Fate and Fortune
Fate and Fortune
The enigmatic influence of fate, fortune, and the heavens on the lives of human beings forms a compelling theme in Shakespearean drama. Frequently coupled with Christian connotations, these concepts feature prominently in such diverse works as The Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, King Lear, and many others. In some cases, Shakespeare borrowed his concepts of fate and fortune from the antique writings of Plutarch, Seneca, and Ptolemy, in which pre-Christian cosmological ideas decree the power of the stars to dictate the fates of mortals. Later interpretations of fortune also appear in Shakespeare's plays, including notions associated with medieval morality and Renaissance iconography. In the medieval view, belief in fortune, especially in the sense of pursuing worldly wealth, suggested the forfeiture of redemption in exchange for the capricious and fleeting rewards of material existence. In the Renaissance, this concept was often found in emblematic imagery, which typically depicted the pagan goddess Fortune allegorically as a harlot. Other iconic representations of Fortune showed her as a beguiling woman presiding over a spinning circle or wheel on which one's fortunes would rise and fall in conjunction with the unpredictable forces of chance, accident, and occasion. The concepts of fate and fortune have also been interpreted as one's inexorable destiny, quite simply as the end result of divine providence, or more problematically in the context of human free will. In Shakespearean drama, the mysterious forces of fate and fortune are given broad play. Whether in regard to comedy, tragedy, or history, scholars discern Shakespeare's characteristically paradoxical engagement with and dramatization of these powerful abstractions.
Critics suggest that Shakespeare's depiction of fortune in the comedies relies in large part on medieval and Renaissance perceptions of this obscure force. Fortune is generally a deceiver in the comic plays, set to test the virtue of those seeking favor or gain, and stands in contrast with the providential designs of God. Focusing his analysis on Twelfth Night, B. S. Field, Jr. (1973) considers the characters' reactions to the whims of fortune and fate. He argues that fortune—or more specifically an individual's ability to endure the calamities of fortune—informs a continuum of moral worth in the play. With her equanimity and stoicism in the face of harsh fortunes, Viola sets the standard. She makes no effort to change or deny that which she knows to be inevitable. To a lesser degree Olivia also remains resigned to her fate, particularly her unrequited love for Cesario. Sebastian, in contrast, at first curses his ill luck, but later yields to grace and accepts that faith in God will guide his fortunes favorably. Lastly, Malvolio pretends to be stoical in the face of fortune, assuming it will inevitably and deservedly work in his favor. He believes that good luck is precisely what he deserves and will get, but when fortune treats him unfavorably, he vows revenge. Perhaps more than any other Shakespearean comedy The Merchant of Venice relies on the vicissitudes of fortune to drive its plot. In the hazardous mercantile world of the play, the search for ever greater financial rewards invites increased risks and reversals far beyond the control of mortals. In his study of the drama, Raymond B. Waddington (1977) examines how a trio of inscrutable forces—fortune, justice, and Cupid—dictate the fates of the characters. In Waddington's view, the play suggests that one should deny the pursuit of fortune in favor of a Christian acceptance of providence. Thus, in the play's lottery scene, as caskets are chosen in order to win the hand of Portia, Shakespeare draws a line between those who believe in good fortune as the recompense of merit, and those who, like Bassanio, rely on faith in God to determine their reward. According to Waddington's scheme, generosity, mercy, and above all faith invite justice; similarly, sacrifice and trust in providence define true love—like that of Portia and Bassanio—while belief in the randomness of Cupid's blind arrows merely breeds base physical attraction. In a complementary assessment of The Merchant of Venice Stanley J. Kozikowski (1980) discusses the lottery for Portia as an allegorical interlude concerned with love and fortune. Kozikowski argues that Shakespeare first presents Portia as a conventional personification of Fortune, ambivalent toward those who desire her. She dupes and deceives the men who would wed her for false reasons, such as advancement, wealth, or pleasure. By making her suitors choose between a gold, silver, or lead casket she exposes Morocco's pride and Aragon's drive for wealth. However Bassanio, whose feelings for Portia are real, selflessly chooses love over fortune and succeeds in his suit through virtue.
