Analysis of the Dichotomy and Progression of Hamlet
Contributed by Elizabeth Haden, alumna
Abstract
Hamlet points out that his action may “seem”, as they encompass a dramatic state of melancholy one could perform. Yet his appearance and display of emotion reflect his internal suffering are not merely to externally appear. The distinctive separation of these two states criticize the false nature that occupies that which only “seems”. These particular states serve as a predominant thematic element as the contemplative and highly intellectual Hamlet’s ideology of both himself and the world transform through the play. Hamlet alludes to the exterior or falsity of performance stating that the actions and appearance he is exuding carry the dramatic element to where they “indeed ‘seem’” (1.2.84). However, he justifies what “seems” by claiming that his external appearance reflects his interiority, therefore ceasing to be merely seeming and encompasses the legitimacy and truthfulness of a state of being. This ideology, delineating the two distinct states of seeming and being, illustrate Hamlet’s preconceptions of identity before the catalyzing element of his father’s ghost bring him to question and contemplate the meaning of these states.
Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” addresses the universal thematic element of identity, deconstructing generalized concepts by creating a distressed intellectual character who questions its true meaning. Hamlets interiority that is initially portrayed with eloquent melancholy, is turned upside down by the arrival of a ghost assuming the shape of his deceased father. Hamlet then becomes suspicious of those around him, scrutinizing the authenticity of their character. The character of Hamlet, his perception and transforming philosophy creates the richness, intrigue, and universality of the play. “Hamlet” suitably begins with the question “Who’s there?” (1.1.1). This introduces and embodies the conflicts presented throughout the play as Hamlet questions the identity of both those around him and ultimately himself. This question reflects the evolving and ambiguous nature of Hamlet’s character as he is thrust into a spiraling intellectual downfall. He loses faith in man, God, and all that is termed a reality of the world as he only discovers deception and artifice within every encounter. Within Hamlet’s soliloquies, the audience is allowed insight into the progression of the character’s ideology and identity. “Hamlet’s” mastery comes from the complexities of the character’s interrelations, particularly as it governs Hamlet’s ideology that determines his concept of self. Hamlet’s conflicted nature toward self-identity and the struggle of internal motivation with external action progresses his understanding of life, ultimately leaving him clinging to the only truth he has encountered: performance.
Hamlet identifies the distinct difference between what “seems”, or merely appears to be, and what “is”, the state of authentically being. When questioned by his mother, Gertrude, as to why he seems excessively upset by the recent death of his father, Hamlet critiques her accusation. “Seems, madam? Nay, it is, I know not ‘seems’” (1.2.76). Through the conveyance of his ideology at this stage, Hamlet characterizes the differences in appearance and interiority.
“These indeed ‘seem’,
For they are actions that a man might play;
But I have within which passeth show —-
These but the trappings and the suits of woe.”
(1.2.84-86).
Hamlet’s earlier conceptions distinguishing what “seems” and what “is” are challenged as he begins to see a bridge connecting the two through the false action of performance. Hamlet’s soliloquy at the end of Act II, begins “Now I am alone” (2.2.527) which communicates that he is unmasking himself to reveal his thoughts and emotion. Hamlet to this point has maintained an element of interiority, contemplating action yet always hesitant to do so. When Hamlet calls upon the player to perform speeches from Pyrrhus and Hecuba, Hamlet becomes fascinated by the portrayal of action within the recitation of the scene. He contrasts his own passivity to the action of the player.
