William Shakespeare, English dramatist, poet, and actor considered by many to be the greatest dramatist of all time. No writer’s living reputation can compare to that of Shakespeare, whose notable plays included the tragedies Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, and Othello. He was also known for his sonnets. Each Shakespeare’s play name links to a range of resources about each play: Character summaries, plot outlines, example essays and famous quotes, soliloquies and monologues: All’s Well That Ends Well Antony and Cleopatra As You Like It The Comedy of Errors Coriolanus Cymbeline Hamlet Henry IV Part 1 Henry IV Part 2 Henry VIII Henry VI Part.

1. Shakespeare For Children To Memorize
2. Shakespeare For Murder
3. Shakespeare For Children Books
4. Shakespeare For Children
5. Shakespeare For Children Lamb
6. Shakespeare For My

Questions of authorship

Readers and playgoers in Shakespeare’s own lifetime, and indeed until the late 18th century, never questioned Shakespeare’s authorship of his plays. He was a well-known actor from Stratford who performed in London’s premier acting company, among the great actors of his day. He was widely known by the leading writers of his time as well, including Ben Jonson and John Webster, both of whom praised him as a dramatist. Many other tributes to him as a great writer appeared during his lifetime. Any theory that supposes him not to have been the writer of the plays and poems attributed to him must suppose that Shakespeare’s contemporaries were universally fooled by some kind of secret arrangement.

Yet suspicions on the subject gained increasing force in the mid-19th century. One Delia Bacon proposed that the author was her claimed ancestor Sir Francis Bacon, Viscount St. Albans, who was indeed a prominent writer of the Elizabethan era. What had prompted this theory? The chief considerations seem to have been that little is known about Shakespeare’s life (though in fact more is known about him than about his contemporary writers), that he was from the country town of Stratford-upon-Avon, that he never attended one of the universities, and that therefore it would have been impossible for him to write knowledgeably about the great affairs of English courtly life such as we find in the plays.

The theory is suspect on a number of counts. University training in Shakespeare’s day centred on theology and on Latin, Greek, and Hebrew texts of a sort that would not have greatly improved Shakespeare’s knowledge of contemporary English life. By the 19th century, a university education was becoming more and more the mark of a broadly educated person, but university training in the 16th century was quite a different matter. The notion that only a university-educated person could write of life at court and among the gentry is an erroneous and indeed a snobbish assumption. Shakespeare was better off going to London as he did, seeing and writing plays, listening to how people talked. He was a reporter, in effect. The great writers of his era (or indeed of most eras) are not usually aristocrats, who have no need to earn a living by their pens. Shakespeare’s social background is essentially like that of his best contemporaries. Edmund Spenser went to Cambridge, it is true, but he came from a sail-making family. Christopher Marlowe also attended Cambridge, but his kindred were shoemakers in Canterbury. John Webster, Thomas Dekker, and Thomas Middleton came from similar backgrounds. They discovered that they were writers, able to make a living off their talent, and they (excluding the poet Spenser) flocked to the London theatres where customers for their wares were to be found. Like them, Shakespeare was a man of the commercial theatre.

Other candidates—William Stanley, 6th earl of Derby, and Christopher Marlowe among them—have been proposed, and indeed the very fact of so many candidates makes one suspicious of the claims of any one person. The late 20th-century candidate for the writing of Shakespeare’s plays, other than Shakespeare himself, was Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford. Oxford did indeed write verse, as did other gentlemen; sonneteering was a mark of gentlemanly distinction. Oxford was also a wretched man who abused his wife and drove his father-in-law to distraction. Most seriously damaging to Oxford’s candidacy is the fact that he died in 1604. The chronology presented here, summarizing perhaps 200 years of assiduous scholarship, establishes a professional career for Shakespeare as dramatist that extends from about 1589 to 1614. Many of his greatest plays—King Lear, Antony and Cleopatra, and The Tempest, to name but three—were written after 1604. To suppose that the dating of the canon is totally out of whack and that all the plays and poems were written before 1604 is a desperate argument. Some individual dates are uncertain, but the overall pattern is coherent. The growth in poetic and dramatic styles, the development of themes and subjects, along with objective evidence, all support a chronology that extends to about 1614. To suppose alternatively that Oxford wrote the plays and poems before 1604 and then put them away in a drawer, to be brought out after his death and updated to make them appear timely, is to invent an answer to a nonexistent problem.

When all is said, the sensible question one must ask is, why would Oxford want to write the plays and poems and then not claim them for himself? The answer given is that he was an aristocrat and that writing for the theatre was not elegant; hence he needed a front man, an alias. Shakespeare, the actor, was a suitable choice. But is it plausible that a cover-up like this could have succeeded?

