A Note on Banquo
S. Nagarajan
Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4. (Autumn, 1956), pp. 371-376.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-3222%28195623%297%3A4%3C371%3AANOB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6
Shakespeare Quarterly is currently published by Folger Shakespeare Library.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/folger.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
Fri Nov 2 21:35:59 2007
A Note on Banquo
S. NAGARAJAN
HE emphasis that the study of Shakespearian characterization
once used to receive has almost disappeared. Indeed, anyone
who now talks of Shakespearian characterization draws the
suspicion of being little more than a mere surviving Bradleyite, and Bradleyism, till recently, was the very essence of
reaction. But of late there have not been lacking a few independent voices bravely harking back, though, of course, witli a difference, to
Bradley's approach. Such for instance are Prof. Charlton and Mr. J. I. M.
Stewart. Prof. Knights, who was one of the "rebels" against Bradley has himself
freely acknowledged that if he were writing How Many Children had Lady
Macbeth today he would make far more allowance for the extraordinary variety
of Shakespeare's tragedies and that he would not write as though there were
only one "right" approach to each and all of them. Knights's admission indicates,
I believe, the end of the reaction against Bradley. T o deplore the reaction
entirely, as sometimes "a devout Bradleyite" is tempted to do, is to be ungrateful
to the solid contribution to our reading of Shakespeare that the "new critics"
made. One type of interpretative excess, at least, has disappeared, and there is a
greater awareness of Shakespeare's use of the arts of language. We are now
insured against Bradley's tendency to lift Shakespearian characters out of the
dramatic context where they realize their being and meaning. Having said this,
we are free to acknowledge the essential soundness of Bradley's approach. We
can now declare without danger of misinterpretation that a Shakespearian play
is more a. poetic drama than a dramatic poem, letting the emphasis fall on the
final ~roduct,the drama of the play, and treating the poetry as a means to an
end. The end of a Shakespearian play often escapes the simplifying process of
verbal definition. T o describe it as the communication of a certain emotional
experience is really not very helpful; what matters is the nature of that experience, and I do not believe that that can be defined without some damage to its
complexity and subtlety.
Anyway, Bradley's study of Shakespeare's characters included an attention
to the poetry of his plays; that is obvious from his penetrating discussion of the
characters. Bradley was able to win such an insight into the motivation of the
characters surely because he responded fully to the language of Shakespeare. His
approach was partial; of course, it was bound to be, since in a study of Shakespearian tragedy, it is not possible to give equal attention to all the aspects of
Shakespearian tragedy. Are we sure, even now, that we have discovered all the
facets? The question, therefore, is rather whether a particular critic, whatever
SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
372
aspect of Shakespeare he has selected, has succeeded in communicating the richness of his subject. The aspect studied must be, naturally, of some fundamental
importance. T o deny this kind of importance to Shakespearian characterization
in order to exalt language or imagery is frivolous today when the objective of
the Great Rebellion Against Bradley has been gained. A character is not devoid
of existence independent of the words of the play; for when all their speeches
and even some of their dramatic situations have been forgotten, a certain impression of Macbeth or Lear or Antony lives on in our memory. Indeed, it is a
measure of the dramatist's success that he can penetrate to that part of the mind
where the memory is situated. I have therefore in what follows tried to adopt
Bradley's approach and attempted a minor explanation of the character of Banquo.
I have written rather elaborately on Bradley so that if I am found disagreeing
reluctantly with that great critic, I should not like to be accused of Bradleyphobia.
The crux of Banquo's character is his inaction after Duncan's murder.
Before the murder he is determined to lose no honour in seeking to augment it; and after the murder with suspicion of Macbeth in his mind, he
declares:
In the great hand of God I stand; and thence
Against the undivulg'd pretence I fight
Of treasonous malice.
Yet at the beginning of the third act we find that he has done nothing to
implement his vow and Bradley argues that: "He alone of the lords knew
of the prophecies but he has said nothing of them. He has acquiesced in
Macbeth's accession and in the o0icial theory that Duncan's sons had
suborned the chamberlains to murder him."l
It is this crux that I wish to examine here.
