Banquo's Ambition

Whoever first suggested that Banquo is a ‘Good’ man obviously did not engage with this speech:

Thou hast it now: king, Cawdor, Glamis, all,
As the weird women promised, and, I fear,
Thou play'dst most foully for't: yet it was said
It should not stand in thy posterity,
But that myself should be the root and father
Of many kings. If there come truth from them--
As upon thee, Macbeth, their speeches shine--
Why, by the verities on thee made good,
May they not be my oracles as well,
And set me up in hope? But hush! no more.

Now let’s be clear that, just like Macbeth, Banquo has selfish ambition: he wants to believe that the witches might truly be able to ‘set [him] up in hope’.

The energy of the openly ambitious thought which starts in line three ('yet it was said...') - and runs through to the final line ('...in hope?') - is akin to anything that Macbeth experiences when under the witches spell.  And then there is the urgent need for secrecy which follows; Banquo is as ensnared as Macbeth ever was.

 

And look at the use of rhythm:

• in line seven the iambic rhythm offers a natural focus on the syllable 'up' of 'upon' - almost splitting the sound into two words where the first one ('up') is all about Macbeth's higher status (indicative of Banquo's jealousy?);
• in the final line the rhythm of 'up on' is echoed in the words 'up in' - and draws a direct auditory parallel between Macbeth and Banquo;
• And then, again in the final line, there is the iambic rhythm which leads to emphasis on the word ‘hope’ – a positive, almost religious, concept which is here inspired by the machinations of the evil witches. The irony highlights Banquo's darker side.

And, if you return to consider his intended meanings, it becomes very clear that Banquo is absolutely not a religious goodie-goodie who believes that evil must be rejected per se; this is a man who – despite his words on the heath – is quite prepared to accept anything the forces of Evil put his way.  In short, he is as unscrupulous as Macbeth and – arguably – no more trustworthy.

For we are obliged to note that Banquo clearly has strong suspicions concerning Macbeth’s actions but he has so far done – and will henceforth do – nothing about them.

The strength of his suspicions can surely be in no doubt - he has, after all, been given all the pieces of the puzzle that are needed to know Macbeth’s guilt:

·         He knows Macbeth well,

·         He is the only one who met the witches with Macbeth,

·         He is aware of something of Macbeth’s mood in the moments before the murder, and,

·         On the morning after the murder, he was there to witness all Macbeth’s dubious ‘innocent’ acting. 

So when exactly did Banquo decide that Macbeth might have played ‘most foully’?  Unless you think he has only just put two and two together in this speech (which I don’t) then it has to have been some time before he speaks these words. Before the coronation, in other words.

So why has Banquo not spilled the beans?  Because he is too cowardly to speak up?  Or perhaps because he is secretly keen to see if Macbeth will become King because – if he does – that increases the likelihood of Banquo becoming father to a line of kings.

In other words, it is quite possible that Banquo says nothing because of his own secret ambition - ambition which Shakespeare allows because he has no thought in his head that Banquo is intrinsically ‘Good’.

And let’s face it – is Banquo’s secrecy any better than Macbeth’s who, at least, shares his darker thoughts with the audience the minute he has them?

The fact is that we are not meant to mourn for Banquo.  He is not a ‘Good’ man. He is a soldier, like Macbeth, and – like Macbeth – he carries human ambitions and desires in his soul.

This is not to say he is a ‘bad’ man either.  He is simply human.  And this is why – when he dies (as die he must) – he is condemned to walk the world again in purgatory.  If he was in any way a ‘saint’, this fate would not befall him.

In summary, it is easy to see how appealing the argument must be that says ‘Banquo was an ancestor of James I - who was effectively one of Shakespeare’s patrons when the play was written - so therefore Banquo must be presented as a Goodie’. But this is quite simply a fallacy and no-one should be misled into thinking it has any relevance to Shakespeare’s play.

Banquo is not the Good man in this play.  (Macduff, incidentally, is).

Banquo is just a man, with his own ambitions and desires and faults (and strengths) – who gets caught in the wrong place at the wrong time… outdone by one of his peers in the battle for survival.

He is an interesting character.  He has some intriguing features.

But Banquo is categorically not ‘Good’.