Don’t whistle inside a theater. Say, “Break a leg,” not, “Good luck.” A bad dress rehearsal equals a great opening night. There is likely no other field in the arts as plagued with superstitious beliefs as the theatrical world. And while the origins of many of these beliefs can be traced back to old folk practices, one of the most notorious superstitions is the one that surrounds the play Macbeth. So great is this particular belief, in fact, that even saying the name inside a theater that is not performing the show is thought to have disastrous consequences. Unlike most other superstitions, the origins behind the “curse” of the Scottish play are murky and stories vary. However, when the events of the time the play was written are taken into consideration, coupled with the stories of some of the more infamous productions that have gone awry, it quickly becomes clear how the legend of the curse of Macbeth came to be.
In order to fully understand the history of the time the play was written and first performed, it is important to look at the events leading up to it. Between 1592 and 1594, not long after William Shakespeare had begun to make his mark on the Elizabethan stage, disaster struck as the plague ravished London (Thrasher 22). Killing tens of thousands of people during the height of its terror, the city was forced to do whatever it could to combat the deadly disease.
People were kept out of confined areas in the hopes of stemming the spread of illness, members of the upper classes fled the deadly city for the healthier countryside, and public theaters were closed by royal decree, thus temporarily putting Shakespeare out of work (Thrasher 23). However, by 1595, the disease, which had been wreaking havoc on London, finally began to loosen its grip on the city, and Shakespeare eagerly returned to work (Thrasher 25). Having written two narrative poems during the worst years of the plague, “Venus and Adonis” and “The Rape of Lucrece,” as a means of supporting himself while the theaters were closed, upon returning to London, Shakespeare used some of the money he earned to purchase a share in the newly re-formed Lord Chamberlin’s Men, becoming the acting troupe’s official playwright (Thrasher 26).
During his time with the troupe, Shakespeare’s popularity grew rapidly. He began displaying more of the poetic flair he had developed during the plague, as well as cultivating his more dramatic techniques, which would later be displayed in his tragedies and romances. During the yuletide festivities, The Lord Chamberlain’s Men performed for Queen Elizabeth for the first time and, with the deaths of two of his greatest artistic rivals, Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Kyd, Shakespeare and his acting troupe were in nearly constant demand (Thrasher 27). By 1598, Shakespeare was easily the most popular playwright, following unparalleled box-office success of his history plays, as well as construction of the Globe theater, which saw the inaugural performances of some of Shakespeare’s best-known works (Shapiro 16).
But in March of 1603, Queen Elizabeth died at the age of seventy, bringing an end to the Elizabethan era, as well as the Tudor dynasty (Kermode 24). Unable to produce an heir of her own, Elizabeth had long kept silent on whom her successor would be. However, shortly after her death was announced, it was declared that her nephew, James Stuart VI of Scotland would now be the king of England (Shapiro 20). James VI, now known as James I, was the son of the late Queen Elizabeth’s enemy, Mary, Queen of Scots, and married to Anne of Denmark (Kermode 24). While alive, Mary had probably been the strongest claimant to the English throne, however, shortly after the birth of her son, she was deposed in favor of James (Kermode 24). And while he was known for being a shrewd, if not always a wholly satisfactory, ruler who had been a king since infancy, he had also effectively controlled the various religious and political factions in Scotland and hoped to reconcile the episcopate and the Puritans when he arrived in England (Kermode 24).
Perhaps more interesting, however, was James’ reputation for being eccentric, extravagant, and pedantic, with an over-fondness for theological debate, and a dogged curiosity, as well as unswerving belief, in witchcraft (Kermode 24). Fifteen years prior to becoming the king of England, and while still serving as King of Scotland, James had personally played an instrumental role in the persecution of hundreds of accused Scottish witches during the North Berwick Witch trials (Shapiro 70). Many of those condemned were implicated in threatening the lives of James and his wife, Anne, after the newlyweds encountered a storm while sailing back from Denmark to Scotland (Shapiro 70). Others were accused and prosecuted for allegedly working their magic on a wax effigy of the king (Shapiro 70).
So resolute was King James’ belief in witchcraft and sorcery, that in a letter Sir John Harrington wrote not long after holding a private audience with the king, he explained how James spoke with conviction of the existence of supernatural powers. In the letter, Harrington described how the king spoke of the death of his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, claiming it “was visible in Scotland before it did really happen, being, as he said, ‘spoken of in secret by those whose power of sight presented to them a bloody head dancing in the night’” (Shapiro 71). Harrington also stated that the king pressed him for his opinions on Satan and witchcraft, and spoke fervently on the gift of second sight, saying, “[…] he had sought out of certain books a sure way to attain knowledge of future chances” (Shapiro 71).
