Rebecca Eskew

ENGL 473A

December 3, 2002

Dr. George Newtown

Shakespeare, James I, and Macbeth

Shakespeare’s plays are famous for being politically charged. In Macbeth (1606), Shakespeare comments on the regime of the new English king, James I (1603-1625), formerly James VI of Scotland (1567-1603). In order to examine these comments on James, a new historicist approach will be employed. Stephen Greenblatt, the father of new historicism, believes that

This is the type of approach that I will take in studying this text. Not only will the history of the play be reviewed, but also the time in which the play is performed will be scrutinized, with a search for discrepancies and underlying meanings at the forefront. Since new historicism seeks to delve deeply into what the text says underneath its surface meaning, the reading here consists of a more obscure opinion of the text, one that is less popular, but ultimately sensible. Since this reading employs an extensive use of history, considerable background will be given about the theory applied as well as Scottish history, 17^th century English history, and some brief history about witchcraft in England and Scotland, all culminating in a new historical reading of the play.

"The goal of new historicism for me – it’s different for different people – is to put cultural objects in some interesting relationship to social and historical processes. For me, new historicism is really about Hamlet, King Lear, Tom Jones, David Copperfield in relation to a whole set of practices you wouldn’t normally think of reading of literature" (Greenblatt 2).

What Greenblatt is referring to when he speaks about relating cultural objects to historical processes concerns the new historicist practice of placing historical texts and literary works on an equal plane, instead of placing the former beneath the latter. The text that accompanies the literary work does not even have to be a historical text, just a non-literary one. New historicists also try to bring to the forefront new, never-before-heard criticism (Barry 179). In doing so, they succeed in looking deeper into a text and find connections with what is happening between history and the text by either looking at the historical time period in which the text is written or examining things that are happening in the present that relate to the text and give it new meaning.

Specifically, "they focus attention (within both text and co-text) on issues of State power and how it is maintained, on patriarchal structures and their perpetuation, and on the processes of colonization, with its accompanying ‘mind set’" including post-structuralist notions set forth by Derrida and Foucault concerning both text as reality and social structures and ‘discursive practices’ (Barry 179). Taking these criteria into consideration, it is easy to see why Shakespearean plays like Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth are ripe for examination through a new historical lens. Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield assert that

Therefore, despite the fact that Macbeth is based on eleventh century Scottish history, it contains significant relevance to what occurs during the 1600’s in Stuart England. According to new historicism, structures in Macbeth can even relate to occurrences today, or any time after Shakespeare composes the play, as long as the critic an find a relevant source that relates the two ideas and as long as there is a specific issue, usually political, that is dealt with by the theorist.

This differs from the "old" historicist approach to interpretation. When using historicism, a critic would examine the text in light of historical documents that accompany them, i.e. an author and his letters. New historicism, on the other hand, is "’thrice processed’" (Barry 175). This means that it is looked at first through the ideology of the time in which it is written, then through ours, then through the "distorting web of language itself" (Barry 175). The essays produced by new historicists then become another document that can be juxtaposed with the text and other non-literary works. Another difference between the new and the old is the weight given to historical texts. Practitioners of old historicism assign more importance to the text or to the historical documents, while new historicists put the two on an equal plane. Another important difference between the two involves the perception of what history actual is. Old historicists think of history as a set of factual records that can be studied to learn what happened when and how those occurrences affect the literature. New historicists see historical documents as literature, following Derrida’s theory that "historical events…are irrecoverably lost…the events and attitudes of the past now exist solely as writing…" (Barry 175). This is how new historicists can place the two types of texts on the same plane – because they are both texts, and with a written account comes the likelihood for error and bias.

The premise of this paper is to show that Shakespeare’s Macbeth not only comments on James, but also challenges his reign. Before addressing any other issues, what must be proven is that the play is actually about James I. Since the play address eleventh century Scottish history, it is not necessarily apparent that the text also concerns seventeenth century England. There are, however, several hints that allow the reader to discern that the text is indeed about James I.

One of the most obvious references to James is the mention of "a show of eight kings…and Banquo the last" (Shakespeare IV.I SD). When James ascends to the throne in 1603, he wants to legitimate his kingship. In order to do so, he traces his lineage back through Scottish kings, to a man named Banquo. It is not clear whether Banquo actually exists as a historical figure, nor is it clear that the lineage James traces is accurate. In any case, James makes this claim of relation, and Shakespeare’s mention of it in the text is a reference to that claim. Also, Shakespeare’s mention of the eighth king, who is holding a glass, is a reference to the fact that James liked to have a glass (mirror) held up in Hampton court, so that he could see himself.

