The
Rest is Silence
Like the
foundation of a building, Shakespeare’s ingenious thematics and philosophy which
exposes the raw nerve of human behavior would not be possible if his command of
language was not immaculate. It is generally concluded that Hamlet is the apex of his mastery. Through
Shakespeare’s use of doubled structures; paralleled and juxtaposed, rhetoric devices,
generalizations to make specific points, and a carefully selected vocabulary he
is able to exact the emotional core of the play. It is this core which has held
a mirror to the face of the individual in society and held them captivated for
centuries, feeling the brink somewhere between complete understanding and the
knowledge of utter ignorance. The following will examine Shakespeare’s
particular usage of language which has constructed one of the greatest literary
and dramatic works of this age.
Within the reading
of Hamlet, but also more particularly
in its performance, one quickly notices the prevalence of repetitious phrases
or words but also various other forms of doubled characterizations, and themes,
and within that, the presence of various parallels and juxtapositions. Even the
rhetoric of the play is highly invested in doubles. “The language of Hamlet…is dominated to an extent without
parallel in the canon by one particular rhetorical device: it is obsessed with
doubles of all kinds, and notably by its use of the figure known as hendiadys.”
Hendiadys is a Latin term derived
from the Greek hen dia dyion which
literally translates as “one-through-two.” It is a device of rhetoric that
describes “the expression of an idea by the use of usually two independent
words connected by and instead of the
usual combination of independent word and its modifier” (Merriam-Webster). For
example, the usage of the phrase “good and mad” instead of “very mad”. Within
the text of Hamlet, doublings of many
sorts are frequent, “but those which exhibit hendiadys are marked by
identifiable tension or strain, as if the parts were related in some not perfectly
evident way” (Kermode 100-101). Shakespeare seemed to show a particular
interest in this device most especially in Hamlet
as it occurs more than sixty times throughout (Nordquist).
The rhetorical
device of hendiadys is, “familiar from the English liturgy, and its remote
origin is probably in the parallelisms found in the Psalms” (Kermode 101). So
it is possible that there is a correlation between the religious origin of the language
devices and the deeply moral, ethical and theologically pertinent questions
that arise during the play’s course. According to Kermode, “Anyone who has
known the Book of Common Prayer is
familiar with such language: ‘We acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and
wickednesses,’ or ‘Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults, restore
thou them that are penitent’“ (101). The fact that many of these devices within
Hamlet come across as being “marked by identifiable tension or strain” (100),
as previously described, represents syntactically the major themes of the play
which are also strained, tense, and conflicting.
Throughout the
play, it is shown that doubling is not only evident within the rhetoric, but
also goes so far as to be a notable characteristic of most of the play’s key
individuals. Polonius seems rather fond of both hendiadys and doubles and
instances like that which follows are not uncommon in his speech: “Why day is
day, night is night, and time is time,/ Were nothing but to waste night, day, and
time…” (II.ii.88-89). As Laertes makes point of, doubling is a defining
characteristic of Polonius. He points this out when he speaks of Polonius’
double blessing. However, funnily enough, in speaking of Polonius’ doubling,
Laertes himself exposes the same tendency in himself by using the sentence, “A
double blessing is a double grace” (I.iii.53) – “a line which doubles ‘double’”
(Kermode 102). In the larger scope of the play, “The role of revenger is
doubled by Laertes and by Fortinbras, and the chronographies of the opening
scene (Barnardo’s and Horatio’s) form brackets for the whole of it” (Kermode
102). It is also safe to say that Claudius himself is characterized by
duplicity. More than once he is described as a “serpent” which is reminiscent
of the serpent in Genesis that tempted Eve by means of lies and deceit
(Claudius killed elder Hamlet with poison in his ears, emulating poisonous
speech, perhaps like that which convinced Eve to taste the forbidden fruit);
general two-facedness. Not only is this another variation on the theme of
doubles, but it also recalls the religious themes of the play.
In fact, it is the
very emotional core of the play which is revealed by the usage of doubling.
