The phrase “there are no facts, only interpretations” has become a cliché even among those who are unfamiliar with Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Will to Power (287). Yet, even when not phrased precisely in these terms, this understanding of truth undergirds some of the most timeless philosophical and literary works written well before Nietzsche’s birth. For example, William Shakespeare’s Macbeth complicates the relationship between fact and interpretation. However, Shakespeare does not merely relativize and confuse facts for interpretations and vice versa. More profoundly, Shakespeare uses Macbeth to demonstrate how truth and interpretation are essentially linked to one another. Interpretation reifies fact, and facts require interpretation. Rupert Goold’s 2010 film adaptation of Macbeth allows the viewer to see not only the genius of Shakespeare’s ability to portray and relate the complex nature of reality, but how this complexity underlines many social and political problems. By presenting Macbeth as the transformation of a war hero into a totalitarian, Goold’s adaptation reveals complexities inherent in several binaries: fact and interpretation, will and fate, and even power and weakness. Thus, Macbeth presents the nature of fact and interpretation pluralistically, as both phenomena belong to a “multiplicity” which binds them and their respective values together (Nietzsche 490).

For both Nietzsche and Shakespeare, truth is not something that can be fully relativized. Nietzsche himself attacks epistemological relativism immediately after suggesting “only interpretations” exist: “‘Everything is subjective’, you may say, but that is already an interpretation; the ‘subject’ is not something given, but an embellishment, an interpolation” (Nietzsche 287). Relativism, or subjective truth, is itself merely an interpretation which requires the interpreter to privilege the subject over the object. Each person is responsible for their respective privileging of certain senses over others in reference to one event: “Every impulse is an ambition … each has its own perspective which it would like to impose upon all … as their standard” (288). Furthermore, this struggle for “ascendancy” among various impulses can be expressed through individuals in competition with one another; but it can also be expressed as a struggle within one single individual (363). Similarly, for Shakespeare, Macbeth is simultaneously the subject of competing impulses as well as the agent through whom these impulses are reified and legitimated. In relation to Macbeth, Kevin Curran describes the portrayal of criminality as something which complicates “rigid dichotomies of mind and matter” (392). Indeed, due to the way Shakespeare situates truth as belonging to a “multiplicity” with other impulses, Curran argues that “criminal thoughts and criminal acts are often difficult to distinguish” within the play (392). Situating truth and interpretation pluralistically allows Shakespeare to personify Macbeth as the need to “interpret the world” creatively to imbue events with meaning (Nietzsche 288). Therefore, in Macbeth, fact and interpretation exist together in a multiplicity.

Shakespeare’s portrayal of truth as a multiplicity within Macbeth occurs in the very first scene in the play. This might seem strange given that Macbeth himself does not appear until the third scene. Yet, in scene two, the reader sees Macbeth being praised for his bravery as well as the sequence of events which lead him to becoming “Thane of Cawdor” (1.2.17, 73-75). By creating a world wherein Macbeth is discussed with veneration before he is even introduced to the audience, Shakespeare already subverts the relationship between narrative and fact. Though Macbeth is the focus, Shakespeare establishes that his protagonist is merely another “body” or “impulse” in relation to other competitive and complementary forces around him (Nietzsche 363). Therefore, when he finally arrives on stage, Macbeth’s first words carry a doubly significant meaning: “So foul and fair a day I have not seen” (1.3.39). On the one hand, this line emphasizes Macbeth’s ability to interpret and evaluate events. This indicates that he has a positive relationship with his interpretative abilities. On the other hand, this same line foreshadows the inevitability of cryptic prophecies told by the witches, or “instruments of darkness” as Banquo calls them (1.3.136). Upon hearing that he will become Thane of Cawdor, and eventually King, Macbeth immediately displays a discomfort which challenges his reputation as a brave, composed man. Initially he is startled and trepidatious, as pointed out by Banquo who asks him: “why do you start and seem to fear things that sound so fair?” (1.3.54). However, by the time the witches leave, Macbeth demands: “Stay, you imperfect speakers. Tell me more” (1.3.73). Here, Shakespeare portrays Macbeth himself as a multiplicity. He is driven by both an insatiable thirst for knowledge and an apprehension. Rather than dismissing the witches as evil liars, or praising them as prophets, Macbeth, led by his competing impulses, treats the situation circumspectly. This leads to an interpretation of events which is authentic to Macbeth, which is based on neither fact nor fabrication, but rather multiplicity.

