Is this sentence still correct though if I use "had to" instead of "must"?

1) Macbeth admits that if he had to acknowledge his deed, then it would be best for him to lose all knowledge of himself.

Thank you.

English - SraJMcGin, Tuesday, November

Indeed it would!

Sra

That is a run-on -- two sentences jammed together without correct punctuation to separate them. The word "then" is NOT a conjunction.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/runons.htm

How will you fix this?

Yes, the sentence would still be correct if you use "had to" instead of "must." Here's how you can determine the correct usage:

1) "Must" is used to indicate a requirement or obligation in the present or future. For example, "I must finish my homework before I can go out." In the original sentence, using "must" implies a general requirement or obligation for Macbeth to acknowledge his deed.

2) On the other hand, "had to" is used to indicate a requirement or obligation in the past. For example, "I had to study all night for the exam." In the modified sentence, using "had to" suggests that there was a specific requirement or obligation in the past for Macbeth to acknowledge his deed.

Both options are grammatically correct, but they convey slightly different meanings. Using "must" suggests a present or ongoing requirement, while using "had to" suggests a past requirement. You can choose the option that best fits the context and meaning you want to convey.