Originally published on my blog here in March 1999.Dorothy Dunnett's novel of Scotland in the Dark Ages concerns the historical Macbeth - or does it? She certainly knows more about the situation in eleventh century Scotland than Shakespeare did (Macbeth ruled just before the Norman conquest of England), but her plot relies on an identification between two historical characters. Macbeth, she assumes, was in fact the baptismal name of the Viking Earl of Orkney, Thorfinn II.In some ways, this works quite well: Macbeth is a likely candidate for a Gaelic baptismal name (it means "son of life"), though a saint's name might have been more likely; Thorfinn was descended from the kings of Scots and would have had at least as good a claim to the throne as the line which eventually established itself (both related to earlier kings through descent from daughters of Malcolm II); the interest in Orkney makes him plausibly involved in an attempt to unify Scotland, which provides an interesting political aspect to the novel; his Viking background paves the way for a clash of cultures, also of interest to the reader.There are, however, arguments against the identification of Thorfinn and Macbeth, and the subsidiary identification of Ingeborg, Thorfinn's Norwegian wife, with Gruoch, more commonly known as Lady Macbeth (which is also done with the baptismal name device). The way the Scottish kingship generally worked at this time was that the succession alternated between groups of cousins, patrilineal descendants of Kenneth MacAlpine, who had originally united the kingdom. This system meant that minorities, the perilous rule of underage kings, was avoided, at the cost of making murder by a cousin the most likely way for a Scots king to die. Macbeth was one of the last kings to gain the throne in this manner; Malcolm III, who killed Macbeth, basically managed to stabilise the succession in his own descendants (barring short usurpations by Lulach - a relation of Gruoch's - and Donald I - Malcolm's brother). This was partly achieved because Malcolm held onto the throne for a considerable period, during which he killed most of the other potential candidates for the throne.Now, both Macbeth and Gruoch are provided by the Scots chroniclers with lineages connecting them with the Scottish crown, which do not match with those existing for Thorfinn and Ingeborg. While it is clear that such lineages would be invented by usurpers to give them a claim to the throne (there are several instances of this in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for example), the way that Dunnett has set things out in her book makes Thorfinn's main claim to the throne his mother's descent, while the chronicles imply that Macbeth's is his father's, whether real or spurious.Another objection to this identification is that Macbeth is known to have died in 1057, while Thorfinn is thought to have lived rather longer, until about 1065 (though the exact date of his death is not known). I don't know what the evidence is for assuming the later date, but it is that given by Tapsell's Monarchs in the table listing the Earls of Orkney.The methodology of an academic historian would require that an assumption such as the identification of the two men is not made without supporting evidence. The less you assume, the less you can get wrong. As a historical novelist, you can make any assumption you like which can help your story, so long as it is reasonably plausible. The assumption Dunnett makes here drives an interesting novel, though a very long one - Macbeth reigned for seventeen years after all, not the few months that is the impression left by Shakespeare.Less acceptable is the way that Dunnett attempts to force Thorfinn/Macbeth into the mould of the heroes of her historical series, Lymond and Niccolo (both of whom are fictional characters). Thorfinn is made to have almost exactly the same characteristics as these heroes. The character may be fascinating, and equally something of a superhero, but the three men should certainly be different from each other.
This is a monumental historical novel about Thorfinn, Earl of Orkney, who Dunnett, after much research, became convinced was identical to the Macbeth of Shakespeare’s play (most historians apparently believe that these two contemporaneous early 11th century rulers were cousins). Dunnett’s work is the story of Thorfinn’s progress from a ruler of part of the Orkney Islands, just north of Scotland, to a position of king of all Scotland (Alba), and how he then lost the kingship. The story itself is fascinating and, to some extent, factually accurate. It involves relationships among multiple rulers of small kingdoms throughout Scotland, England, Ireland, Wales, and the ever-present Scandinavian countries of Denmark and Norway. Orkney itself was primarily Scandinavian, settled and ruled by Viking descendents. Much of Scotland was Celtic, part of the Celtic fringe forced north after the arrival in southern and eastern England of the Romans and then the Anglo-Saxons. This particular novel focuses on the years just before the Norman Conquest of 1966, but Normans were already present in the British Isles, and their influence was not negligible. Added to this mix was the mélange of religious orientations – Scandinavian pagans, Christians of Celtic orientation moving into Britain from Ireland, Christians more loyal to Rome – and the continual clerical maneuvering that both supported and undermined political leaders. The cast of characters is enormous, and the several included genealogical charts are very helpful, as are the excellent maps. Some prior knowledge of the history of this area and period makes understanding the story much easier, but it is not essential. The main characters are Thorfinn himself, a deeply sympathetic figure – tall, deep-voiced, of commanding presence (though “ugly”), brave, skillful, wise, and compassionate, and his beloved wife, the lovely and wise Groa. A small circle of close friends and supporters also plays a continuous role, and these individuals – Thorfinn’s foster-father Thorkel, and Thorfinn’s closest friend, the cleric Sulien, among others - are clearly delineated. (At least one scholar has suggested that Shakespeare’s portrayal of a villainous Macbeth was the result of Shakespeare’s attempt to obtain the favor of the reigning monarchs of his own day, monarchs that were the descendents of Macbeth’s enemy, the Earl of Siward.) This is not an easy or light book to read, its more than 700 pages of small font containing an exceedingly complex narrative. The reader is advised to allocate adequate time and demonstrate significant patience as he or she moves through a narrative that is rich and subtle, fascinating and gripping, rich and deep in human drama and pathos. Such an approach pays rich dividends, providing both a moving reading experience and vivid and haunting memories of the period and its events. This is one of the best historical novels I have read and one of the most satisfying.
