Write a critical note on the sense of fate with which a Shakespeare

Write a critical note on the sense of fate with which a Shakespearean tragedy is invested, with special reference to ‘Macbeth’.

Ans.

Character acts like Fate

We have seen that a Shakespearean tragedy is ultimately a tragedy of character; character, which acts like fate. A man of noble aspects, capable of great things, lovable, honorable and respectable is seen to suffer and die on account of some error or crime which he commits and which arises out of his temperament and character. In other words, tragedy arises out of a fatal flaw in the intellectual and moral make-out of an individual otherwise noble and admirable. He reaps what he sows . The bitterest drop in the cup of the tragic hero is to realize that he is himself responsible for his tragedy.

Tragic Catastrophe

This conception of tragedy is illustrated in Shakespeare’s plays. It is on the whole a correct view of the tragic catastrophe with which Shakespeare’s tragedies end. But this is not the whole truth because we somehow feel that the tragic hero is not wholly responsible for the tragic catastrophe. Pity and sympathy for him come because of this feeling of mysterious forces working in the universe over which the individual seems to have no control. We fee! that in addition to the individual’s folly, there are circumstances in which he is placed and these circumstances seem to have their share in bringing about the tragic catastrophe.

Intuitive Shadowy Intimations-Illustrations from ‘Macbeth’

This feeling is a complex of several shadowy intimations which come to us intuitively. We cannot define them in explicit terms but their existence is unmistakable. We may illustrate this by noting the circumstances in which Macbeth is placed in the play.

Suppose rebellion from within and invasion from without did not occur or that when they did occur. Duncan was efficient and strong enough to quell them. In such a case he would not have been a victim of foul play betrayed by one of his own (in fact by two) trusted noble men-Cawdor and Macbeth.. The very idea of treason in these men could not have come but for the weakness of Duncan and his inability to control the affairs of kingdom. This led to his reliance, excessive reliance and trust on these brave soldiers. There is in this a source of temptation for them to rebel and betray their trust.

Or, suppose that Macbeth did not meet the clies who all hailed him ‘King of Scotland’. He would not have been tented to the extent to which he is shown in the play. Macbeth, of course, was already thinking in terms of regicide but then those thoughts, would have remained neutral. They were galvanized by the prophetic promise of the witches. The potential evil in Macbeth became actual and dynamic by his contact with thoughts and these of Lady Macbeth exercised a shaping influence in his tragic destiny.

Or, suppose that “time and place did not adhere” as they did when Duncan decided to visit the castle of Macbeth at precisely the moment when Macbeth’s evil thoughts had gathered momentum. The temptation is heightened by these circumstances. It is made plain by Lady Macbeth that her husband had thought of killing Duncan at a time when circumstances had made the killing easily feasible.

Or, again, suppose that Macbeth was not given a breathing space after the war and that peace did not follow that war but that he was sent on some other military mission of that turbulent time. This is not at all an improbable contingency because the times were wild. Duncan’s subjects were turbulent people and uprisings, rebellions and invasions were the order of the day. In that case Macbeth would not have been planning the murder of his king but would have gone on a mission of patriotic defence of his interests. In fact this is an important consideration in this tragic destiny, because Macbeth is a man of action who cannot sit idle and whose military talents demand a constant exercise.

Or, again, suppose that he had a wife less strong-willed than Lady Macbeth. He would then have, like Hamlet, remained a vacillating, procrastinating person and his delay, unlike Hamlet’s would have been good instead of tragic.

In this way, we feel that fate placed Macbeth in a situation where his good qualities were neutralized by circumstances which tempted and strengthened his evil nature, Evil exists. in everyone of us and it needs a fertile soil to develop, that soil is the circumstances in which we happen to be placed.

Tragedy arises by the combined force of Character and Circumstances

So, it is neither by character nor by circumstances alone that tragedy arises in Shakespeare’s plays. It is the result of the combined force of the two. There is a sense of the mystery of existence itself in Shakespeare’s plays. We feel that this mystery is shown in shadowy intimation from the atmosphere of the plays. The question why a good man should commit crimes is a mystery. It a bad man commits it, there is no mystery. Of course there are critic (like Percival) who make Macbeth a bad man from the beginning to the end, but surely this is not an unprejudiced view. No man is wholly good or wholly bad.

He is what he is because he is the product of several factors like heredity, upbringing and environment over which he has no control. He is of course, endowed with sense of judgment, freedom of choice, foresight and free will. But what is human foresight and free will when they have to contains? The mystery of evil is that it is a by-product of good itself. Ambition of good becomes evil when circumstances concur and temptation set. Macbeth’s ambition is shown in his greatness as warrior no less than in his crime of regicide. This is the mystery of existence.

Conclusion

Shakespeare’s tragedies contain an element of his universal sense of fate i.e. circumstances with which we are impressed. In a word both circumstances (fate) and character act and react upon each other. It is a one sided view of his tragedies are taken as tragedies of character of tragedies of fate. They are the product of both.