Fate Is Not a Synonym for Calvinism

Fate Is Not a Synonym for Calvinism

Macbeth forces readers and audiences to ponder the amount that fate and free will

influence the trajectory of the play. In an attempt to unpack this complex issue, John

Stachniewski uses Calvinist theology to establish a framework through which Shakespeare¡¯s

audiences can make sense of Macbeth¡¯s actions. He suggests that Calvinism can be used as a

tool to help explain Macbeth¡¯s deterioration as a character over the course of the play.

According to him, Macbeth is a Calvinist reprobate ¡°whose own will, or ego, is prisoner to other

forces,¡± such as the witches (171). Fate does prevail in the end, but it is not a Calvinistic fate.

There are particular moments when Macbeth and other characters are making their own

decisions. Through the characters¡¯ actions, William Shakespeare dramatizes the paradox of fate

and free will in Macbeth to reflect the impossibility reconciling these two concepts under

Calvinist theology.

Before readers can understand why Macbeth does not fall into the Calvinist theology,

they first need to have a basic knowledge of Calvinistic beliefs. Under this religious paradigm,

fate determines the course of events, and this system of beliefs ¡°denie[s] that people [have] free

will to determine their spiritual nature . . . [and] they [are] totally depraved . . .¡± (Stachniewski

171). Therefore, there are no choices the individual can make to change the course that has been

set for him or her by God. In addition to individual lives, God controls dark spirits. Stachniewski

explains, ¡°God first conspires by means of his predestinarian decrees which are to be executed

through providence in which . . .the devil then plays an active manipulative part¡± (173).

Therefore, evil forces can be utilized by God to help accomplish His will.

The witches themselves look like demonic forces working for the purpose of a Calvinist

God. The witches seem to appear out of nowhere, and the readers are never given a conclusive

Patton 2

?

answer on the ¡°origin¡± of the witches (McCoy 184). Yet their appearance suggests they ¡°look

not like th' inhabitants o' th' earth¡± (Macbeth 1.3.41). They dress in odd clothes and have beards

that make it difficult to identify their sex. In addition, they are the only characters that speak in

rhymes, which contributes to their peculiarity. The witches ¡°are demons or devils in the form of

witches . . . [and] actual representatives of the world of darkness opposed to good . . .¡± (Curry

31-32). The witches are also referred to as the Weird Sisters, which adds to their ambiguous

nature. These terms are used interchangeably, although they carry different connotations. When

they are called witches, they are not seen as having supernatural powers. But the word ¡°weird¡±

is derived from the old English word ¡°wyrd,¡± which means ¡°fate.¡± The straddling of these titles

given to the trio of women automatically calls into question whether they are forces that rise up

and help to bring fated events to full fruition or just a group of women that decide to start

trouble.

The witches¡¯ act of prophesying Macbeth and Banquo¡¯s destinies, however, seems to

reinforce their role within a Calvinist theology that affirms prophesying as a divine gift. The

individuals who convey the prophecies are believed to echo the voice of God and his ¡°truth¡±

(Perkins 333). But these prophecies seem to yield more questions than answers. Once the

witches reveal their predictions, Macbeth demands, ¡°Stay, you imperfect speakers, tell me more¡±

(1.3.70). The nature of their prophecies does not correlate with Calvinism. Their prophecies are

complex. The witches¡¯ use of ¡°equivocation¡± or ambiguous language to avert the truth is what

gives their predictions a dynamic dimension (McCoy 185). The Weird Sisters predicted

Macbeth would become king, but they did not tell him the means by which he would obtain the

title. Instead, the witches ¡° . . . merely spell out an end . . .¡± (Snyder 291) and Macbeth is left to

Patton 3

?

choose what path to take, and he just happens to select the one that plays into his fated destiny.

For now, the omissions in their statements are a moot point; chance is still in Macbeth¡¯s

favor, and the witches seem to be giving him an advantageous prophecy that ordains him as king.

Although he is not given the answers he wants about how to he will become king, he asserts ¡°If

chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me / without my stir¡± (1.3.143-144).

Macbeth surrenders his free will and allows a higher force, chance, to take over. Here, Macbeth

is already situating himself outside of Calvinism because chance implies fate but denies the

sovereignty of God.