The status of fate and fortune as determining factors in Shakespearean tragedy has drawn the attention of numerous scholars eager to understand the patterns of tragic causality in such works as Macbeth, Hamlet, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, and Timon of Athens. Behind the bleak, near nihilistic worldview depicted in these dramas, critics have discerned a carefully crafted balance among destiny, chance, choice, and providential will. Surveying the interaction of fortune and occasion in Shakespearean tragedy, Frederick Kiefer (1983) focuses on three tragic Shakespearean figures: Richard II, Brutus (of Julius Caesar), and Hamlet. He notes that Richard II's medieval notions of fate make him the victim of inescapable fortune, while his antagonist, Henry Bolingbroke, forcefully determines his own future. Brutus, like Bolingbroke, relies on his sense of occasion and opportunity, but ultimately fails in his efforts to mold the world because he lacks the ability to effectively adapt to change. In a final example, Hamlet, who like Richard II holds a conventional view of fortune at the opening of the play, experiences a major shift in sensibility, allowing him to sublimate his personal feelings of victimization into a resolute faith in divine will. Analyzing one of Shakespeare's most effective tragic images, the wheel of fortune, Tibor Fabiny (1989) contends that the figurative turning of the wheel is a central organizing principle in such works as Richard III, King Lear, and Macbeth. Wendy Rogers Harper (1986) examines two film adaptations of Shakespeare's Macbeth—one a tragedy of character and the other a tragedy of fate. Harper contrasts Roman Polanski's naturalistic, psychological, and character-driven film with Orson Welles's surrealistic, nightmarish version that highlights Macbeth's inescapable fate as the pawn of supernatural forces. Also interested in Macbeth, James L. O'Rourke (1993) analyzes the conflict between divine omniscience and human free will in the play, and suggests that Shakespeare's drama ironically subverts both of these concepts. According to the critic, Macbeth undercuts both the ordered, Christian notion of fate as shaped by the hands of God and the existential understanding of the preeminence of individualized free will. Perhaps more than any other Shakespearean tragedy Romeo and Juliet is profoundly influenced by the notions of fortune and fate. Discussing these aspects of the drama, D. Douglas Waters (1992) asserts that Romeo and Juliet should be understood as a tragedy of fate rather than as a character-driven story and examines how the intersection of chance circumstances, seemingly irrational forces, and human contingency come together to produce a tragedy written in the stars. John F. Andrews (1996) offers an opposing view. Although he recognizes the influence of “Fortune, Fate, and the Stars” on Romeo and Juliet, he nevertheless contends that the deaths of these young lovers are the result of choice, causality, and divine will. Lewis Walker (1977) contends that the moral allegory of Fortune featured in the first scene of Timon of Athens highlights the central theme of the play: the undesirability of owing one's success to fickle Fortune. In the tale, Fortune breeds trouble and strife in society by offering rewards without consideration of merit. Fortune is divisive and promotes self-interest, the acquisition of material possessions, and competition at the expense of community and equality. By the end of the play Timon's good fortune, rather than sustaining its blessings, leads him to betrayal and isolates him as a misanthrope unable to trust his fellow man.
Shakespeare's representation of fortune and fate in the pre-Christian world of the Roman plays differs significantly from that of his comedies, romances, and other tragedies. Instead of exploring the religious or moral consequences of one's belief in fortune, the dramas Antony and Cleopatra and Julius Caesar tend to forward a perception of fortune in part borrowed from his source, the Roman moralist Plutarch; however, unlike Plutarch's vision of a stable beneficent goddess who brings good luck to Rome, Shakespeare's is a blind and fickle goddess. Michael Lloyd (1962) surveys the imagery of fortune and chance in Antony and Cleopatra and Julius Caesar as inspired by the writings of Plutarch. Observing Shakespeare's allusions to turbulent seas and games of chance as they suggest the unstable and fluctuating world of these plays, Lloyd nevertheless remarks on the plays' evocation of the Roman goddess Fortune as a beneficent entity. Lloyd also examines Mark Antony's unpredictable temperament and his tenacious reliance on chance for favor and victory as an indication of Rome's uncanny sustaining influence in the antique world. Marilyn L. Williamson (1968) views the goddess Fortune as the principal symbolic figure in Antony and Cleopatra and finds that the tragedy of the drama is one of mighty individuals unwillingly caught among forces far beyond their understanding or control. Charles A. Hallett (1976) also studies fortune in Antony and Cleopatra and links this capricious force with change and time as the determining factors of the drama. According to the critic, Shakespeare's Egypt and Rome exist in a state of flux because they do not have a Christian divinity to order and judge the universe; therefore, the fickle goddess Fortune is, paradoxically, one of the few stabilizing forces to be found in their pre-Christian universe. When Antony decides to tempt Fortune by splitting his loyalties between Rome and Egypt, Hallett asserts, his luck declines. Likewise, Pompey, Octavius, and Shakespeare's other Romans learn that their individual destinies rise and fall with time as if on a wheel that is unpredictably, but inevitably, turned by the goddess Fortune.
