Horatio

[Virgil]

Here's a thread to discuss the significance of Horatio as a character in Hamlet. Let me start with this question. Why does Shakespeeare make Horatio a stoic?

[Janine]

Glad you started this new thread. Interesting question, Virgil. In what sense do you mean stoic?
In my dictionary they capitalize "Stoic": the word pertains to the school of philosophy founded by Zeno, who taught that men should be free of passion, unmoved by joy or grief, and submit without complaint to unavoidable necessity.
stoical means: 1. impassive; characterized by a calm, austere fortitude befitting the Stoics. 2. of or pertaining to the Stoics.

Do you believe this fits Horatio? I do not. It seems that Horatio does "feel" along with Hamlet and he does sympathize with Hamlet's dilema throughout, even though he stays calm and steady. His loyalty is unwavering, but I don't think it is "stoic". That would make him cold and unfeeling. Especially in the final scene, he does not seem stoic at all, when he wishes to drink the remainder of the poison, so he can follow Hamlet to his death. He seems to me to be quite emotional and passionate at that point; then Hamlet appeals to him to refrain from taking his life, so that Horatio can tell the story of what has transpired and why.
I think Shakespeare did use Horatio's calmness in contrast to Hamlet's energetic, sometimes erratic, behavior for many reasons. Here are some: 1. to show that Hamlet was really not crazy in reality; he could relate sensibly to a fellow student, even under dire circumstances 2. to show that Hamlet could have a fine and loyal friend and live peacably, if under different circumstances 3. that Hamlet had someone in the play he could confide in and share his ideas or sympathise with; maybe just listen to Hamlet 4. to present Horatio as someone who could advise Hamlet, if the need be. 5. to present Hamlet to the audience, as someone who was a good person, innately, and had had a normal life up until this point; to make Hamlet more credible as a human being and a noble youth
6. .....etc, etc, etc....many more ideas...I will think on it further.

[Virgil]

Glad you started this new thread. Interesting question, Virgil. In what sense do you mean stoic?
In my dictionary they capitalize "Stoic": the word pertains to the school of philosophy founded by Zeno, who taught that men should be free of passion, unmoved by joy or grief, and submit without complaint to unavoidable necessity.
stoical means: 1. impassive; characterized by a calm, austere fortitude befitting the Stoics. 2. of or pertaining to the Stoics.

Well, I'm pretty sure it's actually mentioned in the text that Horatio is a Stoic. Yes, as you've defined it. I did a cursory check and couldn't locate where it's mentioned. I'll do a better search. If I find it I'll quote it.


Do you believe this fits Horatio? I do not.
I thought it did, but you've got me thinking. We'll have to check the play.



I think Shakespeare did use Horatio's calmness in contrast to Hamlet's energetic, sometimes erratic, behavior for many reasons. Here are some: 1. to show that Hamlet was really not crazy in reality; he could relate sensibly to a fellow student, even under dire circumstances 2. to show that Hamlet could have a fine and loyal friend and live peacably, if under different circumstances 3. that Hamlet had someone in the play he could confide in and share his ideas or sympathise with; maybe just listen to Hamlet 4. to present Horatio as someone who could advise Hamlet, if the need be. 5. to present Hamlet to the audience, as someone who was a good person, innately, and had had a normal life up until this point; to make Hamlet more credible as a human being and a noble youth
I agree with everything you say here, but doesn't that make him a stoic? ;)

[Janine]

No Virgil, I think stoic is too strong a term for him. I think of monks or people who deny themselves entirely of emotion, passion. It will be interesting, however, if you find it in the text and Shakespeare refers to him in this way.

I thought of this awhile ago. Another reason Horatio is so vital to the play is the fact that he made the initial decision to tell Hamlet about the ghost's appearance, he actually and unassumingly, started Hamlet on his course towards his own fate. Now granted the ghost could have appeared directly to Hamlet in a different location, or when Hamlet might be alone in the courtyard. But Shakespeare did not intend it that way. I think by Horatio, in seeing the ghost before Hamlet did, he lends more credibility that the ghost actually does exist. He is a credible and honest witness.

I would probably call Horatio calm or level-headed, but never stoic. Stoic seems so cold and so distant, and indifferent to all emotion. Horatio is really quietly passionate and caring, evidenced by his final words to Hamlet. His personality is undisputably quite different than Hamlet's, maybe even opposite in temperment. Shakespeare used contrast constantly in his plays. In a way Horatio is acting almost like the chorus or narrator, present in other plays. He helps to lend an air of perspective and reality to the play. If you think about it, no one else in the play stays loyal or acts fairly towards Hamlet. Rosencrantz and Gildenstern act as spies, and therefore forfeit their loyalty to Hamlet, or so Hamlet views it in that way. But Horatio really stays firm in his belief in his friend.

I beleive that as a device for the play Shakespeare very cleverly wrote the character, so that Hamlet would not be entirely alone and would have someone speak to...afterall, some of the best and most profound lines are spoken to Horatio - example: in the graveyard about the mortality of man, and the scene preceeding the duel, when Hamlet expresses a forbodding feeling and uses the "fall of a sparrow" as an example of his destiny -- all to Horatio's intend ears and patient listening.

I think there are many more reasons Horatio is important - vitally so - to the plot.

[Virgil]

No Virgil, I think stoic is too strong a term for him. I think of monks or people who deny themselves entirely of emotion, passion. It will be interesting, however, if you find it in the text and Shakespeare refers to him in this way.

I think you're definition might be a little too strong. It tends to mean those who try to control their emotion because they believe it is beneficial or proper. Brutis from Julius Ceasar was a stoic. But I can almost swear Horatio is too. I'll have to look.


I thought of this awhile ago. Another reason Horatio is so vital to the play is the fact that he made the initial decision to tell Hamlet about the ghost's appearance, he actually and unassumingly, started Hamlet on his course towards his own fate. Now granted the ghost could have appeared directly to Hamlet in a different location, or when Hamlet might be alone in the courtyard. But Shakespeare did not intend it that way. I think by Horatio, in seeing the ghost before Hamlet did, he lends more credibility that the ghost actually does exist. He is a credible and honest witness.

I would probably call Horatio calm or level-headed, but never stoic. Stoic seems so cold and so distant, and indifferent to all emotion. Horatio is really quietly passionate and caring, evidenced by his final words to Hamlet. His personality is undisputably quite different than Hamlet's, maybe even opposite in temperment. Shakespeare used contrast constantly in his plays. In a way Horatio is acting almost like the chorus or narrator, present in other plays. He helps to lend an air of perspective and reality to the play. If you think about it, no one else in the play stays loyal or acts fairly towards Hamlet. Rosencrantz and Gildenstern act as spies, and therefore forfeit their loyalty to Hamlet, or so Hamlet views it in that way. But Horatio really stays firm in his belief in his friend.

I beleive that as a device for the play Shakespeare very cleverly wrote the character, so that Hamlet would not be entirely alone and would have someone speak to...afterall, some of the best and most profound lines are spoken to Horatio - example: in the graveyard about the mortality of man, and the scene preceeding the duel, when Hamlet expresses a forbodding feeling and uses the "fall of a sparrow" as an example of his destiny -- all to Horatio's intend ears and patient listening.

I think there are many more reasons Horatio is important - vitally so - to the plot.
This all seems very sound analysis to me. You seemed to have thought it through well.

[Janine]

Well, you might be right and the term stoic was used differently here. But I have seen Hamlet (full-length version of the film) so many times now I feel I can recall almost all the lines. I don't recall stoic being used. Hope you come up with the text to show me when he was referred to as such. Who would have referred to him in that term?

Anyway, thanks for reading all that I wrote and thanks for acknowledging that I did think it out well. I have more thoughts on Horatio, since I really liked his character, but I am too tired now to post anymore tonight.
Thanks for starting the thread....good idea:idea:
Hopefully Petrarch or msdirector, or someone new will enter the discussion. I would like to hear what they would have to say on the subject. That would be fun! I hope they notice your link in "Ghost" soon....probably tomorrow.


PS:You should start another thread in Lawrence on "Transfiguration" - do you think you would get any responses or anyone knowledgable enough about the subject? What happened, also, in Poetry Contest? - it seems to have come to a halt last time I checked. I think someone has to pick a winner. Can't wait to see the next photo posted.

[Janine]

Where's Petrarch??? She said she loved Horatio. I hope this thread has not gone dead yet. Hey, Virgil, do I kill threads or something? Starting to get a complex.

[msdirector]

Where's Petrarch??? She said she loved Horatio. I hope this thread has not gone dead yet. Hey, Virgil, do I kill threads or something? Starting to get a complex.

Hi Janine....

You certainly don't kill threads!!!

I don't know about Petrarch, but I also said that Horatio was a favorite of mine. I just haven't had a chance to get back to the board - it's been a busy day what with Thanksgiving coming up. It's only been one day - give us a chance!

I'll reply to some of the Horatio posts specifically coming up....

[Petrarch's Love]

Hi all--You're not thread killers. :rolleyes: :lol: Petrarch has been distracted all day and is blurrily finishing reading over student papers and completing pressing research at 1:45 a.m. She will post some Horatian commentary to add to what looks like a promising discussion tomorrow after she's had some sleep. :yawnb:

[msdirector]

Beware... this is a ridiculously long post!


Do you believe this fits Horatio? I do not. It seems that Horatio does "feel" along with Hamlet and he does sympathize with Hamlet's dilema throughout, even though he stays calm and steady. His loyalty is unwavering, but I don't think it is "stoic".

I agree with you here, Janine. In fact, I was going to write to Virgil with exactly the same reaction.

I've been studying Hamlet very closely for years and have even created two separate cuttings for performance as well as a shorter workshop version of one of those cuttings. I have never seen any specific reference to Stoicism in the play (which doesn't mean it isn't there!) or any reference to Horatio in the play as a Stoic.

However, I have heard other critics refer to him that way. But I don't agree.

Brutus is a Stoic. He acknowledges it. Stoicism doesn't imply that he is cold or has no emotions (Brutus certainly has plenty of emotions), but it is a philosophy that requires its followers to consciously work to maintain a calm, unemotional nature, to avoid and control emotions, to try to actively eliminate them from their lives. Think of Mr. Spock. It's not lack of emotion - its a conscious attempt to control those emotions.

And it is here that I believe that Horatio does not fall into that catagory.

Horatio is an educated man, a man of science, a man of reason. It is for that very reason that he was asked to come and see the Ghost and attest to his presence, since the soldiers of the guard knew (I'm not sure how - and that's my question coming later) that while they might be fooled or victims of their imagination, Horatio would not be.

It is Horatio's rational self that makes him seem unemotional. But it is not something that he tries to do - it is the essence of who he is. Just because a person is calm and rational by nature doesn't make him a Stoic.

