THE RIDDLE OF THE COURTIER OSRIK IN "HAMLET"

Abstract

In the tragedy "Hamlet" there is a character Osric, who appears only at the end of the play. For what purpose did Shakespeare include him in the play and who was behind this character?

Full text

1
THE RIDDLE OF THE COURTIER OSRIK IN
"HAMLET"
Lev I. Verkhovsky
Abstract
In the tragedy "Hamlet" there is a character Osric, who
appears only at the end of the play. For what purpose did
Shakespeare include him in the play and who was behind this
character?
At the end of the play (act 5, sc. 2 in the Second Quarto), a new character
unexpectedly appears, designated as Courtier (Osric). It would seem that his
function is insignificant: to inform Hamlet that Claudius placed bets on the prince’s
duel with Laertes (the son of Polonius killed by Hamlet), and to find out whether
Hamlet agrees to participate in the duel. However, the author included in Hamlet’s
conversation with Osric a lot of additional information both about Osric himself
and about Hamlet’s opponent Laertes.
Why did Shakespeare need this character? We believe, specifically in order
to settle personal scores with one of his enemies -- Sir Walter Raleigh (in the
personality of Osric). And besides, use Hamlet’s communication with Osric to say
something also about another and very important person -- Secretary of State Lord
Privy Seal Robert Cecil (son of the first minister Lord Burghley, who died in 1598)
-- in the character Laertes.
Here the question of authorship is of fundamental importance -- who we
consider to be Shakespeare, that is, the author of the play. I will repeat what was
said in our article about “Hamlet”: following Prof. Marina Litvinova, we believe
that the play was created by the 5th Earl of Rutland and Francis Bacon [1, 2].
It is also important that they did this shortly after the rebellion that was raised
in February 1601 by Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex; Earl of Rutland (a friend
and relative of Essex) participated in it. The rebellion was immediately suppressed,
Essex and his closest associates were executed, and Rutland was punished with
imprisonment and a fine. As for Bacon, he was a person close to the Earl of Essex,
but did not approve of his protest actions and did not participate in them. As a

2
prominent lawyer, Bacon was made the chief prosecutor at the sedition trial, which
became a hard ordeal for him.
Now we need to remember that in the years preceding these events, Sir
Walter Raleigh and Robert Cecil were in the camp of opponents of the Earl of
Essex, actively preventing the growth of influence of this prominent political and
military figure, the queen’s favorite in the late 90s.
There was also personal enmity between Essex and the more elder Raleigh
(who was the queen's favorite before Essex). Although they participated in some
military campaigns together (in which they often competed), much separated them:
Essex was a high-born lord, a representative of the "old aristocracy", and he treated
Raleigh with arrogance -- the "upstart" (as he was called at court), son an
impoverished nobleman from Devonshire who achieved everything on his own.
In a situation where the crown was soon to pass from the elderly Elizabeth I
Tudor to a new monarch, and to whom exactly remained unclear, there was an
intense struggle between the two main fractions -- the Essex and Cecils (father and
son). Essex was a supporter of the invitation of the Scottish king James IV Stuart
and believed that in England there was a secret conspiracy against his accession,
led by Cecil and Raleigh -- they allegedly supported the heir to the Spanish throne,
the daughter of King Philip II (and Essex let the king James know about it).
During the mutiny trial, the accused Essex insisted that he had no treasonable
intentions, but only wanted “to appear before the queen with eight or nine nobles
who had reasons for discontent… falling at her feet... to ask Her Majesty to
remove from herself those who abused her trust and slandered her.” They
supposedly intended to assemble Parliament and put Cecil, Raleigh (and lord
Cobham) on trial for what they called "misgovernment of the state." However, the
court did not accept their arguments.
The last word remained with the queen, who delayed the execution of the
sentence, perhaps hoping that “her Robin” would turn to her asking for mercy. At
the same time, opponents of Essex, including Raleigh, demanded that the execution
of the traitor be accelerated.
I quote the historian Olga Dmitrieva (her book about Elizabeth I): “The
execution took place on February 25, 1601 in the Tower. Those who were present
on duty avoided looking each other in the eyes. Robert Cecil did not want to
see…whatever Essex himself thought of him, he did not seek his destruction. Cecil
overthrew and raised people with the stroke of a pen, but the ax was never his
weapon. But Walter Raleigh came. Someone tactfully persuaded him not to
embarrass the earl in his last minutes, and he stood in the window opening of the
arsenal tower."