It was James I’s unyielding belief in witchcraft, greatly impacted by the experiences he had during the witch trials, that later influenced his writing of the dissertation Daemonologie, which studied the connection between magic, sorcery, and witchcraft, as well as sought to prove that the dark arts were real (Willis 39). First published in 1597 in Edinburgh, and twice reprinted in London the year he became King of England, the three-part compendium asserts James’ full belief in magic and witchcraft, as well as offers up methods of trial and punishment for these practices, namely witch trials and the execution of those found guilty of witchcraft (“King James VI and I’s Demonology”).
Written as a theological and political conversation between two characters, the books were crafted as an educational study meant to teach the public about the histories involved in magical practices (Willis 40). Each section covers a different topic: in section one, it focuses on magic and the prediction of the future by communicating with the dead using necromancy, section two looks at witchcraft and sorcery, and the final section details spirits and specters (“King James VI and I’s Demonology”). However, it was the ongoing relationship between human vulnerability and satanic enticement that James seemed most intrigued by, as he concluded in Daemonologie, stating that the “old and crafty serpent being a spirit, he easily spies our affections, and so conforms himself thereto to deceive us in our wrack” (Shapiro 190).
His belief in sorcery and witchcraft aside, James was also known to have previously survived multiple assassination attempts, the most famous of which involved the Earl of Gowrie (Shapiro 206). According to the official report, the then king of Scotland had gone hunting at Falkland where he was lured to the Earl of Gowrie’s house by the earl’s younger brother, Andrew Ruthven, who told him about the discovery of a huge treasure of foreign gold (Shapiro 206). Once inside the house, James followed Ruthven upstairs through a series of chambers before ending up in a small closet where, at this point, Ruthven then accused the king of murdering his father (Shapiro 206).
After a struggle involving Ruthven unsuccessfully trying to bind the king’s hands and draw his sword, the men throttled one another as they stumbled across the room towards the open window where James was able to cry out to his entourage for help (Shapiro 206). As they quickly came to his rescue, both Ruthven and the earl were immediately slain by the king’s loyal supporters (Shapiro 206). Shortly thereafter, it was said that the earl’s pockets were emptied and a small note was found that allegedly showed the perpetrators were under the influence of witchcraft, further cementing the idea that as king, James had been anointed by God and providentially spared, as well as providing further evidence to the veracity of witchcraft (Shapiro 206).
With all of this in mind, the announcement that the queen had died and was to be succeeded by the King of Scotland was a blow to many English citizens, including The Lord Chamberlain’s Men who had seen success under her reign. But while many of London’s playing companies were likely rocked by the news of her passing, they were also most likely anxious to see how supportive of the arts the new king would be. At first glance, things looked as though they may not end well, as one of James’ first royal proclamations was to ban performances on the Sabbath, a punishing decree that cut into theatrical profits as Sunday was the only day of the week most playgoers weren’t working and could attend (Shapiro 20).
But Shakespeare and his fellow troupe members need not have worried as within ten days of his arrival in London, James ordered his ministers to issue a royal warrant to the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, making the acting company the exclusive servant of the king (Thrasher 30). This not only proved that Shakespeare and The Lord Chamberlain’s Men were the most important acting troupe of that time, but also helped to endorse acting as a legitimate profession. While serving the new king, the rate of pay for each court performance changed from ten pounds to twenty, and, out of respect for its new patron, the troupe changed their name to The King’s Men (Thrasher 30). Additionally, the number of performances requested of the troupe doubled as both King James and Queen Anne were eager to catch up on all the plays they had missed before moving to England (Thrasher 30).
Of course, not everything went smoothly during the transition from the Elizabethan to Jacobean era, and no event captured this more clearly than that of the Gunpowder Plot. A conspiracy to blow up Parliament, King James, and his son during the State Opening on November 5, 1605, the Gunpowder Plot, also known as the Gunpowder Treason Plot or the Jesuit Treason Plot, resulted in sensational trials, public discussion of the Jesuit practice “equivocation,” as well as royal and public interest in witchcraft (Thrasher 38). King James, as both head of church and state, was quick to try and impose his views of the assassination attempt as being further proof of his kingdom’s place in God’s providence, as well as labeling the Treason and the Plotters as “diabolic” (Willis 35).
