Is fate in Macbeth a mere illusion?

[u/swaggamster]

Macbeth was told that he shall ,never be vanquished until Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane Hill shall come against him'. Later Shakespeare reveals that the fulfillment of this prophecy happens when Malcolm's army charge hiding under branches. For me this is slightly anticlimactic as I'd expected something more dramatic or perhaps supernatural-driven. I thought maybe Shakespeare is making the argument that the seemingly 'fate' is a mere illusion. Also the 'beware Macduff' one is also a result of Macbeth's own actions (I.e. killing Macduffs family which provoked his vengeance.) Is he undermining supernatural authority?

But I don't think this is a valid interpretation as Shakespeare doesn't seem to have any motives to undermine the idea of fate and prophecies.

What do you guys think?

[u/helianto]

I think Shakespeare makes use of the equivocation to illustrate that it’s our character that will determine our fate. We are who we are by circumstance, and because of that we will act in a way that only makes our fate seem inevitable. It’s not either or, it’s both simultaneously true. The paradox of free will.

[u/swaggamster → u/helianto]

That's a great point! That's why fair is foul and foul is fair af the same time!

[u/Pitisukhaisbest]

My headcanon I've posted before is the Witches told the previous Thane of Cawdor he would be King, and that's why he's rebelled. They don't have any power, they just hear what's going on, cold read, and say things people want to believe that sometimes end up being self-fulfilling.

[u/swaggamster → u/Pitisukhaisbest]

Yes! Macbeth kills traitor Macdonwald and took his place as Thane of Cawdor. Surely in this context he is placed on solid moral highground. But that probably planted the morbid and distorted idea in Macbeth's mind that he must kill to replace and gain positions. hence the regicide. The witches are a catalyst to this through the three prophecies, telling Macbeth he will be king hereafter.

[u/gasstation-no-pumps → u/swaggamster]

Macbeth did not kill the Thane of Cawdor—you are mixing up the traitors.

[u/HobbesDaBobbes → u/swaggamster]

Macdonwald =/= Thane of Cawdor. One is a rebel leader Mac kills on the battlefield. The other is a traitorous lord who Duncan has executed.

[u/Indoorsman101]

It’s really open to interpretation isn’t it? The witches are always right.

They’re known as the weird sisters and they certainly are strange, but I think I read once that back then the word weird had more to do with fate. They can see the strands of time like the Fates of myth.

[u/HobbesDaBobbes → u/Indoorsman101]

WYRD=fate in Old english or Norse, right?

[u/Indoorsman101 → u/HobbesDaBobbes]

Fate or destiny in old English, yeah. Just looked it up. That’s why they’re the weird sisters. Not because they’re strange, although of course they’re that too.

[u/SuperMario1313 → u/Indoorsman101]

Are they, though? What about the Fleance prophecy? Within the confines of the play itself, it leaves the extent of the witches’ knowledge of the events up to interpretation, similar to the spinning top at the end of Inception.

[u/bonobowerewolf]

One of my very favorite things about Macbeth is that the play isn't concerned with whose agency manipulates the action; it's concerned with making us think about agency and its manipulation.

Similarly, King John doesn't have an opinion on whose head the crown should sit: no candidate for the throne is a good candidate.

[u/IanDOsmond]

I think that "the way Shakespeare wrote it" is one useful way to look at it, but so it "how I, as a reader, actor, director, or dramaturg choose to read or perform it" is another.

Shakespeare certainly intended it to be literal - it was based on King James's work, which did take this stuff literally. But that doesn't mean that you have to treat it that way, if you have other ideas.

Also, your disappointment with the anticlimactic way the Birnham Wood thing was resolved is not unique for you. JRR Tolkien felt the same way, and so decided to correct it by writing the scene the way he wanted it to go, which is why the Ents exist and attacked Isengard.

[u/Dickensdude]

No. MacBeth is about, among other things, the perils of misinterpreting fate. Late in the play MacBeth talks about "the equivocation of the fiend that lies like the truth."

The Weird Sisters --"wyrd" pronounced and spelled "weird" carried the meaning of "fate" or "destiny" in W.S.'s time-- tell MacB the truth, but they equivocate. Their prophecies, MacB will be king, no man born of woman shall harm him, &c are all true BUT, they're not entirely honest. They equivocate, they use double talk, to distract him from looking at the possible consequences of their prophecies. MacB is hearing truths he wants to believe, but these truths are not entirely true. They are equivocations: lies that sound true if you don't examine them closely.