There is plenty of evidence in the play for Horatio's emotions, for his attachment to Hamlet, for his love and concern for him. I can't see any evidence that he deliberately holds his emotions in check, tries to avoid or deny them. He is simply a calm, rational man of reason. And that is one of the reasons that Hamlet loves him. For Hamlet himself says to Horatio:

"Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice
And could of men distinguish, her election
Hath sealed thee for herself. For thou has been
As one, in suff'ring all, that suffers nothing,
A man that Fortune's buffets and rewards
Hath ta'en with equal thanks; and blest are those
Whose blood and judgement are so well commingled
That they are not a pipe for Fortune's finger
To sound what stop she please. Give me that man
Who is not passions slave, and I will wear him
In my heart's core, ay, in my heart of heart,
As I do thee."

This is one of my favorite speeches in Hamlet. It is such a beautiful expression of love between two friends. And it seems at first as if Hamlet is saying that Horatio is a Stoic. But then he says that Horatio is blessed by having a nature whose blood and judgement are so well commingled that they do not react wildly to every emotion. This doesn't imply Stoicism. Hamlet sees his own nature as being too passionate and easily moved by emotion, and he expresses an admiration for the balance of emotion and rationality in Horatio's nature. And that is a far cry from coldness, freedom from passion or being unmoved by joy or grief.

Janine wrote:

Shakespeare used contrast constantly in his plays. In a way Horatio is acting almost like the chorus or narrator, present in other plays.

I've heard this before. Some say that Horatio acts as Shakespeare's voice in the play. Others say that Horatio stands in for the audience in the play. I'm not sure that I see that. He does not have the commentary that would fit any of those four positions - chorus, narrator, Shakespeare's voice or the audience's eye.

Janine wrote:

If you think about it, no one else in the play stays loyal or acts fairly towards Hamlet. Rosencrantz and Gildenstern act as spies, and therefore forfeit their loyalty to Hamlet, or so Hamlet views it in that way. But Horatio really stays firm in his belief in his friend.


You are right, Janine. Think about it. Hamlet is essentially alone. Even before all this happened he is a Prince - that is, a man who has no one else in his social class, no one at his level, no one close enough and trusted enough to share his thoughts with. Those he is closest to are his family - his beloved father, his king and his own role model; his dear and much loved mother, loving, loyal, caring, his image for ideal womanhood; his uncle, his father's fun-loving younger (?) brother, perhaps a friend to Hamlet as he grew up while his father was off fighting; Polonius (I know he's not family, but he's close to family), his father's trusted councillor; Ophelia, his friend, his love, perhaps a possible potential future wife. Other "friends" - those he grew up with like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern - may be members of the court, but he is still their Prince, a fact which certainly can and does influence their behavior towards him.

The first thing that happens outside his ordinary world is that he goes off for school in Wittenberg. A new exciting world, a different country where he is, perhaps, not the only royal son, with new people who are not his potential subjects. And a friend. A real friend, not his subject (apparently), someone who really cares about him, amuses him, is amused by him, and who is not afraid to tell truth to power.

At the beginning of th play, just think what Hamlet has lost. His father has died; his mother, far from mourning the husband and king she has purported to love and respect all these years, has betrayed him (and by extension, Hamlet) by marrying in extraordinary haste, of all people, his uncle who has not only married his mother, but also usurped his throne! And even trusted Polonius is now a sycophant, sucking up to the new king. He has lost his whole family and his country as well. The best thing he could do is return to Wittenberg where he has been happy and where he can remove himself from the sources of his pain, but Gertrude entreats him not to go and Claudius supports her, leaving him no choice but to stay and suffer each day at the sight of them together. Then Ophelia, all of a sudden, refuses to see him. And finally, Hamlet is confronted by the Ghost telling him that he did not die naturally but was foully murdered. Hamlet's isolation is complete. Even his old friends, R&G, betray him by their spying for the alleged murderer, and ultimately by conveying him to what should be his death.

Through all this, the only constant, and, I believe, the only thing that keeps Hamlet from truly going mad, is the ever loyal and steadfast Horatio.

Horatio is Hamlet's sounding board, his trusted friend. He gives Hamlet someone that he can pour his heart out to and share his plans. He lets us hear what Hamlet is thinking about those around him. He is the way for Hamlet to let us know what happens when he is out of our sight (as when he recounts the tale of Claudius' treachery, R&G's betrayal and his own escape with the pirates). And he is our way to see the Hamlet who existed before any of all this happened. Only with Horatio do we get to see a glimpse of the carefree younger Hamlet, bantering with his friend, sharing amusement at the cemetary with the gravedigger and then with Osric.

And for me, that is the best thing about having Horatio in the story - he is the vehicle by which we see the reflection of Hamlet that is now lost - he holds up a mirror and allows us to see both Hamlets and it is that contrast that brings the Hamlet we all know through the play into perspective. It is the way we know that he is not by nature that melancholy, introspective, indecisive person that so many people thing he is.

But my question is... Who is Horatio?

We know something about his nature by his actions in the play. But who is he? It is implied that he is not a Dane - Hamlet tells him "We'll teach you to drink deep ere you depart" as though he is a stranger there, and Horatio asks, when Hamlet complains about the Danish drinking habits, "Is it a custom?" as though he is not familiar with it, and yet apparently the guards know him well enough to ask him to watch for the Ghost with them, and he speaks, on the rampart, of "our last king" as though he was a Dane. And he speaks to Hamlet of the King as though he knew the king, even saying when Hamlet asks him if the Ghost's beard was grizzly "It was as I have seen it in his life." So he must have been at least a visitor at court sometime in the past. Yet Hamlet clearly refers to him as a stranger "And therefore as a stranger give it welcome" speaking of the Ghost.

Additionally, Horatio seems completely at home at the court and is challenged by no one. Even when Hamlet is exiled and has left for England, Horatio, rather than returning to Wittenberg, stays on in Elsinor. When Gertrude has to deal with Ophelia, it is Horatio stands up for Ophelia and convinces Gertrude to see her. And somehow Hamlet knows that he is still there so that he can send him the letter to let him know that he has returned and to meet him. Could it be that Hamlet and Horatio have planned together that he would stay and watch out for Ophelia while Hamlet is gone, and keep an eye on the court for Hamlet? We don't know but it's an interesting thought...

Horatio is, for me, a mystery, and I find that endlessly intriguing. He is a vital element of both of my interpretations of Hamlet (in very different ways for each). I'd love to hear who you think he is... :)

[Janine]

:) Fascinating - clap, clap for msdirector! Understandable, Petrarch, I am busy now, too, and actually stopped home briefly; Iwill be on my way again in a minute. I had to read a few posts first. Glad I am not a thread killer. Several others I have posted in ended with me --- I was beginning to wonder about that.
Glad that you and Petrarch joined in. Hey, where's Virgil? Oh my, he may feel ganged up on again! Poor Virg:( I read your long post - P - like I said long posts are after my own heart - but will definitely read and study what you said, later when I get back.
Glad both of your found the thread! I want to quote some of msdirector's paragraphs...since they are so well thought out and well said...my exact thoughts but put much clearer.
To all of you, Horatio has long been one of my most cherished characters of Shakespeare's... period. I feel complete awe at the end of the play, when his loyalty makes him desire to go as far, as follow Hamlet to his grave.
Yes, such a good question - just who was Horatio?
Will be anxious to hear what Petrarch has to say and also Virgil. Sure everyone will have great ideas :idea:

[Petrarch's Love]

Hey all. I'm rested enough that I'm no longer refering to myself in the third person now, so here I am to talk about Horatio. :)

First off, everyone's made so many good points thus far that it's hard to top them. I agree that I don't think of Horatio as necessarily being a Stoic. However, I think his nature can sometimes be stoical. It's true that to be a Stoic implies a choice and a conscious effort to control the passions, but it is also possible to describe someone who is rational and dispassionate by nature (as Horatio is) as having stoical qualities. I don't see any evidence in the play that Horatio is neccessarily a voicebox for Stoic philosophy (though some scholars have seen some of Hamlet's lines as mirroring stoic passages from Seneca). Still, in Hamlet's speech describing Horatio, which Ms Director quoted above, I think it would be both fair and accurate to apply the adjective "stoical" to "one, in suff'ring all, that suffers nothing," or "who is not passions slave."

What I find interesting about the way this discussion began was that the initial instinct was to ask what Horatio is, or what he symbolizes, and I think it's not uncommon for people to tend to think of Horatio in this way: as a symbol of something. Possibly this is partly a result of the fact that the character is doubtless best known as the guy to whom Hamlet said, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/ Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (1.5.174-75), and so there's this idea going around that he must be realated to some specific philosophy (which is not necessarily what the line intends). Horatio functions in the play as a foil for Hamlet, and so I think there is a tendency (perhaps not a completely misguided one) to try to define what Horatio is and what ideas he represents in order to get at something about Hamlet's state of mind. Some of you, however, have been suggesting that you see Horatio as a more three dimensional character, as someone who doesn't only function as the representation of a concept like "reason" or "stoicism," who perhaps isn't even functioning solely as a dramatic foil for Hamlet's character, but as a slightly fuller character whom we can sense has certain feelings, especially in the final act of the play. So I would like to complicate MsDirector's question, "Who is Horatio," a little by changing it to "Who or what is Horatio?" Is he a symbol of something like rational thought? Is he a dramatic device: something like a chorus or narrator as Janine suggests, or perhaps a "sounding board," as I think Ms Director termed it? Or is he in some way more of a who? Can we understand something of Horatio as a character in a more developed sense of the term? Is it possible that who he is may be mirrored in his discussions with Hamlet in a way similar to that in which MsDirector suggests that Hamlet's true character is mirrored in his discussions with Horatio? Or (as seems likely) can Horatio be understood as some combination of all these, and if so to what extent is each a factor?
(I have no coherent answer to any of these questions. I'm just getting them out there for discussions' sake).

[Virgil]

Horatio is, for me, a mystery, and I find that endlessly intriguing. He is a vital element of both of my interpretations of Hamlet (in very different ways for each). I'd love to hear who you think he is... :)

:lol: We had decided that the ghost was a mystery. Horatio too! Everything is a mystery in theis play. :)

I have not looked for the quote that Horatio is referred to as a stoic. But if all three of you dispute it, I must be wrong. I may be confusing it with critical commentary that may have referred to Horatio as a stoic. I continue to see him as a stoic. The relationship between Hamlet and Julius Ceasar is very strong (uh-oh, I may have opened another can of worms, but yes they are) and I think Shakespeare implied that Horatio is a stoic like Brutus. Yes, Janine, Shakespeare used lots of contrast, as any good writer does. And Horatio provides the perfect contrast to Hamlet.

I think Horatio makes sense as a stoic, someone who takes on the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and unlike Hamlet calmly neither contemplates suicide or irrational or impulsive.

[Janine]

Hi, I read all your posts finally. I just got home, but I may soon be referring to myself in the third person, too. Like this - "Janine is way past fatique and trying to grasp whese complicated posts and ideas." As someone on another link said, "her head is filled with noodles!" Anyway - tomorrow I will read all the posts over again and try to sensibily comment.

