In both history and Shakespeare’s play, Macbeth acts as a subject to Kind Duncan. The beginning of Shakespeare’s play suggests that Macbeth is a devoted individual and he would never deceive the king. However, the play progresses to inform the viewer (or reader) that Macbeth is told, and he obligingly measures up, to “look like the innocent flower/ But be the serpent under’t.” (I, 5 lines 63 – 64). So Shakespeare uses the loyalty that Macbeth has as a family member to create a deceptive personality to the king. History’s Macbeth shares this same deceptiveness to the king with a Norseman, Thorfinn of Orkney (. Thorfinn and Macbeth killed Duncan I and ruled different ends of Scotland. However, Macbeth plays an adequate king to history. Therefore in both history and the play, Macbeth acts a disgrace as a subject to the king, however, they result as a different person from it.
According to accounts, Macbeth was a good king, strict but fair (, as opposed to Shakespeare’s Macbeth where he relates to the witch’s first prophecies that “Fair is foul, and foul is fair.” (I, 1 line 9). History illustrates to us that Macbeth had a relatively long and fair seventeen year reign. Obviously Shakespeare did not want to use this decent attribute that the real Macbeth possessed. This is due to the fact that Banquo and the line of Stewarts is to be favoured by viewer, especially King James. Therefore, Shakespeare constructed Macbeth to be despised by King James (as it was first performed to him), as he was part of the Stewart dynasty. So in creating a character that appears mad after the death of a friend and ‘unmanly’ to an important family member, Macbeth is thought of as an unfit king by many. Among these is his wife, “Yet I do fear thy nature: It is too full o’the milk of human kindness…” (I, 5 line 15). Which provokes one think ‘isn’t a king meant to be one full of “human kindness”?’ Therefore the obligation Macbeth holds towards his family is manipulated to bring down Macbeth’s role as king. History however differs from this disapproving attitude towards Macbeth as king.
Friendship in modern society is very highly respected. It is from this that viewers can judge Macbeth as a friend to Banquo. In Holinshed’s Chronicles, Banquo is an accomplice to the murder of King Duncan (www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1906/benstuff.html). However Shakespeare decides that Macbeth should lie to Banquo who is supposedly a good friend, about the murder of the king. Both history and the play do away with Banquo, but in different ways. However, it is Macbeth who makes this particular decision. As a character out of history and of Shakespeare’s play I believe Macbeth is quite cowardly and ambitious at the same time. He holds a desire to make truth of the prophecies, but becomes fearful if anyone should find out or try to stop him. “To be thus is nothing; / But to be safely is thus! - Our fears in Banquo/ Stick deep; and in his royalty of nature/Reigns that which would be feared.” (III, 1 lines 47 – 49) It was a cliché of Shakespeare’s time that fortune or good luck was a whore, loved by all men, faithful to none (, which also summarises the character of Macbeth as a friend in both history and the play. His disloyalty and unreliability is not seen by Banquo, instead he is trusted and loved (to an extent) by him, only to be deceived. He obeys his wife and does become the “serpent under’t”. Both history and the Shakespeare’s play illustrate this same, shared view.
Macbeth as a person is loyal to certain extents. Much of history and the play share similar degrees to which this commitment stretches. It is through this loyalty that Macbeth develops into a cowardly or courageous person. In history he is a fearless individual (www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1906/benstuff.html) who commits the murder of Banquo and the Macduff family himself. By demolishing the loyalty towards a friend, he becomes somewhat bold and valiant, as opposed to the alleged “innocent” (III, 1 line 78) Macbeth of the play. From history he has a certain boldness to him that is admired by many (www.shakespeare.com/faq/faq37.php). However, the modified Macbeth of Shakespeare does not have this heroic quality (whether a flaw or perfection) when it comes to such conflict. This Macbeth cannot be faced with the direct guilt of taking the lives of innocent associates, so he sends murderers to do the dirty deed. As a result, he will “Be innocent of the knowledge…” (III, 2 line 45) and the fault will be temporarily diverted from himself. So as a person, Macbeth is on two opposite poles of the bargain, which is both bold (in history) and fearful (in the play).
Analysis of Macbeth winds a complicated web of textual history, comprising of consistent and imitative historical reports. William Shakespeare’s version Macbeth seems to be one of the many thugs in a society in which power is gained and maintained by killing other thugs, and where loyalty is at best provisional (Ed Friedlander, M.D, www.pathguy.com/macbeth.htm). The Macbeth taken from Scottish history both challenges and agrees with this statement. The historical Macbeth shares the same extent of loyalty and ambition, but also has a great deal more of heroic ‘blood’ in him. By comparing the two Macbeth’s, he is accepted as a decent being who is disturbed by his ethics and devotion, though at the same time determined and guilty.
Bibliography
“Enjoying “Macbeth” by William Shakespeare”, (2002), Macbeth,
“Holinshed vs. Shakespeare”, (2000), Shakespeare vs. Holinshed,
“Macbeth and Fate”, (2002), Macbeth,
“Macbeth – The truth behind the Shakespeare”, (1999), Historical Macbeth Myth,
“Macbeth: what is its relationship to Scottish history?”, (2002), Macbeth,
“To Strut and Fret Upon the Stage: Theatrical Interpretation of Sources for Macbeth” (1999), Sources for Macbeth,
Shakespeare, W., (1967), Macbeth, Penguin Books, London
