Horatio ft. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern by Ashley Ezard on Prezi
Their relationship with their friend is now defined by dishonesty, deception and duplicity. Hamlet's exclamation when he first sees Rosencrantz and Guildenstern certainly seems Friendship of Hamlet and Horatio in Act 1. In both aspects Rosencrantz and Guildenstern differ. Not until the second scene of act three does Shakespeare thrust Horatio back into the action, “A side of Hamlet's relationship with Horatio disappears with the omission of their playful. Everything you ever wanted to know about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in a little harsh for Hamlet to send them off to die, though (as Horatio points out).
It seems from this request that Hamlet did not expect the king to reveal his crime so overtly that anyone at all could have seen his guilt. Nor did he trust his own observation or expect to act immediately. Horatio is ready to join with Hamlet in observing the king for what can only be one purpose: O good Horatio, Ile take the Ghosts word for a thousand pound.
Very well my Lord. Vpon the talke of the poysning.
I did very well note him. In performance, of course, he can continue to express a characteristic demeanor, whatever the director has decided, such as empathy or amusement. Perhaps his strangest appearance is in act four, scene five, when he takes on the unlikely role of advisor to the queen and, in performance, trusted assistant to the king. In Q2, Horatio enters with a gentleman and says only the last lines before Ophelia comes inurging the queen, for political reasons, to allow Ophelia to enter.
One can only guess why Shakespeare would have given Horatio either the Q2 or F1 role in this scene: Any number of other actors in the troupe would have been available to play this role here—an early appearance for the actor playing Osric, perhaps, or an additional appearance for the one playing Marcellus. Most productions have the king direct the request to Horatio, but neither Q2 nor F1 has a stage direction indicating to whom he speaks. Only once does he have a rejoinder: And here Hamlet immediately argues his point without any further contradiction from Horatio.
But in F1 this line goes, more appropriately perhaps, to an unnamed gentleman. In the first segment, he listens and responds tersely as Hamlet tells the story of his sea voyage towards England.Hamlet - Horatio's Loyalty
But Horatio does not push the point. He says nothing further in Q2 until Osric enters. In F1 only, Horatio seems to urge Hamlet to some action: But it seems that Horatio no more than Hamlet suspects the king and Laertes, obvious enemies, of a plot against him. His next speech declares his wish to die with Hamlet, who insists that his friend remain alive to report his cause aright to the unsatisfied In some productions, the dying Hamlet has to wrestle the poisoned cup away from Horatio; in others, his request alone is enough to convince Horatio.
Let vs hast to heare it, And call the noblest to the audience, For me, with sorrowe I embrace my fortune, I haue some rights, of memory in this kingdome, Which now to clame my vantage doth inuite me. And Horatio takes the initiative again: Now cracks a noble hart, good night sweete Prince, And flights of Angels sing thee to thy rest. Thus, Horatio seems to solve a crux that informs the entire play: What sort of man is Hamlet? For Horatio, Hamlet is a good man who dies with a soul unburdened by sins of omission or commission.
Below is a selected set of comments: Downes [publishedp. Betterton himself as Hamlet and just before the king: Thirlby [mtby4] explores the possibility that Horatio is a sentinel, citing 23,and Havard shewed in full; and it would be wronging Mr.
Warner apud [v] ed. Marcellus was an officer, and consequently did that through duty, for which Horatio had no motive but curiosity. Besides there is but one person on each watch. And who with right soul but must have been speechless amidst these gentle ravings. His is a character of great excellence and accomplishment; but while this is distinctly shown, it is but sketched, not elaborately painted.
Such as character, in the hands of another author, would have been made the centre of some secondary plot. But here, while he commands our respect and esteem, he never for a moment divides a passing interest with the Prince.
He does not break in upon the main current of our feelings. He contributes only to the general effect, so that it requires an effort of the mind to separate him for critical admiration. Horatio was peculiarly a healthy-minded man. And when this unbelief of his has proved to be foolishness, he is full of the philosophy of the schools, and sets to work to resolve the phenomenon into an historical prodigy.
In the church-yard he obviously dislikes the whole scene by which he is surrounded. And yet, though in Horatio the Understanding does predominate over the Reason, still it has not wholly extinguished the latter.
