Well, we can only guess what Shakespeare intended from what he wrote, if indeed he intended anything. From the play, Duncan comes across as nice but incompetent. Macbeth talks about how well-loved Duncan is, and how he is meek and uncorruptible and virtuous. Lady Macbeth talks about how he resembled her father as he slept. He can make an appropriately courteous speech as occasion demands, and one suspects he would be an effective after-dinner speaker.
But he seems to be oblivious to the demands of realpolitik, to the necessity of being able to assess the characters of those around you and to know who to trust. "There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face", he muses bewilderedly about the traitor Cawdor, "he was a gentleman upon whom I built an absolute trust." He does the same think in choosing as his successor the feckless Malcolm, an inept soldier (he had to be rescued from the battle by the bloody sergeant) and a tedious and insensitive person, as his scene with Macduff shows. Duncan had his choice of successor, and it is clear that Macbeth was the natural choice and he knew it. Duncan failed to see that in Macbeth, failed to consider how much better a king Macbeth would have been than Malcolm, and failed to see how dangerous it was to go in this perverse direction out of no motive except nepotism. Then immediately to proceed to impose himself on Macbeth's hospitality was adding injury to insult. A wiser king would have left Macbeth alone to cool off, but Duncan was no wise king.
Shakespeare did not have access to a movie camera to convey images to his audience. He had to evoke them by means of language and their imagination.
I think they were very lucky. They got a chance to see the premieres of all of Shakespeare's plays, without any preconceptions about them. Nowadays any production of Hamlet is carrying 400 years of Hamlets on its back. Also, the audiences would have been able to see Shakespeare himself acting in the plays. How cool would that be?
Shakespeare for one, but there are many.Esp.the Greeks - Euripides and many others. Were you thinking of just one particular one ?
As far as we can tell, yes. There is no indication that any of Shakespeare's plays were booed off the stage. And since they continue to be fun for audiences right up to the present day, it's fair to assume that they were fun back then.
it was john shakespeare we think!
Well, the main audience i think is to the American citizens and public because it is to persuade them to continue supporting the Revolutionary War :)
Duncan is a Scottish name. The name was based on a clan name and was the name of a Scottish Saint. I think the most famous Duncan would be the one who was in Shakespeare's MacBeth
Shakespeare did not have access to a movie camera to convey images to his audience. He had to evoke them by means of language and their imagination.
In Shakespeare's play "Macbeth," the character Macbeth kills King Duncan. Initially, the murder is seemingly committed by the servants, but it is later revealed to be Macbeth and his wife who are responsible for the crime.
Shakespeare hasn't been doing a lot of thinking since 1616 when he died. If he had thoughts about Caliban prior to that date they were likely along the lines of "I think the audience might like him" or "Who can we cast in the role?" Shakespeare was a practical man of the theatre, and these kinds of concerns must have been uppermost in his mind.
I think they were very lucky. They got a chance to see the premieres of all of Shakespeare's plays, without any preconceptions about them. Nowadays any production of Hamlet is carrying 400 years of Hamlets on its back. Also, the audiences would have been able to see Shakespeare himself acting in the plays. How cool would that be?
Shakespeare for one, but there are many.Esp.the Greeks - Euripides and many others. Were you thinking of just one particular one ?
As far as we can tell, yes. There is no indication that any of Shakespeare's plays were booed off the stage. And since they continue to be fun for audiences right up to the present day, it's fair to assume that they were fun back then.
it was john shakespeare we think!
Duncan and Isadora never had chrildren they are brothers and sisters. if you think duncan and Isadora die your wrong.
I think you mean "forced conversion", the idea that Shylock had to convert from Judaism to Christianity or die. The audience of Shakespeare's day would probably think that this was a good idea. Remember, this was a time in England when you not only had to belong to the Church of England, but had to attend regular services on pain of criminal prosecution. Shakespeare's father and daughter both had to pay fines for this offence. For the Elizabethans and Jacobeans, religion had everything to do with outward behaviour and nothing to do with internal conviction, so forced conversions were, as far as they were concerned, effective.
Shakespeare for one, but there are many.Esp.the Greeks - Euripides and many others. Were you thinking of just one particular one ?