful, not to be critical. I’m actually an admirer of your work. If I came across differently, I’m sorry.
Brilliant! Thank you for the help and agreed. You’ve made my post better because of it.