3
So, in February 1601, the head of the Earl of Essex flew off his shoulders,
and Rutland was imprisoned (which was soon replaced by exile to a distant castle).
Robert Cecil's position strengthened. Then, in March 1603, Elizabeth I died, and
King James immediately ascended the throne (with the assistance of Cecil) -- the
coronation took place in July.
And then positive changes occurred in the fate of the rebels: the new
monarch sympathized with the opponents of the deceased queen. Rutland was
released and his attitude towards Cecil became more favorable. As for Cecil
himself, he got along well with the new ruler, becoming his support. For his part,
the newly-crowned King of England, James I, did not forget about Raleigh’s
opposition and continued to consider him his enemy.
Therefore, a case of high treason was fabricated against Raleigh -- as if he
was going to elevate Arabella Stewart, James's cousin, to the throne (there are
opinions that the accusation had some basis). In November 1603, Raleigh was tried
and sentenced to death, albeit suspended indefinitely.
Thus, we see that the tragedy “Hamlet” was created during years of turbulent
social and personal – for its authors – upheavals, and these fateful events could not
help but be reflected in the play in one form or another. The First Quarto was
published in 1603, the Second in 1604, and even in the short period of time
between their appearances, a lot of important things happened, which also
obviously influenced the differences in the texts of the two versions. In particular,
as we said, Shakespeare’s attitude towards Robert Cecil changed.
***
Let's return to the play, more precisely, to the moment of Osric's appearance.
To begin with, we will familiarize ourselves with the text of the First Quarter.
There, the courtier whom the king sent to the prince has no name: Enter a braggart
Gentleman.
Hamlet (to Horatio): look at this water-fly – The Court knows him but he
knows not the Court.
That is, Hamlet called the man who came a water midge. The point is that the
queen, in the days of her affection for Walter Raleigh, called him Water (derived
from Walter): Walter Raleigh, nicknamed "Water" due to his Devonshire accent.
They then discuss Claudius' bets for the fight, and the conversation is over.
Note that there are no words about Laertes.
In the Second Quarto, Hamlet's communication with this character is much
longer. The name Osric is not at this place either: Enter a Courtier (the name

4
Osricke appears further in the text. Only in the First Folio, 1623, we read: Enter
young Osricke; for convenience, we will call the character Osric).
At the beginning, Hamlet also called Osric waterfly. After that he says
important things to us about him: “He has a lot of land, and fertile one.” And he
adds that his possessions are in great disorder.
But here is what we know about Raleigh: in 1579-1583 he participated in the
suppression of the uprising in Ireland. As a result of the confiscation of the land of
the rebels, Raleigh received possession of a territory measuring 160 square km,
which included two fortified cities... He became one of the largest landowners, but
was unable to attract a sufficient number of tenants to his lands and managed them
poorly...
It would seem that Hamlet quite fully expressed his opinion about this
landowner, but no -- there is also an addition: spacious in the possession of dirt. Is
there a hint of a well-known story (real or fictional) of how Raleigh once threw his
luxurious cloak at the feet of the queen so that she would not get her feet wet or
step in the mud? It was after this episode, as they usually write, that his career at
court took off.
Then for some reason Hamlet persistently advises Osric to put on his hat -- to
use it for its intended purpose. Put your bonnet to his right use; this for the head.
(Perhaps there is a hint of a cloak again?)
From the further narration we learn that Osric was apparently an accomplice
in the conspiracy against Hamlet (he gives swords to Hamlet and Laertes, counts
the blows in their duel...). And this is not the only specific accusation against Osric.
It has long been noted that the name Osric is consonant with the French word
OSIER (willow). According to the queen, Ophelia sat on a willow branch, which
broke, and the girl fell into the water. Perhaps there is a hint here that Osric was
involved in the death of Ophelia, that is, Raleigh is involved in some crime. And
this same hint is in the scene of Ophelia’s funeral. In the Second Quarto (act 5,
beginning of sc. 1):
First Clown: Here lies the water, good; here stands the man, good; if the
man goes to this water, and drown himself <…> but if the water comes to him and
drown him, he drowns not himself.
Attention: The WATER DROWN HIM. As we said, WATER could be
Raleigh's designation. And then it seems to imply that Raleigh is to blame for
someone's death. Whom? Probably the Earl of Essex.
As Raleigh’s biographers note, “along with an irrepressible passion for
knowledge, understanding the world, a strong desire for profit coexisted in him; he