Virgil, it was very gracious of you say you might be wrong in the stoic reference. I understood your thoughts but thought stoic was off the mark a bit.
For now I have one question - how can you say that "Horatio........, unlike Hamlet calmly neither contemplates suicide or irrational or impulsive"...I take it you meant to add "behavior"? In the final scene Horatio expresses a desire, maybe even irrationally and impulsively, to drink the final drops of poison and die with Hamlet. His closing lines about Hamlet being taken to his rest by angels hardly seems to me to be something a stoic would say. These lines are wrought with deep emotion and beauty.

Also, and I love the part of the scene that msdirector quoted, one of my favorite speeches as well:

"Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice
And could of men distinguish, her election
Hath sealed thee for herself. For thou has been
As one, in suff'ring all, that suffers nothing,
A man that Fortune's buffets and rewards
Hath ta'en with equal thanks; and blest are those
Whose blood and judgement are so well commingled
That they are not a pipe for Fortune's finger
To sound what stop she please. Give me that man
Who is not passions slave, and I will wear him
In my heart's core, ay, in my heart of heart,
As I do thee."

How could Hamlet have related to Horatio had he been an unfeeling and cold person? If Hamlet was so passionate, how could he have had a friend who felt distant or nothing for Hamlet's situation - he cold not have found refuge in such a friend, in my opinion. I will address more about this tomorrow.

Well, Janine (back in the third person like P) has to bail out now. She is too tired and will pick up on this tomorrow. :yawnb:
Good thread and good discussion so far! Good ideas by all :idea:

[Virgil]

I found it. Horatio is a stoic! It's at the end of Act V, Scene 2. Hamlet is dying and Horatio contemplates commiting suicide .


HAMLET
Heaven make thee free of it! I follow thee.
I am dead, Horatio. Wretched queen, adieu!
You that look pale and tremble at this chance,
That are but mutes or audience to this act,
Had I but time--as this fell sergeant, death,
Is strict in his arrest--O, I could tell you--
But let it be. Horatio, I am dead;
Thou livest; report me and my cause aright
To the unsatisfied.

HORATIO
Never believe it:
I am more an antique Roman than a Dane:
Here's yet some liquor left.
More antiquie Roman is clearly a reference to stocism. In fact the suicide is for honor, not despair, a stoic action, reminiscent of those who committ suicide at the end of the play in Julius Ceasar.

I think I should outline one of the links between Hamlet and Julius Ceasar. In Julius Ceasar, we have a leading character, Brutus, who is struggling with the notion of Justice, and his internal conflict is over the question of whether it is just to kill Ceasar. Along with him is Cassius, an impulsive, more rash person who Shakespeare contrasts to Brutus. In Hamlet, Shakespeare reverses the nature of the characters. The leading character is Hamlet, who like Brutus is struggling with the question of Justice and whether to kill Claudius, but here is the rash, impulsive one. His contrastng interlocutor is Horatio, the stoic. The two plays are almost opposite sides of a coin.

[Janine]

Ok....but I still don't agree with you, because I think you are personally interpreting the text that way. Question: Are all antique Roman's stoics?

[msdirector]

Ok....but I still don't agree with you, because I think you are personally interpreting the text that way. Question: Are all antique Roman's stoics?

Good question, Janine. I was about to ask the same one.

Sorry, Virgil, but I don't buy it. There is nothing about that speech that even implies in any way that Horatio is philosophically a Stoic.

Certainly there are references to Julius Caesar in Hamlet - not surprising since it was the play written and performed immediately before Hamlet came to the Globe stage (in fact Julius Caesar was the first play performed at the Globe after it was built by Burbage and the Chamberlain's Men) and Shakespeare's audiences loved references to familiar plays, politics and local affairs - but that in no way proves Horatio a Stoic or compares him to Brutus. Falling on one's sword was an accepted method of honorable death in ancient Roman tradition and is not by any means limited to Stoics. And Brutus was hardly the only "antique Roman" who followed that tradition, even in Shakespeare's plays - Cassius did the same, as did Marc Antony in the later Antony and Cleopatra, and most certainly neither of those were even close to being Stoics.

Shakespeare drew much of the material for his plays from his own experiences as well was from his readings. Remember, in Elizabethan England Latin was the primary language of learning in Grammar School. And much of the lessons taught were through a study of the Latin classics including Roman histories (see the schoolmaster scenes in The Merry Wives of Windsor).

In his characterization, Horatio, as an educated, scholarly man much like Shakespeare, would have been totally familiar with Roman history - as is clear from the very beginning of the play when he expounds to Marcellus and Bernardo on the supernatural events of the night before Caesar was killed. I would not be surprised if he admired Brutus (although he does not say so), but that doesn't make him a Stoic. For all we know he admired Caesar (he does refer to him as "the mightiest Julius") and despised Brutus for his betrayal. As with everything else, nothing is clear about Horatio.

However, it is not surprising at all that Horatio respected and admired those ancient Romans with their clear codes of ethics and honor (especially in the moral chaos of this world he was living in), and was tempted to emulate them and follow his beloved friend and Prince to the world beyond. That in no way implies that he follows any one particular philosophy (and there were many in ancient Rome). The meaning of the lines are clear as stated:
I am more an antique Roman than a Dane.

We don't know whether he is a Dane at all, and this statement neither denies it nor affirms it - as with everything else about Horatio, it is ambiguous. But the one thing that is not ambiguous is that he was knowledgeable about and admired the Romans and, at that moment, really wished that he could be one - not a Stoic, a Roman.

[Janine]

Arlene, some really good points here. I tend to think that your statement, Virgil, was generalising. It is like the crazy quizzes you see online if all X's are B's, and some B's are G's, then all G's are X's - true/false? Well you get the idea.:idea: All Romans are not Stoics - how could they be? I did not read Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", but I know the story.

Horatio is a real person with real feelings throughout the play. To my sensibilities, he does not appear to be stoic in his behavior at all. He does appear to be "layed back" and much different in temperment than Hamlet, much more polite and quieter. It is strange but I actually think that Horatio is the most rounded and complete person in the play. He can "keep his head when all around are losing theirs"...but this hardly makes him a stoic.

Arlene brings up the best point about the two school-mates having studied Roman History in University together. Interesting that she pointed out Horatios reference to Caesar when he encountered the ghost. Even when Horatio delivers those last lines to Hamlet, I am sure Hamlet can relate to his intention through the reference; Horatio speaks with passion in his voice and sadness for his lost friend.

[msdirector]

Arlene brings up the best point about the two school-mates having studied Roman History in University together.

Actually, Janine, what I said is that Horatio likely studied Latin and Roman history (as Shakespeare did - and no doubt Hamlet as well) in GRAMMAR SCHOOL, when he was just a boy (aged 6-13). Latin was definitely the language of learning in England and other countries in Europe. Grammar school in those days taught basic reading and writing from a hornbook using the abc's and the Lord's Prayer. But beyond that it was considered relatively unimportant. Although Shakespeare likely had some lessons in English, Latin composition and the study of Latin authors like Seneca, Cicero, Ovid, Virgil, and Horace would have been the focus of his literary training. All lessons were done in Latin, and Latin was the language that was spoken in class.

It is likely that Shakespeare based Horatio's education and scholarly background on his own early training. However, Horatio, unlike Shakespeare, had the opportunity to go to University, where his scholarly inclinations were developed and enhanced. Thus his reputation for reason and "scientific" knowledge and logic.

[Janine]

I read your post quickly before. Sorry about that. I did get the gist of all you wrote. I do think you presented everything really well and came up with solid points about education, early and advanced, at that time in England. I found your research very interesting and I learned something new from it.
Yes, Horatio would have been knowledgable and logical, that is another reason I can't see him as a stoic.

Poor Virgil, wonder where he ran off to?

[Virgil]

:lol: I'm right here. :D

Wait I haven't completed my case yet, I mentioned the reference to the antique Roman and the desire that Horatio will do the stoic thing and commit suicide, and we know that Horatio is a philosopher. Hamlet somewhere says (and I'm going by memory here but I do remember this line distinctly because many years ago I had this quote on hanging on my cubicle wall at work), "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, that your philosophy ever dreamt of." And in act III, scene two, Hamlet addresses and characterizes Horatio thus:

HAMLET
What ho! Horatio!

Enter HORATIO

HORATIO
Here, sweet lord, at your service.

HAMLET
Horatio, thou art e'en as just a man
As e'er my conversation coped withal.

HORATIO
O, my dear lord,--

HAMLET
Nay, do not think I flatter;
For what advancement may I hope from thee
That no revenue hast but thy good spirits,
To feed and clothe thee? Why should the poor be flatter'd?
No, let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp,
And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee
Where thrift may follow fawning. Dost thou hear?
Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice
And could of men distinguish, her election
Hath seal'd thee for herself; for thou hast been
As one, in suffering all, that suffers nothing,
A man that fortune's buffets and rewards
Hast ta'en with equal thanks: and blest are those
Whose blood and judgment are so well commingled,
That they are not a pipe for fortune's finger
To sound what stop she please. Give me that man
That is not passion's slave, and I will wear him
In my heart's core, ay, in my heart of heart,
As I do thee.

In suffering, suffes nothing, a man that takes fortune's buffets and rewards with equal thanks, blood and judgement well commingled so they are not a pipe to sound, not passion's slave. My goodness. Hamlet has characterized Horatio as a stoic completely. Perhaps he doesn't use the word, but given everything throughout the play, what other conclusion can one arrive at?

[Janine]

Welcome back, Virgil! :D I read you post, but I still can't agree. I am going to try this approach and reply -

Well, that is how Hamlet sees him at that time, but he does not call him a stoic. Remember, too that Hamlet is brooding throughout the play over all of his many loses and frustrated by his own stilted action. In contrast to his own impassioned mood, he sees Horatio his way - but does he color him the way he wants him to be? Maybe that is not really how Horatio is - perhaps Hamlet is not being realistic. That is not to say that Hamlet is mad or insane but rather affected by the events that have transpired since the beginning of the play. Horatio's demeanor and actions in the play speak louder to me, than Hamlet's words describing H. Perhaps Hamlet's perceptions are distorted to some extent.

[msdirector]

In suffering, suffes nothing, a man that takes fortune's buffets and rewards with equal thanks, blood and judgement well commingled so they are not a pipe to sound, not passion's slave. My goodness. Hamlet has characterized Horatio as a stoic completely. Perhaps he doesn't use the word, but given everything throughout the play, what other conclusion can one arrive at?

The conclusion I arrived at in an earlier post. I quote myself (emphasis my own now):


This is one of my favorite speeches in Hamlet. It is such a beautiful expression of love between two friends. And it SEEMS at first as if Hamlet is saying that Horatio is a Stoic. But THEN he says that Horatio is blessed by having a nature whose blood and judgement are so well commingled that they do not react wildly to every emotion. This doesn't imply Stoicism. Hamlet sees his own nature as being too passionate and easily moved by emotion, and he expresses an admiration for the balance of emotion and rationality in Horatio's nature. And that is a far cry from coldness, freedom from passion or being unmoved by joy or grief.


