Macbeth - Fiction v. History
Eric Shapiro 12/7/11
Shakespeare Senior Seminar Professor Swift
Historical Anachronism As Essential to Macbeth: What Shakespeare’s Selective Use of Holinshed’s The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland Reveals About His Play’s Political Perspective
Above all, Shakespeare’s Macbeth is concerned with the moral deterioration of a man undone by his own excessive ambition. Shakespeare may give cause to sympathize with the protagonist for his human qualities, but he never seeks to foster doubt that Macbeth’s actions are evil. In murdering King Duncan and usurping his power, Macbeth overturns a natural moral order, deliveringScotland into darkness (literal and metaphorical) for the duration of his rule.Duncan’s son, Malcolm, restores this order when he recaptures the crown.
Underlying Shakespeare’s presentation of Macbeth’s rise and fall is the assumption that primogeniture constitutes the only legitimate transition of power from the king to his rightful heir.Macbeth reinforces this notion by treating its protagonist’s actions as unambiguously evil and unjustified. Although Macbeth is nominally set in 11th- century Scotland, it reflects the values and assumptions of 17th-century England. R. Holinshed’s The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland was probably Shakespeare’s main source when he wroteMacbeth sometime between 1603 and 1606 (Brunmuller 8-9). This essay will begin with an overview of Holinshed’s text, with special attention devoted to a) defining the point of view it embodies, and b) how this view manifests itself in Macbeth. Moving on, it will examine the historical circumstances of 11th-century Scotland as they relate to succession. It will conclude with a text-to-text comparison of Macbeth and The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland, arguing that Shakespeare’s departures from his source illuminate the thematic intentions of Macbeth with regard to legitimate sovereignty.
Holinshed’s The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland is a “history” in the basic sense that it offers an account of past events. However, the 11th-centuryScotland it describes bears only a superficial resemblance to historical reality. Holinshed, an Englishman, is not a reliable narrator for several reasons. Most overtly, his history is riddled with folklore and mythology. Magic and supernatural phenomena are commonplace, with witches, wizard, fairies, and nymphs frequently interacting with historical figures. While placing responsibility for Macbeth’s treason in part on supernatural forces serves an important dramatic purpose, it also obscures the historical Macbeth’s valid political motivations.
Second, and more importantly, The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland presents a distorted view of Scottish history that suggests a strong English bias. Holinshed, like Shakespeare, assumes that concepts such as the divine right of kings and primogeniture were as accepted in 11th-century Scotland as they were in 17th- centuryEngland. Holinshed makes a minimal effort to include details that conflict with his preferred historical narrative. For example, he mentions a defunct Celtic law of succession called tanistry that had been universally accepted in Scotland until the reign of Cinaed mac Mail Coluim (reigned 971-995), anglicized as Kenneth II. He neglects, however, to adequately contemplate the implications of this law on Macbeth’s accession to the throne circa 1040.
Shakespeare goes one step further, failing to even acknowledge the presence of any law of succession besides primogeniture in 11th-century Scotland. A thematic analysis of Macbethreveals that this was most likely a deliberate creative choice intended to achieve an objective. Shakespeare tellingly omits from his play all the details of Holinshed’s history that would give Macbeth’s claim to the throne merit. His Macbeth is a weak, selfish, and unappreciative traitor motivated exclusively by ambition. Drawing on an already biased source, Shakespeare removes all historical facts incongruous with his affirmation of early 17th-century English notions of legitimate kingship.
In Shakespeare’s England, legitimate kingship was predicated on four underlying assumptions. First, “monarchy is a divinely ordained institution” (Figgis 5). In other words, the monarch’s power derives not from the consent of the governed or from the Church, but from God. An attack on the king is then, by extension, an attack on God’s authority. Second, “hereditary right is indefeasible” (Figgis 5). The king’s hereditary right to the throne according to the law of primogeniture “cannot be forfeited through any acts of usurpation… by an incapacity in the heir, or by an act of deposition… he is king by hereditary right, even though the usurping dynasty has reigned for a thousand years” (Figgis 5). Third, “kings are accountable to God alone” (Figgis 5). No other governing institution can rightfully transcend or limit the king’s authority, and all laws passed by parliament are subject to his approval. Finally, “non-resistance and passive obedience are enjoined by God” (Figgis 6). By this standard, any contradiction of the king is prohibited, even if he is clearly in error. Subjects are to honor the explicit word of God over that of his earthly representative, but they are still obligated to accept punishment for doing so (Figgis 6).
If primogeniture is the only legitimate form of rightful succession and it is wrong to rebel against the rightful king under any circumstances, then Macbeth’s rise to power is inherently invalid and morally wrong. Macbeth came at a time when “theology and politics were inextricably mingled” (Figgis 11). Primogeniture, then, was not just a political and legal concept, but also a religious one. Any other means of taking power by definition violated an unquestionable moral imperative. In line with this understanding of divine right, Shakespeare couches the issue of rightful succession in religious terms.
The interfactional conflicts that characterized early Scotlandare little mentioned by Shakespeare and Holinshed, and to be fair, much of the historical data discussed above was not readily accessible in the 17th century. Nevertheless, it is imperative to have a basic understanding of “real” Scottish history when examining the heavily fictionalized accounts, the analysis of which comprises the bulk of this essay. An exploration of the ways in which Holinshed and by extension, Shakespeare, diverged from or expounded upon the limited material at their disposal goes a long way towards revealing their own cultural agendas. More recent historicism in free societies is at least nominally concerned with depicting historical events as they occurred, rather than offering outright propaganda tailored to reflect well on those in power. This not to say that modern historicism does not contain any bias, but merely that there is some value placed on rendering accounts of history that, in comparison to those found in the 1600s, are somewhat based on fact.
Modern histories provide a useful point of departure for studying The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland. Whether or not Holinshed was deliberately fabricating and mischaracterizing Scottish history to serve an agenda or evade the wrath of censors, his “history” is derived from layers upon layers of distortion that bear little resemblance to the ever-elusive truth. Shakespeare’s fictionalized take on events, then, which differs significantly from that of his main primary source, is but another exquisite layer of fabrication laid on top of the ones that came before.
Since Shakespeare and Holinshed give, to varying degrees, unreliable descriptions of 11th-century Scotland, it is necessary to offer a brief, historically accurate account of its history that is not tied to the Anglocentric perspective found in Macbeth and The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland. In isolation, the portrayal of Scotland in the aforementioned texts implies a deeply ingrained respect for the institution of kingship in general and divine right in particular. Furthermore, they provide no grounds to question the assumption that Scotland was a nation in the modern sense of the term. While the 11th-century Scots did acknowledge the authority of their monarchs and had a vague sense of national identity, other considerations held just as much, if not more significance: “There was a king of Scots, whose title was not entirely meaningless… Yet the inhabitants of the kingdom had other, perhaps far more powerful ways of expressing their identity. Their lives were conditioned by the regions in which they lived… They spoke various languages and existed in a diversity of cultures” (Houston and Knox 151).
Eleventh-centuryScotlandwas a loosely bound coalition of peoples united by a tenuous sense of national identity, much different from the unified nation it would later become (Houston151). The MacMalcolms, the most powerful of the Scottish families, nominally ruled the entirety of the kingdom (Houston and Knox 78). However, Houston and Knox write: “It is only in retrospect… that the MacMalcolm dynasty looks so secure and naturally expansive. It experienced consistent difficulties in extending royal authority into the peripheral areas of the kingdom… From these areas also there emerged rival claimants to the throne” (Houston and Knox 156).
In the north, the Macbeths for all intents and purposes ruled over their own kingdom. The Macbeths, based in a region called Moray, harbored a deep resentment toward their southern neighbors ever since they had been forced to acknowledge the southern king, Cinaed II, as their king. Sometime after the death of his father in 1020, MacBheatha mac Findlaich (anglisized as Macbeth), the historical figure that inspired Shakespeare’s character, came to power in the north. Macbeth established a reputation as a formidable warrior, winning many military victories against Norwegian invaders and other enemies (Houston and Knox 76).
Following the death of the reigning king, Macbeth felt that he had a legitimate claim to the throne based on a complex web of familial relationships, and hence resented Donnchad (Holinshed’s and Shakespeare’s Duncan) for claiming authority over the entire kingdom. Macbeth’s hostile feelings were likely exacerbated by a prior MacMalcolm’s murder of his wife’s kin, either a son or a nephew (Houston 78). In light of these factors,Houstonasserts that: “there have been many less justifiable seizures of power in the history of medieval Europe than Macbeth’s” (Houston79).
Macbeth provides no inkling of the web of intrigue or the long history of interfamily resentment that culminated in Macbeth’s rise to the throne. Shakespeare extracts from Macbeth all traits and motivations that might justify his usurpation of the king’s “divine” authority. By the same token, he portrays Duncan and Malcolm, the rightful monarchs according to the law of primogeniture, as paragons of kingly virtue. Macbeth is motivated only by excessive ambition unbound by moral constraints, as exemplified by his comment: “I have no spur/To prick the sides of my intent, but only/Vaulting ambition which o’erleaps itself/And falls on th’other” (1.7.25-28).
The characters in Macbeth are shocked and appalled by the actions of the title character, speaking in a manner that suggests his crime is so severe as to warrant special condemnation. In reality, regicide was quite common in 11th-centuryScotland. In the years leading up to Macbeth’s violent rise, several other kings and nobles met their ends at the hands of ambitious and/or vengeful nobles. In addition to demonstrating the oft-violent means of succession in Scotland, the usurpers’ motives and methods were strikingly similar to those of Shakespeare’sMacbeth, who represents a synthesis of not only his pseudo-historical counterpart, but also several other Scottish nobles (some of whom became monarchs) who preceded and followed him. Tellingly, Macbeth possesses only the negative traits, motives and actions Holinshed attributes to these historical figures and none of their laudable ones, which might invite support for actions that the play seeks to render unambiguous. In highlighting ambition as Macbeth’s sole motivation, Shakespeare sets aside historical realities that would unduly distract from his play’s affirmation of divine right and primogeniture.
First, there is Donwald, who, like Macbeth, was a renowned soldier who “had been ever accounted a most faithfull servant to the king,” making his subsequent betrayal all the more egregious. However, the genesis of Donwald’s traitorous inclinations did not lie in excessive ambition. After putting down a rebellion of Scottish nobles – another common occurrence inMacbeth’s time – King Duff refused to spare the lives of several kinsmen dear to Donwald that had “beene persuaded by partakers with the other rebels, more through the fraudulent counsel of diverse wicked persons, than of their owne accord” (Bullough 481). Even when Donwald humbled himself and “made earnest labor and sute to the king to have begged their pardon,” the king would still not consider a pardon (Bullough 481). Rebuffed, Donwald “conceived… an inward malice towards the king” (Bullough 481). Regardless of whether Donwald’s grievance justified regicide, his desire to avenge the death of his kinsmen allows some grounds for sympathy, in contrast to Macbeth’s raw ambition.
Although Donwald’s motives have little in common with those of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, similarities are apparent in several other respects. According to Holinshed, Donwald’s wife played a substantial role in persuading her husband to murder the king. He was “kindled in wrath by the words of his wife, determined to follow hir advise in the execution of so heinous an act” (481). Observing her husband’s feelings towards the king, Donwald’s wife went out of her way to exacerbate and give it focus, much as Lady Macbethdid for her husband:
“ Like Lady Macbeth, Donwald’s wife went even further, devising the method of the king’s murder for her husband: “she as one that bare no less malice in hir heart towards the king… counseled him [Donwald]… to make him [King Duff] away and shewed him the meanes wherby he might soonest accomplish it” (Bullough 481).
Donwald and Macbeth were both vulnerable to manipulation by their wives, who also seemed to be the chief architects of their assassinations of the reigning monarchs.
Furthering this parallel, Donwald’s murder of King Duff unsettles the natural world in a manner similar to that found in Shakespeare when Macbeth murderedDuncan. Holinshed writes that following Duff’s murder “There appeered no sunne by day, nor moon by night in anie part of the realme, but still was the skie covered with continuall clouds, and sometimes such outrageous windes arose, with lightenings and tempests, that the people were in great feare of present destruction” (Bullough 483-4).
In Shakespeare’s Macbeth, too, the rightful king’s murder results in an upheaval of the natural world. The morning after the assassination,Lennox recounts: “The night has been unruly: where we lay/Our chimneys were blown down; and, as they say/Lamentings heard I’ the air; strange screams of death/… Clamoured the livelong night; some say the earth/Was feverous and did shake” (2.3.51-58). In the next scene, after observing that Scotland has lapsed into a perpetual night, an unnamed Old Man poses the question: “Is’t the night’s predominance, or the day’s shame/That darkness does the face of earth entomb/When living light should kiss it?” (2.4.8-9). In describing the corruption of the natural world immediately following Duncan’s assassination, Holinshed and Shakespeare suggest that the health of a kingdom is inextricably bound to the person of its legitimate ruler. The supernatural fallout of Macbeth’s unnatural usurpation of power indicates divine displeasure and/or a perversion of nature, thereby frustrating any attempt to perceive the perpetrator’s actions detached from a moral context.
Shakespeare derived Macbeth’s murder method, the encouragement of Lady Macbeth, and the manifestation of the rightful king’s death in the natural world from Holinshed’s account of Donwald. At the same time, Macbeth lacked Donwald’s underlying motive to avenge the deaths of his kinsmen. If Shakespeare had transposed this motive onto his Macbethalong with the aforementioned similarities, the audience might see Macbeth’s crime in a more sympathetic light. Granted, the king’s lawful decision to execute rebels would by no means justify Macbeth’s murder ofDuncanor convey legitimacy on his rule. It would, however, provide an emotional basis for Macbeth’s actions and, consequently, minimize ambition as his prime motive.
Duff’s successor, Cullen, killed Donwald (whose suspicious behavior in the wake of the king’s death made him the prime suspect) and avenged the murder of the rightful king. Alas, the new king’s “gross sensuality” led to his downfall when he was “murdered by a thane whose daughter he had ravished” (Bullough 485). Cullen’s murder lends some prescience to the scene in Macbeth in which Malcolm warns Macduff about the dangers of an overly lecherous king (4.3.60-65).
Kenneth, King Duff’s brother and the next ill-fated king to take the throne, wanted his son take his place as king, but the current political system dictated that his nephew, the offspring of King Duff, was next in line to the throne. Determined that his son rule after him, Kenneth devised a scheme to bypass the then-rightful line of succession. First, he poisoned Malcolm (not to be confused with the later king of the same name), who was next in line to the throne. Then, he convinced the nobles that kings should from then on be chosen by primogeniture (Bullough 485). Shakespeare’s Macbeth betrays Banquo for the same reason. Fearful that his friends’ descendents will usurp the power of his offspring in fulfillment of the witches’ prophecy, Macbeth dispatches three murderers to assassinate Banquo.
Similar as their motives and reactions ostensibly were, Kenneth’s murder of Malcolm had a political dimension absent in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. The former’s instatement of primogeniture marked a radical departure from past precedent, asScotland’s kings had until then come to power through tanistry. Eventually, Kenneth II met his end at the hands of Fenella in revenge for the execution of her son as well as the suspected assassination of Malcolm, a relative (Bullough 486). Kenneth II’s son then took power, ostensibly cementing the newly adopted law of primogeniture. However, as mentioned before, not all Scots initially accepted the new form of hereditary succession (Stevenson 7).
The controversy over differing means of succession reached a violent culmination during the reign of Duncan. Holinshed describes Duncanas a kindly man with a gentle disposition, much like his counterpart in Macbeth. Alas, these admirable traits made him a mediocre king. The early years of Duncan’s reign were peaceful, but over time the people of Scotland came to view their king as weak: “after it was perceived how negligent he was in punishing offenders, manie misruled persons tooke occasion thereof to trouble the peace” (Bullough 488). Seeing an opportunity to take advantage of the king’s leniency for their own ends, many “misruled persons” engaged in “seditious commotions” against the king. Mackdowald, a particularly influential rebel leader, referred to Duncan as a “faint-hearted milksop, more meet to governe a sort of idle monks in some cloister, than to have the rule of such valiant and hardie men of warre as the Scots were” (Bullough 489). His words struck a chord with those nobles who were dissatisfied withDuncan’s rule.
Shakespeare’s treatment of Mackdonwald sets an important thematic precedent regarding the diabolic origins of treason against the rightful king in the world of Macbeth: “The merciless Macdonwald/Worthy to be a rebel, for to that/The multiplying villainies of nature/Do swarm upon him” (1.1.8-10). Here, there is no discussion of the concrete, if questionable, motives of the rebel leader. In isolation, this could be said to represent the views of a character (an unnamed Sergeant) rather than those of Shakespeare. However, the conspicuous absence of any moral justifications for murder, flawed or otherwise, implies a larger moral reality present in Macbeth. The impetus for rebellion against the legitimate king, as prescribed by primogeniture, is assumed to derive from inherent “villainies of nature,” that is the temptation to violate moral laws. In the world of Macbeth, rebellion against the rightful king’s divine authority can never stem from altruism.
The genesis of Macbeth’s treasonous impulses against the rightful king, like that of Mackdonwald’s, lies in innate moral failings that are exacerbated by hellish forces. Shakespeare’s not-so-subtle use of religious language in association with the Macbeths leaves little doubt regarding where they stand on his play’s moral spectrum. The witches, whom Banquo refers to as “the instruments of darkness,” are the most obvious examples of evil in the play (1.3.125). Spurred by their dark prophecy, Macbeth immediately begins to consider murdering the king. He acknowledges from the very beginning that his ambitions are wrong, calling on nature to hide his evil intentions: “stars, hide your fires!/Let not light see my black and deep desires” (1.4.50-51). Later, Lady Macbeth explicitly calls on hell to aid in her assassination of Duncan and hide her actions from heaven: “Come, thick night/And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell/That my keen knife see not the wound it makes/Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark” (1.4.48-51). In the penultimate act of the play, Macduff accusesMacbeth of being worse than the devil, and the tyrant responds: “no, nor more fearful,” accepting his opponent’s assessment (5.7.9).
