Interpretation of Shakespeares Macbeth (1700's).

the country for prolonged periods of time without fear of any uprisings, something that was impossible in England at this time, during the reign of Edward the Confessor.In 1050, Macbeth visited Rome. It is known that he visited the city in this year because of an Irish monk, living in Germany, whose writings also tell us that when Macbeth arrived in Italy, he was free to spend his riches as he wished, and that he may have come to Rome in hope that the Romans would assist him in changing the fortunes of his rapidly unravelling country, that had relied on the Celtic church in previous times of trouble.Macbeth and his kingdom were at the centre of a battle for power, in which a number of forces were involved. Norse, Danes, Romans, English Saxons, Normans, Flemings and Celts form Brittany all played a part in the fighting, although in Shakespeare’s drama, none of these parties were distinguishable and in Raphael Holinshead’s "The Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, published in 1577, the fighting was enhanced and magnified.The changes that Shakespeare made were numerous. Firstly, King Duncan was most likely not a kind old man, instead he was more likely to be younger than 30 when he died during a campaign. The campaign itself was a disastrous attempt to capture the city of Durham, which his grandfather before him had failed to take. It is unknown why he travelled from Durham to his place of death in northern Scotland, although it is likely that he brought his army with him. Holinshead gives basic details, saying that Macbeth travelled near to Inverness, where he killed Duncan. Shakespeare selected Inverness for this purpose, but John of Fordun, writing around 1385, tells us that Duncan was mortally wounded at a place by the name of Bothgofane, from where he was carried to Elgin where he died. In Gaelic, Bothgofane translates as "hut of the blacksmith", which could be any number of places within the vicinity of Elgin. Secondly, Macbeth’s wife was not in any way linked with the killing of Duncan. Lady Macbeth was in reality a loyal and trouble-free person. From an earlier marriage Lady Macbeth had produced a son, Lulack, who was well protected by Macbeth and succeeded him until he in turn was killed. In fact, "Lady Macbeth" is not her proper name, as Macbeth means "Son of Life", or "of the Elect", which was not a surname. Technically, she would have been addressed as "Lady Gruoch" in the Gaelic language. Her name is also recorded in Fife, where she is said to have donated land to a group of Celtic monks.Another important question concerns the witches. Holinshead mentioned "three women in strange and wild apparel", and prophecies that inspired Macbeth to take the throne and to kill Banquo, his friend. Using this unreliable information, Shakespeare developed three "secret, black and midnight hags", who became the characters that are well known in the theatrical world.However, the earliest records of Macbeth’s life mention nothing of witches. Their only entry is in the popular "Originale Chronicle of Scotland", which was written by the Prior of St Serf’s, Andrew of Wyntoun, 350 years after his death. The Chronicle mentions "weird sisters", although their backgrounds are completely different to that of Macbeth’s time. Therefore the castles of Glamis and Cawdor have no relevance to Macbeth’s story. If all these facts are true, and there was no Lady Macbeth, why did Shakespeare kill both Duncan and Banquo?Beginning with Banquo, he did not actually exist but was simply another character dreamed up by a dramatist re-writing the course of history. However, the creation of Banquo did serve a purpose, by disguising the fact that Duncan had sprung from an unorthodox background. His father, Crinan, was possibly connected with the minting of money as well as being Abbot of Dunkeld. It was also possible that Crinan and Bethoc, Duncan’s mother, had numerous partners in marriage. Therefore, Crinan appeared to be the least favourable person possible to be a forebear to a king.In Macbeth’s time, none of these discrepancies would have mattered although several hundred years later churches and kings had set their own standards of behaviour.If Duncan was to challenge Macbeth on Macbeth’s homeland, and was to lose the outcome would probably be good for the kingdom. Only by not killing his nephew, Malcolm, would Macbeth put his future at risk. Duncan’s son fled to the court in England, where he was groomed as a hostage and a puppet king as well as providing in time, the excuse for an English invasion.The invasion, lead by Earl Sivard of Northumbria, formed the climax of the play, and once again Shakespeare uses reliable information for the basis of his script. If Holinshead is to be believed, Macbeth was defeated in battle at Dunsinane, which was a prehistoric hillfort close to the Tayand Perth. Then, Holinshead claims he fled to Lumphanan in the north-east of Scotland, where he was killed by Macduff, a Scottish lord whose family had been murdered as a result of Macbeth’s rule.However, Shakespeare felt it best to portray Macbeth being beheaded at Dunsinane by Macduff. But Macbeth did not actually die until he reached Birnam Wood, 12 miles Southeast of Dunsinane. In fact, neither Holinshead nor Shakespeare was correct as there was no such lord as Macduff, and, actually, Malcolm killed Macbeth, three years after the battle of Dunsinane.