This document discusses how Shakespeare's play Macbeth was influenced by the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 and the theme of equivocation. It argues that the play reflects the anxiety in Jacobean England caused by the plot. Specifically, it examines how equivocation is evident in the prophecies of the Weird Sisters, the porter scene which references Jesuit priest Henry Garnet, and Macbeth's descent into using deceitful language. The document also discusses how critics have interpreted the relationship between the play and the historical context of the Gunpowder Plot over the centuries.

1. Smith !1
Alexis Smith
19 November 2015
Truth-Filled Lies: The Gunpowder Plot and
Equivocation in Shakespeare’s Macbeth
Early Jacobean England was filled with turbulent unrest and in 1605, the new regime
uncovered a plot to kill the Protestant King James. This unimaginable plan against the king
caused anxiety among Englanders and took them further into a state of uncertainty. King James
had to establish in England a warning against expansion of these conspiracies, and with the trials
and horrendous deaths of the conspirators, he hoped to accomplish just that. Shakespeare, being
a King’s Man, used theater to respond and warn London. During the conspirator’s trial, a text
was presented: A Treatise of Equivocation. Although England had been under the rule of a
protestant monarch for almost half a century, the Catholic presence was still striving to
manipulate their religious adversaries and they were upset with King James for neglecting
promises made to the Catholic church. The treatise equipped Catholics with deceitful responses
to questions concerning their religious activities and defended the practice of equivocation. This
text would be traced to Jesuit priest, Henry Garnet, and he would be hanged for treason. With the
horrific Gunpowder Plot still on the minds of the English people, Shakespeare sits down with his
pen to write his bloodiest tragedy: Macbeth, and immerses it in the theme of equivocation
evident in the prophesies of the Weird Sisters, the porter scene, and Macbeth’s descent from
honor to shame.
Macbeth is one of Shakespeare’s best known tragedies and for four hundred years critics
have conversed about numerous themes in the play. With the major exceptions of Rebecca

2. Smith !2
Lemon and Richard Wilson, Macbeth critics who have explored relationships between
Shakespeare’s tragedy and history tend to read the play as an endorsement of Jacobean
absolutism. Others, such as Graham Holderness and Bryan Loughrey, look at history’s effect on
Macbeth specifically and hold the position that Shakespeare reproduces the official authorized
response to the Plot and that Macbeth is himself the Gunpowder Plot (Herman, 121). Peter
Herman expands these arguments by asserting “Macbeth, not just the title character, is an
imaginative reflection of the Plot” (121). He then argues that the play is not a royal compliment
at all or an endorsement of the Stuart line, but instead revisits the questionable myth of the Stuart
dynasty.
Regardless of which side of the argument critics stand, no controversy appears to exist
that the Gunpowder Plot and more specifically equivocation, influenced Shakespeare while
writing Macbeth. Indeed, the theme of equivocation in Macbeth and its connection to the
Gunpowder Plot would have been discernible to Shakespeare’s audience, but as the centuries
have passed, the historical significance is frequently lost on modern readers. However, critics
through the years have sporadically engaged the theme. In the 1960s, the conversation emerged
again and in 1964 Frank Huntley, in his article “Macbeth and the Background of Jesuitical
Equivocation” discusses how Jesuitical equivocation directly influenced Macbeth. Huntly asserts
that the term “equivocation” was directly connected to the Jesuits and how Macbeth was revived
in 1611 in a response to the death of Henry IV who died in a Jesuit plot. He further discusses
how Sir Edward Coke compares Macbeth to the Jesuits and to Garnet. Most recently, James
Shapiro, in his 2015 book, The Year of Lear, goes into great detail validating the influence
Jacobean England had on Shakespeare’s writing, specifically Macbeth. Thus, Shapiro devotes an

