History HubΒ permalink
Not quite history with Macbeth
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 13th May 2011
I am reading a novel based on what might have happened after Shakespeare's play to Fleance, Banquo's son. Banquo's Son by Tania Roxburgh, a New Zealand writer. (Have realised it might have been an idea to actually read Macbeth before this as the details are not entirely remembered by me.)
I am bothered a bit though by the liberties taken with the history. The author says at the start that this is fiction and not historically accurate. But I didn't actually notice this caveat before reading it, and even after seeing it, I am still a bit uncertain about some of the liberties. She has used SS's "history" as the basis for her book.
There is a family tree at the start of the book and it has the reigns of kings in it. Malcolm II from 1005 - 1034, then Duncan from 1034 - 43, the Macbeth from 1043 - 1044, and then Malcolm III from 1044 - 1053, now dying and to be followed by Donalbain, his brother. (Though by the end of the book, probably by Fleance.)
I don't know Scottish history, but am aware that historians say Macbeth was a very good king. I wondered how he could have shown himself so good in just a year, but a quick glance of Neil Oliver's History of Scotland shows he reigned for a lot longer than that. (I know many of you think Neil Oliver is not really a historian, but he will know a lot more than I do. My reservation about his history is that it takes up 300 pages, though not admittedly many on Macbeth.)
This novel is a Young Adult Fiction aimed at young teenagers. They are unlikely to know the real history of Scotland at this time, and I wonder if this is quite fair. Fair to them, I mean. I am sure it is not fair on the real Macbeth who seems to me to have had a bum's rap over the years.
What do you think about this sort of writing? And can anyone give me a potted history of why Macbeth is considered a good king? What happened during his reign? Or didn't happen?
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 2
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 13th May 2011
My understanding is that Macbeth reigned from 1040-1057.
Like you, I don't like it when novelists take those kind of liberties with history, where they change it completely. If they're going to take that much of a liberty, then at least change the names, and call it 'Lord of the Rings', or something like that....
I've also heard that he was a good king. However, good old Will the Bard wanted to write a play that ingratiated him to the new king James I, and what better way than to do a play about one of the Stuart's king's good ancestors, i.e. Banquo, Fleance, Duncan and Malcolm. It's no accident that the ghostly dream featured Banquo being the man who would not be king, but that his line would produce kings. -
Message 3
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 13th May 2011
Caro
I think that people who really care about things never like it when other people just flirt and have a bit of fun with them... And as a journalist "to boot" you , I believe from your MB persona, have some concept of socially responsible behaviour and the need to write with that in mind...
I fear, however, that most of the mass media- and increasingly sport- these days is just about entertainment and escapism: and mere curiosity can be now confused with interest. And education seems to be going in the same direction.
This came up early on in my time as a form tutor to one of our Sixth Form students, a very lively and popular girl, who told me that she had "loads of interests". So I looked at my watch and said "OK. Talk to me about your interests".
After 1 minute she was struggling.. and after c1minute 30 seconds she expired. I pointed out that she had shown some curiosity over many things, but had never been curious enough to explore them- which is what you do when you have an interest. Basically what she liked, and was good at, was playing around, "chilling out" with her schoolfriends and being the "apple" of her father's eye.
LIfe these days is about doing what you have to do to earn, or otherwise acquire, money, and then just enjoy the recompenses that money can bring..
Cass -
Message 4
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Friday, 13th May 2011
Caro, since Shakespeare took liberties with history himself, maybe a novel based on a play can be alowed to take liberties.
I take your point though. Bottom line: is the book well written enough to inspire someone to begin reading about Scottish history in general and the Kings in particular. Or at least look for other books written in that period. -
Message 5
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 13th May 2011
Interesting how many other works have derived from Willie S's works and a sequel to Scottish Play is on in Edinburgh right now
The Glasgow run is when I'll be away but I'm tempted to dig out my passport and go through to see it through there. -
Message 6
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 13th May 2011
Well enough written, though of course now I've got picky with the language. At one time she talks of him feeling meserised. "As soon as the thought came to him..." Well, the thought of being mesmerised wouldn't have come to him at this stage or even during Elizabethan times, which is the language that is sometimes popped in for authenticity. No Mesmers till - when? 19th century? Certainly not earlier than the 18th, anyway. Therefore no mesmerising till then.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 7
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 13th May 2011
Caro
I am not sure that mesmerism was not one of the arts that Glanvill's Scholar Gipsy wanted to pick up by living amongst those travellers according to the version of that story in "The Vanity of Dogmatising" that was published early in the 1660s. .. though its mention in relationship to Matthew Arnold's poem based upon his reading of Glanvill may be a backward projection of the term from a period when Mesmerism was "all the rage" as a stage act.
Cass -
Message 8
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 13th May 2011
Forms of hypnotism have been around for a very long time, probably from prehistory I would guess, but the term 'mesmerism' derived from Anton Mesmer who lived 1734-1815 and became synonymous with the technique which he called animal magnetism.
-
Message 9
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 14th May 2011
Yes, earlier the author mentions him being mesmerised and just preceding this sentence she said, "He was enchanted". Neither of these bothered me; it was the word mesmerised and then the bit about 'as soon as he had thought' [of being mesmerised] that I felt it was too anachronistic.
The author writes mostly in the traditional English of a novel, with some Elizabethan turns of phrases and words, and the occasional more modern word, where someone thinks of someone else as a 'git' or says 'to die for'. I put up with this, though I'm not really all that keen on forsooths and methinks etc. It's a problem for historical writers, since much of what they are writing about is of its time - the horse-riding, satchels, castle-living, modes of transport - and needs something of the language of its time. And putting it all into the language of the time - even if you kept it to Elizabethan language - would make it very hard-going for a modern reader, especially teenaged readers.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 10
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Saturday, 14th May 2011
Sounds like a rather superficial author to me, but your are describing traits in historical fiction that really irritate me. And of course Scottish history is dear to my heart. Consistency is all! However, it doesn't bother me when I read Shakespeare so there I am being inconsistent.
Essentially, is she catering for or pandering to her readership? -
Message 11
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 15th May 2011
I have probably been unfair to Tania Roxborogh, Arty. This book, which I see is part of a trilogy, has won a number of awards for Young Adult Fiction. I looked up a few reviews but they weren't very in-depth and one that might have been a bit critical doesn't seem to be there now. (Responses to it are.) It is written for teenagers and doesn't pretend to be anything but historical fiction/fantasy.
And she doesn't use methinks, but does have characters saying things like 'tis' and 'a godly king' and that sort of language. Not in her third-person narration. There are also some Scottishisms and I don't know if they are still in use in modern Scots or not - words like 'bairn' and 'aye'.
The criticisms I have seen do seem to focus on the way she deals with themes of love and honour and your place in society, and a seeming feminising of the history and issues. I did think at one point that this book is pandering to teenage girls' ideas of love. The young people in this novel are in love, and there is very much the feeling that there is 'one true love' for them; you might make do with another, but there can be just one real love. I'm not of an age where that rings true, so tend to do a bit of eye-rolling with that.
It's okay but I might like to think our best YAF is better than this. Interesting enough, well-enough written, a time of history not shown often (but then it is not shown truly), but just nothing really sparkling or particularly thoughtful to my eyes.
You should be able to tell me more about Macbeth, perhaps?
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 12
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Sunday, 15th May 2011
Well, not much beyond the fact that Duncan, the king Macbeth succeeded, was a not a saintly old man murdered in his bed but a young man, possibly quite obnoxious, who was killed in open fight. I'm not sure that much is known about Macbeth the man. He reigned for seventeen years or so and felt secure enough to make pilgrimage to Rome, which rather contradicts the image of the paranoid, bloody tyrant.
His wife was called Gruach and he had a stepson, Lulach, which answers the academic's thorny question: "How many children had Lady Macbeth," for she must indeed have "given suck" and knew how t'was "to love the tender babe" that milked her.
Lulach, who might not have been "quite right," was an unsuccessful competitor for the crown after Macbeth died in battle at Lumphanan a long way from Dunsinane or Birnam Wood.
