Although this is an interesting theory, I don't agree, but I also don't agree with the apparent consensus that Horatio is bland or merely a catalyst... I thought that he was one of the most complex and interesting characters; I agree that he's of course supposed to strongly contrast with myriad characters because he is authentic/largely IS who he appears to be, but that doesn't render him 'bland'. Horatio and Hamlet's exchanges throughout, especially asides where they're attempting to analyse any hidden meaning from a third party, are some of the most engaging. 1. On Horatio's 'convenient timing', it makes perfect sense for him to return to the Kingdom for the funeral. 2. On Horatio warning Hamlet about the ghost and urging him to not speak to it, lest it 'assumes some horrible form' which might 'deprive [Hamlet's] sovereignty of reason and draw [him'] to madness'... I don't consider this to be a manipulative way to force a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially because grief and its impact on soundness of mind is such an integral theme in the play. Horatio's advice here is, as always, very wise... and is he wrong? It's almost a Lovecraft-esce angle, wondering whether witnessing a being like the ghost, that's so otherworldly and unimaginable, would naturally thrust most people into madness. Horatio would know that Hamlet would be extremely susceptible to this due to their familiarity with one another, Hamlet's own grief and his ill-will regarding the marriage of Gertrude and Claudius. 3. It's fair to assume that Horatio is aware of the armour worn by late King Hamlet because that fight seems to be very iconic, perhaps it's even on display. He doesn't have to literally have WITNESSED that event to know. 4. Horatio survives for two core reasons, in a symbolic sense (in my opinion of course). Firstly, an overarching theme of Hamlet is the pointlessness of the royal family in-fighting, lust for power, moral bankruptcy due to one's desire for said power and the unending cycle of revenge. Horatio didn't impact this cycle, thus his purity spared him. More importantly, though, the existential philosophy discussed and questioned throughout the play- what exists after death, and if the answer is nothing, how can we find meaning and fulfilment in lieu of suffering through life etc etc- this thread is concluded neatly because Horatio lives. It seems to me, because Hamlet urges Horatio to 'tell his story' or to tell the public the truth of the matter, he's realised that our image after death, our legacies and their impact are invaluable... regardless of whether life exists after death, who somebody truly was and their honest motives need to be known because that image does live on, this seems to be Hamlet's conclusion and Horatio must live to cement Hamlet's true image. Also, referring back to the argument about Horatio surviving... he does try, or at least heavily considers, killing himself with the remaining poison in the cup (Hamlet takes it from him and urges him to live so as to tell his story). If he had underhanded intentions I don't understand why he'd do this, and I also don't understand why he would have tried to dissuade Hamlet from even going to the duel with Laertes among myriad similar instances where he could have easily intercepted Hamlet.
Also: The point of Hamlet is that Hamlet ruins his own life and Horatio IS subversive to him in all of his attempts to cause Hamlet to overthink things and go slow instead of trusting the ghost and following the typical revenge tragedy track as he should. But if there's some weird sinister villain manipulating Hamlet the whole time (that's not Claudius) and Hamlet doesn't ruin his whole life through his indecision and mistreatment of those around him than Hamlet loses his agency and the play just has no message. It's about these royals destroying their world together, that's the whole point.