Shakespeare sets upDuncanin moral and religious opposition to the Macbeths, in accordance with his position as the rightful monarch according to divine right and primogeniture. Shortly before he assassinates the king, Macbeth worries thatDuncan’s virtues will “plead like angels” to his grieving subjects (1.7.19). After the discovery ofDuncan’s body, Macduff laments: “Most sacrilegious murder hath broke ope/The Lord’s anointed temple and stole thence/The life o’th’building” (2.3.60-62). Describing the scene of the murder, Macbethstates: “Here layDuncan,/His silver skin laced with his golden blood/and his gashed stabs looked like a breach in nature” (2.3.104-106).
Such language might seem over the top to a 21st-century audience, but was in fact quite appropriate in 17th-centuryEngland, where law and custom designated the king God’s representative on Earth. As mentioned earlier, politics and religion were inextricably bound in the eyes of the people. The hierarchy of the day, in which the king sat at the top, was not considered a social construct, but rather an incontrovertible reality of life mandated by God. By the standards of Shakespeare’s time, then, the murder of the king would indeed have constituted a “breach of nature” (Figgis 11)
To be fair, Shakespeare’s presentation ofDuncanis not all positive. For example, he lightly pokes fun atDuncan’s obliviousness and trustful nature: “This castle hath a pleasant seat; the air/Nimbly and sweetly recommends itself,” but he does not imply that these qualities are sufficient to call the legitimacy of his reign or even the quality of his governance into question (1.6.1-3). There is no suggestion thatDuncan’s gentleness could have a detrimental impact on the kingdom. Macbeth himself attests toDuncan’s fundamental goodness as a reason not to follow through on his treacherous inclinations: “Besides, this Duncan/Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been so clear in his great office” (1.7.16-19).
Holinshed, like Shakespeare, accepts without reservationDuncan’s religious and legal claim to the Scottish throne, but he does not display the same degree of uncritical reverence for the king. For one, he criticizesDuncan’s “small skill in warlike affaires” (Bullough 490). Macbeth expressed his frustration withDuncan’s leadership, foreshadowing one of his later motives for murdering the king: “Mackbeth speaking much against the kings softnes, and overmuch slacknesse in punishing offenders, whereby they had such time to assemble together” (Bullough 490). Even as Macbeth and Banquo risked their lives fighting rebels, new ones sprang up to challenge the authority of the weak king.
Ultimately, Holinshed gives Macbeth, rather than Duncan, the bulk of the credit for quashing Mackdonwald’s rebellion: “Thus was justice and law restored againe to the old accustomed course, by the diligent means of Makbeth” (Bullough 490). Macbeth would continue his commitment to law and order during his reign, in the process winning his subject’s respect, at least for a time.
Holinshed and Shakespeare concur thatDuncanis the rightful king, and that therefore Macbeth’s usurpation of power is unlawful and immoral. That being said, the former takes issue withDuncan’s decision to name his son king in opposition to the method of succession that had, until the reign of Kenneth II, been the law inScotland. Holinshed’s description of this ancient custom known as tanistry, while incomplete and not entirely accurate, lends some credence to Macbeth’s claim to the throne: “where, by the old lawes of the realme, the ordinance was, that if he that should succeed were not of able age to take the charge upon himselfe, he that was next of bloud unto him should be admitted” (Bullough 496). Furthermore, according to the law of tanistry “no son of a king could succeed his father immediately; instead, the first ranking adult member of the nearest junior branch of the family should, by election, succeed the enthroned king” (Echeruo 444).
Even after the MacMalcolm king Kenneth II replaced tanistry with primogeniture, many Scotts still maintained respect for the old way. J.H. Stevenson writes “It is evident… that there existed still in the country [Scotland] a strong body of opinion in favour of the system of tanistry, or, at least, a prevalent belief that it was the guardian of something of the nature of rights which were possessed in common by the several lines of the kingly house” (Stevenson 7). Nevertheless, Kenneth II’s son Malcolm II came to power according to the newly instated law of primogeniture.
Such a method of succession ran counter to the law of primogeniture widely accepted in Englandin the 17th century. Although far from democratic, the idea that mere human beings could have a say in the election of their ruler undermined the duel notions that “monarchy is a divinely ordained institution” and “hereditary right is indefeasible” (Figgis 5). Acknowledging tanistry would fundamentally alter the meaning of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, conflicting with the play’s presentation of the protagonist’s crimes as a violation of nature stemming from his moral corruption. The law of tanistry is omitted from Macbeth even though Holinshed mentions it (albeit briefly) in his history as one of several motivating factors inMacbeth’s murder of Duncan, because it brings up the possibility that Macbeth’s usurpation of power could have been justified in the context of 11th-century Scotland.
As a renowned general, the scion of an influential line of nobles who held power in northernScotland, and cousin toDuncan, Macbeth had a legitimate claim to the throne according to a system that had dictated the line of succession inScotlandfor hundreds of years. According to Holinshed, it was only afterDuncan’s decree that his son Malcolm would succeed him thatMacbeth began to consider treason:
“He [Macbeth] began to take counsell how he might usurpe the kingdome by force, having a just quarell to so to doo (as he took the matter) for that Duncane did what in him lay to defraud him of all maner of title and claime, which he might in time to come, pretend unto the crowne” (Bullough 496).
Holinshed stops short of condoning Macbeth’s traitorous inclinations, going out of his way to assert that, despite Macbeth’s seemingly valid justification, he would only be “pretending to the throne.” Nevertheless, it is clear that, in unilaterally naming his son the next king,Duncandefied a longstanding political practice, arguably slighting Macbeth who, as his cousin, was next in line to the throne. Cognizant of this reality, Holinshed admits the possibility of a reasonable difference of opinion as toDuncan’s rightful successor. Macbeth himself certainly considers his claim righteous, calling on “divine providence” to aid him in his endeavor (Bullough 496).
Shakespeare, on the other hand, neglects to even mention Macbeth’s claim to the throne as a factor in his usurpation. Ironically, Shakespeare employs his protagonist’s kinship toDuncanin order to paint his actions in an even more negative light. As Macbeth contemplates assassinating the king, he muses: “I am his kinsman and his subject/Strong both against the deed” (1.7.13). In killingDuncan, Macbeth not only commits regicide against the rightful king; he also betrays his own flesh and blood. Whereas the historical Macbeth killed Duncan partially out of duty to his kin – as mentioned, Kenneth II ordered the assassination of either Macbeth’s nephew or son-in-law (the historical record is not settled on this detail) to pave the way for his son’s succession – Shakespeare’s character was not, in the end, held back by familial loyalty.
Shakespeare makes no mention of tanistry in Macbeth, nor does he acknowledge that the system of primogeniture was only recently put into effect inScotland. WhenDuncan announces immediately following the suppression of an internal rebellion that his son Malcolm is to inherit the throne, Macbeth’s only response is “The prince ofCumberland! That is a step/On which I must fall down, or else o’erleap/For in my way it lies” (1.4.48-50). Based on his reaction toDuncan’s pronouncement, Shakespeare’s Macbeth does not believe he has any legitimate claim to the throne. He simply considers Malcolm an impediment to his ambitions that must be removed.
It is clear that even the limited justification Holinshed provides for Macbeth’s treason goes above and beyond what Shakespeare is willing to give his protagonist. This is because introducing the idea of two potentially valid opposing methods of succession would conflict with Shakespeare’s presentation of Macbeth’s reign as illegitimate. In the world ofMacbeth, there is no possibility that one could have a justifiable reason for usurping the power of a king whose claim to the throne is prescribed by primogeniture. Indeed, if Shakespeare’s Macbeth made a compelling argument for his right to the kingship, the very notion of his corruption would be called into question. As noted earlier, Macbeth himself does not defend his actions, leaving little room for uncertainty as to their moral nature.
A further significant difference between Holinshed’s and Shakespeare’s presentation of Macbeth’s rise is found in the distribution of blame forDuncan’s murder. Both place some of the blame on Lady Macbeth; Holinshed writes: “speciallie his wife lay sore upon him to attempt the thing, as she that was verie ambitious, burning in unquenchable desire to beare the name of queene” (496). However, while Shakespeare’s Macbeth confides only in his wife, his counterpart in Holinshed’s history eagerly lets others in on his conspiracy to murder the king: “At length therefore, communicating his purposed intent with his trustie friends, amongst whome Banquho was the chiefest, upon confidence of their promised aid” (Bullough 496). The support of other nobles confers a certain degree of legitimacy on Macbeth’s assassination ofDuncan. Since he is not acting alone, his betrayal could be seen as the expression of popular (or at least aristocratic) discontent with the rule of an unpopular king. Even though he is not motivated by selfless altruism (Holinshed takes pains to highlight his ambition), he is not acting purely for his own gratification.
All of this begs the question of why Shakespeare would choose to make the Macbeths the sole conspirators in Duncan’s murder. Surely, the support of a few others would not make his crime seem any less inexcusable, especially given the wide acceptance of divine right and primogeniture in 17th-centuryEngland. If anything, a Macbeth that let others in on his scheme could seem even more despicable than one who acted alone, deserving of condemnation for corrupting and damning others along with himself.
However, allowing others to partake in Duncan’s murder would, in a way, diminish the impact of the crime. Part of what makes Macbeth’s crime so horrifying is the reactions of every other character in the play, who all see it as a profoundly unnatural occurrence. If someone killed the king in 17th-centuryEngland (the values of which Shakespeare’sScotland clearly reflects), no citizens of decent repute would be likely to take his side, regardless of how they felt about the king. It is quite revealing that “those he commands move only in command,/Nothing in love” (5.2.19-20).
