We all know Shakespeare, being either forced to read one of his books at some point in high school, or willingly doing it
for some reason when looking for something in the library. Maybe the cover intrigued you back then, with the three witches standing around the cauldron, and all the skulls on the front; the Penguin Group did a good job with that.
Either way, though the guy has been dead for a while, we still try and figure out what he was trying to say when writing some of his plays; there‘s always something behind words. Always a second meaning. Some people have drawn odd conclusions, others (in my opinion) have come close to what he was trying to say through his writing at the time. But we’ll never really know, just like we won’t know what happens when we die; we have to wait and find out until fate takes us.
Enter Macbeth.
I had to read it for English, and write a paper on it; well, my paper didn't go as well as I would have liked, considering that synthesis essays seem beyond me in every way. In short; my essay was terrible, and since it was the end of the year, and my last essay, I wanted a redo. So, I went to hunt down something
interesting on Macbeth, and in the background I was watching a great movie; V for Vendetta. I watched it for a few moments, thinking about Guy Fawkes, and then realized something very interesting, something that I could write about.
So; I typed my idea into google.
This article came up about Guy Fawkes possibly having ties to Macbeth; crazy, was my first thought, but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. Caius Marcius wrote an essay saying that it was Shakespeare's stab at England, considering he could in no way just come out, and say it unless he wanted to be killed. He also relates it to a religious battle, and a lot more, but I was focused on the
Gunpowder Plot; Guy Fawkes day in the sun.
So here's the basics of what I think.
In Macbeth, the whole play revolves around Macbeth trying to get to the top, and doing whatever he needs to do to get there. He kills the king, Duncan, which was fine because the witches (which are supposed to be fate) tell him he's supposed to, and that fate needs him too; because of this, he doesn‘t feel guilty about it, or at least not to a grand extent. However, when he kills his friend Banqou, thus getting more then he was meant to, all his plans fall to pieces.
And this is what I find is so interesting.
Shakespeare wrote Macbeth shortly after Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up Parliament. A little background on that; Fawkes disliked the government, but instead of sitting around and doing nothing about it like Americans tend to do, he decided he was going to blow up a building. The king was to be giving a speech there at that point, and by blowing up Parliament, he would blow up the king as well, and free England from the rein of a monarchy. Unfortunately for him, he was caught, and hung on the act of treason for trying to kill the king.
For trying to kill the king, huh?
Yet, isn't that what Shakespeare says is okay in Macbeth, as long as it‘s justified? When Macbeth goes and kills Duncan, nothing happens except that he'll become the new king; that's not ill fate in the least. The ill fate comes when he kills his best friend whom is going to be the ‘father of kings’.
In my eyes, by Shakespeare writing Macbeth after this happened, he was defending what Guy Fawkes did. Now, while he was loyal to the monarchy, he was loyal to the queen; not the king that took over once she died. For all we know, when his troop changed their name to the King's Players, they weren't necessarily happy about it.
Now, I realize that this is a far stretch, and might not be likely in the least, but to be honest it’s much different from what others have thought Macbeth to be in the past. At least this is a fresh outlook on a horse that’s been beat to death. A lot of Macbeth is focused on blood, and gore, which there isn’t honestly a lot more in then in other Shakespearean plays.
The difference is the kind of blood.
Once again, Shakespeare shows that it’s fine to kill someone when fate warrants it because you’re doing ‘God’s Will’; however, when fate says ‘back off’, you don’t go and kill your best friend. That’s just not how it’s done, and therefore by letting Macbeth kill Duncan, he’s almost saying that it was fate that was God’s will to kill the king; that fate was against him, and that the king himself defied fate; quite a statement to make in a public play.
Gives me a whole new respect towards William Shakespeare.