What do you make of Macbeth's explanation of his killing of the two chamberlains? Does it make sense? Do their supposed actions make sense? What in his language specifically do you think makes an impression on those present?
It is during this explanation that Macbeth backs his actions with emotions of anger, calmness, neutrality, and wisdom. I think here is the first sign that those around him would be suspicious of. the fact that he was calm during the murder, and was "wise" enough to kill them instead of let them live, though everyone else questions why he felt obligated to murder the "murderers." They were drugged, awaiting interrogation and punishment from the king's nobles, yet Macbeth wanted no one to hear their story, what I saw as a major flaw in the plan. 1.3.84 was also a bit shocking because he says he "regrets" murdering the two, and then continues to exclaim that it was it in vengeance and because of his love for Duncan, almost proud of the act. It seems to me that Macbeth does not quite know how to argue in favor of his murders, and again it is seen that his emotional stability and faith in reality are declining.
The biggest flaw in Macbeth's explanation is that it seems to come suspiciously late. Macbeth leads Macduff and Lennox into the castle without mentioning anything about the murders that have just occurred. He acts oblivious to the entire situation, allowing Macduff to go off to wake Duncan. Of course Macduff cannot wake Duncan because Duncan is dead. When he returns horrified, Macbeth asks, "What's the matter?" Once he begins to describe his murder of the two 'murdering' chamberlains, the others must question his reasoning for not mentioning anything earlier. They also might question the chamberlains' motives, which are certainly unclear (nonexistent in fact). I think that those present refrain from questioning Macbeth further because of his last few lines of explanation. Macbeth asks, "Who could refrain that had a heart to love, and in that heart courage to make 's love known." In this moment, he manipulates those around him with the idea that any human with a heart and courage would have done the same.
I agree with Lila and Andrew that it is strange that he does not mention that Duncan or either of the chamberlains were dead. Logically, it doesn't make sense for him to behave as if he doesn't know that Duncan has been killed when he has just murdered the two men that he accused of killing him. However, Macbeth is a military man and the idea of killing those who have done harm to the king seems as if it could be excused as a general's instinct. Historically, it was also much more common to informally kill those who had committed a crime, which greatly contrasts the complicated justice system that we have now. However (again), Macbeth's attempt to portray his own actions as courageous, loyal, and an act of "violent love" is very suspicious. The speech he gives describes countless powerful emotions and gives a sense that he was acting recklessly and illogically. He tries to make this seem like a result of the loss of a 'friend,' but it is easy to see that he is doing a poor job of covering up the guilt and hysteria he is experiencing after murdering the future king.
I agree with Lila that Macbeth’s failure to mention Duncan’s murder when Macduff and Lenox first enter is suspicious. Macbeth’s use of elaborate language in his explanation of his motives for killing the chamberlains (2.3.127-137) betrays his attempt to cover up his true actions. He speaks as if he feels that people will not believe him, trying to flesh out the lie with a detailed description of his many emotions. A truthful explanation would be very simple and brief, especially considering that even a military man such as Macbeth would be in a state of shock having just killed two assassins who have murdered the king in his own home.
It is clear that Banquo doubts Macbeth’s explanation, as he proposes further investigation of the murder: “…Let us meet and question this most bloody piece of work to know it further” (2.3.149-151).
I like what Andrew said about Macbeth's explanation of his emotions: "wise, amazed, temp'rate, and furious, loyal, and neutral" (2.3.127-128). It seems like he is overexplaining himself here, thus making his argument questionable. I feel that simply claiming a feeling of fury would do the trick - this would mean he was caught up in the moment, whereas instead, he comes up with false, excessive justification. On the other hand, I think his detailed description of how he saw the king all bloody and murdered (2.3.130-135) would have created a sympathetic impression among the people he is justifying himself to. Also, while I don't think it makes any sense that he would act surprised about the murder after already having killed those responsible for it, I think there might be some leniency in willingness to believe Macbeth due to the surprising, dramatic and adrenaline filled situation of encountering a dead king. Anyone would be shocked, and might not be completely coherent.
