The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.005 Tuesday, 6 January 2009
[1] From: David Evett <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 21 Nov 2008 10:31:06 -0500
Subt: Re: SHK 19.0667
[2] From: Carol Barton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date Friday, 21 Nov 2008 13:07:59 -0500
Subt: Re: SHK 19.0667 (The function of Horatio)
[3] From: Conrad Bishop <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date Friday, 21 Nov 2008 16:00:07 -0800
Subt: Re: SHK 19.0640 Heroes
[4] From: Felix de Villiers <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date Saturday, 22 Nov 2008 11:47:13 +0100
Subt: SHK 19.0640 Heroes
[5] From: Conrad Cook <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date Saturday, 22 Nov 2008 10:12:21 -0500
Subt: Why didn't Horatio tell Hamlet of Ophelia's death?
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Evett <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 21 Nov 2008 10:31:06 -0500
Subject: 19.0667
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0667
David Basch argues that Horatio is a hero because, epitome of Stoic
virtue, he conquers his passions. The issue, however, is not whether
Horatio is a virtuous person (I've seen no arguments to the contrary)
but whether he qualifies as a hero. In the wider world that term has
sometimes been relaxed to accommodate anybody who is willing in whatever
limited way to resist or ignore the temptations toward sloth, anger,
lust, etc.. that afflict most of us. In the literary world, however, the
term retains some more stringent and particular criteria, implicit in
texts from the Iliad on and familiar to us from Joseph Campbell's
analysis and many other sources, and it is those to which my earlier
post refers. They apply to Basch's and my common namesake, among others
-- a man notoriously afflicted with weaknesses of several kinds, at
least as many as Hamlet's, maybe even a fatal flaw. A hero, by all the
accounts I know of, none the less.
If Basch wants to make his argument more persuasive to me and others, he
will need to ground his alternative definition of "hero' much more
firmly than he has.
Not very stoically,
David Evett
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carol Barton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 21 Nov 2008 13:07:59 -0500
Subject: 19.0667 (The function of Horatio)
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0667 (The function of Horatio)
Supplemental to David Basch's well-wrought analysis of Horatio's role in
_Hamlet_, I would like to add this observation: it seems to me that
Horatio also functions as a foil of sorts to Hamlet, Laertes, and
Fortinbras. In terms of temperament:
- Laertes is a man of passion, who acts on what "seems" without making
any conscious effort to distinguish what may seem from what actually is;
- Hamlet is a man of passion who thinks too much, and whose
over-righteousness and over-analysis of people and events therefore
leaves him with a crippling inertia born of the inability to act, though
the desire to do so remains very strong in him;
- Horatio is the philosopher, the man of thought without passion (who is
therefore also without action). He is nonetheless distinct from Hamlet
as a type because his inaction is the result of his having distanced
himself intellectually from the material world (an election rather than
a disability). He *chooses* to observe rather than act, and is content
within that role
In contrast to all of these, Fortinbras both thinks (rightly) and acts
judiciously, striking a balance between "L'Allegro" and "Il Penseroso"
that makes him the only fit heir to the elder Hamlet's throne.
Ironically, temperamentally speaking, it is he whom Claudius most
resembles--except that the murdered king's brother thinks corruptly and
acts immorally (and is thus fit only for the role of the villain).
I hope I've articulated that intelligibly, and want to thank David for
the inspiration that led me to add Horatio to the equation; I'd never
considered his inclusion in that aspect of my analysis of the play until
now.
Best to all,
Carol Barton
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Conrad Bishop <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 21 Nov 2008 16:00:07 -0800
Subject: 19.0640 Heroes
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0640 Heroes
>But is Horatio a hero? He is if you accept the adage that asks, Who
>is a hero? and answers that a Hero is one who conquers his passions.
>In that sense, Horatio is indeed a hero.
I agree with David Basch that Horatio provides an essential contrast to
Hamlet, not to mention the dramaturgical function of giving him someone
to confide in besides himself. But whatever else a "hero" may be, he
must be an "action figure." That is, he's not static. If the play
involved Horatio's either conquering his passions or succumbing to them,
he might qualify; but as it is, he does neither. Except for his brief
twitch toward suicide at the end, he simply is who he is throughout the
play, never challenged significantly, never changing. Hamlet might have
said, "Give me the man who has no urge to be a hero."
I see the classical hero as a person with powerful qualities, of a
stature allowing significant action, who undergoes great trials --
whether imposed on him or of his own making -- that lead to significant
change, whether toward destruction, enlightenment, or big bucks. Of
course if "hero" means "good role model," then Horatio's probably the
only person in HAMLET who might qualify (except maybe the Gravedigger, a
kind of churchyard Tamburlaine!).
I'm reminded of a Brecht character's response to the statement, "Unhappy
the nation that lacks a hero." Herr Keuner replies, "Unhappy the nation
that needs one."
Peace & joy-
Conrad B.
[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Felix de Villiers <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 22 Nov 2008 11:47:13 +0100
Subject: Heroes
Comment: SHK 19.0640 Heroes
John, I think it's pretty useless to speculate on what characters could
have done in works of fiction.
David Bansch tells us himself that we would have no Hamlet if he had
been like Horatio. A play made up of Horatios would die on its feet. At
most, we can imagine him as the upright observer of neuroses and
wrong-doings in a novel, but it would be the wrong-doings or problematic
characters that would give substance to the novel. Art is more about
digging into what's wrong in order to find out what may be right.
Hamlet, unlike Horatio, has a deeply searching mind. In his madness he
is the sanest person in the play. He, and no one else, is the tragic
hero of the play. In his words of justified admiration for Horatio the
following description of arse-lickers is more significant than his
description of his friend:
No, let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp,
And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee
Where thrift may follow fawning.
Hamlet's words, "Give me that man/That is not passion's slave," sum up
the whole of Schopenhauer's philosophy, which lead pretty much to a
negation of life itself and a sympathy with Buddhism. Hamlet's distrust
of humanity comes close to this. And who has not had moments of such
distrust of the world we live in? Hamlet's intelligence on this subject
is greater than that of Horatio. I don't know what you mean, David, by
the over righteousness of Hamlet's character. Had he indeed been so, he
would have treated Ophelia, Polonius and his mother with greater
understanding, but perhaps you mean over zealousness. But the novelty of
this tragedy is the hero's inability to act on his zealousness.
Now that I think about it, Hamlet seems passionate in his withdrawal
from human passions which he blackens. In his speech to Horatio, passion
evidently refers to fawners, out for their own advantage at the price of
their integrity and not to his own passions.
In his penetrating understanding, Hamlet rises far above Horatio's horizons.
Felix
[5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Conrad Cook <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 22 Nov 2008 10:12:21 -0500
Subject: Why didn't Horatio tell Hamlet of Ophelia's death?
John Wall wrote:
>My question about Horatio has always been why he doesn't, upon
greeting Hamlet
>on his return from his truncated trip to England, inform Hamlet that
his old
>friend Ophelia has drowned while Hamlet was away. JNW
Well, keep in mind that Hamlet and Ophelia's relationship was secret.
And we have no indication that Horatio knew about it.
Horatio's lines on reading his letter are:
HORATIO
Come, I will make you way for these your letters;
And do't the speedier, that you may direct me
To him from whom you brought them.
Later, a servant brings a letter in to Claudius, who's talking with
Laertes, and brings one to the Queen. The Queen enters, perhaps with
the letter in her hand, and brings Laertes news of Ophelia's death.
So, there's every indication that Horatio leaves just before the
dissemination of the sad news. In fact, she might be drowning about the
time that Horatio reads Hamlet's letter.
Conrad.
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