Sir Edward Coke, the man in charge of interrogating the Plotters, claimed at prosecution that the Plot’s creation took place at a Black Mass and that the Plotters’ crime was “the sacrament which they impiously and devilishly profaned to this end” (Willis 36). As for equivocation, almost overnight, the word had transfixed the nation, and the meaning had gone from neutral, to defined as concealing the truth by saying one thing while deceptively thinking another, specifically in reference to the Jesuit practice commonly employed during the Plotters’ trials (Shapiro 156).
From the crowning of a proud, Scottish king with an interest in witchcraft, to the highly publicized Gunpowder Plot, it becomes clear how these events inspired the creation of the Scottish play. And just as he had done previously with his history plays, Shakespeare’s Macbeth takes inspiration from a true story while adding dramatic flourishes specifically geared towards pleasing the new king. Looking to write something that would hit on and appeal to James I and his interests, as well as cement the king’s generous patronage, Shakespeare loosely based the play on the Renaissance history of the murder of an obscure, but real, Scottish king by an equally obscure Scottish nobleman named Macbeth (Thrasher 34).
Shakespeare’s principal source for material was the Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland by Raphael Holinshed, a well-regarded Renaissance history that was published in 1577 (Thrasher 34). In it, it details the story of Duncan I, a king of Scotland who was murdered by the nobleman Macbeth, who thereafter became king (Thrasher 36). But while medieval records are clear about the history of Duncan and Macbeth, none of the medieval historians mention the Weird Sisters, Banquo, or Lady Macbeth, and in all likelihood, none of those people ever existed, with the exception of Lady Macbeth (Thrasher 37). However, in 1527, the Scottish historian Hector Boece added each of these characters in what was most likely an attempt to strengthen the Stuarts’ claim to the Scottish throne and discredit their enemies (Thrasher 37).
The addition of the Weird Sisters, for example, was used by Boece to suggest that Macbeth had gained access to the throne by satanic means, while the creation of Lady Macbeth’s sinister reputation can also be attributed to him (Thrasher 37). Likewise, Banquo was a mythic Scottish figure that Boece “discovered” was the originator of the house of Stuart, further proving that the Stuarts had fulfilled an ancient Scottish prophesy that Banquo’s descendants would inherit the crown (Thrasher 37). When writing the Chronicles, Holinshed merely reiterated the incorrect findings presented by Boece, which then Shakespeare used as inspiration for his play (Thrasher 37). And while this does mean that many of Macbeth’s most memorable characters are not wholly his creation, it also become apparent that he was quick to recognize their dramatic possibilities, as well as their potential appeal to James I who was both a proud descendant of the Stuart line, but also held a dogged fascinated in witchcraft, demonology, and demons.
Using Holinshed’s Chronicle as a guide, Shakespeare began to write The Tragedy of Macbeth. And while the play contains many details that may have appealed to the king, it also focuses on a number of themes that would have been of special interest to King James I, namely the assassination of a legitimate king by nefarious and diabolical means, the evilness of equivocation, and the downfall of the rightful king’s usurper. Since James I had assumed the English throne in 1603, there had already been three separate assassination attempts made on his life by 1605, with the Gunpowder Plot being the closest to succeeding (Shapiro 130).
Shakespeare, aware of how unnerved the king was by the attempt on his life, may have obliged James I by writing a play in which a king is murdered but the usurper never enjoys the fruits of the crown and falls as quickly as he rose (Shapiro 131). As for the supernatural elements of the play, they were likely included to appeal to James’ long-standing interest in witchcraft. The inclusion of the Weird Sisters and the scenes of magical invocation in particular would have undoubtedly interested the king. Likewise, James had recently acquired an interest in the Jesuit practice of equivocation, which he saw as proof of the diabolical origins of Catholicism, and Jesuits in particular (Thrasher 42). In fact, before Macbeth, the word “equivocation” appeared only once in Shakespeare’s plays, around the turn of the century, when Hamlet tells Horatio: “How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us” (5.1.137-38).
It was into this circuslike atmosphere that Shakespeare and the King’s Men first introduced Macbeth. And while it would be easy to assume the origins of the curse were born from the Scottish play’s first performance, this particular anecdote, according to James Shapiro, stems from anything but reality:
Despite strenuous efforts to trace this curse back to the play’s early performances, it goes back no further than the late nineteenth century, when the humorist Max Beerbohn reviewed a production for the Saturday Night Review and fabricated the story – falsely attributing it to the seventeenth century biographer John Aubrey – that “Hal Berridge, the youth who was to have acted the part of Lady Macbeth, ‘fell sudden sicke of a pleurisie, wherefor Master Shakespeare himself did enacte in his stead’” (193).
