The Philosophy of Action in Hamlet

Words, wrangle, spoken run-in junctures philosophy of doingivity Central to any gaming is process. What distinguishes dramatic dissemble from other literary forms is the very circumstance that it is acted upon a peg, that voice is presumption to the words and that driveway creates meaning. It is, in that respectfore, puzzling that the near seminal salient subject atomic number 18a in the English language contains, arguably, precious little of what many powerfulness describe as dramatic process. Nevertheless it has moved, enthr on the wholeed and, what is to a greater extent, entertained generations of theatre goers across the centuries and is still regarded as oneness of Shakespe ars almost popular looseness of the bowels.It has divided critics Johann Wolfgang von Goethe regards as central to the play settlements inability to act1 whereas T. S. Eliot reduces the work to an aesthetical failure. 2 If Tom Stoppard is to be believed, even the characters are at o dds with this apparent lack of drama as Stoppards Rosencrantz asks is it too much to expect a little start outed action? 3 If then, we are to acknowledge that action is central to drama, it is important to re fragment that much(prenominal) action is usu completelyy derived from conflict.When regarding juncture by dint of this basic philosophy, the play is in every way dramatic. The play is concerned with conflict. We develop international conflict, familial conflict and internal conflict and it is these conflicts that drive the play. This is confirmed at heart the opening line Whos on that point? (I. i. 1)4 Immediately we are plunged into the separate of paranoia that envelops Elsinore, the question is confrontational and, winmore, directs us towards the international conflict between Denmark and no.way. The drama of the play, however, is non as simple as this.For instance, we must also consider the dramatic structure of a play and apply this to juncture a structure that goes from equilibrium to conflict and then on to a new equilibrium. It is impossible to relate this to the play for who would agree that the Elsinore, at the start of small town, is in a state of equilibrium? Indeed, as Stephen Ratcliffe points out, the catalyst for all action in the play does non occur within the play5. The put to death of small towns puzzle has already happened when Barnardo delivers that famous offset line, a line which itself argues a response to something that has happened off correspond.Ratcliffe goes on to discuss that the line could almost be a response to a ping knock joke but more seriously that it begins the play in response non unless to some inexplicit, unspoken physical action- some motion or noise in the dark, but to an implicit action not performed on stage some motion of the Ghost of junctures father which Bernardo, who speaks this line, must imagine he has seen and/or heard. 6 Ratcliffe also suggests that the action not performed on stage does not happen at all.Alarmingly, he refutes Claudiuss confession of fratricide in Act III, arguing unconvincingly that Old villages murder had never taken place. 7 In spite of this he does arrange an interesting issue that is concerned with the question as to wherefore when in Western literature dramatic narrative is defined by cause and effect does Shakespeare place the primary cause off stage and beyond the gaze of his reference? We are left to imagine the dramatic possibilities of opening the play with the stately and visually striking image of a brothers murder.If Shakespeares decision to leave this kindle and sinister face in the wings confounds us, what, then, are we to make of the rising tide of the play? If we are to afford to the classic dramatic structure of a play, we expect to see rising action leading to a climax that, in turn, leads on to the falling action culminated by the denouement. critical point gives us no such structure. There is no climax i n the classic sense or if there is it appears in the closing moving-picture show, not where one would expect. There is, nevertheless, one possibility that the climax may appear sooner in the play and that would be, in the traditional sense, in Act III.The murder of Polonius in Act III, medical prognosis iv might be regarded as the turning point of the play in the same way that Mercutios death in Romeo and Juliet is seen as such. It is at this point that we see Hamlet at a elevation of passion, How now? A rat breathless for a ducat, deathly (III. iv. 23). The use of the word rat shows Hamlets contempt for his supposed victim, the repetition of dead embellishes his determination to kill, and the ducat is the small price Hamlet value the life he has just taken. The consequences of this action feed into every other event that is to happen Claudiuss resolve to kill Hamlet, Ophelias eath and Laertess act of avenge which generates about the plays last(a) dynastic collapse. Once a gain, kilobytegh, Shakespeare removes the audience from the action, having the murder take place offstage. Polonius is murdered behind the tapis and this takes us away from the immediacy of the action. There is no huge build up with a climactic duel as there is in Romeo and Juliet we are not even given the drama of penitence that is evident in Macbeth. For these reasons, it is impossible to consider the death of Polonius to be the dramatic climax of the play, merely another(prenominal) cause