She is well aware that the unjust good cannot be achieved with righteous means and vice versa (see Deutschbein, p.239, l.14-20).
Furthermore, Macbeth possesses a strongly pronounced manfulness, which especially expresses itself in his military and masculine sense of honor and which Macbeth is particularly proud of, so that he even defines himself through it; for no matter how low he sinks in the course of the plot, his bravery and masculinity stand – from the first day of battle up until the hour of his demise – above his entire thinking and control his instincts (Deutschbein, p.248, l.19-21).
Compared to Lady Macbeth, who already from the beginning creates a rationalistic, resolute, entirely ruthless – almost diabolical-seeming – impression, Macbeth initially seems timid, lethargic and weak in the beginning of the play.
He is practically pressed by her to summon up the necessary courage to murder Duncan. In this regard he appears – contrary to his just achieved brilliant triumphs as general of the royal army, which certainly require a high degree of vigor and bravery – rather discouraged, unmanly, almost effeminate.
Nevertheless, this changes: while his wife recedes in her action-presence, Macbeth gains more and more dominance.
If one now considers the entire plot of Macbeth one comes to the conclusion that the ‘prophecies’ from Johnson’s two mentioned works – that, ultimately, all human wishful thinking turns out to be void – apply here as well since, by giving vent to his pathological ambition for absolute power, Macbeth hurls himself into his ruin and, thus, digs his own grave in the end.
7. Macbeth’s Essential Character Traits and Mental Condition as a Basis for the Forms of Expression and the Power of his Imagination
To be able to better understand Macbeth’s motives as well as the forms of expression and impacts of his imagination, a presentation of his most important characteristic features shall be provided here. At the same time, in this context the development of his mental condition also becomes a major topic.
Following, he is completely disillusioned after realizing the ambiguity of the witches’ prophecies and the immediate mortal danger (see Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5, ll.41-51) as well as when Macduff reveals himself as “being of no woman born1” (see Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 8, ll.8-34).
In the end he then only waits for the beginning of the battle in order to, despite all these adverse circumstances, go down honorably as a soldier, whereby he is absolutely determined to take as many of his enemies as possible with him to death since now there is no more doubt, even for Macbeth who up until that point felt invincible in his trust in the witches’ prophecies, about the fact that he will die in the upcoming combat.
Shakespeare uses imagination in Macbeth merely as a welcome means of characterization and detailed introspection of his tragic hero in order to present deeper insights into his thoughts, feelings and actions in detail. In doing so he takes up a pioneering role in his era since, in such an early period, one can only talk of a merely experimental character of imagination.
Shakespeare’s dramas were often praised as an imaginative expression of nature by posterity – especially by Johnson and Dryden – since he did not depict isolated aspects of (human) nature, but captured nature true to itself.
It is a human’s highest and most dangerous mental power and constitutes a highest development of the self and inner world (see Lüthi (1971), p.146, l.28-31; p.155, l.24-25).
Macbeth can rightly even be understood as a tragedy of imagination since only on the basis of the witches’ prophecies and their arbitrary imaginative interpretation through Macbeth, the plot, and therefore his doom, runs its course. Though the play was often, and appositely, labelled as a tragedy of power, ambition or fear2, it primarily constitutes a drama of imagination since that is what stands in the center of the plot and without it there would be no, or at least an entirely different storyline coming about.
Sir Francis Bacon, who, in his work The Division of Poesy, divides the human science into three sections that respectively relate to one feature of the human mind, assigns poetry to imagination. Nevertheless, unlike Sidney – to whose Defence of Poesy Bacon’s elaborations refer – he refuses to grant it a high rank. Under the influence of imagination, poetry produces unnatural combinations of memory contents, hence chimeras and phantoms, and, in order to conform to the human mind’s love for greatness, it falsifies the reports of history (Renner, p.107, The Division of Poesy).
Even though Sir Philip Sidney, one of the most important figures of English Renaissance literature, connected the negative aspect of imagination with both definitions and – in accordance with the predominant Elizabethan understanding – talks of sinful fantasy, Plato’s applied hierarchy of the terms3 prevailed in the 18th century.
Thus W. Duff refers to this imagination, which is uncontrolled and gives shine to the worthless, as “fancy”, while J. Beattie describes “fancy” as “trivial” and “imagination” as “solemn”. Other authors, in contrast, identify “fancy” as blurred, arbitrary and passive, while calling “imagination” clear, ordered and active (Ritter, p.217, Imagination).
Sir Francis Bacon, who, in his work The Division of Poesy, divides the human science into three sections that respectively relate to one feature of the human mind, assigns poetry to imagination.