When Fate Reigns: Perceptions of Predestination in Hamlet and Macbeth

Transcription

1 1 When Fate Reigns: Perceptions of Predestination in Hamlet and Macbeth Showing concern about the issues of agency and whether people have the ability to choose what ultimately happens to them, Shakespeare uses the concept of predestination as a platform to explore how those issues can be addressed. He shows that process of exploration in in the plays Hamlet and Macbeth by having the characters in them approach predestination in distinct, divergent ways. While the characters in both plays face the same issue in the context of supernatural forces that attempt to control them, they are always in positions where they evaluate how much authority those supernatural forces have over their lives. So, although Shakespeare addresses predestination in his other plays, Hamlet and Macbeth are particularly interesting to focus on because of the extreme differences of perception he presents the characters in them as having. In Hamlet, Shakespeare offers a fatalistic viewpoint in that the characters in it believe that life s outcomes are dictated by an otherworldly, divine force that has control over them. Conversely, the characters in Macbeth agree with the ones in Hamlet in that they believe an otherworldly presence exists in a person s life, but where they separate is in their belief that they alone are the dominant determiners of their futures. Through that premise, the characters in the play do not reject the notion of an otherworldly presence being in their lives, but they do reject it as being the chief, definitive director of the outcomes in them. With that said, the objective of this study is to show how Shakespeare gives the characters in Hamlet and Macbeth contrasting perspectives on predestination. He primarily achieves this by showing the definition of fate and the extent of its authority as being entities that exist entirely within a character s state of mind. To be clearer, he imbues certain characters in Hamlet and Macbeth with differing mental attitudes about fate s role in their lives, thereby introducing an intriguing dichotomy between otherworldly controlled destinies and human

2 2 driven futures. When analyzing the idea of otherworldly controlled destinies, Horatio, Hamlet, and the Player King are useful examples for such research. Considering the fact that the Player King is a fictitious character in The Mousetrap, it might appear odd to include him in this study. But, his presence in it is credible because his views represent exactly the ones held by Horatio and Hamlet and this therefore elevates him as a character grounded in the realities of the world of the actual play as perceived by those two main characters. On the other hand, when examining the idea of human driven futures, Lady Macbeth, Donalbain, and Macbeth are examples worth analyzing. Despite existing as one of the supporting characters in the play, Donalbain is beneficial to analyze in this study because once his father is slain, he comes to the same realization that the other two characters come to by recognizing in a direct way his ability to control the outcome of his situation. With those contexts of both plays in mind, Horatio, Hamlet, and the Player King are shown to perceive fate as a type of divine will that uses its power to create what they feel is a sense of dominion over them whereas Lady Macbeth, Donalbain, and Macbeth dismiss it as a sovereign force and instead perceive it as a supernatural suggestion of potential events that they either attempt to bend to their wills or push back against. I. Divine Rule: Perceptions of Divine Dominion in Hamlet The first character who perceives that fate is a commanding divine will that has power over him and his surroundings is Horatio. Specifically, he feels that it so powerful that it has the ability to work through celestial elements to alert him and his countrymen about the inescapable path that they will all face. This is shown when he says: Disasters in the sun; and the moist star Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse.

3 3 And even the like precurse of feared events, As harbingers preceding still the fates And prologue to the omen coming on, Have heaven and earth together demonstrated Unto our climature and countrymen. ( ) In this statement, Horatio expresses anxiety about what the fates have in store for his country. He uses the emotional words feared events and omen to signify the problems he feels are coming on against the people of his country and their world. Without a doubt, he is certain that whatever the fates are about to bring will be a negative on everyone s lives. He illuminates that certainty by using the evocative language of Disasters in the sun and describing how Neptune s empire was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse as previous signs of fate s power. By thinking that similar events are happening in the present, he assigns fate mastership status over the celestial entities of the cosmos and the physical elements of the planet Earth. In doing this, he shows how much authority he thinks fate has by virtue of it being a commanding divine will. This mode of thinking aligns neatly with one of Shakespeare s ideas of it as John P. Beifuss explains when he says, the operations of fate are in plays like Hamlet moved by forces from outside the merely human universe (30). In the above lines in the scene, Horatio adheres completely to that belief and thinks that fate has ultimate control over what will happen to him and his country, for even the heavens and earth have taken on subordinate positions to it which then leads them to act as harbingers of divine will s plans for him and his people. As such, according to his perception, divine will is the ruler of all things, including him, his country, and the celestial and earthly universe.