Rupert Goold’s adaptation of Macbeth portrays this scene in a way that simultaneously respects the original source material and creatively reinterprets its potency, specifically through context and costume design. For instance, in Goold’s adaptation, the witches are reinterpreted as nurses with no conspicuously inhuman qualities, despite Banquo’s observation that they “look not like th’inhabitants o’ th’ Earth / And yet are on’ t” (1.3.43-44). Apart from this minor inconsistency, Goold’s adaptation reveals the complex, pluralistic relationship between fact and interpretation by having the paranormal witches not only fully anthropomorphized, but also embodied medical, scientific professionals (Goold 7:40-10:15). Moreover, Goold’s adaptation of the witches saying that Banquo will be “Lesser than Macbeth and greater” and “Not so happy, yet much happier” (1.3.68-69) subverts the notion of a “credible” source. For instance, by presenting Banquo and Macbeth as soldiers in modern warfare, the film implies that they are trained to respect and trust medical personnel, who represent a potential barrier between life and death for the ill and wounded. However, by having nurses deliver these prophecies and riddles (Goold 8:28-8:46, 9:23-9:50), the film encourages its viewers to both question modern institutions of science as well as their own interpretive abilities. Thus, it is not just prophecies themselves, but also the very medium through which they are delivered, which carry subversive socio-political implications for Macbeth. In this way, the witches represent a barrier between several states: life and death, paranormal and earthly, but most importantly fact and interpretation.

The ambiguation of fact and interpretation is arguably most prominently exemplified in the “dagger” soliloquy of act 2, scene 1. This soliloquy takes place after one prophecy has already come true—namely, Macbeth’s becoming Thane of Cawdor—and after the conversation wherein Lady Macbeth enthusiastically encourages her husband to interpret the prophecy actively, rather than passively. For instance, she tells him to maintain pleasant appearances: “Bear welcome in your eye, / Your hand, your tongue” (1.5.75-76). However, this is only so that he can dissimulate his malevolence: “But be the serpent under’t” (1.5.78). Thus, Shakespeare demonstrates how interpretation is manipulated externally as well as internally. To borrow another Nietzschean phrase, Lady Macbeth’s “will to power” influences not only Macbeth’s actions but also his very interpretation of reality (Nietzsche 363). The malleability of truth, therefore, does not mean that facts do not exist. Rather, by privileging a set of impulses or senses over others, interpretations and actions change one’s perspective on the truth overall. Thus, Macbeth asks: “Is this a dagger which I see before me?” (2.1.44). What is most significant about this soliloquy is not the reality of the dagger. Ultimately, what is real to his sense of sight is simply not real to his sense of touch: “Mine eyes are made the fools o’ th’ other senses” (2.1.56). It is at this point that he is forced to privilege one sense over the other: either his sight or his sense of touch. As Curran says: “the dagger, to the extent it exists at all, exists as and through sensation” (396). This recognition does not trivialize the legitimacy of sensation, as all facts and interpretations live in a multiplicity with sensation. Rather, through this scene, Shakespeare demonstrates the necessity for one to be judicious about which senses they choose to privilege. Macbeth’s interpretations are, consequently, a product of the senses he privileges.