I agree with Lila that Macbeth acting oblivious to the murders that have just occurred extremely suspicious. One would normally tell new guests that some of your most recent guests have just been murdered. However, I found Macbeth's later explanation to make sense. I took "Th' expedition of my violent love outrun the pauser, reason" (2.3. 129-130) to mean that Macbeth was trying to explain that he had let his emotions get the best of him and he acted irrationally. However, there is always a debate that can arise arguing whether it is moral or not to kill a murderer. Ironically Macbeth has killed innocent people who he is pinning a murder on, a murder that he himself actually committed. In the modern day, I think most people would agree that killing a murderer is still morally wrong. However, in olden times, it was probably much more socially acceptable to kill a murderer, and certainly someone who has just murdered the king.
I agree with Andrew that Macbeth weakens his cause when he says he was not "wise" when he killed the servants. Macbeth is already admitting he was in the wrong while if he sincerely loved Duncan I think that he would have defended his vengeance stronger. If Macbeth truly had "a heart of love" he could have killed the servants with a clear heart and would not have regretted doing it after. Him questioning his actions makes him look quite suspicious.
I agree with Andrew that Macbeth weakens his cause when he says he was not "wise" when he killed the servants. Macbeth is already admitting he was in the wrong while if he sincerely loved Duncan I think that he would have defended his vengeance stronger. If Macbeth truly had "a heart of love" he could have killed the servants with a clear heart and would not have regretted doing it after. Him questioning his actions makes him look quite suspicious.
As some have said before me, I believe that the biggest flaw in Macbeth's stance about his involvement in the killing of Duncan and of the chamberlains is that he first acts as if he is unaware that any one of the three have been killed at all. This is evident in 2.3.80 when he says, "What is 't you say? The life?". Obviously here he is acting as if he knew nothing about the fact that the life had been stolen from the building (the life being King Duncan). Yet still 45 lines later he says that he did indeed kill the chamberlains, and one can only infer after hearing this that he did know that King Duncan had been dead before Macduff went inside his quarters to wake him. So if the people listening to his story are perceptive enough to catch this obvious mistake then I believe Macbeth is, for the most part, screwed.
I agree with every one here, Macbeth's explanation is suspicious because of his seemingly calm and casual attitude regarding the death of Duncan and the chamberlains. I also agree that it is illogical for MB to act surprised by the news of Duncan's death because he has just slain the two men who everyone accuses of the murder. That action in itself seems a bit suspicious, although it is true that during this period of time it was more accepted to kill those who committed crimes. But I agree with Anna's idea that it is strange how he tries to pass off his killing as an act out of "love" for Duncan.
Lady Macbeth's reaction is also very questionable. Although her "fainting" could be taken as authentic to the other characters, I think it elevates the suspicion. She is clearly trying to escape from the uncomfortable moment that MB is creating, and I think it becomes a bit more clear that they are "partners in crime." Malcolm and Donalbain's reactions to his explanation are also intriguing. It seems to me that they definitely have some suspicion of MB as the killer, or they are just unsure about whether they believe what he's dishing out.
I also think that Dylan raises an interesting point that MB says that he regrets killing the chamberlains even though he justifies his actions (tries to). Just interesting to think about.
I also agree with what most people say about Macbeth's explanation, that it is weak and over-acted. I really like what Lila, Sarah, and Johnny said about Macbeth not having his time-line set, which appears to the audience as false and fake. Like Nancy, I found that Lennox and Malcolm are definitely wary of what Macbeth has told them. I also found Macbeth's words to be poetic, like he was painting a picture where he was the great and honest hero (which we know to be false). In act 2, scene 3 line 127-137 his words sound lyrical and descriptive, like he is unconsciously exaggerating the story while patting himself on the back. Macbeth did the manly thing and goes on to say in line 157 "let's briefly put on manly readiness". Macbeth saying that sound like he is using their sorrow be even more manly if that makes sense, like because he said it first proves to the men that he is manlier because he tells them not to cry.
