When Macbeth kills Duncan earlier in the play, Lady Macbeth has to go back and return the daggers to the dead guards so it looks like they were the ones who killed Duncan. When they hear the knocking at the gate she says "a little water clears us of this dead", referring to the blood on both of their hands. At this point in the play she is very casual about the murder and still led by her ambition. In 5.1, this idea of blood being on her hands has completely consumed her and even though it is not apparent her subconscious still sees it and it's impossible for her to get her hands clean enough.
Darkness is an image that is used often in the play as well. In 5.1, the reader learns that Lady Macbeth asks to have a candle with her at all times. This shows that she has become afraid of the darkness that earlier she so easily welcomed. Also, it is implied that even though her eyes are open she is asleep and cannot see--another type of darkness.
When Macbeth kills Duncan he says that he hears voices calling out that "Macbeth has murdered sleep"--sleep is nourishing and important, and by killing Duncan Macbeth thinks that he has ruined everyone's ability to sleep soundly (mostly his own). We see these images return in Lady Macbeth in 5.1 because she is sleep-walking. So, in a way, Macbeth was right--he 'murdered' her ability to sleep soundly because of the actions they both took.
The only way this scene redeems Lady Macbeth is that it shows she does have a conscience. For so much of the play she is so strong, ambitious, and ruthless--she has no issue with shaming Macbeth into killing Duncan to get what she wants. As Macbeth grows in his own ambition and blood-lust, we do not see as much of Lady Macbeth, but it helps here to know that she actually does feel bad about all of the murder and it's catching up with her subconscious and killing her.
The pun is related to the same pronunciation of the words <em>Ernest</em> and <em>earnest </em>which means<em> serious commited, dedicated </em>and etc. The pun is connected to the serious issue of choosing the right significant other, someone you can trust that is dedicated to you (<em>an earnest husband/wife</em>).<em> </em>
Answer:
Because Dred Scott and his family were born in the United States, they are citizens with all the rights granted by the Constitution.
Explanation:
According to a different source, this is the passage that the question refers to:
<em>"It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word "citizen” is used in the Constitution of the United States. . . . . . . The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."</em>
In this passage, the opinion of the author is that Dred Scott cannot be considered an American citizen because he is the descendant of slaves. The author argues that slaves were not considered as "citizens" when the Constitution was written, and therefore, their children cannot be citizens either. However, a counterclaim to this statement would be the argument that Dred Scott and his family should be considered citizens because they were born in the United States, and therefore, deserve all the rights that citizenship grants them.
Answer: It provides a unique and personal perspective on a significant historical event.
There are several advantages and disadvantages to writing about an event in the form of a memoir. Some of the disadvantages are that the author can lose objectivity about an event, and he can present a biased view of the events. Another problem could be that our memories are not perfect, and the author might remember events differently from the way they happened.
However, there are also several advantages. The most obvious one is likely why Gelissen decided to tell her story as a memoir. And this is that a memoir can provide a unique and personal perspective on a significant historical event.