3. Smith !3
entire chapter, entitled “Equivocation” on the subject. He reveals that “Before Macbeth, the word
‘equivocation’ appeared only once in Shakespeare’s plays” (155) reiterating the influence events
of 1605 had on the play. With these observations in mind, this essay will take a closer look at
Macbeth and how equivocation shows up in the Weird Sisters’ prophesies, the porter scene, and
Macbeth’s revelation at the end of his life.
Perhaps the most controversial subject of Macbeth is the mortality of the Weird Sisters
and their ability to control Macbeth, but what is not argued is their cryptic speech or double talk.
The play opens with these characters talking to one another predominantly through double
meaning: “When the battle’s lost and won…Fair is foul, and foul is fair” (1.1.4-11). This early
introduction to the speech of the witches gives the audience insight to their deception. They will
be the ones to introduce equivocation into the play and into Macbeth’s life, but Banquo tries to
warn Macbeth of their deceit telling him, “The instruments of darkness tell us truths, Win us with
honest trifles, to betray’s In deepest consequence” (1.3.124-126). He is alerting Macbeth that the
witches are speaking enough truth to manipulate him, but warns him of the consequences of the
deceit that will follow these truths. Banquo’s early detection of equivocation in the Sisters’
speech possibly could have saved Macbeth, but his desire to believe them prevails; thus he is
overcome by an overwhelming need to generate their prophecies and eventually it is he who
delves into a life of equivocation.
Similarly, the beginning of fourth scene solidifies his devotion to their forecast with his
insistence to go to them for guidance. Again, equivocation blurs the lines of the witches’ three
apparitions to Macbeth. The first warning is “Beware Macduff, Beware the Thane of Fife.
Dismiss me. Enough (4.1.71-72). In the first apparition, Macbeth sees an “armed Head.”

4. Smith !4
Shakespeare reveals to the reader that the “Head” is Macbeth’s by capitalizing “Head”, but the
witches give the warning directly after he sees it to deceive Macbeth into thinking the head is
Macduff’s. The second apparition shows a “bloody child” and Macbeth is told “[to] Be bloody,
bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn The power of man, for none of woman born shall harm
Macbeth” (4.1.79-80). Presumably, they are telling Macbeth that no one can harm him because
every man is “woman born.” Not until the end of the play, does Macbeth fully understand this
prophesy when Macduff reveals to him, “let the angel whom thou still hast served/ Tell thee,
Macduff was from his mother’s womb Untimely ripped” (5.8.14-16). However, at the time of the
prophesy, the witches deceive Macbeth by telling him the truth. Banquo’s warning to Macbeth
should resonate with him as these prophesies are given, but he has become so entangled in the
web of deceit that he never questions what they say. He believes living this life of hypocrisy will
not harm him in any way, just as the Jesuits predicted their deceit to be beneficial, but
Shakespeare makes it clear that this is not the case. The last apparition, “a Child crowned, with a
tree in his hand”, accompanies the prophesy: “Macbeth shall never vanquished be until, Great
Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill Shall come against him” (4.1.92-94). Following the same
pattern, Macbeth interprets from the witches that he will never be defeated, and the prophesy is
not understood until the end of the play when the messenger warns Macbeth, “I looked toward
Birnman, and anon, methought, The wood began to move” (5.5.35-36) as Malcom’s army,
holding trees, ascended Dunsinane Hill. The crowned child holding a tree is representative of
Malcom and his army, but the vision and prophesy that Macbeth receives is equivocal in sharing
this representation. Everything the Sisters say to Macbeth is true, but equivocal, insofar as they
withhold vital information. Macbeth’s two encounters with the Weird Sisters are mysterious and