Hamlet's reference is to what he loves about Horatio. Regardless of Horatio's true nature, these comments are only Hamlet's OPINION, how HE sees Horatio. It is proof of nothing. Just because Hamlet THINKS Horatio "suffers nothing" doesn't mean that it is true. From Hamlet's wildly passionate point of view, Horatio's "normality" would certainly make him seem as though he blessedly unemotional. But it's simply not true. Horatio is obviously emotional, in fact distraught, at Hamlet's death. A stoic would control his emotions and approach the death "rationally". Horatio cares for him passionately enough to not want to live in a world without him, and he says so. Hardly Stoicism.

Even in Horatio's first scene, when he sees the Ghost and the others urge him to talk to it his reaction is emotional:

"It harrows me with fear and wonder."
And Bernardo says of Horatio:
"How now, Horatio? You tremble and look pale."

Horatio's reactions to Hamlet's tale of his attempted murder and escape is hardly dispassionate. He is horrified by what happened. His comments to Hamlet's story include:
"Remember it, my lord!"
"Is't possible?"
"I beseech you."
"Why, what a king is this!"
Taken where they fall in the conversation, they are expressions of amazement and passionate interest. Certainly he wants to know the circumstances and asks the questions that will elicit the details of the story, but definitely not dispassionately or as a Stoic. He is not a detached observer, nor does he hide his emotional reaction. He simply is not given to huge emotional outbursts.

Which does not make him a Stoic. There is a difference between someone who is not "passions slave" as Hamlet sees himself, and someone who has no passions or does not allow them. You can be a perfectly normal person with no particular philosophy who simply ISN'T RULED by passion.

As for Horatio's "philosophy" - Hamlet speaks to Horatio in Act I, scene 5 in answer to Horatio's:
"O day and night, but this is wondrous strange."
(in itself hardly a dispassionate response to the Ghost's voice telling them to "Swear by his sword.")
To Horatio's exclamation, Hamlet replies:
"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The reference is NOT to any one particular philosophy such as Stoicism. It is to a reference to Horatio's belief in learning and science as the guiding force in the Universe. Horatio entered the play as a disbeliever in the supernatural. When asked to come to witness the Ghost, he never believes it is real. In fact, Marcellus says:

"Horatio says 'tis but our fantasy,
And will not let belief take hold of him,
Touching this dread sight twice seen of us.
Therefore I have entreated him along
With us to watch the minutes of this night,
That if again this apparition come
He may approve our eyes and speak to it."

To which Horatio replies:
"Tush, tush, 'twill not appear."

This has nothing to do with Stoicism or any other philosophy of behavior or emotional control. It is about Horatio's belief in science and disbelief in religion and the supernatural. And that belief is totally shaken when Horatio actually does see the Ghost. THAT'S the "philosophy" that Hamlet is referring to.

[Janine]

Arlene has expounded on my thoughts beautifully, and with much text to back up her argument. Good examples of Horatio having deep human feelings and emotions, even passions and fears.

[Virgil]

I guess whether Horatio is a stoic is a matter of opinion, absent Horatio actually proclaiming it. For me, the ties to Julius Ceasar and the points I've mentioned above are very strong. We all agree that Horatio is calmer than Hamlet. As I compare him to the other characters, Claudius, Polonius, Gertrude, Laertes, Ophelia, he is more calmer and in control of himself than all the other characters. Is there another character more stoic-like than Horatio in the play? I don't think so.


Which does not make him a Stoic. There is a difference between someone who is not "passions slave" as Hamlet sees himself, and someone who has no passions or does not allow them. You can be a perfectly normal person with no particular philosophy who simply ISN'T RULED by passion. And Janine has a similar quote. I think you guys (sorry, you girls ;) ) are envisioning a stoic to be a Vulcan, like Mr. Spock in Star Trek. Here are a couple of definitions:

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
Stoicism is a school of philosophy, the founding of which is associated with Zeno of Citium, which became the foremost popular philosophy among the educated elite in the Greco-Roman Empire,[1] to the point where, in the words of Gilbert Murray, "nearly all the successors of Alexander [...] professed themselves Stoics."[2] It teaches that self-control, fortitude and detachment from distracting emotions, sometimes interpreted as an indifference to pleasure or pain, allows one to become a clear thinker, level-headed and unbiased. A primary goal of Stoicism was to improve the individual’s spiritual well-being. Virtue, reason, and natural law are prime directives. By mastering passions and emotions, Stoics believe it is possible to overcome the discord of the outside world and find peace within oneself. Stoicism holds that passion distorts truth, and that the pursuit of truth is virtuous.

From Internet Encylo of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/stoicism.htm
The Stoic ethical teaching is based upon two principles already developed in their physics; first, that the universe is governed by absolute law, which admits of no exceptions; and second, that the essential nature of humans is reason. Both are summed up in the famous Stoic maxim, "Live according to nature." For this maxim has two aspects. It means, in the first place, that men should conform themselves to nature in the wider sense, that is, to the laws of the universe, and secondly, that they should conform their actions to nature in the narrower sense, to their own essential nature, reason. These two expressions mean, for the Stoics, the same thing. For the universe is governed not only by law, but by the law of reason, and we, in following our own rational nature, are ipso facto conforming ourselves to the laws of the larger world.

From Standford Enclyo of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/
Stoicism was one of the new philosophical movements of the Hellenistic period. The name derives from the porch (stoa poikilê) in the Agora at Athens decorated with mural paintings, where the members of the school congregated, and their lectures were held. Unlike ‘epicurean,’ the sense of the English adjective ‘stoical’ is not utterly misleading with regard to its philosophical origins. The Stoics did, in fact, hold that emotions like fear or envy (or impassioned sexual attachments, or passionate love of anything whatsoever) either were, or arose from, false judgements and that the sage--a person who had attained moral and intellectual perfection--would not undergo them. The later Stoics of Roman Imperial times, Seneca and Epictetus, emphasise the doctrines (already central to the early Stoics' teachings) that the sage is utterly immune to misfortune and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Our phrase ‘stoic calm’ perhaps encapsulates the general drift of these claims.

The objectives are clear thinking, control of emotions, immune to misfortunes but not that a person is no longer human. Even Brutus feels the pain of the death of his wife in Julius Ceasar. Notice how many of the themes of the Hamlet play are mentioned in these definitions of stoicism: false judgements (killing of Polonius), misfortune (outrageous fortune), virtue (revenge for the death of one's father), universe govened by law, discord of the outside world, spiritual well being (as opposed to madness), live according to nature. These all interweave within the play in some fashion. The point you are making about Horatio succumbing to emotion is the failure of stoicism. I think that is Shakespeare's point, that stocism fails to be a viable system of understanding and coping with the world.

[Janine]

Well, I think I should bail out for now. I am too tired and I will have to think more about what you have written. Good work, Virgil, finding all these definitions. I am not familiar with these definitions of stoicim. I have never studied the philosophy of stoicism. Your references of similarities to Julius Ceasar and theory is interesting. I suppose my own idea of Horatio is far from yours. I just see the man much differently. I think that Horatio is more removed from the direct emotions, due to the fact that he may actually be an outsider, or not involved personally with the family, only actually with Hamlet, himself. That could be the difference. All the characters you mentioned have been aroused emotionally by the fact that they all think Hamlet mad. Horatio knows he is not. Therefore his attitude would be calmer and more in control.

[Janine]

Well, seems I am the last poster again, for now anyway. I did direct any people from the thread "Hamlet's Father" over to the one about the "Ghost". I will go check to see if anyone new entered that debate...just thinking out loud...sorry....

[Virgil]

Perhaps everyone is now convinced that Horatio is a stoic. :D

[Janine]

Your dreaming!:lol:

[Janine]

Maybe petrarch and msdirector faded out. I am fading myself....

Have you seen the other threads, Virgil, on Hamlet? I am going to check them now.

[msdirector]

Not faded out, Janine. I just have other things to do. Thanksgiving approaches... I'm still here...

[ShoutGrace]

Sometimes it takes days, weeks, or months for a reply, Janine ;). I'm still too busy to sit down and compose a reply in the Ghost thread, and I'm about a month late already.

[msdirector]

Perhaps everyone is now convinced that Horatio is a stoic. :D

Sorry, Virgil, wishful thinking I'm afraid.

I do want to thank you for posting those definitions of Stoicism. They were indeed interesting, but I'm afraid that for me they simply confused the issue more.

In the first (Wikipedia) definition, it said:

It teaches that self-control, fortitude and detachment from distracting emotions, sometimes interpreted as an indifference to pleasure or pain, allows one to become a clear thinker, level-headed and unbiased. A primary goal of Stoicism was to improve the individual’s spiritual well-being. Virtue, reason, and natural law are prime directives. By mastering passions and emotions, Stoics believe it is possible to overcome the discord of the outside world and find peace within oneself. Stoicism holds that passion distorts truth, and that the pursuit of truth is virtuous.

That makes sense to me as a definition of Stoicism as I've heard it refered to. But to apply it to as a label to Horatio, presupposes not only that Horatio is, in fact "self-controlled", "detached", or "indifferent to pain and pleasure", which I believe is absolutely untrue, but also that Horatio has made a DELIBERATE CHOICE to follow that philosophy, and isn't simply just naturally a clear thinking, level headed, unbiased person. Being a Stoic is not just about how you are. It is a deliberate choice to follow a particular philosophy. And there is nothing in Hamlet that indicates in any way that Horatio has made such a choice. One can be rational, intelligent, scientific and not wildly passionate, and even "stoic" (lower case and used as an adjective to describe a certain state of mind) without being A STOIC (capitalized, meaning a deliberate follower of the Stoic philosophy). One can even believe in reason as opposed to religion or as opposed to giving in to emotions, without ascribing to a Stoicism as a Philosophy (in fact, I know several people who do).

The second definition indicates:

It means, in the first place, that men should conform themselves to nature in the wider sense, that is, to the laws of the universe, and secondly, that they should conform their actions to nature in the narrower sense, to their own essential nature, reason.

This does sound something like what Horatio appears to believe at the start of the play. But it really seems to have little relation (other than reason) to the other definitions of Stoicism that indicate detachment, dispassion or indifference to pain or pleasure. In fact it doesn't include those things at all, and I question its veracity as an actual definition of Stoicism. It may address some of a Stoic's beliefs, but, again, you don't have to be a Stoic to believe that reason is the essence of human nature.

In the third definition it says:

The Stoics did, in fact, hold that emotions like fear or envy (or impassioned sexual attachments, or passionate love of anything whatsoever) either were, or arose from, false judgements and that the sage--a person who had attained moral and intellectual perfection--would not undergo them.

I don't see that in Horatio at all. I don't believe or see any evidence in the text that he believed that emotions or passions came from false judgements. I just see someone who is naturally of cooler temper and more rational temperament than someone like Hamlet or Claudius.

Then you say:

The objectives are clear thinking, control of emotions, immune to misfortunes but not that a person is no longer human.