Prof. Muir says that King James had no legitimate reason to complain of the
portrait of Banquo who in the Chronicles was Macbeth's accomplice. May we
not conclude, therefore, that if Shakespeare, in spite of this, does not make
Banquo an accomplice, it is surely because the dramatic purpose does not require
it. Before we seek worldly considerations to explain the alterations from his
sources that Shakespeare makes, I submit that we should first try to discover the
dramatic propriety of such alterations; only if such justification cannot be found
within the context of the play itself should licences be freely issued for the
import of theories, however exotic. The need to satisfy a patron is generally
squared with the need to write a good play; for if it is a poor play, a patron
is not likely to be satisfied and then the alterations, however unctuous, do not
matter much.
Bradley himself recognizes that the dramatic function of Banquo's character
is to serve as a contrast to Macbeth. My complaint is that he does not persevere
with this conception of Banquo's character. ". . It seems to be supposed that
this contrast must be continued to his death; while, in reality, though it is
never removed, it is gradually diminished." It is this conclusion that I wish to
examine here.
.
1 Kenneth
Muir, New Arden ed., pp. kvi-kvii.
A NOTE ON BANQUO
373
Dr. Dover Wilson has already criticized Bradley's interpretation as "Bradley
at his weakest". T o salvage Banquo's character, Wilson proposed his theory of
an earlier Macbeth. Kenneth Muir dismisses the theory of "a cut" as too convenient to be convincing. Muir examines the character of Banquo and, after
bringing in King James's theories of kingship and loyalty, ends, however, in
puzzlement.
If we forget that Shakespeare is at pains to make Banquo a dramatic contrast, all kinds of irrelevant doubts and botherations about what the Jacobeans
believed or did not believe of rebellion, arise. I may be permitted, therefore, to
recapitulate the extent and closeness of the parallelism developed between
Banquo and Macbeth. Whereas Macbeth betrays his fundamental affinity with
the witches by echoing their Foul is fair and Fair is foul, Banquo doubts the
very existence of these creatures of evil (I. iii. 3947, Muir's edition). After listening to their greeting, Banquo is still skeptical (11.52-54). The witches speak to
Banquo only when he insists on it, for they recognize in him an alien to
evil, Again, whereas Macbeth requests them to speak more-he has no doubt
that they are real and can look into the future-Banquo harshly bids them:
If you can look into the seeds of time, And say which grain will grow and which will not, Speak then to me who neither beg nor fear Your favours nor your fate. After listening to them, Banquo's skeptical comment is :.
The earth hath bubbles, as the water has
And these are of them.
And :
Were such things here, as we speak about,
Or have we eaten on the insane root,
That takes the reason prisoner?
When he hears that Macbeth has been made Thane of Cawdor, his startled
question is "Can the Devil speak true?" Again, when Macbeth asks him
whether he does not hope his children shall be kings, Banquo's reply is:
But 'tis strange
And oftentimes to win us to our harm,
The instruments of Darkness tell us truths;
Win us with honest trifles, to betray's
In deepest consequence.
Banquo never gives up his doubt, hesitation, and steady refusal to surrender to
evil. Even when the truth of the witches' prophecy is overwhelming, he has the
clearsightedness to perceive that Macbeth played most foully for it. Banquo
murmurs to himself, deeply troubled by the doubt and question that are such
prominent features of the play:
. . . 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?
374
SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
H e merely wonders if he may not hope; he is not prepared even, in theory, to
play most foully for it.
My object in citing all this rather obvious evidence is to emphasize that Shakespeare is anxious to prove that the fundamental difference between Macbeth and
Banquo consists in their attitudes toward evil; Banquo never believes wholeheartedly in the existence-of evil, and when he is troubled by temptation in the
form of the cursed thoughts that nature gives way to in repose, he prays devoutly to the merciful Powers for protection. If Shakespeare had made Banquo
completely devoid of the temptations to which Macbeth falls a prey, the contrast
would not have been quite effective. On the contrary, Macbeth not only readily
responds to evil with sympathy but when assailed by temptation, his prayer is:
Stars, hide your fires! Let not Light see my black and deep desires. In Act 11, Shakespeare has continued the contrast between the frankness and directness of Banquo's
I dreamt last night of the three Weird Sisters:
To you they have showed some truth
and Macbeth's "I think not of them." Again, the honesty of Banquo is reiterated
in his reply to Macbeth's
If you shall cleave to my consent, when 'tis
It shall make honour for you.