Another reference to James I includes the passage that speaks to a custom during which the king or queen would heal one of his/her subjects by touching them. However, when James comes to power, he does not want to touch his subjects for fear of contracting a disease. Instead he "[hung] a golden stamp about their necks" (Shakespeare IV.III 175) to heal them. Since all of the monarchies before James had healed by touching their subjects, Shakespeare must be referencing James in this passage. This reference to James is fairly straightforward, but the most obvious allusion to James occurs in the porter scene.

Act II, Scene III opens with the porter scene, during which the he says, "Faith, here’s an equivocator/that could swear in both the scales against either/scale, who committed treason enough for God’s/sake yet could not equivocate to heaven. O, come in,/equivocator" (Shakespeare II.III 8-12). This mentioning of an equivocator indicates the recent attempt by a group of Jesuit priests to assassinate James. In his defense, the leader of the group, Father Garnett, tries to seem blameless by invoking "the doctrine of equivocation, a lie is not a lie if the speaker intends a second, true meaning by his words" (Mowat and Werstine 60-62n8). Of course, the defense, being in and of itself an unreasonable one, does not save the Jesuits. Ironically, the ease with which someone can claim to be an equivocator, saving their skin by inventing a second meaning to assign to their words, is the same ease with which someone can falsely accuse someone else of witchcraft. Shakespeare wants the reader to realize the nonsensical, illogical basis for this argument. Not only does it mirror James’s own unfounded claim to the throne, but it also possesses echoes of a witch-hunt mentality. In either case, there is no proof of what is actually meant or what truly happens. This connection to witchcraft is strengthened during other parts of the play.

The final and most important connection between James and the text is Shakespeare’s use of the witches. James historical role concerning witches will be discussed at length later, but Shakespeare’s inclusion of them plays up to James’s insistence that they are real and can cause real danger. What is important to remember when analyzing the witches is to look at them closely, not just on a superficial level, with only the text as a guide. Shakespeare is saying much about his own day when the witches appear, which they only do for six pages of the original text (excluding the Hecate sections), but with these six pages, he leads us to hordes of information about witchcraft during his time, especially that which is connected to James.

Historicists use this type of information to draw conclusions about the argument Shakespeare is making by meshing James’s reign and Scottish history together. Many critics will be shocked to hear that Macbeth, even parts of it, is unsympathetic to James. The usual reading of the text most often produces the conclusion that the King’s Men perform this play to uplift James and his new kingship. After all, the play reveals that those who try to usurp the true king will be punished in the end. Macbeth is performed in 1606 for the first time, less than a year after the infamous Gunpowder Plot, orchestrated by Guy Fawkes, to assassinate James I and the Parliament (McMurty 146; Kernan 71). (Several additional attempts are made on James’s life throughout the beginning of his reign.) The traitors are caught and hung before harm comes to anyone (McMurty 146). These conspirators have no legitimate claim to the English throne, just as the Jesuit priests have no claim. Therefore, the play supports James’s kingship, and maybe it does…partially. Remember that someone can offer only partial support to another.

Another reading of the play asserts that Lady Macbeth is Queen Elizabeth, and that her struggle with madness, which she eventually loses, establishes James’s kingship over her queenship (Marcus 104-105). Queen Elizabeth I is one of the greatest monarchs ever to rule England. However, Marcus claims that Shakespeare uses Lady Macbeth to stand for Elizabeth. Marcus reads Lady Macbeth as

This reading supports James’s reign by showing Elizabeth as a queen who is neither capable of handling her responsibilities nor acting appropriately in terms of her gender. If Elizabeth can be shown as a weak queen, perhaps James will look better, even though he is not a good English king, as exemplified by his looting of the English treasury. Still, the popular way to read Macbeth is under a favorable light towards James I. It is easy to see why this reading is widely held as being the appropriate one. Most of the play does seem to help establish the legitimacy of James’s reign. However, there are three key elements that undercut a positive reading: Banquo, the porter’s scene, and the witches.

