Tragedy in Hamlet and Death of a Salesman - Essay Example

 Tragedy in Hamlet and Death of a Salesman Hamlet and Death of a Salesman are both tragedies but both are written in different eras and by different writers. Hamlet is written by William Shakespeare while Death of a Salesman is written by Arthur Miller. However, both of the plays deal tragedy with similar notions. For the tragic end that comes to the protagonists of both the plays, the tragedy comes because of the characters themselves. The writers have not given the responsibility of tragedy to the fate but to the protagonists of the plays. Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark while Willy Lowman is a common person. Both undergo an internal turmoil and die at the end. Both of the protagonists do mistakes and receive a hard blow for those mistakes. Both have tragic endings but they receive the tragic ends because of their own choices they make for their lives. Both are ambitious and struggling. The stories of both the plays are strikingly different but in terms of dealing with the theme of tragedy are similar. Hamlet is a classic play while Death of a Salesman is a Modern one. Jonathan Dollimore informs in Beyond Existentialist Humanism, “Mankind are so much the same, in all times and places that history informs us of nothing new or strange in this particular. Its chief use is only to discover the constant and universal principles of human nature by showing men in all varieties of circumstances and situations.” (1989, 255) According to Dollimore’s explanation, human nature is alike but they face different situations due to which, they appear different. Hamlet and Willy both face problem in understanding themselves, they commit errors and face downfall. Hamlet delays in taking action, which is an error he commits. Willy keeps notions and dreams that are erroneous; he is unable to place himself in his society. Shakespeare largely holds character itself responsible for the tragedy in the life of human beings. The sufferings and misfortunes, which lead to the final disaster in Shakespearean tragedy, are not merely sent from above, nor do they happen by accident; they result chiefly from the actions and characters of these concerned. Not character alone, but character chiefly is responsible for suffering and tragedy. In other words, the accent falls on human responsibility rather than on the supernatural suggestion of a higher power operating in the universe and causing human beings to suffer needlessly and causelessly. Even tragic hero in Shakespeare suffers from a flaw or defect or deficiency when in the last resort leads to his downfall and death. Nevertheless, this fault in the character of a hero is not wholly or solely responsible for his tragedy. Fate or destiny as a power beyond the control of human beings also plays a part, in its own mysterious and inexplicable fashion. The play Hamlet certainly produces in us the feeling that there is some mysterious power in the universe, which upsets human hopes, plans and calculations. The very appearance of the Ghost in this play is a situation for which, fate is responsible. The Ghost is not a figment of Hamlet’s fancy, because others beside him have also seen the Ghost. With the passage of time, Hamlet would have recovered from the feeling of melancholy, which afflicts him after his father’s death and his mother’s hasty remarriage. However, fate intervenes in the form of the Ghost who not only makes a shocking disclosure to Hamlet but imposes a task or duty on Hamlet to avenge his father’s murder. Hamlet feels dismayed by the situation, which has thus been created (by fate), and he gives expression to his feeling of inadequacy in following words: “The time is out of joint: O cursed spite, That ever I was born to set it right!” (Act I, Scene V) The Ghost again appears to Hamlet. This time the Ghost has come to whet Hamlet’s almost blunted purpose. Our feeling that fate intervenes in human affairs is strengthened by this second visitation. Fate seems to be insisting that Hamlet should do something and not allow himself to drift. Other manifestations of fate are also to be found in the play. The accidental encounter of the ship, by which Hamlet is voyaging to England, with a pirate vessel, is one such manifestation. If this accident has not occurred, Hamlet would have arrived in England, perhaps never to return. However, fate wills it otherwise. Fate brings him back to Denmark, so, that the story takes the course that it does. At the centre of the tragedy, however, is Hamlet’s own character. True that fate has placed the Prince in a difficult situation, but another man in his place would have executed the revenge promptly, after a confirmation of the Ghost’s allegation at