Claudius’ first words to Hamlet contains a double that points at the unpleasant
reality of his and Hamlet’s familial relation; he opens, “the conversation with
a sinister doublet: ‘But now, my cousin Hamlet, and my son,’ a remark that sums
up in advance the evil doubling that is at the heart of the play” (Kermode
103). But, Shakespeare immediately presents Hamlet’s pointed and clever wit
with the very first words he utters. Hamlet meets Claudius’ doublet with one of
his own, “to which Hamlet, in his first line, replies with another punning
doublet: ‘A little more than kin, and less than kind’ (64-65)” (Kermode 103).
The doubling within these lines presents the crux of the play and contains the
emotional core which defines the rest of its plot. Another dialogue within the
play, this time between Hamlet and his mother, also uses doubles to peel back
the meat of the plot and reveal the emotional core underneath:
Queen:
Hamlet, you hast thy father much offended.
Hamlet:
Mother, you have my father much offended.
Queen:
Come, come, you answer with an idle tongue.
Hamlet:
Go, go, you question with a wicked tongue.
(III.iv.9-12)
“The exchange between Hamlet and
his mother at the outset remembers the old device of stichomythia and
establishes at once the fury in their words, a fury that has to do with painful
doublings” (Kermode 121). There is a juxtaposition in the meaning of the word
“father” between Hamlet and his mother. The larger theme of juxtaposition
within the play will be touched upon a bit later, but in this instance, because
of that difference in connotation, “In these lines each character means
something different by the word ‘father,’ and the difference is the emotional
core of the tragedy” (Kermode 121).
Hamlet, as a
character, has a habit of repetition in his speech; some instances on which
this characteristic is shown appear when he replies to Ophelia’s greeting with,
“I humbly thank you, well, well, well,” (III.i.92). He also responds to
Polonius’ inquiry about the matter of his reading with, “Words, words, words,”
(II.ii.191) and again later to Polonius’ departure with, “You cannot, sir, take
from me anything that I will more willingly part withal - Except my life,
except my life, except my life,” (II.ii.216). The instances previously
mentioned are the times in which Hamlet specifically uses triplets in his speech,
a characteristic seen also in his father. In his first appearance, the elder
Hamlet describes his death as, “O, horrible! O, horrible! Most horrible!”
(I.v.80) and begs Hamlet to, “List, list, O, list!” (I.v.22). Even Elder
Hamlet’s parting words to his son contain a triple farewell, “Adieu, adieu,
adieu! Remember me” (I.v.91). Within the same scene, there is also a rather
fascinating instance of a shared triplet between Hamlet and his father. The
ghost tells Hamlet, “Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder” (I.v.25) to
which Hamlet replies with the single word of, “Murder!” (I.v.26) that the ghost
affirms with, “Murder most foul…” (I.v.27). The result is a trifold,
consecutive repetition of the word “murder” which is uttered between two
people; father and son. Even though there are a few very small instances in which other characters use triplets,
Horatio bids the ghost to “Speak, speak! I charge thee, speak!” (I.i.51) and at
the end of the play-within-the-play Polonius commands, “Lights, lights, lights!”
(III.ii.64), these come across as random happenings whereas with Hamlet and his
father, it would seem more deliberate due to the fact that the triples occurs
far more consistently in their speech than anyone else’s. Of course, Hamlet
does not strictly use triplets however, and frequently recalls the theme of
doubles within his speech and rhetoric, doubling phrases and using hendiadys
just as much as any other character, but it is the triplet repetition which
seem rather unique to him and is thus worth pointing out.
It is thought that
the aforementioned doubling and perhaps repetition as well throughout the play
may be, “A means of slowing down the action as well as the language of the
play, while all, paradoxically, remains, as it were, seething with sense and
menace” (Kermode 102). It is not only through doubling though that Shakespeare
creates a delay within the play. He ever so easily could have cut out a
tremendous portion of the play by beginning with Hamlet’s own encounter with
his father’s ghost rather than Horatio’s, but he uncharacteristically postpones
the introduction of the play’s plot until the very end of the first act,
several scenes removed from its opening. Additionally, there are instances in
which characters’ speech is rendered irrelevant within a very short time of its
utterance. In the very beginning of the play, Barnardo’s “chronography is
redundant,” because “the report on how the Ghost appeared ‘Last night of all’
(I.i.36); is nullified by its irruption into the present moment” (Kermode 98).