True. But, as I said, it also takes a choice to follow the Stoic philosophy in order to be called a Stoic. I don't see anything like that in anything that Horatio says. You can be all those thing and not follow Stoicism at all. And, while he is certainly rational, I don't see Horatio as deliberately trying to control his emotions, nor do I see him as immune to misfortunes, no matter what Hamlet thinks of him. We see the man. Hamlet sees Horatio through his own eyes and what he sees is not accurate. It is a colored by his own disgust with his own passionate nature and his admiration of Horatio's balance.


Even Brutus feels the pain of the death of his wife in Julius Ceasar.

But Brutus chooses Stoicism. It is his choice to work deliberately at controlling those emotions, just as Mr. Spock does. Vulcans, by the way are NOT without emotions. But their philosophy (very much a more elaborate version of Stoicism) dictates that they make a conscious decision to control them. That is where I see the difference in Horatio.


Notice how many of the themes of the Hamlet play are mentioned in these definitions of stoicism: false judgements (killing of Polonius), misfortune (outrageous fortune), virtue (revenge for the death of one's father), universe govened by law, discord of the outside world, spiritual well being (as opposed to madness), live according to nature. These all interweave within the play in some fashion.

Here you are going somewhere else entirely. These examples you give have nothing to do with Horatio at all. Are you trying to say that the whole play is some sort of riff on Stoicism???? That makes no sense to me at all. You are taking individual words, phrases or ideas scattered throughout the play totally out of context and trying to connect them all to the supposed philosophy of one relatively minor, certainly supporting, character in the play, and then saying that the entire play seems to be about that philosophy. That simply doesn't play.


The point you are making about Horatio succumbing to emotion is the failure of stoicism.

I never said that Horatio "succumbs" to emotion or that it is any kind of a failure! I simply don't see it that way. Nor do I see any textual evidence that Horatio believes that his showing his normal emotions in those various situations is an evidence of a failure or weakness of any kind. He says nothing of the kind (which he surely would had Shakespeare wanted to emphasize Horatio's belief in Stoicism).


I think that is Shakespeare's point, that stocism fails to be a viable system of understanding and coping with the world.

On the contrary, IF Shakespeare did create Horatio as an example of Stoic philosophy, his point would have been that Stoicism succeeds where over emotion fails, since it is Horatio alone who survives the play and all those overly passionate characters who obviously do not subscribe to that philosophy, are all dead through their own passions.

Yet, if you consider Horatio's expression of normal emotions, which are clearly in the play, a failure of Stoicism, then he should have died too.

Or, if the point was that Stoicism fails as a viable system of coping with the world, then Horatio should have been the protagonist, and HE should have died.

Your arguments simply don't hold up, Virgil. This play is about Hamlet, not Horatio. And Stoicisim, if it is there (and I don't see it) would be merely a minor character trait in a supporting character, hardly a whole issue throughout the play. Horatio may be considered by some to be stoic, but I don't see any evidence that he considers himself A Stoic. And that a few words or ideas scattered through the play also happen to be part of some definitions of Stoicism is simply not anywhere near conclusive evidence that Shakespeare was trying to make some significant point about the viablility of Stoicism. Those same words and ideas can be found in any number of plays, and I'll bet I can find words and ideas included in Hamlet in the definition of almost any philosophy. There are alot of words and ideas in there!

However, I have no particular desire to try to get you to interpret Hamlet the way I do, Virgil. The fun of Shakespeare is that, through the ambiguities he has left us, many different interpretations are possible. I think, this time around, that we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. Maybe some day you'll do a production of Hamlet that focuses on Stoism vs. Passion. That might be an interesting interpretation.

For the moment, I'll go back to my original question....

Who (not what kind of a person) do you thing Horatio is? Is he a Dane? If so, why is he unfamiliar with Danish customs and why does Hamlet refer to him as a stranger? And if not, then where is he from, and why is he so familiar with the Danish Court, where does he know the old King from, and why do Gertrude and Claudius treat him as almost a member of the family?

[Janine]

Sometimes it takes days, weeks, or months for a reply, Janine ;). I'm still too busy to sit down and compose a reply in the Ghost thread, and I'm about a month late already.

Hi ShoutGrace, You make a good point. I am new here and a little obsessed. I think I need a life!

[Janine]

Arlene, are you stuffing the turkey as you are writing? I think by now poor Virgil wishes he never heard the word - stoic. You did a good, concise job defending our position. Thanks!
On to your new question......tomorrow....perhaps....

[msdirector]

Arlene, are you stuffing the turkey as you are writing?

Not quite yet! But I did do most of my Thanksgiving food shopping today as well as trying to clean up my dining room so that everyone is actually able to find my dining room table to eat on! I'm doing Thanksgiving on Friday for myself, my husband, my daughter, her husband and adorable one year old son, and my son and his girlfriend. It will be the first time in several years. They go to their father's on Thursday... I get them on Friday (and my poor son gets to eat turkey three days in a row since he's having Thanksgiving at his girlfriend's on Wednesday!). Making Thanksgiving dinner starts at least 3-4 days in advance, but stuffing the turkey is done at the last minute.

As you say... more tomorrow!

[Virgil]

Arlene, are you stuffing the turkey as you are writing? I think by now poor Virgil wishes he never heard the word - stoic. You did a good, concise job defending our position. Thanks!
On to your new question......tomorrow....perhaps....

:lol: She did a great job. I feel like I'm the turkey being stuffed. I don't have time right now to reply to Arlene fully, so we'll have to wait.

But quick question then if you don't think Horatio is a follower of stoicism. When Hamlet tells him, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than your philosophy ever dreamt of," what is the philosophy he is referring to?

[msdirector]

:lol: She did a great job. I feel like I'm the turkey being stuffed.

Thanks, Virgil! But be assured... no such "stuffing" was intended! :-)

Discussing Hamlet and its possible interpretations is a joy for me and every time I get the chance to explore the text in more depth to investigate an interpretation different from mine or that I hadn't heard before is an opportunity for me to learn more about the play and what it contains. It really doesn't matter if I agree with it, or even if I can find textual justification for it. It's the fun of exploring the text and finding new ideas or explanations or discoveries each time that makes these discussions so great for me.

Each person sees the play differently and that's one of the things that makes Shakespeare's writing so great. The ambiguity that he builds into his plays is part of what has allowed it to survive and be continuously enjoyed, both on the page and on the stage, for over 400 years. His plays are different for every reader and for every audience member because every production is different and each person sees his own experiences, knowledge, attitudes, relationships and attitudes reflected in the plays.


But quick question then if you don't think Horatio is a follower of stoicism. When Hamlet tells him, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than your philosophy ever dreamt of," what is the philosophy he is referring to?

Actually, I already addressed this several posts back, Virgil. Wait, I'll quote myself...


As for Horatio's "philosophy" - Hamlet speaks to Horatio in Act I, scene 5 in answer to Horatio's:
"O day and night, but this is wondrous strange."
(in itself hardly a dispassionate response to the Ghost's voice telling them to "Swear by his sword.")
To Horatio's exclamation, Hamlet replies:
"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The reference is NOT to any one particular philosophy such as Stoicism. It is to a reference to Horatio's belief in learning and science as the guiding force in the Universe. Horatio entered the play as a disbeliever in the supernatural. When asked to come to witness the Ghost, he never believes it is real. In fact, Marcellus says:

"Horatio says 'tis but our fantasy,
And will not let belief take hold of him,
Touching this dread sight twice seen of us.
Therefore I have entreated him along
With us to watch the minutes of this night,
That if again this apparition come
He may approve our eyes and speak to it."

To which Horatio replies:
"Tush, tush, 'twill not appear."

This has nothing to do with Stoicism or any other philosophy of behavior or emotional control. It is about Horatio's belief in science and disbelief in religion and the supernatural. And that belief is totally shaken when Horatio actually does see the Ghost. THAT'S the "philosophy" that Hamlet is referring to.

Horatio's philosophy, as I indicated, is his belief in science and rationality as an explanation for everything (one that is an aspect of Stoic philosophy, I'll agree, but not in and of itself evidence of his own belief in "Stoicism" as a philosophy). Before the play began, and at his entrance, he indicates that he believes, as many do today, that there is nothing that can not be explained by science or other form of learning, that the supernatural doesn't exist, that it is a figment of the imagination. However, he contradicts himself to some degree in his discussions of the supernatural events that happened the night before Caesar's assassignation, so it makes me wonder if he, like many college students, advocates a philosophy that he is still trying to convince himself of. Then, once he sees the Ghost, the foundation of this philosophy is shot out from under him, and that is what Hamlet is referring to. That doesn't change the fact that Horatio is, at heart, a scholarly minded person and will always approach the world from an intellectual rather than emotional point of view, but it has opened him to the possibilities that there ARE more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in [his] philosophy.

[Janine]

Virgil, do you ever sleep? You posted at 07:36 AM, wow!


I feel like I'm the turkey being stuffed.

Great quote and at such an early hour:lol:

I am jealous of you, Arlene, but not all the cooking you have to do this coming week....Holidays are fun, yeah for the guys! (sorry, Virgil). I am jealous of you, Arlene, for having a grand-baby. I want one badly and may be getting one next year. There has to be some compensation for being this age!

Well, the debate rages on.... OR are we going to change gears and try to figure out what kind of a person Horatio really is....origins, personality, etc? Will be interesting to see where this goes from this point on. Arlene should you start a new thread on that topic?

We might all need to turn off our computers this holiday week :crash: So much to do, so little time!

[Virgil]

Virgil, do you ever sleep? You posted at 07:36 AM, wow!


I'm up out of bed at 4:45 on work days and get into work by 6:45.



Well, the debate rages on.... OR are we going to change gears and try to figure out what kind of a person Horatio really is....origins, personality, etc? Will be interesting to see where this goes from this point on. Arlene should you start a new thread on that topic?
Wait, I haven't given up yet.

[msdirector]

I am jealous of you, Arlene, but not all the cooking you have to do this coming week....Holidays are fun, yeah for the guys!

Actually, I love the cooking, Janine. I'm not a great cook but I find it fun when I have the chance to play with it. I get too little chance to do it and I've always had fun cooking holiday dinners. Sure, it takes preparation time and work, but it's also endlessly creative. And this year, since my new grandson is allergic to both eggs and milk, and my daughter is breast-feeding so has to be careful of both in her diet as well, I'm faced with the challenge of re-creating some of my favorite dishes to conform to their needs. So I'm changing my "usual" recipes and approaching my turkey from a totally different direction as well as making a totally different "stuffing" that won't be stuffed in the turkey but cooked separately - the Food Channel gives great ideas! I love Rachel Rae and Emeril for all the inspiration they give.


(sorry, Virgil). I am jealous of you, Arlene, for having a grand-baby. I want one badly and may be getting one next year. There has to be some compensation for being this age!

