초록·
키워드
오류제보하기
Recorded in chapbooks, ballads, and state papers, the "scaffold speech" was delivered by prisoners prior to execution, serving as a critical site for the apparent affirmation of the monarch and a re-establishment of communal, public order, as notably argued by Michel Foucault. These speeches were meant to serve a didactic purpose. First, the spectacle of the prisoner on the scaffold instructed the audience to avoid such crime and its gruesome punishment. Second, the prisoner's speech often directly admonished the audience not to engage in criminal activity. Cawdor's scaffold speech within Macbeth thus serve as a warning within a warning, given that English Renaissance theories of tragedy stress the didactic effect of tragedy in cautioning its audience members against crime and tyranny.
On one level, Macbeth appears to confirm this exemplary model of tragedy, and indeed the early representations of Cawdor's scaffold speech could be read as a foreshadowing of the events of the play: a hero turns traitor and in dying teaches the audience to avoid his own treachery. But Renaissance tragedy externalizes inward, transgressive desires for all to see, and this simple mechanism of exposure produces complex results in terms of audience reaction and interpretive possibility. As an insightful analysis of the liminal place of the Elizabethan stage demonstrates, the "place of the stage," both geographically, in the liberties of London, and historically, as a newly established site, allows the theatre to examine critically the culture of which it was marginally a part.
This paper focuses on Macbeth's oppositional potential by analyzing Cawdor's execution in the opening scenes as a failure of didacticism, both on the state and theatre scaffolds: the exemplary traitor's speech does not instruct Macbeth to avoid treason but potentially offers him a model, a namesake even, for his own criminal desires. Even before Macbeth's treason, then, Duncan's Scotland reveals that hegemonic control is an impossible dream. Not only does Cawdor's execution fail as an educational, hegemonic spectacle, but also, more importantly, the staging of this familiar genre of confession before death complicates the articulation of truth in the play. As a result, the play blends allegedly legitimate sovereignty with treasonous deception, ultimately producing a ruler in Malcolm who combines rather than opposes the knowledge of traitors and monarchs.
The play itself shows its two invasions, its two thanes of Cawdor, its two feasts, two doctors, two kings, and two Kingdoms. These mirroring effects insist that the radical difference asserted by its fierce moral oppositions is both tendentious and insecure. As a recent group of critics has argued, apparent oppositions are discovered to be dismayingly similar, and, more dismaying still, even implicated in one another.