This statement is an example of equivocation, meaning that it can be interpreted in two contradictory ways. Equivocation is an obsession in “Macbeth” as it was in England at the time; English courts were hashing out what it meant and whether it was different from outright lying. Catholics who feared persecution or who were plotting to overthrow the English government often used equivocation as a way of avoiding having to lie under questioning by answering...
This statement is an example of equivocation, meaning that it can be interpreted in two contradictory ways. Equivocation is an obsession in “Macbeth” as it was in England at the time; English courts were hashing out what it meant and whether it was different from outright lying. Catholics who feared persecution or who were plotting to overthrow the English government often used equivocation as a way of avoiding having to lie under questioning by answering in a way that would be technically true but also deliberately misleading. The witches tell Macbeth something true – he will not be harmed by anyone of woman born – and Macbeth assumes that he must therefore be invincible. But the prediction can be interpreted in another way, which Macbeth misses – a baby who is saved in utero after the death of the mother could plausibly be said to be “not of woman born” because the mother was not actually alive. An unusual circumstance, but anyone rescued as an infant in that way…could certainly harm Macbeth. Is there someone out there who fits that description? We’ll find out in Act 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment