"For evil to rise it takes few good men to do nothing." Discuss with regard to Banquo and Macduff in Macbeth.

This is a great statement to discuss with regard to this
play and these two characters. To be honest, I can see both sides of this issue. For
example, on the one hand, a basic comparison of these two characters reveals that
Macduff was assertive and left Scotland deliberately to join the forces of Malcolm
against Macbeth. Banquo, however, in spite of his considerable grounds for suspecting
that Macbeth was guilty of Duncan's murder, did nothing to oppose or challenge him. Note
what Banquo says in his soliloquy at the beginning of Act III scene
1:

Thou hast
it now--King, Cawdor, Glamis, all

As the Weird Women
promised, and I fear

Thou played'st most foully for
't.

In spite of his clear
suspicions of Macbeth's involvement in the crime of regicide, Banquo does nothing to
challenge Macbeth. We could therefore argue that Banquo missed an opportunity to
challenge Macbeth and perhaps stop him before he committed even greater crimes. Macduff,
on the other hand, moved to oppose him and successfully did something to stop
Macbeth.

However, I also think that we can be a bit too
harsh on Banquo. Let us remember that Macduff moved to oppose Macbeth after Macbeth had
killed Duncan and killed Banquo. Macduff had longer then to see evidence of Macbeth's
villainy. Banquo only saw evidence of Macbeth's involvement in the killing of Duncan,
and we can imagine that he was rather bewildered at what happened and how it followed so
quickly after receiving the prophecies from the
witches.

Therefore, on the one hand, the character of
Banquo could be used to suggest that good men doing nothing could result in the rise of
evil, and Macduff shows the opposite of this statement. However, let us also remember
the course of events and the way that Macduff had more time to see greater evidence of
Macbeth's treachery.