4 4 Horatio displays that same belief in another more subtle instance, but it is still shown in a clear way. This occurs when he meets Hamlet s father s ghost for the first time. At that moment, he says, If thou art privy to thy country's fate, / Which happily foreknowing may avoid, / O, speak! ( ). At first glance, he appears to make the claim that foreknowing his country s fate could give him and his countrymen the ability to determine their futures by being able to avoid said fate. But, that interpretation does not accurately take into consideration the skeptical language he uses that reveals his fatalistic nature. Through such language, his conviction about the sovereign power of divine will emerges from under the surface when he applies the words happily and may in the same line. To be sure, he likely would feel happy in the conventional sense to acquire such information from the ghost, but it is more appropriate to interpret the word happily as him saying per chance, thus demonstrating how skeptical he feels about the realistic odds of him and his countrymen being able to sidestep fate. This interpretation of the word happily as used by Horatio is also more in keeping with the customs of Shakespeare through its root component hap. As Kenneth Deighton notes, the use of the word hap, chance, is frequent in Shakespeare, and such a use here seems more in accordance with the skeptical mind of Horatio (131). The additional word may reinforces that skepticism, making it clear that he is experiencing a state of inner turmoil over whether or not he and his countrymen could realistically overcome fate. For that reason, his phrasing shows how he wishes that he and his countrymen could avoid fate, but deep down, being the fatalist that he is, he knows it can never really happen, hence his lack of confidence in it as a possibility. His uncertainty in this regard indicates his belief that foreknowledge alone might not be sufficient enough to get around whatever divine will has planned for them. The extent of fate s power then becomes a source of inner contention for him, but he nevertheless continues to

5 5 recognize its authority by not truly thinking he or his countrymen could ever overcome it. In doing so, he displays both his ideology about the inevitability of fate and how much he perceives divine will to be a strong, ruling force over him and his people. A second character who perceives fate as a divine will that has dominion over him is Hamlet himself. He does not just feel like it has dominion over him through its power, though. He submits to it because of how strongly he feels that power. This takes place when he initially sees his father s ghost when he makes the following dramatic declaration: My fate cries out And makes each petty artire in this body As hardy as the Nemean lion's nerve. Still am I call'd. Unhand me, gentlemen. By heaven, I'll make a ghost of him that lets me! I say, away! Go on. I'll follow thee. ( ) In this scene, Hamlet can either follow the ghost or stay behind with Marcellus and Horatio, who are holding him back. Believing as he does in the ruling power of divine will, he elects to go with the ghost because he perceives that his fate cries out and that he is call d. This is significant because instead of railing against fate, which he has every opportunity to do here, he gives into it. He feels unequivocally that the ghost s presence is the beginning of the realization of his destiny. To him, there is no other way of approaching the situation. This is a view Jan H. Blits agrees with when he says, Hamlet seems to mean that whatever the Ghost says or does will determine his destiny (95). Because of that, he feels emboldened enough to murder Horatio and Marcellus if they do not unhand him, as is shown when the statement, I ll make a ghost of him that lets me! appears. It is a rather extreme threat to make, which shows the lengths

6 6 Hamlet is willing to go to so he can seek out his destiny. He bends to divine will s compelling power, showing that through his willingness to sacrifice Horatio and Marcellus, he, per his beliefs and desires, situates fate as an orchestrator of events in his life. To further understand how Hamlet feels compelled to submit to fate s power in this scene, it is helpful to compare it to The Aeneid, a text Shakespeare clearly has in mind for this play as is indicated later when Hamlet mentions Aeneas and Dido ( ). The particular episode of interest in that text for analyzing Hamlet s encounter with his father s ghost is when Aeneas encounters Dido s ghost in the underworld. In that episode, Aeneas says, the will of the Gods, that drives me through the shadows now, / these moldering places so forlorn, this deep unfathomed night - / their decrees have forced me on. ( ). In those statements, Aeneas shows how he feels compelled to follow a designated path because of divine will. Hamlet, comparatively, has a similar feeling in his situation. He feels that he must pursue a perilous path of his own the way Aeneas did because his father s ghost s presence and, by extension divine rule itself, is that strong and alluring to him. He permits fate to control him to that degree because he feels that nothing else is a favorable course of action, hence showing that the divine power of fate can and does have the ability to shape his external and internal state of being. This is profound because later on before The Mousetrap is performed, he says, Give me that man / That is not passion s slave, and I will wear him / In my heart s core ( ). In those lines, he shows his belief that men are bound to follow their emotions. So, when he sees his father s ghost, he feels the power of fate calling him to such a degree to where he feels that he has no choice but to follow its directives. He becomes a slave to his emotions, the same emotions that fate has seduced in order to make him feel like he is destined to kill Claudius. Even though Hamlet is a little uncertain that he actually did kill his father, he still more than believes in the idea enough to see if what fate has

