Why Fleance?
Those murderers, totally lame, right? It's the middle of the night, ambush, out numbering poor Banquo and Fleance and they still can't kill both. Yet, it's not the bad job of murdering they do that saves Fleance, but rather, the prophecy in the beginning of the play. The Third Witch says the following to Banquo in Act 1 Scene 3.
"Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none."
Third Witch (Line 68)
Considering Macbeth has put his faith in the prophecy, and because Macbeth was there to hear the Third Witch confirm that Banquo's children would assume the (a) throne, should Macbeth have known that Fleance would escape? Fleance is the only child of Banquo's that the audience is aware of, and it would be a cheap move for Shakespeare to suddenly interject another recipient of the prophecy that was never discussed before.
After the murder of Banquo, Fleance does not appear, but it's known that he fled. In Act 3, Scene 6, Lennox comes in and goes on a spiel, confirming that Fleance may or may not have been guilty, but Macbeth definitely is. So regardless of Fleance's whereabouts, the other Thanes are aware of the blood on Macbeth's hands.
"His presence at the tyrant's feast, I hear."
Lennox (Line 22)
Banquo's death was inevitable, and according to the prophecy, Fleance's escape was written in stone. However, should "Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none." have been written in? What use (barring the prophecy) does Fleance serve in the play?
I think that there is a certain element of selective perception when it comes to Macbeth and the prophecy. Although he has put his faith in the prophecy and gone all in on being king, he still thinks that he can outwit the weird sisters and thus have his cake and eat it too, so to speak. Thus, Fleance is a way to show the audience the disconnect between the power that Macbeth thinks he has versus the power that he actually has, which is limited and weak, so much so that it is clear that he cannot possibly last long on the throne.
ReplyDelete