Society in general, and not just that of the Elizabethan era requires that the vengeful be obligated to wait until they have gathered sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of their suspect, then to present this publicly. The ghost’s testimony must be substantiated before Hamlet can act and he subsequently feels the necessity to put on a performance in order to ‘catch the conscience of the king’ in as public yet subtle a situation as possible. Hamlet summons Horatio for his second witness during the performance, so his suspicions can be confirmed, whilst he simultaneously records the reactions of Claudius, just as any social justice system would expect. The idea that the ghost’s word must be tested for validity was a very new concept which became more predominant in Elizabethan society. In Hamlet’s analysis of the performance, the impression given is of Hamlet’s highly charged mind in which all the complexities of what he sees are included in what is ‘monstrous’, which suggests unnaturalness. His language contains tension between the physical words, describing the Player’s actions, with a natural response of this in ‘wann’d’, ‘tears’, ‘broken voice’ on one hand, and abstract terms such as ‘fiction’, ‘dream’ and ‘conceit’ on the other. Hamlet mentions ‘conceit’, which hints at a disturbing thought that something real, such as the physical tears of the Player, can be created out of nothingness. This is further emphasized by the knowledge that acting is pretence, powerful enough to provoke physical side effects, and this makes Hamlet anxious. Hamlet still delays in seeking revenge here because his mind can now make no connection between interior truth and outward appearance, and therefore he must search for more substantial evidence. Hamlet concludes his thoughts in this soliloquy in perfect iambic pentameter. From ‘More relative than this. – The play’s the thing’, the long vowels and consonants solidify Hamlet’s internal, emotional development and understanding, suggesting that he has reached a harmonious state of mind, that his ‘antic disposition’ is feigned, and that he needs the more emotional logic of Claudius’ motives in order to find tangible evidence.
Hamlet is placed where repellent forces of society compel him in more than one direction, which cloud his judgement to seek vengeance, causing him to reach an awkward stalemate for the greater part of the play. Hamlet is initially caught between two codes of honour: the chivalric code of honour expects Hamlet to avenge his father’s death, whereas the Elizabethan code of honour forbids the questioning of the king’s divine authority, and also forbids the notion of revenge as set by the state and church. Hamlet also finds himself suspended between Catholicism, the religion that dominated Court politics, with which he was encouraged to align himself with, and Protestant Lutheranism, whose influence came from Hamlet’s education at the Protestant establishment at Wittenberg. These conflicting religious doctrines cause Hamlet to become torn between the two supposedly moral paths to take. Lutheranism forces Hamlet to question the ghost’s validity because it holds a strong belief that Purgatory does not exist, and therefore the apparition of the ghost would be hell-sent to tempt Hamlet into committing a mortal sin that would send him to eternal damnation. However the ghost can be seen in terms more closely aligned with Catholic belief and doctrine, appealing to Hamlet in Catholic terms and in terms of a medieval revenge code. Hamlet, in deep grief, cannot respond to his appeal as a suffering spirit, and as a father to son with refusal, and swears to swipe ‘the table of my memory’ clean of all but the ghost’s ‘commandment all alone shall live’. As to his ‘word’, we can see how he conveniently recalls merely remembering the ghost, not avenging him. Since his procrastination begins at such an early stage in the play, we are led to believe that the fundamental diversion of mindset lies initially with the ghost’s words, ‘Remember me’, tempting Hamlet into thinking too much about his orders, rather than taking action, a reflective process that comes quite naturally to the emergent Renaissance values of Hamlet.
Hamlet was introduced when the Elizabethan era was undergoing somewhat turbulent religious reformation in terms of medieval superstition to Renaissance humanism. For that reason, areas of society such as entertainment were strictly monitored. Plays containing aspects of political and religious inclination were censored, and therefore Shakespeare had to very subtly portray Hamlet’s attitudes by disguising them with thought patterns which forced the spectator to decipher the meaning with his own intellect. An example of this would be when Hamlet allows a perfect opportunity to kill Claudius to slip away as a result of his procrastination. In continuing the more Catholic mode of thinking, Hamlet thinks it ‘would be scanned’ to kill Claudius at prayer because he does not want to send the king to heaven as he is apparently repenting his ‘rank offence’. Hamlet remembers that the ‘villain kills [his] father’ and he will not allow his father to suffer in Purgatory whilst Claudius’ soul is sent to heaven. Procrastination in church suggests that Hamlet can now use his virtue of patience by resisting the use of violence in a situation which would credit him no gain. He must wait for the king to be in an act that ‘has no relish of salvation in’t’ and so he waits until the opportunity arises to catch Claudius ‘in th’ incestuous pleasure of his bed’.
