Be sure you're insured when you next watch "Macbeth."

Going to watch "Macbeth" can be fatal! Part of the way to save yourself from shuffling off this mortal coil in an untimely way is not to call this play, "Macbeth," but to call it the "M" or "the Scottish play." Perhaps it is because of the abundance of the motifs of evil, blood, magic and murder that there are so many superstitions about this play - probably more than in any other play that Shakespeare wrote. At the end of this 2-part article I will tell you how to protect yourself from this play's deadly influences.

Below is a list of what happened to various unfortunate people who took part in the play or who came to watch it. All of the following incidents are true so you have been warned! 

When it was first acted on 7 August 1606, Hal Berridge, the boy playing Lady Macbeth, died backstage and it is said that Shakespeare took over and played the part himself. In 1672 the actor playing Macbeth in Amsterdam used a real dagger and fatally stabbed King Duncan on stage.

In 1865, President Lincoln met up with some friends to read the play. Next day he went to Ford's theatre...

In 1937 at the Old Vic theatre, London, a 25 pound weight came crashing down from above the stage and just missed hitting Laurence Olivier who was playing Macbeth. Also during this production, the actress playing Lady Macbeth and the producer were involved in a car crash while the famous actress, Lillian Bayliss, died of a heart-attack on the day of the dress rehearsal.

                Macbeth (Orson Welles) instructing the two murderers in the 1949 film 
                                            version which he, Welles, directed. 

Five years later in 1942 three actors playing Duncan and two of the witches died during John Gielguid's production and the set designer committed suicide! In 1947, actor Harold Newman was also stabbed to death when someone substituted a real dagger for a fake one.

In Moscow in the fifties, actor Paul Rogers who was playing Macbeth clashed so violently with Macduff in the final scene that his sword flew out of his hand. It stuck in the seat where USSR President Kruschev was destined to sit three hours later.

Nearer home to England, the Dublin theatre company manager broke both of his legs during a production of the play, the stage electrician electrocuted himself and the actor playing Banquo committed suicide.

It was during this period that while the scenery for the play was being unloaded in Cape Town, a stranger asked which play was being made ready. "Macbeth" came the answer. As soon as the cursed name was said, a bundle of spears was dislodged from the ramp and the stranger was speared to death!

1971 was almost a fatal year. Two fires and seven robberies occured during David Learie's production and Roman Polanski's filming of the play was also riddled with danger. A cameraman was nearly killed on location during the first day of filming. In addition, Kenneth Tynan, the theatre critic noted that when one little girl on the set when Lady Macduff and her son were murdered was asked, "What is your name?"
she replied, "Sharon." (Tate?)

This list goes on unto the 21st century which I'll deal with next time as well as giving you a FREE "Anti-Macbeth" insurance policy.

For comments write to: wsdavidyoung@gmail.com 

More About Saint Macbeth of Lumphanan

We can never know the reason why artists and painters produce their specific works unless they tell us. Shakespeare never told us why he wrote Macbeth so all we can do is make educated guesses about his reasons.

We know that as one of the principle share-holders in the Globe theatre, Shakespeare had vested interests in writing “a hit, a palpable hit.” But why write one about a long dead Scottish king and his over-ambitious wife?

              Macbeth being crowned King of Scotland. Holinshed's Chronicles, 1587

The reason may be that this play was probably written in 1605-06 (Shakespeare never dated his plays) and King James I of England (a.k.a. King James VI of Scotland) had been sitting on the throne of England for two or three years by then. We also know that this king loved the theatre and our William was an important member of the 'King’s Men' theatre company. So why not write a Scottish flavoured play that would keep the company’s chief patron happy?

In addition, the king fancied that he was a direct descendant of the eight kingly apparitions who appear at the end of the second terrific Witches scene. This is the one where they are busy making soup chanting:

                            Double, double toil and trouble;

                            Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

     Macbeth meeting "womenin straunge & ferly apparell resembling creatures of an elder                                                 worlde." Holinshed's Chronicles, 1587.

In addition, it was also very fashionable then to write about witches. Two popular plays of the time included, The Witch of Edmonton and The Late Lancashire Witches. Also, Shakespeare’s contemporary playwright (and possible literary partner?) Thomas Middleton, had written The Witch. In addition, following the (in)famous North Berwick witch trials which were held in 1590-01 on the Anglo-Scottish border, the king himself had become obsessed with the topic of witchcraft. In 1597 he had written his own treatise on the subject, Demonologie.  

So what better could Shakespeare do than to stroke the royal ego and write a play about Scottish kings and witches? Success should be guaranteed and the Bard should make a profit. Not only was he a great dramatist, but obviously the Bard knew the value of good PR.

             At the foot of the oldest tree in Birnham Wood today. The witches were alleged to have                                        lived in the hollow at the foot of the trunk!