5
was extremely unscrupulous in his means, often cruel and treacherous”
(А.Д.Дридзо). So, in 1580, Captain Raleigh led a detachment of English infantry
sent to suppress the uprising in Ireland. After the siege and occupation of one fort,
more than 500 of its defenders were executed by order of Raleigh.
In general, Raleigh, for all his talents (he was widely educated, spoke many
languages, and was known as a poet and author of scientific works) had a
reputation in the country as an impudent, careerist and adventurer.
Let's move on to Laertes. Osric speaks of his many advantages: Believe me
an absolute gentleman, full of most excellent differences, of very soft society and
great showing: indeed, to speak feelingly of him, he is the card or calendar of
gentry, for you shall find in him the continent of what part a gentleman would see.
Please pay attention: he is the card or calendar of gentry.
Gentry is an untitled nobility in England at that time, which became rich
during the development of capitalism (and became the so-called new nobility) .
Many prominent figures came from among the gentry and received the titles of
lords, in particular Cecil (Lord Burley). We believe that here there is an allusion to
his son Robert Cecil.
Next follows Hamlet's remark about Laertes. Agreeing with Osric's praises,
he adds a few of his own florid phrases. In general, these are compliments to Cecil
(and indeed, as we said, there was a reason for it), but, it seems, with irony.
After Osric left, Hamlet added another derogatory phrase about him: …he
and many more of the same breede that I know the drossy age dotes on, only got
the tune of the time, and out of an habit of incounter, a kind of histy collection,
which carries them through and through the most prophane and trennowed
opinions, and doe but blowe them to their triall, the bubbles are out.
We see that a lot of bad things have been said about Osric (Raleigh) and a lot
of good things have been said about Laertes (Cecil).
I must note that the identification of Osric with Raleigh and Laertes with R.
Cecil was arrived at earlier by the St. Petersburg translator Sergei Stepanov -- he
briefly expressed this idea [see his book in Russian `Bad Hamlet` (“Плохой
Гамлет»: СПб., Пальмира, 2017 ]. He also came up with another thought: when
Osric and Hamlet were discussing bets for a duel, they were finding out the
meaning of the word CARRIAGES (one of them is gun carriages); according to
Stepanov, there is a hint of the Essex rebellion -- specially delivered guns were
aimed at Essex’s house.
What conclusion can be drawn from our consideration? The entire piece with
Osric is a late ad hoc insertion, the appearance of which was caused not by the

6
internal development of the plot, but by personal reasons. Hamlet's conversation
with Osric is quite long, full of vague expressions, and perhaps not very well edited
(in the theater it is usually greatly abbreviated). But at least it has fulfilled needed
function.
References to literature
1. Марина Литвинова. `Оправдание Шекспира`. М.: Вагриус, 2008 (in
Russian);
2. Lev Verkhovsky. `Hamlet. Changing of the Guard`
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360031910_Hamlet_Changing_of_the
_Guard