Criticism: Overviews And General Studies
SOURCE: Kiefer, Frederick. “Fortune and Occasion in Shakespeare: Richard II, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet.” In Fortune and Elizabethan Tragedy, pp. 232-69. San Marino, Calif.: The Huntington Library, 1983.
[In the following essay, Kiefer surveys the interaction of fortune and occasion in Shakespearean tragedy, focusing on three tragic Shakespearean figures: Richard II, Brutus (of Julius Caesar), and Hamlet.]
Playwrights seldom provide an elaborate description of Dame Fortune—certainly no counterpart in words to the vivid depictions of Continental emblematists. Nevertheless, their plays reflect the changing concept of Fortune in the Renaissance. And in the work of one playwright in particular, Shakespeare, we can actually observe the transition away from the traditional view of Fortune.1 In three tragedies written during the closing years of the sixteenth century, Shakespeare manifests a growing interest in Occasion.
The plays are Richard II (c. 1595), Julius Caesar (c. 1599), and Hamlet (c. 1600). In the earliest of these the protagonist expresses an attitude toward Fortune that seems characteristically medieval. King Richard sees himself as Fortune's victim, inescapably vulnerable to her whim. By contrast, his antagonist represents an emerging new order. As confident as he is skilled, Henry Bolingbroke determines to shape his own...
(The entire section is 12629 words.)
Show us the love and view this for free! Use the facebook like button, or any other share button on this page, and get this content free!free!
SOURCE: Fabiny, Tibor. “‘Rota Fortunae’ and the Symbolism of Evil in Shakespearean Tragedy.” Journal of Literature and Theology 3, no. 3 (November 1989): 319-30.
[In the following essay, Fabiny analyzes the image of the wheel of fortune and contends that the figurative turning of the wheel is a central organizing principle in Shakespearean tragedy, particularly Richard III, King Lear, and Macbeth.]
The purpose of the present paper is to investigate the phenomenology of Shakespearean tragedy. It is the premise of the paper that this tragedy is both a universal vision of human existence1 and a structure or form inherited from the Middle Ages. The literary or imaginative critics of our century have explored the vision-aspect of the tragedy and the evidence-respecting historical critics have been at work to substantiate their hypotheses by proofs. The fact that both use their own languages leads to mutual suspicion or misunderstanding, and this occasionally results in fierce debates.2 Nevertheless it is my assumption that the often intuitive insights of the imaginative critics can be reconciled with the findings of historical research. Moreover, I should like to demonstrate that they can mutually support or illuminate one another. It is our hope that we can graft imaginative criticism into historical research and vice-versa. Therefore I shall start by discussing how the...
(The entire section is 4759 words.)
Show us the love and view this for free! Use the facebook like button, or any other share button on this page, and get this content free!free!
Criticism: Fortune In The Comedies
SOURCE: Field, B. S., Jr. “Fate, Fortune, and Twelfth Night.” Michigan Academician 6, no. 2 (fall 1973): 193-99.
[In the following essay, Field considers the reactions of characters in Twelfth Night to the whims of fortune and fate.]
Most critics of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night agree that the central characters of the play are Viola and Malvolio, that one represents behavior to be emulated and the latter shows us behavior to be shunned. C. L. Barber, among the most representative and influential of modern critics of this play, in Shakespeare's Festive Comedy1 observes that Viola, because of her mastery of courtesy in the play, is the central character who serves as a standard of right behavior by which others in the play may be judged. The fact has been pointed out so often by subsequent critics that it seems to be self-evident. Still, it would be useful if Shakespeare had offered us a means to check that conclusion, beyond the circular logic of proving that, since Viola is the standard by which others are to be judged, she must therefore display the firmest mastery of courtesy. As it happens, Shakespeare does give us such a test that independently reveals a character's capacity or incapacity in the graces of courtly behavior.
Nearly every character in Twelfth Night is offered a chance to react to a situation beyond his control. Such a...
(The entire section is 2918 words.)
Show us the love and view this for free! Use the facebook like button, or any other share button on this page, and get this content free!free!
SOURCE: Waddington, Raymond B. “Blind Gods: Fortune, Justice, and Cupid in The Merchant of Venice.” ELH 44, no. 3 (fall 1977): 458-77.