Macbeth, however, does not fully trust fate, and he develops contradictory questions

about how he should go about bringing his prophesied fate to fruition. As the play continues,

Macbeth elaborates on the idea that he has to make his own fate a reality. Macbeth recognizes

that ¡° . . . to be king / Stands not within the prospect of belief¡± (1.3.73-74), so he considers

killing Duncan to propel fated events. He allegedly puts the pressure on himself to make the

choice because ¡°the witches do not compel or even urge [him] to his murderous course¡± (Snyder

291). But because he does not believe he has total agency, Macbeth has to be coaxed into

committing the murder because he admits, ¡°I have no spur / To pick the sides of my intent . . . ¡±

(1.7.25-26).

At this point, another force rises up to advance fate¡ªLady Macbeth. She turns to

supernatural forces for the strength to ¡°spur¡± her husband into murdering Duncan. She demands:

Come, you spirits

That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,

Patton 4

?

And fill me from the crown to the toe topfull

Of direst cruelty. Make thick my blood;

Stop up th¡¯ access and passage to remorse,

That no compunctious visitings of nature

Shake my fell purpose nor keep peace between

Th¡¯ effect and it . . . . (1.5.41-46)

Like Macbeth, Lady Macbeth recognizes fate as a working force, but she decides to make the

plea to the ¡°spirits¡± to be ¡°possessed by demons¡± (Curry 32). Therefore, she can function as ¡°a

vehicle of [the witches¡¯] continued demonic influence¡± (Stachniewski 174). Through this, she

also becomes more witch-like herself, by asking to be ¡°unsexed,¡± like the Weird Sisters who,

with their beards appear to be ¡°unsexed¡± as well. This ambiguous sex or ¡°otherness is associated

with witchcraft¡± (Woodcock 843). To assist with the fruition of Macbeth¡¯s fate, she receives this

requested aid from supernatural powers and becomes ¡°a force that acts upon her husband . . . and

turns contemplation into action¡± by undermining Macbeth¡¯s manhood when he second-guesses

his decision to kill the king (Woodcock 842). She inquires, ¡°What beast was¡¯t, then / That made

you break this enterprise to me? / When you durst do it, then you were a man¡± (1.7.47-51). She

finally persuades her husband to murder Duncan, even protesting that she would do it herself.

The opportunity for Lady Macbeth to kill Duncan does in fact present itself. As Macbeth

goes to kill Duncan, she fears that Macbeth will not be able to carry out the act and decides to

murder Duncan herself. But just as abruptly as she resolves to kill, she opts out of the murder

because the king ¡° . . . resembled / My father as he slept . . .¡± (2.2.12-13), and she leaves it up to

Macbeth. Her refusal to murder Duncan demonstrates that both fate and free will are working in

Patton 5

?

this situation. If Lady Macbeth were truly fated to be ¡°possessed,¡± she would not have been able

to change her mind when she saw Duncan sleeping. But by spurring Macbeth into murder, she

participates in his fated destiny because she is so closely tied to him.

The act of killing of Duncan demonstrates how fate and free will continue to be

intertwined. The murder can easily be attributed to fate because the witches¡¯ prophecies imply

he is fated to be king, therefore, Lady Macbeth has to propel him along a fated track

(Stachniewski 174). But it can just as easily be attributed to free will because he intentionally

chooses to kill Duncan to fulfill the prophecies rather than letting chance crown him king.

Because fate is present through the prophecies and free will is present through Macbeth¡¯s

actions, Duncan¡¯s murder cannot be explained with Calvinist theology.

Banquo¡¯s death, however, is not a result of fate but Macbeth¡¯s free will. His murder is

the most shocking one in the whole play because there was no need for it to happen. Banquo and

Macbeth were close friends and fought alongside each other, and Banquo was not a direct threat

to him because Macbeth was already crowned king. Macbeth does, however, still see Banquo¡¯s

future generations as a threat because of the prophecies given to Banquo. He orders this personal

murder to prevent these prophecies from transpiring. Because Macbeth has Banquo killed, it is

clear that he thinks himself to be outside of fate and goes against the witches¡¯ prophecies

involving Banquo, which demonstrates that he ¡° . . . is certainly no mere puppet moving under

their manipulation¡± (Farnham 61). He does not allow chance to dictate the outcome of future

events because chance is no longer in his favor. Instead, he is trying to shape fate through his

deliberate actions. Here, he is negotiating both fate and free will. He recognizes that fate is a

powerful force that shapes the future, but he is also using free will to counteract that fate.

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download