The words in the title that are spoken in Act III, Scene 2 of Shakespeare’s remarkable Macbeth convey the subtext of the whole play, from the opening scene of thunder and lightning and three witches to the moment Macduff places Macbeth’s severed head before the new King Malcolm.
In their subtle layering the words are of great portent, as Shakespeare intended them to be. Macbeth is speaking to his wife, whose own state of mind has become precarious because she is wracked by guilt. Each word is significant and none wasted. The two of them are already complicit in the murder of King Duncan, two guards, and the heir apparent, Banquo.
More death and guilt will follow for them, but by now in the play they have both succumbed to an evil grown out of their shared and fierce political ambition.
There are no boundaries. Nothing matters but that Macbeth should be King.
How Is So Much Conveyed?
There is a current beneath these eleven words, a motion and emotion as meanings intertwine, drawn out of the merging of their Anglo-Saxon and French roots, both.
The beauty of English lies in the variations that create its subtext, so the same word can have multiple meanings. It is, after all, a language that was repeatedly subjected to invaders who altered some words, left others intact, and gave us new ones in turn.
The Anglo-Saxons used the word kingly, the Norman French used royal. The term my lord is from 800 A.D., my liege came after 1066. Ghost is Anglo-Saxon, phantom is from the Normans. So much else in the language runs the same course, no word denied attention, changes often accommodated, yet both versions giving—almost, but not exactly—the same intention.
We live even now with Old English and Old French in everyday use, both the language of the inhabitant and that of the invader: foe/enemy; weird/strange; woodland/forest; deathly/mortal; green/verdant; graveyard/cemetery; reckless/intrepid.
How Shakespeare Played with Sub-Text
Shakespeare knew the differences, but he also knew how to choose which language to use to create the layers of meaning that would give to the audience—whether they realized it or not—the weight of his intention.
In the line I quote here at the beginning, the words light, crow, makes, rooky, and wood are Anglo-Saxon in origin and these ancient words carry something pithy, earthy, fundamental. They already convey something intrinsically real to us.
But how does Shakespeare play with this? In Old English, “rook” was the word for crow, but the meaning of rook as a chess piece came from old French. By Shakespeare’s time, rook was also used as a verb that signified to defraud by cheating. Crows are scavengers who feed on carrion, notoriously symbolic of deception, death, and war–and witchcraft–but they are also creatures of prophecy, and this line Macbeth speaks is prophetic, setting the stage for his downfall, though to him the words are a signal that it is time to act under cover of darkness, to grab his unholy prize.
“Light thickens” announces more than it seems. Shakespeare could have simply told us that day is ending, that dusk has arrived, that it is the twilight hour, or eventide, or even half-light. But none of those terms would have given the sense of weight that “Light thickens” brings.
It is the harbinger of the encroaching disaster that is already damping out any light of reason Macbeth could have kept–or Lady Macbeth could hold as she listens to him.
Macbeth feels the enveloping darkness not only of time but of spirit. He has made a pact with himself and entered into tragedy, for the weight of his ambition is too great to give him a way to stop. Not anymore.
The Power of One Line in a Play
This quote from Shakespeare’s Macbeth has haunted me for a long time. Would that I could write such a line? Oh, yes. Yet it is not envy I feel, but awe. Because of such writing as this, I learn what it means to tell a story.
That’s interesting. Thank you Regina for this post ^-^
I studied MacBeth when I was 14 and have never forgotten this line. You are right, Shakespeare’s genius shines through this one line.
It has such power–and stays with us, yes, exactly.
Light thickens and crow makes wing to the rooky
Wood.
So redolent of our time.Thick heavyweight dark in -fighting.Secret meetings. Fearful outcome.
Shakespeare says it all.
Wonderful illumination of the phrase from Macbeth
The shades of meaning of “rook” you discern, and the relevance to the transition of the language from the Anglo Saxon Old English to the Norman French — Shakespeare lived just almost exactly mid-way in this transition, between the Norman invasion time and our present day — is fascinating.
What a beautiful reply–I missed seeing this somehow in November so apologies for delayed answer.
If some one desires expert view regarding running a blog after that i suggest
him/her to pay a quick visit this web site, Keep up the pleasant job.
Thank you for that. I went for a walk yesterday in a rooky wood. Dozens of crows, crowing as they do, and I thought of the two words, ‘rooky wood’. Anyone who has heard crows in a wood will know exactly what Shakespeare wanted to evoke, and so much more on other levels. Also, the word ‘thickens’ makes us think of blood.
What a wonderful comment. You might enjoy reading this article, where I go into the words even more. They are indeed so evocative. And I speak to the word “thickens” and your comment about blood strikes me as exactly right. Thank you! https://medium.com/swlh/why-do-english-words-have-so-many-meanings-consider-macbeth-7ce5ab0301c6
Crows are not rooks and I’m wondering if Shakespeare didn’t know, or knew and took a punt others would not. Crows roost too, but they don’t roost with rooks. Old saying, if there is one rook, it’s a crow. If there are looks of crows, they are rooks. I don’t know if this old saying is true. You hear the difference in someone who is supposed to be crowing – but not rooking because rooking is cheating or defrauding. Not significant, only curious.
Hi–I checked etymonline.com, my source for origins–and rook historically does refer to crows, actually. Here is their quote: “rook (n.1)
[European crow], Middle English roke, from Old English hroc, from Proto-Germanic *khrokaz (source also of Old Norse hrokr, Middle Dutch roec, Dutch roek, Middle Swedish roka, Old High German hruoh “crow”), probably imitative of its raucous voice. Compare crow (n.), also Gaelic roc “croak,” Sanskrit kruc “to cry out.” Used as a disparaging term for persons at least since c. 1500, and extended by 1570s to mean “a cheat,” especially at cards or dice, also, later “a simpleton, a gull, one liable to be cheated” (1590s). For sense, compare gull (n.2).”