# The Real Macbeth



## rtroxel (Nov 22, 2004)

Macbeth is my favorite play of Shakespeare's, but apparently it verges greatly from history.

  The real Macbeth lived about 1,000 years ago, and did seize control of much of Scotland after murdering the king. According to some historians, however, he was not the tyrant depicted in the play. 

  For example, the BBC's site:


> The historical MacBeth is at odds with his portrayal in Shakespeare. MacBeth defeated his predecessor, Duncan (1034-40) - and not Shakespeare's venerable, old monarch - in battle, and took the throne. Although evidence for his reign is slight, for fourteen years he appears to have ruled equably and, in 1050, was able to travel to Rome for a Papal jubilee. There he scattered money about 'as if it were seed'.


  The fictional Macbeth, then, is almost entirely from Shakespeare's imagination, as is Lady Macbeth. 

  What makes him unique, for me, is that he is both the hero and the villain of the play. He comments on his own deeds, and asks himself why he does them. His imagination sometimes gets the best of him, until he can't tell truth from fiction. "Hell is murky", he says. His power and ambition make him a lonely, miserable man. 

  Lady Macbeth recognizes only his ambition, and goads him to murder. The witches recognize his imagination, and give him double-edged prophecies that ultimately lead to his downfall.

  One reason why Shakespeare might have made him such a villain was to please the new King, James I, who was a Scot and whose ancestors had killed Macbeth:



> In 1054, Macbeth was challenged by Siward, Earl of Northumbria, who was attempting to return Malcolm (later Malcolm III) to the throne. It was not until 1057 that Macbeth was killed and not by MacDuff but in battle at Lumphanan. The battle of Dunsinane and the encampment in Birnam Wood referred to in Shakespeare's tragedy are both earlier events. The final battle was probably not between armies, but between two champions - Macbeth, who was middle-aged or even elderly, and Malcolm, still a young man. The two fought in a stone circle near Lumphanan where Malcolm triumphed. It was Malcolm, not Macduff, who beheaded Macbeth.


----------



## Circus Cranium (Nov 22, 2004)

That's fascinating. And I feel like a dunce. Macbeth is my favorite Shakespeare play too, but I had no idea it was based on a real live human. go figure.


----------



## Tsujigiri (Mar 12, 2005)

Historically MacBeth was one of the better rulers. There is currently a campaign being mounted to try and clear his name fromt he slur that Shakespeare has inflicted upon it.
In the spirit of devils advocate, I have to point out the likelihood that his name would have passed unremarked into history were it not for Shakespeares play...


----------



## Stalker (Jun 1, 2005)

Another interesting point is that three witches show MacBeth that Banquo's heirs will become the kings and his successor in 12th or 13th (?) generation will become a great king ruling the whole Britain. The play was demonstrated at the court of King James Stewart, and by this passage in the play Shakespeare put a thinly covered flatter to King James - he was upposed to be that successor.

Robert the Bruce was, of course, related with old Scottish ruliang dynasty, but having become a true king after the Battle of Bannockburn (1314), he was unable to have a son - only a daughter who got married later to one of the Stewart clan. So, there are, in fact, several breaks in succession.


----------



## Melisende (Jul 25, 2007)

Tsujigiri said:


> In the spirit of devils advocate, I have to point out the likelihood that his name would have passed unremarked into history were it not for Shakespeares play...


 
I would hasten to say unremarked by those unfamiliar with Scottish history - Macbeth was mentioned in a number of chronicles of the day ..... but everyone loves a good villain!


----------



## The Ace (Jul 25, 2007)

Errr Stalker, Bruce was succeeded by his son, David  II , who died without issue, permitting  Robert  II  son of Marjory  Bruce  and  grandson of  Robert  I to found the  Stewart  (Stuart)  dynasty.

MacBeth's seventeen year  reign was  one of remarkable stability in medieval  Scotland  and  Shakespeare conveniently glossed over  Malcolm  "Big-head,"  III's  illegitimacy.


----------



## svalbard (Jul 31, 2007)

MacBeth was also the grandson of Malcom II, and in those uncertain times any link to royalty was as good as claim on the throne as any. He is also the last High-King of Scotland to be buried at Iona, in the Celtic tradition. I stand to be corrected on that. What was also interesting about his rule, was that he felt secure enough to leave Scotland and go on a pilgrimage to Rome. Shakespeare did a real job on him, just as he did with Richard III.


----------



## The Ace (Jul 31, 2007)

Right on the first.  MacBeth and Duncan I were first cousins but Duncan was the last King to be buried on Iona, After Malcolm Big-Head led an English army against MacBeth, nobody knows where he is buried, Svalbard.  
The big problem is, of course, that MacBeth would be unknown in Scotland as well, because Scottish history isn't taught in Scottish schools.


----------



## svalbard (Jul 31, 2007)

Ace, that is amazing. That is mind boggling that the Scottish school system does not teach it's own history. I read a couple of books about Macbeth a few years back. One by Nigel Tranter, which was ok and the other by Dorothy Dunnett, which is one of my favourite books of all time.


----------



## Bentony (Jul 23, 2008)

Presumably the same reason that the Irish were not allowed to speak Irish, the English trying to anglise everything and suppress traditional culture and language.
As it is my family is descended from Duncan and Malcom - all of them were related anyway.  ut frankly if you can understand the incredibly difficult and complicated set of linkages in the old Scottish Royal Families and Clans you must either have a lot of time on your hands, or be locked up as a prisoner in a castle somewhere.


----------

