Okay, so that’s the historical MacBeth.

A bit of a plod with all those Malcolm’s, Findlay’s, Duncan’s and so on, and probably an unbearably dry story for those without a scrap of interest in hoary old kings and dusty characters consigned to the scrapheap of history.

All the same, I think Shakespeare did Scotland an enormous favor by adapting the story of an 11^th century King of Scots that might otherwise have been lost to us. Don’t forget, many accounts of Scottish history were destroyed in the course of successive invasions, none the least that of Edward I in 1296.

One of the great aspects of the play is the way Shakespeare manipulates audience response to Macbeth throughout the performance. Your sympathies are entirely with Macbeth at first, even after the murder of Duncan, but then all empathy for him disappears at the brutal slaughter of Macduff’s family. After that you see Macbeth for the brutal, power-hungry tyrant that he has become. When he eventually accepts his condition and puts on his soldier’s uniform and becomes something of his old self your sympathies return. In the first part of the play Shakespeare takes you deep into Macbeth’s mind and you travel down his path, identifying with his ambition and desire, hardly unaware of the horror you are entering into. And after Duncan’s murder, you are still deep in there, experiencing Macbeth’s fear and guilt for yourself.   

But it's much more than just a dark story – taken in context with the times in which it was written, it’s a glimpse into the mind of a Monarch and the country he ruled – and I’m not talking about MacBeth here. Shakespeare took many liberties with history in order to make the play more interesting to the king he wrote it for, James I, and this is another aspect of the play that I personally find utterly fascinating.

By the way, I’m not getting into the controversy regarding whether it was actually Phillip Marlowe, or any one of a number of other prime suspects, who wrote all these plays. That’s an issue I might explore some other time things are slow and I’m bored out of my mind.

For the purpose of this thread, let’s assume the story was indeed adapted by the immortal scribbler from Stratford-upon-Avon.

James Stuart, the sixth king of his name in Scotland and the first in England, ascended the English throne in 1603, becoming the first monarch in the British Isles to rule both England and Scotland. His crowning was met with high hopes from the English; after the somewhat brutal reign of the Tudor monarchs, a Stuart seemed like a chance for new beginnings. They were to be bitterly disappointed. James was quickly discovered to be uncouth, ill-kempt, and more inclined to spend the people’s taxes on his own amusement than on the betterment of the realm. Though he was a generous patron of the arts and an enthusiastic herald of the new age of global exploration, James was viewed throughout his reign with a mixture of amusement and contempt.

At the time of James’s coronation, Shakespeare had been writing plays and poems for about fifteen years, during which time he had had many of his plays performed before Elizabeth I. It was for her that Shakespeare had written his famous English histories. Like all artists who enjoyed Elizabeth’s favor, Shakespeare had learned to create storylines which would please both the royal court and the common people. Such skill was even more necessary under James, who was a hard critic. Macbeth, however, pleased the new king immensely, and James went so far as to write Shakespeare a letter commending his new and impressive play.

The play itself is believed to have been written sometime in 1606, although the first printed version appeared much later in 1623. It’s commonly thought that Shakespeare had worked out a rough draft of the play some time before James’s accession and that the playwright went back and made several revisions in order to make the MacBeth more reflective of the king’s tastes.

TO BE CONTINUED

This is the "don't like" part:

 

It was the end of the Celtic style of high kingship in Scotland. Malcolm Canmore ruled in the English style, and although the kingship went to his brother Donald Ban upon his death during a raid into Northumbria, it was subsequently passed back to Malcolm's son by St Margaret -- Edgar -- the first of the “Margaretsons” kings.

 

I know it would have eventually happened, but it is interesting to speculate how different things would be if the Celtic culture had stayed dominant for longer.

Aah, we're speculating on the North/West Pan-Celtic vision of the Bruces then -- Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Man and the Western Hebrides -- and possibly even the Faroe Islands and Iceland itself. Perhaps even Cumbria and Northumberland -- although that's much less likely.

Yes, it would have been interesting times -- especially if the three Bruce brothers who were executed by Longshanks had survived the Wars of Independence.

Another of history's great "what if's".