The false Lady Macbeth account aside, other rumors of the origin of the curse persist. For example, another popular story states that Shakespeare received the spells and dialogue used in the text from actual practitioners of black magic, but after watching the performance, they were displeased with how they were portrayed and put a curse on the play (Rayborn 215). At the time of the play’s inaugural run, there were even fears that reciting the occult-like rituals during a performance risked summoning actual demons (Rayborn 215). However, just like the myth of the opening night mishap, there is no evidence to support the claims of real spellwork within the show. But when considering the dark themes of the play, the mood and tone of the story, and the fact that it came after the foiled Gunpowder Plot, it is understandable how a long shadow would have been cast over the production. The use of the Weird Sisters, coupled with the strong belief by the English and their king that witchcraft was real easily lent itself towards accusations of sorcery and curses behind the scenes – a reputation that sticks with the play even today.
While many of the popular origin stories of the curse of the Scottish play may be questionable, it has not stopped many of those involved in theater from being leery. And, whether the curse is to be believed or not, there is still a long history of famous production mishaps, strange occurrences, and even injuries and deaths associated with different runs of the play. In the seventeenth century, a performance of Macbeth was staged at the Blackfriars Theater in London wherein playgoers who were wealthy enough could actually pay to sit on the stage while the show was performed (Rayborn 216). During one such performance, a nobleman got up and walked across the stage to greet a friend on the other side, infuriating the actor delivering his lines who immediately confronted him, and in response, was slapped, causing a riot to break out (Rayborn 216). But while a fight caused by poor theater etiquette may not be indicative of a curse, stories of other accidents during productions of the show may prove otherwise.
Perhaps one of the most notorious examples of a production allegedly affected by the curse of the Scottish play was a performance at Astor Place Opera House in New York in 1849 (Garber 87). On May 10, a bloody riot erupted between rival fans of two actors – the American Edwin Forrest and the English William Charles Macready – over which actor was best suited to play the leading roles in Shakespeare’s plays (Garber 87). The dispute went well beyond the two of them, as at that time, there was still a strong anti-British sentiment among some Americans as the War of 1812 was still fresh in many American’s minds, and British actors and other entertainers who toured the US were frequently met with open hostility and heckling (Rayborn 216). A few days prior to the riot, both actors appeared in rival productions of Macbeth for which the American actor, Forrest, was acclaimed (Rayborn 216).
However, for the rival Englishman, anti-Macready forces had purchased a number of tickets and deliberately disrupted the show, tearing up seats, throwing rotten eggs and fruits, as well as bottles and shoes at the stage, and even, in an earlier performance, half a carcass of a sheep, all while he performed (Rayborn 217). But just as the English actor was determined to leave the US, he was persuaded by literary stars Washington Irving and Herman Melville to stay and perform one final show at the Astor Place Opera House, assuring him American audiences would behave (Garber 87). Of course, the opposite proved to be true for on the day of the show, Forrest’s supporters, some of whom were likely tied to the New York gangs as Forrest was known to be connected to them at the time, gathered outside the theater to protest (Rayborn 217). Police and troops were sent in to quell the growing disorder, but even after warnings were issued, shots were fired, and rioting commenced, leaving between twenty-five and thirty people dead and as many as two hundred injured (Garber 88).
Aside from inciting riots, the curse of Macbeth is also known for causing illness, injury, failure, and even death to those who cross its path. One popular rumor is that Abraham Lincoln, whose favorite play was Macbeth, read the play only a few days before he was assassinated in a theatre by John Wilkes Booth, who also happened to be an actor from a famous Shakespearean acting company (Garber 88). During a seventeenth-century production of the show in Amsterdam, the actor playing King Duncan was allegedly killed during the stabbing scene after the prop dagger was replaced with a real one (Shumm). Another Macbeth misfortune story involves the famous Russian actor Konstantin Stanislavsky and a time he forgot his lines during rehearsals, but the prompter who was supposed to provide cues failed to do so (Garber 218). Shortly thereafter, the prompter was found dead while still in his stage box, and his death was seen as such a bad omen, they closed the production entirely (Garber 218).