[In the following essay, Waddington examines how the forces of fortune, justice, and Cupid dictate the fates of men and women in The Merchant of Venice.]
Almost obligatorily, critics of The Merchant of Venice split into warring camps. Generally the schism arises between those readers who, emphasizing allegory and Christian themes, treat the Christian characters of the play in largely positive and approving terms and those who, noticing that commerce, wealth, and financial speculation as thoroughly preoccupy the Venetians as they do Shylock, see the play ironically exposing the failure of the Christians to practice the beliefs which they profess. The issue of Christian commerce surfaces most conspicuously in the almost obsessive recurrence of a related set of words denoting financial speculation—venture, hazard, thrift, usury, fortune, advantage. Remarking upon this phenomenon, Ralph Berry concludes, “The formal principle of The Merchant of Venice, then, I take to be a series of mutations of ‘venture.’”1 And A. D. Moody voices his reservations about the appropriateness of such commercial venturing for Christians: “But to be committed to the pursuit of worldly fortune is to be subjected, in the medieval view of things,...
(The entire section is 7720 words.)
SOURCE: Kozikowski, Stanley J. “The Allegory of Love and Fortune: The Lottery in The Merchant of Venice.” Renascence 32, no. 2 (winter 1980): 105-15.
[In the following essay, Kozikowski offers a reading of The Merchant of Venice that focuses on the play's lottery scenes as allegorical interludes depicting the rivalry of virtuous Love and capricious Fortune.]
Recent criticism of The Merchant of Venice has found the allegorical approach quite useful in accounting for the play's primary moments, its characters, and its themes.1 But even as these studies offer instructive and complementary readings, one memorable series of actions in the play—the lottery scenes—has not been related, as established Tudor allegory, to other aspects of the play. We may, in certain respects, understand this reluctance to assimilate. The lotteries seem to bear no obvious thematic relationship to the values of justice and mercy which serve to unify the play for many readers.2 These scenes, moreover, appear to be less indebted to established literary or dramatic conventions than do other episodes of the plot. And because so little attention has been paid to their analogues, the formal composition of the lotteries has been virtually neglected. It is inviting, however, to point out, by examining such overlooked dramatic structures, that Shakespeare's lottery scenes were indeed...
(The entire section is 4607 words.)
Criticism: Fortune In The Tragedies
SOURCE: Walker, Lewis. “Fortune and Friendship in Timon of Athens.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 18, no. 4 (winter 1977): 577-600.
[In the following essay, Walker contends that the moral allegory of Fortune featured in the first scene of Timon of Athens highlights the central theme of the play: the undesirability of owing one's success to fickle Fortune.]
It is curious that critics, in dealing with the difficulties of Timon of Athens, have failed to consider thoroughly the allegory of Fortune in the opening scene. This extended performance by the Poet has obvious significance for Timon's career, and it is placed in such a prominent position that it invites detailed examination. Most commentators, however, have ignored it altogether, and one has dismissed it as “trite.”1 A few have remarked on its general relevance to the action of the play, Una Ellis-Fermor commenting that it provides “an ironic forewarning of Timon's fall,”2 and Geoffrey Bullough noting that it presents “a major theme of the play, and the explicit enunciation suggests that this is to be a moral piece, simpler than usual in Shakespeare, not so much the subtle portrait of a complex character as an exemplum of ethical truths.”3 But no one has attempted to apply the allegory in any detail to the play, seeking to understand the character of Timon in...
(The entire section is 9718 words.)
SOURCE: Harper, Wendy Rogers. “Polanski vs. Welles on Macbeth: Character or Fate?” Literature-Film Quarterly 14, no. 4 (1986): 203-10.
[In the following essay, Harper contrasts Roman Polanski's naturalistic, psychological, and character-driven film adaptation of Shakespeare's Macbeth with Orson Welles's supernatural, externalized, and fatalistic screen interpretation of the tragedy.]
Character or fate—which holds the key to the destiny of the characters in Macbeth? Shakespeare's play suggests both possibilities, but in interpreting Macbeth for the screen, directors Roman Polanski and Orson Welles each choose only one element as the determining factor. Polanski selects character, Welles fate, and their differing cinematic treatments reflect their choices. Whereas Polanski's imagery is realistic, Welles's is surrealistic. The former director focuses on the natural, the latter stresses the supernatural.1 Consistent with the notion that character is destiny, Polanski's film probes the psychology of its characters, illuminating the human motivation for their deeds and tracing their degeneration as they wade deeper in blood. Conversely, Welles's film externalizes the characters' inner struggles, transforming them into a battle between good and evil superpowers in which the human figures become mere pawns of the Gods.
