driuen out of England. foresaid battayle, in which Earle Siwarde vanquished the Scottes, one of Siwards sonnes chaunced to be slayne, whereof, though the father had good cause to be sorowfull, yet when he heard that he dyed of a wound which hee had receyued in fighting stoutely in the forepart of his body, and that with his face towarde the enimie, hee greatly reioyced thereat, to heare that he died so manfully. But here is to be noted, yt not now, but a little before, (as Henry Hunt. saith,) ye Earle Siward, wente into Scotlande himselfe in person, hee sent his sonne with an army to conquere yt land, whose hap was ther to be slaine: and when his father heard ye newes, he demaunded whether he received the wound wherof he died, in ye fore parte of the body, or in the hinder part: and when it was tolde him yt he receyued it in the foreparte, I reioyce (saith he) euen with all my harte, for I woulde not wishe eyther to my sonne nor to my selfe, any other kind of death.' (p. 275.) It is recorded also, that in the It is unnecessary to point out the deviations made in the drama from the original story as told by Holinshed. It is sufficient to give the sources of Shakespeare's information. Their historical value may deserve a brief discussion. Holinshed's narrative is entirely taken from the twelfth book of the Scotorum Historiæ of Hector Boece, or Boyce (1465-1536), the first Principal of Kings' College, Aberdeen, a work in which history is largely mixed with fable. It was translated into Scotch by John Bellenden, archdeacon of Moray, and there is reason to think that Holinshed consulted this translation. The name Macbeth itself may even have been taken from Bellenden, as a rendering of the 'Maccabæus' of Boece, and from the same source may have been derived the translation of 'solatrum amentiale' by 'mekilwort.' Be this as it may, Holinshed is Shakespeare's authority, Hector Boece is Holinshed's, and Boece follows Fordun, adding to him, however, very freely. With the exception of Duncan's murder, in which Macbeth was concerned either as principal or accessory, and the character of Lady Macbeth, there is hardly any point in which the drama coincides with the real history. The rebellion of Macdonwald and the invasion of Sueno during the reign of Duncan are fables; Banquo and Fleance the ancestors of the Stuarts are the inventions of the chronicler. Lady Macbeth, whose name was Gruoch, was the granddaughter of Kenneth IV., who was slain at the battle of Monivaird by Malcolm II. Her first husband, Gilcomgain, the maormor of Moray, was burnt in his castle with fifty of his friends. Her only brother was slain by Malcolm's orders. There were reasons therefore why she should cherish vengeance against Duncan, the grandson of Malcolm. She took as her second husband Macbeth, the maormor of Ross, who during the minority of her son Lulach, became maormor of Moray. The rebellion of Torfin, Earl of Caithness, another grandson of Malcolm's, appears to have been the original of the revolt of Macdonwald, and Duncan was on his way to punish it when he fell a victim to treachery at Bothgownan near Elgin, in the territory of Gruoch and Macbeth. Macbeth on his side had motives for revenge. His father Finlegh, or Finley, maormor of Ross, had been slain in a conflict with Malcolm II. in 1020. In Wyntown's Cronykil of Scotland an entirely different version is given. Duncan is there the uncle of Macbeth who is thane of Cromarty, and Gruoch is Duncan's wife, who after the murder of her husband marries Macbeth. Malcolm is the illegitimate son of Duncan by a miller's daughter, and a supernatural parentage is invented for Macbeth himself. It is in Wyntown that we first meet with the weird sisters, who however only manifest themselves to Macbeth and spur his ambition in a dream. According to the same chronicler, the absence of Macduff from the feast was one of the causes which provoked Macbeth against him. It is worth observing that there is nothing of this kind in the narrative of Holinshed. The battle of Dunsinnan did not decide the fate of Macbeth. He was defeated there in the year 1054, but it was not till two years afterwards that he met with his death at Lumphanan by the hands of Macduff, Dec. 5, 1056. (Chalmers, Caledonia, i. 404-410.) In Wyntown the avenging hand is not that of Macduff but of a nameless knight. Through this maze of tradition and fable it is difficult to thread one's way. The single point upon which historians agree is that the reign of Macbeth was one of remarkable prosperity and vigorous government. With regard to Duncan, we may add a few details of his real history as told by Mr. Robertson (Scotland under her Early Kings, vol. i. chap. 5). He was the son of Bethoc or Beatrice, daughter of Malcolm, and Crinan, Abbot of Dunkeld. In 1030 he succeeded his grandfather. He laid siege to Durham in 1040, but was repulsed with severe loss, and his attempt to reduce Thorfin to subjection was attended with the same disastrous consequences. The double failure in Northumberland and Moray hastening the catastrophe of the youthful king, he was assassinated “in the Smith's bothy," near Elgin, not far from the scene of his latest battle, the Mormaor Macbeth being the undoubted author of his death.' Mr. Robertson adds in a note:- Slain "a duce suo," writes Marianus. Tighernach adds immaturâ ætate, contrary to all modern ideas of Duncan. Marianus was born in 1028, Tighernach was his senior; their authority, therefore, at this period as contemporaries, is very great. Bothgowanan means "the Smith's bothy," and under this word may lurk some longforgotten tradition of the real circumstances of Duncan's murder. The vision of a weary fugitive, a deserted king, rises before the mind's eye, recalling "Beaton's Mill" and the fate of James the Third.' Our references to other plays of Shakespeare are made to the Globe Edition, except in the case of the Notes to The Merchant of Venice and Richard II., separately edited for the present series. W. G. C. W. A. W. |