7 7 said through his father s ghost is true, hence the purpose of The Mousetrap. Doing so shows his belief that fate has massive credibility and thus the power to impress upon someone a particular feeling or thought. Through his faithful approach to fate in this way, he shows how he subscribes to the belief that it is something that has authority over his life. Because of that, to Hamlet, fate has dominion over a person s life due to its powerful ability to shape and drive human emotions. A third character who perceives fate as a divine will that uses its power to spread dominion over its subjects is the Player King in The Mousetrap. Although he is a character in the play within a play, his perceptions of fate are worth delving into because they are representations and reflections of the previously established views that the real characters Horatio and Hamlet have. This is demonstrated when he states the following: But, orderly to the end where I begun, Our wills and fates do so contrary run, That our devices still are overthrown; Our thoughts are ours, their ends none of our own. ( ) The Player King plainly says that people s wills do not determine what will ultimately happen to them in their ends. The fates alone are in charge of that. This means that he believes that an outside agent is responsible for deciding the outcome of people s lives, which resembles how Horatio and Hamlet view it. This observation is also validated by Richard Mallette when he says, The baldness of the determinism in the Player King s aphorisms points with heightened clarity to the issue for all the chief characters. An impersonal force ( fates ) determines our wills and often defeats human volition and independence (347). In terms of the Player King s beliefs, that force is the execution of divine will s power over the people since what happens to them is

8 8 outside of their realm of control and can therefore only be in the operative hands of Godly dominion. The Player King fully indicates how controlled he feels by that dominion when he pensively says, our devices still are overthrown. In those spoken feelings, the Player King profoundly mirrors the domination Horatio and Hamlet feel because of the power of divine will and therefore shows the extent of authority they believe divine will has over their lives. II. Challenging Fate s Authority: Human Will and Action in Macbeth While the previously examined characters in Hamlet feel that fate has overwhelming power over them, the characters in Macbeth do not feel that it holds the same power. In their eyes, fate is weaker, more subjective, and centered on human action. To further define it, they feel it is a supernaturally introduced suggestion of events that could occur should they first choose to accept the suggestion of those events and then perform whatever steps they deem necessary to make those events a reality. Through that definition, fate becomes something that is subservient to the characters internal drives rather than the reverse scenario. Such an impression is presented by Lady Macbeth when she utters these words: Hie thee hither, That I may pour my spirits in thine ear; And chastise with the valour of my tongue All that impedes thee from the golden round, Which fate and metaphysical aid doth seem To have crown'd withal. ( ) Upon a first reading of her statement, Lady Macbeth appears to believe that fate and metaphysical aid are the authorities that have given her husband Macbeth the golden round of which he has already been crown d. However, this understanding does not properly evaluate

9 9 the use of the word seem in relation to the role that she believes fate is playing in Macbeth s future. By applying the word seem in this context, what she is actually doing is expressing doubt that both metaphysical aid and fate are able enough to perform the task of making her husband king. To her, the witches and their prophecy, which are what the metaphysical aid and fate refer to, both offer a nice sounding suggestion that her husband could be king, but that does not mean she believes it is an assured future for him. It is nothing more to her than, as G.R Elliott describes it, a vision (53) that she feels needs active, human reinforcement in order to come true. That is why she feels the need to pour her spirits into Macbeth s ear. She wants him to act because she lacks faith that fate, being a mere possibility of outcomes, is going to be sufficient to provide him with the monarchal power she desires for him. Via that belief, Lady Macbeth s attitude towards fate is not one of it being a supreme will that has dominion over her husband s future. Her language instead shows that she believes Macbeth s future is directly linked to her influence on him and thus her will. Although it could be said that the witches and their prophecy have had a hand in determining her will in this regard, her statement s acknowledgment of their weakness implies that she believes that they would not be strong enough to do such a thing. To put it differently, Lady Macbeth s view of their lack of authority implies her belief that if it they seem incapable of performing one task, which she believes they are by not thinking they can guarantee Macbeth kingship, then they must also lack the capability of performing any other task that requires a similar amount of power, including the shaping of a person s will. This is a rational implication to make about her feelings because, according to Howard C. Cole, Shakespeare in Macbeth [investigates] the limits of supernatural soliciting and metaphysical aid (Macbeth, I.iii,v) (414). By thinking the witches and their prophecy possess limited power, Lady Macbeth persists in her belief that Macbeth becoming king is reliant

