Why did Shakespeare deliberately write Banquo into Act 1 Scene iii and then have him remain silent following the discovery of Duncan's regicide? While generally accepted that Banquo represents a simple foil for Macbeth's 'wayward son', if one wanted to be pedantic about it, the apparent ‘goodness’ of Banquo's character is debatable when we consider that he could have raised merry hell about Macbeth's potential involvement in the murder right from the start (possibly even before it had a chance to take place), but instead appears to fatally bide his time and weigh his options. Ambition is the domain of the Macbeths and subsequently proves to be their hamartia, but Banquo's conduct is questionable too and, consequently, his own personal ambition cannot be discounted without scrutiny.
Shakespeare must have been wary of the idea of any perceived smear on James I's lineage and this might explain Banquo’s early exit from the play - before anyone - say Macduff for example - could put the question to him in person. Why say nothing even though he fears his friend has 'played most foully' for the Crown? Even when he cannot sleep because of all the 'husbandry in heaven'. His failure to pipe up would look truly terrible in the aftermath of the events of Act One when the truth finally emerges - unless of course Banquo had already worked out that he would never have to face the inquisitors.
In scene iii, it is Banquo who appears to be clear-headed and rational while Macbeth is 'rapt' and largely silent. 'Speak to me' he tells the witches 'who neither beg nor fear your favours nor your hate'. His apparent scepticism trumps Macbeth's apparent enchantment at the appearance of the witches who, by all accounts are odd but nothing much to fear with their wild attire and 'beards' - a moment of levity most probably laid on for the audience to bolster the idea that 'fair is foul' and 'nothing is what is not'. That, and a brief wink to the audience to acknowledge the doubtless marvellous job done of casting the most masculine and physically grotesque male actors to play Satan's handmaidens for the mob's pleasure and entertainment.
Banquo's bawdy bravado and attempts to explain away the witches with theories about 'insane roots' are short lived however when he notices almost immediately the impact the witches words have on Macbeth and he begins to counsel his friend against succumbing to the temptations and trickery of demons; 'the earth hath bubbles, as the water has' - a clear allusion to beware the apostates of Hell who find their way into the mortal world in order to win the unwitting to 'our harm in deepest consequence'. Ross' news that the first prophecy has already eventuated then thoroughly alarms Banquo; 'Can the devil speak true?' and gets him thinking seriously about his own part in the prophecy - and what it's true interpretation might be. Macbeth's tendency to take the witches literally and trust them without question from the beginning is not lost on Banquo who quickly cautions restraint probably already guessing that his concerns will fall on deaf ears.
The audience is purposely not introduced to Macbeth’s wife until the later parts of Act 1. There is no mention of him being married until just before we meet Lady Macbeth at the end of Scene iv. So, when the play begins, there is nothing to foreshadow the hairline crack of a schism that the encounter with the witches will force between the two men. Shakespeare presents them equally balanced in their relationship and ambitions and they seem to operate as a duo; 'Dismay'd this not our Captains Macbeth and Banquo'. Duncan pairs them up in his mind when surveying Ross' glowing battle report of the Norwegian defeat. They are both violent killers, they are both loyal to Scotland and they are brothers-in-arms. Duncan’s favour extends to both men as he ‘enfolds’ both Macbeth and Banquo to his ‘bosom’ following their victory in battle confirming that he is ‘no less’ worthy or noble in the Court’s esteem and Macbeth appears to trust Banquo implicitly.
Duncan, in turn, is portrayed as a weak but benevolent ‘old man’ which projects the notion of Scotland’s vulnerability to enemy incursion. When pitted opposite the twin feats of his two champions hardly knowing which wonders and praises 'should be thine or his', the audience would already have a fairly good idea what the answer should be. Scotland needs a warrior King. Banquo and Macbeth unintentionally make Duncan look all the weaker for their undaunted service to shore up Scotland's threadbare defences. Trust was a very fluid concept in wartorn Scotland and this mirrored the religious division in contemporary England. Duncan’s apparent naivety when choosing in whom to place his ‘absolute trust’ hints at chinks of weakness in the Scottish Court that were ripe for exploitation by those who viewed the power of Britain’s northern territories with envious eyes. At first, Shakespeare endeavours to make this instability synonymous with weak leadership. So, there is no reason to suspect that Banquo was incorruptible once he had heard the prophecy relating to his ‘issue’ someday laying claim to the throne.