Grandchildren are wonderful! Actually, I have four others, but they are not biologically mine. Mine is a second marriage for both myself and my husband. His three children have given us four wonderful grandchildren - two boys and two girls - who live, unfortunately, in Florida, far from our NJ home, so we don't get to see them very often. I love them dearly, but somehow there is a difference when you actually see the child of your own child. My newest grandchild is my "baby" daughter's son and he has bewitched me since the day he was born. A bit closer (in MA) than our other grandchildren, we get to see him more often - between us going up there and them coming here it's usually at least every couple of months or so - so I have had the chance to watch him grow in a way we didn't have with our other grandchildren, and it has been a joy. I hope you do get the chance to experience it soon!

By the way, I don't need any "compensations" for my age. I just turned 59 and I am enjoying every minute of it. I wouldn't want to be 20 again for a million dollars! I like myself soooooo much better now than I did when I was younger. Every day I learn more, about myself and the world I live in, and I have the experience and the knowledge now to really appreciate it and enjoy it, which I certainly didn't when I was younger. Sure there are challenges to getting older, but there are with any age. And I find that the rewards far outweigh the difficulties. And grandchildren are just one of the many "compensations" that I find. The most exciting thing is my increasing ability to explore my own interests and not have to put everyone else's welfare ahead of my own. For years, as a daughter, wife and mother, I have lived for other people. Now I get to live for myself and pursue my own passions like theatre and Shakespeare. And thankfully I have a husband who totally supports me in that.


Well, the debate rages on.... OR are we going to change gears and try to figure out what kind of a person Horatio really is....origins, personality, etc? Will be interesting to see where this goes from this point on. Arlene should you start a new thread on that topic?

I don't think it necessarily comes under a different thread, Janine. The original thread name was just Horatio and I thought it was to explore his character. It was Virgil who asked the question about Stoicism and that is just one aspect of his character. I've asked my question several times in the thread. It's just that we have yet to explore it because we got caught up in the Stoicism discussion. I can start a new thread if you think it would be better, but the question is already here... it just needs to be addressed.


We might all need to turn off our computers this holiday week :crash: So much to do, so little time!

Nonsense! My computer is always on. When I'm doing something else it waits patiently for me. But no matter how much there is to do, I can't and don't work at it constantly. My computer and discussions like this is my downtime. I may not answer ever question immediately, but I do get to them. No need to stop talking, just be patient in waiting for replies until we get to them. :)

[Petrarch's Love]

Virgil's done a good job of bringing out some definitions of stoicism for us to work with, but I also think that MsD's and Janine's objections are valid in that not all antique Roman's are necessarily stoics (nor, of course, are all stoics necessarily antique Romans--does anyone else feel like they're back in geometry doing logic proofs?:lol: ). I think I'll stick with the middle ground, which is that I don't think therere's the textual evidence to say with certaintly that Horatio is a Stoic or is meant to embody Stoic philosophy, but I do think that his character definately has stoical aspects.


But quick question then if you don't think Horatio is a follower of stoicism. When Hamlet tells him, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than your philosophy ever dreamt of," what is the philosophy he is referring to?


As for Horatio's "philosophy" - Hamlet speaks to Horatio in Act I, scene 5 in answer to Horatio's:
"O day and night, but this is wondrous strange."
(in itself hardly a dispassionate response to the Ghost's voice telling them to "Swear by his sword.")
To Horatio's exclamation, Hamlet replies:
"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The reference is NOT to any one particular philosophy such as Stoicism. It is to a reference to Horatio's belief in learning and science as the guiding force in the Universe. Horatio entered the play as a disbeliever in the supernatural. When asked to come to witness the Ghost, he never believes it is real. In fact, Marcellus says:

"Horatio says 'tis but our fantasy,
And will not let belief take hold of him,
Touching this dread sight twice seen of us.
Therefore I have entreated him along
With us to watch the minutes of this night,
That if again this apparition come
He may approve our eyes and speak to it."

To which Horatio replies:
"Tush, tush, 'twill not appear."

This has nothing to do with Stoicism or any other philosophy of behavior or emotional control. It is about Horatio's belief in science and disbelief in religion and the supernatural. And that belief is totally shaken when Horatio actually does see the Ghost. THAT'S the "philosophy" that Hamlet is referring to.

I would like to add to the above exchange on this famous line, that, though it is possible that a specific philosophy is referred to, it is more likely that this is a common misinterpretation among modern readers because of changes in our perception of the language. The most generally accepted reading of the line is that the "your" is being used in an indefinate form (which was common for Shakespeare's period but not too common now) rather than to indicate Horatio in particular. Since I can't think of a great modern example for the indefinate usage of "your" I've made up the following one:

"You have your stuffed turkeys and your unstuffed turkeys, and they're all fine birds, but your stuffed turkeys are the tastiest."

In my (very silly) example "your turkeys" is not meant to refer to Virgil's turkeys or MsDirector's turkeys in particular (even if I am addressing Virgil or MsDirector), but to the turkeys of the population in general. This was a fairly common construction in the Elizabethan/Jacobean period (I'm assuming it's some kind of an overlap from when English had more formally defined singular and plural second person pronouns, but I don't know), so the likely usage of the "your" in the lines "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/ Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" is probably a reference to philosophy in general rather than a philosophy Horatio in particular posesses.

The word "philosophy" also commonly had a much more general definition in this period than we usually think of it having today, and so philosophy could be used to broadly mean "learning," "knowledge," or "education." We still see this broader use of the term in the title of the PhD degree, which means, of course, "Doctor of Philosophy" and can apply to those with knowledge and education in a wide range of fields, not only the philosophy department. ;)

[Janine]

:yawnb: I'm back finally - the site must have been down all night(?)
Arlene, I know all about "downtime". First time I was trying to post it would not go through - that was in the midst of making my dinner - very frustrating. No way will I turn my computer off really, even on Thanksgiving day! I was just joking about abandoning our computers this week. Mine is on all day long, since I got broadband. I am a super multi-tasker these days, isn't everyone? I am quite addicted to the internet and computer, but I love it!!! Yes, I like my age, too, and I keep finding more and more to pursue. It is wonderful!...Like Lit Net.
I know it must be great to have a grandchild. My son always said he wouldn't have children, but now he is over 30 and he and his wife, of a year, are changing their tune. I am thrilled.

For now I read Petrarch's comments - I forgot that the thread was just called "Horatio", therefore we can definitely stick to this thread and see what happens....but Virgil says he is still not done with the word "stoic"....sigh, sigh....

Well, I agree with P and quote here here:


The most generally accepted reading of the line is that the "your" is being used in an indefinate form (which was common for Shakespeare's period but not too common now) rather than to indicate Horatio in particular. Since I can't think of a great modern example for the indefinate usage of "your" I've made up the following one:

"You have your stuffed turkeys and your unstuffed turkeys, and they're all fine birds, but your stuffed turkeys are the tastiest."

In my (very silly) example "your turkeys" is not meant to refer to Virgil's turkeys or MsDirector's turkeys in particular (even if I am addressing Virgil or MsDirector), but to the turkeys of the population in general. This was a fairly common construction in the Elizabethan/Jacobean period (I'm assuming it's some kind of an overlap from when English had more formally defined singular and plural second person pronouns, but I don't know), so the likely usage of the "your" in the lines "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/ Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" is probably a reference to philosophy in general rather than a philosophy Horatio in particular posesses.

The word "philosophy" also commonly had a much more general definition in this period than we usually think of it having today, and so philosophy could be used to broadly mean "learning," "knowledge," or "education." We still see this broader use of the term in the title of the PhD degree, which means, of course, "Doctor of Philosophy" and can apply to those with knowledge and education in a wide range of fields, not only the philosophy department.
When I read the line or heard it spoken - "your philosophy", my first inclination was to think of it in prescisely this way - not personal to Horatio, but rather as a more general figure of speach that included anyone.

Love your turkey analogy....very fitting, indeed! and .....Virgil, you are no turkey! :D

[penelopea]

He did a damn good job on that bridge.

[Janine]

He did a damn good job on that bridge.

Afraid I don't quite get your drift? :(

[Virgil]

Hi Janine. How are you?

[Janine]

Good, ready to eat Thanksgiving dinner! YUM!!! Where have you been? Did you read all my emails I sent you? I sent photos of my artwork - just like Lawrence I am awaiting some kind of review. If you hated my work, I will probably have to send you a quote of Lawrence's!

Read your short story - liked it....will go into that later on. Got the DVD yesterday, and will watch soon. Thanks so much! Another Hamlet verison is always nice to own.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!

[penelopea]

sorry ,sarcasm.Lays of Ancient Rome.

[Janine]

I don't get it but that's ok

[penelopea]

Americans dont do irony

[Petrarch's Love]

Americans dont do irony

They do, but like any other people they need to be familiar with a text in order to get the joke. I don't know that I've spoken to too many on either side of the pond who regard Lays of Ancient Rome as something you can neccessarily take for granted that people have read (perhaps I'm wrong and it's basic reading in some English schools?).

Janine, I believe Penelopea was refering to a poem by Thomas Babbington Macaulay, which relates the story of the Roman Horatius, who was famous for defending a bridge against the Etruscans. Here's the wikipedia page on the Horatius story, which contains a link to Macaulay's poem so that all we Yanks can be in on the joke too :) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatius_Cocles

[Janine]

Petrarch, Hi, how was your Thanksgiving dinner? Ours was great! Just came on here to digest - how about you? Thanks for the information in Wikipedia. I have not read it yet, but think then I might get the joke. Sorry, Penelopea. I think Americans do do irony and sarcasm quite well, actually. Wait till Virgil joins our thread again. He will probably give you a run for your money!

[Virgil]

They do, but like any other people they need to be familiar with a text in order to get the joke. I don't know that I've spoken to too many on either side of the pond who regard Lays of Ancient Rome as something you can neccessarily take for granted that people have read (perhaps I'm wrong and it's basic reading in some English schools?).

Janine, I believe Penelopea was refering to a poem by Thomas Babbington Macaulay, which relates the story of the Roman Horatius, who was famous for defending a bridge against the Etruscans. Here's the wikipedia page on the Horatius story, which contains a link to Macaulay's poem so that all we Yanks can be in on the joke too :) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatius_Cocles

Thanks Petrarch. Now I get it. I didn't know that legend.

BTW, I just read an overview of Petrarch's life. I had always imagined him sort of like a younger Dante. But no. He was quite a character, sort of like the rock star of his day. ;)

[Virgil]

Good, ready to eat Thanksgiving dinner! YUM!!! Where have you been? Did you read all my emails I sent you? I sent photos of my artwork - just like Lawrence I am awaiting some kind of review. If you hated my work, I will probably have to send you a quote of Lawrence's!

Read your short story - liked it....will go into that later on. Got the DVD yesterday, and will watch soon. Thanks so much! Another Hamlet verison is always nice to own.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!

Hi Janine. I've been somewhat preoccupied. Yes I saw your art work and I love it. I think it's very interesting. I'm impressed. Glad you got the disk. If there were other emails after your artwork, I have not gotten to them yet.

