BANQUO: “Thou hast it now – King, Cawdor, Glamis, all / As the weird women promised, and I fear / Thou played’st most foully for ‘t” (3:1:1-3)
Banquo’s speech at the opening of Act three carries several interesting implications about both the theatricality of Macbeth’s roles – “King, Cawdor, Glamis” and the fates associated therewith – and the fate proclaimed by the Weird Sisters. The enjambment of Banquo’s lines forces secondary meanings into the words. “All / As the weird women promised” is somehow less bizarre and prophetic than “King, Cawdor, Glamis, all,” with the subsequent implication that the enacting of one of them – in Macbeth’s case, Glamis to Cawdor to King (listed, interestingly enough, in reverse order) – enacts “all.” Shakespeare’s lines – spoken through Banquo, the fictitious (though believed) root of the Stuart kings – force Macbeth’s performance. Macbeth himself is subject (literally and figuratively) to the lines spoken about both himself and his titles; Banquo, Ross, Duncan, and even Lady Macbeth speak the roles that Macbeth must play, and “[play] most foully.” Secondary to the listing of Macbeth’s roles – in order, but not importance – is Banquo’s fear: “I fear / Thou play’st most foully for ‘t.” The enjambment of the line truncates the remained of Banquo’s sentence, transforming his judgment of Macbeth into an emotive indication: he fears. The addition of the remainder, unlike the previous line, which clarifies the source of Macbeth’s fortune, acknowledges Macbeth’s lack of power in the face of his naming: “Thou play’st most foully for it.” Not only has Macbeth “play’st” a foul role in murdering Duncan, but he has (and is, and will) “play” his own role to a foul end.
This is a chunk of notes that will, by the end of December, be placed in a longer seminar paper on the ideas of fate and theatricality in Macbeth (yes, dear, Macbeth). The basic premise is that Macbeth is forced into his position of regicide through the language of the play itself. Certainly, our friends the Weird Sisters have a cackling hand in it - they are the mouthpieces of the Fates, after all (three and three... think about it) - but the overarching hand MUST be that of our loveable author's Will (sorry about the punning, folks, but it is a Friday afternoon and I need dinner). The long and short of it is that Macbeth has no agency of his own, but that his character is predetermined by the lines of the play from the moment it opens.Now, I can hear you saying "Well, duh. Shakespeare wrote it, so he could decide what to write." That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that the language of the play predetermines the character (and yes, I'm sure our dashing William did do that intentionally, but I don't care if he did or not), and since Macbeth is predestined to become the things he becomes (and to do the things he does), it isn't his fault. Whether or not I assign any blame to the sisters or his wife, I've yet to determine.