Later, when Macbeth encounters Banquo and Fleance at Dunsinane, Banquo implies that he will follow Macbeth come what may: ‘still keep my bosom franchised and allegiance clear’. He entreats his comrade to keep him in the loop and trust him. ‘Franchised’ suggests he is very much invested in how events unravel, and he approaches Macbeth with the same curiosity that he showed the witches in Scene iii. His use of the word ‘clear’ – which he repeats - is ironic because it is very far from clear at this stage where Banquo’s allegiance lies and the audience will recall Lady Macbeth's instruction to 'look up clear' when the couple plot to hide their crimes further suggesting that Banquo may well be hedging his bets about which horse to back. His words might be seen as a warning to Macbeth not to ‘play most foully’ for the throne but this further reference to a ‘bosom’ implies that Banquo may seek to keep an enemy close while assessing the best outcome for himself and Fleance. Like Macbeth before and after the killing, Banquo is uneasy with the idea of regicide and it keeps him awake: ‘and yet I would not sleep, merciful powers, restrain…me…!’. In his soliloquy, Banquo is visibly struggling with how he might protect the legacy of the throne for his son and cautions himself not to act rashly. Like Lady Macbeth, he invokes the supernatural – ‘merciful powers’ – only, while she entreats aid to unleash hell, Banquo seeks restraint in his impatience which shows that he, like Macbeth, ‘art not without ambition’. There is an indication here that Banquo believes he may not be able to resist acting if Macbeth puts his part of the prophecy in jeopardy by taking matters into his own hands.
Curiouser still is Banquo’s admission to Macbeth at Dunsinane that the previous evening he ‘dreamt of the weird sisters’ which would indicate that he had a premonition of the meeting. This conversation with Macbeth takes place on the same day as the battle and the meeting and perhaps explains why he chooses to stay close by his ‘noble partner’ once the ‘hurly burly’ is done. It is a strange coincidence that Banquo refers to Macbeth as his ‘partner’ in scene iii when he could have just as easily have named him ‘friend’. He clearly feels some additional affinity with Macbeth that warrants closer connotation than that of fellow Thane or compatriot. Later, when Lady Macbeth reads Macbeth’s letter in Act 1 Scene 5, he refers to her as his ‘partner of greatness’ cementing in the audiences mind these ideas of collusion and conspiracy. Banquo could have raised hell on discovering the murder of Duncan and revealed all to a group of very violent, vengeful Thanes. However, he chooses not to relay his suspicions about how Macbeth ‘play’d most foully’ for the crown, the tactician in him perhaps forcing him to delay while deciding what to do. His ambition for his son could be construed as his hamartia therefore, since his silence is what eventually does for him when Macbeth’s ambition runs out of control following the murder of the king.
His apparent selfless defence of Fleance when they are waylaid by the murderers; ‘Fly! Fleance! Fly!’ can be read as a final stark bid to protect the legacy of his son because he has already guessed the true meaning of the assertion that he will ‘be none’. While this alludes to him having no hope of acceding, ‘none’ can also be interpreted as an oblique prediction of his own death. His decision to take Fleance out riding suggests that he is aware of what will happen to him and that getting his son away from the viper’s nest of Dunsinane is Fleance’s best chance for survival when Macbeth moves against him. A man dangerous enough to commit regicide will think nothing of offing a colleague. He makes a point of outlining for Macbeth his precise movements for that day and confirms Fleance will be with him. To allay suspicion, he reaffirms his ‘clear allegiance’ to the king as ‘a most indissoluble tie forever knit’ which acknowledges that he sees his destiny as inextricably interwoven with the rule of Scotland – come what may. Unlike Duncan, Banquo is a career soldier. He is trained to fight with skill and die with honour and all the Machiavellian ideology that comes with it. He too will ‘play foully’ if it secures a justifiable victory. And he ‘trusts’ no one. Shakespeare may have intended the nobler death of Banquo to flatter King James and demonstrate that ambition can be a force for good, if paired with conscience and sacrifice.
Since Banquo’s murder is the first in the play to occur on stage, it is possible to adduce that Shakespeare was thinking ahead. Convincing death scenes were a tricky staging decision in Jacobean times. There were very few options for special effects and ominous lighting, surround sound and dry ice machines were still centuries away. Due to fire hazards, productions were performed in the cold light of day and mood was generally conveyed by the actors in their speech. ‘Faking’ a gruesome and bloody death (often with a bladder of pig’s blood) was messy and could backfire into unintentional hilarity if not delivered with skill and precision. It was very difficult to shock an audience who regularly attended animal blood sports and gritty public punishments for the purposes of entertainment. Knowing that he would be requiring the actor playing Banquo to return as a murdered ghost in Act Two might have made the decision to get him all messed up in Act One worth the risk of inspiring a lively and unpersuaded audience to start throwing rotten fruit at the stage.
