Home / News / Oxfordian Shakespeare Series: Richard Whalen’s Second Edition of “Macbeth” Published

Oxfordian Shakespeare Series: Richard Whalen’s Second Edition of “Macbeth” Published

The second edition of “Macbeth” — edited, fully annotated and with a new introduction and much expanded line notes — has been published in the Oxfordian Shakespeare Series by Richard F. Whalen.  Whalen is co-general editor of the series with Dan Wright of Concordia University in Portland, Oregon.

Whalen states that his second edition and all the editions in the series are intended for “the general educated reader who has an interest in Shakespeare plays and who might be curious to know what an Oxfordian edition of a Shakespeare play would look like.”  Of course, he hopes that Oxfordians might also be curious.

“Macbeth” and “Othello” are the first two plays in the Oxfordian series, with eight more — all edited by university professors — in the pipeline.  These are the first editions of Shakespeare plays ever produced by Oxfordian scholars. “Othello” (2010) was co-edited by Richard and Ren Draya of Blackburn College.

Whalen has kindly has granted permission to the Shakespeare Oxford Society’s Online News to publish the opening paragraphs of his new introduction to “Macbeth.”

From the introduction:

“The Tragedy of Macbeth” explores the agonizing predicament and downfall of a courageous warrior who triumphs on the battlefield but fails in the arena of power politics and court intrigue.  He knows he is not cut out by experience or temperament to seize the throne by assassinating the king, but he fails to resist the evil scheming of the courtier-like Thane of Ross whose lying eliminates a potential rival and clears the way to the throne for him.  When the time comes to assassinate King Duncan, Macbeth is conscience-stricken but fails to stand firm against it and yields to the bullying of Lady Macbeth, who covets the throne much more than he does.

His tragic flaw is not overweening ambition, as is usually posited by traditional scholarship.  To the contrary, he exhibits a surprising lack of ambition. When the Weird Sisters (a.k.a. the witches) prophesy that he will be king, he does not exult.  He finds it hard to believe.  He fears what lies ahead for him and tries to screw up his courage, but falters. Before murdering the sleeping king he tells his wife, “We will proceed no farther in this business,” and afterwards, he says, “I am afraid to think what I have done.”  This character trait of fearful, reluctant ambition seems to have eluded commentators on the play.

Macbeth is induced to seize the throne against his better judgment, fearing the moral and political consequences.  Once in power, he finds he must lie and deceive those around him in court.  He fails to use good judgment as a monarch, ordering the murders of Banquo, Fleance and Macduff’s family.  Tormented by self-doubts and in spite of himself, the hero of the battlefield has become a furtive assassin and cruel tyrant.  For the reader and spectator, Macbeth’s struggle with his conscience and his self-inflicted assaults on his sense of honor, loyalty and self-respect evoke fascination with his plight, even a measure of sympathy for him.  Macbeth is essentially an honorable man corrupted by politics.

A close reading of “Macbeth” informed by the view that Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of Oxford, was the author reveals a play about court intrigues and power politics and the danger of irresolute ambition by someone ill-suited to kill by assassination and practice Machiavellian duplicity.

As a nobleman in Queen Elizabeth’s court, Oxford had an insider’s knowledge of the maneuvering of ambitious courtiers and pretenders to the Crown.  He could weigh the contending theories of royal succession that are found in the play. And he was in a position to know details of the assassination in 1567 of the consort king of Scotland by a rival — details that are echoed in the play.  The play also evinces knowledge of Scotland, including its law, language, geography, weather and witches; and Oxford served with the English military in northern England and Scotland in 1570, when he was twenty.  Other correspondences between the play and Oxford’s life experience range from witchcraft in sixteenth century Scotland to the influence of Greek tragedy.”

(The second edition of Macbeth has just been issued by Llumina Press and copies are available from them at www.llumina.com/store/macbeth.htm or by Googling  ‘Llumina store’  or at Amazon in the US and UK, generally for $13.95 plus shipping.)