The curse has also has affected productions in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, such as the 1937 run at the Old Vic in London starring Laurence Olivier. Not only did Oliver lose his voice, delaying the opening of the show by four days, but also narrowly escaped being crushed by a falling sandbag (Garber 218). Two days before the shows’ opening, Lillian Baylis, the founder and manager of the theater, died of a heart attack (and years later, during a subsequent run of Macbeth, a painting of Baylis fell from the wall and crashed into the bar on opening night) (Garber 218). Not to mention that the play’s director and the actress playing Lady Macduff were injured in a car accident, Olivier’s sword broke during a fight scene and a part of the blade flew into the audience, and, while it was a prop and not terribly sharp, the man it struck was so startled that he had a heart attack and died (Garber 218).
Though, possibly worse than the Olivier production of Macbeth was the accident that occurred in 1947 at the Oldham Coliseum Theatre in Manchester during a battle scene between Macduff and Macbeth for the future of Scotland. While much of the conflict referenced in the play happens offstage and we learn later that Macbeth has been killed, this production, starring Antony Oakley as Macduff and Harold Norman as Macbeth, choreographed a fight scene for the audience to see (Garber 218). However, the swords being used were a bit too sharp and Oakley accidentally stabbed Norman in the chest so, as the curtain fell, so did Norman who died shortly after (Garber 218).
The list of accidents, injury-plagued, and disastrous productions goes on and on. In 1942, John Gielgud’s Macbeth saw the death of three of its actors, two of which were Weird Sisters and the other being King Duncan, as well as the death of their costume designer and set designer (Faires). In 1948, the actress playing Lady Macbeth, Diana Wynard, fell fifteen feet off the edge of the stage during the sleepwalking scene, and a few years later, Charlton Heston suffered serious burns on his leg and groin after an open-air production in 1953 went awry and the tights he was wearing were accidentally soaked in kerosene (Faires). In 1967, director Peter Hall produced the Scottish play at Stratford and reportedly told everyone involved to ignore traditional theater superstition and focus on the show instead. However, not long after he contracted a serious case of the shingles, causing the play to be delayed and once it did finally open, the critical reception was lukewarm the show was unsuccessful (Rayborn 219).
Within just the last thirty years, the curse has seemingly affected both productions of the play as well as shows based on the play as well, as evidenced by the production of the 1988 Verdi opera based on Macbeth performed at the Metropolitan Opera. On January 27, the 82-year-old singing coach, Bantcho Bantchevsky, died from an apparent suicide after falling from the top balcony during the intermission of the production (Berre). Another 1988 production of Macbeth starring Christopher Plummer and Glenda Jackson is said to have run through, approximately, three directors, five Macduffs, six stage managers, two set designers, two lighting designers, twenty-six bouts of the flu, and a number of torn ligaments and groin injuries (Faires). An off-Broadway production of the Scottish play starring Angela Bassett and Alec Baldwin in 1998 saw Baldwin accidentally slicing open the hand of Macduff (Faires). Even as recently as 2013, an actor performing the play in Manchester, England with Kenneth Branagh was struck by Branagh’s sword during a performance and had to receive immediate medical treatment onsite (Rayborn 219). While the actor ended up being fine and was able to finish the show that evening, he did go to the hospital afterward as an extra precaution.
All of these stories and the history behind the inception of the play, however, still begets the question of whether or not Macbeth is actually cursed or if its reputation is merely the result of superstitious leanings found within the theatrical world. If someone were to do even cursory research, be it online or print, they would be provided with a plethora of anecdotal evidence to support the claims that the Scottish play is, in fact, cursed. Many who are involved in both professional and amateur theater subscribe by this claim, stating they or someone they know has tempted fate by uttering the forbidden word, Macbeth, and then later suffered the consequences.
More often than not, whether to avoid inciting the ire of their colleagues or out of their own fears surrounding the curse, many refuse to say the name of the play, especially if the show is not being performed at the time, and opt to refer to it as “the Scottish play,” or “the Bard’s play,” and will even go so far as to call the title character and his wife “The Thane” and “The Queen” or Mr. and Lady M (Garber 89). There are also counter-curses available for those who may slip up, some more elaborate than others. For example, one such counter-curse requires the person who utters the name to say, “Angels and ministers of grace defend us!” before leaving the building, spinning around three times counterclockwise, cursing, and then knocking to be let back into the theater (Rayborn 214). Other ways of supposedly defusing the supernatural tension and appeasing the spirits that haunt the play is to recite Puck’s speech from the end of A Midsummer Night’s Dream (“If we shadows have offended…”), or quoting from The Merchant of Venice (“Fair thoughts and happy hours attend on you”) (Rayborn 215).
