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—Lady 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.
Patton 6
The possibility of fate and free will functioning simultaneously in a situation is reiterated
in Macbeth’s second encounter with the witches. As Macbeth continues to plunge even deeper
into blood, he intentionally seeks the witches out in an attempt to get some answers about what
his fate will look like now that he has prompted fate to fulfill itself (Snyder 291). The Weird
Sisters do not give him any definite answers. Instead, they call on their “masters” to deliver the
message to Macbeth (4.1.85). Because they call on higher powers, it seems like the witches are
instruments of fate. But this trio of witches chooses to be mediums in Macbeth’s fated destiny.
The “masters” summoned present Macbeth with a series of apparitions that issue several
warnings that Macbeth takes at face value. He becomes overly confident and disregards the
warnings given to him. Macbeth chooses to let fate take its course and proclaims, “That will
never be. / Who can impress the forest, bid the tree” (4.1.116-117). Even though he is in good
spirits after hearing the three new prophecies, Macbeth grows increasingly paranoid about
Banquo’s children becoming future kings. Therefore, he again presses the witches for more
information because he wants to know his power to shape his future. In response to Macbeth’s
question, the “masters” present him with a vision of a procession of eight kings; the eighth king
has a mirror in his hand that allows Banquo’s ghost to be seen following behind. This vision
shows that Macbeth’s murder of Banquo was did not successfully interfere with fate, as he
mistakenly believed that his ability to expedite fate could be extended to circumvent fated
events.
Macbeth is defeated in the end because he exercises freedom in interrupting the
prophecies. But he misinterprets them, and the hidden meanings completely elude him.
Therefore, Macbeth’s selective interpretation leads to his fated demise. By the time the
Patton 7
apparitions caution him about Macduff, declare him safe from harm until Birnam Wood comes,
and reveal “none of woman born / Shall harm Macbeth” (4.1.102-103), Macbeth already knows
the danger in taking the prophecies literally, but he does not believe fate will bring them to be.
He assumes Birnam Wood will have to be uprooted and that the witches are referring to
conception not birth; therefore, Macduff cannot possibly defeat him.
It is not until his defeat that Macbeth’s perspective on fate is altered. He realizes his
limited power within fate and that he cannot exist outside of it. As he defeated by Macduff, he
asserts:
And be these juggling fiends no more believed,
That palter with us in a double sense,
That keep the word of promise to our ear,
And break it to our hope. (5.8.19-22)
Macbeth admits that he misunderstood the witches’ insight, and he sees that the prophecies apply
to him as well. If Macbeth recognizes that he is subject to their prophecies, he has to accept that
he is subject to fate as well.
Yet Macbeth’s actions are not the only ones that depict the paradox of fate versus free
will. Although Macduff appears to be Macbeth’s opposite, he also makes his own decisions.
Macduff, unlike Macbeth, is the good guy. He goes to Malcolm and asks him to send an army to
defeat Macbeth. Macbeth has Macduff’s wife and children killed, but these murders were also
unnecessary. At the close of the play, Macduff pursues Macbeth in an attempt to avenge his
family’s death because he is grieving and desires to see Scotland restored. Macduff chooses an
Patton 8
honorable way of life; therefore, he becomes the man “not born of woman” that is able to defeat
Macbeth, which directly aligns with Macbeth’s fated destiny.
Banquo also decides to accept fate as a working force. After Banquo is told his
descendants will be kings and Macbeth becomes king, he yearns to see fate realized in his own
life. Since fate crowned Macbeth king, Banquo believes fate will crown his descendants kings.
He also suspects that Macbeth may have intervened. Banquo does not claim that fate can be
changed, but he thinks human intervention can expedite fate. He wants his sons to be kings, but
he will not do anything that will compromise his integrity. He asserts:
So I lose none
In seeking to augment it, but still keep
My bosom franchised and allegiance clear,
I shall be counselled. (2.1.27-30)
Here, Banquo knows he has the same opportunity to act as Macbeth does, but he waits for
chance to crown his children as kings. Given what he believes Macbeth has done, Banquo
realizes that to interfere would require him to break the strict moral standards he embodies;
therefore when interacting with fate, there are courses of action Banquo refuses to take.
In the end, it does not appear that Banquo is rewarded for his sound convictions.
Throughout the duration of the play, the only prophesied event that does not occur is the one
regarding Banquo’s descendants becoming kings. But the audience at the time this play was
performed would have recognized that all the prophecies did transpire. King James would have
been among the audience, and he claimed to be a descendent of Banquo’s lineage. Therefore,
the eighth king in the procession shown to Macbeth represents King James. The story of Banquo
Patton 9
is a direct compliment to the king because Shakespeare made one of the king’s ancestors the
better guy. The playwright is also alluding to the fact the King James’ descendants are destined
to be kings. But Banquo’s story, in relationship to the rest of the play, could have been slightly
unsettling to him because the sources of this prophesy were evil, demonic forces.
Shakespeare himself was not sold on the Calvinist theology. In fact, his “ambivalence
towards doctrinal differences has led others to see him as more skeptical . . .” (McCoy 182). The
plot of the play falls within Calvinism because everything that was fated came to be. Through
the characters in the play, however, Shakespeare requires his audience, including the Calvinist
King James I, to grapple with the complexities for fate and free will. If readers do not take into
account the characters’ actions, they become like Macbeth himself, taking the witches’
prophecies at face value and disregarding their paradoxical nature.
Works Cited
Curry, Walter C. “The Demonic Metaphysics of Macbeth.” Twentieth Century Interpretations of
Macbeth: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Terence Hawkes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1977. 30-33. Print.
Patton 10
Farnham, Willard. “The Witches.” Twentieth Century Interpretations of Macbeth: A
Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Terence Hawkes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1977. 61-62. Print.
McCoy, Richard C. “Shakespearean Tragedy and Religious Identity.” A Companion to
Shakespeare's Works. Ed. Richard Dutton and Jean Elizabeth Howard. Vol. 1. Oxford:
Blackwell, 2003. 178-198. Print.
Perkins, William, and Ian Breward. The Work of William Perkins. Abingdon: Sutton
Courtenay, 1970. Print.
Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. Ed. Stephen Orgel. New York: Penguin, 2000. Print.
Snyder, Susan. “Theology as Tragedy in Macbeth.” Christianity and Literature 43.3-4 (1994):
289-300. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.
Stachniewski, John. "Calvinist Psychology in Macbeth." Shakespeare Studies 20 (1988): 169189. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.
Woodcock, Matthew. “Macbeth.” The Greenwood Companion to Shakespeare: A
Comprehensive Guide for Students. Ed. Joseph Rosenblum. Westport, CT: Greenwood,
2005. 827-859. Print.