Outline:

The Argument

Shakespeare's Macbeth is a nightmarish circumstance resulting from the breach between God and man and is a dramatization of the theological/political philosophy of King James. It is a paradox—a representation of absence—absence of order, nature, God, all through the absence of kingly rule. Although he wears a crown, Macbeth is no king at all but a specific kind of demonic criminal James calls an "usurping Tyrant"[1].

It has been shown (I think conclusively by Henry N. Paul [2]) that Macbeth was written specifically for performance at court before King James and King Christian IV of Denmark in July, 1606. A great many references to current events corroborate this. Knowing that James was both patron of the King's Men and in this case it's direct audience, I argue here (and am not the first to do so) that the philosophy, poetry, and ideology found in Macbeth are crafted with the specific interests of the King in mind—almost exclusively.

As a matter of methodology, the changes Shakespeare made to the story as found in his sources will be of primary use in discerning authorial intent, moreso than the things left unchanged. For example, some critics have argued that Macbeth contains not only an exposition of the Jamesian idea of divine kingship but also an alternative, subversive reading. As an example of this, Alan Sinfield has promoted the notion of Buchanan as a possible source for the play and cited the fact that at the end of the play Malcolm and Macduff stand in the exact relationship we saw between Duncan and Macbeth in the beginning [3]. I reject this because of its dramatic necessity. This is how the story worked out in the sources, left unchanged, and is necessary for the fulfilment of the prophecy of the witches. Any subversive reading is coincidental.

BSU | ENGL 5170 | Carl Sewall | Repurposing | Preface