Nay, it would seem that his sensualistic philosophy was in a great measure learnt in the schools, and was, perhaps, rather the external result of his education, than the internal law of his own mind; as it is, every now and then he gives utterance to a note-worthy truth, of a nature not to be expected from him. Horatio commands respect and esteem even from one so differently constituted as Hamlet.
Should we undertake to go through the play without him, we should then feel how much of the best spirit and impression of the scenes is owing to his presence and character. Horatio receives the Christian illustration expressively: But he is further developed: The character of Horatio is the only spot of sun-light in the play; and he is a cheering, though not a joyous gleam coming across the dark hemisphere of treachery, mistrust, and unkindness.
Horatio would even have followed Hamlet to the grave. But he moves so quietly in the drama that his rare traits of character have hardly had justice done them. Should we undertake to go through the play without him, we might feel then how much of the best spirit and impression of the scene is owing to his presence.
And indeed all that comes from him marks the presence of a calm, clear head, keeping touch and time perfectly with a good heart. He is also opposed to him as being the man on whose composure good or bad fortune has no influence; the man so faithful to himself that he never can be false to any other man. He had been most exact in his estimate of the time the Ghost stayed, and he would be equally exact as to the colour and texture of the beard.
Perhaps, however, some distinction between different parts of Denmark is intended. All this is lightly but sufficiently suggested. Similarly, at the close he quickly puts self aside, at the call of duty to the State and to Hamlet. Besides the fact that most critics are against writing the play that is between the lines without textual evidence, Hamlet's line "That is Laertes, a very noble youth"  suggests that he doesn't think that Horatio has ever heard of Laertes.
Bradley speculates that Sh. Hamlet says to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that he doesn't engage in any of his usual activities  and to Horatio that he has been constantly practicing his fencing  since Laertes left; therefore, Bradley suggests, we are to believe what he says to Horatio to whom Hamlet would not lie. And their first meeting does not sound as if they are intimates.
More important is that he seems to be two characters: Hamlet has to explain a Danish custom to him. He does not know what the flourish of trumpets means. He points out that Sh. His theory is that the second Horatio was interspersed in the existing material for the first Horatio.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
He theorizes that since Horatio matters only with respect to Hamlet, the change in Horatio must be connected to a change in the Hamlet. It is unthinkable that Hamlet would speak as he does of his mother's wedding in the hearing of Marcellus and Bernardo. But the conventional distances of the platform stage leave the two friends, if they are at the front of it, in perfect privacy, The two others do not approach till Horatio turns to them with 'Upon the witness of these gentlemen' ;1.
Now we know that Horatio, at the outset of the action, was cautious about accepting the Ghost as genuine. I would suggest that we know, and can know, almost nothing else concerning his attitude or advice. His function is to be the chief spokesman of the first scene and the confidant of the hero for the rest of the play. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern arrive in Denmark they are welcomed by Claudius and Gertrude because they were sent for by the King and Queen.
Characters in Hamlet - Wikipedia
Since Rosencrantz and Guildenstern came to Denmark because they were called upon, and did not come on their own free will, this proves that they are not true friends to Hamlet. After the truth came out, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern tried to make Hamlet feel better because he felt that he was in a prison living in Denmark because the ghost told Hamlet of his murder and the adulterous relationship Gertrude had with Claudius. From examining the events surrounding the relationships of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern with Hamlet, it is plain to see that they were not good friends to Hamlet.
From the initial meeting of the two sets of friends to how they treated the main character, Horatio proved to be kinder to Hamlet throughout. First of all, the fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are called to Denmark by the King and Queen and did not come because they wanted to see their friend is very telling of the level of friendship they have with Hamlet.
This is unlike Horatio, who goes out and seeks Hamlet in order to tell him about his father. Secondly, Hamlet shows his trust towards Horatio when he indulges his plan to figure out if Claudius killed his father. This is in contrast to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who agreed to help Claudius figure out what was wrong with Hamlet. Finally, Horatio wanted to protect Hamlet from dangers when he warned him that something negative could possibly happen if he followed the ghost. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern only acted nicely to Hamlet once he figured out that they were sent to spy on him.
These events provide evidence that Horatio was a better friend to Hamlet than Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were.
In conclusion, from comparing the relationship between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern with Hamlet versus the relationship of Horatio with Hamlet, the evidence viewed, such as his first encounter with Hamlet, the way the main character is treated, and how the friends act with him, showed that Horatio was a true friend to Hamlet.