The cracks begin to emerge in Banquo’s character early on and his innocence is quickly washed away. In act 2 scene 1 at Macbeth’s castle we see that his mind has been on the prophecy, that his thoughts are cursed with darkness. ‘A heavy summons lies like lead upon me...Merciful powers restrain in me the cursed thoughts’. Banquo confides in Macbeth, he ‘dreamt last night of the three weird sisters’. The dark business has unsettled him and made him tense. He wants to know what Macbeth is thinking but allows him to delay discussion of the issue. Macbeth is already on his way to kill the king. It is here that Banquo’s trusting nature fails him. He still cannot guess at Macbeth’s intentions and as a loyal friend the thought will never occur to him. That is of course until Macbeth alludes to his plans. There then follows an awkward exchange in which Macbeth quite obviously suggests an underhanded and even treasonable enterprise that will be to Banquo’s benefit: ‘If you shall cleave to my consent, when’tis, It shall make honour for you.’ Banquo’s reply reveals the first sign of his moral compromise. I find it impossible to believe that Banquo would not be suspicious of his friend at this stage but again his loyalty to Macbeth forces him to give the benefit of the doubt. Banquo makes sure to have a clear conscience to keep his ‘bosom franchis’d and allegiance clear’. This is the crucial point in which Banquo could have acted to save Scotland and prevent Duncan’s murder. He knew of the witches prophecy, he suspected Macbeth was up to something and he knew the King was vulnerable in Macbeth’s castle. However he was weak. He was as loyal to Macbeth as he was to the King. He would not confront his friend just as he would never question King Duncan. It is ironic that the combination of some of Banquo’s good qualities, loyalty, friendship etc, cause him to hesitate and compromise his principles.
Banquo chooses inaction over doing the right thing. Had Banquo remained a morally righteous character in Shakespeare’s play the end result would have been very different. He never shared Macbeth’s ambition but that is not to say he never had allusions of grandeur and advancement. He quickly recognises that evil is at work in the background-‘can the devil speak true?’- but, rather than choosing to actively fight against it, Banquo waits to see what he might gain from the workings of the witches. I think Banquo realised his mistake during the aftermath of Duncan’s Murder. He is suspiciously quiet when Duncan is found dead the castle is thrown into chaos. He begs Macduff to ‘contradict thyself and say it is not so’. No doubt, he is grieving but there is most definitely recognition of his own fault in his words. Again he tries to soothe his aching conscience by claiming he will fight for the forces of good and bring Duncan’s murderer to justice. ‘In the great hand of God I stand...I fight of treasonous malice’. However Banquo’s words are hollow; he fails to act again. The self-interested part of him is curious to know what Macbeth’s actions might bring him. He is no longer the innocent soldier. He may not have known exactly what Macbeth was up to but he knew enough to put the pieces together and put a stop to Macbeth’s plans. He chose instead inaction, in the hope that some good may come to him. This moral decision can be clearly seen in act 3, scene 1 when he ponders the possibilities of the witches’ prophecy. He would very much like to be the ‘root and father of many kings’. Though he would never take aggressive action against anyone to achieve this desire he is willing to let Macbeth do his dirty work as it were. The noble Banquo that we once knew is gone. Here we see human greed and selfishness take hold but what is left of his principles still sets his mind ill at ease with Macbeth. He is eager to flee the castle with his son. One of the main reasons why Banquo does not act is because he does not wish to upset the possibility that his son might become the king. He is motivated by love but his failure is no less forgivable.
As Banquo’s suspicions grew so did his reasons to stop Macbeth. In the beginning we see the obedient soldier. Banquo would have died for his king and his family. He was very much a person who was governed by the simple idea of right and wrong. He was not a politician but throughout the play we see his character crumble under the weight of pressures and forces which had previously never bothered him. I don’t believe Banquo held any personal ambition. Perhaps, as a loving parent, the thought of his son governing the nation he loved was too much to ignore. As we have seen there were many things going on in Banquo’s head, probably too much to process but in such a time of crisis one would imagine that Banquo would have simply reverted to his original modus operandi: making the distinction between what is right and what is wrong. When Macbeth alludes to his plot Banquo does not question him further. When Duncan is murdered he does not voice his suspicions. When he finally admits that he knows Macbeth had ‘play’dst most foully for’t’ he does nothing. For a man who was once governed by such stringent principles why does he do nothing? Why does a good man allow evil to triumph? It is indeed the question of the age. Banquo had some reasons to allow Macbeth to continue but according to Macbeth himself ‘his royalty in nature Reigns that which would be fear’d’. Banquo had ‘a wisdom that doth guide his valour’. Macbeth had every reason to fear the Banquo he once knew, at one point claiming ‘there is none but he whose being I do fear’ but the Banquo Macbeth had murdered was a different man with different priorities. He fears Banquo’s goodness now that he himself has lost his soul but Banquo’s soul was not unaffected by the evil of the witches. Perhaps at some point he would have come to his senses and fought back against his former friend had he been given the opportunity. As it was, Macbeth had him cut down at what can only be described as his darkest hour, without morals or principles and tempered with the knowledge of his failures.
When we first meet Banquo he appears keen, observant and above all impervious to the temptation that the Witches represent. However, in the course of the play, Banquo’s principles have been deeply compromised and we justifiably feel that he is not the innocent solider who met the Witches and scorned their prophecies. Lord Acton famously stated that ‘power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. This statement is entirely true for Macbeth who was absolutely corrupted by power. And just as Banquo was a foil to Macbeth the antithesis of this statement is true for Banquo. It is my belief that weakness tends to corrupt just as much as power. Banquo was weak and he allowed this weakness to define him. We see a man who once saw the world in black and white, good v evil, right v wrong however because of his weakness Banquo ignobly finds the middle ground. As Albus Dumbledore put it in JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series: ‘we all must make the choice between what is right and what is easy’. Banquo chose the easy option.
by
jbeanybaby (student)
