Bellona’s Bridegroom
I’ve been meaning to respond to this for some time:
Besides, in Rosse’s speech, the true hero of the battle in Fife is unnamed, referred to only as “Bellona’s bridegroom.”
But, wait – Fife. Fife is an important place in the play. Why? Because Macduff is the Thane of Fife.
Which means that it is Macduff who has captured Cawdor, turned back the Norwayan king, and won not only the battle but a huge sum of ransom from the enemy forces.
He’s talking about Macbeth, and if you read the scene in question, you’ll see two men, each of whom describes a battle. The first was fought by Macbeth. The second was fought by “Bellona’s bridegroom,” a reference to Mars, the Roman god of war. The question is – Is Bellona’s bridegroom meant to refer to Macbeth? Conventional wisdom says yes, but the Master of Verona says no, and his argument is worth reading. But let’s take a closer look.
I can see where, looking strictly at the text, you can make a case that Bellona’s bridegroom can’t be Macbeth. But assuming it’s Macduff is a bit of an overreach, and I think it would be a good time to revisit the distinction between a strong production concept and a close textual analysis. It seems to me there are three possibilities:
1. The two men are describing the same battle. It would not be unusual for Shakespeare, having written two accounts of the same battle, to have used them both. If Macdonwald is the Thane of Cawdor and the Norwayan lord refers to Norway himself, the two descriptions could be of the same battle. This seems unlikely, but I wanted to throw it out there all the same.
2. The two men are describing different battles, and Bellona’s bridegroom is Macbeth. This is troubling, for the reasons described by the Master of Verona. Also, Bellona’s bridegroom is described as having personally confronted Cawdor, and in the next scene, Macbeth seems unaware that anything is amiss with the wayward Thane:
By Sinel’s death I know I am Thane of Glamis;
But how of Cawdor? the Thane of Cawdor lives,
A prosperous gentleman;
So if Bellona’s bridegroom really is Macbeth, whether we have one battle or two, Shakespeare’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.
3. The two men are describing different battles, and Bellona’s bridegroom is not Macbeth. This makes sense dramatically, if the purpose of the scene was to show how Macbeth becomes the Thane of Cawdor. The description of the second battle shows how the title of Cawdor becomes available and the first battle demonstrates Macbeth’s deserving of it. It also would explain how Macbeth is unaware of Cawdor’s defeat. But then who is Bellona’s bridegroom? I like the idea that it’s Macduff, and it may have been Shakespeare’s intention, but it’s not in the text. Neither is there any textual strife between Macduff and Duncan. But it’s a brilliant production concept, and I think it would work well on stage.
So none of the solutions turn out to be particularly satisfying. My guess (and a guess it is) is that there were two battles and Bellona’s bridegroom is Macbeth. I think Shakespeare just didn’t notice or didn’t care about the errors and inconsistencies. Those who wish to argue that a genius of Shakespeare’s caliber would never make such an error need only to look at the opening moments of the original version of the scene in question, where Shakespeare clearly indicates a “bleeding Captain” in the stage directions, but when Duncan asks “What bloody man is this?”, Malcolm replies:
This is the Sergeant…
Clearly, we are putting way more thought into this than Shakespeare did.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:55 am
I can see your desire for it to be Mac. But you’ve dismissed a telling line from your arguments.
“Whence comest thou, worthy thane?”
“From Fife, great king, where the Norwayan banners flout the skies and fan our people cold…”
I concur entirely that Shakespeare makes errors (lots of them) but this doesn’t feel like one of them. Throughout the show, whenever Fife is referred to, the speaker is referring to Macduff. (“Seize upon Fife!” “No, cousin, I’ll to Fife.” “The Thane of Fife had a wife – where is she now?”) Fife is used too deliberately in the play to be a mistake at the top.
Oh, and there’s no strife between Duff and Duncan because the king is dead before Macduff enters the play.
Thanks – I’m having fun.
Cheers,
DB
July 19th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Yeah, I’m enjoying this too. And actually, my desire is for you to be right, since it resolves the problem in the text.
But at this point in the play, we don’t even know there is a Thane of Fife. The quote you mention says “From Fife … where” not “From Fife … who” which would have clinched your argument in a word.
Shakespearean characters are often referred to by title, so the use of Fife later isn’t unusual, but only after we’ve been introduced to him.
For me, the strongest argument in your favor is “the Thane of Cawdor lives” which makes it difficult to accept Macbeth being Bellona’s bridegroom. But that leaves us a heroic tale without a hero. Which is why your production concept works so well, because it solves all the problems in a very efficient way.
I’ll even grant you that it’s possible that Macduff was meant to be Bellona’s bridegroom, and the only mistake was that Shakespeare didn’t make it explicit. But he didn’t, and that’s all I’m saying.
And I now notice that your original post said there was strife between Macbeth and Macduff, not between Macduff and Duncan, so that was my error.
Thanks for taking the time to visit. Good luck with your book!
February 10th, 2016 at 1:15 pm
First, it’s pretty universally acknowledged that the scene was inserted later, credit usually being given to Thomas Middleton.
Second, in I.iii, Banquo asks how far it is to Forrres, implying that they’re not far from it. When Ross comes is (Rosse is an Irish title), he says he comes from Fife, which is at least 100 miles from Forres.
Third, and dispositively in my opinion, look at the outcome of the two battles described. Macbeth’s describes “another Golgatha,” The enemy is needlessly slaughtered to a man. In stark contrast, the battle in Fife ends in an honorable negotiated surrender, tribute or ransom paid, and the capture of the treacherous Cawdor. All according to the Laws of War.
This fits with Macduff’s All Around Good Guy character. He must be “Bellona’s bridegroom.”
My question now is why does Duncan give Cawdor to Macbeth, when it justly should go to Macduff? That certainly would be enough to set up the conflict between the two men for the rest of the play.
April 4th, 2016 at 10:15 am
Wait a minute…..stage directions?