leading on to another effect.This shortage of action, though, is illusory. A. C. Bradley comments on this when he suggests a divinatory reaction to the play What a sensational story Why, here are some eight baseless deaths, not to speak of adultery, a ghost, a mad woman, and a fight in a intemperate 8 Hamlet does energise a dramatic conclusion, of that no one is in doubt, but this has come afterward a series of procrastinations from the titular hero. All other action is kept firmly offst age. One might hear Bradley go on to say Treason, pirates, war, the storming of a castle and a regime change The last mentioned two were included in Branaghs film version strongly alluding to the storming of the Iranian embassy in 1981 an event that was intensely exciting and dramatic for any that can remember it. For Shakespeare, however, such extravagant action appears to be superfluous to his play and is, therefore, not of splendour. As a consequence, it would appear redundant to continue analysing what is not in the play, as Ratcliffe has done at length9, and to focus on what Shakespeare does give us. What Shakespeare does give us is words, words, words, words(II. i. 192) and it is by these words that he provides the action. It is here where I must agree with Ratcliffe when he suggests that, in Hamlet, it is the language that is of importance and not the action. 10 It is indispensable, then, to look at the power of language within the play and how Shakespeare facilitates it in order to sustain a dramatic structure. Firstly, as mentioned above, the catalyst for all the action in the play happens off stage but is delivered to the audience, and Hamlet, through with(predicate) the words of the ghost. We know that these ords are to hold significance as we lay down divided Horatios fretting for the ghost to stay and speak (I. i. 142). The appearance of the ghost is not enough. It is, therefore, the words that are spoken to Hamlet in conjunction with the apparition that help to creates the first piece of dramatic action in the play Now, Hamlet, hear. Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard, A serpent stung me so the whole ear of Denmark Is by a forged process of my death Rankly abusd but know, thou noble youth, The serpent that did sting thy fathers life Now wears his crown. Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast, With witchcraft of his wit, with unfaithful gifts- O wicked wit, and gifts that arouse the power So to seduce won to his shameful l ust The allow for of my most reckoning-virtuous queen. (I. i. 34-46) What is striking about this scene is how it is dominated by the ghost and how little Hamlet rattling says. If it were one of the lesser characters, it could be assumed that they were struck dumb and in awe of the presence of a spectre but, even this early in the play, we know enough about Hamlet to realise that this would not be the case for him.He mentions a few lines earlier that he is not afraid, saying I do not set my life at a pins fee (I. iv. 65), so why now is he so quiet? Surely Shakespeare feels that Hamlet, like the audience, should be still with trepidation at the drama that is unfolding before them. In this short passage of the ghosts speech we have incest, adultery, witchcraft, treachery, not to mention murder. Here we see Shakespeare using the power of words to create the action upon the stage, words that, like Ratcliffe points out, enter through our ears as did Claudiuss poison. 11 Later on in the play we exit see words used as poison, again by Claudius, when, in true Machiavellian style, he corrupts the sound judgment of the vengeful Laertes. When discussing the power of words we must look at the play-within-a-play sequence of Act III, an spirit of the play which has been discussed at length by the critics but also one that brings into question another scene of action, that of acting. Hamlet is an extremely self-conscious play, bringing comedy into a highly dramatic moment in Act I, scene v when Hamlet asks the ghost Canst work ith earth so fast? (l. 170) this is an obvious comment on the crudeness of Elizabethan stagecraft. Earlier in the same scene Shakespeare has commented on the possibility of a bored audience when Hamlet comments on this distracted globe (l. 97)12 and, when Polonius states that when he contend Caesar Brutus killed me. (III. ii. 103) Jenkins points out that the actors playing Hamlet and Polonius were likely to have played Brutus and Caesar respec tively in an earlier play and therefore are about to re-enact the murder. 13 If we look at Hamlets operating instructions to the players turn to the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue but if you mouth it as many of your players do, I had as lief the town-cryer spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the contrast too much with your hand, thus but use all gently for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say, whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness.O, it offends me to the somebody to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and noise. I would have such a fellow whipped for oerdoing Termagant. It out-Herods Herod. Pray you avoid it. (III. ii. 1-14) Again, we have a very self-conscious speech where there seems to be an in-joke upon the acting style o f the actor who plays Polonius, if not intended by Shakespeare it could certainly be performed as such.There is also the