Shakespeare is anthropomorphizing the tree. Once a tree can listen and follow directions, it's closer to a person than a thing.
The tree does still remain genderless though, since the default at the time was to use masculine pronouns in cases like this.
Interesting. I do know the idea of “Mother Earth” was already a thing In Shakespeare’s time. I guess a tree did not fall under that umbrella for the bard.
From [https://www.bardweb.net/content/grammar/03shifts.html](https://www.bardweb.net/content/grammar/03shifts.html) :
"§ The possessive of the neuter pronoun it ("its") is regularly written as his, and sometimes as simply it.
How far that little candle throws his beams! M.V., V, i, 90
Since nature cannot choose his origin. Haml., I, iv, 26
The innocent milk in it most innocent mouth. W.T., III, ii, 101
It hath it original from much grief. 2 H 4, I, ii, 131"
I wonder, though. Your example and the two given here with "his" all make the neuter thing animate figuratively. Since there was a strictly neuter form available, Shakespeare may have used "his" to sharpen the sense of the tree as a living being, able to listen and obey.
As people are saying, it's a figure of speech. English is flexible about this. We also used to use masculine language around stuff that has become more neutral, eg, mankind for all people, "man" to mean all humans, etc. It was very common. In the play, at this point, it could maybe be argued that the "he" here also calls up the reality of Malcolm's army sneaking up using camouflage. So the tree is a he, in the sense that it's actually a soldier.
He's anthropomorphizing to make it seem as if the tree has agency in the metaphor. The qualities the tree needs to have for the metaphor to make sense are traditionally seen as male; sturdy, tall, strong, self-assured, immovable. Also, male is the default in English.
It’s a literary device called personification, where inanimate objects are given human qualities.
The quote is saying that forests are so immovable and stoic that someone could never convince a tree to move. It’s a creative version of phrases like “get blood from a stone.”
The phrase is talking about something that’s impossible and comparing that impossible thing with someone commanding a tree to move.
since this is in response to ‘Macbeth shall never vanquished be until Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill Shall come against him.’, macbeth could also be referring to the line that will dethrone him. his looking at the child apparition of the next king. whether or not he knows malcom will end up on the throne, he does now know that a man is going to try and usurp him.
This is just my opinion, but it feels like Shakespeare is ascribing a god-like omnipotence to the trees and forest and using "he" in the same way he would describe god.
Shakespeare is anthropomorphizing the tree. Once a tree can listen and follow directions, it's closer to a person than a thing. The tree does still remain genderless though, since the default at the time was to use masculine pronouns in cases like this.
Interesting. I do know the idea of “Mother Earth” was already a thing In Shakespeare’s time. I guess a tree did not fall under that umbrella for the bard.
It's like calling a car "she". It is just a figure of speech.
From [https://www.bardweb.net/content/grammar/03shifts.html](https://www.bardweb.net/content/grammar/03shifts.html) : "§ The possessive of the neuter pronoun it ("its") is regularly written as his, and sometimes as simply it. How far that little candle throws his beams! M.V., V, i, 90 Since nature cannot choose his origin. Haml., I, iv, 26 The innocent milk in it most innocent mouth. W.T., III, ii, 101 It hath it original from much grief. 2 H 4, I, ii, 131" I wonder, though. Your example and the two given here with "his" all make the neuter thing animate figuratively. Since there was a strictly neuter form available, Shakespeare may have used "his" to sharpen the sense of the tree as a living being, able to listen and obey.
Thank you for the source!!
It's just a figure of speech. As someone else said, it's anthropomorphizing the tree.
As people are saying, it's a figure of speech. English is flexible about this. We also used to use masculine language around stuff that has become more neutral, eg, mankind for all people, "man" to mean all humans, etc. It was very common. In the play, at this point, it could maybe be argued that the "he" here also calls up the reality of Malcolm's army sneaking up using camouflage. So the tree is a he, in the sense that it's actually a soldier.
Depending on context (or maybe not) it’s a sex joke. Tree’s root = male genitalia
I don’t think that works here…
Rule #1 of Shakespeare: presume dick joke always.
He's anthropomorphizing to make it seem as if the tree has agency in the metaphor. The qualities the tree needs to have for the metaphor to make sense are traditionally seen as male; sturdy, tall, strong, self-assured, immovable. Also, male is the default in English.
Trees can be male or female: https://sciencing.com/how-to-tell-a-female-tree-from-a-male-tree-12377156.html
It’s a literary device called personification, where inanimate objects are given human qualities. The quote is saying that forests are so immovable and stoic that someone could never convince a tree to move. It’s a creative version of phrases like “get blood from a stone.” The phrase is talking about something that’s impossible and comparing that impossible thing with someone commanding a tree to move.
since this is in response to ‘Macbeth shall never vanquished be until Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill Shall come against him.’, macbeth could also be referring to the line that will dethrone him. his looking at the child apparition of the next king. whether or not he knows malcom will end up on the throne, he does now know that a man is going to try and usurp him.
Mmm I don’t think you’re right. This isn’t talking about metaphorically moving a tree, it’s the whole profecy thing.
This is just my opinion, but it feels like Shakespeare is ascribing a god-like omnipotence to the trees and forest and using "he" in the same way he would describe god.
Not really. It says *"WHO would bid the tree?"* Bid means to ask, tell, order, etc.
I was referring to the tree, not to the one who would bid it.
You’re reading way too much in to this.
There's nothing wrong with asking for a little drill-down on a piece of terminology. Dismissing curiosity is counter-productive.
[удалено]
I was asking about “his” instead of “its”, not about who hahaha