10 10 upon the choices they both make in getting him there, not that the kingship the witches prophecy speaks of for him is a status granted or inevitably decreed by some otherworldly force. For that reason, Lady Macbeth s comments represent the view that fate, albeit presented through supernatural means, is just a collection of possible suggestions about future outcomes that can be accepted or rejected depending on the decisions of the person in question. However, if one accepts those suggestions, he or she must be willing to put in the labor to bring them to fruition. As such, to Lady Macbeth, fate is something that bends to the human being through the process of deciding how to act in order to actualize a particular future of his or her choosing. In a different, tenser moment, Donalbain also displays the notion that a person can be in charge of his or her own destiny. He is an important character to analyze in relation to this because rather than taking place in the context of a meditative state like Lady Macbeth s did, Donalbain s view that he can control his own destiny is thrust forward in the face of danger from him being the son of a slain king. His reaction is significant because, even when feeling threatened by his environment, his conviction that he is the ruler of his future shines through. This happens when he says to Malcolm, What should be spoken here, where our fate, / Hid in an auger-hole, may rush, and seize us? / Let's away. Our tears are not yet brew'd. ( ). Although these lines indicate that Donalbain feels that whoever killed his father might be after him and Malcolm too, there is also a mysterious, supernatural undercurrent to his language. He thinks that a supernatural kind of fate could be at work against him and Malcolm through the language of it being [hidden] in an auger-hole and potentially able to rush and seize them. Nonetheless, he subscribes to the belief that it is something that can be circumnavigated. He does this by suggesting to Malcolm that they get away and escape the danger. Such an approach by Donalbain demonstrates two key concepts. The first is that he wants to and truly believes that he

11 11 can defeat the external dangers imposed by his environment by taking steps to avoid them. If he felt that fate was a supremely powerful entity of some kind, this thought never would have crossed his mind. He would know that regardless of what he or Malcolm tried to do, they would never be able to retreat from fate s power. Unlike Horatio who experiences high degrees of doubt that avoiding fate is possible through his skeptical appeals to old Hamlet s ghost, Donalbain takes on a position of confidence where he believes that it is completely possible for him and Malcolm to overcome fate. In other words, in a representative manner, he embodies Jim Packer s analysis that Macbeth is a play primarily about will, about action in time and the overwriting of fate (158). Because of that, Donalbain does not sit on the sidelines, mentally or physically, and he enthusiastically jumps at becoming the commander of his destiny without reservation. The second concept Donalbain s approach demonstrates is that he does not believe that fate is a product of a supernatural, cosmic, or divine will. He says that it may be [hidden] in an auger-hole, but by virtue of him feeling sure that he can escape from it, he nullifies the notion that the verb seize implies of it being something outside of his jurisdiction. In turn, the augerhole and the act of fate seizing him and Malcolm are shown to be forms of imagery he uses to communicate the fear he feels from the supernatural mysteriousness of the danger. But, that fear does not paralyze him from acting. Rather, by feeling like he can escape, he plants his future firmly in the wheelhouse of his own control. He recognizes that fate is only a potential set of events and that if he wants to avoid fulfilling them, he can. To better appreciate his approach in this way, it is beneficial to situate it in respect to the comments Mark the Lombard makes in Dante s Purgatorio since Dante and Shakespeare used essentially the same traditional [Christian] vision of human life (Fergusson 114). In accordance with that, Mark conveys the

