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)?
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?
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:
contemptus mundi (”hatred for the
world”), a list of reasons why life is not worth living. What are
the reasons Hamlet offers? List them.
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?
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?