Mia Mafalda They're just close friends, you have to keep in mind Horatio is the only one he can trust, everyone else has betrayed him in some way, plus Hamlet loved Ophelia and him and Horatio both made fun of a gay person right in front of his face, and Hamlet was written X when Homosexuals were hated. Why would Shakespeare make his main character who btw is the name of his dead son, be gay
While I do not disagree with this theory and actually find it quite fascinating, and am very thankful for your attention to the character of Horatio, you have not mentioned two very important moments for establishing Horatio's character in Hamlet - in the scene of Hamlet's death, Horatio attempts suicide, presumably because of understanding that Hamlet is dying, and he, for one reason or another, is unable to bear Hamlet dying (“I am more of an antique Roman than a Dane, here's yet some liquor left“); gives him a gentle verbal sendoff (“Now cracks a noble heart. Goodnight sweet prince, may flights of angels...“). How do these two moments integrate into your theory? Both of them haven't really a way to benefit Horatio and his supposed ulterior goal - Hamlet has a very short time left to live, the prince, the major governmental player in Denmark, is done for. Horatio may stick around him for the benefit of Osric, who is supposedly present in this scene for it is he who later announces that Fortinbras is on the way, but why go so far as to attempt to drink the poisoned wine from the goblet - and act out an effort so strong that Hamlet has to pull the goblet away from his hands? Hamlet, of course, stops Horatio, but on the off chance that he wouldn't have, that he would let him drink the poison, like, what would Horatio do then? Go back on his suicidal intention? Or did he, in your opinion, know Hamlet well enough to know that he would never let Horatio drink the wine? What do you think is the explanation for this action of his? As for the “goodnight sweet prince“ line, again, the motivations for it are unclear - Hamlet is dead, Horatio doesn't have to prove his loyalty to Hamlet anymore, and though he may have to show it to Osric, this line, sounding on paper gently as it does, has no use and will bring Horatio no benefit. Though this line may be framed as malicious, it depends on delibery, so this argument is less trong than the first one. Again, thank you for such an extensive analysis of Horatio's presence in the play, it is greatly appreciated. Despite this video being more than three years old, I do hope for a reply. Have a nice day and good luck in all your endeavours!
This is a really interesting point. I hadn't thought about his attempt at suicide at the end, but like you suggested, if Horatio's character is as calculating as this guy reckons, then perhaps he would understand Hamlet's behaviour well enough to consider a fake attempt. You could argue again though, that the latter is quite a tenuous theory. Sorry you didn't get the reply from the guy who made it but still, it's a really intriguing argument!
@@joby19881 Thank you very much for a reply! Feel no need to be sorry, I still have hope and patience that someday I will. :) Of course it's of no problem if Mr Garcia has lost interest in debate. Yes, I agree with what you're saying from the bottom of my heart. On top of that, a suicide attempt is a pointless risk in such a situation, for too many reasons to recount. Hamlet and Horatio _can_, of course, be arranged to be alone when Hamlet is dying, without courtiers or Osric present in the scene - that eliminates the risk that, for example, Horatio goes to drink the poison, Hamlet dies in the middle of him doing so and Horatio is in an uncomfortable position of having to "change his mind" with the poisonous cup to his lips in front of the Danish court/Osric; but he could be in just as uncomfortable of a position if Hamlet decided to let him go for it - he's dying, people tend to have their priorities and outlooks on life shifted greatly when they're dying. Wouldn't a calculating person not calculate these possibilities? Just why on Earth do it in the first place? Hamlet, whom Horatio has presumably been trying to bring to his demise, is as good as dead anyway, the most Horatio has to do is to make a sad face, close Hamlet's dead eyes and go report to Fortinbras that he was a good boy. You could also argue, though, that Horatio's "more of an antique Roman than a Dane" line could be a stealthy confession to Hamlet - that he indirectly backstabbed him, like Brutus did Caesar in Rome, and his suicide attempt is motivated by remorse, and Hamlet stopping him is his forgiveness, but that's very much a stretch, too. Thank you again for a reply. :) You are very eloquent and I'm happy that someone noticed and replied to my argument. I hope you have a great day, best of luck!~
@@hartwharton6969 you're welcome - another good point too regarding the Roman reference! On the other hand however, I'd struggle with that theory. Shakespeare was a genius, but as you say it's a stretch!
Because Horatio survives, he is evil? He is alive because he is the only substantial character who manages not to make a tragic moral mistakes. There is something very anti human about this way of looking at things. It is a resentful Marx heavy interpretation that if taken seriously would probably hurt you if you took it into your life as a way of living.
I published a book about this last year - it is "A Truant Disposition: Discovering the Tragedy of Hamlet through the Role of Horatio" A 2nd edition will be out this summer. Carol Grieb
To dare to give Horatio complex depth. People are essentially self serving by nature, only through conscious effort and hard work do we actually reach moments of benevolence. Thank you for your thoughtful work on this character, I found it fascinating.