I agree with those before me, especially what Torie said about Macbeth trying to create an innocent and "sympathetic" image for himself. It seems to me that Macbeth cannot decide what course of action to take in defending himself. Should he act coy and innocent: "what is 't you say? the life?" Should he make a passionate speech detailing how horrific it is? :"had i but died an hour before this chance..." Should he act in rage and explain why he killed the chamberlains: "who can be wise..."
Macbeth clearly does not know what path to take which is what mostly makes him appear so untrustworthy in this scene. Lady M sees that he is foundering and faints to try to take the inquisitive attention of the others away from him.
I agree with Torie in that I think that his over-explanation of his emotions just makes him more suspicious. It would have been completely reasonable for him to have simply killed the chamberlains out of anger over their treason. While I’m sure Macbeth cared very strongly about Duncan, as the murder was so difficult for him to commit in the first place, I believe that he overemphasized his feelings when he explained his actions. It was also strange how eloquently he explained his actions despite acting as if he was in a state of total panic a few seconds prior. I didn’t believe that the chamberlains' actions made much sense until it was suggested that the they may have been hired to kill Duncan. In addition, I thought that it was ironic that it was this suspicion that caused Malcolm to flee for the sake of his own protection; however, his leaving led to the other characters being suspicious of him as possibly being behind Duncan's murder.
Clearly, the aftermath of the murder is far more complicated than simply washing hands. It requires clarity of mind and full control, which both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth find impossible to grasp. Lady Macbeth knows how desperately she needs to control the situation, and how weak Macbeth's hold is. That is why she creates the distraction of her fainting. This, as a few people have pointed out, is hardly the most innocent action, but Lady Macbeth is desperate. I'm sure she's disdainfully cynical about attracting sympathy through such a stereotypically feminine act such as fainting when she just took part in a murder, but due to her anxiety and the dire situation, she really may not have had much trouble fainting.
Macbeth's indecision about how to explain the situation mirrors his own uncertainty about his own actions. He has, in fits of greed and fear and misguided purpose, worked up enough malice to kill three innocent people, and he feels a profound need to justify his actions to himself, and to other people by proxy.
He's also uncertain about the moral value of his murders. He is quite aware of the despicable nature of his crimes, and the tarnish on his once shining reputation, but at the same time he feels that his murders were in some way honorable. They were purposeful, determined, full of willpower. They were decisive and strong, and I think he likes that part of himself, however guiltily. If he could somehow forget the innocence of his victims, his actions would have the valor of the husband and military man and king he wishes to be. So he has been arguing with himself, painting different acts in light and dark, pleading with himself to forget the deed (as he at first pretends to do when Macduff and Lennox arrive), justifying the killings, dwelling on the gory details, repenting. He is so confused that he cannot prevent this internal debate from becoming evident in his speech.
"Who can be wise, amazed, temp'rate, loyal, and neutral in a moment?" he asks. It's unnecessarily verbose and confusing for an explanation for murder -- hardly the kind of report he'd give in the military (and I doubt he's accustomed to lying) -- but it describes his current state of mind rather well. Ironically enough, most of his speech is coming from an honest place.
I agree with many of the above postings that Macbeth's biggest flaw in his lateness in explaining his killing of the two chamberlains. To me, what made this even worse is that in his explanation he uses such passionate language, almost expressing the kind of love that would exist between a father and son to express his attachment to Duncan. The usage of phrases such as 'Violent love' and 'golden blood' to explain his admiration of Duncan does not fit with his behavior just minutes before when Malcolm and Lennox arrived at the castle. The framing of the chamberlains itself is a very poorly backed story as well, which would probably make some of the characters listening to Macbeth (at least Banquo) wonder: what would they have gained in killing the king? If they were responsible, why did they not immediately flee the castle and instead waited for Macbeth to come and find them? How could they have murdered a mighty ruler, who no doubt has been hardened by combat and experience, whilst being intoxicated? Macbeth's story is all around very hazy, but it seems the only person doubting it is Banquo, who, as Brodie said, states that further investigation into the matter is necessary. It shows that as a powerful figure, Macbeth is greatly trusted by many of those around him - except for his closest advisor and friend, which shall make further reading quite interesting.