Within a very short space of time, “Barnardo’s speech, its beginning so
carefully presented, is abruptly rendered useless as far as narrative is
concerned… The tension, so elaborately established, is slackened, and the talk
takes a different turn” (Kermode 98). But this does not only occur once. Within
the very same act, this time Horatio’s speech is interrupted. “Once again, the
speech is brought to an end by the arrival of the Ghost, now interrogated
formally by Horatio, but again leaving without answer as the cock crows. Once
more we have this tantalizing false start” (Kermode 99).
Eventually, the
course of the play finally culminates in the fencing match and the last thing
Hamlet says before its start is as follows: “Not a whit, we defy augury: there
is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ‘tis not to
come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come
– the readiness is all. Since no man owes of aught he leaves, what is’t to
leave betimes? Let be” (V.ii.211-216). The jagged timeline of the play seems to
be representing the unpredictability of time, and most especially the
inescapability of its ultimate end in death. In that vein, there is no
surprise, thus “we defy augury” (V.ii.211) and dismiss omen or superstition
because it is no great feat to predict something which is already a certainty.
No matter how many false starts, delay, or sudden, unforeseen circumstance
occur, it does not matter if one maintains a constant readiness; which Hamlet
has done throughout. It is also possible that by ending simply with “Let be”
(V.ii.216) he is not only halting Horatio’s action, but is also, simultaneously
and subconsciously answering his previously posed question of “to be, or not to
be” (III.i.56). “The wisdom here seems close to Epicurus: when death is, I am
not; when I am, death is not; therefore why worry?” (Critchley and Webster). This
may seem especially true after reading Hamlet’s last dialogue with Horatio, in
which he tells Horatio, “Had I but time, as this fell sergeant Death is strict
in his arrest, O, I could tell you – But let it be” (V.ii.328-330). Shortly
after the repetition of “let be” he then must convince Horatio to “Let go”
(V.ii.335) when Horatio is considering the hastening of his own death by
finishing off the remaining poisoned drink.
“From the comment
that heavy drinking was the custom in Denmark but that it would be more honorable
to give it up than to follow it, Hamlet, in what we recognize as his usual way,
generalizes the point, arguing that a single fault (such as drunkenness) can
blast the reputation of persons who in all other respects deserve better”
(Kermode 107). A common feature of Hamlet’s character, much like his use of
repetition, is that he consistently calls question to anything that is accepted
as custom, it is through the
examination of these generalizations that Hamlet is able to comment on
something more specific, in fact, “he may be thought to have himself in mind,
not as a drunkard of course, but perhaps as a melancholic. He is saying
something obliquely about himself in the context of a generalization about
human character” (Kermode 107). Shakespeare not only shows Hamlet’s
generalizations in the words Hamlet speaks, he changes the very character of
Hamlet’s speech to illustrate his shift in focus. “Note that Ophelia and Hamlet
address each other as ‘you’ and not ‘thou,’ as might be expected between
lovers, until Hamlet says ‘Get thee to a Nunnery.’ He continues with ‘thou’ and
‘thee’ until he shifts the attack to women in general: ‘I have heard of your
paintings, too’ (143)” (Kermode footnote 115). By generalizing women, Hamlet conveys
his disillusionment with the women in his life, who, like so many others, have
hurt and lied to him. To him, they are just as shallow, just as “painted” and
false as any of his friends (save Horatio) and his murdering uncle. It is only
by placing himself in direct contrast to custom and by commenting on general
human character that Hamlet is able to understand, explain, and reason what is
going on inside his head in the turmoil of thought that plagues him.
