Today’s Totally Random
Lines
His absence, sir,
Lays
blame upon his promise. Please’t your highness
To
grace us with your royal company.
Ross
Macbeth Act III, Scene iv, Line 80
Macbeth has just made note that Banquo hasn’t
shown up for the banquet, even though he promised to. Of course, Macbeth knows
why Banquo’s not there. He, Macbeth, sent out two guys to murder Banquo.
Today’s lines are
Ross’s reply to Macbeth.
Lays blame upon his
promise.
That’s interesting phraseology, isn’t. The words are simple, and I believe the 1590
meaning of each of them is the same as it is today. But even though you might
hear each of these words today, you probably wouldn’t hear them put together
like this. You’d probably hear 2023 Ross say, ‘So much for his promise to
show up, eh?’
Lays blame upon his promise. I wonder if that was
common phraseology for the day, or if our buddy Will was practicing his usual
linguistic gymnastics? His failure to show up laid blame on his promise.
I’m not sure I exactly understand how that works, or exactly what it’s saying. Ah
wait; if I lay blame on someone, then they did it. So if we lay blame on the
promise, then the promise is the culprit. Does that make sense. How is the
promise the culprit. Isn’t Banquo the culprit for not showing up (never mind
Macbeth being the culprit for having him killed). What is it saying if the
promise is the culprit. Still thinking. Banquo shouldn’t have made the promise.
It turned out to be an empty promise. And I guess an empty promise is something
to be considered the culprit. And perhaps, since Will knows that it’s really
not Banquo’s fault anyway (since he’s been murdered), he’s extending that lack
of fault to Ross’s comment. Does that make any sense? It’s hard to tell, isn’t
it. Nonetheless, it’s a nice phrase.
See, now this is a line, or a part of a line, that would make a good discussion in a class. Wouldn’t it? You could personalize it.
“Okay, let’s just say
that Wally here promised to bring in donuts for everybody today. But Wally, you
didn’t bring in any donuts. I guess we could say that the lack of donuts lays
blame on your promise. So are we saying that the promise is at fault, and not
Wally? How does that make sense?”
And that would quickly
devolve into a discussion of Wally and donuts. Who knew that Will wrote about a
twenty-first century kid named Wally and his donuts, or lack thereof. Amazing!
2 comments:
If you lay blame on the promise and not the person, then the person is sort of shirking the blame. And that's just not right. Because there would be no promise without the person making the promise.
Okay.
Post a Comment