Shakespeare and witches

[Geoff Bannister]

No: HPFGUIDX 158422

A few various and perhaps unrelated thoughts about Macbeth have 
sprung to mind, triggered by some recent posts.

In  message 113732  dated 24/09/04, which was part of a thread 
to do with Trevor the toad, I wrote the following:

<quote>
> Potioncat:
> Were there 3 witches? What was the third familiar? Does anyone
> else think it's interesting that there is a toad, and a cat in this 
story too?

Geoff:
Indeed there were three witches. I've just hauled out a very old 
copy of "Macbeth" from the bookshelf which is full of scribbled 
marginal notes from when my school did a version when I was 
in the Sixth Form. Being an all-boys' school, we did it 
Shakespearian style with all parts being cast for us lads and I 
cleverly collected First Witch (no laughing in the wings there!). 
So I have taken a "professional" interest in these observations 
and in the use of Shakespeare's lines in "the medium that 
dares not speak its name".

My point was that, in the notes to my edition of the play, it 
suggests that Graymalkin was a common cat's name and implied 
that Paddock was use another name for a toad.
</quote>

The relevant scene from Macbeth is the following:

"First witch: When shall we three meet again?
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?

Second witch: When the hurly-burly's done,
When the battle's lost, and won.

Third witch: That will be ere the set of sun.

First witch: Where the place?

Second witch: Upon the Heath.

Third witch: There to meet with Macbeth.

First witch: I come, Graymalkin.

All: Paddock calls anon;
Fair is foul, and foul is fair,
Hover through the fog and filthy air."

(Macbeth Act 1: Scene 1)

*****

In message 158410,  zanooda made reference to the trees 
in Birnam Wood and is quite right that there is there is 
absolutely no suggestion of magic on Shakespeare's part. 
The final part of the prophecy presented to Macbeth is:

"Third Apparition: Be lion-mettled, proud and take no care
Who chafes, who frets or where conspirers are:
Macbeth shall never vanquish'd be, until
Great Birnam Wood, to high Dunsinane Hill
Shall come against him."

(Act 4: Scene 1)

The way in which it works out in the plot is in the following:

"Siward: What wood is this before us?

Mentieth: The wood of Birnam

Malcolm: Let every soldier hew him down a bough,
And bare't before him, thereby shall we shadow
The numbers of our host and make discovery
Err in report of us"

(Act 5: Scene 4)

This rather cheap way of making the prophecy seem to 
come true - in the eyes of Macbeth at least – incensed 
J.R.R.Tolkien immensely. It was from this and his love of 
trees that the great tree-shepherds, the Ents, came into 
creation in the "Lord of the Rings". Treebeard, the eldest, 
took a crucial part in the defeat of Saruman the woods 
really "came to high Isengard Hill against him" (apologies 
to the Bard).

*****

In message 158411, Sherrie wrote:

"Graymalkin" isn't one of the Wyrd Sisters


(And yes, I meant to spell it that way - it's "wyrd", 
not "weird".)

Geoff:
Just to be pedantic (as ever!), according to my notes, in the 
collected Folio edition of 1623, the witches were variously 
referred to as "wayward" or "weyard". 

There is an interesting side-link to Purcell here that, in his 
opera, "Dido and Aeneas" – which again sees the downfall of 
a hero through the agency of witches, one of the arias begins  
by addressing them as "Wayward Sisters".

Finally, feeling yet another attack of pedantry coming on,  I 
come to the subject of shifting trees around. "Mobiliarbus" 
seems to be another case of JKR either being bad at Latin 
or deliberately distorting it. 

The Latin word for tree is not "arbus" but "arbor" and "mobili-" 
seems to be related to "mobilis" (=moveable). I would have 
expected the use of "moveo" in its Imperative form "move" 
(the 'e' is sounded) which would have given "movearbor" as 
the required command.