Table of Contents

Hamlet, Acts II-III

1. 1.3: Polonius, Laertes, Ophelia

How would you describe the relationships among the members of this family? What do you think of Laertes’ warning to his sister, and of her response? What does he mean when he observes that Hamlet “his will is not his own” (1.3.17)?

2. 2.2: “The play’s the thing”

Recall my question about Hamlet’s response to Gertrude at 1.2.76-86. What I was getting at there is Hamlet comparing himself to an actor—or rather, claiming that his grief is far more than the mere actions “that a man might play.” Think about what is happening here: an actor plays the role of a character who claims not to be a mere actor but a real person. He claims, moreover, to have “that within which passeth show”—to be in possession of a consciousness that transcends, goes beyond external appearances and expressions. On the one hand, this is an audacious Shakespearean claim—that a fictional character can be anything more than what is apparent to our senses: his words, actions, and gestures. Surely Hamlet does not exist in anything other than a theatrical sense?

But Hamlet’s assertion is also existential in a philosophical sense. The interior, psychological reality he posits—that which is other than the surface reality of a mere character—is explored in the play’s great soliloquies. But is that inner reality finally more significant than the outward? Hamlet’s inaction—his hesitation in carrying out the revenge—is what sustains the play and allows the soliloquies to emerge. But do they really get us anywhere? Does Hamlet ever really discover the inner truth of his being? Indeed, does he understand himself any better than we do?

This existential dilemma, whatever its solution, seems to have something to do with the idea of theatre.

At 2.2.370-73, Hamlet asks the visiting Player to offer a sample of his vocation—to perform a speech from an episode in the Trojan War. The context is the fall of Troy, just after the Greeks have smuggled the wooden horse into the city. Pyrrhus, son of Achilles, seeks to avenge the death of his slain father by killing the Trojan king, Priam. Hamlet begins to recite the lines, and the Player then takes over at 392-421, “Anon he finds him ….” Examine this speech: (1) Why is it significant? (2) What do you find most striking about the imagery, meter, or any other poetic quality?

Now examine Hamlet’s soliloquy afterward (471ff., “O what a rogue …”). Why does he chastise himself here, and how is the self-recrimination related to the Player’s performance? What does Hamlet discover in this episode? What has it taught him that might qualify his earlier assertion about having “that within which passeth show”?

Notice that he concludes this scene by hatching a plan to put on a play “to catch the conscience of the king.” Having wailed and moaned and beat himself up for not following through on the Ghost’s command, he hesitates yet again by seeking proof of Claudius’s guilt. Why? Why not just go find him and cut his throat?

3. 3.1.57ff.: “To be or not to be”

The best way to approach this most famous of Hamlet’s soliloquies is to see it as a carefully and deliberately crafted poem, even though it comes across as a spontaneous meditation, a window onto a mind at work. Think of it as consisting of several interwoven sections:

  1. “To be … end them”: the oldest of philosophical questions, whether life is worth living. But also, the question of whether it is better to endure suffering silently, or to take action against it.
  2. “To die, to sleep … so long life”: Hamlet begins to reflect on the possibility of an afterlife and whether suicide, a mortal sin, might not be a good idea!
  3. “For who would bear … a weary life”: this part of the speech is what is known as a contemptus mundi (”hatred for the world”), a list of reasons why life is not worth living. What are the reasons Hamlet offers? List them.
  4. “But that the dread … know not of?”: here Hamlet returns to reflection on the possibility of an afterlife and what it might have in store for a suicide. Hamlet has good reason to be concerned about this, yes? Why?
  5. “Thus conscience … name of action”: what, exactly, is deemed cowardly here? Fear of being punished for committing suicide? But if such fear is cowardly, then surely the noble Hamlet should just get on with it—especially given the contemptus mundi just offered.

The word “conscience” in Shakespeare’s day could mean “moral awareness,” as it does for us; but it could also mean what today we call “consciousness.” This latter meaning makes sense in light of the comments about “action” that follow. The word “conscience,” then, is a hinge on which turn the two concerns with which the soliloquy begins: the question of whether life is worth living; and the question of whether action in the face of suffering is worthwhile. And the two are certainly related. Perhaps “to be” at all is to act, and not to act is “not to be.” But such a realization must be devastating to Hamlet, who when we first encounter him asserts that his inner rather than external being is what matters (”I have that within which passeth show”). Conscience itself, “the pale cast of thought,” is the enemy of action. And yet thinking, not acting, is what Hamlet does best. He finds himself in the untenable position of being cast as the hero of a revenge tragedy, and yet ill-equipped to play the role. Doing so, he suspects, may be meaningless; and yet he is beginning to see that his precious inner world may be equally insignificant.

Comments, questions, objections?

4. 3.1.90ff.: Hamlet and Ophelia

I’d like students to initiate this discussion. How extensive is Hamlet’s and Ophelia’s relationship? What do you think of his treatment of her here?