There are two different histories associated with Macbeth. One is the history of James I, discussed above. The other is the history upon which the play is based, a history dating back to eleventh century Scotland. Shakespeare’s literary figure of Macbeth is based upon a historical Scottish king of the same name. Timelines and short histories of Scotland reveal that in 1018, Malcolm II is victorious in battle with the Northumbrians, and that in 1034, his successor, Duncan I, comes to the throne (Timeline). This Duncan and the Duncan in Macbeth are the same person. In August of 1040, Duncan I becomes greedy and tries to attack to northern regions of Scotland, which are under the rule of Thorfinn the Mighty (Macbeth Through; Timeline ). Macbeth comes to the aid of Thorfinn, since Duncan’s attack is unprovoked, and they defeat – and Macbeth kills – Duncan I at the Battle of Pitgaveny; afterwards, Macbeth is crowned king of Scotland (Macbeth Through; Timeline). Just as in Macbeth, Duncan leaves two sons, although in Holinshed’s account, they are infant sons, named Malcolm and Donal, both of whom flee to other parts of the country or to other nations (Macbeth Through). From most accounts, Macbeth is a capable king, better at effective ruling than Duncan I is. However, in 1057, Malcolm Canmore (Duncan I’s son), defeats Macbeth; Macduff kills Macbeth in the battle (Timeline). This time span is the account Shakespeare renders in his abbreviated version of the history of Macbeth.

Shakespeare, however, does more than simply base his play upon Scottish history. Noticeably, the play is classified as a tragedy, not a history play. The problem in calling Macbeth a history play is fairly obvious. Shakespeare does change and even eliminate parts of Holinshed’s chronicles, e.g. making Macbeth an evil king from the start by having him assassinate Duncan in cold blood rather that on a battlefield. He also adds several things to the account, things that are occurring in present-day England, like James’s practice with the medallions and the reference to the Gunpowder Plot. Still, the stories are incredibly similar. Many times Shakespeare transfers ideas verbatim from historical texts. For example, it is known that Shakespeare bases the bulk of Macbeth upon a text by Raphael Holinshed entitled The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Shakespeare often takes Holinshed’s account and uses the exact same information to fund the words for his work. For example, Holinshed writes:

Another example in the Holinshed version appears when the historical Macbeth is given reasons for his immortality. He ignores the threat of Makduffe, because he believes that

There are several others that are almost exact replicas (in Shakespeare’s play) of what is recorded in Holinshed’s Chronicles, including allusions to both old Siward (Bullough 467) and young Siward (Bullough 507), the murder plot of Banquo and Fleance (Boswell-Stone 33 and Bullough 455-56), the fleeing of Duncan’s sons (Boswell-Stone 30-31 and Bullough 496-497), and the way in which Macbeth is killed (Bullough 500). There are other things that are more loosely based upon the Chronicles, including Lady Macbeth, whose historical counterpart was Lady Grouch, "who has a claim to the throne, as the granddaughter of Kenneth" (Macbeth Through).

One way in which Shakespeare questions James is through the way he uses the historical character of Banquo. In the play, the witches tell him that after Macbeth is king, Banquo’s offspring will inherit the throne and perpetuate a long line of kings. When Banquo is assassinated, Fleance does survive the attack, but he does not become king. Historically, James legitimates his ascension to the throne by claiming to be a descendent from a Scottish king named Banquo. However, Banquo dies in the play, and Fleance does not ascend to the throne. If James is supposed to be a legitimate king through his relation to Banquo, then what is Shakespeare saying about this claim that James makes? He is saying that James’s claim to kingship is not as legitimate as it may seem. Some sources claim Banquo to be a mythical figure, and other sources write him into the story like he is a definitive, historical person. So, it is unclear whether or not the chain of inheritance that James constructs is licit. Through his portrayal of Banquo and Fleance, it is clear that Shakespeare sides with those who question James’s asseveration about his genealogy.

In 1603, Elizabeth Tudor dies, and James Stuart replaces her on the English throne as her named successor. Elizabeth I never marries; therefore, she bears no children. Being the shrewd politician that she is, she also does not name anyone to rule after her until the very end of her reign; she never wants to give any adversary the upper hand by instilling in them any knowledge of what her next strategic move may be. This postponement of naming an heir causes frenzy among her English subjects, especially those close to the top of the power structure. Will her appointee match up with their political agendas? Will there be a war? What religion will her inheritor practice? All of these questions carry the most severe sense of importance to the future of the island country.