[Janine]

Virgil, Glad you got them ok: I thought you may have deleted them by accident. Thanks for the good review.:thumbs_up Whew...I was sweating that one....I won't have to curse you out like Lawrence. Did you really love my artwork? Artists are so darn sensitive:bawling:, you know...
I know - everyone was preoccupied this week...with Turkey day approaching. Did it take you long to pluck yours? Hope you enjoyed your dinner - turkey and pasta...etc.... I imagine!~
Petrarch, I read the Wikipedia article and now I understand "the bridge" referred to by Penelopea. P, since the guy holding the bridge drifted down the river and may have drown, I think I may have a good pun there when I said "I don't get your drift". I was closer than I knew to the truth.:D

[Virgil]

Virgil, Glad you got them ok: I thought you may have deleted them by accident. Thanks for the good review.:thumbs_up Whew...I was sweating that one....I won't have to curse you out like Lawrence. Did you really love my artwork? Artists are so darn sensitive:bawling:, you know...
I know - everyone was preoccupied this week...with Turkey day approaching. Did it take you long to pluck yours? Hope you enjoyed your dinner - turkey and pasta...etc.... I imagine!~


Of course I loved it. Very sensitive and lyrical, if I can apply that to art work. Your sketch of a ballarina was beautiful. I am impressed. I also like the tone of the colors. I wish I could see it clearer, but what I could see very good.

[Janine]

Virgil, Thank you very much! You put that so poetically. I appreciate your opinions and comments. I liked your short story, too. Interesting how you knew so much about a machine shop and the references to the father were of particular interest. I may try to post some of my art on my blog, when I make one up. Is it hard to make the blog? Never did one before. I will try to get clearer photos of my art first.

[Janine]

Meant to add - just looked at a segment of the Hamlet. Jacobi is great - he always is!

[Virgil]

Virgil, Thank you very much! You put that so poetically. I appreciate your opinions and comments. I liked your short story, too. Interesting how you knew so much about a machine shop and the references to the father were of particular interest. I may try to post some of my art on my blog, when I make one up. Is it hard to make the blog? Never did one before. I will try to get clearer photos of my art first.

I'm a mechanical engineer. I've been to quite a few machine shops. ;)

It was easy to do the blog. I would be nice to have your art work there.

Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. Enjoy Jacobi's performance. I feel it is the best Hamlet of all time.

[Janine]

I am not watching it right now. It won't load in my DVD, but that is because it has been acting up lately; I may go and buy a new one soon. I had it on the computer and it looked pretty good and the sound was syncronized with the mouths, so that was a first - I've had problems with that before, too. I will watch it downstairs on the Sony DVD player - better player, but not tonight.
Seems we are the only nuts on here right now...everyone has triptaphane from their turkeys and are falling asleep! :sick: I am leaving now, too.... I am going to watch another movie and relax.
Yes, probably the best Hamlet is Jacobi, can see how Branagh was influenced, interesting that Jacobi was his mentor. He is mesmerizing to watch - saw the encounter in the woods with the ghost, "to be or not to be", and scene with Ophelia - great stuff !!! Thanks again!:)

[Janine]

Oh my, we seem to have taken a little Thanksgiving Day break from poor "Horatio". Should we revamp, and ask another question on his behalf, or follow the one that Petrarch or Arlene (? can't remember now) has layed out -.....just who is Horatio?..... and if you say a Stoic, Virgil, I will scream!...:lol:

[Virgil]

Oh my, we seem to have taken a little Thanksgiving Day break from poor "Horatio". Should we revamp, and ask another question on his behalf, or follow the one that Petrarch or Arlene (? can't remember now) has layed out -.....just who is Horatio?..... and if you say a Stoic, Virgil, I will scream!...:lol:

Ok, some seem to think he's not a Dane. That seems nebulous to me. I know he's unsure of the drinking problems of Denmark, but is this enough to say he's not native? He seems to be at home. When Hamlet is sent off to England, doesn't Horatio stay behind? And why do the guards ask for Horatio to see the ghost before Hamlet? If he's not from Denmark, where is he from? What's he doing in Denmark if he's not a native?

[Janine]

I agree with you about Horatio being a Dane. I just don't see the indication that he is not one. He seems to have gone to the same school as Hamlet and that is how they know each other, but he seems perfectly at home in the castle and seems to fit in well and be trusted by everyone. Do you think the royalty would trust him so if he were foreign? I don't - not in the time the play is set. He, also is concerned over the building up of defenses and seems to take that personally. Perhaps he is a guest at the castle, but not a non-native to Denmark. Hamlet seems to have gotten along well with everyone prior to the marriage of his mother and the ghost requesting revenge. He seems to have been well liked and attracted many friends...some apparently at school. It would make sense that he meet up with Horatio there and formed a bond of friendship. He easily could have lived in another part of Denmark prior to meeting Hamlet. Or another theory could be that he was a childhood friend, but if that be true his family might be present also in the play.

[Virgil]

Hey, I'm glad someone agrees with me on something. :D

[Janine]

I thought you liked to be combatant! Hey, I must have read that in your interview. Can't find it in your profile. Anyway, give it time.....someone is bound to disagree with us...like Arlene or Petrarch. Then the fun will begin! "Calling in the opponents!"

[ShoutGrace]

Why do people care where Horatio is from? The first few times I read the play that question never occurred to me, and I’m kind of unsure how it came into being.


When Hamlet is sent off to England, doesn't Horatio stay behind?

Most likely because Claudius doesn’t see the need to kill or exile Horatio. The less witnesses, the better – the neater the better.


And why do the guards ask for Horatio to see the ghost before Hamlet?

They aren’t friendly enough with Hamlet to approach him directly. Horatio is a similarly educated scholar, and a more common man. He is, for lack of a better term, a “good substitute” for Hamlet to them. Asking Horatio is also a preliminary, almost cautionsary step. They wanted yet another person to observe the strange appearance of the Ghost – perhaps they needed Horatio to talk to Hamlet as well, he wouldn’t have trusted them.


I assumed Horatio was a Dane simply because of the events in Act 1 scene 1 – Marcellus openly asks Barnardo and Horatio who can tell him why they have been having to watch the perimeter every night, why the country has been making weapons and training warriors, making the night “joint labourer” with the day, etc. Horatio responds with the following:



That can I.
At least the whisper goes so: our last king,
whose image even but now appeared to us,



and forward. He proceeds to draw upon his education for a little coloring of his explanation of the “rummage” in the land. However, it is merely the “our” above that leads me to believe he is a native.

[Virgil]

I thought you liked to be combatant! Hey, I must have read that in your interview. Can't find it in your profile. Anyway, give it time.....someone is bound to disagree with us...like Arlene or Petrarch. Then the fun will begin! "Calling in the opponents!"


I'm not sure where I said that either, but I did say it. I don't know if I can wait until someone disagrees with me. :D

[Virgil]

Most likely because Claudius doesn’t see the need to kill or exile Horatio. The less witnesses, the better – the neater the better.

Yes, I agree. My point was that if he were simply Hamlet's guest, he would have either gone with Hamlet or went home.


They aren’t friendly enough with Hamlet to approach him directly. Horatio is a similarly educated scholar, and a more common man. He is, for lack of a better term, a “good substitute” for Hamlet to them. Asking Horatio is also a preliminary, almost cautionsary step. They wanted yet another person to observe the strange appearance of the Ghost – perhaps they needed Horatio to talk to Hamlet as well, he wouldn’t have trusted them.
Quite right. And so would they have trusted someone who is not Danish? Unlikely.


I assumed Horatio was a Dane simply because of the events in Act 1 scene 1 – Marcellus openly asks Barnardo and Horatio who can tell him why they have been having to watch the perimeter every night, why the country has been making weapons and training warriors, making the night “joint labourer” with the day, etc. Horatio responds with the following:



That can I.
At least the whisper goes so: our last king,
whose image even but now appeared to us,

Excellent!

[Virgil]

You know what I've wanted to start? Just like there is a monthly book forum read, I've thought about a monthly Shakespeare play that we read and comment on act by act. Something like an act per week. Any interest in participating?

[ShoutGrace]

I'd be interested. However, depending on how rigorous a schedule I construct for myself next semester, I may not be available to participate as much as I'd like.

I think that we should mix up comedies, tragedies and histories as much as possible. Or perhaps eliminate the histories entirely - I'd always planned on reading those consecutively.

Let's just wait a few months before arranging to read Hamlet. ;)

[Virgil]

I'd be interested. However, depending on how rigorous a schedule I construct for myself next semester, I may not be available to participate as much as I'd like.

I think that we should mix up comedies, tragedies and histories as much as possible. Or perhaps eliminate the histories entirely - I'd always planned on reading those consecutively.

Let's just wait a few months before arranging to read Hamlet. ;)

I think one act per week isn't too rigorous. In five weeks we will have completed a play and we could spend another week for further discussion. That's six weeks per play, or if that is still too tough we could go one play every two months. I'm not sure how we would select the play. Any suggestions?

[Petrarch's Love]

As far as the debate as to Horatio's origins, I think the main cause for doubting he's a Dane are the lines from Act I, scene iv. The lines come just after Hamlet has described drinking customs at the Danish court:


Hor. Is it a custom?

Ham. Ay marry is't,
But to my mind, though I am native here
And to the manner born...

These lines seem to suggest that Horatio is not native, as Hamlet is, nor to the manner born, and some readers, comparing these lines with the reference to "our king" that Shoutgrace brought up, have found this a problematic contradiction in the characterization of Horatio. I suppose it's possible that Horatio was not born in Denmark but has moved there later in his life and made it his adopted country, thus explaining why he might not quite be regarded as "native" but might still refer to "our king." I have to say though, that it's not a problem that I've thought through much. Like others here, I doubt I even noticed this issue when first reading the play, though I have to admit that I always feel as though there's something of the outsider about Horatio. Perhaps this is the effect of his being so much more rational and less passionately involved than most of the other characters, which makes him seem less a part of the Denmark where something's gone rotten. He's also Hamlet's university friend--like the chum he's brought back to his highly disfunctional home for the holidays--which gives him the air of being an outsider. These are really ways he's seperate from the others in terms of character though, more than it proves anything one way or the other about him being or not being Danish, and of course it's entirely possible he's a Dane, but just new to the Danish court (perhaps a scholar moving up in the world through his friendship with the prince). There's so little textual evidence about Horatio that it's hard to say with any certainty what his backstory is.

[Petrarch's Love]

You know what I've wanted to start? Just like there is a monthly book forum read, I've thought about a monthly Shakespeare play that we read and comment on act by act. Something like an act per week. Any interest in participating?

That sounds like a great idea, Virg. :idea: If we did this, could I be hideously selfish and request one of the earlier histories or comedies early in the new year? That's what I'll be teaching and it would be super to have a place to discuss one of the plays my students will be reading. If people here have strong feelings about reading a particular play though, I'll be glad to discuss any of the plays.