For Banquo, as Bradley rightly interpreted, senses a treasonable proposal. Malcolm has just been made Prince of Cumberland and Macbeth has hardly any
chance of becoming King except in the way he became Thane of Cawdor-by
the violent death of the incumbent.
Bradley has noted the silence of Banquo, after hearing of Duncan's murder;
for forty lines Banquo stands still. For he is deep in thought; the words of his
conversation with Macbeth now assume a strange signification. At last, addressing ostensibly the company in general, but one man in particular, he invites
them all peremptorily to meet and question "this most bloody piece of work to
know it further:
Fears and scruples shake us.
In the great hand of God I stand; and thence
Against the undivulg'd pretence I fight
Of treasonous malice.
But even after this assurance of integrity and loyalty, Malcolm and Donalbain
shift away, without any dainty leave-taking. The crown naturally goes to Macbeth, since the legal claimant has repudiated his duty of claiming it. Macbeth, who
ought to have been deterred by Malcolm's title as Prince of Cumberland from
murdering Duncan, commits his crime, for he hoped to buy Banquo's support
without which the young Prince is nowhere. But Banquo makes it publicly
clear that his loyalty is not for sale, and yet Malcolm flees the land.
And so at the beginning of Act 111, we have a Banquo who is at a loss what
to do, since the claimant whom he is prepared to champion has abandoned
the battlefield even before the battle began.
A NOTE ON BANQUO
375
The dramatic function of Banquo's character needs to be stressed at this
point. I do not believe that Shakespeare would have given up or changed the
dramatic purpose without some indication, especially when we bear in mind
the explicitness of his technique. Such evidence, I do not find at all. If we continue the interpretation that has been elaborately sustained for two acts, how
does this crucial soliloquy at the beginning of the third act read?
Banquo now is in the same position as Macbeth was when he heard that
Malcolm had been made Prince of Cumberland. Macbeth's reply to the announcement was that it was a step on which he must fall down or else overleap-a conclusion entirely different from,
If Chance will have me king, why, Chance may crown me
Without my stir.
Banquo, who in this crowning of Macbeth is similarly confronted with a step on
which he must fall down or else overleap, merely wonders whether the witches,
if there come truth from them, may not be his oracles as well-which is the
same as "If Chance . . ."!
Therefore this speech proves not that Banquo has compromised with Evil
but precisely the opposite, that he has refused to surrender. H e has encountered
Evil, that may come and go into the mind of man or God so unapproved and
leave no spot nor blame behind, and he has conquered. Bradley's misconception
of this key-speech arises from his hasty abandonment of the dramatic function
of the character.
Additional support for the view I have suggested is not lacking in the
dialogue that follows. Mr. Roy Walker (for the reprinting of whose book I
appeal) has suggested (quoted by K. Muir) that Banquo in this dialogue is
anxious to tell Macbeth nothing and get away as quickly as ~ossible.That is
the impression that I also obtain. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth realize that they
must go all out to capture Banquo; indeed, Macbeth later on counsels his wife,
who does not know his secret plans, to be especially attentive to Banquo. H e is
the chief guest at the banquet. Lady Macbeth is even more unctuous:
If he had been forgotten
It had been as a gap in our great feast
And all-thing unbecoming.
Compare Macbeth's address to Banquo with Duncan's mode towards him and
Macbeth's own in the past. Macbeth wants Banquo's counsel but Banquo
merely listens without offering to cancel his ride. In reply to Macbeth's query
Banquo curtly raps out:
As far, my Lord, as will fill up the time
'Twixt this and supper.
He goes further and hints that he may be even late for this feast that the King
is giving him-though he will not fail, for the King is afraid he may not care to
come at all. Further, to Macbeth's talk of bloody cousins, their cruel parricide,
and their strange invention, Banquo's sole reply is that it is getting late for
his ride!