awareness of audience as well in the comments about the groundlings which is earlier a unafraid(p) joke which, had they been enjoying the play, would have gone down in good humour. It might also be considered that Shakespeare followed up the joke by including the dumb-show that followed If we look closely at the instructions, however, we notice the emphasis on the words rather than the action. The opening imperative is Speak the speech and interestingly as I pronounced it not as I acted or showed it which seems strange to say when instructing actors.It is true that in the restricted views of an Elizabethan playhouse an audience would go to hear a play but this would not be the case in a private courtly performance. Also we must remember that Hamlet is only concerned with one member of the audience someone who, one might assume, would have the best view of the pl ay. Hamlets instructions are followed by references to the tongue and mouth where the words must inevitably come from and then the fable of the town cryer again placing stress on verbal communication.Hamlet requests a limit to the action, the body movement the acting- so that it is the language that is of paramount importance. In such a self-aware moment of the spirit of acting and drama in the play are we not to assume that this is approach from Shakespeare as much as Hamlet? The players sequence has significance because here we have on stage the mechanics of Hamlet. There is the murder of Gonzago/Hamlet acted out on stage, the betrayal of Lucianus/Claudius and the union between the Lucianus/Claudius and Queen/Gertrude.Here Shakespeare gives us what we were denied in the first act the event which sets the whole play in motion. Not only that but by having Lucianus as the nephew to Gonzago we are also witnessing the events that are about to happen on stage or, at to the lowest d egree, those that we expect to happen. interestingly enough, though, is that Shakespeare has included a dumb-show as if to appease the groundlings despite his earlier comments but it is not through ceremony this that Claudius reacts but rather the words of the players that follows.At the line On wholesome life usurps immediately (III. ii. 254) Claudius can no longer remain seated for he cannot deny the words, something that has been discussed and embellished by Ratcliffe. 14 The question as to why Claudius does not react to the dumb-show can be resolved in performance by choosing to have Claudius showing signs of innervation throughout until he can final examinationly stand it no more as in Oliviers film version. There is nothing in the text, however, that suggests that this is how it should be performed. The king questions Hamlet, Is there no offence int? (III. ii. 227) and in this dialogue there is nothing to suggest that he is suffering from any anxiety regardless of how this line has divided critics. 15 So once again we see that it is words that have more power, more effect and more significance than mere actions. In looking at the philosophy of action in the play one must recognise that the play is essentially a retaliation play and that all action must stem from the concept of revenge. Michael Mangan defines the revenge play as a play which harts the booster amplifiers attempts to revenge this may involve a period of doubt, in which the protagonist decides whether or not to go ahead with the revenge, and it may also involve some complex platting (in both senses of the word) as the protagonist decides to take revenge in an apt or fitting way. The revenger, by deciding to take revenge, places himself alfresco the normal order of things, and often becomes more and more isolated as the play progresses an isolation which at its most extreme becomes madness. 16 It would appear, from this definition, that Hamlet is, indeed, a revenge play but who is it that seeks revenge?I would entreat that it is not Hamlet for, as Catherine Belsey notes, revenge is not evaluator17 and we are reminded throughout the play that Hamlet seeks justice. For instance, Hamlet does not act rashly for he states Give me that man That is not passions slave, and I will wear him In my hearts core, ay, in my heart of heart (III. ii. 71-73) This might suggest that Hamlet holds reason close to his heart. Here we see that contrary to popular belief Hamlet is not a man that is ruled by passion but that is not to say that he is not passionate.If Hamlet were ruled by passion he would not have devised such an elaborate gambit to confirm the guilt of the king but would have acted straight away. Gone would be the procrastinations and Hamlet could have roused up the populace as easily as Laertes does in Act IV, as Bradley points out18, and Claudius would have been dead by Act II. Many critics that have argued this case seem to suggest that Shakespeares reason for prolo nging the action was to fill out the five act structure of the play. 19 We are given three possible revenge heroes in the play Hamlet we can discount, Fortinbras and Laertes.Shakespeare has provided these two characters to put Hamlets inability to act into stark contrast. Through Fortinbras we see the noble prince revenging the death of his father through careful planning and needlelike resolve and in Laertes we see a rash young man whose desperate bid for revenge only quickens his own demise. It is important to note that even with the careful planning Fortinbras still shares Hamlets prolonging