5. Smith !5
the conversation is vague, thus reflecting the ambiguity of Jacobean England while revealing to
the audience the consequences of equivocation.
Close analysis of Act I, Scene III further reveals the Gunpowder Plot’s effect on the play
when the porter makes his only appearance in Macbeth. Ironically, one of the least conspicuous
characters, who disrupts one of the most horrific scenes, brings in the most evidence that
Macbeth is a direct response to the Gunpowder Plot and dead of Henry Garnet. The porter is a
comical character, a slight relief from the murder scene of King Duncan, but for the Jacobean
audience, his appearance and speech in the play sends a clear message. Shakespeare has the
porter imagine he is a “porter of hell gate” (2.3.1-2) and the viewer gets an image of the gates of
hell being opened as he goes to answer the “Knock, knock, knock!” (2.3.3). At this point, Lady
Macbeth is “unsexed”, Macbeth has murdered, and they are both covered in the blood of their
King. The transition into “hell” is opened here. A Jacobean audience would have been familiar
with one of the major turns in the Gunpowder Plot trials: the exposed Treatise of Equivocation
written by Henry Garnet. The porter directly references him when he says, “Here’s a farmer that
hanged himself on th’ expectation of plenty”, knowing that “farmer” was one of several
pseudonyms Garnet used (Traill, 374). The porter then imagines the “knock” is another unnamed
equivocator: “Who’s there…here’s an equivocator …who committed treason…yet could not
equivocate to heaven. Oh, come in, equivocator” (2.3.8-11). Shakespeare takes the audience to
the gallows where Garnet was hanged while the porter repeats what the courtiers joked: “Garnet
would ‘equivocate to the gallows, but be hanged without equivocation’” (Poole 134). Having
failed to equivocate himself into heaven, perhaps Garnet has reached the gates of hell and the
porter is there to welcome him.

6. Smith !6
It is not Garnet, but Macduff knocking, and instead of the gates of hell, the audience is
brought back to the play when he enters, but the porter is not finished with equivocation.
Macduff asks him why it took so long to answer to which the porter responds, “drink, sir, is a
great provoker of three things”, (2.3.24) and then he continues, “much drink may be said to be an
equivocator with lechery: it makes him and it mars him…makes him stand to and not stand to; in
conclusion, equivocates him in a sleep and, giving him a lie, leaves him” (2.3.30-35).
Shakespeare’s connecting lechery, drink, and equivocation likely doubles as another insult to
Garnet due to his drinking and philandering (Shapiro, 185). Yet, these lines about equivocation
are equivocal themselves, and the build-up to the opening of the gate comes to an abrupt halt
when Macduff—who is far from a traitor—appears. In the same manner as the Weird Sisters, the
porter speaks with double meaning, and again the audience hears cryptic language and is left to
interpret the importance of the scene. Nevertheless, at the end of this scene, Jacobean England
would have been undoubtedly reminded of the plot against their king and the death of Henry
Garnet.
Equivocation permeates the play, and in the same way the Weird Sisters and porter
equivocate, it becomes habitual for Macbeth’s speech and is introduced in his first line: “So foul
and fair a day I have not seen” (1.3.38). Macbeth’s first words to the audience are ambiguous and
this dubious speech would permeate the remainder of his life. After his encounter with the
witches, Macbeth writes his letter to Lady Macbeth but withholds from her the prophesy that
Banquo’s heirs will be kings. He equivocates again when he justifies why he killed Duncan’s
guards: “Who could refrain that had a heart to love, and in that heart courage to make ’s love
known?” (2.3.118-120). Reservation becomes second nature to Macbeth and infiltrates his life.