12 12 same thoughts about free will that are present in Donalbain s perception. There, Mark provides the following insight: Of better nature and of greater power you are free subjects. And you have a mind that planets cannot rule or stars concern. So if the present world has gone astray, the reason lies in you (Canto 16, lines 79-83) Echoing Mark s sentiments that humans are of greater power and free subjects, Donalbain, through feeling confident that he can escape, does not allow for the idea that his future is dictated by anything other than his own choices and actions. He reflects the same belief Mark has when he states that humans have a mind / that planets cannot rule or stars concern. In this way, Donalbain s approach positions fate exclusively in the domain of the human universe while simultaneously rejecting it as anything driven by supernatural, cosmic, or divine forces. He actively pushes back against the supernatural feeling that the danger around him suggests, demonstrating how he perceives fate as being possible events that are far from inevitable and can be shaped by his will alone. Macbeth, being another character who models such a perspective, is even more adamant that fate s edicts can be overcome. This takes place in a state of desperation and madness on his part, but through that anxiety, he nevertheless reaches the idea that he is not subject to a specific future. That is shown when he dramatically says: Given to the common enemy of man To make them kings, the seeds of Banquo kings.

13 13 Rather than so, come fate into the list, And champion me to th utterance! ( ) In this quote, Macbeth is frustrated about how he has murdered Duncan in order to take his place on the throne just so Banquo s offspring, the seeds he mentions, can become kings later. The emotional distress from this leads Macbeth to want to make fate [come] into the list. / And champion [him] to th utterance! This is significant because it brazenly implies that he does not recognize the authority of fate as it stands in its current form. The whole time, he knew that part of the witches prophecy said that Banquo s offspring would take the crown of Scotland, yet now, he becomes determined to prove that their prophecy is not true. By taking this stance on it, he rejects the idea that fate is something preset and that he is doomed to live in an eternal state of misery from killing Duncan without any kind of long term benefit. Via his determination to challenge fate, he implies that he will set out on a mission to have Banquo and Fleance murdered. Hence, his frame of thought in this scene follows this logic: By killing Banquo and Fleance, Macbeth is not only trying to assure his safety and to cut off a rival line, but is also trying to master fate (Bernard 170). As such, Macbeth making the choice to engage in this type of thought shows him as someone who thinks that fate can be manipulated. In this way, he shows how he does not share a philosophical platform with the likes of the Player King who takes on fatalistic perception that fate always triumphs over a person s will and it is, as a result, futile to try to act against it. Instead, in a sharply contrastive manner, Macbeth refuses to resign himself to a specific destiny as decided by an outside force. For him to take such a position on the issue is not surprising when it is taken into account an earlier comment he makes pertaining to the same belief system. After Banquo exits the scene, he says, Let every man be master of his time (3.1.40). By Macbeth setting out to challenge fate, he embodies that pronouncement entirely by

14 14 showing no hesitation about pushing back against anything that appears to be trying to dictate to him. In the process, he becomes a non-hypocritical, representative model of how he thinks a person should conduct their life. To press deeper into these two segments of the scene, his aggressive attitude in both parts of it displays the zealous vigor he has for becoming the master of his time while, in the same breath, shunning the idea that otherworldly forces have more power than he does over his future and, for that matter, Scotland s. This interpretation makes sense because if Macbeth believed otherwise, it would be a direct undermining of his ambitious character which has been shown throughout most of the play. It would be a slight against the motivation he has that persists during his campaign to not only attain kingship but to maintain it for himself and any family members he may have later in life. In other words, he wants to assure that there will be a place for them on the throne without the threat of the problems that outside interference may make pop up. By taking such a proactive approach, his perception indicates that, to him, fate is only a set of suggested outcomes about a person s future that can be altered or outright discarded, which is precisely what he does with the witches prophecy by challenging it. A second case where Macbeth takes the reins on steering his own future is when he is contemplating whether or not he should murder Macduff. He knows that Macduff is likely not a threat to him, but he opts to do it anyway. This appears when he says, Then live, Macduff; what need I fear of thee? / But yet I ll make assurance double sure / And take a bond of fate. Thou shalt not live ( ). Here, Macbeth shows a lack of trust in the outcome of him being able to remain on the throne through his words, I ll make assurance double sure / And take a bond of fate. He wants to, using his means and nothing else s, keep his title secure because he does not trust that fate is going to be enough to assure the stability of his place on the throne or his very

