Usually means I’m pondering some aspect of my humanity. Of what it means to be human in the broader sense of the word. I do that frequently. I’m fascinated by people and by what makes us tick. I often wonder why we think, believe, and act the way we do and I’m amazed by how little we’ve changed over thousands of years. That we’re still motivated by the same desires and emotions that have motivated us since the beginning of time. Both the good and the bad. Sometimes all that pondering sends me hopping down some pretty weird rabbit trails….
No, I’m not preparing to launch into another commentary on current events. I said my piece in the preceding blog. I will make the generalized statement people have been twisting stories and facts to suit their purposes for millennia. That hasn’t changed either and I doubt it ever will. That tendency seems to be hotwired into us. While I’m not sure this post will help anyone in a discernable manner, I hope it makes you rethink from where, and from whom, you get your facts. That’s something we all need to do every now and then.
What started my mental meanderings in the first place was a recent attempt to watch a popular History Channel program that touts panspermia and the “undeniable” reality it was impossible for us lowly humans to have amounted to much without “alien” intervention. Alien as in extraterrestrial entities. Not alien as in someone from a different country. So, I’m not a true believer when it comes to little green men or grays although I was a rabid X-Files fanatic back in the day. I wanted to believe, and I tried. I just couldn’t quite get there with the evidence shown.
Now that I’ve disclosed my biases, you might wonder why I was watching that program in the first place. For starters, I read the book that spawned the television series when I was young. All of eleven or twelve years old if that. I reread the book a few years later when I was in college. By that time, I was a history freak so I wasn’t convinced by what I was reading. The so-called hard and fast evidence I found so fascinating as a tween wasn’t nearly as persuasive to a young adult with a significant background in ancient and medieval history.
Fast forward to the present when I thought it amused me to see just how far these “experts” were willing to twist the history I’m so familiar with in their quest to “prove” some off-the-wall theory of the week by rewriting history in a deceptive manner. I wasn’t amused. I was disturbed. For one thing, you can’t accurately interpret what an ancient artist was trying to portray when viewing an ambiguous picture or petroglyph through twenty-first century eyes. Nobody can.
That’s true of history in general. You have to consider the historical context of the event or artifact in question when you’re attempting to accurately interpret a discovery. If you don’t, your interpretations are rife with error. Any attempt that show on the History Channel makes towards legitimacy is undone when the “authorities” flip back to their mantra, “Ancient astronaut theorists say yes” instead of supplying any real proof to support their theory. Again, this is nothing new. People have been playing the disinformation game for thousands of years. Take the battle of Kadesh (Qadesh) fought in 1274 BC in modern day Syria. Both the Eqyptian Pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite Prince Muwatalli II claimed victory. In truth, the battle was so inconclusive the two sides met fifteen years later to sign the first nonaggression pact known to history.
Hopping off that rabbit trail, I’ll get back to the first point I want to make. (My second point will appear in a separate post.) That point is it’s easy to twist history to suit your purposes. Especially in a culture that abandoned learning anything about history years ago. Basically, all anyone has to do is repeat their story long enough and strong enough that people start to believe it. Once that happens, most of the work is done.
The History Channel has done that and done it well. Back in 1995 when the HC started, it quickly became my favorite channel. I watched their history programs nonstop. Some of their programming was great; some not so great. Having a history degree, I knew the difference. The archeologists starring in the questionable programs tried to prove their pet theory with differing degrees of success. I still watched and enjoyed these programs for what they were. Mainly entertainment. However, I didn’t believe most of what I saw because the supporting proof usually wasn’t there when I dug deeper into the information they presented.
While I loved watching the history programs, I watched the UFO and cryptozoology programs gradually bleeding into the history programming as well. Again, the programs were interesting; but, not wholly convincing. Over the years, the history programs started disappearing as reality shows and UFO/UAP themed shows began to dominate the channel. They still do as we’ve gone from a world that viewed aliens and alien abduction with a degree of skepticism to a world where political candidates make government disclosure of UFOs part of their platform. Again, believe what you want to believe just as I do; but, television is a powerful influencer. I’ve learned to be careful about what I see and hear.
Once words and images get in your head and your heart they’re hard to get out.
To illustrate that point, I’ll compare Shakespeare’s well-known villain, MacBeth, as he appears in the play with the real man, Bethad mac Findlaich, Mormaer of Moray and King of Scotland. I bet the images you have in your mind of this character bear very little resemblance to the real man. Again, I’m presenting an oversimplified version of a complex story that will never be fully unraveled. You might wonder why I’m using such an off-the-wall example. It’s because this comparison was the basis of a college paper I wrote for a senior level Shakespeare class I was taking at the time. As limited as the historical record was, and still is, on the real MacBeth, I was surprised by what I discovered both back then and now.
You might be, too.
According to Shakespeare’s portrayal, MacBeth was a treacherous, power hungry tyrant who used murder and supernatural means to seize the throne of Scotland. To accomplish his nefarious desires, Macbeth not only consorted with witches; but he stabbed the elderly King Duncan I in his bed before framing the King’s guards for the crime. MacBeth then had anyone he, or his wife, perceived as threats to his rule slaughtered. That included former allies, their wives, and their children. Lady MacBeth was an equally vile character and a major instigator behind her husband’s bloody deeds.