Well I will attempt to play Devil's advocate on this issue. While Macbeth's late explanation is obviously a major flaw in his story, the question is whether or not this would be obvious to the other characters. We, as the audience, are omnipotent; in part, I believe that we see the loopholes in Macbeth's argument because we know to look for them. However, imagine that you are just another nobleman at the castle. First of all, what was Macbeth's motive? He was not next in line for the throne. In fact, if not for a series of miraculous coincidences, which appear to be guided by fate itself, Macbeth would have no chance at the throne yet. Secondly, he appears genuinely distraught. After all, Macbeth had fought valiantly to keep Duncan in power a couple days ago. He appears to be loyal to the point of zealousness: who would fight so bravely for money or land? Finally, Macbeth has no history of such actions. It’s not as if he is a famous assassin, or has a well known hatred for Duncan.
I agree with Reckas. Except for Banquo, no one knows of the witches' prophecy (and therefore Macbeth's motive). Although the chamberlains' motives are somewhat questionable (well, nonexistant, but with such clear *evidence* that they were the murderers, there is never any need to call their "actions" in to question), Macbeth has no motive at all - without the prophecy. That Malcolm and Donalbain immediately flee the country before their father is even properly mourned (or even properly buried) further misdirects the understanding of Duncan's murder that the other noblemen have, seeming to direct motive and suspicion toward his sons.
Furthermore, Macbeth's language - which to an audience, who knows what Macbeth has just done to the king, seems forcibly praising - seems to the noblemen uplifting and yet mournful: proper praise for a king so suddenly and tragically lost. Here, to those present (on stage), he seems the great orator and natural leader (yes, I'm alluding to Mark Anthony in Julius Caesar here), so it follows naturally that he should become the next king.
It is during this explanation that Macbeth backs his actions with emotions of anger, calmness, neutrality, and wisdom. I think here is the first sign that those around him would be suspicious of. the fact that he was calm during the murder, and was "wise" enough to kill them instead of let them live, though everyone else questions why he felt obligated to murder the "murderers." They were drugged, awaiting interrogation and punishment from the king's nobles, yet Macbeth wanted no one to hear their story, what I saw as a major flaw in the plan. 1.3.84 was also a bit shocking because he says he "regrets" murdering the two, and then continues to exclaim that it was it in vengeance and because of his love for Duncan, almost proud of the act. It seems to me that Macbeth does not quite know how to argue in favor of his murders, and again it is seen that his emotional stability and faith in reality are declining.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest flaw in Macbeth's explanation is that it seems to come suspiciously late. Macbeth leads Macduff and Lennox into the castle without mentioning anything about the murders that have just occurred. He acts oblivious to the entire situation, allowing Macduff to go off to wake Duncan. Of course Macduff cannot wake Duncan because Duncan is dead. When he returns horrified, Macbeth asks, "What's the matter?" Once he begins to describe his murder of the two 'murdering' chamberlains, the others must question his reasoning for not mentioning anything earlier. They also might question the chamberlains' motives, which are certainly unclear (nonexistent in fact). I think that those present refrain from questioning Macbeth further because of his last few lines of explanation. Macbeth asks, "Who could refrain that had a heart to love, and in that heart courage to make 's love known." In this moment, he manipulates those around him with the idea that any human with a heart and courage would have done the same.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lila and Andrew that it is strange that he does not mention that Duncan or either of the chamberlains were dead. Logically, it doesn't make sense for him to behave as if he doesn't know that Duncan has been killed when he has just murdered the two men that he accused of killing him.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Macbeth is a military man and the idea of killing those who have done harm to the king seems as if it could be excused as a general's instinct. Historically, it was also much more common to informally kill those who had committed a crime, which greatly contrasts the complicated justice system that we have now.
