We shall not spend a large expense of time,
Before we reckon with your several loves,
And make us even with you.
Macduff is in the same position as Macbeth was in at the start: using violence (or his skills as a soldier) in the support of the king, by killing the king’s chief enemy.
Malcolm may be king, but Macduff is the king-maker. The events of the play might be seen as partly circular: Macduff defeats Malcolm’s enemy as Macbeth once defeated Duncan’s.
In at once acknowledging the need for justice in return for loyalty, Malcolm displays royal virtues - a total contrast to the tyrannical Macbeth.
But the need to ‘make us even’ hints at the extent to which Malcolm is reliant on the strength of his lords - just as Duncan was (dangerously, so it turned out) reliant on Macbeth. We have seen some evidence that even the apparently saintly Malcolm may be morally compromised: he advocates revenge. Are these things the inevitable result of an idealised figure becoming involved with the problematic world of politics? Or does the play present sufficient displays of honour and virtue in the Scottish lords overall to leave the audience feeling that, while evil is undoubtedly the play's main negative theme, loyalty is its positive counter-balance?
the unshrinking station = the place of hard and courageous fighting
This is an aid to revision: some notes to stimulate thinking and help understanding. These are not ‘correct answers’: there are no correct answers in literary criticism! Any comments are valid, if they are reasonable, argued for clearly, and based on evidence in the play.
Macbeth has become dehumanised by evil; he is reduced to a beast.
He is associated with ‘Hell’ because that is the centre of evil, and called a ‘hound’ because he has ceased to be human... He has repeatedly acted in totally inhuman ways.
He only liv’d but till he was a man;
The which no sooner had his prowess confirm’d,
In the unshrinking station where he fought,
But like a man he died.
The winning side clearly repeats (through the mouth of Ross) Duncan ’s idea of ‘honourable violence’.
Has this been questioned by the action of the play - since it was Macbeth, Duncan’s murderer, who was at the start the person most respected for such 'honourable violence'? Or does our interpretation depend on the motivation of the person concerned (his reasons for acting as he does)?
Turn Hell-hound, turn!
... I have no words;
My voice is in my sword: thou bloodier villain
Than terms can give thee out!
terms = language
It is appropriate for Macduff to refuse to use language about and towards Macbeth: language is the characteristic human activity, and Macbeth can no longer be considered properly human.
But is Macduff following Macbeth (even as he defeats him) in abandoning the human characteristic of language and relying on force only; or does this rather suggest a dignified refusal to use language to someone whose inhumanity means that he no longer deserves to be addressed in human terms?
Hail, King! for so thou art. Behold, where stands
Th’usurper’s cursed head