Shakespeare For Children To Memorize

Shakespeare’s contemporaries, after all, wrote of him unequivocally as the author of the plays. Ben Jonson, who knew him well, contributed verses to the First Folio of 1623, where (as elsewhere) he criticizes and praises Shakespeare as the author. John Heminge and Henry Condell, fellow actors and theatre owners with Shakespeare, signed the dedication and a foreword to the First Folio and described their methods as editors. In his own day, therefore, he was accepted as the author of the plays. In an age that loved gossip and mystery as much as any, it seems hardly conceivable that Jonson and Shakespeare’s theatrical associates shared the secret of a gigantic literary hoax without a single leak or that they could have been imposed upon without suspicion. Unsupported assertions that the author of the plays was a man of great learning and that Shakespeare of Stratford was an illiterate rustic no longer carry weight, and only when a believer in Bacon or Oxford or Marlowe produces sound evidence will scholars pay close attention.

Lord Macduff, the Thane of Fife, is a character in William Shakespeare's Macbeth (c.1603–1607) that is loosely based on history. Macduff, a legendary hero, plays a pivotal role in the play: he suspects Macbeth of regicide and eventually kills Macbeth in the final act. He can be seen as the avenging hero who helps save Scotland from Macbeth's tyranny in the play.

The character is first known from Chronica Gentis Scotorum (late 14th century) and Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland (early 15th century). Shakespeare drew mostly from Holinshed's Chronicles (1587).

Although characterised sporadically throughout the play, Macduff serves as a foil to Macbeth and a figure of morality.

Origin[edit]

The overall plot that would serve as the basis for Macbeth is first seen in the writings of two chroniclers of Scottish history, John of Fordun, whose prose Chronica Gentis Scotorum was begun about 1363, and Andrew of Wyntoun's Scots verse Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland, written no earlier than 1420. These served as the basis for the account given in Holinshed's Chronicles (1587), on whose narratives of King Duff and King Duncan Shakespeare in part based Macbeth.

Historically, Duff was a 10th century King of Alba. In John of Fordun's work, the reign of Duff is portrayed as having suffered from pervasive witchcraft. The Orygynale Cronykil suggests that Duff was murdered. Due to the Irish use of tanistry, Duff's immediate descendants did not become rulers of Alba, and instead became mormaers of Fife. Their clan – the Clan MacDuff – remained the most powerful family in Fife in the Middle Ages.^[1]

In Holinshed's narrative, attributes of King Duff are transposed onto the MacDuff mormaer from Macbeth's era. Macduff first appears in Holinshed's narrative of King Duncan after Macbeth has killed the latter and reigned as King of Scotland for 10 years. When Macbeth calls upon his nobles to contribute to the construction of Dunsinane castle, Macduff avoids the summons, arousing Macbeth's suspicions. Macduff leaves Scotland for England to prod Duncan's son, Malcolm III of Scotland, into taking the Scottish throne by force. Meanwhile, Macbeth murders Macduff's family. Malcolm, Macduff, and the English forces march on Macbeth, and Macduff kills him.^[2] Shakespeare follows Holinshed's account of Macduff closely, with his only deviations being Macduff's discovery of Duncan's body in 2.3, and Macduff's brief conference with Ross in 2.4.

Shakespeare For Murder

The ruins of Macduff's Castle lie in the village of East Wemyss next to the cemetery.

Shakespeare For Children Books

Role in the play[edit]

Shakespeare For Children

Macduff first speaks in the play in act 2, scene 3 to the drunken porter to report to his duty of awaking King Duncan when he is sleeping for the night at Macbeth's castle. When he discovers the corpse of King Duncan (murdered by Macbeth, but it appears that nearby guards are guilty since Lady Macbeth put his knife by them and smeared them with Duncan's blood), he raises an alarm, informing the castle that the king has been murdered. Macduff begins to suspect Macbeth of regicide when Macbeth says, 'O, yet I do repent me of my fury / That I did kill them' (2.3.124–125). Macduff's name does not appear in this scene; rather, Banquo refers to him as 'Dear Duff' (2.3.105).

In 2.4 Macbeth has left for Scone, the ancient royal city where Scottish kings were crowned. Macduff, meanwhile, meets with Ross and an Old Man. He reveals that he will not be attending the coronation of Macbeth and will instead return to his home in Fife. However, Macduff flees to England to join Malcolm, the slain King Duncan's elder son, and convinces him to return to Scotland and claim the throne.

Macbeth, meanwhile, visits the Three Witches again after the spectre of Banquo appears at the royal banquet. The Witches warn Macbeth to 'beware Macduff, beware the Thane of Fife' (4.1.81–82). However, they inform Macbeth that, 'The power of man, for none of woman born / Shall harm Macbeth' (4.1.91–92) — leading one to infer that no human could possibly defeat Macbeth. Macbeth, fearing for his position as King of Scotland, learns soon afterward that Macduff has fled to England to try to raise an army against him and orders the deaths of Macduff's wife, children and relatives. Macduff, who is still in England, learns of his family's deaths through Ross, another Scottish thane. He joins Malcolm, and they return to Scotland with their English allies to face Macbeth at Dunsinane Castle.