The discrepancy between Holinshed’s and Shakespeare’s treatments of 11th-century Scottish history continue into Macbeth’s reign. Holinshed gives Macbeth credit for his achievements. In a departure from his meek predecessor, the new king “set his whole intention to mainteine justice, and to punish all enormities and abuses, which had chanced through the feeble and slouthfull administration of Duncane” (Bullough 497). So vigorous was Macbeth in punishing criminals that “manie yeares after all theft and reiffings were little heard of, the people injoieng the blissefull benefit of good peace and tranquilities” (Bullough 497). From the perspective of the common people, Macbeth was a successful ruler; gone were the constant uprisings that threatenedScotland’s stability and cost the lives of its subjects who were duty-bound to fight. For the brief duration of Macbeth’s rule, in sharp contrast to those of his predecessors,Scotland was a safe place to live. For this reason, “Mackbeth… was accounted the sure defense and buckler of innocent people” (Bullough 497).
Besides keeping the peace, Macbeth enacted many “holesome laws and statutes for the publike weale of his subjects” (Bullough 498). Some of these laws were surprisingly progressive by the standards of the time, such as those that allowed women to inherit land and property in the absence of male heirs. In addition, Macbeth enjoyed a good relationship with religious authorities, bestowing generous donations on the church and encouraging “young men to exercise themselves in virtuous maners, and men of the church to attend their divine service according to their vocations” (Bullough 498). Far from associating himself with the devil in the manner of his theatrical counterpart, Holinshed’s Macbeth was, if anything, devoted to the interests of Christianity.
However, Holinshed’s seemingly laudatory account of Macbeth’s good leadership is undermined by his subsequent assertion that the king’s accomplishments were “but a counterfet zeale of equitie… partlie against his naturall incliniation to purchase thereby the favour of the people. Shortly after, he began to shew what he was” (Bullough 498). Obsessed with the witches’ prophecy and paranoid that Banquo would usurp his power to fulfill his apparent destiny, Macbeth reverted to his treasonous ways, inviting his friend and his son Fleance to a final dinner before setting murderers on them as they returned home (although Fleance managed to escape) (Bullough 498). Following Banquo’s murder, Holinshed claims, the Scots began to fear their new leader and, increasingly paranoid, Macbeth feared his subjects in turn (Bullough 499).
From this point on, Holinshed’s Macbeth behaved much like Shakespeare’s character of the same name: “at length he found such sweetnesse by putting his nobles thus to death, that his earnest thirst after bloud in this behalfe might in no wise be satisfied” (Bullough 499). Therefore, when Malcolm arrived with an English army at his back, he was justified in removing the illegitimate king from power. All of this adds up to a portrayal of Macbeth that veers towards the negative, but does not entirely discount his achievements as a ruler. Shakespeare, in contrast, presents an entirely unfavorable view of Macbeth as a paranoid and power-hungry tyrant.
As damning as Holinshed’s portrayal of Macbeth’s reign ultimately turned out to be, Shakespeare’s was still worse. The Bard does not even give his protagonist credit for a few years of successful governance. Instead, he condenses Macbeth’s reign into a much shorter span of time, the entirety of which he spends terrorizing his subjects. When attempting to convince Malcolm to retake the crown from the illegitimate tyrant, Macduff paints a vivid picture ofScotland’s current state:
“Alas! Poor country;/Almost afraid to know itself. It cannot/Be call’d our mother, but our grave; where nothing,/But who knows nothing, is once seen to smile;/Where sighs and groans and shrieks that rent the air/Are made, not mark’d; where violent sorrow seems/A modern ecstacy; the dead man’s knell/Is there scarce ask’d for who; and good men’s lives/Expire before the flowers in their caps/Dying or ere they sicken” (4.3.164-173)
Macduff’s account surpasses in horror the tyranny that Holinshed describes, in part because Shakespeare injects a supernatural element into the mix. Macbeth’s illegitimate rule results in his subjects literally becoming ill. This further supports the idea that his reign is a perversion of nature, which is likely of hellish origin. In the final acts of Macbeth, the title character is frequently likened to the devil. For example, Young Siward yells at the tyrant: “the devil himself could not pronounce a title/More hateful to mine ear” (5.7.8). Macbeth does not reject the accusation, responding: “no, nor more fearful” (5.7.9). In claiming that Satan is no worse than himself, Macbeth casts himself as an agent of darkness.
It is worthy of note that there are several exceptions to this rule. Granted, Shakespeare does not mention certain character flaws that Holinshed attributes to Macbeth. For example, Holinshed describes Macbeth as an eager plunderer who often murdered nobles in order to steal their possessions. Shakespeare’s Macbeth, on the other hand, does not display any particular interest in material wealth. His lust is for power, the ultimate intangible reward, not gold or possessions. This provides the character with a certain grandeur, a purity of purpose that is arguably his only source of sympathy. In omitting greed from the long list of his Macbeth’s character flaws, Shakespeare keeps the focus on the character’s central motive: ambition.
Some modern critics have disputed the notion that Macbeth unambiguously favors the divine right of kings. Drawing on the contemporary notion that the people are entitled to remove a leader from power if he proves to be a tyrant, Rebecca Lemon writes: “even as it depicts the horrors of treason, the play offers a critique of sovereign power… Indeed, rather than supporting sovereign power at any cost, the play legitimates tyrannicide as Malcolm and his allies unseat Macbeth” (Moschovakis 73). While it is true that Shakespeare portrays the overthrow of Macbeth in a positive light, this does not owe to the fact that his protagonist is a poor sovereign. Rather, his rule is never legitimate in the first place. Hence, killing him with the intention of restoring the rightful king to the throne is the opposite of treason. If Macbeth’s claim to the throne were legitimate, no amount of oppression on his part would justify removing him from power.
Elizabeth Nielson goes further, arguing that Macbeth’s claim to the throne based on the law of tanistry is a significant factor in Shakespeare’s play: “Duncan’s nomination of his son as his heir to the throne was the straw that broke the back of Macbeth’s reservation against any evil action towardDuncan’s removal as king” (Nielsen 226). This would be a compelling argument if it had any basis in Shakespeare’s text. Would not Macbeth mention such a just cause for grievance againstDuncanif it existed in the world of the play? Nielsen continues: “Under the law of Tanistry, too, one’s lineal descendents could be heirs to the throne under alternating rulers, and thus both Macbeth and Banquo could have heirs who might eventually be king” (Nielsen 226). If this were the case, Macbeth would have no reason to fear the witches’ prediction that his friends’ heirs would be kings, contradicting a key moment in his moral degeneration.
Nielsen further undermines her argument with the claim that Shakespeare’s: “compliment to King James of Englandwas in the ‘divine touch’ which the good king of Englandwas said to have in the play – not to lineage” (Nielsen 226). Here, Nielsen refers to the unnamed doctor’s speech to Malcolm and Macduff in England: “Ay, sir; there are a crew of wretched souls/That stay his cure; their malady convinces/The great assay of art; but, at his touch/Such sanctity hath heaven given his hand/They presently amend” (4.3.138-144). Nielsen’s insistence on separating King Edward’s healing touch from his royal lineage is inconsistent with the beliefs of early 17th-century England. By divine law, no king who did not come into power via primogeniture was legitimate. Surely God (the source of Edward’s powers) would not bestow such a wondrous gift on anyone but the rightful king. Edward’s healing touch, if anything, attests to the vital importance of royal lineage in the world of Macbeth.
In conclusion, while Macbeth is successful as a dramatic work, it is not concerned with providing an accurate depiction of the historical events on which it is loosely based. Shakespeare picks and chooses details from Holinshed’s The Chronicles of, England, Scotlande, and Ireland to serve thematic purposes rooted in an early 17th century English perspective on succession that is anachronistic when applied to 11th century Scotland. The disparities between Macbeth and the historical record are most likely deliberate creative choices rather than oversights, as Holinshed was clearly aware of some complicating factors that are conspicuously absent from Shakespeare’s play. Macbeth raises many provocative moral, philosophical and psychological questions that are as relevant now as they were in the early 1600s, but its political perspective, bound up as it is in moral and religious dogmas of early 17th century England, is very much of its time.
Bibliography
Bullough, Geoffrey, and William Shakespeare. Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare.London: Routledge and Paul, 1957. Print.
Echeruo, Michael. "Tanistry, the "Due of Birth" And Macbeth's Sin." Shakespeare Quarterly. 23.4 (1972): n. page. Web. 6 Dec. 2011.
Houston, R. A., and William Knox. The New Penguin History of Scotland: from the Earliest times to the Present Day.London:Allen Lane, 2001. Print.
Kantorowicz, Ernst Hartwig. The King's Two Bodies; a Study in Mediaeval Political Theology,.Princeton,NJ:Princeton UP, 1957. Print.
Stevenson, J.H. "The Law of the Throne: Tanistry and the Introduction of the Law of Primogeniture: A Note on the Succession of the Kings of ScotlandFrom Kenneth MacAlpin to Robert Bruce." Scottish Historical Review. 25. (1927): n. page. Print.
Winstanley, Lilian. Macbeth, King Lear and Contemporary History: Being a Study of the Relations of the Play of Macbeth to the Personal History of James I, the Darnley Murder and the St Bartholomew Massacre and Also of King Lear as Symbolic Mythology.New York: Octagon, 1970. Print.