“Is it not monstrous that this player here
But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,
Could force his soul so to his own conceit
That from her working all his visage waned”
(2.2.528-531)
The player’s portrayal of the role carries within it the ability to reach out and touch the hearts of the audience, painting the scene with his seemingly passionate words. Through the relationship of the internal authenticity of the individuals in the audience and the façade of the performer, a fiction creates its own reality. Hamlet contemplates the relationship between the internal and external self as this player, who has not the pain and passion he carries, is able to call upon his skilled faculty to seem, to put forth such a natural performance. Hamlet comments on this disconnection asking, “What’s Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba, / That he should weep for her?” (2.2. 536-537). The player’s ability to call upon his passion for Hecuba contrasted to Hamlet’s passivity toward the accusation of his father’s murder disgusts him, as he sees himself as the one authentically having “the motive and the cue for passion” (2.2.564). Hamlet scolds himself for his hesitation. Due to his intense contemplation, Hamlet criticizes his lack of anger as he sees no other reason for his inaction “But that I am pigeon-livered and lack gall” (2.2.554) to drive himself into action, which he perceives to be an important tenet of being a king. He goes on to state that he “Must, like a whore unpack my heart with words” (2.2.563) as he cannot bring himself to act without just cause despite his desire and emotion. However, in this moment he decides to use these characteristics and his intellect to his advantage. After witnessing the effect of mere external artifice, Hamlet develops a unique understanding of the relationship between the skillful player and the audience, as well as the impact upon the internal conscience, “by the very cunning of the scene” (2.2.567), momentarily bringing a new reality to its audience. Hamlet decidedly makes this his tool for action. He devises a plan to create a play within a play, “For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak / With most miraculous organ” (2.2.270-271). Hamlet demonstrates his intention to use the artificial mask of the professional seemer to unlock the truth of his father’s death. This soliloquy, in particular, exemplifies the moment when Hamlet realizes the power held within these façades and performance.
Hamlet constructs a play within a play wherein he plans “catch the conscience of the King” (2.2.582). Hamlet understands the connection of the theatre and reality differently than those around him. Having witnessed the intense effect a performance can have upon its viewers, he uses the external, or false passion of the performer “censure of [King Claudius’s] seeming” (3.2.79). Through this Hamlet judges only the outward or external appearance of Claudius, seeking grounds for murder based solely upon what seems. At this point, Hamlet’s concept of what is and what seems has reversed as he places his faith in the only action he can justify, the artifice he once despised. Hamlet, elated with the reaction of King Claudius, seemingly disturbed, ceases the production. Feeling full of pride and accomplishment, Hamlet gibes King Claudius, remarking that, “Your majesty, and we that have free souls, it touches us not” (3.2.220-221), openly accusing Claudius of the action of murder of which performance portrayed. This marks Hamlet’s inverse in ideology. To this point he has only contemplated the meaning and purpose of action, without being driven to it. As Hamlet completes his production of “The Mousetrap”, he resolves that the only truth and honesty in the world arises from accepting the world as a stage and the people as professional seemers, putting forth their façades and wearing the masks they desire. After Hamlet’s ideology of seeming is altered, he becomes more dependent upon the external façade rather than his true nature, thereby making his own life a performance.
Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” characterizes the transformation of self-identity as the intellectual observer eradicates his interiority solely becoming the performer. Hamlet has increasingly lost faith in the world around him. He is met with deceit, insult, and shame to which he reasons man’s reality exists only through the deceptive masks people wear and the role they assume thereby, making reality itself a performance; such as is witnessed in the world of drama and fiction. What truly is and what just appears to be or seems become intertwined as Hamlet loses faith in the truth of reality, or what is generally perceived as fact. Hamlet becomes dependent upon fiction as he paradoxically only finds authenticity in what seems, or the act of performance. The only way Hamlet can take action in his own life is through performance because the lines delineating the difference between reality and fiction are no longer discernable. Through this, Hamlet’s concept of identity is fused with the process of seeming. People tend to consist of two selves, the internal or private self and the external or public self. In regards to the public self, the role one assumes in their interrelations defines them and creates what could be termed a façade. This is the malleable image a person projects which directly corresponds to how they wish to be perceived. Hamlet concludes the meaning of human life is the performance or role one puts on in the reality he has accepted as artificial and without true meaning, other than that of the actor who plays his part.
Work Cited:
Shakespeare, William, and Stephen Greenblatt. Measure for Measure. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. Print.
Also published on Medium.