However (again), Macbeth's attempt to portray his own actions as courageous, loyal, and an act of "violent love" is very suspicious. The speech he gives describes countless powerful emotions and gives a sense that he was acting recklessly and illogically. He tries to make this seem like a result of the loss of a 'friend,' but it is easy to see that he is doing a poor job of covering up the guilt and hysteria he is experiencing after murdering the future king.
I agree with Lila that Macbeth’s failure to mention Duncan’s murder when Macduff and Lenox first enter is suspicious. Macbeth’s use of elaborate language in his explanation of his motives for killing the chamberlains (2.3.127-137) betrays his attempt to cover up his true actions. He speaks as if he feels that people will not believe him, trying to flesh out the lie with a detailed description of his many emotions. A truthful explanation would be very simple and brief, especially considering that even a military man such as Macbeth would be in a state of shock having just killed two assassins who have murdered the king in his own home.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that Banquo doubts Macbeth’s explanation, as he proposes further investigation of the murder: “…Let us meet and question this most bloody piece of work to know it further” (2.3.149-151).
I like what Andrew said about Macbeth's explanation of his emotions: "wise, amazed, temp'rate, and furious, loyal, and neutral" (2.3.127-128). It seems like he is overexplaining himself here, thus making his argument questionable. I feel that simply claiming a feeling of fury would do the trick - this would mean he was caught up in the moment, whereas instead, he comes up with false, excessive justification.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I think his detailed description of how he saw the king all bloody and murdered (2.3.130-135) would have created a sympathetic impression among the people he is justifying himself to. Also, while I don't think it makes any sense that he would act surprised about the murder after already having killed those responsible for it, I think there might be some leniency in willingness to believe Macbeth due to the surprising, dramatic and adrenaline filled situation of encountering a dead king. Anyone would be shocked, and might not be completely coherent.
I agree with Lila that Macbeth acting oblivious to the murders that have just occurred extremely suspicious. One would normally tell new guests that some of your most recent guests have just been murdered. However, I found Macbeth's later explanation to make sense. I took "Th' expedition of my violent love outrun the pauser, reason" (2.3. 129-130) to mean that Macbeth was trying to explain that he had let his emotions get the best of him and he acted irrationally. However, there is always a debate that can arise arguing whether it is moral or not to kill a murderer. Ironically Macbeth has killed innocent people who he is pinning a murder on, a murder that he himself actually committed. In the modern day, I think most people would agree that killing a murderer is still morally wrong. However, in olden times, it was probably much more socially acceptable to kill a murderer, and certainly someone who has just murdered the king.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew that Macbeth weakens his cause when he says he was not "wise" when he killed the servants. Macbeth is already admitting he was in the wrong while if he sincerely loved Duncan I think that he would have defended his vengeance stronger. If Macbeth truly had "a heart of love" he could have killed the servants with a clear heart and would not have regretted doing it after. Him questioning his actions makes him look quite suspicious.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew that Macbeth weakens his cause when he says he was not "wise" when he killed the servants. Macbeth is already admitting he was in the wrong while if he sincerely loved Duncan I think that he would have defended his vengeance stronger. If Macbeth truly had "a heart of love" he could have killed the servants with a clear heart and would not have regretted doing it after. Him questioning his actions makes him look quite suspicious.
ReplyDeleteAs some have said before me, I believe that the biggest flaw in Macbeth's stance about his involvement in the killing of Duncan and of the chamberlains is that he first acts as if he is unaware that any one of the three have been killed at all. This is evident in 2.3.80 when he says, "What is 't you say? The life?". Obviously here he is acting as if he knew nothing about the fact that the life had been stolen from the building (the life being King Duncan). Yet still 45 lines later he says that he did indeed kill the chamberlains, and one can only infer after hearing this that he did know that King Duncan had been dead before Macduff went inside his quarters to wake him. So if the people listening to his story are perceptive enough to catch this obvious mistake then I believe Macbeth is, for the most part, screwed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with every one here, Macbeth's explanation is suspicious because of his seemingly calm and casual attitude regarding the death of Duncan and the chamberlains. I also agree that it is illogical for MB to act surprised by the news of Duncan's death because he has just slain the two men who everyone accuses of the murder. That action in itself seems a bit suspicious, although it is true that during this period of time it was more accepted to kill those who committed crimes. But I agree with Anna's idea that it is strange how he tries to pass off his killing as an act out of "love" for Duncan.