I'm not certain that I agree with you either. However, Benedict Cumberbatch pointed out that in Hamlet, an entire generation is wiped out. Hamlet, Laertes, Rosencrantz, Gildenstren and Ophelia. He does not mention Horatio, but, I do not think that BC not mentioning Horatio is significant. I also heard/read someone recently say that Horatio's role is that of the storyteller, which I like. Indeed, the story of Hamlet/Amleth is old. A reaction by one of the writers of the "history" composed by the Four Masters of Ireland references Hamlet long after the play was presented in London. I always saw Horatio as a childhood friend of Hamlet and that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were friends from Wittenberg. I think it is very true to how mothers treat the friends of their off-spring that Gertrude knew (about if not met before) Hamlet's three friends.
I welcome disagreements, however Horatio as a storyteller is merely one, and a relatively superficial, aspect of the character. I offered a depth-psychological interpretation.
I don't understand your point about when Horatio says " I saw him once. He was a goodly king." Horatio tells Marcellus earlier ACT1 scene 1 line 75 that he saw King Hamlet on the battlefield in Norway once before. Isn't that the time "I saw him once" refers to? And isn't this also how Horatio is familiar with the armor the Ghost is wearing?
That's just it: he says he saw him 'once' when in fact earlier on he confesses he saw him when he combated Norway and also the Polacks -- so he saw him clearly more than 'once' ... a very small slip. But even if this slip is questionable, the aura of and the mystery around Horatio warrant some deep consideraton.
Here is a link to the book in which I originally proposed this hypothesis, in my novella "Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of Hamlet": amzn.com/B019QG38G6
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Sneaking [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ILUps2zDFU/mqdefault.jpg)
to me, Horatio is every compelling or good character trait I can find in a fictional character put into one person, but you do you.
Although this is an interesting theory, I don't agree, but I also don't agree with the apparent consensus that Horatio is bland or merely a catalyst... I thought that he was one of the most complex and interesting characters; I agree that he's of course supposed to strongly contrast with myriad characters because he is authentic/largely IS who he appears to be, but that doesn't render him 'bland'. Horatio and Hamlet's exchanges throughout, especially asides where they're attempting to analyse any hidden meaning from a third party, are some of the most engaging.
1. On Horatio's 'convenient timing', it makes perfect sense for him to return to the Kingdom for the funeral.
2. On Horatio warning Hamlet about the ghost and urging him to not speak to it, lest it 'assumes some horrible form' which might 'deprive [Hamlet's] sovereignty of reason and draw [him'] to madness'... I don't consider this to be a manipulative way to force a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially because grief and its impact on soundness of mind is such an integral theme in the play. Horatio's advice here is, as always, very wise... and is he wrong? It's almost a Lovecraft-esce angle, wondering whether witnessing a being like the ghost, that's so otherworldly and unimaginable, would naturally thrust most people into madness. Horatio would know that Hamlet would be extremely susceptible to this due to their familiarity with one another, Hamlet's own grief and his ill-will regarding the marriage of Gertrude and Claudius.
3. It's fair to assume that Horatio is aware of the armour worn by late King Hamlet because that fight seems to be very iconic, perhaps it's even on display. He doesn't have to literally have WITNESSED that event to know.
4. Horatio survives for two core reasons, in a symbolic sense (in my opinion of course). Firstly, an overarching theme of Hamlet is the pointlessness of the royal family in-fighting, lust for power, moral bankruptcy due to one's desire for said power and the unending cycle of revenge. Horatio didn't impact this cycle, thus his purity spared him. More importantly, though, the existential philosophy discussed and questioned throughout the play- what exists after death, and if the answer is nothing, how can we find meaning and fulfilment in lieu of suffering through life etc etc- this thread is concluded neatly because Horatio lives. It seems to me, because Hamlet urges Horatio to 'tell his story' or to tell the public the truth of the matter, he's realised that our image after death, our legacies and their impact are invaluable... regardless of whether life exists after death, who somebody truly was and their honest motives need to be known because that image does live on, this seems to be Hamlet's conclusion and Horatio must live to cement Hamlet's true image. Also, referring back to the argument about Horatio surviving... he does try, or at least heavily considers, killing himself with the remaining poison in the cup (Hamlet takes it from him and urges him to live so as to tell his story). If he had underhanded intentions I don't understand why he'd do this, and I also don't understand why he would have tried to dissuade Hamlet from even going to the duel with Laertes among myriad similar instances where he could have easily intercepted Hamlet.