Changes in religion have been vacillating since Henry VIII instituted his own religion via the Church of England. If Elizabeth names no successor, there will most certainly be a war in England. The Tudor/Stuart dynamic is an interesting one. Queen Elizabeth, in 1587, beheads James’s mother, Mary Queen of Scots, a strong proponent of the Catholic Church (McMurtry 31-32). Even though James I professes Protestantism, monarchies have been known to change their religious standpoints, and with his mother being Catholic, James’s Protestant claim is not as sound as the English citizens want it to be. Even though James’s mother does not raise him, there is still a question of loyalty and of whether or not James harbors feelings of hatred towards a country that killed his mother. Another problem is that there still exists a large sector of the population that wants the country to revert back to Catholicism, especially the Jesuit priests in the country, who lost much land and wealth when the Church of England seized many of their abbots. All of these components as to the tension at the end of Elizabeth’s reign.

Another way that Shakespeare diminishes the reign of James is to make light of the assassination attempts on his life. The scene with the porter, which can be played grimly, is usually played as a comic scene, the only scene in the play that has the potential for comedy, the play being, by far, Shakespeare’s darkest and least humorous. Shakespeare alludes to the Gunpowder Plot is this scene. With the entire play being dark and morose, the fact that Shakespeare mentions the assassination attempt in this scene, comments on how seriously he considers the matter to be. The assassination attempt is recent and is made, not only upon James, but upon the entire Parliament. To allude to the attempted execution of most everyone in the British government in the only comic scene in the play suggests that Shakespeare does not consider the attack to be too serious a matter.

The relationship of Shakespeare to Elizabeth and James is one of employee to employer. This presents a problem in examining the feelings that he has towards the two monarchies. By popular consent, he is fond of Elizabeth. His personal feelings towards James are less well known. But even in his fondness and support of Elizabeth, he opposes her on one major occasion. In 1601, two years before her death and five years before Macbeth, the Earl of Essex stages an uprising in order to take control of the English throne. He pays the King’s Men "forty shillings to revive their old play about the deposing and killing of Richard II" (Greenblatt 1057). Since Richard is a Plantagenent king, the showing of this play seems not to have any bearing on Elizabeth, a Tudor, whose reign comes some 250 years later (The Royal English Monarchy). However, the mere mention of the deposing and murdering of a monarchy is too much for Elizabeth. She sees, as Essex intends, herself as Richard and the King’s Men as treasonous. Once the situation is fleshed out, she sees that the playwright and his company do not have a hand in the treason, and only the Earl and his followers receive any type of punishment. But in this act by Essex, the "power to subvert, or rather the power to wrest legitimation from the established ruler and confer it on another" (Greenblatt 1057) is seen. Many critics do not understand why Elizabeth sees the performance of the play as treasonous. As J. Dover Wilson argues: the fact that "Shakespeare and his audience regarded Bolingbroke as a usurper…is incontestable" (Greenblatt 1058). This means that Bolingbroke has no right to the throne and acts in a treasonous manner, a scenario that the English citizenry would not support. Dover cannot understand why this play upsets Elizabeth, because she is a legitimate heir, and Bolingbroke (like Essex) is the villain. This is the view that an old historicist takes, failing to see the performance in all of its facets and only focusing on the history and the text, disregarding the present-day situation of an Earl attempting to overthrow his queen. But as Greenblatt points outs, "in 1601, neither Queen Elizabeth nor the Earl of Essex were so sure: after all, someone on the eve of a rebellion thought the play sufficiently seditious to warrant squandering two pounds on the players, and the Queen understood the performance as a threat" (Greenblatt 1058). Apparently, to Elizabeth, the mere mentioning of dethroning a monarch is too suggestive to her subjects. And even though the King’s Men play no role in trying to overthrow Elizabeth, they still perform the play for Essex, certainly with the knowledge that Essex is trying to send a message to the audience to support the deposition of a monarch.

Another instance in which Shakespeare clashes with the monarchy – this time James – is in the performance of his play King Lear. In her book Puzzling Shakespeare, Leah Marcus asserts that the play is, or can be, an undermining of Jacobean ideas. She focuses on examining the ways in which the play can be performed. She points out that

Marcus shows here that there can be more than one reading of a text, even in the same time period and under the same conditions. Since Shakespeare is the master of double-speak and puns, the opportunity for these types of multiple-readings becomes even more likely. Marcus also poses the question of "whether or nor Shakespeare was a ‘King’s Man’" (159). This is the precise question that is being asked in this study of Macbeth. And since Shakespeare challenges both Elizabeth, whom he likes, and James, about whom his feelings are unknown, it seems to be immaterial as to whether Shakespeare likes whomever the current ruler is; he may still write plays that run against what the monarchy believes and wants the public to hear.

