Marcos Norris
Studies in Drama
Dr. Schaak
Sept. 4, 2008
Response to Hamlet
Dramatic tragedy, as I have initially understood, is a work of prose, performed by actors on stage, wherein Aristotle's concept of hamartia has persisted as a fundamental quality. Hamartia refers to an action or character foible which, in heroic tragedy (notably the Grecian works of Sophocles) perniciously leads to death and destruction, while in later tragic forms (e.g. ironic tragedy), the pernicious action or character foible is acted on by those subjugated and mollified forces of evil inherent to society and human nature. In both forms, the consequential terminus drastically outweighs the initial crime.
Understanding Hamlet's tragic form, I must admit, is difficult upon my first reading. What is Hamlet's character foible? I'm unsure if it's clear; Hamlet evinces a lack of initiative because of his own conflicting and capricious intentions; inclined to assiduity and pensive considerations, he vacillates between fervor and pusillanimity, revenge and suicide, confidence and uncertainty. His pensive pall, however, instantly dissipates the moment he discovers a "rat," Polonius spying from behind an arrays, and swiftly stabs through, killing him. With celerity and temerity, under the impression that the "rat" was actually Claudius, Hamlet abandons his desired prerequisite of certainty and succumbs to the deceptive image.
The entire play thus far has displayed Hamlet struggling with the trustworthiness of images. He considers the possibility of his ghost-father being but the apparition of a perfidious devil; he is transfixed by the deceptive powers of role-playing, when viewing a Player's performance of Hecuba; he even reconsiders his love for Ophelia, once realizing the self-decieving powers of youthful lust. His rash murder of Polonius, in contrast, undermines the suggestion that Hamlet's inactivity was caused by a scrupulous search for validity. In fact, I think a closer reading of the play expands our attention from the deceptive forces working against Hamlet, to the deceptive forces working on every character, and ultimately, the audience. Everyone is indefatigably deceiving everyone. Polonius spies on Laertes and Hamlet; Rosecrantz and Guildenstern are constantly masquerading on behalf of Claudius; Ophelia, Polonius, Claudius, Gertrude, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern all conspire in their plots against Hamlet; while Hamlet, transformed by an ethereal disclosure from his supposed Father, convinces everyone of his madness; Even initiative per se, is but a shadow of a shadow.
After the murder of Polonius, the ghost reappears and is unseen by Gertrude. What is the audience to do? In the first scenes of the play, the ghost was established as real through the reputedly biblical maxim that three witnesses (Hamlet, Horatio, and Marcellus) establish an otherwise debatable verdict. Is Hamlet mad? The ghost merely an apparition? Did Horatio and Marcellus somehow share in the hallucination? Why wouldn't the ghost appear to Gertrude? Is he deceiving Hamlet? Gertrude? Is Gertrude deceiving everyone by ignoring the ghost? unlikely. This enigmatic event aught to rid the audience of stable interpretations. I've lost my grip on the play, and haven't any sensible interpretive options.
Hamlet is challenging my understanding of dramatic tragedy; perhaps, the text calls for a new definition.