Polanski's realistic imagery...
(The entire section is 5468 words.)
SOURCE: Waters, D. Douglas. “Fate and Fortune in Romeo and Juliet.” Upstart Crow 12 (1992): 74-90.
[In the following essay, Waters illuminates the significance of fate and fortune in Romeo and Juliet and explains how the intersection of chance circumstances, seemingly irrational forces, and human contingency come together to produce a tragedy written in the stars.]
In critical discussion of Romeo and Juliet in the last three decades or so, there are at least three significant ways of approaching the play: 1) traditional character-study as the key to the tragedy, 2) a recent de-emphasis on the genre of tragedy in favor of discussion of culture, sexual difference, and ideology, and 3) the role of fate as the key to the tragedy. The complexity of these issues necessitates clarification of my own critical stance. First, I think the character-study critics have overemphasized the study of character in this play, but not because I think, as Christopher Norris writes in “Post-Structuralist Shakespeare: Text and Ideology” (1985), that character-study in itself is naive.1 Still, what Norris writes might have at least some bearing on Romeo and Juliet. Second, I admit that my representation of many current approaches to this play as de-emphasizing the genre of tragedy is in itself a debatable judgment and one possibly subject to some few slight exceptions of which I am...
(The entire section is 6968 words.)
SOURCE: O'Rourke, James L. “The Subversive Metaphysics of Macbeth.” Shakespeare Studies 21 (1993): 213-27.
[In the following essay, O'Rourke examines the conflict between divine omniscience and human free will in Macbeth and suggests that Shakespeare's drama ironically subverts both of these concepts.]
The persistence of the providential reading of Macbeth may be the best evidence for the continuing influence of A. C. Bradley on Shakespeare studies. Based on the introductions to Macbeth in standard classroom editions,1 Bradley's blend of metaphysical idealism and psychological realism which presents Macbeth as a drama about the purgation of the evil embodied in the figure of a murderer and the consequent restoration of a political and providential order is still the most common reading of the play presented to American students. This echoing of a Bradleyan line in Macbeth criticism would seem to have bypassed Harry Levin's attack, thirty years ago, on Bradley's approach to the tragedies. At that time, Levin characterized Bradley's metaphysical framework as an amalgam of Hegel and Aristotle,2 in which Bradley's usual description of a Shakespearean tragedy as a process leading from the temporary disruption of cosmic order to its restoration displaced the idea of catharsis from an account of the experience of a playgoer to a description of...
(The entire section is 6183 words.)
SOURCE: Andrews, John F. “Falling in Love: The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet.” In Classical, Renaissance, and Postmodernist Acts of the Imagination: Essays Commemorating O. B. Hardison, Jr., edited by Arthur F. Kinney, pp. 177-94. Cranbury, N. J.: Associated University Presses, 1996.
[In the following essay, Andrews recognizes the profound influence of “Fortune, Fate, and the Stars” in Romeo and Juliet, but nevertheless contends that the deaths of these young lovers are the result of choice, causality, divine will.]
What happens in Romeo and Juliet?1 What did a dramatist of the 1590s want the “judicious” members of his contemporary audiences to see and hear, and how did he expect them to feel, as they attended the play2 a later age would laud as the most lyrical of all love tragedies? Before I hazard a response to what is admittedly an unanswerable question, I should make it clear that what I'm really posing is a query about the “action”3 of Shakespeare's drama, and more specifically about the effect such an action might have been intended to have on a receptive Elizabethan playgoer.4
O. B. Hardison emphasizes in the commentary that accompanies Leon Golden's 1968 translation of Aristotle's Poetics,5 there is much to be said for interpreting the earliest technical term for tragic effect,...
(The entire section is 7744 words.)
Criticism: Fortune In The Roman Plays
SOURCE: Lloyd, Michael. “Antony and the Game of Chance.” JEGP: Journal of English and Germanic Philology 61, no. 3 (July 1962): 548-54.
[In the following essay, Lloyd examines the destabilizing role of fortune in Antony and Cleopatra and Julius Caesar, observing Antony's affinity with the unpredictable powers of chance.]
