Skip to main content

Who discovers King Duncan's death in Macbeth?

It is Macduff who discovers King Duncan's bloody body and who sounds the alarm. Macbeth had planned to pretend to be sound asleep with his wife in their chambers when the body was discovered. But Shakespeare evidently wanted Macbeth to be present when Macduff discovered the body. This would explain the prolonged knocking which begins in Act II, Scene 2 and continues into Act II, Scene 3, when the drunken Porter finally opens the gate. By this time Macbeth feels compelled to put in an appearance to see what is going on. He arrives in time to see that it is Macduff, cold and wet, who has been making all that racket. Macbeth is still in a semi-trancelike state, brought on by his horror at having killed the King. But Macduff misinterprets Macbeth's behavior for anger at having been awakened by his knocking. Macduff offers a sort of apology when he says:



He did command me to call timely on him;
I have almost slipped the hour.



But Macbeth seems to ignore his apology when he says tersely:



I'll bring you to him.



Later Macduff will remember Macbeth's strange behavior and realize that it was Macbeth who was guilty of murdering King Duncan. Macbeth dreads having to be present when Macduff discovers the body, but now he is forced to conduct Macduff and Lennox to Duncan's bedchamber and wait outside while Macduff enters. Young Lennox tries to make casual conversation while they are waiting for Macduff to return, but Macbeth can only mutter short, distracted replies. When Macduff comes back out calling for someone to ring the alarm, Macbeth soliloquizes:



Had I but died an hour before this chance,
I had lived a blessed time; for from this instant
There's nothing serious in mortality:
All is but toys. Renown and grace is dead,
The wine of life is drawn, and the mere lees
Is left this vault to brag of.      (III.2)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more