The Scots in England

It’s probably true to say that the Scots now flooding London in the wake of their Stuart king during the early 17th century were generally viewed by Shakespeare’s English contemporaries as unrefined, boorish, and quaintly provincial – quite possibly a true reflection – even today.

James, despite his education and intellect, did not do much to alleviate this view; his rude bluntness gained him many enemies, and it has to be said, his personal hygiene and certain other habits left a lot to be desired. Although his ascension to the English throne legally allied the two countries, it was to be many years before they grew comfortable with each other.

James did indeed believe he could trace his lineage back through the centuries to Banquo himself.

Though the historical circumstances of the real MacBeth are fascinating, Shakespeare could not stick to the real story while simultaneously pleasing the king. The playwright had to glamourize the plot, turning it from a gory and prosaic power struggle to a more refined and philosophical history, one which would accentuate the best qualities of James’s forebears. The character of Banquo was altered from the original, for in real life Banquo had been a willing accessory to Duncan’s murder. Malcolm was turned from a man as ready as MacBeth to shed blood to a philosophizing gentleman who sought only his rightful throne. Thus Macbeth's reign was changed from a commonplace (if bloody) series of events in the history of Scotland into a sanitized retelling of James’s lineage.

Witchcraft and the Supernatural

The early seventeenth century was an era of extremes, both in Britain and on the European continent. The Inquisition was at its height, and witch-burnings had long been seen as popular public entertainment on the continent. The Inquisition did not, however, reach Britain, and Elizabeth I had diplomatically refrained from committing such barbaric massacres as the ones taking place in Europe. James I, however, was not willing to walk the middle ground like his predecessor. His views on religion were strong and unwavering, and he brutally punished those who disagreed with him. Under his rule, Catholics and other supposed “heretics” suffered horrendously.

Like many of his Renaissance contemporaries, James I was intensely fascinated with witchcraft and the supernatural. Belief in witchcraft had long existed in the British Isles, and James was not the first ruler to take such superstition seriously. Just as he believed that kings were chosen by God and granted their throne by divine right, James also believed that the Devil and his followers sought to destroy royal power by means of evil spells. James’s beliefs are reflected in his writings and the publications he authorized; he, himself, penned a book titled "Daemonologie", and the Authorized King James Bible puts a heavy emphasis on witchcraft and devilry.

Although the Catholic Inquisition never did reach Britain, King James created his own form of inquisition. Witch hunts and burnings flourished during his reign, and the king himself personally oversaw many witch trials and executions.

It’s interesting to consider how the play associates witchcraft and evil with women. All the women in the play are portrayed as scheming, deceptive, and wicked. The Weired Sisters don't simply prophecy Macbeth’s actions; they tempt him with promises of grandeur and tease him with riddles. Lady Macbeth is a form of enchantress who uses words and mind games instead of spells, plotting her course and driving her husband onward, bullying and coaxing. This misogynistic view of women was quite acceptable during James’s reign; the vast majority of his subjects who were tried for witchcraft were female. Women were perceived as representations of Eve, capable of learned virtue but with such weakness of mind and character that they could easily be led astray by wicked mortals or demons.

James was a firm believer in the inherent wickedness of the female sex, and so would have accepted quite naturally this dark view of women Shakespeare offered him.

The supernatural theme of the play also corresponds to James’s opinion of the divine right of monarchs. Though the witches predict Macbeth’s attempt to alter the line of succession, they know that he will be overthrown in the end and the rightful heirs reinstated to the throne.

TO BE CONTINUED....AND CONCLUDED

Gunpowder, Treason and Plots

One of the most prominent themes in Macbeth is that of treason. Macbeth commits the ultimate treason, murdering a man who is both his king and a loyal friend. Later on, he begins to distrust his closest friend, Banquo, and grows so afraid of him that he has him murdered -- more treason -- and at the personal level too.

James, not unnaturally, had a particular fear of regicide throughout his life. His inborn paranoia had been honed and tempered in the turbulent Scottish court of the Reformation, where he had grown up surrounded by allies who might, at a moment’s notice, turn into enemies. 

