Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Deception and spying in hamlet
Deception and spying in hamlet
Conclution on comic relief in hamlet
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Deception and spying in hamlet
Throughout the course of the play, Hamlet, the reader of the text is introduced to several minor characters, all of whom serve one or more functions to further develop the text. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, are two of the minor characters presented within the play, and the pair serve, unitedly, to illustrate several key themes and ideas within the play, as well as their influence on humor presented within the text. Thus, in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, a pair of minor characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are utilized through their actions and their dialogue, as a method of establishing several key themes within the text, such as obedience, deception, and identity, or lack thereof, and as a way of establishing humor within the text.
Upon
…show more content…
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are essentially one character throughout the play, with the pair always being together and always agreeing on the same points. Even in their first lines of dialogue, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are depicted as a singular unit. Rosencrantz begins his first line with mention of “Both your majesties…” (II.ii.27). Guildenstern introduces himself by seeing that he and Rosencrantz “both obey and hereby give up (themselves)” (II.ii.31-32). Not only do both of these lines give explicit mention to the word ‘both’, but Rosencrantz and Guildenstern also refer to each other collectively in their speech rather than just themselves individually, establishing, immediately after being introduced to the pair, that they are one collective unit in the text. This remains true even in their death. At the conclusion of the play, an ambassador arrives to deliver a piece of important news. The ambassador states that “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead” (V.ii.411). Thus, both in life and in death, the identity of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are one in the same, an identity dominated solely by obedience and …show more content…
Hamlet, upon realizing the pair’s attempted deception, pokes fun at them, and toys with them, much like he does to Polonius. In his first discussion with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet and the pair have a short exchange on the topic of Fortune, or more specifically, Lady Fortune. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern state that they reside in Lady Fortune, meaning that they are lucky. Hamlet then proceeds to ask the two where they reside in Lady Hamlet, to which Guildenstern states that “faith, her privates we” (II.ii.252). Hamlet retorts with a bit of humor, calling her a “strumpet” (II.ii.254). This does not mark the end for Hamlet’s wit, however, as he goes into a ramble about how Denmark is a prison, how in a dream one can be a ruler, and how a dream is but a shadow. The exchange intendeds to invoke humor seeing how complex the exchange is over something philosophical, and unrelated to the situation at hand. This instance in particular draws similarities to the ways by which Hamlet interacts with Polonius. A final instance of Hamlet’s wit comes later in the play during Act Four, when Hamlet refers to Rosencrantz as a “sponge” (IV.ii.12). In reducing his qualities to no more than that of an object, let alone a sponge, Rosencrantz is illustrated as an individual who has no worth
The play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, constantly displays a massage associated with the identity of the individual characters and the metaphor the represent in regards to the audience itself. At the very beginning of the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are introduced for the first time to the band of actors on the road however, as soon as the introduction takes place the names are reversed and they are introduced by the others name. This confusion of the two actors as to which is Rosencrantz and which is Guildenstern, helps the audience to understand that the two on stage are serving as a mirror to those watching the performance. Throughout the play the topic of identity is resurfaced and the audience i...
Although the play Hamlet is largely centered around the “tragic hero” Hamlet, it is the minor foil characters that gives us a deeper understanding of the text and a more conscious understanding of the internal struggles experienced by Hamlet. Each of these characters contrasts a specific aspect of Hamlet that would otherwise be overlooked. Horatio consolidates all of the desirable features that Hamlet wants to be into one person. Fortinbras, although in the exact same situation as Hamlet with his father dead and his uncle on the throne, is the complete opposite of Hamlet by choosing action over inaction. Finally, Ophelia personifies Hamlet’s innocence and the death of his innocence after the death of his father. Despite being opposites of each other, each of these characters bring a new outlook on the tragedy of Hamlet.
Within their very first appearances in the play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern leave a memorable imprint upon the readers’ mind. They are rather blurred characters, with seemingly little personality and relatively little distinction between them. They are also “very isolated and self-serving figure[s]” (Friendship-Introduction). They finish one another’s sentences and even when being spoken to by Gertrude and Claudius, they are referred to almost as one person (Ham. 2. 2. 35-36). The reason for this is because they are not meant to represent an actual character, or in this case, a set of characters. They are meant as a symbol, a metaphor for the betrayal and dishonesty that occurs throughout the play. We see this instantly, as we find in their very first appearance that their sole purpose of coming to Denmark was to spy on their friend (Ham 2.2.10-18). Although Hamlet views them initially as old friends, the reader is able to view them as a distant and fake, portrayed together to lend to the concept that they are an idea rather than individual characters or merely the comic relief in the play.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are foils to Hamlet. The two are introduced as friends to Hamlet. But also they are like messengers for the king. Hamlet learns of their treachery to him, there dual loyalty to he and the king. This is introduced in his conversation with the queen where he says, “My two-school fellows, whom I will trust as adders fanged”. They obey whatever the King’s orders not thinking of what there outcome is in the bigger picture. The men are foolish in this way, not thinking about what is really hap...
Of the four young men who occupy a place in the life of Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern appear, at least initially, to be his closest friends. They are schoolmates at Wittenburg, and Hamlet greets them both amicably, remarking, " My excellent good friends! How dost thou,....." Queen Gertrude affirms the status of their relationship when she says, "And sure I am two men there is not living to whom he more adheres." Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are unaware, however, of the real story behind the death of Hamlet’s Father. They do not have the benefit of seeing his ghost, as Hamlet has. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are very loyal to the new King. Unlike Hamlet, they initially have no reason not to trust Claudius. But they become unwitting and unknowing pawns for both factions. Their relationship with Hamlet begins to sour. Hamlet realizes what the King is up to, and he becomes distrustful of the two. "’Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe?...