After Macbeth slays the young Siward, Macduff charges into the main castle and confronts Macbeth. Although Macbeth believes that he cannot be killed by any man born of a woman, he soon learns that Macduff was 'from his mother's womb / Untimely ripped' (Act V Scene 8 lines 2493/2494) — meaning that Macduff was born by caesarean section. The two fight, and Macduff slays Macbeth offstage. Macduff ultimately presents Macbeth's head to Malcolm, hailing him as king and calling on the other thanes to declare their allegiance with him (5.11.20–25).

Analysis[edit]

Shakespeare For Children Lamb

Macduff as a foil to Macbeth[edit]

As a supporting character, Macduff serves as a foil to Macbeth; his integrity directly contrasts with Macbeth's moral perversion.^[3] In an exchange between the Scottish thane Lennox and another lord, Lennox talks of Macduff’s flight to England and refers to him as 'some holy angel' (3.6.46) who 'may soon return to this our suffering country / Under a hand accursed' (3.6.48–49). The play positions the characters of Macduff and Macbeth as holy versus evil

The contrast between Macduff and Macbeth is accentuated by their approaches to death. Macduff, hearing of his family’s death, reacts with a tortured grief. His words, 'But I must also feel it as a man' (4.3.223), indicate a capacity for emotional sensitivity. While Macbeth and Lady Macbeth insist that manhood implies a denial of feeling (1.7.45–57), Macduff insists that emotional depth and sensitivity are part of what it means to be a man. This interpretation is supported by Macduff’s reaction upon his discovery of Duncan’s corpse and the echo of Macduff’s words when Macbeth responds to the news of Lady Macbeth’s death. Macduff struggles to find the words to express his rage and anguish, crying, 'O horror, horror, horror' (2.3.59). In some stage interpretations, Macduff’s character transitions from a state of shock to one of frenzied alarm.^[4] This contrasts starkly with Macbeth’s famous response to the announcement of his wife’s death: 'She should have died hereafter / There would have been a time for such a word / Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow' (5.5.17–19). Macbeth’s words seem to express a brutal indifference–she would have died anyway–and perhaps even suggest that he has lost the capacity to feel.

Macduff as a moral figure[edit]

Although Macduff comes to represent a type of 'goodness' in the dark world of Macbeth, Shakespeare also allows for some instability in his character. This becomes most evident in 4.3, when Macduff joins Malcolm in England. In this scene, the play has moved from the tumult in Scotland to England. In the exchange between the two Scotsmen, Malcolm is clearly in control and forces Macduff to examine and reconcile with himself his own moral code. In a moment of dramatic irony, Macduff begins the conversation urging Malcolm to fight for Scotland rather than to grieve, not knowing that Malcolm has already arranged for English military support (4.3.134–136). Malcolm manipulates Macduff, questioning his loyalty, facilitating his emotional responses, and testing to see how much Macduff’s, and perhaps the audience’s, morality can ultimately be compromised. Malcolm portrays Macbeth as a tyrant, but he positions himself, too, as someone morally repulsive.^[4] He describes his own voluptuousness–the bottomless 'cistern of [his] lust' (4.3.64)–and 'staunchless avarice' (4.3.79). Macduff must decide whether he can accept Malcolm as an alternative to Macbeth. But Macduff cannot accept Malcolm's presentation of himself 'Fit to Govern! No, not to live.' (4.3.103–104). So Malcolm recognises he can trust Macduff and comes clean 'abjure[d] / The taints and blames I laid upon myself, / For strangers to my nature'(4.3.125–127). This shows that rather than speaking truthfully about himself, Malcolm was simply testing Macduff to see where Macduff's loyalties were.

Macduff may also be read as a precursor for ethical philosophy.^[5] Macduff's flight from Scotland is a 'spiritual reawakening', with spirituality based around the truth, regardless of what it may be. Macduff constantly re-examines his values. In deciding to leave his family, Macduff deserts those values and pays bitterly for it. Macduff echoes sentiments of writers such as Plato and the later Thomas Hobbes, who claim that morality may only be judged to the extent that a person takes responsibility for his or her actions. Thus, because he accepts the burden of his decision to leave his family for political exploration, Macduff's actions can be justified.^[5]

References[edit]

1. ^Official Scottish Clans and FamiliesArchived 2 November 2019 at the Wayback Machine.
2. ^Bevington, David and William Shakespeare. Four Tragedies Bantam, 1988.
3. ^Horwich, Richard. 'Integrity in Macbeth: The Search for the 'Single State of Man.'
4. ^ ^abRosenberg, Marvin. The Masks of Macbeth. University of California Press, 1978.
5. ^ ^abHennedy, John F. 'Macduff's Dilemma: Anticipation of Existentialist Ethics in Macbeth.'

External links[edit]

Shakespeare For My