When James was thirteen years old, his mother, Mary Queen of Scots was executed on the order of Elizabeth I, an act of regicide which shocked the entire European continent. Though James had never had much affection for his mother, the execution of a rightful queen — a monarch who, James would have thought, had a divine right to her throne — must have shaken him more than a little. Although James believed monarchs were chosen by God, he was not so foolish as to think monarchs invincible.

James’s paranoia was further justified in 1605, when a plot to murder him was uncovered. The plan — to blow up the king and those closest to him with gunpowder hidden beneath Parliament House — was engineered by a group of disgruntled Catholics and led by one of those famous names in history, Guy Fawkes, who was subsequently tortured brutally, then burned at the stake.

The conspiracy was discovered barely in the nick of time. The Gunpowder Plot as it became known left James severely shaken, as can be imagined.

The character of Macbeth might be seen as James taken to extremes. Macbeth is a man so paranoid that he kills people before he even has proof of their wrong-doing; he kills friends, women, and children, anyone who troubles his mind. Perhaps Shakespeare was sending James a subtle warning about his suspicious nature, showing him how it may spiral out of control and result in ruin for James and his line. If Shakespeare did intend such a hint, it was perhaps too subtle for James; in the king’s view, everyone was capable of treason -- guilty until proven innocent, if you will -- and a monarch had every right to execute anyone he chose, with or without proof.

Although Shakespeare wrote Macbeth to please his royal patron, it is a testament to his skill as a playwright that the play remains as thrilling and comprehensible now as it was four centuries ago. Through this work, we may catch a glimpse of Great Britain as it was in James’s time -- superstitious, paranoid, more likely to smooth over the troubles of the past than to remember them as they actually occurred. But we can also see the good side of James’s reign -- the flourishing of the arts, the intellectual and global expansions, and the sharp mental abilities of the man who ruled the realm. He wasn't known as "The Wisest Fool in Christendom" for nothing....

Conclusion

As I hope it’s clear by now, there was an actual King Duncan, and he was killed by a man named MacBeth in the 11th century AD. The real King MacBeth, far from being the overly ambitious evildoer of Shakespeare’s play, was a firm ruler who united the country and instituted laws for the betterment of the people and land.

So, umm, where am I going with all this then? Well, as friends of mine are aware, I don’t generally embark on a thread like this for no good reason.

Perhaps it’s simply one long lampooning satire that I'm indulging myself with. After all, I’ve described several individuals that may, or may not, be instantly familiar....there’s several lurkers and/or unfriends hanging around this forum who could be said to correspond fairly closely with the characters that have been considered and discussed in these posts.

Perhaps I’m setting the scene for a long-planned vignette featuring 75mm kit figures, which I hope to get finished over the next couple of months.

Or then again, perhaps I’m just bored out of my mind and have been simply amusing myself....  ....It's certainly been better than listening to this on the walkman....

I guess we shall just have to wait and see if I am indeed going somewhere with this, shan’t we?

Cheers

H

Great information Harry, as well as a great play, one of the bard's best IMO.  I studied Shakespeare in depth in college and totally loved it.  As with any great story teller, the art is in how the story is told, NOT its relationship to history.  So just for Homer and every play write, novelist or screenwriter since, Shakespeare's works are to be enjoyed simply as stories, and, as they say now, any relationship to actual persons living or dead is truly incidental.   Thus while I love your historical notes, I would say Shakespeare's versions were not myths but rather conscious and obvious artistic inventions which happen to have some relationship to real events.  You probably meant this but the term myth implies an effort by the originator to distort history.  Shakespeare, just like any good historical novelist, had no desire to re-write history, but intended merely use some of its components to tell the story they wanted to tell.

Great information Harry, as well as a great play, one of the bard's best IMO.  I studied Shakespeare in depth in college and totally loved it.  As with any great story teller, the art is in how the story is told, NOT its relationship to history.  So just for Homer and every play write, novelist or screenwriter since, Shakespeare's works are to be enjoyed simply as stories, and, as they say now, any relationship to actual persons living or dead is truly incidental.   Thus while I love your historical notes, I would say Shakespeare's versions were not myths but rather conscious and obvious artistic inventions which happen to have some relationship to real events.  You probably meant this but the term myth implies an effort by the originator to distort history.  Shakespeare, just like any good historical novelist, had no desire to re-write history, but intended merely use some of its components to tell the story they wanted to tell.

