For A3, I would like to write about Horatio and his role in illuminating the relationship between sound/speech and meaning in Hamlet. On the surface level, Horatio seems steadfast (to the point of being passive and even slightly "boring"), but I noticed that he reveals some paradoxical ideas about hearsay and storytelling. Besides the fact that his name means "Orator" in Latin , many of his lines concern the words "speak" and "hear," such as this passage:
Act 1.1 Lines 165-173
So have I heard and do in part believe it.
dactyl/trochee/trochee/trochee/trochee
But look, the morn in russet mantle clad
iamb/iamb/iamb/iamb/iamb
Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastward hill.
iamb/iamb/pyrrhic/spondee/iamb
Break we our watch up, and by my advice
trochee/iamb/pyrrhic/iamb/iamb
Let us impart what we have seen tonight
pyrrhic/iamb/pyrrhic/iamb/iamb
Unto young Hamlet, for upon my life
trochee/iamb/pyrrhic/iamb/iamb
This spirit, dumb to us, will speak to him.
iamb/iamb/iamb/iamb/iamb
Do you consent we shall acquaint him with it,
dactyl/trochee/pyrrhic/trochee/iamb
As needful in our loves, fitting our duty?
iamb/pyrrhic/iamb/trochee/iamb/ (catalectic line?)
Line 165: By beginning with a dactyl, Horatio places the emphasis not on the personal pronoun (as would seem intuitive), but rather on the "So," which removes himself from the story he has heard. With this scansion, the rest of the line would be thrown off from intuitive iambs and forced into anxious trochees instead. This puts emphasis on the words "heard" and "part", which emphasize Horatio's passivity. The phrase "in part" stands out in particular, as Horatio does not wholly believe the hearsay; this seems ironic, since one of the main functions of his character is to tell stories. Finally, this is the only line in the passage which does not end on masculine rhyme, and this again brings focus to the lack of certainty in believing the story. This one line undermines the rest of the passage, as it reveals Horatio's uncertainty.
Line 166-167: With line, 166 Horatio speaks again in natural iambs, and describes the scene around him vividly. There seems to be an unnatural cut between the first and second line, as if Horatio wants to distract his audience from his first line. He fills the mind with a bold red color, and employs a spondee to emphasize the different physical direction he looks at. I think the ease with which he can change the images of the audience's mindset is worth noting. After all, he is paradoxically the first one to bring doubt to the ghost with his initial skepticism, yet also the first one to show the act of accepting the ghost as a part of reality once has seen it.
Line 171: Horatio stresses the word dumb and implies that the ghost only has any meaning if it will speak to Hamlet. He suggests that simply seeing is not enough, the ghost must also overcome the boundary of silence in order to gain credibility. This seems to parallel Horatio's own position, since he really only has any meaning of existing because of his power of speech. Also, how is he so sure that the ghost will speak to Hamlet?
Line 173: Though Horatio ends almost all of his lines on a masculine rhyme, the last line is a forced masculine stress, and there seems to be an absent syllable. Horatio expresses that something is missing from his duty. Perhaps this implies that his larger duty of informing others through stories will always be lacking resoluteness or certainty.
Final Thoughts:
The plot of Hamlet could probably move along just fine without Horatio, so why does Shakespeare even bother to put him in? At times, Horatio seems like Hamlet's more reasonable alter ego, or Hamlet's shadow, but I'm not sure what kinds of implications this creates.
The duty of storytelling gives Horatio's existence meaning, but storytelling itself never seems to achieve truth, so what does that say about Horatio's existence? About speech's existence?
I'm having trouble coming up with one final, cohesive claim. I know the main topics I want to work with, but if anyone could help me move further with some of these ideas, I would greatly appreciate it!
Hey Janis, you have a lot of great ideas working here. Your close readings are fabulous and have lots of details! Your idea about Horatio being Hamlet's "alter ego" is a good idea to run with. But why does Hamlet's "alter ego" not prevail; Hamlet does end up dying at the end with Horatio being left alone. Does this say something about the power of words not being strong enough?
ReplyDeleteI think you should check out the last interaction between Horatio and Hamlet. Horatio wants to drink the poison but Hamlet begs him not to and to tell "his story". So perhaps Horatio is a way to truth...at least in Hamlet's eyes? Why does Horatio have to tell Hamlet's story?
I think words are powerful in this story but you bring a good point that Horatio is the first to doubt the story about the ghost until he sees it (and then asks the ghost to speak). Is he a character that needs evidence before he can say something true? If he doesn't see it, is he just uncertain the whole time with his words?
In many ways, Horatio is the *only* character in the play that we (and characters) hear. As you say, he is the storyteller--the orator. The other characters remain anxious--to a psychotic degree--about *not* being heard. Claudius, for example, "confesses," but he confesses a few seconds too early--Hamlet walks in too late to hear the confession, and without an audience there is no confession. We don't hear his confession; rather, we OVERHEAR his confession. In her final "mad" songs, Ophelia's refrain is "pray you mark": she is hysterical because, although she is speaking, nobody understands what she is saying--they can't "hear" her (just can just overhear her). And of course, how does King Hamlet die? He was poisoned in the EAR. So how is it that Horatio can be heard? Is it because, as you suggest at the beginning of this post, that he takes his "self" out of the equation entirely? The other characters try too hard to craft a self through speech, but Horatio seems to have figured out that you can only be heard when your own subjectivity isn't the goal of utterance/speech. I have no idea if you can substantiate this claim (I'm just free writing a few thoughts), but this could be the first step in generating a thesis statement. The payoff, I think, is that it would highlight the paradox of the play: only when "I" is silent can the "I" be heard. Speech can't generate an ego in this play (even through soliloquy).
ReplyDeleteHello!
ReplyDeleteI think it might be really interesting to look at Horatio as a direct extension of Hamlet. In a way, he acts as a constant reaction/reinforcement to Hamlet's words and actions. If his name means speaker/orator maybe he acts as the voice of a part of Hamlet that Hamlet does not voice himself?
Also, on the surface Horatio seems passive but maybe you could look at how he might indirectly influence the events of the play. Does something he says to Hamlet somehow snowball?? (Like, does Hamlet react/respond to something Horatio says in an important way?),,,
Delete