In both of the
previous examples, it is evident that Hamlet’s usage of generalization is very
closely link with the way he uses particular words or rhetorical devices. As
mentioned previously, Hamlet shows a particular attention to “custom” and is
very active in the way he confronts and questions it. As Hamlet points out,
“That monster custom, who all sense doth eat” (IV.i.161) creates a rather
convenient safety net for people, but which also has the power to lead common
sense astray if allowed to become unspoken law. Thus, anytime that particular
words appears, it is being used in the context of inquiry and analysis, usually
showing a generalization of Hamlet’s society or human nature which Hamlet then
turns around and uses to expose something specific about himself or others. There
is only one occasion when Hamlet accepts custom as valuable, and that is when
he realizes that habit bred by custom is what will help his mother abstain from
his uncle’s bed and thus separate her from her sins (IV.i.160-170). But on any
other occasion, Hamlet is generally critical of “custom.” Like this, there are
other trigger-words that Shakespeare uses throughout the play to make some of
his greater points. His word choice is extraordinarily focused and extremely
intentional in its purpose. Like the usage of the word “custom,” the word “’consequence’
occurs four times in Hamlet, three times in II.i., when Polonius forgets what
he is talking about and Reynaldo has to remind him (45, 51, 52)… An important
theme in Hamlet is memory, and memory can be represented as a form, perhaps
fading, created by the pressure of a past emotion” (Kermode 118). When
Shakespeare is not using these particular trigger-words, it is likely that
specific imagery within the play is being used for a very similar purpose.
The specific
imagery that Hamlet uses in his speech ends up being just as pointed as his
word choice. Closely linked to Hamlet’s purpose is the question of virtue and
vice, thus, his language is highly preoccupied by religious imagery specifically
centered on heaven, hell, and providence. The allusions that Hamlet draws drive
at his biggest moral dilemma; essentially the question of right and wrong. What
is right by God, by his father, and by his own morality are questions that lie
deep within Hamlet’s psyche, and what causes offence to the memory of his
father, or mars his soul with sin that drives him from his God and endangers
the state of his eternity. When Hamlet kills Polonius, it seems as though he
decides then that sometimes to be moral, one must act immorally, or in other
words, “Virtue itself of vice must pardon beg” (III.iv.154). Hamlet addresses
this reality in himself when he calls himself both “scourge and minister” of
Heaven. Even though the terms contrast in meaning, there is no way for Hamlet
to be one without also being the other. This reality of Hamlet’s translates
itself in different ways within his vocabulary and he frequently uses images of
health, disease, poison (specifically the kind used on his father), sanity,
insanity, death, decay and burial. Through this type of searching imagery that
he uses while trying to determine the course of moral action, his tormented
state of mind is simultaneously revealed. Part of Hamlet’s speech displays
within it distinct contrasts and juxtapositions. There are instances in which
he takes images of beauty, grace and innocence and casts them in direct contact
with other images of blisters, hypocrisy, and falsehood (III.iv.41-45). In this
particular moment, Hamlet is accusing his mother of incest and betraying his
father by marrying his uncle, thus, in both speech and in deed, he is using the
double structure to reveal a truth; a technique that both Shakespeare and
Hamlet do consciously throughout the play and use frequently.
In a different
kind of double, the theme of parallelism runs throughout the play; not only do
actions parallel one another, but they are also used by the characters to test
truth, and foils between characters offer further insight into each character
respectively. In one instance, Hamlet mimics his father’s actions; “The
apparition of Hamlet in Ophelia’s chamber… is itself a doublet of his father’s
ghostly appearance, ‘As if he had been loosed out of hell/ To speak of horrors’
(II.i.80-81)” (Kermode 110). Hamlet also uses parallelism to expose a truth
that he needs confirmation of. Hamlet’s “purpose of the play-within-the-play is
double: to test the Ghost and to test Claudius” (Kermode 115), not to mention
its obvious allusion to the murder of elder Hamlet. By forcing his mother to
look at pictures of both her husbands side by side, Hamlet shows that he is
highly aware of the parallels between the two brothers and he consciously uses
that parallelism to show his mother the nature of her fault and of his grief.
The soliloquy in which he essentially declares war upon Claudius establishes
the expectation of an imminent battle. This is paralleled by the presence of
Fortinbras’ troops which are closing in on Denmark that Hamlet has just
previously commented on. At this point in the play, war is coming; both for
external and internal reasons. Thus the question becomes relevant again; “Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer/The slings and
arrows of outrageous fortune,/ Or to take arms against a sea of
troubles,/ And by opposing end them?” (III.i.57-60). Seeing
as how Hamlet’s internalized war which he declares against Claudius is the one
which actually comes to pass and results in the enemy being defeated and the
hero prevailing even in death, it is no wonder that Hamlet is given a soldier’s
funeral.