All without notes but you don't have to go far to find the basics. -
Message 13
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Monday, 16th May 2011
Thanks for that, Arty, but I've got muddled. I had a quick look at my Neil Oliver book for Macbeth, and after Macbeth he goes on to Malcolm III. There is a sentence or two as follows: Malcolm III took Margaret as his second wife. She was a relative of Edward the Confessor, the English king who died fighting King Canute of the Danes in 1016. More importantly, she was sister to Prince Edgar, who had been beaten to the throne of England in 1066 by Harold.Β
I don't understand this reference to Edward the Confessor dying in 1016. I have checked (briefly and lazily) wikipedia and I can't see another Edward the Confessor beyond the one who suggested William I as his successor. I couldn't see quickly who Cnut actually defeated - suppose I should know that anyway. What is wrong here - is it me somehow? or is it Oliver? And if so, why? I don't suppose it can be him, so what have I misunderstood this time. I feel it must be obvious but I can't work it out.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 14
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 16th May 2011
Caro
I think that Mr Oliver did not read his copy too intently.. perhaps there should have been an "and" in place of the comma.
It Prince Edward was sent to Normandy- his mother's birthplace- when his father (and Edmund Ironside) perished fighting the invasion of King Swein, and then his son Canute..
Canute [i dare say someone will correct me if I am wrong] then married Emma of Normandy himself.. But Edward and another "Atheling" continued to be brought up aboad-- until Athur was allowed safe passage back to visit England under guarantee of Earl Godwin of Wessex. In England he was murdered by being stabbed through the eyes- the classic revenge killing.
This branch of the family seems to have been sent to relatives in Hungary, which is where Edgar the Atheling was brought up until he was c15 in 1066.
In fact Edgar went and stayed with his sister Margaret in Scotland sometime in those turbulent years- especially when he had been persuaded to lend his name to the uprising against William the Conqueror in the revolt that featured Herewarde the Wake, and resulted in William I deciding that having tried being "Mr Nice Guy" and finding people "taking liberties" he would show his darker side.
Queen Margaret, however, seems to be credited with a very important role in Scottish History, being herself considered a saintly person like Edward the Confessor- and the route through which a more advanced European Civilization was introduced into these barbaric islands.
It was Margaret's holiness and her alleged possession of holy relics that led to the Royal Palace being called "Holyrood". (Possibly a piece of the "true cross"- though I believe that searchers after the Holy Grail suspect that Margaret brought it to Scotland.. so far away and remote that it could be kept safe)
Cass -
Message 15
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
Point of Order: The Abbey of Holy Rood wasn't founded till 1128 by David I, son of the saintly Margaret of Wessex. Although 'Holy Rood' was a familiar dedication seen else where in Europe: St Cross; Santa Cruz; Sainte Croix, the legend went that David had been out hunting in the woods east of Edinburgh and as the stag turned at bay the King, far ahead of the chase, his horse reared and threw him to the ground. As he lay there, looking up at the enraged stag, he is said to have seen the image of a shining cross between its antlers. Having survived the incident, the remaining details of which are glossed over, he is supposed to have founded an abbey on the site where the incident took place.
This was the Augustinian house of Holy Rood that would be highly favoured by David and his heirs. The Royal palace was established by James IV in the early 16th when he married another English princess called Margaret, the elder sister of Henry VIII.
It was Athelred II, later dubbed "Lack Counsel," father of Edward "The Confessor," who died in 1016, it would seem, ( unlike many of his kin) of natural causes. -
Message 16
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
Thank you both; I have had visitros so haven't quite digested all that.
But did anyone actually die fighting Cnut in 1016? It's a bit bothersome when the first thing you check in a history is not quite right. -
Message 17
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
Thanks arty
Looking at Nigel Tranter's chapter "Margaret and the Will of God" I see that Margaret came to Scotland with Edgar the Atheling in 1070, when they were fleeing from the Humber and were forced into the mouth of the Wear by a storm. There they fell into the hands of Malcolm Canmore, who fell in love with her, though already married.
Tranter says that Margaret was beautiful and very religious. Her sister became an abbess and Margaret always carried with her a fragment of the "true cross" given her by her grandfather King and Saint Stephen of Hungary. "this became known as the Black Rood of Scotland, and from it Holyrood takes its name".
Like Edward the Confessor she built an abbey that was the first major stone church in the realm. It was Dunfermline Abbey
The couple had six sons, and Margaret made sure that Malcolm's 2 other sons were banished to the remote Highlands.