Shakespeare Senior Seminar Professor Swift
Historical Anachronism As Essential to Macbeth: What Shakespeare’s Selective Use of Holinshed’s The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland Reveals About His Play’s Political Perspective
Above all, Shakespeare’s Macbeth is concerned with the moral deterioration of a man undone by his own excessive ambition. Shakespeare may give cause to sympathize with the protagonist for his human qualities, but he never seeks to foster doubt that Macbeth’s actions are evil. In murdering King Duncan and usurping his power, Macbeth overturns a natural moral order, deliveringScotland into darkness (literal and metaphorical) for the duration of his rule.Duncan’s son, Malcolm, restores this order when he recaptures the crown.
Underlying Shakespeare’s presentation of Macbeth’s rise and fall is the assumption that primogeniture constitutes the only legitimate transition of power from the king to his rightful heir.Macbeth reinforces this notion by treating its protagonist’s actions as unambiguously evil and unjustified. Although Macbeth is nominally set in 11th- century Scotland, it reflects the values and assumptions of 17th-century England. R. Holinshed’s The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland was probably Shakespeare’s main source when he wroteMacbeth sometime between 1603 and 1606 (Brunmuller 8-9). This essay will begin with an overview of Holinshed’s text, with special attention devoted to a) defining the point of view it embodies, and b) how this view manifests itself in Macbeth. Moving on, it will examine the historical circumstances of 11th-century Scotland as they relate to succession. It will conclude with a text-to-text comparison of Macbeth and The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland, arguing that Shakespeare’s departures from his source illuminate the thematic intentions of Macbeth with regard to legitimate sovereignty.
Holinshed’s The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland is a “history” in the basic sense that it offers an account of past events. However, the 11th-centuryScotland it describes bears only a superficial resemblance to historical reality. Holinshed, an Englishman, is not a reliable narrator for several reasons. Most overtly, his history is riddled with folklore and mythology. Magic and supernatural phenomena are commonplace, with witches, wizard, fairies, and nymphs frequently interacting with historical figures. While placing responsibility for Macbeth’s treason in part on supernatural forces serves an important dramatic purpose, it also obscures the historical Macbeth’s valid political motivations.
Second, and more importantly, The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland presents a distorted view of Scottish history that suggests a strong English bias. Holinshed, like Shakespeare, assumes that concepts such as the divine right of kings and primogeniture were as accepted in 11th-century Scotland as they were in 17th- centuryEngland. Holinshed makes a minimal effort to include details that conflict with his preferred historical narrative. For example, he mentions a defunct Celtic law of succession called tanistry that had been universally accepted in Scotland until the reign of Cinaed mac Mail Coluim (reigned 971-995), anglicized as Kenneth II. He neglects, however, to adequately contemplate the implications of this law on Macbeth’s accession to the throne circa 1040.
Shakespeare goes one step further, failing to even acknowledge the presence of any law of succession besides primogeniture in 11th-century Scotland. A thematic analysis of Macbethreveals that this was most likely a deliberate creative choice intended to achieve an objective. Shakespeare tellingly omits from his play all the details of Holinshed’s history that would give Macbeth’s claim to the throne merit. His Macbeth is a weak, selfish, and unappreciative traitor motivated exclusively by ambition. Drawing on an already biased source, Shakespeare removes all historical facts incongruous with his affirmation of early 17th-century English notions of legitimate kingship.
In Shakespeare’s England, legitimate kingship was predicated on four underlying assumptions. First, “monarchy is a divinely ordained institution” (Figgis 5). In other words, the monarch’s power derives not from the consent of the governed or from the Church, but from God. An attack on the king is then, by extension, an attack on God’s authority. Second, “hereditary right is indefeasible” (Figgis 5). The king’s hereditary right to the throne according to the law of primogeniture “cannot be forfeited through any acts of usurpation… by an incapacity in the heir, or by an act of deposition… he is king by hereditary right, even though the usurping dynasty has reigned for a thousand years” (Figgis 5). Third, “kings are accountable to God alone” (Figgis 5). No other governing institution can rightfully transcend or limit the king’s authority, and all laws passed by parliament are subject to his approval. Finally, “non-resistance and passive obedience are enjoined by God” (Figgis 6). By this standard, any contradiction of the king is prohibited, even if he is clearly in error. Subjects are to honor the explicit word of God over that of his earthly representative, but they are still obligated to accept punishment for doing so (Figgis 6).
If primogeniture is the only legitimate form of rightful succession and it is wrong to rebel against the rightful king under any circumstances, then Macbeth’s rise to power is inherently invalid and morally wrong. Macbeth came at a time when “theology and politics were inextricably mingled” (Figgis 11). Primogeniture, then, was not just a political and legal concept, but also a religious one. Any other means of taking power by definition violated an unquestionable moral imperative. In line with this understanding of divine right, Shakespeare couches the issue of rightful succession in religious terms.
The interfactional conflicts that characterized early Scotlandare little mentioned by Shakespeare and Holinshed, and to be fair, much of the historical data discussed above was not readily accessible in the 17th century. Nevertheless, it is imperative to have a basic understanding of “real” Scottish history when examining the heavily fictionalized accounts, the analysis of which comprises the bulk of this essay. An exploration of the ways in which Holinshed and by extension, Shakespeare, diverged from or expounded upon the limited material at their disposal goes a long way towards revealing their own cultural agendas. More recent historicism in free societies is at least nominally concerned with depicting historical events as they occurred, rather than offering outright propaganda tailored to reflect well on those in power. This not to say that modern historicism does not contain any bias, but merely that there is some value placed on rendering accounts of history that, in comparison to those found in the 1600s, are somewhat based on fact.
Modern histories provide a useful point of departure for studying The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland. Whether or not Holinshed was deliberately fabricating and mischaracterizing Scottish history to serve an agenda or evade the wrath of censors, his “history” is derived from layers upon layers of distortion that bear little resemblance to the ever-elusive truth. Shakespeare’s fictionalized take on events, then, which differs significantly from that of his main primary source, is but another exquisite layer of fabrication laid on top of the ones that came before.
Since Shakespeare and Holinshed give, to varying degrees, unreliable descriptions of 11th-century Scotland, it is necessary to offer a brief, historically accurate account of its history that is not tied to the Anglocentric perspective found in Macbeth and The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Ireland. In isolation, the portrayal of Scotland in the aforementioned texts implies a deeply ingrained respect for the institution of kingship in general and divine right in particular. Furthermore, they provide no grounds to question the assumption that Scotland was a nation in the modern sense of the term. While the 11th-century Scots did acknowledge the authority of their monarchs and had a vague sense of national identity, other considerations held just as much, if not more significance: “There was a king of Scots, whose title was not entirely meaningless… Yet the inhabitants of the kingdom had other, perhaps far more powerful ways of expressing their identity. Their lives were conditioned by the regions in which they lived… They spoke various languages and existed in a diversity of cultures” (Houston and Knox 151).
Eleventh-centuryScotlandwas a loosely bound coalition of peoples united by a tenuous sense of national identity, much different from the unified nation it would later become (Houston151). The MacMalcolms, the most powerful of the Scottish families, nominally ruled the entirety of the kingdom (Houston and Knox 78). However, Houston and Knox write: “It is only in retrospect… that the MacMalcolm dynasty looks so secure and naturally expansive. It experienced consistent difficulties in extending royal authority into the peripheral areas of the kingdom… From these areas also there emerged rival claimants to the throne” (Houston and Knox 156).
In the north, the Macbeths for all intents and purposes ruled over their own kingdom. The Macbeths, based in a region called Moray, harbored a deep resentment toward their southern neighbors ever since they had been forced to acknowledge the southern king, Cinaed II, as their king. Sometime after the death of his father in 1020, MacBheatha mac Findlaich (anglisized as Macbeth), the historical figure that inspired Shakespeare’s character, came to power in the north. Macbeth established a reputation as a formidable warrior, winning many military victories against Norwegian invaders and other enemies (Houston and Knox 76).
Following the death of the reigning king, Macbeth felt that he had a legitimate claim to the throne based on a complex web of familial relationships, and hence resented Donnchad (Holinshed’s and Shakespeare’s Duncan) for claiming authority over the entire kingdom. Macbeth’s hostile feelings were likely exacerbated by a prior MacMalcolm’s murder of his wife’s kin, either a son or a nephew (Houston 78). In light of these factors,Houstonasserts that: “there have been many less justifiable seizures of power in the history of medieval Europe than Macbeth’s” (Houston79).
Macbeth provides no inkling of the web of intrigue or the long history of interfamily resentment that culminated in Macbeth’s rise to the throne. Shakespeare extracts from Macbeth all traits and motivations that might justify his usurpation of the king’s “divine” authority. By the same token, he portrays Duncan and Malcolm, the rightful monarchs according to the law of primogeniture, as paragons of kingly virtue. Macbeth is motivated only by excessive ambition unbound by moral constraints, as exemplified by his comment: “I have no spur/To prick the sides of my intent, but only/Vaulting ambition which o’erleaps itself/And falls on th’other” (1.7.25-28).