[ShoutGrace]

As far as the debate as to Horatio's origins, I think the main cause for doubting he's a Dane are the lines from Act I, scene iv. The lines come just after Hamlet has described drinking customs at the Danish court:

To me, the key words there are "the Danish Court" - a relatively restricted area/group that Horatio may not have had access to - though, come to think of it, where are they viewing this carousing from? The battlements? If it's any place like that, then anybody, down to the guards, could see this behaviour taking place (indeed making it evident that Horatio isn't a Dane).

Slightly off topic observation - I think this speech again evidences Hamlet's jumping to generalities. If Horatio is indeed a foreigner, then perhaps it isn't so clear that all foreigners think less of the Danish for being such "drunkards." Not everybody "cleps" the Danish so for this propensity to 'enjoy' :D alcohol - perhaps it is just another area of Claudius' character that Hamlet is finding fault in, and subsequently magnifying.



I suppose it's possible that Horatio was not born in Denmark but has moved there later in his life and made it his adopted country, thus explaining why he might not quite be regarded as "native" but might still refer to "our king."

Well, that fits. :D


Perhaps this is the effect of his being so much more rational and less passionately involved than most of the other characters, which makes him seem less a part of the Denmark where something's gone rotten.

This is interesting too - it seems as if every character is effected by the "foul contagion" that is making Denmark such a weedy garden - though Horatio isn't? I do seem to remember getting the sense that he was almost "tolerating" Hamlet's mousetrap antics, especially around the time when Hamlet asked him (paraphrased) "Then saw you not his face?"


He's also Hamlet's university friend--like the chum he's brought back to his highly disfunctional home for the holidays--which gives him the air of being an outsider.

Do you remember that business when Hamlet first greets Horatio, and he asks him (again, paraphrased) "What makes you from Wittenberg?" Horatio replies that he came to see the funeral, and of course Hamlet says "Prithee do not mock me, fellow, it was to see my mother's wedding." (and the bit about the cold baked meats, one of my favourites :D.) Anyhow, why did Horatio come from Wittenberg? To be with his friend through such harsh times?

[Virgil]

These lines seem to suggest that Horatio is not native, as Hamlet is, nor to the manner born, and some readers, comparing these lines with the reference to "our king" that Shoutgrace brought up, have found this a problematic contradiction in the characterization of Horatio. I suppose it's possible that Horatio was not born in Denmark but has moved there later in his life and made it his adopted country, thus explaining why he might not quite be regarded as "native" but might still refer to "our king."

You mean it's possible that Shakespeare made another mistake.:eek:

And in a "perfect" play such as Hamlet. :eek2: Such sacrilidge. :D

Actually if this is a mistake on Shakespeare's part, I would only label this as a slip rather than a flaw, like I did with the ghost. A slip is an error in keeping the facts straight rather than a flaw which is critical to the story.

[Virgil]

That sounds like a great idea, Virg. :idea: If we did this, could I be hideously selfish and request one of the earlier histories or comedies early in the new year? That's what I'll be teaching and it would be super to have a place to discuss one of the plays my students will be reading. If people here have strong feelings about reading a particular play though, I'll be glad to discuss any of the plays.

No problem, Petrarch. How about we start in December with a classic and by mid January pick one that you will need? Is that OK. We need to establish rules on how to pick a play. I'm trying to wait until Janine and Arlene see this so we can get their thoughts into the mix. Just my management style. I'm a consensus builder rather than dictator. :D Just some insight into my work personality. ;)

[Janine]

I like the idea :idea:, Virgil. Smart thinking!



I think one act per week isn't too rigorous. In five weeks we will have completed a play and we could spend another week for further discussion. That's six weeks per play, or if that is still too tough we could go one play every two months. I'm not sure how we would select the play. Any suggestions?

I could do one act per week. We could try it and if it gets too demanding we could do the play in two months (after all we have to leave time to post, and first to think). Someone commented to leave out the histories. I would hate to see that done. I liked those emensely. True it is better to read them in order, but I read a few out of order ,and they were just as good, then went back later and read the ones that proceeded them in time-span. Most of the histories are tragedies, too. Hard to draw a definite line in Shakespeare and some of the comedies also have tragic, sad and profound elements. I sometimes hate the way the plays are categorized. I never saw the "Merchant of Venice" as a comedy, but that is usually the way it is listed....strange.

[Janine]

Well, December is going to be hectic, with holidays approaching, but if you think we should start, then I suppose I can swing it. I would rather start in January. Just my personal thought on the matter.

[Petrarch's Love]

No problem, Petrarch. How about we start in December with a classic and by mid January pick one that you will need? Is that OK. We need to establish rules on how to pick a play. I'm trying to wait until Janine and Arlene see this so we can get their thoughts into the mix. Just my management style. I'm a consensus builder rather than dictator. Just some insight into my work personality.

Sounds good to me. I'm up for anything, and I've read all the plays through at least once. I think most of the plays we'll be reading for the class are fairly well known (Henry IV parts 1&2, Richard II, Midsummer, Twelfth Night, Much Ado) though I'm not sure of the final list quite yet, since the professor I'm assisting for is the one defining the syllabus for the class. I think he might have said something about Troilus and Cressida too. I've been doing some research work on the Tempest lately too, so if anyone wanted to go through that one I'd be more than game.

[Janine]

Hey, what happened to "Henry V"? "Henry V" is one of my all time favorite plays! Richard III is great, too!

[Petrarch's Love]

I think that we should mix up comedies, tragedies and histories as much as possible. Or perhaps eliminate the histories entirely - I'd always planned on reading those consecutively.

Just to clarify, Shoutgrace, did you want to read the histories consecutively as written or in order of the reign of the kings? I'm guessing you mean the latter. Frankly, I wouldn't start reading the histories with King John anyway. I tried that myself, and it dampened my desire to read more of the histories (not that it's a terrrible play, but I don't think it's a great introduction to the histories, and certainly isn't the most compelling of them). I would at least skip to Richard II. You won't really be missing any pertinent background by skipping John, since there's quite a large chronological gap between him and Richard II. That's just my two cents though.

[Janine]

I agree with that - the histories; RII is a good starting point....lots of action; the two Henry's are great and Henry V is superb. Then the others that follow make sense.

[Petrarch's Love]

Hey, what happened to "Henry V"? "Henry V" is one of my all time favorite plays! Richard III is great, too!

The class we're teaching is Shakespeare I, so I think we're doing plays written earlier in Shakespeare's career and moving through to later ones in Shakespeare II and III. Also, I'm assuming the prof's idea is to leave the students with a cliffhanger by gettting them through Henry IV 1&2, and then getting them to sign up for Shakespeare II in Spring quarter to read Henry V and so on. ;) Naturally we could read any play we want here on Lit. Net. I love Henry V too (though if others here haven't read the Henry IV plays, it really makes sense to start with them, since you miss alot of the impact with the way certain characters transform in Henry V if you haven't read the earlier plays).

[Janine]

P - ok, I agree with that. Did Shakespeare write the histories out of order then concerning the king's reigns? I have to go out now, so hold that thought....or answer and I will reply later. Sounds like a good idea the "cliff- hanger!" They will want to read Henry V for certain and RIII.

[Virgil]

Yes the histories were not written in order.

[Petrarch's Love]

There's some disagreement as to the exact chronology of the plays, but this link gives a general chronology that I think scholars would agree with for the most part: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/keydates/playchron.html
Roughly speaking the plays up to about Much Ado or Henry V are considered the earlier half of his work, and those after, the later half (though there's no fast rule here). Actually, it occured to me that Richard III is in fact one of the very early plays, so I wonder if we will be doing it in this class after all, or if this prof. is cutting it out or prefers to do the histories according to historical chronology (probably the way I would be inclined to teach them were I doing the planning portion of the course). I'll have to ask him.

[Janine]

Another question....or maybe two actually:
First about Shakespeare, I think I had read online about the history plays and the chronology of them being out of order of rule. Also, I have read that some think certain of the history plays were not really written by Shakespeare at all. I think I read Henry VIII was suspect. Does anyone know anything about this? There is an early play of the histories - might have been King John or James, and I remember feeling really bored, and that it did not seem as though the Bard had written it, seemed lack-lustre to me. I read it after I had read the others such as the Henry's and the Richards, which I thought had so much scope.
Second question: If we are going to do a play a month should a new thread be started to that effect? ...since this thread is "Horatio". If a new one was started more people might join in....that would be great.

[Virgil]

Another question....or maybe two actually:
First about Shakespeare, I think I had read online about the history plays and the chronology of them being out of order of rule. Also, I have read that some think certain of the history plays were not really written by Shakespeare at all. I think I read Henry VIII was suspect. Does anyone know anything about this?
Henry VIII is either Shakespeare's last or second to last of his plays. Those last two plays were certainly written in collaboration with I think another playwright named John Fletcher. Too lazy to look it up right now.


There is an early play of the histories - might have been King John or James, and I remember feeling really bored, and that it did not seem as though the Bard had written it, seemed lack-lustre to me. I read it after I had read the others such as the Henry's and the Richards, which I thought had so much scope.
You must mean King John. I don't think there is a King James play. I have never read King John, nor the other histories which some consider boring Henry VI parts I, II, and III. Shakespeare wrote the Henry VI series before the Henry IV and V series.


Second question: If we are going to do a play a month should a new thread be started to that effect? ...since this thread is "Horatio". If a new one was started more people might join in....that would be great
I sent a message to Admin and the moderators on how to best set this up. The have not gotten back to me yet.

[Janine]

Virgil, Thanks for the information. I read John, Henry IV, V, VI and both Richards, II and III. I think I did know that Henry VI was written before the others....strange. I found the Henry VI's less appealing and somewhat boring as well. The middle ones are the best. I read them not too long ago so I can pretty well recall them to mind. I like English history, but I am aware that Shakespeare took many liberties with the writing of it. Much is exaggerated.

Glad you contacted the moderators about how to go about the subject of the play discussions. That was smart thinking!

I am going to try now to go watch Hamlet downstairs on the Sony player. I hope it works ok. I will let you know. I am fired up to see it tonight. Thanks!!!

[Virgil]

Virgil, Thanks for the information. I read John, Henry IV, V, VI and both Richards, II and III. I think I did know that Henry VI was written before the others....strange. I found the Henry VI's less appealing and somewhat boring as well. The middle ones are the best. I read them not too long ago so I can pretty well recall them to mind. I like English history, but I am aware that Shakespeare took many liberties with the writing of it. Much is exaggerated.

Glad you contacted the moderators about how to go about the subject of the play discussions. That was smart thinking!

I am going to try now to go watch Hamlet downstairs on the Sony player. I hope it works ok. I will let you know. I am fired up to see it tonight. Thanks!!!

Enjoy it!......I hope it works too. I would be embarressed if it didn't.

[Janine]

Enjoy it!......I hope it works too. I would be embarressed if it didn't.

:) Movie looks perfect! Almost finished watching it. WOW!!!....
will tell you about it tomorrow. Thanks ~ Janine

:thumbs_up !!!