of the act when we consider that Denmarks defeat of Norway was at the time of Hamlets birth some thirty years previous.Hamlet, however, does not seek revenge. He could have easily been able to exact it when he says Now might I do it pat (III. iii. 73). The semantics of the word might suggest that he has no intention of committing the murder. Will or must would imply a more decisive move her etofore Shakespeare gives us a Hamlet who is questioning his actions. His decision to spare Claudius whilst at prayer further indicates that it is justice and not revenge that Hamlet desires.Claudius points out to Laertes that No place indeed should murder sancturise but Hamlet delays his action because he wants justice a death for a death- like for like. Significantly, Hamlet is a revenger who is unable(p) to act as Calhoun states he is unable to play the role,20 or to use Ted Hughess parable Like the driver of a bus containing all the characters of the drama, he hurtles towards destruction, in slow motion, with his foot pack down hard on the brakes. 21 Having established the substance and value of words in Hamlet it is necessary to return to the question of dramatic climax in the play.It has always been recognised that it is a dramatic impossibleness to act Hamlet on the stage in its entirety and it is not unknown for students of the text to sheer through sections when readi ng material but one thing always remains and that is the soliloquies. Within the play we have the most beautiful speeches composed in the English language and it is one of these that, I believe, forms the climax of the play. The climax of language that we are given in the play does follow the classic dramatic structure coming in Act III and at the risk of sounding cliched I would suggest that it is the To be or not to be speech.It is in this soliloquy that we have the nub of the play rests and that is Hamlets internal conflict on how he should act. It has long been considered to be the musings of a affect mind contemplating suicide and whilst no one will argue that Hamlets is not a troubled mind is he really deliberating the end of his own life? I would argue no. Shakespeare has already given us such ruminations earlier in the play with o that this too too sullied flesh would hightail it (I. ii. 129) and I find it difficult to accept that a dramatist of Shakespeares calibre would not have developed his main character by the third act.In fact, I would argue that after confronting the ghost and consultation the charge against Claudius, Hamlet has been given new meaning to his life and that all thoughts of suicide have faded. To be or not to be should read as To do or not to do or To act or not to act for it is in this speech that we witness Hamlets thoughts on whether to proceed with the killing of Claudius. Not once in the speech is there an I, nowhere does Hamlet refer to himself. His examples of the whips and scorns of time (III. i. 70) save one do not seem to be justifications for taking ones own lifeThoppressors wrong, the proud mans contumely, The pangs of disprizd love, the laws delay, The archness of office, and the spurns That patient merit of thunworthy takes (III. i. 71-74) Apart from unrequited love, for which many have taken their life, these seem to be the wrongs that are urging Hamlet to seek justice against Claudius. I might take this furthe r and suggest a reading of the soliloquy where Hamlet knows that Claudius is eavesdropping, something that seemed to me implicit in Brannaghs film. Through this reading we can see that Hamlet is acting a role for us as an audience but specifically for Claudius and Polonius.He is diverting attention from his true thoughts of murder whilst also confirming his antic disposition (I. v. 180). In addition to this it explains why he apparently forgets the ghost of his father as he claims No traveler returns (III. i. 80) as it would not be practical to reveal the truth at this stage. Also, the speech concludes that it is conscience that prevents him and the cultism of the unknown when prior to this he has stated that it was because that God has fixd / His canon gainst self-slaughter (I. ii. 131-132).Arguably, this could be a variation of the same rationale yet there is a distinct change in vestige which suggests a difference in attitude. Therefore, it is within this soliloquy where Hamlet reaches his decision which he reveals to Ophelia (and Claudius) when he says that all but one shall live (III. i. 150). One might argue that the opening line of this speech, To be or not to be (III. i. 56), uncontrovertibly suggests that Hamlet is, indeed, reflecting on suicide but, once again, this is another self-conscious reflection upon the nature of drama.For Hamlet, the character in the play Hamlet, must act in order to be and as a revenge hero, that act is the murder of Claudius. While Claudius is alive, Hamlets mind and soul are troubled and only through the act of revenge with a bare bodkin can he bring about his quietus (III. i. 75-6). Words, therefore, are the focus of this play. It is Shakespeares longest and in it we are given a character who comes alive only in language22, it is through words that the dramatic action, except the final scene, takes place upon the stage.In terms of drama, the play is at odds with its form in that the driving action of the plot precedes the start of the play. We are given a revenge hero who is unable to live up to