concept:horatio is gay and most of what you're saying is a huge reach
Also: The point of Hamlet is that Hamlet ruins his own life and Horatio IS subversive to him in all of his attempts to cause Hamlet to overthink things and go slow instead of trusting the ghost and following the typical revenge tragedy track as he should. But if there's some weird sinister villain manipulating Hamlet the whole time (that's not Claudius) and Hamlet doesn't ruin his whole life through his indecision and mistreatment of those around him than Hamlet loses his agency and the play just has no message. It's about these royals destroying their world together, that's the whole point.
the concept alone is .................
Zoe Claire He is not
Mia Mafalda No it's a theory, Horatio and Hamlet make fun of Orsic who is a homosexual that's from the country, Horatio is not gay, he's a friend
Mia Mafalda They're just close friends, you have to keep in mind Horatio is the only one he can trust, everyone else has betrayed him in some way, plus Hamlet loved Ophelia and him and Horatio both made fun of a gay person right in front of his face, and Hamlet was written X when Homosexuals were hated. Why would Shakespeare make his main character who btw is the name of his dead son, be gay
While I do not disagree with this theory and actually find it quite fascinating, and am very thankful for your attention to the character of Horatio, you have not mentioned two very important moments for establishing Horatio's character in Hamlet - in the scene of Hamlet's death, Horatio attempts suicide, presumably because of understanding that Hamlet is dying, and he, for one reason or another, is unable to bear Hamlet dying (“I am more of an antique Roman than a Dane, here's yet some liquor left“); gives him a gentle verbal sendoff (“Now cracks a noble heart. Goodnight sweet prince, may flights of angels...“). How do these two moments integrate into your theory?
Both of them haven't really a way to benefit Horatio and his supposed ulterior goal - Hamlet has a very short time left to live, the prince, the major governmental player in Denmark, is done for. Horatio may stick around him for the benefit of Osric, who is supposedly present in this scene for it is he who later announces that Fortinbras is on the way, but why go so far as to attempt to drink the poisoned wine from the goblet - and act out an effort so strong that Hamlet has to pull the goblet away from his hands? Hamlet, of course, stops Horatio, but on the off chance that he wouldn't have, that he would let him drink the poison, like, what would Horatio do then? Go back on his suicidal intention? Or did he, in your opinion, know Hamlet well enough to know that he would never let Horatio drink the wine? What do you think is the explanation for this action of his?
As for the “goodnight sweet prince“ line, again, the motivations for it are unclear - Hamlet is dead, Horatio doesn't have to prove his loyalty to Hamlet anymore, and though he may have to show it to Osric, this line, sounding on paper gently as it does, has no use and will bring Horatio no benefit. Though this line may be framed as malicious, it depends on delibery, so this argument is less trong than the first one.
Again, thank you for such an extensive analysis of Horatio's presence in the play, it is greatly appreciated. Despite this video being more than three years old, I do hope for a reply. Have a nice day and good luck in all your endeavours!
This is a really interesting point. I hadn't thought about his attempt at suicide at the end, but like you suggested, if Horatio's character is as calculating as this guy reckons, then perhaps he would understand Hamlet's behaviour well enough to consider a fake attempt. You could argue again though, that the latter is quite a tenuous theory.
Sorry you didn't get the reply from the guy who made it but still, it's a really intriguing argument!
@@joby19881 Thank you very much for a reply! Feel no need to be sorry, I still have hope and patience that someday I will. :) Of course it's of no problem if Mr Garcia has lost interest in debate.