James I becomes most famous during his time because of his early obsession with magic and Necromancie, which manifest themselves in the form of witches and warlocks. It is in Scotland, as James VI, that he writes his most famous work in 1597, a work on the habits, appearance, and debauchery of witches, entitled Daemonologie. This book becomes a qualified source that people use to persecute witches. Six years later he ascends to the English throne at a time when popular support for executing witches is high. However, support for increasing the penalties of conversing with the devil is not universal. Several challengers of the new laws write books against James’s views on witches, of which Sir Reginald Scot’s The Discoverie of Witchcraft becomes one of the most famous. He proposes that James and other witch-hunters place too much stock in both the simple appearance of so-called witches and the testimony of unreliable witnesses, namely children. He also points out that what qualifies someone as a witch varies too much from one person to another, even among "qualified" witch experts like James. James puts no stock in Scot’s book, claiming that he is serving God by finding witches and putting them to death, so that they cannot perform any more evil acts of harm towards others. James has a personal stake in this statement, as he believes that his ship was attacked through witchcraft while he was on his way to see his future queen, Princess Ann of Denmark. James enacts the harshest law against witches that has ever existed; although it must be kept in mind that Parliament, a body of able and educated men, pass the legislation. These actions show their concurrent beliefs about witches and support for such an unforgiving law. James also publishes his own version of the Bible, to which he adds the line "suffer not a witch to live" (Samhain). This is a perfect example of cosmicization, "a social-construction-of-reality term for the familiar intellectual activity of validating ideas by working them into earlier established schemes of reality" (Kernan 79). Shakespeare is well aware both of James’s beliefs and of his treatise on witchery. He uses these ideas in his play, but as the reader will see, his reasons for doing so are not as apparent as they seem. Although it is evident that James believes heavily in the existence of witches and their powers, it is not so clear as to when he changes his beliefs, but eventually, he does retract his beliefs about the overwhelming number of witches that exist. His doubt about the veracity of testimony is the key component that causes him to change his mind; opponents of the harsh laws against witchcraft prove the testimony of several witnesses to supposed witchery to be fabricated. Only five people are killed during the last nine years of James’s rule over England (Robbins 279).

Through the examination of texts, there can be some discernment about how Shakespeare feels about demons, witches, and black magic. The aim of this paper is partially to examine that belief within the text of Macbeth. But before delving into that text, the examination of the role of exorcism in King Lear will provide a sound background upon which to view Shakespeare’s ideas about witchcraft. Greenblatt dissects the role that exorcism plays in King Lear.

Shakespeare’s bases his play at least partially on an earlier work by Samuel Harsnett entitled King Leir (Greenblatt 1060). One of the elements that Shakespeare takes from Harsnett’s tale is the idea of demonic possession, a trait that he bestows upon Edgar in the play (Greenblatt 1060). In his essay, Greenblatt proposes to investigate the "broader institutional implications of Harsnett’s text and of the uses to which Shakespeare puts it" (1060). Greenblatt points out that Harsnett’s work is "a semi-official attack on exorcism as practised by Jesuits secretly residing in England" (1060). Since Shakespeare supports Protestantism, he sides with Harsnett’s evaluation of this practice, viewing it as a stage-show, a way for Jesuit priests to show their God-given power when, in actuality, they have none, because Catholicism is not the true religion. Greenblatt calls "Harsnett’s Declaration…a massive document of disenchantment" (1060). In Shakespeare’s King Lear, the demonic possessions that Edgar experiences turn out to be fictitious (Greenblatt 1061), just like the claim Harsnett makes about the Jesuit exorcisms. Clearly, Shakespeare is questioning the practice of exorcisms and the belief in the power of humans to diagnose and then cure those afflicted with the disease.