Many thanks to Richard Whalen for providing the above excerpt from the second edition … and congratulations to him on the publication of this important work of Oxfordian scholarship.

To read a bit more from Richard Whalen about the topical allusions and possible dates of composition of “Macbeth” from an Oxfordian perspective, here’s a link to the online version of Whalen’s article from The Oxfordian:

http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=533

About Matthew Cossolotto

One comment

  1. Richard congratulations on this, I am expecting my copy any day!

    However, whilst I agree with the positive elements in your formulation – ‘This character trait of fearful, reluctant ambition seems to have eluded commentators on the play.’ – though its well worth reading FR Leavis on the ‘If it were done…’ speech in The Living Principle’ (pp 93ff, Leavis sums it up, p. 94, saying ‘This is superb dramatic poetry; it creates for us the complex state of hesitant recoil, the tragic weakness of self-knowledge, that Lady Macbeth, arriving at the close of the speech, precipitates into murderous resolution.’) – yet, as Leavis implies there also IS ambition, oscillating to be sure with the amazing yet helpless power of conscience evoked in the ‘pity like a naked new born babe’, etc. What Shakespeare has marvellously done is to evoke that state of irresolution when a powerful drive WHICH WE KNOW TO BE HARMFUL is one we yet, almost self-hypnotised, collude with. A classic expression of it is to be found in a much more minor form, yet still harmful, in Jane Austen’s ‘Emma’, where Emma seduces herself into corrupting Harriet Smith’s self-judgement, overriding all her own self-observations, even though Emma still instinctively knows the Knightleys are right about Harriet and Mr Elton – as she realises much later in her great moment of self-knowledge when she realises she loves Mr Knightley:
    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/158/158-h/158-h.htm#link2HCH0047
    ‘Emma’s eyes were instantly withdrawn; and she sat silently meditating, in a fixed attitude, for a few minutes. A few minutes were sufficient for making her acquainted with her own heart. A mind like hers, once opening to suspicion, made rapid progress. She touched—she admitted—she acknowledged the whole truth. Why was it so much worse that Harriet should be in love with Mr. Knightley, than with Frank Churchill? Why was the evil so dreadfully increased by Harriet’s having some hope of a return? It darted through her, with the speed of an arrow, that Mr. Knightley must marry no one but herself!
    Her own conduct, as well as her own heart, was before her in the same few minutes. She saw it all with a clearness which had never blessed her before. How improperly had she been acting by Harriet! How inconsiderate, how indelicate, how irrational, how unfeeling had been her conduct! What blindness, what madness, had led her on! It struck her with dreadful force, and she was ready to give it every bad name in the world. Some portion of respect for herself, however, in spite of all these demerits—some concern for her own appearance, and a strong sense of justice by Harriet—(there would be no need of compassion to the girl who believed herself loved by Mr. Knightley—but justice required that she should not be made unhappy by any coldness now,) gave Emma the resolution to sit and endure farther with calmness, with even apparent kindness.’
    Macbeth lacks ‘a mind like hers’. Again and again Shakespeare portrays characters incapable of that kind of self-knowledge, Macbeth, Othello, Lear, – query, is Hamlet one of them also!!?? That is the great and profound elucidation Shakespeare supremely achieves! Austen, George Eliot, and Dickens follow in his footsteps, again and again, in this, as does my profession and psychoanalysis in particular, and JP Sartre on ‘bad faith’, going back to Aristotle
    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q19TF2j1SIoC&pg=PA355&lpg=PA355&dq=Self-deception+and+Akrasia:+A+Comparative+Conceptual+Analysis&source=bl&ots=LIIKB25q9D&sig=jXNBvUBzvFs-GQxdLEakaLx9oJs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q3oLUe_ZGNOR0QWO84CABQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Self-deception%20and%20Akrasia%3A%20A%20Comparative%20Conceptual%20Analysis&f=false
    - but Shakespeare has taken this further than anyone else! This author has to have done this in his own life to an inordinate extent – and then woken up to it!!

    Wonderful stuff! Congratulations Richard!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


one × = 8

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Scroll To Top