Though this psychoanalytically profound interpretation constitutes a misconception since, on the one hand, it contradicts the contemporary idea of witches as real embodiments of evil, because many Elizabethans – not least James I. who, like already mentioned, wrote a book about demonology (1597) – believed in the existence of supernatural beings such as, for instance, witches or demons; on the other hand, it is to be taken into account that, apart from Macbeth, Banquo has also seen them on the heath and talked to them (see Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 3, ll.39-69), so that it is impossible to talk of a mere fantasy in this case.
But back to the actual topic. For Macbeth, reality is thus interchanged because since the prophecy of the first act, which predicts him the title of king, only what he sees in this visionary conception exists for him: “And nothing is, but what is not.” (Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 3, l.144 / Naumann, p.381, l.2-4). This determination of Macbeth can be classified as a keyword for the violence of the unreal in Shakespeare’s dramas. Nothing real has such a power and impact, according to Macbeth, as the unreal illusions of our mind. But his words also hold in a broader sense: Only what is not, is fully alive, because it wants to become real. He himself experiences this in a terrible way. What is not yet – thus in his case the murder of Duncan, whatever the cost – pushes into realization. The already real, or realized, now does not have such power anymore; it is already about to vanish, to slide back into nothingness.
Thereby, the horror of imagination is stronger for him than the terrors of reality: “Present fears / Are less than horrible imaginings.” (Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 3, l.139-140). This is what Macbeth says when – after the confirmation of the apparent1 prophecy that he would be Thane of Cawdor – for the first time, the possibility of regicide enters his mind. On the basis of this statement it again becomes clear that, in his mind, the future appears to be more ‘present’ than the here and now. Here, in the beginning of the drama, he obviously already begins to part from the real present. From this point, his grip to reality starts to dwindle away.
The decision, the plan and the thought are the essential; the realization and the action, in contrast, are only the derived. Generally, humans are moved and controlled by their ideas and wishes – Macbeth (and also Richard III), as is known, by the passionate desire for becoming king (Lüthi (1971), p.148, l.21ff.).
Since “the prophecies, of course and the speculations they arouse, drag the future into the present […]” (Honigmann, p.94, l.3-4), only what Macbeth imagines in his highest excited passion and creates as an image fulfills him and possesses reality for him, since it is now the only thing his passion circles around (see Naumann, p.381, l.6-10).
9.1.3 The Dagger Monologue and Findings Derived From It
This discrepancy between imagination and reality with Macbeth becomes especially clear in his, already mentioned above, dagger-monologue (Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 1, ll.33-64) which shall therefore be discussed in more detail. It is also supposed to exemplarily stand for the other monologues in this tragedy, in which particularly Shakespeare’s art of dramatic introspection comes across in an impressive way.
Here the author presents Macbeth’s intention of killing Duncan, and thus taking over the kingship, in a way as a trance-like preparation for the deed, which has such a vividly suggestive power for him that he falls into a visionary state of feverish excitement and sees the dagger, with witch he wants to kill the king, physically float before his eyes. Hence, his imagination takes on reality for his eyes. In this vision he experiences the excessive power of imagination and desire, which creates a second reality. In the process he completely lets himself fall and now becomes one with what circulates around evil intentions in the darkness (Naumann, p.387, ll.17-30).
He is facing an illusion, but does not know whether it is a product of his mind or reality. That is why he attempts to grab the dagger, but is unable to, yet he still sees it. Being torn between taking the dagger to be true and its exposure as an illusion recurrs four times in the monologue, which thus becomes a mirror of the fierce inner battle in Macbeth himself. This awareness that he is dealing with an illusion, a self-deception, alternates with yielding to and being overwhelmed by the vision. So the own faltering, the own struggle with his warning conscience, is turned into a dialogue with an outside-perceived thing (Clemen, p.46, l.32ff.)
Thereby it is not only a sway of his power of resolution, but it is also a sway between illusion and reality. In this situation Macbeth stands before us as someone who is being deceived, someone who is lied to by his own senses. Nevertheless he suspects from the very beginning that he is being tricked. Thus he calls the dagger a “fatal vision” (Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 1, l.36), and only two verses after, he already refers to it as “A dagger of the mind, a false creation” (Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 1, l.38), hence as a spawn of his tortured mind (see Clemen, p.47, ll.9-20). Then again, he also seems to be fascinated by this illusion especially because of this since, on the one hand, for the first time he here becomes fully aware of it as a newly acquired ability of his power of imagination: “Or art thou but / A dagger of the mind […] Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?” (Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 1, l.37-39); on the other hand, the evil, which this vision constitutes, has taken control of him at this point at the latest.