Length: 1121 words (3.2 double-spaced pages)
Rating: Red (FREE)      
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tyrannicide in Macbeth

 

"It is trew indeed, that all the successe of battels, as well as other worldly things, lyeth onely in Gods hand.... But upon that generall to conclude, that hee ever [always] gives victory to the just quarrel, would prove... enemies of the people of God to have oft times had the just quarrell against the people of God, in respect of the many victories they obtained against them." - James VI and I, The Trew Law of Free Monarchies (1598)

 

"And although some [lawful kings]... very rarelie may be cut off by the treason of some unnaturall subjects, yet liveth their fame after them, and some notable plague faileth never to overtake the committers in this life, besides their infamie to all posterities hearafter" - James VI and I, Basilikon Doron (1603)

 

In 1603 King James VI of Scotland published The Trew Law of Free Monarchies and a revised and expanded version of Basilikon Doron in London for his new English subjects (McIlwain, ix; Kinney, 61). Basilikon Doron , which was entered in the Stationer's Register on March 26, 1603 (only one day after Elizabeth's death and James' accession were announced), became immediately popular as Londoners sought an introduction to their new king (--). Shakespeare may or may not have read these pamphlets, but as a member of the newly-appointed King's Players it was certainly in his best interest to become familiar with the attitudes of his patron. We can imagine that one of Shakespeare's goals must have been to gain the King's favor without losing relevence for a wider audience. Macbeth seems to be one attempt at such a compromise. Since Henry Paul's The Royal Play of Macbeth in 1971, many have argued that Macbeth - rich with topical allusions to James' ancestry, events of his life, and the King's political theories- is a dramatization of James' works on kingship meant to flatter the King and serve as propanganda for the Globe audience (Paul, 7; Kozikowski, 197). But certainly there are elements in the play that disrupt this reading: how would a King absolutely opposed to tyrannicide respond to the overthrow of Macbeth? My question is more than rhetorical as we have no evidence that Shakespeare's play was censored in an era when it would have been if it had seriously displeased the King; Macbeth went on to become popular at the Globe long after its first performance for James at Hampton Court in 1606 (Paul, 7; Kinney 65). Shakespeare manages to present tyrannicide to a divine right King because Macbeth contains a variety of political ideologies expressed through different characters or plot points. Macbeth's actions are not endorsed by the play, but it does not necessarily follow that Malcolm and Macduff's actions are unequivocally, and it is perhaps on the issue of patience under tyranny that the play best represents Rosenberg's concept of polyphony (x). Moreover, the doctrine of the Absolutist State found in Basilikon Doron and The Trew Law of Free Monarchies was far from the only State-endorsed ideology available to Shakespeare and his audiences, as the growing tension between Parliament and the King in the seventeenth century makes clear.

 

James I on Kingship and Divine Right In The Trew Law of Free Monarchies , first published in Edinburgh in 1598, James attempts to instruct his people on the "reciprock and mutuall duetie betwixt a free king and his naturall subjects" in order that he might enable them to "bee armed against [rebels'] Sirene songs" (McIlwain, 53). James argues that he has experienced the "bitter fruites" of rebellion and hopes that his tract will help his people to "divert the lamentable effects that ever necessarily follow thereupon" (McIlwain, 54). In the first section of his essay, James defends monarchy as the divinely ordained form of government, and then in the second section he refutes arguments made about the people's right to rebellion. James believes that "Monarchie is the trew paterne of Divinitie" and explains Biblical scripture as supporting this claim: "Kings are called Gods by the propheticall King David, because they sit upon God his Throne in the earth" (McIlwain, 54). This stance, which James maintained throughout the remainder of his life, is commonly known as the doctrine of divine right (McIlwain, xxxv). James refutes four arguments for tyrannicide in the second section of his essay. The first "objection" that a citizen should love his country as his mother and should therefore fight to overthrow a tyrant who has wounded the country. James argues that the people do not have the right to overthrow even a wicked king because "the wickednesses therefore of the King can bever make them that are ordained to be judged by him, to become his Judges" (McIlwain, 66). He also argues that any rebellion would only wound the country more: "For a king cannot be imagined to be so unruly and tyrannous, but the commonwealth will be kept in better order... by him then it can be by his way-taking" (McIlwain, 66). To counter the second argument that God does not approve of wicked kings and so would approve of deposing them, James refers to the Bible and tells people to pray for the tyrants ruling over them (McIlwain, 67).

 

* Trew Law, rebuttals 3 and 4.

* Basilikon Doron, parts 1, 2, 3.

* Samuel disruption??

 

Holinshed and Shakespeare Both theatrical convention and historical "accuracy" demand that Macbeth be overthrown and killed at the end of Shakespeare's play, but read within the context of James' writings on tyrannicide, the play's ending becomes more problematic. There are a variety of ways in which Shakespeare may have consciously shaped his drama to not offend the King and we see many of these in the differences between Holinshed's history and the drama Shakespeare made of it. Shakespeare's story is remarkably dependent on Holinshed, even for the basis of the conversation between Malcolm and Macduff in Act IV scene iii. At those points when Shakespeare diverges from Holinshed's presentation, especially in his portrayal of Banquo and his description of Macbeth's skill as king, Shakespeare seems to have flattered James and tried to smooth over the potential discrepancy between James' theories and potential readings of the play.

 

* Banquo line and Shakespeare's innocent Banquo

* Elimination of Macbeth's 10 years of successful reign

Tyrannicide in Macbeth

* Presentation of rightful king Malcolm - like Machiavelli's fox

* Presentation of avenger Macduff - guilty for leaving wife and kids? Is his action endorsed by heaven if all of his family is killed? (compared with Fleance's escape)

* Banquo's position: not pro-tyrannicide

* Malcolm, Macduff, and Angus' belief in providence in their rebellion - support in co-rebellion of natural world?

* Repeated pattern- victorious captain serving/protecting King in Macbeth to Duncan and Macduff to Malcolm. Significance?