15 15 survival. To put it more bluntly, He trusts himself and his sword not the witches, Hecate, or their art (Blits 126). In this manner, he shares a perspective with his wife in that neither of them trust that fate as dictated by the witches prophecy is going to bring about the outcome they crave. Because of his distrust in fate, he thinks that, by killing Macduff, he will have the security (the guarantee) of his security (his safety) (Blits 217). Seeking out this security in such a bullish manner shows Macbeth challenging fate again, forcing it to bend to his will rather than allowing the possibility of him not being able to retain his crown to continue in an unchecked, unobstructed way. Also, by employing the phrase bond of fate, he puts into operation a legalistic style of language to justify why he thinks killing Macduff is necessary. Specifically, it functions as contractual language which sets out to express his intent to make fate do what he wants in a more assured way. Through his need for the contractual language, he shows how dubious and fickle he thinks fate really is. He is positive that nothing is certain in life because, to him, fate is all about potentiality. Due to that potentiality, he realizes and appreciates the need for human intervention to ensure future events happen since he thinks that fate is not all powerful in the sense of it being a divine, cosmic, or supernatural will that determines outcomes. He believes fate s actualization is very much the result of the choices humans make. As such, Macbeth s position is that murdering Macduff is the only and best method he can use to force fate to play out how he wants. It becomes the preeminent device for him to express both his desire for the crown and desire to master fate. III. Conclusion It can be said that Hamlet and Macbeth appear to consist of characters who treat fate as a supreme will that dictates their lives since those fates are delivered to them via supernatural means. But, it is more accurate to say that they demonstrate that the concept of fate as a

16 16 prescribed, inevitable predestination is dependent on personal perception and the approaches a person chooses to take in regards to their outlooks on their futures. Through that understanding, the characters are shown to be inverted mirrors of each other. To be more exact, where Horatio, Hamlet, and the Player King think of themselves as being in the restrictive hands of divine control by believing they are led by a will other than their own, Lady Macbeth, Donalbain, and Macbeth take a broader, human-centric lens to fate by perceiving it as a set of potential outcomes that are, in truth, devoid of any power over them and are free to be manipulated or tossed aside. They perceive fate in different ways in that regard and because of that, the plays grapple with the fundamental question of where divine law and its opposite counterpart, man-made positive law, fit into human society and to the extent they can coexist. By representing different extremes on the predestination spectrum, the plays indicate that the answer to that question begins squarely in a person s mind by that person deciding on the degree of ownership he or she has over his or her life. In replicating that cognitive process in the characters in Hamlet and Macbeth, Shakespeare gives audiences magnified, dramatic versions of the various ways in which that contemplation can be addressed. He cuts to the heart of the overarching matter of the determinant abilities of human agency and presents the plays definitions of fate as being manifestations of human perception. In doing so, he invites audiences to believe that their perceptions of fate are their realities in much the same ways as the characters in his plays are shown to.

17 17 Works Cited Alighieri, Dante. Purgatorio. Trans. Robin Kirkpatrick. New York: Penguin Group, Print. Beifuss, John B. The Supernatural as a Tragic Dimension in Shakespeare's Tragedies. Interpretations 8.1 (1976): JSTOR. Web. 13 Sept Bernard, Paris J. Bargains with Fate: Psychological Crises and Conflicts in Shakespeare and His Plays. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, Print. Blits, Jan H. Deadly Thought: Hamlet and the Human Soul. Lanham: Lexington Books, Print. Blits, Jan H. The Insufficiency of Virtue: Macbeth and the Natural Order. Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Print. Braunmeller, A.R., ed. Hamlet. New York: Penguin Group, Print. Cole, Howard C. Shakespeare's Comedies and their Sources: Some Biographical and Artistic Inferences. Shakespeare Quarterly 34.4 (1983): JSTOR. Web. 23 Nov Deighton, Kenneth. Introduction and Notes. Hamlet: Prince of Denmark. By William Shakespeare London. Macmillan and Co. Limited Web. 13 Sept Elliott, G.R. Dramatic Providence in Macbeth: A Study of Shakespeare's Tragic Theme of Humanity and Grace. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Print. Fergusson, Francis. Trope and Allegory: Some Themes Common to Dante and Shakespeare. Dante Studies, with the Annual Report of the Dante Society 86 (1968): JSTOR. Web. 20 Nov Mallette, Richard. From Gyves to Graces: Hamlet and Free Will. The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 93.3 (1994): JSTOR. Web. 11 Sept

18 18 Packer, Jim. A Dialectics and Aesthetics of Tragic Will and Fate (Freud, Kierkegaard, Macbeth and Lord Jim). Literature and Aesthetics 16.1 (2006): Web. 13 Sept Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Macbeth. Ed. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine. Folger Shakespeare Library, Web. 25 Oct Virgil. The Aeneid. Trans. Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Group, Print.