Comparison Of Horatio And The Friar

Within both plays, Horatio and the Friar both fill the role of moral advisor to the protagonist, whose advice Giovanni and Hamlet both disregard.
Interestingly, Horatio’s concern for Hamlet does not stem from an acknowledgement of the protagonist’s dubious moral code, but rather from a fear of the ghost’s intentions. Horatio’s source of perturbation is confirmed when he begs the prince to consider “What if it tempt you toward the flood, my lord.” Horatio appears to worry that the ghost has a malevolent intent that Hamlet, drawn in by his father’s guise, may blindly follow. Horatio’s concern would mirror that of the Elizabethan audience, who during the reformation period began to question the existence of purgatory, leading to the uneasy realisation
that the protagonist may be carrying out orders for a spirit sent with ‘blasts from hell’. Furthermore, this would lead them to question whether Hamlet’s motive for the entire play is moral or not, leaving the audience with the uncomfortable decision as to whether they should support Hamlet’s cause. Whilst a modern audience is still left with this decision, it is unlikely to dismay them as much, as religion tended to take a more predominant role in Elizabethan life- bought to the forefront of people’s lives due to the conflict between the Catholic and Protestant churches.
If you contrast Horatio’s plea with Friar Bonaventura’s command for Giovanni to “Beg heaven to cleanse the leprosy of lust that rots thy soul” it is clear that the Friar holds a much more disparaging view of the protagonist.
Whilst Horatio phrases his concern into a question, in a futile attempt to make Hamlet consider the consequences of his action (which later in the play, ironically, could be seen as his hubris); the Friar begins with the imperative verb ‘beg’- he commands that Giovanni to repent, contrasting the clinical, yet pure image of ‘cleansing heaven’ with the disturbing image of a diseased soul. The judgement of Giovanni by the Friar appears to be emblematic of the church, exemplifying the dread and fear the protestant church was prepared to inspire in the populace in Caroline times: the protestant edicts were deliberately harsh in order to challenge the previous ‘decadence’ on the Catholic
religion.
Assuming both plays follow the general dramatic structure of Freytag’s pyramid, it is towards the exposition of the plays that Horatio and the Friar advise Hamlet and Giovanni respectively against unwise decisions. Therefore, it could be interpreted that both Ford and Shakespeare inaugurate this sense of moral ambiguity early in the play as a form of incluing, placing the characters within worlds where right and wrong are not as easily definable as the audience may wish.
H. D. F. Kitto’s argument that in Hamlet Shakespeare presents a group of right-minded people “brought to death because of [Denmark’s] evil influences” implies the literal setting of the play is tantamount in the unravelling of the characters’ ethics. If this is the case, Shakespeare draws to our attention the inevitability of sin when people are in the insidious, corrupting environments.
Ford similarly sets his characters’ actions against a background of ethical ambiguity. However, whilst Shakespeare employs location to construct a world where morality is warped into a near-unrecognisable state, Ford’s exclusion of principled characters within ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore provides the audience with nobody to hold immoral characters up to for comparison. Therefore, not only the characters’ but also the audience’s moral compass becomes convoluted. By choosing to set their character’s actions against these contexts, both playwrights’ intentions seem to somewhat correlate: they ask of the audience whether people can truly be held accountable for sins committed outside the company of definite moral guidelines.
In the opening scene of Ford’s play the critic Gillian Woods observes that, instead of striving for forgiveness for his sins, “Giovanni rather seeks ‘comfort’ from the Friar and a way to ‘dispute’ the sinful categorization of his love”.
However, the brash, self-confident manner in which Giovanni retorts that his love with Annabella surpasses any other - due to their natural intimacy - could easily dissuade an audience member from interpreting any hesitancy born from fear of god, morality or even societal pressure in Giovanni. It seems as if Annabella and particularly Giovanni excuse their mutual sin of incest due to the strength of their love for each other: they believe the purity of their love negates their
transgression.
Whether the audience as wholly believe Giovanni’s declaration that “Nearness in birth or blood doth but persuade a nearer nearness in affection” is another matter. The audience may begin to question their all-encompassing love when Giovanni cannot bring himself to allow Annabella a life with Soranzo that he could never provide, and so murders his sister-turned-lover. As Michel de Montaigne says, in family relationships “there is less of our own choice, less willing freedom”. By furthering Montaigne’s thought process, it can be contended that when the freedom of selection is removed from the courtship process (as it has been to an extent for Annabella and Giovanni), the love is less significant, and fuelled more by a feeling of duty or possession. This type of jealous love, where Giovanni would rather kill Annabella than allow her to marry another man for the sake of her reputation and soul, may not convince the audience that their sins are justified.
Hamlet famously redefined the revenge tragedy genre, including crucial aspects of a revenge tragedy – a protagonist wronged by the antagonist, bloodshed, madness – yet