3. Do you believe events in your life have been guided by fate or chance? Why or why not? Based on the text, what do you think Shakespeare's attitude was towards fate? Does Macbeth have any choice in his actions or was everything predetermined? Use examples from the text as your support.
I believe that the events in my life have been guided by chance. I think that most events are the result of "cause and effect." If one event happens, then there will be a result to said event. Nothing is set in stone and everything is guided by the choices you make in life. For example, if I believe that it is fate that I'll get into Harvard, but I don't apply myself and I don't meet the requirements, then there is no way that I'll make it. Fate is merely an ideal that we set in order to make sense of our chaotic world. Especially in our society, we tend to use fate as an excuse quite often. Everything may happen for a reason, but that reason is not based upon fate, but upon your previous actions.
I think Shakespeare's attitude was that fate isn't real but people believe in it so much that they feel that they have to make their "fate" come true and speed up/slow down the process. I believe that Macbeth definitely had choices in this situation; especially over whether or not to murder anyone.
"He’s here in double trust:
First, as I am his kinsman and his subject,
Strong both against the deed; then, as his host,
Who should against his murderer shut the door,
Not bear the knife myself. " (Act 1, Scene 7, page 21, Shakespeare, lines 12-16).
Macbeth did not initially want to kill Duncan, but he was greatly influenced by the power of persuasion, (who can blame him?) and therefore made decisions based on the opinions of his wife and not necessarily his own. In my perspective, this is not what fate is defined as; fate just happens and has no outside forces that are able to reckon with it because in the end it will happen. If he had not killed Duncan, I would go as far as to say that he would have still became King of Cawdor, and my idea of Shakespeare's attitude towards fate would be altered. One may argue, though, that since Macbeth still became king that it was truly fate. But because he tampered with the process it became less of an act of "fate" and more of an act of "choice."
Once his "fate" was fulfilled and Macbeth was king he did not stop there; he continued to choose to protect his fate by killing Banquo and Banquo's son Fleance. If it was truly fate, then why did he feel the need to protect it?
"They hail'd him father to a line of kings:
Upon my head they placed a fruitless crown,
And put a barren sceptre in my gripe,
Thence to be wrench'd with an unlineal hand,
No son of mine succeeding." (Act 3, Scene 1, Shakespeare, 65-69).
Macbeth's drive to remain king was based initially on the prophecy given by the weird sisters and influenced by his wife, and continued by his power-hungry ego. The prophecy given was the idea of fate and that idea led to choices of evil in order to fulfil the prophecy. Everything starts with a choice.
I agree with your perspective of fate and chance, and your example using Harvard really supports your argument! It is interesting how you said that since he tampered with the process, the outcome became a result of choice. If he had not interfered, would you then call it fate? I did not think about how if it was actually fate he would not feel the need to do anything about it or protect it once it already happened, but I definitely agree. Nothing special needs to be done to fulfill a prophecy if it is already destined to happen.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Shakespeare is arguing fate isn't real and like the approach you take in showing how Macbeth is responsible for his actions. Do you think he really has a "power hungry ego" or is he just very easily influenced? If so, who do you think influenced him more, Lady Macbeth or the witches?
ReplyDelete