And if we are talking about the witches, we should also mention one of their predictions when “Great Birnham Wood will come to high Dunsinane hill.” This moving forest ploy was of course not new. In the Bible we read that  King David had used it to fool the Philistines while two hundred years before Shakespeare, Andrew Wyntoun had used it in his Orygynale Cronykil.

Next time I will tell you what were Shakespeare's sources for this play and why it can be fatal to play a part in it. I'll also say why it can be dangerous even to go to the theatre merely to watch this popular "Scottish play."

For comments on this and my other blogs, please write to:

wsdavidyoung@gmail.com

Thank you

Saint Macbeth! Shakespeare Got It Wrong - Again!

Everybody knows the story of Macbeth. Once upon a time there was a brave Scottish general called Macbeth who, together with his best friend, Banquo, beat the Norweyans. On their way home they were accosted by three witches who promised among other things, that Macbeth would one day become king. At home in his castle, he tells this to Mrs. Macbeth and soon after he kills the "gracious and meek" King Duncan and takes over the throne. 

However, things don't go as planned. Many of Macbeth's Scottish lords suspecting what happened, desert him and join the English enemy instead. In the end, Duncan's son, Malcolm, together with many disaffected Scottish lords and the English army march on Macbeth's castle at Dunsinane. In the ensuing battle, Macbeth, "with his black and deep desires" is beheaded by Malcolm's friend, Macduff, and Malcolm becomes king - all as the three witches promised Macbeth at the beginning. 

But the above version is what happened according to our William. It is nowhere near the truth. Here is what really happened.

Macbeth, a Scottish noble, was born in c.1005. In 1032 he married Lady Gruoch who became Lady Macbeth. This lady had already been married but her first husband, Gille Coemgain, had been killed in battle. She was left with his son, Lulach. It was through his wife that Macbeth had a legal claim to the Scottish throne.

The ruling king at the time, Duncan was killed in battle at Pitgaveny in 1040, (not murdered in bed,) and Macbeth was democratically elected by his fellow lords and thanes to be their next king. Duncan's two very young sons, Malcolm and Donalbain, were then taken to England. Not a coup d'etat in sight. 


Macbeth was in fact a very good and strong ruler. He was so sure of his throne that in 1050, he left Scotland to pay a visit to Pope Leo IX in Rome. While he was there, the chronicles of the time recorded that he scattered money and presents "like seed" before returning home to take up his rule once again. (Does this sound like Shakespeare's Macbeth?) He continued ruling peacefully for another four years and then his troubles started.

Macbeth's Castle? (Picture in Lumphanan pub)

By now, Malcolm was twenty-three years old and wished to succeed his dead father. He was supported by the English king, Edward the Confessor, and a battle was fought out in the open (no woods around) probably east of Dundee on 27 July 1054. In this battle, Malcolm did gain some ground but Macbeth continued to rule despite a civil war for another three years.

The remains of Macbeth's castle at Lumphahan today

Finally, Malcolm's army, again supported by the English and certain Scottish tribes, fought Macbeth's forces at Lumphanan. (This is a wee village some twenty miles west of Aberdeen (and nowhere near Dunsinane). Macbeth was killed and his body was buried at Iona, a small island off the west coast of Scotland. Lady Macbeth's son, Lulach then became king, but reigned for only one year before being usurped by Malcolm who became Malcolm III, or Malcolm Canmore (Bighead).  

The only obvious evidence that Macbeth was here in Lumphanan

Next time we will go into the whys and wherefores how and why   Shakespeare chose to write this play this way. But whatever the reasons were, we can see that even though our William was a brilliant dramatist and "Macbeth" is easily my favourite play, the Bard was a lousy historian!

For comments, please write to wsdavidyoung@gmail.com
Thank you.

Shakespeare was a Lousy Historian - Part 2

As I wrote in my last blog, our Will was a lousy historian and one of the prime examples of this can be seen in his ever-popular play Henry V. The iconic picture of this medieval warrior-king (1387-1422) may be seen here below.

At the end of the play, when it comes to counting up the casualties on both sides in that "royal fellowship of death," Shakespeare, as before, was more accurate in counting up the enemy French dead than in counting up his own English soldiers k.i.a. In Act IV, sc. 8 he writes of the hundreds of "knights, esquires and gallant gentlemen" who were killed in addition to the thousands of mercenaries, barons, lords, squires "and gentlemen of blood and quality." In all, Shakespeare says that "ten thousand they [the French] have lost."

In contrast, the English lost only twenty-nine men, of whom three were nobles and one, Davy Gam, was an esquire.
Now although the Battle of Agincourt was a fantastic and unexpected English victory, these English casualty numbers are nowhere near the truth. While I was researching my university project, King Henry & Sergeant Shakespeare, I trawled though nineteen relevant English and French history books ranging from Monstrelet's Chronicles (c.1440) and Holinshed's Chronicles (1587) to the most recent books written by such experts as David Chandler and Anne Curry. 