But along with the general anxiety many feel surrounding the play Macbeth, those who work in theater, or have devoted any amount of time and energy to it, can often rattle off a number of different superstitions held as unwritten, though still well-known and regarded, truths. Indeed, many of these stories have origins in folk practices that came about by accidental discovery. For example, a common superstition is the idea that whistling inside a theater will bring about bad luck for a production. And while it may sound extreme, the practice actually started for good reason. In some of the earlier days of theater productions, the rigging used for sets resembled that of the pulleys and ropes used on a ship, and sailors were often hired to operate them (Rayborn 209). In the days before electricity, various whistles were used to communicate set changes, similar to what the sailors would use while on their boats, and if someone were to absentmindedly whistle backstage, there was a real danger it could be misinterpreted and result in either the wrong cue or even injury or death (Rayborn 209).
Another common belief is that when wishing someone good luck before a show, they must never actually use the phrase, but must instead say, “break a leg.” The origins of this aren’t as clear as that of whistling inside a theater, however, there are many plausible, and some ridiculous, theories to explain the tradition. The most obvious is the idea that saying “good luck” is merely tempting fate, or even malevolent spirits, to disrupt and wreck havoc on a production. Another is that back in Shakespeare’s time, the word “break” often meant “bend,” so if someone were “bending the leg,” they were bowing or making a type of greeting, especially to one’s social superior (Rayborn 210). Additionally, the phrase may also have come from the wish that an actor would receive a curtain call and take many bows after a wonderful performance.
Other theories claim audience members would stomp their feet rather than applaud, possibly to the point of literally breaking the legs of the chairs they were sitting in or even their own legs if stomping hard enough, or that the phrase refers to John Wilkes Booth who, after assassinating Abraham Lincoln, broke his leg while fleeing the theater (Rayborn 210). Yet another story claims that the phrase came from vaudeville shows when producers overbooked the number of acts, so the term “breaking a leg” meant an act was able to move past the visual plane of the curtains on the sides of the stage, known as the legs, and actually be on stage (Rayborn 210).
Whatever their origins, superstitions in the theatrical world can, and should, be seen as mostly harmless time-honored traditions that add to the character and quirkiness of the profession. And while the perception of Macbeth is that it is a cursed play which brings bad fortune to all those who utter its name, perhaps there is a more logical explanation. As a play defined by the supernatural, and rooted in a history that was as dramatic as it was fascinating, stories of rocky productions merely add to the legend of the curse, not actually prove it. All theatrical works at some point or another have suffered from accidents and bad luck, be it injuries from hastily performed fight choreography, missed cues or broken props, or even the deaths of people involved in the creation of the show.
However, the main difference between other shows and Macbeth is that when something goes amiss, no one blames it on a curse. It is only when dealing with the Scottish play that many of the inevitable problems associated with any production takes on a special, menacing quality. But whether the curse is to be believed or not, it is important to recognize that the genesis of its mythos is nuanced and layered. Macbeth is not just a play written about the supernatural to appeal to an eccentric king, but a story that follows a tragic, brooding hero, torn by conflicting emotions, but ultimately fallible as a result of the human quality of ambition. And although the history of the play is filled with superstition, mishaps, and even failures, it still remains one of the bard’s most discussed, and loved, plays.
Works Cited
- Berre, David. “‘Macbeth’ Curse of the Stage.” The Washington Post. 28 January 1988. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1988/01/28/macbeth-curse-of-the-stage/b80659e4-369d-4ef4b772edee79d75d5a/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c89efc6a5507 Accessed 30 November 2018.
- Faires, Robert. “The Curse of the Play.” The Austin Chronicle. 13 October 2000. https://www.austinchronicle.com/arts/2000-10-13/the-curse-of-the-play/. Accessed 3 December 2018.
- Garber, Marjorie. Shakespeare and Modern Culture. Pantheon, 2008.
- Kermode, Frank. The Age of Shakespeare. Modern Library, 2003.
- “King James VI and I’s Demonology, 1597.” British Library. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/king-james-vi-and-is-demonology-1597. Accessed 3 December 2018.
- Rayborn, Tim. Shakespeare’s Ear. Skyhorse Publishing, 2017.
- Shapiro, James. The Year of Lear. Simon & Schuster, 2015.
- Shumm, Laura. “Why Do Actors Avoid the Word “Macbeth”?” The History Channel. 9 April 2014. https://www.history.com/news/why-do-actors-avoid-the-word-macbeth. Accessed 1 December 2018.
- Thrasher, Thomas E. Understanding Macbeth. Lucent Books, 2002.
- Willis, Garry. Witches & Jesuits. Literary Research, Inc., 1995.