What do You think about King Hereafter (1998)?
I don't give too many book 5 stars, but this one deserves every one of them. I first read King Hereafter years ago, when it was originally published. Recently, when adventures in genealogy got me interested in this era, I remember this book and got my hands on a new copy (as I'd gotten rid of my original all those years ago).This is historical fiction at its best. The story and characters are great, and the research behind it is flawless. Too many times these days, publishers pass off poorly written books filled with anachronisms as "historical fiction" when they are nothing more than heavy-panting bodice rippers. Well, if that's the kind of story you're looking for, this is NOT the book for you. If, however, you want to immerse yourself in 11th century Scotland and want to know what the true MacBeth might have been like, grab this book!One thing you'll discover is that Shakespeare had a habit of making villains out of non-villains. A case could be made that with Richard III, the groundwork had already been laid by the Tudor propagandists. In King Hereafter, you'll find that MacBeth and his Lady were not the scheming, murderous lot of the play.
—Kathy
Even though I got an off-taste from the little bit of Dunnett I've read (which is only a matter of pages), Macbeth is my favorite of Shakespeare's plays, so I thought I'd give this one a chance. The story is really built around the idea that the actual Scottish king Macbeth and a half-Viking Earl of Orkney named Thorfinn were the same person; there's no real connection to the play, except for depictions of a few events that become part of the myth around Macbeth which inspired Shakespeare, like the Birnam Woods coming to Dunsinane Hill.There's an attitude of "my characters are so cool" particularly in the beginning, which is what I didn't like about the tiny bits of the Lymond books I've read, and there are too many moments where the outcome of a situation feels like the result of Thorfinn's awesomeness instead of his effort. Her choice to mirror Shakespeare's use of prophecy, albeit with a completely different context and effect, makes the problem worse: Thorfinn knows and is resigned to his destiny, but when your main character doesn't feel like an active participant in his fate, why should you expect your readers to?Dunnett's portrayal of the culture and the events of the time more than make up for all this, but I never got past the feeling that I was reading about imaginary people in a real setting. I realize that's basically the point of a work of historical fiction, but I mean that I was reading with two different and incompatible degrees of suspended disbelief. I did like King Hereafter and I'm more likely to read her other historical fiction now, but it wasn't until the last quarter of the book that I was even remotely emotionally invested in any of the characters.I'm being more critical of Dunnett than I would be of many authors, because she's held up as one of the greatest writers of historical fiction. She's recreated her historical setting here very thoroughly and believably, and on the strength of that alone I can understand the merits of her reputation. She does not seem as strong at integrating her characters so that they're a believable product of that setting, however. I don't have any sense of her ability to create a story, given that she's working to support her idea of Macbeth==Thorfinn and reconcile the events attached to those names, but she definitely does a very solid job of that.
—Mike Hampson
Dorothy Dunnett is my favourite writer of all time. I have read her historical novels several times over since first discovering them as a student (Modern History) in the mid 70s. This one would be my Desert Island choice if forced to pick a single volume, because I could never choose between Dunnett's Lymond and Niccolo (also I would HAVE to have the entirety of both) series. A masterpiece of research, a book that needs to be read more than once or twice to take it all in. The writing is magnificent, lyrical, painterly, informative and educational, with an assuredness that convinces you Thorfinn and Macbeth are indeed one and the same flawed but magnificent man. As a romance, too, it is sublime. I could go on heaping superlatives and praise. I urge you to read this wonderful book if you haven't done so already. An exemplar of historical fiction from a writer at the top of her game. Recently the media has rightly lauded Hilary Mantel for her Thomas Cromwell novels. Some reviews seem to imply there has never been such engaging, well-written, daring and literary historical fiction written before. Well, Dame Dorothy Dunnett equals, even surpasses, Mantel in my estimation. This novel is a good entry point to her work seeing as it is a single (hefty) book. I envy anyone lucky enough to pick it up for the first time. I took it with me to Orkney last summer, on something of a Dunnett pilgrimage. It is THAT good.
—Cerisaye
