The Renaissance - Essay Example

The Renaissance The Renaissance was a time of tremendous change and growth. The long-dusty ideasof the past, grounded in tradition and defying attempts at progressive thought, were being shaken out, dusted off examined and, in many cases, thrown out with the rest of the garbage. The great societal shifts that were taking place during this period in history saw a tremendous shift in the economic base from one based upon agriculture and its products to one based on the town market and produced consumer goods. It was also a time when a shift was started in the long-held class systems from that of feudal organization made up of the traditionally wealthy and the barely recognized desperately poor to one consisting of a greater stratification of wealth and prestige, in which social mobility was possible with little more than a ready mind and a willingness to make the attempt. According to Stephen Greenblatt (1997), “This is a world in which outward appearance is everything and nothing, in which individuation is at once sharply etched and continually blurred, in which the victims of fate are haunted by the ghosts of the possible, in which everything is simultaneously as it must be and as it need not have been” (60). These issues are strongly addressed in the literature produced during this time period. By examining Greenblatt’s statement one concern at a time through such texts as William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Christopher Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus, it can be seen that the Renaissance period was most definitely a time of tremendous upheaval in which traditional knowledge and understandings were no longer so easily applicable. Greenblatt begins his description of this time in history as a time when “outward appearance is everything and nothing,” an idea that can be easily found through many references in both Hamlet and Dr. Faustus. One of the chief ways this is demonstrated in Shakespeare’s play is through the portrayal of Hamlet’s madness. The audience is instructed, along with Horatio, that Hamlet is about to put on a guise of madness in order to ascertain the truth of the events leading to his father’s death after his first conversation with the ghost, “Here as before, never, so help you mercy, / How strange or odd some ‘er I bear myself, / (As I perchance hereafter shall think meet / To put an antic disposition on)” (I, v, 169-172). That this is so is further indicated in that the madness that others perceive in him from here afterward takes on much the same flavor as his plays on words earlier in the play. “A little more kin than kind” (I, ii, 65) when speaking of his uncle prior to his knowledge of his father’s murder sounds very much like his accusation to Polonius of “You are a fishmonger” (II, ii, 174) with the only difference being one is said in an aside when people believe him sane and the other is said outright when he is believed insane. Much of the dark humor associated with Hamlet is often based on this very idea of inner conflict with the outer appearance. Other instances of outward appearances being both everything and nothing include the appearance of the ghost and the play within the play. Hamlet himself describes ‘The Mousetrap’ play of Act III, scene ii as “false fire”, a blank shot meant only to give a loud report. The play is nothing if the king is not guilty of what it depicts. However, it is everything in that the king suddenly calls an end to the play when it becomes obvious that Hamlet knows the truth. Having fully demonstrated that he is cognizant of the vast differences between outward appearance and inner reality, sometimes very telling and sometimes very concealing, it is no surprise that Hamlet also finds himself testing the validity of the ghost’s words to determine whether it is truly the ghost of his father as it appears, or if it is instead a demon meant to lead him to damnation. “He places inordinate importance on doing and knowing perfectly; throughout most of his experience he also places the responsibility for that knowing and that doing solely on himself” (Hassel, 1994: 610) in true Renaissance fashion. This same fascination with the concept that the outward appearance is both everything and nothing at the same time can be seen in Marlowe’s play as well. Faustus is presented initially as a man of great knowledge, wisdom and intellect: “So soon he profits in divinity, / The fruitful plot of scholarism grac’d, / That shortly he was grac’d with doctor’s name, / Excelling all whose sweet delight disputes / In heavenly matters of theology” (Chorus, i). However, the entire play is about the foolish man Dr. Faustus was, his lack of intelligence regarding himself and his ignorance in determining his own actions and their consequences. Although Mephistopheles first appears to Faustus as he truly is, as is evident in Faustus’ instructions for him “to return, and change thy shape; / Thou art too ugly to attend on me” (i), his future appearance as a Franciscan friar, a quiet, peaceful, learned holy man, is the epitome of outward appearances being at once everything and nothing. Although Mephistopheles is a demon and is in no ways holy, had he had everything to do over again, he would remain in the service of God, he refuses to lie to Faustus regarding what his existence is like and he is otherwise peaceful in his absolute corruption of Faustus. His outward appearance as a friar is everything in that it is evidence at least of his sincerity while it is also nothing as even Dr. Faustus himself has evidence that he is no savior. In addition to insisting that the Renaissance was characterized by a fascination with the conception of the outward appearance and its true relationship to inner being, Greenblatt indicates a growing concern with the concept of individuation as it is at once sharply defined and constantly blurred. For Hamlet, this blurring of self occurs as he struggles to determine whether he should act as he is inclined, as the individual, or whether he should act as the son of a murdered father, behaving as a proper son and rightful prince. Although it is often interpreted to mean Hamlet is considering suicide from its very beginning, the famous “to be or not to be” speech can also be interpreted as an anxious consideration regarding whether or not he should put his plan into action regarding the King and the struggle between the completely personal Hamlet and the blurring that occurs as he becomes also the son of the old King. “The possibilities open to Hamlet actually consist of these three alternatives: 1) Either he kills himself 2) or he kills the king 3) or he does not act at all” (McElroy, 1967: 543). The speech begins “To be or not to be – that is the question: / 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, 56-60). These first lines seem to contain little indication that Hamlet is considering killing himself as an examination of the argument indicates ‘not to be’ corresponds with ‘suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’ while ‘to be’ corresponds with taking ‘arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them.’ If this is the case, then ‘not to be’ would correspond to the idea of doing nothing. In this case, Hamlet could expect to inherit the kingdom eventually, living in ‘outrageous fortune’ yet always feeling he failed in his duty and therefore unworthy of his honor, the ‘slings and arrows’ that would haunt him throughout the remainder of his lifetime. To be, then, would be a contemplation of taking action against the king, directly confronting his ‘sea of troubles’, which will probably end in his own death. This is again an issue that arises in Dr. Faustus particularly as the relationship between Faustus and Mephistopheles is explored. While it is clear that Mephistopheles is the demon at first, the manifestation of Faustus’ desires reveal him to be the true demon of the story as it becomes clear through his actions. It has been suggested that this transformation occurs upon Faustus’ signing of the contract to Mephistopheles in which it is stated that “Faustus may be a spirit in form and substance”, transforming him into something that is both not himself and himself. “W.W. Greg believed that as a result of this clause Faustus took on ‘the infernal nature, although it is made clear throughout that he still retains his human soul.’ He became, as it were, a devil” (Manley, 1969: 218). While he retains the ability to repent and seek forgiveness throughout the play, even to the final moments, and he is encouraged throughout by various creatures to do the right thing as Faustus the individual might do to preserve himself, Faustus the demon with his forceful power of nature and the devil, is unable to give up this power which is a necessary prerequisite. Although he remains in control of himself to the end, he is under the control of the devil to the end. Greenblatt also suggests that the victims of fate are haunted by the ghosts of the possible in Renaissance literature which is again easily found in both of these novels. Hamlet’s ghost is all too visible as his father, who should have remained alive but is not, continues to direct him from beyond the grave. His struggles over whether or not to do anything about his father’s murder can be seen as a struggle to understand the various possible consequences of his action or inaction, a haunting of the possibilities. In terms of understanding his own possibilities, Hamlet is tormented by visions of Laertes, who plans to return to school now that the king is buried and the queen is remarried, an action that Hamlet wishes he could do as well but realizes he will never do again. Laertes is to be able to take up his life just as he left it without any disturbing visions of ghosts or concrete knowledge of his mother’s duplicity while Hamlet realizes that whether he acts or not against the king, he will never be the same again. Even his mother, whom he once held in high regard, is now nothing more than a ghost of the possibility for real love, “What devil was’t / That thus hath cozened you at hoodman-blind? / Eyes without feeling, feeling without sight, / Ears without hands or eyes, smelling sans all” (III, iv, 77-80). In these lines he expresses not only his anger, but also his shame and disappointment that his mother has not lived up to his expectations. Finally, Hamlet is also haunted by the idea of Fortinbras, a fellow prince of a neighboring country who is rumored to be marching upon Denmark for unknown reason. Here is a prince who is not only empowered by his father, but who will undoubtedly seat the throne when his father dies. Faustus, for his part, is continuously haunted by visions of men who have determined to err on the side of God. His consistent notions of repentance are usually backed up by visions of others who have determined to do the right thing by resisting the devil’s pull, but Faustus himself remains unable to give up the power and knowledge he has gained and the reputation this has won him. Faustus continues to deceive himself that he’s doing the right thing for his own well-being despite repeated feelings of trepidation and warnings from others such as the good angel and the old man – “I might prevail / To guide thy steps unto the way of life, / By which sweet path thou mayst attain the goal / That shall conduct thee to celestial rest!” (Marlowe, 1996: Act III, Scene III). He desires a long life, which is what he sees in the old man who comes to plead with him to change his ways and revoke the devil, yet he is cognizant that he will gain no such life as his deal with the devil was to give him only 24 years beyond the original agreement. “Faustus goes beyond man, however, he becomes a horrible parody of man, a mechanical man who no longer has a soul, who moves in mysterious ways, constantly reminded of the change in himself, constantly questioning it and doubting his true nature” (Manley, 1969: 219). Every instance he has of a man who has not succumbed to the will of the devil, therefore, becomes a teasing reminder of what he has sacrificed. Throughout each play, it becomes clear that the world is at once what it must be and also what it shouldn’t have had to be. This is all the result of a changing time in which it is possible for knowledge to go beyond the strict teachings of the church and when traditional social structures are breaking down. Faustus must abandon God if he is to learn those things he wishes to know without angering the church, which is strongly reminiscent of the battle fought by Galileo regarding the true nature of the solar system as it was revealed through his telescope. Hamlet must live, or not, with the knowledge that the traditional structure of a throne falling from king to son would not be honored in his own mother’s house while a murderer, an individual who should be punished and reviled against all other things, was established on that very throne and treated with the honor and respect due a righteous man. The events that occur in each play are exactly as they should have been in the natural course of the events that had taken place, yet also as it should not have been had the principle characters followed the traditional law of the middle ages. The Renaissance brought many changes to the world, not all of them good, making each of these plays retain several similar characteristics as the signs of the times were explored. References Greenblatt, Stephen (Ed.). The Norton Shakespeare. New York: Norton, 1997. Hassel, R. Chris Jr. (Autumn 1994). “Hamlet’s ‘Too, Too Solid Flesh.’” Sixteenth Century Journal. Vol. 25, N. 3, pp. 609-622. Manley, Frank. (1969). “The Nature of Faustus.” Modern Philology. Vol. 66, N. 3, pp. 218-231. Marlowe, C. (1616; reprint 1996). “Dr. Faustus”. Masterplots. Ed. S. Flecher. Salem Press, Inc. McElroy, Davis D. (April 1964). “’To Be or Not to Be’ – Is That the Question?” College English. Vol. 25, N. 7, pp. 543-545. Shakespeare, William. (1969). “Hamlet.” The Complete Pelican Shakespeare. New York: Penguin Group, pp. 930-976. Read More