In the last scene of Act V many people die. Of those is Hamlet. Just before Hamlet dies Horatio says, " I am more an antique Roman than a Dane./ Here's yet some liquor left"(V. ii. 350-351). In saying this he alludes that he might kill himself so that he will not live without Hamlet. Hamlet prevents him from doing so, but if Hamlet had not, would Horatio have truly killed himself? What effect would that have upon the story? And why does Shakespeare choose not to have Horatio kill himself?
Skyler Timmins
3/26/2014 02:53:42 pm
Looking back all the way to the moment when Horatio swore upon Hamlet's sword, I stand firm in the belief that he would have truly killed himself. First off it shows that sense of true loyalty that was lacking in the whole play. Horatio showcases what was missing among the main characters of the play from the beginning, and so despite the fact that it wouldn't be beneficial to anyone, he feels obligated to show his loyalty to Hamlet to the very end. It would have shown that through Hamlet's charade of revenge and the plotting of the King, innocents who did no wrong would also suffer. The lack of loyalty would have become prominent and an important motif that the other characters lacked. Suicide was on Horatio's mind at the end of the play and he would have gone through with it. Shakespeare chose to not have him killed because as Hamlet states in the end, someone needs to tell the story of how this happened. In the end loyalty did not die, and those that had betrayed, lied, and killed perished. It was Shakespeare's way of commenting on the secret combinations that usually occur in society, in kingdoms, and a large manner of other places and that they will get their just deserts in the end.
Kate
3/26/2014 03:59:36 pm
I do believe that Horatio would have killed himself in loyalty to Hamlet. Throughout the entire play, Horatio stood by Hamlet and helped him "accomplish" his goal. He protected his secret, got him to the King, and held him while he died. He was truly a best friend. Much like Skyler pointed out, Horatio is one of the only characters to display integrity, honor, and loyalty. He is the odd man out in the play. This is Shakespeare highlighting on the idea that there are still good people in society. Not everyone is evil, corrupt, too innocent, or too jaded. It is a touching moment that many readers could and still do connect to. I believe that one of the most important reasons that Shakespeare did not kill Hamlet is to continue the story. "History will not repeat itself" type of a deal. Horatio is now in charge of telling the story of Hamlet and all of his kingdom so that others do not make the same mistake that he did. This is very typical for Shakespeare. In "Romeo and Juliet" the Prince Escalus gives a speech at the end of the play, after Romeo and Juliet have killed themselves, in which he talks of the shame and dishonor their families now hold after "forcing" Romeo and Juliet to go to desperate measures in order to be together. The speech hints to the reader that Escalus will continue to tell the story of "Juliet and her Romeo" for years to come. This is exactly what Horatio is doing after the death of everyone close to him. It is Shakespeare's way of reminding the reader that we must remember the past in order to protect the future.
Ariana
3/30/2014 07:29:46 pm
Kate makes an extremely good point especially with the continuation of the story. I agree with the fact that he is meant to live to both tell the story, but as well as to finalize the theme of the play to the viewer/reader. The honourable, honest character lives in the end while the other characters who had been victim to both hubris and Hamartia died. It also reflects on Hamlet's epiphany when he is holding Yorick's skull that it the story that lives on and he wanted his side of the story told, not just outsider's perception of it.
Emma
4/7/2014 03:30:34 pm
Although I do believe in what Kate says, I have to question the last paragraph she talks about. To me, Shakespeare seems like an author who doesn't care if his reader's like or dislike the ending of his plays and stories. Shakespeare has a very "Hollywood-esque" sense to his writing-perhaps it is the other way around. As Kate stated Shakespeare has a character who does survive the tribulations to tell others of the struggle. I recall that in Julius Caesar, Mark Anthony gives a speech discussing Caesar's greatness and the reason for his down fall. My question is, if these crucial characters, such as Horatio, Escalus, and Mark Anthony had been killed in the plays what affect would it have? Would his readers really care? Would Shakespeare care what his reader's thought?
erinrae
3/26/2014 05:08:03 pm
I believe Horatio, if Hamlet had not stopped him, would have killed himself. Horatio was loyal to Hamlet over everyone else in the play and, due to his actions and dependence on Hamlet's character, it would be probable for him to take his own life after his best friend died. The only reason Horatio agreed to not kill himself was to clear Hamlet's reputation and tell the citizens the actual story of Hamlet, Hamlet's father, and Claudius. "If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart,/ Absent thee from felicity awhile,/ And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain,/ To tell my story" (V. ii. 356-359). Hamlet's dying plea was for Horatio to tell his story, had he killed himself, Horatio's image as a loyal, selfless friend would diminish because he did not fulfill his best friend's last dying wish. If Horatio would have killed himself, it would have changed his character entirely, which Shakespeare did not want. The only two innocent main characters in the play were Ophelia and Horatio, having one die is a tragedy, but having both die makes each death less powerful and meaningful. Shakespeare did not have Horatio die because he was the legacy of Hamlet, without him, none would know of the ordeals within the palace and Hamlet would come out looking insane when he, in all reality, was not. Horatio killing himself would not only change his character, but it would also change the significance of Hamlet being that all that knew of his sanity and genius would be dead.
HR1997
3/31/2014 10:57:15 am
To be honest, this is exactly what I was thinking that Horatio did not killed himself because he wanted to protect and cherish Hamlet's reputation. He did this because Horatio is aware of the fact that the kingdom will consider Hamlet as a traitor if there is no one to explain them what actually happened. Also if Shakespeare decides to kill the innocent characters (Term of Erin's) one by one in the play then the whole play will just be a tale of revenge and hatred instead of being a masterpiece on the definition of humanity. The play would just have been any other play where the good dies after the killing the evil and everything just falls apart. In order to make this play effective, Shakespeare lets Horatio live- a sign indicating that there is still some good left in this world. Comments are closed.
|
AuthorMrs. Lopez (AP Literature and Composition Instructor) Archives
September 2014
Categories |