Even though all of these books say that the French army was much larger and suffered many more casualties than their English opponents, they also say that Henry's army must have suffered at least several hundred casualties. We know that as was prevalent at the time, no strict lists of "all other men" killed in action was made. However, to think that the French lost thousands of men in contrast to a paltry twenty-nine English fighters is completely incredible!  

Another problem in this play consists of timing, or rather, the passage of time. The October 1415 battle ends in Act IV. sc. 8 and yet two scenes later, our brave Henry is marrying the French princess, Katherine. In fact over five years were to pass. During this time Henry returned to France and among other acts of war, brutally attacked and ransacked the town of Rouen before he married Katherine in 1520. This five-year gap is never hinted at in any way in the play.

Finally, even though the bulk of Henry's army consisted of archers, they and the critical tremendous arrow-storm that they fired at the beginning of the battle are never mentioned. Shakespeare refers to the "nimble gunner," "the develish cannon" and the "armourers with busy hammers", but nowhere do the archers never get a mention. As shown below, even the French remember them today in the town of Agincourt (Azincourt in French).

Here there is a museum which graphically recalls " the blasts of war" that echoed over the nearby fields and woods six hundred years ago. 

Next time we'll talk about "the Scottish play" and how, even though it's my favourite play, our William made some horrible historical blunders!

For comments: wsdavidyoung@gmail.com 

Shakespeare Was a Lousy Historian - Part 1!

Even though I admire my friend,  Mr. Shakespeare, a great deal, he was a lousy historian! He wrote about a dozen historical plays about England and Scotland and a few more about ancient Greece and Rome. However, due to his reputation as England's greatest writer, these often historically inaccurate plays have influenced how we refer to several (in)famous personalities and events of the past.

Of course, it must be remembered before I tell you about several English kings such as Henry V, Richard III and others that our Will was writing for the theatre, an institution in which he had shares, i.e. a serious financial interest therein. Therefore it must be remembered that despite my remarks below, he was writing as a dramatist and not as a history teacher. He had to make his plays popular as 'bums on seats meant cash in pockets.' And that is what he did - and very successfully too.

He also had to succeed as a playwright simply because he wasn't the only playwright on the scene (or on the stage). His chief rivals included Christopher Marlowe, before he was killed in a pub brawl in 1593, Ben Jonson, Thomas Dekker, Thomas Middleton, John Fletcher, Francis Beaumont (who died a week before WS did) and John Webster. There were also many other minor scribblers around whose names and plays have disappeared o'er the passage of time.  

But now I wish to deal with one of his most performed plays about one of England's most famous soldier-kings: King Henry the Fifth. This valiant man was put up on his pedestal by the Bard in about 1598/99 (to the chagrin of lit. crit. scholars ever since, WS never dated his plays so we have to date them through internal clues and incidents) and this king has stayed high up there ever since. 

Of course, Henry V's claim to fame is based on leading his "poor and starved band" (French pre-battle opinion) of five to nine thousand sickly men against a much larger French army of thousands of well-armoured mounted knights. As history and the Bard tell us, by the time that cold October day was over, Henry had absolutely wiped the floor with his French opponents. So what is wrong with this play?

The answer is not in the main action; it is in the details. In the king's well-known pre-battle warm-up speech beginning, "If we are marked to die..." Henry refers to "the happy few" - the nobles who were due to fight with him that day. These included the Dukes of Bedford, Gloucester, Exeter and York as well as the Earls of Salisbury, Westmoreland, Warwick and Sir Thomas Erpingham. Please note: Shakespeare got this list completely wrong! Of the eight nobles mentioned here, only three of them, the Dukes of Gloucester and York and Sir Thomas Erpingham were there on that fateful day. Of these three, the Duke of York, Henry's younger brother was (probably) smothered to death by other bodies lying on him in the mud in the heat of battle, the Duke of Gloucester was severely wounded 'to the hams' and only the sixty year old Sir Thomas survived that grim battle relatively unscathed.

Where were the other members of the "happy few?" Some were left behind in England to 'look after the shop,' i.e. to make sure that France's allies, the Scots, didn't attack from the north during Henry's absence, while some of the others were left behind to make sure the king's recent victory at Harfleur ("Once more into the breach, dear friends..." didn't unravel.

To be honest, Shakespeare was more historically accurate when dealing with the French aristocrats who were present on that October day. However, he did make a mistake mentioning that the French King Charles VI's oldest son, the Dauphin, also fought at the Battle of Agincourt. He didn't. He was presumably back home with daddy, getting himself ready to meet Joan of Arc some fifteen years later.

Enough for today. Next time I will tell you that not only was our William a lousy historian, he also wasn't very good at military statistics!

For more about Henry V and the Battle of Agincourt, see: Website:www.dly-books.weebly.com
and also my novel, "ARROWS OVER AGINCOURT" available through amazon.com/co.uk etc