While I’ll give Shakespeare credit for writing his wickedly good tragedy, he doesn’t get full credit for his characterization of MacBeth. Some of the credit goes to the writers of at least two popular histories circulating at the time: Holinshed’s Chronicles (1577, 1587) and Hector Boece’s Scotorum Historia (1527). Holinshed’s account was written more to please James VI of Scotland, a descendant of Malcolm III, than with any intent to record history accurately. Using legendary sources and romanticizing history to curry favor with the powers that be wasn’t an unusual practice in the past, and it isn’t an unusual practice today. That’s one reason you never accept what you read without doing your research including rigorously vetting your sources.
While there is some supposition in the real MacBeth’s life story, there is a lot we do know from sources like the Annals of Ulster which is generally accepted as being historically accurate. We do know both MacBeth and King Duncan I had legitimate claims to the throne of Alba (Scotland) through their mothers. We also know MacBeth’s father, Findlaech mac Ruaidri, Mormaer of Moray, was killed by his own people again according to The Annals of Ulster.
This is generally taken to mean he was most likely killed by his nephews, Malcolm of Moray and Gillecomgan. Or, possibly, by MacBeth himself. Considering both of Findlaech’s nephews assumed the title of Mormaer back to back after his death, my money is on one or both of them being the murderers. The reason I believe that is MacBeth was around fifteen at the time of Findlaech’s death in 1020. He didn’t have any reason to murder his father for a title he’d eventually get anyway.
Fast forward to 1032 when MacBeth may have been responsible for the death of Gillecomgan the current Mormaer of Moray. If it wasn’t him, the other suspect is Duncan I. Whether MacBeth was guilty or not, he assumed the title of Mormaer of Moray, married Gillecomgan’s widow, Gruoch, and adopted his son, Lulach, as his heir. Considering Gruoch was the granddaugher of Kenneth III, King of Alba (Scotland), marrying her only strengthened MacBeth’s claim to the throne.
None of that sounds like a man who murdered his father to take his title to me. It sounds more like someone who killed his father’s murderer to claim what was rightfully his. All of which happened frequently during the Middle Ages. Again, that’s my take and an oversimplified retelling of a complex situation. I’ll leave it at that
Moving back to Shakespeare’s play and the real MacBeth, he never murdered anyone in their bed. Duncan I (King of Alba) was 39 when he launched an attacked into MacBeth’s lands and died for his trouble. The men of Moray led by MacBeth killed Duncan during the battle at Bothnagowan in August of 1040. MacBeth then assumed the title of King of Alba with no known resistance. He had a relatively peaceful reign that lasted from 1040 to 1057. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t attacked or that he didn’t surrender territory; he did. However, in spite of some turbulence, his reign was stable enough for MacBeth and his wife to make a pilgrimage to Rome in 1050.
I think reading about this pilgrimage made the biggest impression on me. I realized if MacBeth felt confident enough in his rulership to leave Scotland for the six months or so it would have taken him to make a round trip to Rome, he didn’t fear usurpation in a time when usurpation was the name of the game. That indicated to me that he was neither a tyrant nor a weak leader. He had a certain degree of respect among his people. If that wasn’t true, he wouldn’t have gone to Pope Leo IX’s Papal Jubilee and left himself open to a coup.
However, MacBeth’s leadership was eventually challenged, as it had to be. That challenger was Malcolm Canmore (Malcolm III), one of Duncan’s sons, exactly as you’d expect. And, exactly as you’d expect in that turbulent time, MacBeth’s kingship ended as it began. On a battlefield. In 1057, MacBeth was killed at the Battle of Lumphanan by the future King Malcolm III. Lulach succeeded his stepfather as King of Alba for a few months before he died in battle against Malcolm who assumed the throne as Malcolm III in 1058.
From what I discovered during my past and present research, the real MacBeth was considered anything but a tyrant according to near contemporary sources. The Duan Albanach, a version of which was recorded during the reign of Malcolm III, refers to MacBeth as “Mac Bethad the renowned.” Strengthening the case that MacBeth was a respected leader is the fact he was buried on Iona where only the rightful Kings of Scotland were buried.
Wrapping this up, I’m going to make a fairly sweeping statement. Whether I’m right or I’m wrong, I think most people who know who MacBeth was believe Shakespeare’s version. That the man was a vile, blood thirsty murderer willing to slay anyone standing in his way. Even innocent women and children. While MacBeth was no angel, he wasn’t that character. That description fits his relative Malcolm II better in my opinion. In a time when the kingship usually went from brother to brother, Malcolm II insured the kingship went from him to his grandson (he had no sons, only daughters) by killing off as many rival claimants as he could. Somehow, he missed MacBeth.
So, in conclusion, from the evidence available, I believe MacBeth was a man of his time. Although he was the King of Scotland, he wasn’t the only king in Scotland in the 11th century. Nor was he the only man with a legitimate claim to the throne of Scotland. There were several players waiting in the wings to seize his throne, legitimate and not. The raw truth is most of the Kings of Scotland at this time didn’t die in their sleep. They were murdered, assassinated, or killed on the battlefield. That’s just a fact of life. Most warriors lived by the sword and they died by the sword. The real MacBeth was definitely a warrior.
As nutty as this post is in some respects, I believe I’ve made the point that it’s fairly easy to rewrite history of every kind. It always has been. Even in the days of cuneiform and hieroglyphs. If that’s true, and it is, I hope you realize how easy it is to do just that in a time when technology and social media rule the day.
Until next time,
Calla