We have already discussed a modernized version of this, one of Shakespeare’s most well known and violent “history plays;”--a version that saw the modernization transform the royals into elite crime syndicate families. This version is set during modern times as well, but the original royal murder plot is intact, and is not truncated.
Here the murder for the crown is intact, but it is still horrible violence. An entire family is murdered, including children, all for the advance of a couple to the crown of a country. The motivations here are extremely straightforward and banal; a bit unimaginative and boring even. A man wants to be king, but another man has the crown. The said ambitious and murderous man simply kills the royal family and takes the crown for himself—nuff said.
To speak a bit about the actual text of the play, of course, this is a political play meant to impress the family that had the current rule of England, which became, with the crowning of James VI of Scotland, the United Kingdom. This is a play penned to give voice to the legitimacy of the Scottish king to take the English crown. An allegory of James’ bloodline—to give his ancestor in McDuff a kind of divine rite to rule; if McDuff had it, then by extension, James has it too. Remember what the witches tell Macbeth? That he could not be undone by anyone of woman born. He takes this to mean that he is invincible. Of course, it turns out he’s not. But still, all the prophecy comes from the supernatural realm, which means it’s from the realm of God. Hence divine sanction to rule. Unfortunately James’ eldest son would take this divine rite of rule so far, it would lead him to the chopping block.
When one tries to really delve into the nature of the violence in this play—what really comes out is that it is really more about familial violence then anything else. The Regicide that is committed for Macbeth to gain the crown doesn’t really come off like the killing of a king. It is more like a ultra-violent domestic dispute that happens to end the death of one whole portion of an extended family. Even though Macbeth is seen as the illegitimate murderer, he, himself doesn’t really seem like the scheming type; it’s the character of his wife that stands out as the schemer extraordinaire. She literally pesters him into murder! Again, this lends an air to the notion of family abuse—squabbling at it’s absolute worst. What keeps this story from descending into all out family allegory, is, as mentioned above, the supernatural elements. In the full version Hecate herself makes an appearance. The Goddess of Sorcery, seems to imbue the witches with their powers of prophesy; but I question that somewhat. They are the ones who correctly prophesy whose descendents will be the kings of Scotland. As mentioned, this must come from the realm of God himself. If Hecate has any influence at all, it must be one of corruption. Her supernatural mission must be a corroding one. Although with the likes of Lady Macbeth around, I am not at all sure who here needs any extra corroding of their morality. I am quite sure that she would still be whispering even if there was any supernatural force being brought to bear on the narrative or not.
As I mentioned above this was play that was conceived as homage to the new ruler of the land from Alba (Scotland). It is colored red from start to finish with the blood of the innocent and the guilty alike. So it is hard to remember that Macbeth was a real person. That is, after all, the reason it is classified a history play. So what of the real man himself? Mac Bethad mac Findli'ach, well it turns out, almost none of what Shakespeare and company put in their play is truthful. it seems was probably quite the opposite of the Macbeth of Shakespeare. So how did things get so backward? Well it might have come from a Germanic source. The Earl of Orkney, Thorfinn Sigurdsson claims to have gotten into a scuffle with a Scottish king named Karl Hundason. Now we all know that Scottish kings were Gaelic—why would one have a Germanic name. Well like Biggus Dickus or Naughtius Maximus are joke names from Monty Python—so is Karl Hundason, which translates to “Chrul, son of a Dog.” It is widely believed that Hundason was Macbeth, and Sigurdsson disseminated a lot of false and violent propaganda against this particular Scottish king. Was it possible that somehow Shakespeare & Co. had some source material that somehow related to this royal fight between these two men?? Well unless something is uncovered from some old trunk in someone’s attic—we will probably never know.
Still as a play, it’s a hell of a violent ride!
No comments:
Post a Comment