any rate, and have done with it. Nevertheless, Hamlet hesitates and waves. This vacillation is the tragic flaw in his character. The course that a man of action would adopt in such a situation is clear—instant pursuit of revenge. Nevertheless, Hamlet is not a man of action: the only action he is capable of is impulsive action. He is not capable to pre-mediated or planned action. He is primarily a philosopher, a thinking man as is evident from his soliloquies. It is quite clear that Hamlet is one who thinks too much and his excessive reflection on the matter on his part render him incapable of action. His tragedy is because of his over speculation over the issue of his father’s revenge and Claudius’ guilt. Hamlet is no coward. He is indeed, drawn as one of the bravest of time. Nor does he suffer from want of forethought of slowness of understanding, for he sees through the very souls of all who surrounded him. Nor yet is he ineffectual under ordinary circumstances. He has a deserved reputation in Denmark for manliness. He keeps up his fencing practice. He threatens with death those who would restrain him from speaking with the Ghost—even his friend Horatio—and he stabs the concealed Polonius unflinchingly. On the sea voyage to England, he boards the pirate ship single handed, after having arranged without remorse for the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Moreover, yet so far as his duty of avenging his father’s murder is concerned, he fails to act and shows himself as a procrastinator. Hamlet is by temperament inward looking and introspective. He is constantly analyzing himself and delving into his own nature to seek an explanation for this or for that and giving vent to his deepest thoughts in soliloquies. His soliloquies show more than anything else the basic contradiction in him between his desire to execute revenge and his incapacity to do so. So far as a realization of his duty is concerned, he makes up his mind at the very outset but he is unable to carry his resolve into effect. He says: “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I.” (Act II, Scene II) He scolds himself for merely unpacking his heart with words, like a shrew and not wreaking vengeance upon his uncle, the “bloody villain”. However, to some extent, the delay can be condoned in view of his suspicion that the Ghost could have been some evil spirit and his consequent desire to verify the truth of the Ghost’s charge against Claudius. Hamlet was depressed and despondent before he met the ghost of his father. He was not happy with his mother’s marriage with his uncle. He wanted his mother to marry after some time and got in a melancholic state because of his mother’s sudden and quick decision. He considered his marriage with his uncle as a shameless act. After getting knowledge that his father was killed by Claudius, his uncle and he did not die himself, Hamlet’s melancholic state worsened. His mother married to his father’s murderer and in such a hurry that was considered shameless by Hamlet, all these circumstances led Hamlet to deepened melancholic state that made him to think over and over about the whole situation. He was unable to take revenge for his father’s murder for a long time on the basis of several reasons which can be his moral scruples or conscience, moral repulsion, melancholic state and his irresolution in terms of over speculation and reflection on the whole situation. Hamlet was in a difficult situation because of his conscience. Hamlet’s main difficulty can be regarded as being internal, something that is part of his mental make-up. It may, for instance, be supposed that Hamlet is restrained from action by his conscience or moral scruple. Hamlet assumes without questioning that he ought to avenge his father’s murder. Even when he doubts the honesty of the ghost, he expresses no doubt as to what his duty would be if the ghost has spoken truly as he says, “If he but blench I know my course.” He reproaches himself bitterly for neglecting his duty in the two soliloquies where he examines his position “O what a rogue and peasant slave am I…………..” (Act II, Scene II) and “How all occasions do inform against me…………” (Act IV, Scene IV) When he reflects on the possible causes of his neglect, he does not mention among them any moral scruple. When the ghost appears in the queen’s chamber, he does not plead that his conscience comes in his way. At one place in the play, Hamlet speaks as if his conscience was retarding action on his part as he says “Does it not, think thee, stand me now upon— He that hath kill’d my King, and Whor’d my mother, Pop’t in between th’ election and my hopes, Thrown out his angle for my proper life, And with such coz’nage — is’t not perfect conscience To quit