The Action in of Macbeth and Reality in History
Examines the relationship between the tragedy of Macbeth and historical reality.
We must first establish the history of fact and fiction. That is, the real Macbeth as it happened, and William Shakespeare?s elaborated and embellished version. The play was written for the audience of a Scottish King, so naturally some of the actual history would have been changed to put his linage in the best possible light.
The story of Macbeth is referred to as a tragedy. The protagonist at the beginning, Macbeth, abandons his honour and ethics and travels in the opposite direction. He becomes a murderer and a disgruntled man. He kills his superior, Duncan, which in that time was considered killing one of God?s chosen ones, for authority was believed to be granted their position by God Himself. Macbeth is horrified of what he has done but still allows himself to be led further into wickedness by witches, the mouthpiece of the devil. In the play, while Macbeth is reining, Scotland falls to ruin. Shakespeare wants to convey the message that if the natural order of things is disrupted, chaos will be the ending result. This rings true in both the play and history.
By the end of the story, Macbeth is ?betrayed? by the witches, symbolizing that evil can never be trusted. They tease and pun on their prophecies, granting Macbeth confidence in immortality and his position as king. The final dramatic scenes being where Birnam Woods ?move.? This prophecy being fulfilled was meant to bring Macbeth to his downfall. However he still feels invincible, as he believes that ?none of women born? should ever come to harm him. He is instead tricked again by a double-faced prophecy, and is killed by Macduff who was ripped from his mother?s womb. The crown goes to Malcolm, and the story goes that all peace and order were soon restored.
Although poetic, the fiction is not consistent when seen in historical fact. The real Macbeth had royal blood, which could be traced back two generations to his grandfather, King Malcolm III. Therefore he had right to the throne of Scotland as much as Duncan did. Duncan himself was not an elderly king as depicted in the play, but was young and physically apt. He died in battle, possibly by Macbeth?s sword, though this is not certain (nor important). Macbeth was not a dictator. He did not claim his position because he murdered the preceding king. Instead he was elected by Scotland over Duncan?s only son, Malcolm. Macbeth was not a raving lunatic who let the country fall to ruin, but ruled fair and just, keeping the order and bringing the country up in devout Christianity. The peace was disrupted however, when the Earl of Northumbria, Siward, attempted to place Malcolm on the throne. He failed and Macbeth continued ruling Scotland for three more years. Malcolm then challenged Macbeth for his position and a battle broke out between them. This battle was probably not between two armies, but against the two elite men. Macbeth was old and elderly by this time, while Malcolm was young and fit. Not surprisingly, Malcolm triumphed. All his efforts were in vain however; the crown was passed not to him, but Macbeth?s stepson, Lulach.
When we compare the two, we see that descriptions and events are not accurately conveyed. However, there are some similarities. Both contain a character (King Duncan) that was killed enabling Macbeth to claim the throne. However, in the play, Macbeth is fueled to do such a deed by evil and prophetic temptations, which ultimately leads to his destruction. Shakespeare describes the murder as sneaky and underhanded, as Duncan was killed as a guest in Macbeth?s castle. Such a crime and betrayal of humanity?s morals was believed to be enough to send a person to hell. The play also describes Scotland as living in ?dark? days due to an unjustly seized position. It also describes chaotic and strange happenings aspiring around the area as a result of the murder.
In history, Macbeth is not led to kill King Duncan by old hags. Under Scottish law, Macbeth had every right to the throne as Duncan had, being of royal blood. The people of Scotland passed the crown willingly to Macbeth after Duncan was killed. Scotland was described as being prosperous and strong during Macbeth?s reign, reflecting on the just way he received his position, peacefully.
In both histories we see another link, desire for the throne. While Macbeth is king, Malcolm is trying to regain the position of his father. In the play, this event in unfolding because Macbeth is leading the country to ruin; and good, virtuous Malcolm is trying to stop him. The classical plot of Good vs. Evil ends in the only way it knows how, and Malcolm is pronounced king. Shakespeare describes it as a joyous occasion where Scotland is once again at peace. Chaos resulting in Macbeth?s reign has subsided and the witches who symbolize the devil and all things evil seem to have vanished.
Again, in factual history, you have Good vs. Evil. The righteous Macbeth fights to retain his foothold on Scotland, while Malcolm attempts to dethrone him. As we know, Malcolm succeeds. Instead of Malcolm being crowned however, it passes downs to Macbeth?s stepson. Scotland, instead of flourishing under new rule, eventually reverts back to its earlier mundane state. Later it is conquered and merges with England.
As is evident, elements of fact is found in fiction, and elements of fiction are found in fact. Though events may not have transpired exactly as Shakespeare wrote it, the morals are similar. The characters were real people, though their personalities and imagery may not have been spot on. The reality of Macbeth is the conflict between good and evil, both struggling with inner temptations, and ultimately doing the ?right thing?. Shakespeare tries to convey a message that evil men will continue to do evil things, while morally right men will spread goodness to others.
