Of all Shakespeare’s plays, perhaps none is stranger than “Macbeth.” The piece opens on Scottish generals Macbeth and Banquo encountering a trio of witches. They predict Macbeth will become Scotland's king and that Banquo’s descendants will one day take the throne— a pair of conspiratorial prophecies that burrow into the men’s minds. Macbeth soon fulfills his role, killing both King Duncan and his fellow general in a murderous frenzy. Wracked with paranoia, Macbeth summons the witches for more arcane aid, and they predict he’ll be safe until a faraway forest lays siege upon his castle. Macbeth takes solace in this impossible prophecy. Yet by the play’s end, his keep has been sacked by an army disguised as trees, and Duncan's son Malcolm has reclaimed the throne.
Even for Shakespeare, these are exceptionally odd elements for a parable on power. But according to at least six texts from the 11th century, this supernatural tragedy has its roots in reality. In 1040, a Scottish general named Macbethad was recorded to have killed a predecessor named Duncan to become king of Scotland. And in 1057, Duncan’s son, Malcolm Canmore, led a successful raid against this usurper. What's more, accounts from subsequent historians mention witches, prophecies, and arboreal armies. All of which raises the question: just how much of Shakespeare’s strange story is true?
The answer lies in understanding what it meant to be a historian in the Middle Ages. In the five centuries between Macbethad’s death and Shakespeare’s play, various clerics, chroniclers, and poets wrote about this medieval Scottish king. But while some of these writers may have seen themselves as objective observers of history, they all operated more like storytellers. It was standard practice at the time to pull details from various historical accounts to craft new histories that reflected current cultural norms, argued moral positions, or commented on royal politics.
For example, in 1380, Scottish cleric John of Fordun penned a history of Scotland that incorporated Macbethad’s rule. Written amidst a war with England and in the wake of a great plague, Fordun wanted to instill Scottish pride in his devout, educated readers. So he glorified the Canmore dynasty and denounced Macbethad as a villain who interrupted their rule.
Decades later, the cleric Andrew of Wyntoun further demonized Macbeth. Writing for audiences enthralled by the occult, Wyntoun imagined the murderous usurper as the devil’s spawn, who hallucinated ghostly greyhounds and witches inspired by the Fates of Norse mythology. Wyntoun also introduced the rebels using branches to camouflage their attack.
Renaissance scholar Hector Boece had slightly more sympathy for Macbeth, approaching him as a just ruler who descended into ruthless paranoia. This cautionary tale may have been intended as a criticism of tyrannical contemporary kings like Henry VIII or Francis I.
An altered version of Boece’s Macbeth is likely what inspired Shakespeare to partake in the grand tradition of rewriting Macbethad’s history. When the Bard was writing “Macbeth,” England was ruled by King James I. James was a descendant of the Stuarts, a Scottish royal dynasty that included Macbeth's fictional friend Banquo. So it’s possible the Bard tried to flatter King James by giving Banquo a bigger role and introducing the prophecy that his descendants would take the throne. And then there's the witches. James hated witchcraft, so Shakespeare might have been playing to the throne by exaggerating the story’s sinister supernatural elements. Alternatively, the inclusion of the weird sisters may have been the Bard rebelling against the king’s censorship of other witchy plays.
Either way, not all of his additions were influenced by the throne. More than any previous telling, Shakespeare’s Scot is tormented and confused. Is he a devil or a saint? Are these witches real or illusion? Is he in charge of his own destiny, or is his legacy determined by external forces? In asking these questions, Shakespeare’s Macbeth may be the truest of them all. Not because of similarities to his historical namesake. But because, just like those who’ve written about him, this Macbeth is also trying to determine his role in the ever-changing currents of history.