him with this arm? And is’t not to be damn’d To let this canker of my nature come In further evil? (Act V, Scene II) If this passage be regarded as correct analysis of his mind, then conscience would appear to be only one hindrance in Hamlet’s way but not the sole or chief hindrance. It may also be asserted that in the depths of Hamlet’s nature that is unknown to him, there is a moral repulsion to the deed. Nevertheless, this view is, to a large extent, contradicted by Hamlet’s sparing the King when he finds the King at prayer. The reason Hamlet gives himself for sparing the King is that, if he kills him now, he will send him to heaven, whereas he desires to send him to hell. Now, this reason can be considered as an unconscious excuse, but it is difficult to believe that, if the real reason has been the stirrings or moral scruples of his deeper conscience, it could have masked itself in the form of a desire to send his enemy’s soul to hell. However, there can be no doubt that Hamlet has a strong moral nature and a great anxiety to do the right thing. Hamlet’s shrinking from the deed of murder is probably due to repugnance of the idea of suddenly attacking a man who cannot defend himself. Hamlet’s reflective attitude doubtless plays a certain part in producing Hamlet’s melancholy and is thus an indirect contributory cause of his irresolution. The delay can be a reason of the profound melancholy of Hamlet. He showed his depressed state in his soliloquies. He was depressed because of his mother’s marriage, Claudius’ status as a king, appearance of his father’s ghost and afterwards the revelation of the truth related to his father’s murder. He continued to reflect and speculate the whole situation and got more and more depressed with the passage of time and with his continued speculation. Hamlet’s delay for taking action is also thought in terms of his irresolution that is there because of overly speculation and reflection on the problem. Hamlet is also considered a tragedy of reflection. The energy of resolution is dissipated in Hamlet by an endless brooding on the deed that requires to be done. When he does act, his action does not proceed from this deliberation and analysis but is sudden and impulsive. Most of the reasons given by him for his procrastination are evidently not true reasons, but unconscious excuses. Hamlet, a man with a melancholic temperament, an exquisite moral sensibility and an intellectual genius, receives a violent shock. As a result of that, he begins to sink into melancholy. In this state of deep and fixed melancholy, a sudden demand for difficult and decisive action is made upon him. He indulges an endless and futile mental dissection of the required deed. The futility of this process, and the shame of this delay, further weaken him and enslave him to his melancholy still more. The shock to his moral being comes with sudden disclosure of his mother’s true nature. She has remarried within a month of her husband’s death and she has married Hamlet’s uncle, a man utterly contemptible and hateful in Hamlet’s eyes. This experience brings to him a feeling of horror, then loathing and then despair of human nature as he says, “O God! O God! How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable, Seem to me all the uses of the world.” (Act I, Scene II) In this first soliloquy, Hamlet expresses his sickness of life and even a longing for death. His whole mind is poisoned. He can never see Ophelia in the same light again: she is a woman and his mother is also a woman. The condition has arisen under which, Hamlet’s highest gifts, his moral sensibility and his intellectual genius, become his enemies. A man with a blunt moral nature and with a lesser intellectual capacity would not have felt the revelation so keenly. The play, Death of a Salesman is a tragedy and Willy is the character who has to meet with his tragedy. Like Hamlet, Willy also receives a tragic ending. He has faulty notions for leading a life. He keeps dreams and ambitions, which are never fulfilled. Hamlet delays in taking action while Willy is unable to understand himself. He keeps ideas that are erroneous. He does a mistake due to which, he has a troublesome relationship with his son, Biff. Willy fails to achieve this success because he never understands what is really needed to succeed in business world of this new society. Not everyone can keep up with the time. His belief that “Personality wins the day” stands in contrast with Charley’s notion that “All you have is what you can sell”. Willy has convinced himself that to succeed in the business world one is to be “Well liked”. He passes this false belief to his sons as well: Be liked and you will never want (Miller, 26) Willy is the one who cares and loves