Similar reasoning may have been applied to the death offstage of Macbeth in the final scenes. The cathartic effect of seeing the tyrant’s head paraded about the stage on a pike would be an excellent thrill to accompany the denouement of the play, but only if the audience bought the idea that he had actually had his head cut off – something that would have been very hard to pull off putatively with hapless actors hacking away at each other in broad daylight with wooden swords and liberal quantities of offal. Everything in the production would have been a trade-off calculated for maximum impact, and it was Shakespeare’s excellence at keeping the audience’s disbelief willingly suspended up until the last line that made him England’s most successful playwright.
Similarly, hinting that there was more to Banquo than sweetness and light, without actually declaring it, would have been a great source of tension for the audience in Act Two. Banquo hints that he knows exactly what he is doing when he greets the murderers with a challenging statement, ‘It will be rain tonight’ which the murderers take as their cue; ‘Let it come down!’. Banquo’s forthright use of the phrase ‘will be’ connotes his control of the situation as he turns the tables on the murderers, the audacity of which Shakespeare intended to surprise and delight his audience. Banquo’s secret and stealthy nature, which foreshadows not just Macbeth’s but ultimately his own undoing, is further revealed in his ambiguous use of the homophone ‘rain’ which could be received as ‘reign’ reflecting his noble belief that the blood of Banquo ‘will’ occupy the throne of Scotland and the price ‘will be’ a torrent of his own blood. There is no actual reason for Macbeth to kill Banquo at all. Even without the strictures of Tanistry, the Macbeths have no son to pass the throne to and Macbeth knows from prophecy that he has nothing to fear from Banquo himself.
Nonetheless, he instinctively puts in place a plan to murder him as soon as possible with Fleance as the intended target. It is interesting to note that Macbeth’s ‘milk of human kindness’ is nowhere in evidence once he achieves his ambition to become King. No need for Lady Macbeth’s input into the order to kill now; ‘be ignorant dearest chuck’. The audience witnesses him turn from prevaricator to predator almost immediately as he undergoes a stellar boost in confidence that makes him appear unremittingly conniving and ruthless. Arguably, Shakespeare wanted his audience to begin to pivot their sympathy away from Macbeth at this point to magnify the dangers of abusing absolute power for one’s own ends. Perhaps he has not yet completely abandoned all hope that Lady Macbeth will ‘bring forth male children’. Or maybe he fears that Fleance will be the one to topple his crown if allowed to live. Perhaps he just did it to tie up the loose ends of his former heroic self as a final nail in the coffin of his lost honour. Regardless, his growing paranoia becomes starkly apparent even as he convinces the murderers that they ‘want’ to kill Banquo and dispatches them (along with a Third Murderer for good measure) to commit the deed by proxy. In throwing in the murder of Fleance almost as an afterthought, he ‘hides’ his ‘deep and black desire’ to see his competition scotched by doing away with the one person who could protect the child - much as he did with Duncan. This suggests that his ‘milk of human kindness’ has not completely evaporated but also suggests a desire to make sure the plan does not fail. Duncan was a cinch being old and asleep. Banquo is quite another thing. The insurance policy of a Third Murderer shows how well Macbeth understands that Banquo is very possibly a match for any number of ‘murderers’ and will put up a Herculean fight to give Fleance a chance to escape - sacrificing his own life in the process if necessary. He was not wrong.
In his heroic deed, Banquo shows true honour but his good intentions do not diminish his great ambitions. Ambition, Shakespeare suggests, is no bad thing when not accompanied by ‘illness’ in the form of self-interest and cruelty. By this point Banquo has clearly made up his mind that being ‘none’ means he must die so that Fleance can live giving solid credence to the paradox in the prediction that he shall be ‘not so happy, yet happier’. Banquo’s reward for his sacrifice will be a place beside Duncan amongst the ‘angels’ in heaven while Macbeth rots in hell for his tyranny. Shakespeare masterfully portrays James’ ascendant dying a hero in defence of the Divine Right of Kings – which conflates with James’ unshakeable belief that he was born with the inalienable right to rule. In this, Shakespeare communicated a message to the new king that selflessness, honour and protection of all subjects are the marks of a great leader and, should James prove to be such a king, divine reward will be his and the ‘line’ of the House of Stuart might ‘stretch out to the crack of doom’.
Aside from the device of using his ghost as a deft way to compound Macbeth's guilt following the slaying of King Duncan, Banquo also serves to remind the audience that good cannot triumph over evil if we are not vigilant to its presence or seek to subvert for our own ends - however noble. Banquo serves as an exemplar of the great man Macbeth could have been if freed from his ‘vaulting ambition’, but he is also an inconvenient witness to the events that led Macbeth to kill Duncan in the first place. Looking deeper, Banquo’s role in the play raises questions about murkier motives and hint that, in the war-torn hellhole of medieval Scotland, nobody was above corruption given the right circumstances.
コメント