In Hamlet there are three characters which
all foil one another perfectly; Fortinbras, Hamlet, and Laertes. Fortinbras and Laertes foil one another in
their tendency toward fast and potentially rash action. Fortinbras gathers an
army to reclaim land that would do little to benefit his kingdom, but the real
reason behind it is his desire to avenge his father’s death. Laertes too
summons a large mob to overthrow the king as retribution for his own father’s
death. Both of these men use the power of a gathered force as the weapon by
which they seek to exact their revenge. Hamlet, on the other hand, acts alone
and intentionally distances himself from large assembly. Hamlet and Fortinbras
both have a valid claim to their respective thrones through blood while Laertes
attempts to seize it by force. In that vein, Hamlet and Fortinbras were both
the son of warrior king fathers who met one another honorably in battle,
however, Laertes’ father was an advisor to the king and was killed unjustly
with no means to protect himself. However, unlike Old Fortinbras’ who was
killed in battle, face to face with his foes, Old Hamlet died in a fashion more
similar to Polonius; unjustified and unarmed.
This parallelism
does not always lend itself to be a perfect mirror image, however. At other
times, there are themes, actions, or speeches which distinctly contrast one
another and sit very close to one another in juxtaposition. Hamlet’s “succession
of oppositional terms: ‘spirit of
health, or goblin damn’d,’ ‘airs from heaven, or blasts from hell,’ ‘intents
wicked, or charitable,’ ‘ponderous and marble jaws’ (40-50 [Q2], 19-29 [F])” (Kermode
108) when he addresses the ghost of his father is one of the clearest examples
of juxtaposed phrases within a character’s speech. But juxtaposition also
occurs within some of the play’s greater themes. The ever present juxtaposition
between truth and lies is present in Hamlet
as it is in many other works of literature. Within the context of duplicity in
the text, there are many times during which characters use falsity to uncover
and cover truth. Most especially Hamlet himself uses “his own indirections to
find directions out” (Kermode 111) by pretending to be insane and thus lead
Polonius and Claudius’ suspicions astray. This contrast between truth and lies
results in a contrast between honest and performed actions. The means by which
Hamlet uses indirection is to act as though he were insane, but in reality, he
is not. But Ophelia does go insane, causing true madness and acted madness to
be shown together with one another – thus, the question of sanity and madness
similarly sit side by side within the partner question of truth falsity. In
another instance, Hamlet states that he, “will speak daggers to her, but use
none” (III.ii) and yet, when he does hear a noise from behind the curtain in
his mother’s closet, the first thing he does is whip out his sword and stab the
unseen intruder who turns out to be Polonius. In this case, the juxtaposition
is between a character’s speech and his actions, which directly contradict one
another despite their close proximity in the text.
All throughout the
play, Shakespeare proves again and again that his mastery of the English
language is unsurpassable. His tendency toward doubles within this particular
play weaves in and out of juxtapositions, parallels, foils, and hendiadys,
combined with generalizations, words and imagery form the emotional core of the
play which then spirals together with the greater themes, philosophical, sociological,
and psychological elements to create what is considered to be one of, if not the, best works of drama and literature
in the English language. Even without delving into the existentialism that the
play toys around with thematically, the language itself is enough to unveil the
genius of Shakespeare’s work; because without the language itself, the rest is
silence.
Works
Cited
Critchley,
Simon and Jamieson Webster. The New York
Times: Opinion Pages. “Let Be: An Answer to Hamlet’s Question.” July 9,
2011. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/let-be-an-answer-to-hamlets-question/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated. Hendiadys. 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hendiadys
Nordquist,
Richard. Grammar and Composition. “Hendiadys”
2014. http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/hendiadysterm.htm
Shakespeare,
William. “Hamlet.” The Alexander Text of
the Complete Works of William Shakespeare. London: Harper Collins, 1951.
Pages 1081-1125. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment