Skip to main content

Who is not among Malcolm's army in Macbeth Act 5?

Donalbain is not with Malcolm’s army. 


Donalbain is somewhat of a mystery.  He is not chosen as Duncan’s successor, since he is younger. He flees to Ireland when his brother goes to England to gather an army, and he doesn’t come back to Scotland to fight Macbeth.  He is either a coward or incredibly self-centered. 


When their father is killed, Malcolm and Donalbain flee.  For this reason, they are suspected of complicity or of being the ones who killed their father.  This was all part of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s plan, of course.  Donalbain seems to think that they will be better off separating. 



DONALBAIN


To Ireland, I; our separated fortune
Shall keep us both the safer: where we are,
There's daggers in men's smiles: the near in blood,
The nearer bloody. (Act 2, Scene 3) 



It actually makes sense for Malcolm and Donalbain to flee, even though they weren’t involved, because the person who killed their father clearly did not intend for either of them to be king.  Whoever it was might come after them next.  Macbeth makes no effort to kill them, but the plan works well because they flee after their father is killed. 


We do not really know what is going on inside Donalbain’s head, but we do know for sure that he is not with Malcolm’s army, because Lennox tells us this. 



CAITHNESS


Who knows if Donalbain be with his brother?


LENNOX


For certain, sir, he is not: I have a file
Of all the gentry: there is Siward's son,
And many unrough youths that even now
Protest their first of manhood. (Act 5, Scene 2) 



Malcolm, on the other hand, was very patriotic and kingly.  He went to England, raised an army, recruited and tested Macduff, and came at Macbeth with everything he had.  He was clever enough to hide the numbers of his army with tree branches.  His army was liberating Scotland, and Macbeth’s was harboring a madman.  Soon enough, Malcolm was victorious and took his rightful place as king of Scotland.

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