his family. He is an ideal for his sons. Perhaps it is this pressure of being the ideal, which forces Willy to be blinded to his failures. He does not want to lose their love and admiration so, he lies. His lies become the truth for him. He not only deludes himself but also his family. He returns from a business trip and fabricates about the trip. He says: I’m telling you, I was selling thousands and thousands, but I had to come home. (Miller, 26) Willy himself is a failure, so he has pinned all his dreams on Biff. He loves and admires Willy but Willy’s one mistake turns that love into hatred. Their relationship takes a new turn when Biff discovers Willy with another woman in Boston hotel room. Willy’s image is shattered and Biff walks away from him. Biff gives up all his hopes and promising career by not repeating his Mathematics course. He breaks off ties with his father and goes to the West to work on a ranch. Willy is shattered when Biff has left. Biff abandons Willy and all his dreams. Biff represents the possibility of love and admiration, which Willy could attain from society but Biff’s hatred, changes everything. Willy fails to meet the consequences of his own ill deed. Willy acknowledges the changing world yet he deludes himself. Ironically, after this conversation Howard fires Willy from his job. Thus, Willy’s urge to be one with society fails. Prominence is a factor that helps oneself to reconcile with society. It can change the indifference of society into warmth and admiration. Willy believes that being prominent will bring unity with the world. Edison, B. F. Goodrich and Wagner is not the prominent figures for him. On the contrary, Biff, Ben and Singleman are his ideals. All these characters are surrounded men. Biff is surrounded by admiring classmates and girls. Ben is surrounded by mystery and power. The world was home for him not because of love but by command of wealth, power and mobility. The world has become home for Dave Singleman because during his times society was different. Social relationship and warmth existed in his world. His prominence provides him a world of loyalty, aid and love. Willy idealizes Singleman, despite the fact that society has now changed. Willy rejects Ben’s offer to work with Ben in Alaska. He believes that he can be successful in this society because this society has provided Singleman with love and success. Willy idealizes Singleman’s funeral. He says: “When he died hundreds of salesmen and buyers were at his funeral”. (Miller, 63) It is ironic that Willy’s funeral scene in “Requiem” is juxtaposed with Singleman’s funeral. Willy dreams and longs for love and affection. His desire to be one with society fails and thus brings his fall. Perhaps Willy is misplaced in this modern society of America. The society is cruel to a person like Willy who dreams and dies for his need to reconcile with society. His love for Biff also has significant. In order to attain that love and provide Biff with money, he commits suicide. His last conversation reveals that how much Biff’s love matters to him. He says: Biff Loves me. Always loved me. Isn’t that a remarkable thing? Ben, he’ll worship me for it. (Miller, 107) Willy is a dreamer and he lives and dies for his dreams. Willy is unable to understand the society and social needs, which brings a tragic end to him. His destiny cannot be blamed wholly for his ending. He becomes a victim to his own dreams and notions. He has an affair with another woman and Biff becomes aware of it due to which, he transforms into a different personality and Willy is never able to forgive himself for his this fault. Both the plays, Hamlet and Death of a Salesman provoke a sense of pity and fear in the viewers and readers, which are very significant for a tragedy according to Aristotle. According to Aristotle, tragedy is an imitation of life and actions of men. Hamlet’s actions become a reason for his tragedy (Else 1967). Likewise, the actions of Willy Lowman bring a downfall to him. The actions done by both the protagonists, Hamlet and Willy, bring serious implications for both of them and they hath a downfall. Works Cited Else, Gerald F (tr.). Aristotle, Poetics: Comedy and Epic and Tragedy. Commentaries ,1967: 92-98. Ibsen, Henrik. Letters of Henrik Ibsen. Laurvik, J. N. and Morison, Mary (tr.). NY: Fox, Duffield and Co., 1905. Jonathan, Dollimore. “Beyond Essentialist Humanism”. Radical Tragedy. NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1989: 249-271. Kierkegaard, Soren. The Ancient Tragical Motive as Reflected in the Modern (1843). Swenson, David F. and Swenson, Lillian Marvin. Princeton University Press, 1971. Miller, Arthur. Death of a Salesman. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1998. Read More