Initially being sent by the King and the Queen in hopes of helping Hamlet with his “depression”, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are already seen as puppets. As the play progresses, it is revealed that the boys are being used to spy on Hamlet for the King. Hamlet eventually catches on with this, and begins to play around with them by giving them false information: “Sir, I lack advancement,” (3.2.368). Referring to his line to the throne, Hamlet lies to Rosencrantz knowing that he will return this false information to the King. The reason Hamlet does this is to give power to the King by letting him know that his status is not at risk of being taken away and handed down. Hamlet realizing that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not loyal friends, he admits that he believes they should be killed: “Those bearers put to sudden death, not shriving time allowed,” (5.2.51-52). Regardless of whether or not Hamlet was the bad guy in this friendship conflict, he still creates this sense of authority to the audience as if he can sentence anyone to death if they cross him.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, false friends of Hamlet who succumb to Claudius' corruptness, serve as a distinct contrast to the loyal friendship that Horatio shares with Hamlet. Voltimand is used to contrast Polonius' often comic verbosity. While Polonius dresses up all his speeches with the language of the court, Voltimand is able to give his entire report on Fortinbras in a matter of seconds. The most powerful foil in the play is between Laertes and Hamlet. Upon hearing of the death of his father, Laertes becomes enraged, and seeks immediate vengeance; he does not delay, and acts instantaneously.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as minor characters exist within Shakespeare’s world, providing Stoppard with his protagonists. However, the play is not an attempt to rewrite ‘Waiting for Godot’ in a framework of Shakespeare’s drama. In studying these texts, the reader is provoked to analyse, compare and contrast them. In particular, the characters in ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead’ provide intriguing material to consider the human condition. The characters, their personality traits and responses to stimuli, as well as what directs and motivates them, are worthy of discussion.
In William Shakespeare’s tragic play Hamlet, Prince Hamlet conspires to avenge his father’s murder. Throughout the play, Hamlet spirals through bouts of insanity, depression, and hostility. However, across his tragic tale, Hamlet’s old friend Horatio remains a constant. A scholar and a loyal friend to Hamlet, Horatio acts as one of Hamlet’s many character foils, meaning his characteristics contrast to Hamlet highlighting certain personality traits and allowing the reader to understand Hamlet.
To fully appreciate Hamlet as a tragedy it must be understood as a comedy. Throughout this paper I will demonstrate the comedic moments of Hamlet, provide a brief analysis of the humor, and finally comment on the purpose of the comedic elements.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (R and G…) by Tom Stoppard is a transformation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that has been greatly influenced due to an external contextual shift. The sixteenth century Elizabethan historical and social context, accentuating a time of questioning had specific values which are transformed and altered in Stoppard’s Existential, post two-world wars twentieth century historical and social context. The processes of transformation that are evident allow the shifts in ideas, values and external contexts to be clearly depicted. This demonstrates the significance of the transformation allowing new interpretations and ideas about reality as opposed to appearance, death and the afterlife and life’s purpose to be displayed, enabling further insight and understanding of both texts. Shakespeare’s Hamlet was written in the sixteenth century Elizabethan historical context, where certainty was questioned and there was a growing importance of individuals and their choice as opposed to fate.
Act four places a special emphasis on Hamlet's intelligence. In scene two, Hamlet is very insolent and rude towards Rosencrantz and Guildenstern with such phrases as, "That I can keep your counsel and not, mine own. Beside, to be demanded of a sponge, what replication should be made by the son of a king" (IV, ii, 12-14)? The reference to the sponge reflects the fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are easily ordered by the king and do not have minds of their own. Hamlet does not like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern since they are servants of the Claudius, Hamlet's mortal enemy. The reader does not like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern either which causes the reader to side with Hamlet.
... on around them and what their role is in the world. Their life has no meaning and without any further direction Rosencrantz and Guildenstern simply cease to exist. “Guildenstern: “But why? Was it all for this? Who are we that so much should converge on our little deaths? Who are we?” Player: “You are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. That’s enough” (3.122).
In Hamlet two characters tend to stand out as people who have become accustomed to self fashioning. These two characters are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. When these two men are introduced in the story, they both have just arrived at the castle to meet with King Claudius and Queen Gertrude. King Claudius and Queen Gertrude know these men are good friends with Hamlet, and know they can be used to diagnose the problem afflicting Hamlet. When you first meet these two men you realize they are not coming for wealth or riches. They are coming to serve orders of their King and Queen and to visit their good friend. Soon though you can see these men’s personalities shift. They begin to fashion themselves in a way that it is visible that they are just looking for a gain over their current situation. Claudius and Gertrude quickly offer wealth if the two, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, help find out what troubles Hamlet. The men see this as a way to make money, and this ultimately leads to their down fall. Greed begins to creep into their lives. Instead of just being good friends, they look at this as an opportunity for gain. They begin to transform from friends and men with dignity, to men who want to make a dollar. This is very clear when Hamlet asks if they have been beckoned for or if they have come on their own accord. Instead of saying yes we were sent for they pause and stumble on their words. Hamlet knows these are not the men who were once his fri...
Summation, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is a ground breaking piece of self-reflexive theater because it presents the ideas of a critical essay in the form of a humorous play. Though many plays had come before it with the intention of subverting the traditions of plot-centered drama, Stoppard's piece does so with a clear message about the nature of theater by invoking classic tragedies and the post-modernists. The essential "joke" of the play is "wouldn't it be funny if two of the existential tramps present in many modern plays have to try and come to terms with the reality of being in another, more famous play". What we get is a collision of the old and the new, masterfully executed and spiced with Stoppard's own editorial views about what the art of theater is all about.