The characters in Macbeth are shocked and appalled by the actions of the title character, speaking in a manner that suggests his crime is so severe as to warrant special condemnation. In reality, regicide was quite common in 11th-centuryScotland. In the years leading up to Macbeth’s violent rise, several other kings and nobles met their ends at the hands of ambitious and/or vengeful nobles. In addition to demonstrating the oft-violent means of succession in Scotland, the usurpers’ motives and methods were strikingly similar to those of Shakespeare’sMacbeth, who represents a synthesis of not only his pseudo-historical counterpart, but also several other Scottish nobles (some of whom became monarchs) who preceded and followed him. Tellingly, Macbeth possesses only the negative traits, motives and actions Holinshed attributes to these historical figures and none of their laudable ones, which might invite support for actions that the play seeks to render unambiguous. In highlighting ambition as Macbeth’s sole motivation, Shakespeare sets aside historical realities that would unduly distract from his play’s affirmation of divine right and primogeniture.
First, there is Donwald, who, like Macbeth, was a renowned soldier who “had been ever accounted a most faithfull servant to the king,” making his subsequent betrayal all the more egregious. However, the genesis of Donwald’s traitorous inclinations did not lie in excessive ambition. After putting down a rebellion of Scottish nobles – another common occurrence inMacbeth’s time – King Duff refused to spare the lives of several kinsmen dear to Donwald that had “beene persuaded by partakers with the other rebels, more through the fraudulent counsel of diverse wicked persons, than of their owne accord” (Bullough 481). Even when Donwald humbled himself and “made earnest labor and sute to the king to have begged their pardon,” the king would still not consider a pardon (Bullough 481). Rebuffed, Donwald “conceived… an inward malice towards the king” (Bullough 481). Regardless of whether Donwald’s grievance justified regicide, his desire to avenge the death of his kinsmen allows some grounds for sympathy, in contrast to Macbeth’s raw ambition.
Although Donwald’s motives have little in common with those of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, similarities are apparent in several other respects. According to Holinshed, Donwald’s wife played a substantial role in persuading her husband to murder the king. He was “kindled in wrath by the words of his wife, determined to follow hir advise in the execution of so heinous an act” (481). Observing her husband’s feelings towards the king, Donwald’s wife went out of her way to exacerbate and give it focus, much as Lady Macbethdid for her husband:
“ Like Lady Macbeth, Donwald’s wife went even further, devising the method of the king’s murder for her husband: “she as one that bare no less malice in hir heart towards the king… counseled him [Donwald]… to make him [King Duff] away and shewed him the meanes wherby he might soonest accomplish it” (Bullough 481).
Donwald and Macbeth were both vulnerable to manipulation by their wives, who also seemed to be the chief architects of their assassinations of the reigning monarchs.
Furthering this parallel, Donwald’s murder of King Duff unsettles the natural world in a manner similar to that found in Shakespeare when Macbeth murderedDuncan. Holinshed writes that following Duff’s murder “There appeered no sunne by day, nor moon by night in anie part of the realme, but still was the skie covered with continuall clouds, and sometimes such outrageous windes arose, with lightenings and tempests, that the people were in great feare of present destruction” (Bullough 483-4).
In Shakespeare’s Macbeth, too, the rightful king’s murder results in an upheaval of the natural world. The morning after the assassination,Lennox recounts: “The night has been unruly: where we lay/Our chimneys were blown down; and, as they say/Lamentings heard I’ the air; strange screams of death/… Clamoured the livelong night; some say the earth/Was feverous and did shake” (2.3.51-58). In the next scene, after observing that Scotland has lapsed into a perpetual night, an unnamed Old Man poses the question: “Is’t the night’s predominance, or the day’s shame/That darkness does the face of earth entomb/When living light should kiss it?” (2.4.8-9). In describing the corruption of the natural world immediately following Duncan’s assassination, Holinshed and Shakespeare suggest that the health of a kingdom is inextricably bound to the person of its legitimate ruler. The supernatural fallout of Macbeth’s unnatural usurpation of power indicates divine displeasure and/or a perversion of nature, thereby frustrating any attempt to perceive the perpetrator’s actions detached from a moral context.
Shakespeare derived Macbeth’s murder method, the encouragement of Lady Macbeth, and the manifestation of the rightful king’s death in the natural world from Holinshed’s account of Donwald. At the same time, Macbeth lacked Donwald’s underlying motive to avenge the deaths of his kinsmen. If Shakespeare had transposed this motive onto his Macbethalong with the aforementioned similarities, the audience might see Macbeth’s crime in a more sympathetic light. Granted, the king’s lawful decision to execute rebels would by no means justify Macbeth’s murder ofDuncanor convey legitimacy on his rule. It would, however, provide an emotional basis for Macbeth’s actions and, consequently, minimize ambition as his prime motive.
Duff’s successor, Cullen, killed Donwald (whose suspicious behavior in the wake of the king’s death made him the prime suspect) and avenged the murder of the rightful king. Alas, the new king’s “gross sensuality” led to his downfall when he was “murdered by a thane whose daughter he had ravished” (Bullough 485). Cullen’s murder lends some prescience to the scene in Macbeth in which Malcolm warns Macduff about the dangers of an overly lecherous king (4.3.60-65).
Kenneth, King Duff’s brother and the next ill-fated king to take the throne, wanted his son take his place as king, but the current political system dictated that his nephew, the offspring of King Duff, was next in line to the throne. Determined that his son rule after him, Kenneth devised a scheme to bypass the then-rightful line of succession. First, he poisoned Malcolm (not to be confused with the later king of the same name), who was next in line to the throne. Then, he convinced the nobles that kings should from then on be chosen by primogeniture (Bullough 485). Shakespeare’s Macbeth betrays Banquo for the same reason. Fearful that his friends’ descendents will usurp the power of his offspring in fulfillment of the witches’ prophecy, Macbeth dispatches three murderers to assassinate Banquo.
Similar as their motives and reactions ostensibly were, Kenneth’s murder of Malcolm had a political dimension absent in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. The former’s instatement of primogeniture marked a radical departure from past precedent, asScotland’s kings had until then come to power through tanistry. Eventually, Kenneth II met his end at the hands of Fenella in revenge for the execution of her son as well as the suspected assassination of Malcolm, a relative (Bullough 486). Kenneth II’s son then took power, ostensibly cementing the newly adopted law of primogeniture. However, as mentioned before, not all Scots initially accepted the new form of hereditary succession (Stevenson 7).
The controversy over differing means of succession reached a violent culmination during the reign of Duncan. Holinshed describes Duncanas a kindly man with a gentle disposition, much like his counterpart in Macbeth. Alas, these admirable traits made him a mediocre king. The early years of Duncan’s reign were peaceful, but over time the people of Scotland came to view their king as weak: “after it was perceived how negligent he was in punishing offenders, manie misruled persons tooke occasion thereof to trouble the peace” (Bullough 488). Seeing an opportunity to take advantage of the king’s leniency for their own ends, many “misruled persons” engaged in “seditious commotions” against the king. Mackdowald, a particularly influential rebel leader, referred to Duncan as a “faint-hearted milksop, more meet to governe a sort of idle monks in some cloister, than to have the rule of such valiant and hardie men of warre as the Scots were” (Bullough 489). His words struck a chord with those nobles who were dissatisfied withDuncan’s rule.
Shakespeare’s treatment of Mackdonwald sets an important thematic precedent regarding the diabolic origins of treason against the rightful king in the world of Macbeth: “The merciless Macdonwald/Worthy to be a rebel, for to that/The multiplying villainies of nature/Do swarm upon him” (1.1.8-10). Here, there is no discussion of the concrete, if questionable, motives of the rebel leader. In isolation, this could be said to represent the views of a character (an unnamed Sergeant) rather than those of Shakespeare. However, the conspicuous absence of any moral justifications for murder, flawed or otherwise, implies a larger moral reality present in Macbeth. The impetus for rebellion against the legitimate king, as prescribed by primogeniture, is assumed to derive from inherent “villainies of nature,” that is the temptation to violate moral laws. In the world of Macbeth, rebellion against the rightful king’s divine authority can never stem from altruism.
The genesis of Macbeth’s treasonous impulses against the rightful king, like that of Mackdonwald’s, lies in innate moral failings that are exacerbated by hellish forces. Shakespeare’s not-so-subtle use of religious language in association with the Macbeths leaves little doubt regarding where they stand on his play’s moral spectrum. The witches, whom Banquo refers to as “the instruments of darkness,” are the most obvious examples of evil in the play (1.3.125). Spurred by their dark prophecy, Macbeth immediately begins to consider murdering the king. He acknowledges from the very beginning that his ambitions are wrong, calling on nature to hide his evil intentions: “stars, hide your fires!/Let not light see my black and deep desires” (1.4.50-51). Later, Lady Macbeth explicitly calls on hell to aid in her assassination of Duncan and hide her actions from heaven: “Come, thick night/And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell/That my keen knife see not the wound it makes/Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark” (1.4.48-51). In the penultimate act of the play, Macduff accusesMacbeth of being worse than the devil, and the tyrant responds: “no, nor more fearful,” accepting his opponent’s assessment (5.7.9).
Shakespeare sets upDuncanin moral and religious opposition to the Macbeths, in accordance with his position as the rightful monarch according to divine right and primogeniture. Shortly before he assassinates the king, Macbeth worries thatDuncan’s virtues will “plead like angels” to his grieving subjects (1.7.19). After the discovery ofDuncan’s body, Macduff laments: “Most sacrilegious murder hath broke ope/The Lord’s anointed temple and stole thence/The life o’th’building” (2.3.60-62). Describing the scene of the murder, Macbethstates: “Here layDuncan,/His silver skin laced with his golden blood/and his gashed stabs looked like a breach in nature” (2.3.104-106).