The final and most important thread in decoding what Shakespeare is truly saying about James and his reign is the witches. The witches are "historical," being mentioned in Holinshed’s Chronicles, but Shakespeare does more with them than simply copying their actions from Holinshed’s account. As mentioned earlier, James writes what becomes an authoritative work on witchcraft and necromancy. In Daemonologie, James makes it clear that "Prophecie proceedeth onelie of GOD: and the Devill hath no Knowledge of things to come" (Stuart 3). He also writes that "Witches can, by the power of their Master, cure or cast on disseases" (Stuart "To the Reader"). Basically, James is making two claims about the powers that witches possess. They cannot predict the future, but they can make evil things happen by casting spells. In Macbeth, the opposite holds true. Shakespeare confers upon the witches the power of prophecy, but gives them no real powers. Everything that happens in the play results from their predictions about the future, not spells that they cast upon the characters. There are only two times that spells are even mentioned: in Act I, Scene III, where it is abandon immediately upon the arrival of Macbeth and Banquo and in Act IV, Scene I, one of the Hecate scenes, which is generally agreed upon to have been written by someone other than Shakespeare, probably Thomas Middleton (Wells). The witches make several predictions to Macbeth and Banquo about the future of the Scottish throne. The only reason that these predictions come true is that Macbeth takes action to ensure that they happen; the witches take no action to change things – they only predict Macbeth’s reign. According to James’s Daemonologie, they should not have this power.

The witches also prophesize the downfall of Macbeth. They make the predictions about the wood coming to the castle and about Macbeth being killed by a man not born of a woman. Because these things seem unlikely, Macbeth believes that they cannot occur. This trickery by witches is presented in James’s book. He is adamant about the power of witches to "delude our senses: since we see by common proofe, that simple juglars will make an hundreth thinges seeme both to oue eies and eares otherwaies then they are" (Stuart 23). On the other hand, "what [God] makes appeare in miracle, it is so in effect" (Stuart 22). This passage from Daemonologie may seem to support James’s beliefs about witches, and it does. However, we have to keep in mind that James is, in essence, Shakespeare’s boss, and this play is performed in 1606 for the court. Shakespeare cannot come right out and oppose James on a subject that virtually makes his reign as popular as it is. His prosecution of witches, which is supported for the most part by public opinion, is one of the bright spots (in 1606) of his sovereignty. If Shakespeare is too overt in his denunciation of James’s belief about witches, he may end up in the same situation that Essex did when he pays Shakespeare and his men to put on Richard II. Besides the fact that the witches seem to support James’s claim that witches use trickery, it also contradicts his claim about their ability to predict the future. Shakespeare’s role reversal of the witches, along with his portrayal of the supernatural in other plays, displays the disagreement he feels about James’s policy on witches.

Through his illustrations in Macbeth of the ancestry of James, the Gunpowder Plot, and the witches, Shakespeare lets his audience know that he disagrees with James on major political issues of the day. He does not believe that James’s claim to the throne is entirely legitimate. This does not mean that Shakespeare dislikes James personally, because that may be impossible to discern. But, it is clear that he does not give credit to his story about being the rightful heir to the throne through his relation to Banquo. He may also be making a comment about the utility of government by placing the reference to the Gunpowder Plot in the only comic portion of the play. The most evident argument Shakespeare makes concerns the authenticity of the witches in the play and James's book Daemonologie. It is clear through the contradictions between Shakespeare and James’s witches that Shakespeare accomplishes two things. First, he clearly disagrees with James’s theories on witchcraft and the powers that it holds, but he is also showing the audience how difficult it is to identify a witch. Reginald Scot essentially accuses James and others like him of prosecuting ugly, old women, since physical appearance is part of the criteria of what constitutes a witch. Shakespeare employs (appropriately) Banquo to speak the words about the appearance of the witches the first time he and Macbeth encounter them. He describes them as "withered, and so wild in their attire/That look not like inhabitants o’ th’ earth/…her choppy finger laying/Upon her skinny lips. You should be women,/And yet your beards forbid me to interpret/That you are so" (Shakespeare I.III 41-49). By describing the witches in a way that James and others who prosecute witches during this time describe them and then not giving them the powers that they should have according to James, Shakespeare is questioning James’s practices of prosecution and his strict penalties for conviction of a crime that is nearly impossible to prove and often produces false testimony against one’s neighbors for reasons of revenge or child’s play.

As stated before, many critics believe that Shakespeare makes references to James to uplift and support his claim to legitimacy. However, Shakespeare is questioning certain practices by James, not advocating them. By looking deeply at the text, it is apparent that Shakespeare changes and adds many things to the history upon which the play is based. Shakespeare changes certain elements for a reason. His use of the witches, the porter, and Banquo are pivotal in examining what Shakespeare is truly trying to accomplish with his text. He is making political comments on certain policies of James’s. By viewing the text and the histories closely, it is clear is that a negative critique of James I is present in Shakespeare’s Macbeth.

Works Cited