Yes, I agree with what you're saying from the bottom of my heart. On top of that, a suicide attempt is a pointless risk in such a situation, for too many reasons to recount. Hamlet and Horatio _can_, of course, be arranged to be alone when Hamlet is dying, without courtiers or Osric present in the scene - that eliminates the risk that, for example, Horatio goes to drink the poison, Hamlet dies in the middle of him doing so and Horatio is in an uncomfortable position of having to "change his mind" with the poisonous cup to his lips in front of the Danish court/Osric; but he could be in just as uncomfortable of a position if Hamlet decided to let him go for it - he's dying, people tend to have their priorities and outlooks on life shifted greatly when they're dying. Wouldn't a calculating person not calculate these possibilities? Just why on Earth do it in the first place? Hamlet, whom Horatio has presumably been trying to bring to his demise, is as good as dead anyway, the most Horatio has to do is to make a sad face, close Hamlet's dead eyes and go report to Fortinbras that he was a good boy.
You could also argue, though, that Horatio's "more of an antique Roman than a Dane" line could be a stealthy confession to Hamlet - that he indirectly backstabbed him, like Brutus did Caesar in Rome, and his suicide attempt is motivated by remorse, and Hamlet stopping him is his forgiveness, but that's very much a stretch, too.
Thank you again for a reply. :) You are very eloquent and I'm happy that someone noticed and replied to my argument. I hope you have a great day, best of luck!~
@@hartwharton6969 you're welcome - another good point too regarding the Roman reference! On the other hand however, I'd struggle with that theory. Shakespeare was a genius, but as you say it's a stretch!
Because Horatio survives, he is evil?
He is alive because he is the only substantial character who manages not to make a tragic moral mistakes.
There is something very anti human about this way of looking at things. It is a resentful Marx heavy interpretation that if taken seriously would probably hurt you if you took it into your life as a way of living.
I published a book about this last year - it is "A Truant Disposition: Discovering the Tragedy of Hamlet through the Role of Horatio" A 2nd edition will be out this summer. Carol Grieb
And what exactly is it about? What's the theory it posits?
To dare to give Horatio complex depth. People are essentially self serving by nature, only through conscious effort and hard work do we actually reach moments of benevolence. Thank you for your thoughtful work on this character, I found it fascinating.
Thank you most kindly for these comments.
I'm not certain that I agree with you either. However, Benedict Cumberbatch pointed out that in Hamlet, an entire generation is wiped out. Hamlet, Laertes, Rosencrantz, Gildenstren and Ophelia. He does not mention Horatio, but, I do not think that BC not mentioning Horatio is significant. I also heard/read someone recently say that Horatio's role is that of the storyteller, which I like. Indeed, the story of Hamlet/Amleth is old. A reaction by one of the writers of the "history" composed by the Four Masters of Ireland references Hamlet long after the play was presented in London.
I always saw Horatio as a childhood friend of Hamlet and that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were friends from Wittenberg. I think it is very true to how mothers treat the friends of their off-spring that Gertrude knew (about if not met before) Hamlet's three friends.
I welcome disagreements, however Horatio as a storyteller is merely one, and a relatively superficial, aspect of the character. I offered a depth-psychological interpretation.
I don't understand your point about when Horatio says " I saw him once. He was a goodly king." Horatio tells Marcellus earlier ACT1 scene 1 line 75 that he saw King Hamlet on the battlefield in Norway once before. Isn't that the time "I saw him once" refers to? And isn't this also how Horatio is familiar with the armor the Ghost is wearing?
That's just it: he says he saw him 'once' when in fact earlier on he confesses he saw him when he combated Norway and also the Polacks -- so he saw him clearly more than 'once' ... a very small slip. But even if this slip is questionable, the aura of and the mystery around Horatio warrant some deep consideraton.
Saw him once as a ghost, perhaps?
CAN'T HEAR IT.
you need to right a book about this
Carol Grieb already did. "A Truant Disposition: Discovering the Tragedy of Hamlet through the Role of Horatio." 2nd edition coming out soon.
Here is a link to the book in which I originally proposed this hypothesis, in my novella "Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of Hamlet": amzn.com/B019QG38G6
published in 2008 I might add
tcoboys write*