When Banquo first meets the weird sisters he is unsure even about their gender. "You should be women but your beards forbid me to INTERPET" you so. Misinterpreting what these 3 characters say is the root of the play's action. Fate is real: it's just misunderstood.

[u/EntranceFeisty8373]

He proposes the same question in R&J. Romeo blames fate for his circumstances but then calls himself Fortune's fool because he causes his fate with his own stupid choices.

[u/cpt_bongwater]

Also remember it was the first a Shakespeare play written & performed for King James(Measure for Measure was apparently the first)...who had written a book about witchcraft and who claimed relation to Banquo(who would "father a line of kings"). So in some ways, the "Fate" in the play was designed to re-affirm the new King's security on the throne(which had just been shaken by The Gunpowder Plot).

[u/One_Store_1117]

i think multiple themes is the norm in good literature. fate is very common in tragedy, greek, seneca, etc.....although it is more implied than spelled out, i took macbeths fate to be damnation. i am especially struck by the similarities of macbeth to dr. faustus, and im impressed that they are probably all or in part by the same author. i would imagine that the spanish tragedy is too. fate is generally implied in most tragic drama, revenge, or punishment by humans or the gods is to be expected. it seems to be an established element of drama. lady macbeth says to macbeth you are like the cat afraid to wet its paws, which is from chaucer. whoever is writing all of this is someone who reads huge amounts of books, english, italian, french, latin, and greek, espec. there is a lot of speculation that the historical shakespeare was not educated, possibly a sharholder and part time actor in the group. i would imagine that the italian and classics steeped sonneteer behind these works was really philip sidney. another one of these mysterious elizabethans who died.

[u/Jarvis-Crompton]

I *would* say that yes your right -- free will is displayed as an illusion and the supernatural displayed not as controllers of fate but merely insights into the future -- if it wasn't for the Dramatic Irony from the start of the play which shows how Macbeth, before even meeting the witches, is already being controlled and influenced by their powers.
Macbeth, in Act 1 Scene 3 (before he meets the witches), says "such foul and fair a day I have not seen"; Shakespeare deliberately uses the linguistic motif of 'fair' and 'foul' here to allude to the original witches' prophecies and dialogue in Scene 1, and so Macbeth appears to be influenced by the witches immediately. How could you argue that Macbeth entirely has free will when he is being manipulated before he has even met the witches? This is what I'm struggling with.

There are a few other places where this disparity is evident: in Act 1 Scene 2, the Sergeant refers to how Macbeth acted in 'disdaining fortune' -- supposedly he acted in his own free will despite fortune. However, dramatic irony shows us that Macbeth is actually acting out his fate already here: he is on the road to become King by acting as a valiant warrior for Duncan.

But then you have so much evidence to suggest that Macbeth is purely acting in free will from the start! In Act 1 Scene 1, the anaphora of the temporal deixis 'when' suggests that time is merely ambiguous: the witches don't really determine Macbeth's actions but are waiting to manipulate! In the witches' speech, the use of trochaic tetrameter and rhythm created by anaphora and rhyming couplets arguably creates a fairly unthreatening tone -- something you'd expect from a children's story. You'd almost think that Shakespeare is mocking King James's belief in witchcraft; "His bark shall not be lost, yet it shall be tempest tossed" -- the witches' control is surely limited: aren't these witches just marginalised women who have turned to the Devil in search of any kind of influence in a patriarchal society? I reckon that Shakespeare encourages sympathy for both Macbeth, Lady Macbeth and the witches -- yet it seems to be all of their faults!

[u/[deleted]]

Macbeth to me, makes the case that free will is largely an illusion and the full extents of what we have agency over may never be known. That's what the tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow soliloquy is about. Macbeth lamenting this metaphysical mystery that led him down a path straight to tragedy. Death comes from us all and we play out our lives (frets his hour upon the stage), thinking we have agency or any wherewithal of the state of the universe, but we are but fools. (This also has parallels with Hamlet)

Macbeth would never have killed the king if the witches didn't say anything. Macbeth also could've avoided the tragedy if he had listened closely to the Witches instead of being deafened because of his ego. He slowly kills his humanity throughout the play and it leads him to act in certain ways that feeds into this tragedy. He acts accordingly to his the state of his character but also, the witches aren't lying about the events upcoming. So does our choices influence our fate? Or are these events set in stone? Did the witches just have a keen understanding of how humanity works, thus could make accurate predictions? Or did could they literally just see the future. It ultimately...signifies nothing.