The Characterization of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern from Shakespeare’s Hamlet

...

by the King and Queen, but it is assumed that they do not understand the full motives behind Claudius’ decision (Ham. 2.2:255). Hamlet’s explanation of the situation is followed by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s laughter. When Hamlet questions, “Why did ye laugh then”, Rosencrantz’s reply is witty to show that they simply think Hamlet’s accusation is ridiculous (2.2:273). There are further interpretations that the two men laughed because they know that Hamlet’s allegation is true, and they are attempting to make Hamlet feel ridiculous. Rosencrantz’s response presents a dual meaning of the characters, either as innocent or informed.

Although the characters can be interpreted differently, Stoppard and Shakespeare are not creating different characters, but rather Stoppard is taking his interpretation of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern further than Shakespeare. The differences do not create a division between the two plays, but rather it establishes a positive relationship between the two plays. In Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern could be viewed as very intelligent and well-aware of the complicated situation in which they are placed. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, in contrast, presents the two characters as very foolish and naïve. This would show that the eras in which they were written had very different effects on their characterizations. However, when looking at the scene from Hamlet’s second act as presented in the previous paragraph, it is necessary to take into account Stoppard’s interpretation of the characters identities. He views Rosencrantz as foolish and quick to respond. Therefore, it is fair to assume that Rosencrantz cannot be taken seriously in his response to Hamlet (2.2:273). He is not being intentionally evasive in his actions. He is simply attempting to be clever.

It is argued by critics of Hamlet, that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern knew that the commission they give to Hamlet contained an order to dispose of him. However, it is not stated specifically in the play that this is true. The gravedigger, who represents the general understanding of Denmark, is under the impression that Hamlet was dispatched to England “because ‘a was mad. ‘A shall recover his wits there” (Ham. 5.1.134-135). Morgan believes that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were under the same impression. They believed that they were helping their friend regain sanity. Morgan states that they were simply “two faithful friends who loyally came to help him, only to gain his unjust suspicion and to meet death because of his actions” (397). He believed that Shakespeare many times throughout his works uses the dramatic device that “There is no tragedy greater than that the innocent should die” (397). This gives evidence that “he meant Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to be innocent victims of circumstances” so that he could use this motif again (397). Morgan’s understanding of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern support the notion that the two men are pawns in a game and that Stoppard is emphasizing this idea by drawing out their foolish and naïve characteristics.

The underlying plot in correlation with the reuse of characters unites the plays and reveals the similarities between the different eras and “with its ‘pluralities of contexts’, Rosencrantz’s ambiguities and its seeming absurdity take on a new dimension entirely. It’s superimposing of one play on another, making Hamlet so much a part of contemporary culture and science” (Freeman 25). Once their individual characteristics and combined interactions have been established, the two characters can link the two eras that influenced the two plays. There are common themes of “role playing versus identity” and “whether life and the universe are random or deterministic” which influence both Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (Fleming 53). The larger issues of Shakespeare’s era reflect the crises and changes occurring in this time and are echoed in Hamlet. Shakespeare’s time witnessed the “fundamental reconceptualizations of reality” as the world moved out of the Renaissance and into the Reformation (Freeman 20). Stoppard used these issues and the characters to express the paradigm shifts occurring in his own time period, which generally focused around industrialization and science, but “given Stoppard’s knowledge of modern science, it is not surprising that he provided a literary focal point for this emerging paradigm” (24). “Stoppard’s audience is encouraged to view modern challenges to political, cultural, scientific, and even textual authority in light of the Renaissance’s own anxiety-ridden shift into new modes of conceptualization” (21). For Stoppard’s time period, the idea that a Theatre of the Absurd play contained such an elaborate plot was unusual. Freeman argues that the underlying plot allows the play to be absurd but still have meaning because the characters “must play a role that is strictly defined but still hopelessly unfathomable” (20). This proves that the “larger plot that unites these two plays is one which defines the uncertainties of a failing paradigm in dramatic terms as both authors’ plays reflect their respective periods of crisis and change” (21).

Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead work in tandem to create characters that are essential to representing the eras of Shakespeare and Stoppard. While they appear to have such minor roles in Hamlet, they have an undeniable significance that was recognized by Stoppard. Freeman reflects on the idea that “Stoppard enlarges upon the theme of introspection in Hamlet by making the audience an integral part of Rosencrantz’s and Guildenstern’s quest for self-knowledge. Such a quest is not absurd” (33). The two men are peculiar, lighthearted, and funny, but also have an underlying value that provides key themes to both plays and allows the plays to be compared. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern stretch beyond absurdity, and are far from meaningless characters.

Works Cited

Boyce, Charles. “Hamlet.” Critical Companion To William Shakespeare: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work. Vol. 1. New York: Facts on File, 2005. 135-154. Print.

Fleming, John. Stoppard’s Theatre: Finding Order amid Chaos. Austin: U of Texas P, 2001. Print.

Freeman, John. “Holding up the Mirror to Mind’s Nature: Reading ‘Rosencrantz’ ‘Beyond Absurdity’.” Modern Language Review 91.1 (1996): 20-39. JSTOR. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.

Morgan, Alice. “True Friends of Hamlet.” The English

...