Plutarch's Roman Fortune1 is a planning goddess beneficent to Rome, because through Rome she will establish universal peace. Rome has been chosen to serve as “a maine pillar to sustaine the decaying state of the world, ready to reele and sinke downward; and finally, as a sure anchor-hold against turbulent tempests, and wandering waves of the surging seas.” Octavius is Fortune's favoured instrument in this voyage to fixity out of dangerous flux: “for I reckon Cleopatra among the favours that Fortune did to Augustus, against whom, as against some rock, Antonius … should run himself, be split, and sink. …” Here, as elsewhere in the essay, Plutarch maintains the concept of stability being reached, out of a state whose fluctuations are like those of the sea. Fortune shares none of these fluctuations: she is the steadfast pilot who guards her chosen across them.
Shakespeare's Octavius proclaims the peace to which Fortune has led Rome and the world. But Julius Caesar and Antony and...
(The entire section is 2915 words.)
SOURCE: Williamson, Marilyn L. “Fortune in Antony and Cleopatra.” JEGP: Journal of English and Germanic Philology 67, no. 3 (July 1968): 423-29.
[In the following essay, Williamson views the goddess Fortune as the principal symbolic figure in Antony and Cleopatra, and finds that the tragedy of the drama is one of mighty individuals unwillingly caught among forces far beyond their understanding or control.]
The fickle goddess Fortune is the most neglected person of importance in Antony and Cleopatra. Though she looms far larger in that play than in any other of Shakespeare's or in most contemporary plays, one might apply a line from the text to commentators' treatment of her: “We scorn her most when most she offers blows.”1 In Antony and Cleopatra forms of the word fortune appear forty-one times, or almost twice as often as in other high-frequency plays like Lear and Timon.2 Furthermore, two scenes in the play are devoted to fortune-telling—one from Plutarch, in which the soothsayer warns Antony of Caesar's superior fortune whenever the two triumvirs are together (II.iii); the other, entirely Shakespeare's, in which the soothsayer tells the fortunes of Cleopatra's waiting women, an activity much to be expected in the land of the gypsies (I.ii). This latter scene breaks and stays the complicated historical narrative in a way...
(The entire section is 3004 words.)
SOURCE: Hallett, Charles A. “Change, Fortune, and Time: Aspects of the Sublunar World in Antony and Cleopatra.” JEGP: Journal of English and Germanic Philology 75, nos. 1-2 (January-April 1976): 75-89.
[In the following essay, Hallett investigates Shakespeare's combined emphasis on mutability, fortune, and time as defining forces in the pre-Christian world of Antony and Cleopatra.]
Antony and Cleopatra is an account of things in terms of the World and the Flesh, Rome and Egypt, the two great contraries that maintain and destroy each other, considered apart from any third sphere which might stand over against them. How is it related to the plays of the ‘great period’, the period which comes to an end with King Lear? The clue is given, I think, in the missing third term. Antony and Cleopatra is the deliberate construction of a world without a Cordelia, Shakespeare's symbol for a reality that transcends the political and the personal and ‘redeems nature from the general curse / Which twain have brought her to’.
—John F. Danby, Poets on Fortune's Hill
As the design of the seventeenth-century playhouse testifies, the Jacobean world had three levels: the stage represented earth, below it lay hell, and above it heaven. It was the latter realm that provided the values against which all human...
(The entire section is 6424 words.)
Colley, John Scott. “Drama, Fortune, and Providence in Hamlet.” College Literature 5, no. 1 (winter 1978): 48-56.
Discusses Hamlet's inability to distinguish between blind fortune and divine providence.
Gervais, David. “Shakespeare and Racine: On Reading Macbeth and Britannicus.” Cambridge Quarterly 23, no. 1 (1994): 1-19.
Comments on Shakespeare's balance of prophetic fate and surprise in fashioning the tragic events of Macbeth.
Gooder, Jean. “‘Fixt Fate’ and ‘Free Will’ in Phèdre and Macbeth.” Cambridge Quarterly 28, no. 3 (1999): 214-31.
Compares the struggle between self-determinism and fatalism in Shakespeare's Macbeth and Racine's Phèdre.
Jorgensen, Paul A. “A Formative Shakespearean Legacy: Elizabethan Views of God, Fortune, and War.” PMLA 90, no. 2 (March 1975): 222-33.
Contends that the plays of Shakespeare's second historical tetralogy demonstrate crucial developments in the dramatist's representation of the relationship between fortune and God in historical, political, and military affairs.
Kiefer, Frederick. “Fortune and Nature in Sejanus and King Lear.” In Fortune and Elizabethan Tragedy, pp. 270-302. San Marino, Calif.: The Huntington Library, 1983....
(The entire section is 477 words.)