that title of respect and only seems to spring into what one might call action when he has been hit by Laertes poisoned tuck and he knows that he is about to die, something which he points out twice in the scene. Indeed, in performance, the final scene can be played as equally low-key as it can be played dramatic. In a self-conscious play such as this it seems clear that Shakespeare understands the power of words.To a dramatist, all action that can be created on a stage is a representation one that is created through words. Crucially it is through language that the world of Elsinore is created and all those that exist within it exist through the words that they speak. It is, therefore fitting that Hamlets dying words are the rest is silence (V. ii. 363) for he knows that without language he is nothing. Through Hamlet Shakespeare gives us a world where action is secondary to language because, in drama, one creates the other. 3967 words (exc. footnotes) 4338 words (inc. footnotes) Bibliography Primary SourcesShakespeare, William, Hamlet, ed. Harold Jenkins, The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series (London and raw York Routledge, 1994) Stoppard, Tom, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (London Faber & Faber, 1967) von Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, Wilhelm Meisters Apprenticeship, ed. and trans. Eric A. Blackall (Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press, 1995) Secondary Sources Belsey, Catherine, Revenge in Hamlet, in Hamlet Contemporary little Essays, ed. Martin Coyle (London Macmillan, 1992), pp. 154-159. Bloom, Harold, Hamlet Poem limitless, (Edinburgh Canongate, 2003) Bradley, A. C. , Shakespearean Tragedy, 3rd edn. London Macmillan, 1992), pp. 84-166. Calhoun, Jean S. , Hamlet and the Circumference of Action, conversion News, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Winter, 1962), 281-298. Dickson, Andrew, The Rough Guide to Shakespeare, (London Rough Guides, 2005) Eliot, T. S. , Hamlet in Selected Essays ( London Faber & Faber, 1951), p. 141-146. Fernie, Ewan, Terrible Action Recent critical review and Questions of Agency, Shakespeare, Vol. 2, No. 1 (June, 2006), 95-118. Hughes, Ted, Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being (London Faber & Faber, 1992), pp. 233-239. Jump, John D. , (ed. ) Hamlet A Selection of minute Essays (London Macmillan, 1968), pp. 2-32. Kettle, Arnold, From Hamlet to Lear, in Shakespeare in a Changing World, ed. Arnold Kettle (London Lawrence & Wishart, 1964), pp. 146-159. Mangan, Michael, A Preface to Shakespeares Tragedies (London and New York Longman, 1991) Ratcliffe, Stephen What Doesnt Happen in Hamlet The Ghosts Speech, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3/4. (Autumn, 1998), 125-150. , Whos There? Elsinore and Everywhere, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Autumn, 1999), 153-173. 1 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelm Meisters Apprenticeship, ed. and trans.Eric A. Blackall (Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 146. 2 T. S. Eliot, Hamlet in Selected Essays (London Faber & Faber, 1951), p. 143. 3 Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (London Faber & Faber, 1967), p. 86. 4 William Shakespeare, Hamlet, ed. Harold Jenkins, The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series (London and New York Routledge, 1994), subsequent references are to this edition. 5 Stephan Ratcliffe, What Doesnt Happen in Hamlet The Ghosts Speech, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3/4. (Autumn, 1998), pp. 125-150. 6 , Whos There? Elsinore and Everywhere, Modern Language Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Autumn, 1999), p. 153. 7 Ratcliffe, What Doesnt Happen in Hamlet The Ghosts Speech, pp. 135-139. 8 A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, 3rd edn. (London Macmillan, 1992), Lecture III, p. 93. 9 Ratcliffe, What Doesnt Happen in Hamlet The Ghosts Speech pp. 125-150 10 Ibid. , p. 129. 11 Ibid. p. 131 12 Having opened my Christmas presents and receiving Blooms Poem Unlimited after I had written this essay, I feel obliged to cite him for what I assumed to be an acute and original observation.If only Father Christmas hadnt been so efficient, I could have at least pleaded ignorance Harold Bloom, Hamlet Poem Unlimited (Edinburgh Canongate, 2003), p. 10 13 Jenkins (ed. ), Hamlet, p. 294 14 Ratcliffe, What Doesnt Happen in Hamlet The Ghosts Speech, pp. 131-132. 15 Jenkins explains how the line has been used to show Claudiuss calm attitude to the play and to prove his edginess in Jenkins (ed. ), Hamlet, p. 301. 16 Michael Mangan, A Preface to Shakespeares Tragedies (London and New York Longman, 1991), p. 67. 17 Catherine Belsey, Revenge in Hamlet, in Hamlet Contemporary Critical Essays, ed.Martin Coyle (London Macmillan, 1992), p. 154. 18 Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, p. 98. 19 Notably the anonymous critic in Extracts from Earlier Critics, 1710-1945 in Hamlet A Selection of Critical Essays, ed. John D. Jump (London Macmillan, 1968), p. 22. 20 Jean S. Calhoun, Hamlet and the Circumference of Action, rebirth News, Vol. 15, No . 4. (Winter, 1962), p. 288. 21 Ted Hughes, Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being (London Faber & Faber, 1992), p. 236. 22 Ewan Fernie, Terrible Action Recent Criticism and Questions of Agency, Shakespeare, Vol. 2, No. 1 (June, 2006), p. 96.