ReplyDeleteLady Macbeth's reaction is also very questionable. Although her "fainting" could be taken as authentic to the other characters, I think it elevates the suspicion. She is clearly trying to escape from the uncomfortable moment that MB is creating, and I think it becomes a bit more clear that they are "partners in crime." Malcolm and Donalbain's reactions to his explanation are also intriguing. It seems to me that they definitely have some suspicion of MB as the killer, or they are just unsure about whether they believe what he's dishing out.
I also think that Dylan raises an interesting point that MB says that he regrets killing the chamberlains even though he justifies his actions (tries to). Just interesting to think about.
I also agree with what most people say about Macbeth's explanation, that it is weak and over-acted. I really like what Lila, Sarah, and Johnny said about Macbeth not having his time-line set, which appears to the audience as false and fake. Like Nancy, I found that Lennox and Malcolm are definitely wary of what Macbeth has told them.
ReplyDeleteI also found Macbeth's words to be poetic, like he was painting a picture where he was the great and honest hero (which we know to be false). In act 2, scene 3 line 127-137 his words sound lyrical and descriptive, like he is unconsciously exaggerating the story while patting himself on the back. Macbeth did the manly thing and goes on to say in line 157 "let's briefly put on manly readiness". Macbeth saying that sound like he is using their sorrow be even more manly if that makes sense, like because he said it first proves to the men that he is manlier because he tells them not to cry.
I agree with those before me, especially what Torie said about Macbeth trying to create an innocent and "sympathetic" image for himself. It seems to me that Macbeth cannot decide what course of action to take in defending himself.
ReplyDeleteShould he act coy and innocent: "what is 't you say? the life?"
Should he make a passionate speech detailing how horrific it is? :"had i but died an hour before this chance..."
Should he act in rage and explain why he killed the chamberlains: "who can be wise..."
Macbeth clearly does not know what path to take which is what mostly makes him appear so untrustworthy in this scene. Lady M sees that he is foundering and faints to try to take the inquisitive attention of the others away from him.
I agree with Torie in that I think that his over-explanation of his emotions just makes him more suspicious. It would have been completely reasonable for him to have simply killed the chamberlains out of anger over their treason. While I’m sure Macbeth cared very strongly about Duncan, as the murder was so difficult for him to commit in the first place, I believe that he overemphasized his feelings when he explained his actions. It was also strange how eloquently he explained his actions despite acting as if he was in a state of total panic a few seconds prior. I didn’t believe that the chamberlains' actions made much sense until it was suggested that the they may have been hired to kill Duncan. In addition, I thought that it was ironic that it was this suspicion that caused Malcolm to flee for the sake of his own protection; however, his leaving led to the other characters being suspicious of him as possibly being behind Duncan's murder.
ReplyDeleteClearly, the aftermath of the murder is far more complicated than simply washing hands. It requires clarity of mind and full control, which both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth find impossible to grasp. Lady Macbeth knows how desperately she needs to control the situation, and how weak Macbeth's hold is. That is why she creates the distraction of her fainting. This, as a few people have pointed out, is hardly the most innocent action, but Lady Macbeth is desperate. I'm sure she's disdainfully cynical about attracting sympathy through such a stereotypically feminine act such as fainting when she just took part in a murder, but due to her anxiety and the dire situation, she really may not have had much trouble fainting.
