THE new film of Shakespeare’s Macbeth is out this week and once again repeats the foul canard by the Swan of Avon that the Scottish king was a dastardly regicide and multiple assassin inspired to crown-grabbing by his rather nasty wife.

Thanks to Shakespeare, Macbeth’s reputation was sullied for all time, and even Sir Walter Scott swallowed some of the Bard’s nonsense, recounting the story of the three witches, for example, in his book Tales Of A Grandfather – interestingly, Scott’s own History of Scotland is much more accurate about the real King Macbeth.

At least the new film shows Macbeth in part as what he was, namely a fierce warrior general who led his men from the front.

He was indeed courageous, and while he did kill a king, it was done in battle and not in the bedrooms of his own castle.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN, MACBETH WAS A GOOD GUY?

THAT depends very much on your definition of good. By the standards of 11th century Scotland, the real Macbeth appears to have been at least a decent man, a God-fearing Christian and defender of his people and his kingdom. He also brought a time of peace and relative tranquility to the northern part of the British Isles.

Shakespeare appears to suggest that Macbeth’s reign lasted about a year, when contemporary church-produced records show that he ruled as King of Scots for 17 years from 1040 to 1057.

Note that title King of Scots: the boundaries of modern Scotland had not been set and at no time did Macbeth rule over all of what we now consider as Scotland, not least because Orkney and Shetland were still in Norse hands.

During his reign, the harvests were regularly plentiful. He encouraged trade and the wealth of the average Scot increased accordingly. We also know that in 1050, he made a special visit to Rome to meet the Pope during a Holy Year of Jubilee. While there, he reported to have dispensed alms to the poor “like seed” and even allowing for exaggeration by monkish writers, that was still a considerable achievement for a king from an impoverished nation on the fringe of Europe.

SO HOW COME SHAKESPEARE MADE HIM OUT TO BE A BAD HAT?

THAT’S down to another Scottish king, namely James VI and I. On moving south, James Stewart became a patron of Shakespeare, and not wanting to kiss goodbye to his meal ticket, the Bard decided to write a play for the king which shone a good light on James’s ancestors – Kings Duncan and Malcolm III, and Banquo, supposed founder of the Stewart line.

Shakespeare borrowed the tale of the witch and wife-cursed king from Holinshed’s Chronicles, which in turn had repeated the defamation of Macbeth written originally by monks in the service of King Malcolm and his descendants – in other words the winners had written the history, and didn’t spare Macbeth in the slightest.

James VI and I was also known to have an issue with witchcraft, and had even written a book about it, entitled Daemonologie, hence the three witches.

The Stewart king also saw himself as an innovator and unifying force, just as Shakespeare portrays Malcolm III, otherwise known as Malcolm Canmore, compared to whom Macbeth was a saint.

SO WHO WAS MACBETH REALLY?

HISTORIANS still disagree on many aspects of his life and times, because there is so little about him in contemporary records, but the generally accepted biography is that he was born around 1020. He was named MacBeathadh (Gaelic for Son of Life) by his father Findlaech mac Ruardri, the Mormaer – equivalent to an earl – of Moray. Their ancestors had moved east from Argyll, and the family were of royal descent and had a claim to the Scottish throne.

Findlaech was killed by his own nephews, and in turn Macbeth killed the main murderer, Gillacomgain, by the simple expedient of locking him in a barn-like hall with 50 of his men and burning humans and building to the ground.

He then married Gillacomgain’s widow, Gruoch, and adopted her son Lulach, known as the simpleton. Gruoch was probably not too bothered about marrying her husband’s killer – the fate of royal widows at that time was usually being sent to a nunnery.

She was of the royal line herself, and while there is no evidence of her as a manipulator of men or kings, their marriage was political and dynastic, designed to consolidate the royal aspirations of their two families.

King Duncan was not Shakespeare’s nice old man, but was about the same age as Macbeth and had proven to be such a bad choice as monarch – primogeniture was not the established way of succession at that time – that his own earls wanted rid of him. Macbeth did the job, killing Duncan in a battle near Elgin.

Duncan’s sons Malcolm and Donalbain fled, the former to the English court of Edward the Confessor. The earls then elected Macbeth as king with Gruoch as his queen.

Macbeth governed efficiently and there was peace, though he did have trouble with a certain Thorfinn the Mighty, ruler of Orkney and the far north of the Scottish mainland. In her book King Hereafter, historical novelist Dorothy Dunnett suggests that Macbeth and Thorfinn were the same person, and it’s a plausible idea as there are so few sources from the time.

It is certain that Malcolm persuaded King Edward to support his bid for Macbeth’s throne and in 1054, Earl Siward of Northumbria and Malcolm invaded Scotland and brought Macbeth to battle somewhere on Tayside – it may even have been at Dunsinane.

Macbeth was wounded but survived as King for three more years until Malcolm’s forces hunted him down. Macbeth mounted a Custer-like last stand at Lumphanan but was killed. Tradition says he was buried on Iona. So, too, was his stepson Lulach, also killed by Malcolm eight months later.

King Malcolm III took the Scottish throne and married St Margaret. The rest, as they say, is history, but not quite perhaps as Shakespeare wrote it.