Such language might seem over the top to a 21st-century audience, but was in fact quite appropriate in 17th-centuryEngland, where law and custom designated the king God’s representative on Earth. As mentioned earlier, politics and religion were inextricably bound in the eyes of the people. The hierarchy of the day, in which the king sat at the top, was not considered a social construct, but rather an incontrovertible reality of life mandated by God. By the standards of Shakespeare’s time, then, the murder of the king would indeed have constituted a “breach of nature” (Figgis 11)
To be fair, Shakespeare’s presentation ofDuncanis not all positive. For example, he lightly pokes fun atDuncan’s obliviousness and trustful nature: “This castle hath a pleasant seat; the air/Nimbly and sweetly recommends itself,” but he does not imply that these qualities are sufficient to call the legitimacy of his reign or even the quality of his governance into question (1.6.1-3). There is no suggestion thatDuncan’s gentleness could have a detrimental impact on the kingdom. Macbeth himself attests toDuncan’s fundamental goodness as a reason not to follow through on his treacherous inclinations: “Besides, this Duncan/Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been so clear in his great office” (1.7.16-19).
Holinshed, like Shakespeare, accepts without reservationDuncan’s religious and legal claim to the Scottish throne, but he does not display the same degree of uncritical reverence for the king. For one, he criticizesDuncan’s “small skill in warlike affaires” (Bullough 490). Macbeth expressed his frustration withDuncan’s leadership, foreshadowing one of his later motives for murdering the king: “Mackbeth speaking much against the kings softnes, and overmuch slacknesse in punishing offenders, whereby they had such time to assemble together” (Bullough 490). Even as Macbeth and Banquo risked their lives fighting rebels, new ones sprang up to challenge the authority of the weak king.
Ultimately, Holinshed gives Macbeth, rather than Duncan, the bulk of the credit for quashing Mackdonwald’s rebellion: “Thus was justice and law restored againe to the old accustomed course, by the diligent means of Makbeth” (Bullough 490). Macbeth would continue his commitment to law and order during his reign, in the process winning his subject’s respect, at least for a time.
Holinshed and Shakespeare concur thatDuncanis the rightful king, and that therefore Macbeth’s usurpation of power is unlawful and immoral. That being said, the former takes issue withDuncan’s decision to name his son king in opposition to the method of succession that had, until the reign of Kenneth II, been the law inScotland. Holinshed’s description of this ancient custom known as tanistry, while incomplete and not entirely accurate, lends some credence to Macbeth’s claim to the throne: “where, by the old lawes of the realme, the ordinance was, that if he that should succeed were not of able age to take the charge upon himselfe, he that was next of bloud unto him should be admitted” (Bullough 496). Furthermore, according to the law of tanistry “no son of a king could succeed his father immediately; instead, the first ranking adult member of the nearest junior branch of the family should, by election, succeed the enthroned king” (Echeruo 444).
Even after the MacMalcolm king Kenneth II replaced tanistry with primogeniture, many Scotts still maintained respect for the old way. J.H. Stevenson writes “It is evident… that there existed still in the country [Scotland] a strong body of opinion in favour of the system of tanistry, or, at least, a prevalent belief that it was the guardian of something of the nature of rights which were possessed in common by the several lines of the kingly house” (Stevenson 7). Nevertheless, Kenneth II’s son Malcolm II came to power according to the newly instated law of primogeniture.
Such a method of succession ran counter to the law of primogeniture widely accepted in Englandin the 17th century. Although far from democratic, the idea that mere human beings could have a say in the election of their ruler undermined the duel notions that “monarchy is a divinely ordained institution” and “hereditary right is indefeasible” (Figgis 5). Acknowledging tanistry would fundamentally alter the meaning of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, conflicting with the play’s presentation of the protagonist’s crimes as a violation of nature stemming from his moral corruption. The law of tanistry is omitted from Macbeth even though Holinshed mentions it (albeit briefly) in his history as one of several motivating factors inMacbeth’s murder of Duncan, because it brings up the possibility that Macbeth’s usurpation of power could have been justified in the context of 11th-century Scotland.
As a renowned general, the scion of an influential line of nobles who held power in northernScotland, and cousin toDuncan, Macbeth had a legitimate claim to the throne according to a system that had dictated the line of succession inScotlandfor hundreds of years. According to Holinshed, it was only afterDuncan’s decree that his son Malcolm would succeed him thatMacbeth began to consider treason:
“He [Macbeth] began to take counsell how he might usurpe the kingdome by force, having a just quarell to so to doo (as he took the matter) for that Duncane did what in him lay to defraud him of all maner of title and claime, which he might in time to come, pretend unto the crowne” (Bullough 496).
Holinshed stops short of condoning Macbeth’s traitorous inclinations, going out of his way to assert that, despite Macbeth’s seemingly valid justification, he would only be “pretending to the throne.” Nevertheless, it is clear that, in unilaterally naming his son the next king,Duncandefied a longstanding political practice, arguably slighting Macbeth who, as his cousin, was next in line to the throne. Cognizant of this reality, Holinshed admits the possibility of a reasonable difference of opinion as toDuncan’s rightful successor. Macbeth himself certainly considers his claim righteous, calling on “divine providence” to aid him in his endeavor (Bullough 496).
Shakespeare, on the other hand, neglects to even mention Macbeth’s claim to the throne as a factor in his usurpation. Ironically, Shakespeare employs his protagonist’s kinship toDuncanin order to paint his actions in an even more negative light. As Macbeth contemplates assassinating the king, he muses: “I am his kinsman and his subject/Strong both against the deed” (1.7.13). In killingDuncan, Macbeth not only commits regicide against the rightful king; he also betrays his own flesh and blood. Whereas the historical Macbeth killed Duncan partially out of duty to his kin – as mentioned, Kenneth II ordered the assassination of either Macbeth’s nephew or son-in-law (the historical record is not settled on this detail) to pave the way for his son’s succession – Shakespeare’s character was not, in the end, held back by familial loyalty.
Shakespeare makes no mention of tanistry in Macbeth, nor does he acknowledge that the system of primogeniture was only recently put into effect inScotland. WhenDuncan announces immediately following the suppression of an internal rebellion that his son Malcolm is to inherit the throne, Macbeth’s only response is “The prince ofCumberland! That is a step/On which I must fall down, or else o’erleap/For in my way it lies” (1.4.48-50). Based on his reaction toDuncan’s pronouncement, Shakespeare’s Macbeth does not believe he has any legitimate claim to the throne. He simply considers Malcolm an impediment to his ambitions that must be removed.
It is clear that even the limited justification Holinshed provides for Macbeth’s treason goes above and beyond what Shakespeare is willing to give his protagonist. This is because introducing the idea of two potentially valid opposing methods of succession would conflict with Shakespeare’s presentation of Macbeth’s reign as illegitimate. In the world ofMacbeth, there is no possibility that one could have a justifiable reason for usurping the power of a king whose claim to the throne is prescribed by primogeniture. Indeed, if Shakespeare’s Macbeth made a compelling argument for his right to the kingship, the very notion of his corruption would be called into question. As noted earlier, Macbeth himself does not defend his actions, leaving little room for uncertainty as to their moral nature.
A further significant difference between Holinshed’s and Shakespeare’s presentation of Macbeth’s rise is found in the distribution of blame forDuncan’s murder. Both place some of the blame on Lady Macbeth; Holinshed writes: “speciallie his wife lay sore upon him to attempt the thing, as she that was verie ambitious, burning in unquenchable desire to beare the name of queene” (496). However, while Shakespeare’s Macbeth confides only in his wife, his counterpart in Holinshed’s history eagerly lets others in on his conspiracy to murder the king: “At length therefore, communicating his purposed intent with his trustie friends, amongst whome Banquho was the chiefest, upon confidence of their promised aid” (Bullough 496). The support of other nobles confers a certain degree of legitimacy on Macbeth’s assassination ofDuncan. Since he is not acting alone, his betrayal could be seen as the expression of popular (or at least aristocratic) discontent with the rule of an unpopular king. Even though he is not motivated by selfless altruism (Holinshed takes pains to highlight his ambition), he is not acting purely for his own gratification.
All of this begs the question of why Shakespeare would choose to make the Macbeths the sole conspirators in Duncan’s murder. Surely, the support of a few others would not make his crime seem any less inexcusable, especially given the wide acceptance of divine right and primogeniture in 17th-centuryEngland. If anything, a Macbeth that let others in on his scheme could seem even more despicable than one who acted alone, deserving of condemnation for corrupting and damning others along with himself.
However, allowing others to partake in Duncan’s murder would, in a way, diminish the impact of the crime. Part of what makes Macbeth’s crime so horrifying is the reactions of every other character in the play, who all see it as a profoundly unnatural occurrence. If someone killed the king in 17th-centuryEngland (the values of which Shakespeare’sScotland clearly reflects), no citizens of decent repute would be likely to take his side, regardless of how they felt about the king. It is quite revealing that “those he commands move only in command,/Nothing in love” (5.2.19-20).
