Why did the witches harm the fat lady's husband in Macbeth?

Answer 1

Not all women are wicked in the Shakespearean play 'The Tragedy of Macbeth'. In fact, there's a contrast between women behaving respectfully and women behaving badly. There are two clear examples of behavior respectful to the family and the social order within which the family fits. One is the gentlewoman who tends to the insane Lady Macbeth [Act 5 Scene 1]. The other is Lady Macduff, who becomes a single parent after her husband flees Scotland for England [Act 4 Scene 2]. There are six examples of womanly behavior that clearly is disrespectful to the family and the society within which the family fits. Those six representatives are the original three witches [Act 1 Scenes 1-2, and Act 4 Scene 1] who subsequently are joined by lead witch Hecate [Act 3 Scene 5] and two more witches [Act 4 Scene 1]. Their behavior tears apart the families of Scotland, and results in the death of two kings. Tenuously and questionably in between the two extremes is Lady Macbeth. She clearly is devoted to the childless couple that she and her husband form. But she doesn't temper that devotion within a clearly moral framework of right and wrong for family and for society. Additionally, women aren't the only wicked characters in the play. For the tragedy abounds with evil, wicked male characters. Once again, that evil is defined in terms of wicked disrespect for family and the society within which the family unit fits.

Answer 2

Shakespeare did not include the witches in Macbeth to please King James I. The witches were already in the story as told in Holinshed's Chronicles, printed before James became king of England, and which was Shakespeare's primary source. Nor are they particularly evil--after all, they only make predictions about the future. It was open to Macbeth to ignore them completely. The fact that he did not has everything to do with him and his wife and nothing to do with the witches. It has been suggested that Shakespeare made the witches nastier than they were in Holinshed to please James, but again, they were not nastier, and it is impossible to show that any changes in the story were due to deference to the king as opposed to dramatic necessity. For example, the statement that the witches had beards was likely because the actors playing the parts were bearded.

Answer 3

I'm guessing that you are referring to "A sailor's wife had chestnuts in her lap, and munch'd and munch'd and munch'd. "Give me,' quoth I. 'Aroint thee, witch!' the rump-fed ronyon cries. Her husband's to Aleppo gone, master of the Tiger, but in a sieve I'll thither sail, and like a rat without a tail, I'll do, I'll do and I'll do." The "no-fear Shakespeare" version substitutes "fat woman" for "rump-fed ronyon", but that it not what it means. Some people think that "rump-fed" means having a big butt, but what it means is that the woman has been eating rump. We do not know whether they thought "rump" was a good cut of meat or a bad one--both ideas have been proposed. But for sure it doesn't mean having a big butt any more than "corn-fed" means having big corns. And "ronyon" means someone mangy or scabby, which gives you a further picture of the sailor's wife. Now this sailor's wife had chestnuts in her lap and munched them. The witch says "Give me" and the woman replies "Aroint thee, witch!" Now "aroint" is one of those words that nobody would have heard of if Shakespeare hadn't used it, but you can tell that the sailor's wife is saying "bugger off", "get lost", "take a hike", "vamoose", or . . . well, it's a long list and you can add "Aroint thee" to it. The witch is somewhat cheesed off with her rudeness and vows to take revenge, not on the woman, but on her husband, the captain of the Tiger.

Answer 4

because the king of the time was really intrested in the superstisions of witchs

Answer 5

to please king james the 1st