Goold’s adaptation of the “dagger” soliloquy demonstrates how Shakespeare’s presentation of truth as a multiplicity renders more complex the relationship between fate and will. With Goold’s Macbeth, it is not a matter of discerning whether Macbeth sees the dagger because he wants to see it. For nearly the entirety of this soliloquy, the camera looks directly at Macbeth while closely moving in towards him (Goold 37:40-40:40). The audience does not see the dagger, but they are also not meant to focus on anything other than Macbeth himself and particularly his countenance. From this, the viewer gathers that the pertinent element of this soliloquy is not the hallucination, but how Macbeth assimilates, uses, and interprets the hallucination. Shakespeare affirms that Macbeth is leaning towards interpreting the hallucination as a sign to proceed with his murderous tendencies: “Thou marshal’st me the way that I was going, / As such an instrument I was to use” (2.1.54-55). In Goold’s adaptation Macbeth expresses this line with clear enthusiasm, and it is followed by him testing his senses by closing his eyes, only to reopen them and reassure himself that he still sees the dagger (38:27-36). By portraying this scene with Macbeth in a state of excitement, Goold encourages us to see how eroding the dichotomy of fact and interpretation consequently erodes the dichotomy of will and fate. The dagger’s reality is, both literally and figuratively, immaterial. Macbeth ultimately interprets his will as his fate, thus rendering them unopposed to each other.

In The Rebel Albert Camus argues that “blasphemy is, ultimately, a participation in holiness” (55). Similarly, it is by destabilizing the notion of a fixed truth that Shakespeare’s Macbeth demonstrates potential for discovering a more complete, complex truth. Those who do not accept Macbeth’s tyranny, such as Macduff and Malcolm, become creative agents as they shatter the reality created by Macbeth in favor of subversion. Multiplicity is not arbitrary any more than it is fixed. Some interpretations are artificially strengthened by political power. However, as Macbeth points out, the domination of one set of interpretations always implies a rebellious undercurrent which will inevitably grow after “the seeds of time” have been planted (1.3.61). For Macbeth, life is merely “full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing” because he succumbs to impulses which negatively overtake his entire personality and interpretive abilities (5.5.30-31). He never attempts to interpret a truth which suits him, but rather one which follows the prophecy.

Goold’s adaptation of Macbeth in a modern political context demonstrates a timelessness to Shakespeare’s work that is not static. Paradoxically, much like multiplicity, it is the play’s fluidity, its socio-political applicability, which makes it timeless. Situating Macbeth’s struggle for power in the context of modern warfare, as Goold does, demonstrates how the pluralistic relationship between fact and interpretation carries political implications. For example, Shakespeare’s text conveys a general anxiety in Macbeth, even upon his securing the throne: “To be thus is nothing, / But to be safely thus” (3.1.52-53). In Goold’s adaptation, this line is situated in the context of a newly founded dictatorship where Macbeth wields political power (1:03:35-42). Thus, by understanding fact and interpretation through multiplicity, Goold’s adaption demonstrates that the interpretations of a tyrant can become the facts of the state he tyrannizes. Macbeth’s paranoia in this scene foreshadows an interpretation unique to Goold’s adaptation. Following Banquo’s murder, Goold juxtaposes images of political purges and repression with ones of a dinner party being arranged for Macbeth (1:19:45-1:21:20). Immediately after, the dinner party is shown, with Macbeth’s face displayed prominently in the backdrop, indicating a distinctly totalitarian presence (1:21:23). Through this modernization of Macbeth, Goold underscores the way in which political power is linked to the multiplicity of truth. Goold shows how tyrants, like Macbeth, impose their interpretations upon their subjects and, with their power, alter facts.

As Goold’s adaptation shows, Macbeth is a multiplicity in more ways than one. Shakespeare’s brilliance shines brightly alongside the play’s applicability, just as fact and interpretation complement, rather than compete with, one another.

Works Cited

Camus, Albert. The Rebel. Vintage Books, 1991.

Curran, Kevin. “Phenomenology and Law: Feeling Criminal in Macbeth.” Criticism, vol. 54, no. 3, 2012, pp. 391–401. JSTOR, http://jstor.org/stable/23267669.

Macbeth. Directed by Rupert Goold, performances by Patrick Stewart and Kate Fleetwood, WNET.org and Illuminations Television, in association with the BBC, 2010, pbs.org/wnet/gperf/macbeth-full-episode/1030/.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Will to Power. Edited by R. Kevin Hill, translated by R. Kevin Hill and Michael A. Scarpitti, Penguin Random House UK, 2017.

Shakespeare, William. Macbeth, from The Folger Shakespeare. Edited by Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles, Dec. 16, 2020, https://shakespeare.folger.edu/shakespeares-works/macbeth/.