Umm....I think that's exactly what I was trying to say in the final few posts Bill. You know -- all that verbiage about Shakespeare and James I -- where history was certainly and deliberately distorted and re-written.

It's entirely possible these may have been missed.

Oh, and I am of course only kidding about the characters in the play being similar to certain forum individuals -- kind of.

I used the word "myths" in the context of what the Ordinary-Joe-in-the-Street knows about the play. Which, lets face it -- isn't likely to be much more than minimal -- unlike you and I Bill.

Still, at least we can both look forward to being joint winners of "October's Most Pedantic Post Award".

Yay....

....  

Okay, now that we've discussed both the Shakespearian and Historic MacBeth, may I invite anyone who might be still interested to head on down to my new Queen Grouath Project....in the Other Scales Section....because that's the real reason why I've been at pains to set up the entire scenario during the whole course of this thread....

 ....     

It shall of course be MY version of this timeless tale -- with a bit of Will's play, a bit of text and pictures imported from the internet -- and a bit of my own input -- all mixed into the eventual photos of the vignette which will be posted up on this forum. I've got most of the figures done, just need to build the groundwork and finish it off over the next several weeks.

Cheers

H 

 

......

I used the word "myths" in the context of what the Ordinary-Joe-in-the-Street knows about the play. Which, lets face it -- isn't likely to be much more than minimal -- unlike you and I Bill.

Still, at least we can both look forward to being joint winners of "October's Most Pedantic Post Award".

Yay....

....  

Yes I always relish those and earn them often.    

I try not to post for the ordinary Joe on the street frankly and while I did read your later posts and knew you were being loose with the term, it just grated on me besides offering a much sought after opportunity for a winning entry in the monthly MPPA.  Cheers for the assist.      

Yes I always relish those and earn them often.    

 

I try not to post for the ordinary Joe on the street frankly and while I did read your later posts and knew you were being loose with the term, it just grated on me besides offering a much sought after opportunity for a winning entry in the monthly MPPA.  Cheers for the assist.      

Yeah, same here.....    .....I've an entire cabinet full to the brim with those prestigious awards.

I guess I've actually been posting for the Ordinary-Joe-On-The-Forum.

While most would have at least a smidgeon of knowledge related to The Bard's "Scottish Play" -- some such as yourself and Brad excepted of course, I'll bet the house that practically no-one would've had the slightest clue who Queen Grouach was though, or indeed the actual 11th century historical background to the story that Will pounced on in his attempts to ingratiate himself with James I.

So there....     

Honestly Harry, I don't think you do post for the average Joe On the Forum.  Certainly your knowledge of the Isles history is well beyond mine for many periods, but I do indeed enjoy learning about this history in great detail.  I will offer you odds that the true "Average Joe" could care less.  No?  

Honestly Harry, I don't think you do post for the average Joe On the Forum.  Certainly your knowledge of the Isles history is well beyond mine for many periods, but I do indeed enjoy learning about this history in great detail.  I will offer you odds that the true "Average Joe" could care less.  No?  

You're absolutely right of course, and I accepted a long time ago that the "Average Joe" couldn't care less Bill.

In actual fact, I really post these kind of threads for myself.

If anyone else takes something from them, then that's a bit of a bonus, and I'm happy they've enjoyed the effort I put in.

Cheers

H

Well rest assured I do or I wouldn't say otherwise and judging from the comments I am not alone.     

Well rest assured I do or I wouldn't say otherwise and judging from the comments I am not alone.     

Hmm, I tend to believe it's a rather tiny minority.

Sidetracking a little, the main reason I'd love to see FL release some Italian Condottieri for the REN range is because it would provide the opportunity to do a vignette from R&J.

I'm fairly sure I could come up with a tree and a balcony myself....

And here's one for you;

Alexander II (1198 - 1249) was the only Scottish king to ever lead an invading army of his subjects as far south into England as the White Cliffs of Dover.

It happened in September 1216.

I used to be in great demand when the sides were being picked for pub quiz nights.