Doing some comparison between my 9th century poem and a scene from Macbeth. Do I have any situational properties that defy time and make sense in both locations?
In both cases I have a crime being contenplated. ‘True vision’ features in both so I can argue that they are both examples of second sight.
Both want a true vision of the outcome the nature of the act requires that both remain unseen. 9th century text demonstrates by being silient which leaves you with a question. Later play gives clear direction at the start in the stage notes.
Repitition and diffrence; the stage directions in Macbeth make it clear that a range of servants are hovering in the wings, He cannot be overheard.
The 9th century poem seems to take a different path, here the identity of the speaker is completly masked.
Both are having to engage in a form of emotional detachment.
This form of disengagment and detachment is a particular issue for Macbeth. He can see the outcome of his crime very clearly and in highly dramatic terms.
Such a vision is not enough, as Macbeth misjudges himself, as moraly unable to commit the act.
He underplays his strength in being able to detach emtionaly, sucessfuly plot and commit the deed. Its his weakness, he can clearly see, and map the potential outcome, but the part of himself that is yet to form remains completly unseen.
Take the basic obsevation that in both texts there is a relationship and tension between the seen and the unseen.
It appears in both cases a ripe vehicle for drama. It is a constraint of the situation and a measure of potential inflection.
It gives an inflection range which is shared by both texts.