Final answer:
The historical Macbeth was a Scottish king with a relatively stable reign, while Shakespeare's character is a dramatized nobleman driven by ambition and destined for downfall. Shakespeare's play introduced supernatural themes and served as a political commentary for the Jacobean audience, whereas the historical Macbeth's rule does not carry such narratives.
Step-by-step explanation:
The historical Macbeth was King of Scotland from 1040 to 1057, known for a reign that brought relative stability and prosperity to the kingdom. In contrast, William Shakespeare's Macbeth is characterized more by its dramatic portrayal of a nobleman overcome by ambition, driven to murder, and eventually descending into tyranny and madness. The real Macbeth secured the throne by killing King Duncan I, although accounts suggest this was in battle rather than the treacherous manner depicted in the play. Still, some similarities exist in their rise to power and initial successes as rulers.
Shakespeare dramatized Macbeth's story to suit the tastes of the Jacobean audience and to align with King James I's interests, who believed himself to be a direct descendent of the historical Banquo, portrayed as noble and virtuous in the play. The Bard took creative liberties, incorporating supernatural elements such as witches and prophecies to captivate the audience and underpin themes of fate versus free will. This juxtaposition between the true events and Shakespeare's narrative illustrates the transformation of historical figures into dramatic characters for the purpose of storytelling and political commentary.
Overall, while the real Macbeth was a monarch who ruled effectively for 17 years, Shakespeare's version serves to highlight the destructive nature of unchecked ambition and the consequences of moral corruption.