Essay: Macbeth: A Gunpowder Play Reflecting Humanity’s Weaknesses

Macbeth written by William Shakespeare in 1606 is a tragic tale set in 11th century Scotland centered around a former noble hero named Macbeth whose ambitious desire to garner the throne upon receiving prophecies from three witches turns him into a crazed murderer (Shakespeare). The play’s narrative is thought to be a reflection and political response to the Gunpowder Plot which occurred on November 5, 1605 in central London, United Kingdom (“Gunpowder Plot”). This was a failed attempt by English Catholics to assassinate King James I via blowing up the English Protestant parliament with barrels of gunpowder (“Gunpowder Plot”). Another platform of art similarly influenced by a historical event was ‘le theâtre du Grand Guignol’: a small theatre in the Montmartre district of Paris that opened in 1897, specialized in naturalistic horror shows, and was later impacted by World War I. World War I, also titled “Great War” persisted from 1914 to 1918 and inflicted vast destruction and slaughter upon the human population unseen to the world previously (Royde-Smith). Although both creations used historical context as a means to unveil the true monstrous nature of humanity, Macbeth illustrates direct connections to the Gunpowder Plot within its narrative and was written with political motivations while the Grand Guignol carries subtle links to World War One in terms of the style of horror, mode of realism, and thematic basis depicted within its plays, which were primarily created for entertainment value.
Macbeth can be considered a commemoration of the Gunpowder Plot also referred to as a ‘Gunpowder Play’ because Shakespeare weaved many references of the event into the plot to depict humans, specifically the English Catholics, as corrupt (Wills 9). On the whole, the premise of Macbeth is centered on the wrongfulness of treason as Macbeth’s conquering of King Duncan’s throne is established to be the cause of his downfall (Shakespeare). The idea of there being inevitable consequence to Macbeth’s attack upon the King frames the Gunpowder Plot in the English Catholics attempt to overthrow King James I as evil (“Gunpowder Plot”). The mere act of dethroning a higher power is understood as immoral and dishonorable. However, Shakespeare amplifies the shamefulness of humanity by paralleling the cowardly nature of Macbeth’s secretive murder and the Catholics’ secretive explosion. The famous soliloquy in which Macbeth announces, “is that the dagger which I see before me, handle toward my hand” highlights Macbeth’s awareness of himself as weak-willed in the act he is about to proceed with (2.1.33-34). Macbeth’s troubled conscience manifests a hallucination of a dagger to warn him against committing the cowardly sin of killing King Duncan whilst asleep and framing the guards for the bloodshed rather than having the audacity to commit the deed face to face. Alike to Macbeth’s awareness of his lacking courage, one individual presumed to be the English Catholic, Francis Tresham, felt that the secrecy of the Gunpowder Plot in using hidden explosions to murder the Protestant nobility was a spineless act (Tresham). This is evident as Tresham sent a letter anonymously to the government in spite of his affiliation with the conspiracy stating, “yet I say they shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament; and yet they shall not see who hurts them” (Tresham). Hence, not only were details revealed, but also admittance to the facelessness of the plot by Tresham, which conveys how humanity is also weak-willed alike to Macbeth.
Furthermore, the critique of equivocation, which is the use of ambiguous language to manipulate interpretation of truth, was strongly referenced in Macbeth because of Catholic priest, Henry Garnet, who was punished for equivocating the truth of the Gunpowder Plot (Wills 22). In Act 2, Scene 3, after Macbeth has committed the deed of killing King Duncan, a drunk porter pretends to be the gatekeeper of hell and knocks on the castle door, yelling “Who’s there, in the other devil’s name? Faith, here’s an equivocator…who committed treason enough for God’s sake…Oh, come in, equivocator.” (2.3.1-3). Shakespeare denounces the act of equivocation as one that belongs to hell and makes you a sinner. Equivocation also appears in the witches’ prophecies and apparitions which lead Macbeth astray and fuel his ambition as their partial spoken truths lead to misinterpretation. For instance, the second apparition of a bloody child who pronounces “for none of woman born shall harm Macbeth” makes Macbeth believe that he is indestructible as it is difficult to think of the possibility of a man not being woman born (4.1.82). The implication made with Macduff that a man born through a cesarean section is not woman born is rather subjective. Thus, the witches’equivocation depicts them as cold-blooded because they are willing to place Macbeth at risk by allowing him to be ignorant of Macduff’s threat upon his life.
The prominent bashing of equivocation is reminiscent of the deceptiveness of Henry Garnet, an English Jesuit priest who heard a confession from conspirator Robert Catesby regarding the Catholics’ plot to overthrow King James I but chose not to inform the government of it (Caraman 12). Arguably, Garnet had to obey the priest’s ‘Seal of Confessional’ to keep all confessions secret but nonetheless, he continued to equivocate during the trial as opposed to yield information of Catesby as a perpetrator (Caraman 14). Thus, the immorality of Garnet’s equivocation as established in his willingness to risk the lives of Parliament members to adhere to a religious oath influenced the derision of equivocation in Macbeth. Shakespeare further expressed how the human tendency to avoid lying through being ambiguous can be more corrupt and harmful than being completely dishonest.