ReplyDeleteMacbeth's indecision about how to explain the situation mirrors his own uncertainty about his own actions. He has, in fits of greed and fear and misguided purpose, worked up enough malice to kill three innocent people, and he feels a profound need to justify his actions to himself, and to other people by proxy.
He's also uncertain about the moral value of his murders. He is quite aware of the despicable nature of his crimes, and the tarnish on his once shining reputation, but at the same time he feels that his murders were in some way honorable. They were purposeful, determined, full of willpower. They were decisive and strong, and I think he likes that part of himself, however guiltily. If he could somehow forget the innocence of his victims, his actions would have the valor of the husband and military man and king he wishes to be. So he has been arguing with himself, painting different acts in light and dark, pleading with himself to forget the deed (as he at first pretends to do when Macduff and Lennox arrive), justifying the killings, dwelling on the gory details, repenting. He is so confused that he cannot prevent this internal debate from becoming evident in his speech.
"Who can be wise, amazed, temp'rate, loyal, and neutral in a moment?" he asks. It's unnecessarily verbose and confusing for an explanation for murder -- hardly the kind of report he'd give in the military (and I doubt he's accustomed to lying) -- but it describes his current state of mind rather well. Ironically enough, most of his speech is coming from an honest place.
I agree with many of the above postings that Macbeth's biggest flaw in his lateness in explaining his killing of the two chamberlains. To me, what made this even worse is that in his explanation he uses such passionate language, almost expressing the kind of love that would exist between a father and son to express his attachment to Duncan. The usage of phrases such as 'Violent love' and 'golden blood' to explain his admiration of Duncan does not fit with his behavior just minutes before when Malcolm and Lennox arrived at the castle. The framing of the chamberlains itself is a very poorly backed story as well, which would probably make some of the characters listening to Macbeth (at least Banquo) wonder: what would they have gained in killing the king? If they were responsible, why did they not immediately flee the castle and instead waited for Macbeth to come and find them? How could they have murdered a mighty ruler, who no doubt has been hardened by combat and experience, whilst being intoxicated? Macbeth's story is all around very hazy, but it seems the only person doubting it is Banquo, who, as Brodie said, states that further investigation into the matter is necessary. It shows that as a powerful figure, Macbeth is greatly trusted by many of those around him - except for his closest advisor and friend, which shall make further reading quite interesting.
ReplyDeleteWell I will attempt to play Devil's advocate on this issue.
ReplyDeleteWhile Macbeth's late explanation is obviously a major flaw in his story, the question is whether or not this would be obvious to the other characters. We, as the audience, are omnipotent; in part, I believe that we see the loopholes in Macbeth's argument because we know to look for them. However, imagine that you are just another nobleman at the castle. First of all, what was Macbeth's motive? He was not next in line for the throne. In fact, if not for a series of miraculous coincidences, which appear to be guided by fate itself, Macbeth would have no chance at the throne yet. Secondly, he appears genuinely distraught. After all, Macbeth had fought valiantly to keep Duncan in power a couple days ago. He appears to be loyal to the point of zealousness: who would fight so bravely for money or land? Finally, Macbeth has no history of such actions. It’s not as if he is a famous assassin, or has a well known hatred for Duncan.
I agree with Reckas. Except for Banquo, no one knows of the witches' prophecy (and therefore Macbeth's motive). Although the chamberlains' motives are somewhat questionable (well, nonexistant, but with such clear *evidence* that they were the murderers, there is never any need to call their "actions" in to question), Macbeth has no motive at all - without the prophecy. That Malcolm and Donalbain immediately flee the country before their father is even properly mourned (or even properly buried) further misdirects the understanding of Duncan's murder that the other noblemen have, seeming to direct motive and suspicion toward his sons.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Macbeth's language - which to an audience, who knows what Macbeth has just done to the king, seems forcibly praising - seems to the noblemen uplifting and yet mournful: proper praise for a king so suddenly and tragically lost. Here, to those present (on stage), he seems the great orator and natural leader (yes, I'm alluding to Mark Anthony in Julius Caesar here), so it follows naturally that he should become the next king.