![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
macbeth: the conspiracy theory
Dec. 2nd, 2003 09:59 amDisclaimer: Like all the best conspiracy theories, this one is blissfully unhindered by fact. I'm too lazy to doublecheck any of this in the book anyways. If it's all wrong, I'm sorry.
So we're told in the play that Duncan is a spectacular king and a great guy. Besides singlehandedly solving his land's problems, he also routinely helps little old ladies across the street and would never dream of kicking puppies.
That's what he WANTS you to think.
Sure, he's a great leader. Everyone loves him, and his kingdom hasn't been torn apart by his various evil neighbors (yet), though obviously they're pretty belligerent, given the war situation at the beginning of the play. His blatantly untrustworthy subordinates (see exhibits A and B, both thanes of Cawdor) have yet to knock him off the throne, though they all want it.
A guy this competent must have some intelligence, be somewhat canny. And it doesn't take too many brain cells banging together to realize that naming whathisface, Malcolm, as heir to the throne is pretty much painting a big fat target on his back. Duncan must have known this. Immediately before naming his son heir, he says something to Macbeth along the lines of "gee whiz, I can't thank you enough!" Macbeth is a hero in war; Malcolm a wimp captured by the enemy right off the bat. And Duncan, successful lord of a warring kingdom, must value valor at least somewhat.
So I'm telling you: by naming Malcolm heir Duncan is all but telling Macbeth to go kill his son! Really! He knows that Malcolm isn't really the top choice for a king and he wants to get his incompetent son out of the way without the scandal of ordering an assassination himself. I'm telling you, Shakespeare was implying it all the way. He was!
All right, do I need to move on to Hamlet or what?
So we're told in the play that Duncan is a spectacular king and a great guy. Besides singlehandedly solving his land's problems, he also routinely helps little old ladies across the street and would never dream of kicking puppies.
That's what he WANTS you to think.
Sure, he's a great leader. Everyone loves him, and his kingdom hasn't been torn apart by his various evil neighbors (yet), though obviously they're pretty belligerent, given the war situation at the beginning of the play. His blatantly untrustworthy subordinates (see exhibits A and B, both thanes of Cawdor) have yet to knock him off the throne, though they all want it.
A guy this competent must have some intelligence, be somewhat canny. And it doesn't take too many brain cells banging together to realize that naming whathisface, Malcolm, as heir to the throne is pretty much painting a big fat target on his back. Duncan must have known this. Immediately before naming his son heir, he says something to Macbeth along the lines of "gee whiz, I can't thank you enough!" Macbeth is a hero in war; Malcolm a wimp captured by the enemy right off the bat. And Duncan, successful lord of a warring kingdom, must value valor at least somewhat.
So I'm telling you: by naming Malcolm heir Duncan is all but telling Macbeth to go kill his son! Really! He knows that Malcolm isn't really the top choice for a king and he wants to get his incompetent son out of the way without the scandal of ordering an assassination himself. I'm telling you, Shakespeare was implying it all the way. He was!
All right, do I need to move on to Hamlet or what?