Tranter says: "Very quickly Scotland began to feel the impact of Margaret Atheling. She civilised the semi-barbarous court of Malcolm. She encouraged trade and manufacture and the arts. She sought to improve the conditions of the poor and the serfs. She imported craftsmen- also, of course, Roman clergy. She became greatly beloved by the common folk, even if eyed distinctly warily by the military aristocracy."
Cass -
Message 18
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
Caro
Obviously there were battles and deaths. The invasion was launched by King Swein who died c1014, to be succeeded by his son Canute. But Ethelred's health was something of a problem and the key fighting was done by his son and heir Edmund Ironside. Once Edmund died, and then Ethelred this must have damaged the English cause. Canute took the throne as a Conqueror in 1016.
Before Ethelred died there was an incident which is recorded in the AS Chronicle which I interpret very much in the traditions of English grass-roots democracy. Ethelred had called up the people's militia- the fyrd- to fight the Vikings. The fyd assembled as they were required to do by law under threat of severe punishment. And they waited for the King to lead them into battle. But they kept getting told that Ethelred was too sick.
Well the fyrd had reported for duty to fight in support of the King: but you can not support someone who does not fight. So they all went home and back to work.
As I have said often enough England was already a place of rights and duties for all.
Cass -
Message 19
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
Cass, I think we would have to look beyond Tranter, a novelist who, while prolific, had an idiosyncratic take on Scottish history. What date is the volume you quote from?
The origins of the Black Rood are as legendary as the foundation myth of Holy Rood Abbey. It's not an unreasonable connection to make but there is no direct association between the Black Rood- and the Abbey of Holyrood.
Margaret's favoured church was the Benedictine priory of Dunfermline and she was buried there under the Altar of the Holy Cross or Rood there. (There was also a church of the Holy Rood at Stirling...)
The 'Black Rood' was in Edinburgh Castle when it was removed by Edward Plantagenet to London. That may be the first verifiable record of its location.
Scottish history is peppered with similar trophes, enshrined by Romantic historians and, having been passed down from generation without question, are now being consolidated on the internet. Great fun and I have great affection for them but we really need to move beyond the old tales.
"Sont magnifique, mais sont pas- -
Message 20
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
arty
I did not quote Tranter as an authority, but as the only Scottish source that I have, having been loaned it by a colleague- who told me to keep it. A historian always needs to evaluate sources and I found Tranter essentially a populist, who seemed to have been writing when the current wave of Scottish Nationalism and drive towards independence was in need of its own story for the masses. From memory he ends with a "promised land" passage about Scotland re-emerging as an independent country, the master of its own destinies.. But to my mind most of what he had shown was a particular failure of the Scottish people to be a coherent and united "master-race" in their own lands.
But - as Caro has mentioned Neil Oliver- I did start to watch his TV history hoping to get away from that kind of Tartan Romance, but gave up quite quickly when it seemed to be more or less all the old stuff, just subject to minor revisionism.
As you say that there is no connection between Margaret's Rood and the Abbey, did you not say that it was founded by her son-- and therefore the naming might have had personal implications for him, while being acceptable to others for other reasons?
I think that common causaility is probably rare generally, and especially in Scotland. Andrew Neale is fond of inferring that no two Scotsmen can ever agree.
Cass -
Message 21
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
"no two Scotsmen can ever agree."
Ah, well- I'm not sure about that.. -
Message 22
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
What idiosyncratic take does Nigel Tranter take, arty? I have read a few of his, but only one recently. It didn't seem very idiosyncratic to me, rather plodding in its care with the history and even more on the geography. Every page we seemed to go on a different trip somewhere and he described every blade of grass on the way and every step the horse/ship whatever took. I wanted a bit of characterisation and lightness of touch. I thought he wasn't prepared to make up enough (the earl and his wife were shown as having a very happy marriage but they weren't really individualised particularly).
It was called Courting Favour and was about John, Earl of Moray in the 14th century. What wouldn't he have got right? (The bit that interested me was when he said the Earl of Douglas (I think) was stabbed in the back by his assistant/companion, Bickerton or some such name. I can't find that mentioned anywhere though, and people tell me in the dark you wouldn't know.)
I do get a sense of Scottish history from Tranter but he's a bit heavy-going.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 23
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
arty
Well .. Do professional journalists ever get it totally right? .. Getting it wrong opens up the chance for more copy.
And- if you are Scottish- does your disagreeing with Neale prove or disprove his point?
Cass
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.