Hamlet appears to resolve his anxieties concerning his dilemma when he discusses the futility of life with Horatio. The scene where Ophelia is laid to rest displays visually the hierarchy of Elsinore, subtly satirising the feudalistic hierarchy present in Elizabethan society. This scene suddenly places the Elsinore court in an incongruous, unexpected context which highlights the artificiality of the king’s authority and the court’s ceremony, which appear trivial alongside the graveyard scene. This provokes the audience to question the divine authority of the Monarchy and its values, and whether it is justified in being considered a moral figurehead. Here, Hamlet comes to accept of mortality, where he sees greatness being converted into a stop for a beer-barrel. The ‘noble dust of Alexander’ contrasts the glory of life and his disgust in death. ‘Imperious Caesar’ contrasts with ‘stopping a bung-hole’ and the permanence of death suggested in ‘clay’ is reinforced by ‘dust’, ‘earth’, ‘loam’ and ‘beer-barrel’. This language and use of monosyllabic vocabulary ridicules the nonsensical situation with which Hamlet comes to his realisation. The gravedigger combines contradictory elements in order to reverse the normal implications of his statement. For example he explains that Ophelia’s desire to ‘wilfully’ seek ‘salvation’ is not a sin, however he stresses that for Ophelia to ‘seek her own salvation’ is a euphemism for ‘take her own life’, and the meaning is thereby subverted. Similarly, Ophelia having ‘drowned herself in her own defence’ makes nonsense of ‘in her own defence’ which reiterates that suicide is a defence against life’s hardships, which is what Hamlet now disregards as a preternatural attempt to usurp the power of fate.
Hamlet’s realisation that all life forms deteriorate into dust makes the murder of Claudius more straight forward. However if Hamlet has come to this conclusion, the appearance of the ghost becomes extremely ambiguous. The focus of duty has now transferred solely onto him, and the duty to seek revenge becomes personal. Throughout the play, the grievance of his father, the dismay in his mother and the duty of the court had affected Hamlet. However for the first time, Hamlet, emancipated, refers to himself as ‘I, Hamlet’, and recognises himself as ‘the Dane’, articulating now his desire for a prominent identity. Hamlet had been faced with the universal dilemma which was a major part of Elizabethan society, the question of identity, and that was his primary dilemma. Shakespeare demonstrates through Hamlet here a flaw where, although his shift in change of mentality allows Hamlet to be able to think with a clearer mindset and therefore accept fate, we now see that Hamlet essentially abandons his personal duty to his father and ‘Let be’ his responsibility of duty to providence. Whilst considering this flaw, it is important that Shakespeare makes us realise that the common goal for ultimate perfection is unattainable and that this method of self persuasion is one which is continuously taking place in the human mentality, thus reminding us again that Hamlet is merely a mortal, hence the tension is relieved from the shoulders of Hamlet and the pressure lifted from Elizabethan society.
The tensions which were a part of Elizabethan society are shown as a development of a humanity which Hamlet assumes when faced with his dilemma. We are able to recognise how Shakespeare portrays these attitudes by studying the way in which Hamlet reacts to specific scenarios. On the surface it can be accepted that Hamlet’s periods of reflection and melancholia contribute to his delay. The amount of time passed is insignificant in comparison to the process of thought and the revelation of mortality which takes place in Hamlet’s psyche. But it is also true that both Hamlet’s distemper and delay result from and are appropriate to the perplexing and dangerous task that fate has thrust upon him. It is not until the end of the play that Hamlet begins to accept fate as part of life, which in order for it to be pursued successfully, must be initially accepted.
Christina Yau
Bibliography
Brooks, Jean, Hamlet by William Shakespeare (London: Macmillan: 1986)
Cantor, Paul, Hamlet (Cambride University Press: 1989)
Davison, Peter, Hamlet (London: Macmillan: 1983)
Muir, Kenneth, Shakespeare: Hamlet (London: 1963)
Wells, Stanley & Orlin, Lena Cowen, Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide (Oxford University Press: 2003)
Wilson, J. Dover, What Happens in Hamet (London: 1963)