The discrepancy between Holinshed’s and Shakespeare’s treatments of 11th-century Scottish history continue into Macbeth’s reign. Holinshed gives Macbeth credit for his achievements. In a departure from his meek predecessor, the new king “set his whole intention to mainteine justice, and to punish all enormities and abuses, which had chanced through the feeble and slouthfull administration of Duncane” (Bullough 497). So vigorous was Macbeth in punishing criminals that “manie yeares after all theft and reiffings were little heard of, the people injoieng the blissefull benefit of good peace and tranquilities” (Bullough 497). From the perspective of the common people, Macbeth was a successful ruler; gone were the constant uprisings that threatenedScotland’s stability and cost the lives of its subjects who were duty-bound to fight. For the brief duration of Macbeth’s rule, in sharp contrast to those of his predecessors,Scotland was a safe place to live. For this reason, “Mackbeth… was accounted the sure defense and buckler of innocent people” (Bullough 497).
Besides keeping the peace, Macbeth enacted many “holesome laws and statutes for the publike weale of his subjects” (Bullough 498). Some of these laws were surprisingly progressive by the standards of the time, such as those that allowed women to inherit land and property in the absence of male heirs. In addition, Macbeth enjoyed a good relationship with religious authorities, bestowing generous donations on the church and encouraging “young men to exercise themselves in virtuous maners, and men of the church to attend their divine service according to their vocations” (Bullough 498). Far from associating himself with the devil in the manner of his theatrical counterpart, Holinshed’s Macbeth was, if anything, devoted to the interests of Christianity.
However, Holinshed’s seemingly laudatory account of Macbeth’s good leadership is undermined by his subsequent assertion that the king’s accomplishments were “but a counterfet zeale of equitie… partlie against his naturall incliniation to purchase thereby the favour of the people. Shortly after, he began to shew what he was” (Bullough 498). Obsessed with the witches’ prophecy and paranoid that Banquo would usurp his power to fulfill his apparent destiny, Macbeth reverted to his treasonous ways, inviting his friend and his son Fleance to a final dinner before setting murderers on them as they returned home (although Fleance managed to escape) (Bullough 498). Following Banquo’s murder, Holinshed claims, the Scots began to fear their new leader and, increasingly paranoid, Macbeth feared his subjects in turn (Bullough 499).
From this point on, Holinshed’s Macbeth behaved much like Shakespeare’s character of the same name: “at length he found such sweetnesse by putting his nobles thus to death, that his earnest thirst after bloud in this behalfe might in no wise be satisfied” (Bullough 499). Therefore, when Malcolm arrived with an English army at his back, he was justified in removing the illegitimate king from power. All of this adds up to a portrayal of Macbeth that veers towards the negative, but does not entirely discount his achievements as a ruler. Shakespeare, in contrast, presents an entirely unfavorable view of Macbeth as a paranoid and power-hungry tyrant.
As damning as Holinshed’s portrayal of Macbeth’s reign ultimately turned out to be, Shakespeare’s was still worse. The Bard does not even give his protagonist credit for a few years of successful governance. Instead, he condenses Macbeth’s reign into a much shorter span of time, the entirety of which he spends terrorizing his subjects. When attempting to convince Malcolm to retake the crown from the illegitimate tyrant, Macduff paints a vivid picture ofScotland’s current state:
“Alas! Poor country;/Almost afraid to know itself. It cannot/Be call’d our mother, but our grave; where nothing,/But who knows nothing, is once seen to smile;/Where sighs and groans and shrieks that rent the air/Are made, not mark’d; where violent sorrow seems/A modern ecstacy; the dead man’s knell/Is there scarce ask’d for who; and good men’s lives/Expire before the flowers in their caps/Dying or ere they sicken” (4.3.164-173)
Macduff’s account surpasses in horror the tyranny that Holinshed describes, in part because Shakespeare injects a supernatural element into the mix. Macbeth’s illegitimate rule results in his subjects literally becoming ill. This further supports the idea that his reign is a perversion of nature, which is likely of hellish origin. In the final acts of Macbeth, the title character is frequently likened to the devil. For example, Young Siward yells at the tyrant: “the devil himself could not pronounce a title/More hateful to mine ear” (5.7.8). Macbeth does not reject the accusation, responding: “no, nor more fearful” (5.7.9). In claiming that Satan is no worse than himself, Macbeth casts himself as an agent of darkness.
It is worthy of note that there are several exceptions to this rule. Granted, Shakespeare does not mention certain character flaws that Holinshed attributes to Macbeth. For example, Holinshed describes Macbeth as an eager plunderer who often murdered nobles in order to steal their possessions. Shakespeare’s Macbeth, on the other hand, does not display any particular interest in material wealth. His lust is for power, the ultimate intangible reward, not gold or possessions. This provides the character with a certain grandeur, a purity of purpose that is arguably his only source of sympathy. In omitting greed from the long list of his Macbeth’s character flaws, Shakespeare keeps the focus on the character’s central motive: ambition.
Some modern critics have disputed the notion that Macbeth unambiguously favors the divine right of kings. Drawing on the contemporary notion that the people are entitled to remove a leader from power if he proves to be a tyrant, Rebecca Lemon writes: “even as it depicts the horrors of treason, the play offers a critique of sovereign power… Indeed, rather than supporting sovereign power at any cost, the play legitimates tyrannicide as Malcolm and his allies unseat Macbeth” (Moschovakis 73). While it is true that Shakespeare portrays the overthrow of Macbeth in a positive light, this does not owe to the fact that his protagonist is a poor sovereign. Rather, his rule is never legitimate in the first place. Hence, killing him with the intention of restoring the rightful king to the throne is the opposite of treason. If Macbeth’s claim to the throne were legitimate, no amount of oppression on his part would justify removing him from power.
Elizabeth Nielson goes further, arguing that Macbeth’s claim to the throne based on the law of tanistry is a significant factor in Shakespeare’s play: “Duncan’s nomination of his son as his heir to the throne was the straw that broke the back of Macbeth’s reservation against any evil action towardDuncan’s removal as king” (Nielsen 226). This would be a compelling argument if it had any basis in Shakespeare’s text. Would not Macbeth mention such a just cause for grievance againstDuncanif it existed in the world of the play? Nielsen continues: “Under the law of Tanistry, too, one’s lineal descendents could be heirs to the throne under alternating rulers, and thus both Macbeth and Banquo could have heirs who might eventually be king” (Nielsen 226). If this were the case, Macbeth would have no reason to fear the witches’ prediction that his friends’ heirs would be kings, contradicting a key moment in his moral degeneration.
Nielsen further undermines her argument with the claim that Shakespeare’s: “compliment to King James of Englandwas in the ‘divine touch’ which the good king of Englandwas said to have in the play – not to lineage” (Nielsen 226). Here, Nielsen refers to the unnamed doctor’s speech to Malcolm and Macduff in England: “Ay, sir; there are a crew of wretched souls/That stay his cure; their malady convinces/The great assay of art; but, at his touch/Such sanctity hath heaven given his hand/They presently amend” (4.3.138-144). Nielsen’s insistence on separating King Edward’s healing touch from his royal lineage is inconsistent with the beliefs of early 17th-century England. By divine law, no king who did not come into power via primogeniture was legitimate. Surely God (the source of Edward’s powers) would not bestow such a wondrous gift on anyone but the rightful king. Edward’s healing touch, if anything, attests to the vital importance of royal lineage in the world of Macbeth.
In conclusion, while Macbeth is successful as a dramatic work, it is not concerned with providing an accurate depiction of the historical events on which it is loosely based. Shakespeare picks and chooses details from Holinshed’s The Chronicles of, England, Scotlande, and Ireland to serve thematic purposes rooted in an early 17th century English perspective on succession that is anachronistic when applied to 11th century Scotland. The disparities between Macbeth and the historical record are most likely deliberate creative choices rather than oversights, as Holinshed was clearly aware of some complicating factors that are conspicuously absent from Shakespeare’s play. Macbeth raises many provocative moral, philosophical and psychological questions that are as relevant now as they were in the early 1600s, but its political perspective, bound up as it is in moral and religious dogmas of early 17th century England, is very much of its time.
Bibliography
Bullough, Geoffrey, and William Shakespeare. Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare.London: Routledge and Paul, 1957. Print.
Echeruo, Michael. "Tanistry, the "Due of Birth" And Macbeth's Sin." Shakespeare Quarterly. 23.4 (1972): n. page. Web. 6 Dec. 2011.
Houston, R. A., and William Knox. The New Penguin History of Scotland: from the Earliest times to the Present Day.London:Allen Lane, 2001. Print.
Kantorowicz, Ernst Hartwig. The King's Two Bodies; a Study in Mediaeval Political Theology,.Princeton,NJ:Princeton UP, 1957. Print.
Stevenson, J.H. "The Law of the Throne: Tanistry and the Introduction of the Law of Primogeniture: A Note on the Succession of the Kings of ScotlandFrom Kenneth MacAlpin to Robert Bruce." Scottish Historical Review. 25. (1927): n. page. Print.
Winstanley, Lilian. Macbeth, King Lear and Contemporary History: Being a Study of the Relations of the Play of Macbeth to the Personal History of James I, the Darnley Murder and the St Bartholomew Massacre and Also of King Lear as Symbolic Mythology.New York: Octagon, 1970. Print.