7. Smith !7
One of the mysteries of the play is due to his reservation of information when he does not inform
the murderers that they will be joined by a third. Many speculate who this third murder is who
comes to assist in the murders of Fleance and Banquo, but Macbeth does not even divulge the
information to his wife when she inquires “What’s to be done?” but tells her to “be innocent of
the knowledge” (3.2.48). Not even the persuasive Lady Macbeth, who persuades Macbeth to
murder a king, can break this habit of equivocation in her husband. However, she too learns to
equivocate when Macbeth begins to see ghosts. During the banquet when Macbeth is so shaken
by the sight of Banquo’s ghost, Lady Macbeth reassures her guests that “My lord is often thus,
and hath been from his youth…he will again be well” (3.4.53-56). That equivocal “well” will
echo numerous times throughout the remainder of the play, exemplifying the division between
what is spoken and what is reserved in the act of equivocating.
Not until the end of Macbeth’s life does he realize how equivocation has guided his entire
life. When Macduff ascends and all of the prophesies of the Weird Sisters are fulfilled, Macbeth
understands the consequences his deceptive life has produced. Equivocation consistently builds
throughout the play and in one final scene is unraveled and exposed, but its exposure has come
too late for Macbeth and his wife. Because of their deceitful lives and murderous ways, Lady
Macbeth goes mad and Macbeth is informed of her death shortly before his own demise. A
crushed Macbeth begins to realize “th’ equivocation of the fiend that lies like truth” (5.5.43-44).
Then, perhaps the most revelatory moment for Macbeth is when Macduff reveals that he was not
born of woman but “untimely ripped”, and Macbeth realizes how he was deceived by the
witches’ apparitions and prophesies. He responds “Accursed be that tongue that tells me so…and
be these juggling fiends no more believed that palter with us in a double sense, that keep the

8. Smith !8
word of promise to our ear and break it to our hope” (5.8.17-22). To palter is to equivocate, and
Macbeth realizes that the witches’ double talk that eventually influenced his speech was not
going to help him escape Macduff. Like Garnet, cryptic language does him no good and at the
end of his life he cannot equivocate against death.
Given these considerations, it is evident that the theme of equivocation is intentional in
Shakespeare’s bloodiest play. It shows up in the narrow sense of common duplicity and on a
larger scale of a blur between appearance or speech and reality. Lines are blurred as Macbeth is
depicted as a woman and Lady Macbeth cries to be “unsexed.” Additionally, women with beards
and characters who cannot decide to whom they are loyal reinforce the wavering aspect. The
setting of the play appears peaceful, but behind castle walls, Macbeth is seeing ghosts and his
wife is sleepwalking and washing her hands of imagined blood. The Weird Sisters make little
sense while telling Macbeth and Banquo their futures and do not reveal to them crucial
information, such as not telling Banquo that he would be dead before his prophesy would
transpire.
With the Weird Sisters and even greater with the porter, the Gunpowder Plot and Garnet’s
conviction materialize in the play. Also, what the reader sees of Macbeth’s life is consumed with
what began as small reservations that erupted into deadly deceit. His life becomes a warning
against equivocation. As stated before, the Gunpowder Plot would be prevalent on the minds of a
Jacobean audience, and the use of the theme would not have gone unnoticed by Shakespeare’s
London. Shakespeare immerses Macbeth in this theme as an unequivocal response to the events
that threatened King James and his Protestant regime.
!

9. Smith !9
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

10. Smith !10
Works Cited
Herman, Peter C. “‘A Deed Without a Name’: Macbeth, The Gunpowder Plot, and Terrorism.”
Journal for Cultural Research 18.2 (2014): 114-131. MLA International Bibliography.
Web. 13. Nov. 2015
Huntley, Frank. “Macbeth and the Background of Jesuitical Equivocation.” PMLA: Publications
of the Modern Language Association of America 79.4 (1964): 390-400. JSTOR. Web. 13
Nov. 2015.
Lemon, Rebecca. Treason By Words: Literature, Law and rebellion in Shakespeare’s England.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006. Print.
Poole, Robert. The Lancashire Witches: Histories and Stories. New York: Manchester University
Press, 2002. Print.
Shakespeare, William. “Macbeth.” The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Ed. David Bevington.
Chicago: Pearson, 2014. 1260-1292. Print.
Shapiro, James. The Year of Lear. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2015. Print.
Traill, Henry. Literature, Issues 168-193. London: The Times, 1901. Print.
Wilson, Richard. “‘Blood Will Have Blood’: Regime Change in Macbeth.” Shakespeare
Jahrbuch 143. (2007): 11-35. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.
!
!
!
!