The Meta-drama in Hamlet by Shakespeare - Essay Example

The Play Within a Play Whether ic or modern, the power of tragedy still works to capture our imaginations with unforgettable stories and in depth analyses of individual characters. As the action of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark unfolds, Shakespeare tells the story of the young prince of Denmark who is informed by the ghost of his father that his Uncle Claudius, now married to Hamlet’s mother, murdered his father with poison. The ghost demands vengeance, but Hamlet is unsure whether he should believe the ghost and begins to look for ways to prove that what the ghost says is true. At the same time, Hamlet knows he must also find a way to bring about the revenge that is demanded if the ghost is correct. Hamlet feigns insanity to discover the truth, but he also employs other means of trying to determine whether or not his uncle is guilty of the crimes the ghost has accused him of committing. One example of this can be found in Act III, scene II in the Mousetrap play, frequently referred to as the ‘play within the play’, in which Hamlet directs the players to act out the story of a man poisoning the king in order to marry the queen and seize power for himself. The function of the play is to uncover the conscience of the king, but Shakespeare also uses it to heighten the tension between Hamlet and the King and helps to expose the metadrama within the play itself. Throughout much of the play, Hamlet’s speeches can be seen to indicate more than one aspect of his character, such as in the Player’s speech (II, ii). This scene has been interpreted as Hamlet trying to remind himself of the need for revenge, trying to prove the need for revenge or trying to stir himself into the action of revenge due to the nature of the play he suggests (Westlund, 1978). At the same time, it shows Hamlet’s tendency to approach life as if it were a play, constantly taking on new roles to fit the action he is confronted with. This is revealed in his admiration of the play as a true account of life: “I remember one said there were no sallets in the lines to make the matter savory, nor no matter in the phrase that might indict the author of affectation, but called it an honest method, and wholesome as sweet, and by very much more handsome than fine” (II, ii, 429-434). In his comparison of the roles available to him in this instance, he can be seen to relish neither one. As he describes Pyrrhus, his imagery is full of base, evil creatures, with which he has a difficult time associating himself. However, his sense of duty and honor, while it prevents him from willingly taking on the role of a murderer, also prevents him from allowing a foul, underhanded murder go, not only unpunished, but richly rewarded. “One part of him says that he must take revenge, another part finds it horrible; he attempts to reconcile these conflicting feelings by saying that he fears the Ghost may be a devil” (Westlund, 1978: 252). At this point, he can not find a role that allows him to both enact the revenge demanded and retain his own sense of worth and morality, so he stalls for time and further justification by seeking proof that the Ghost is not leading him false. The knowledge the Queen has as to the specific nature of Ophelia’s death calls into question her sincerity in her lament. This is perhaps hinted at in the words she chooses to illustrate what caused Ophelia to fall, ‘an envious sliver’. Within the Queen’s account of the events of Ophelia’s death, the only sign of doubtfulness is the inclusion of the words ‘But long it could not be’ before she tells the King and Laertes that Ophelia’s “garments, heavy with their drink, / Pulled the poor wretch from her melodious lay” (IV, vii, 180-181). Other than these few words, the Queen seems quite well informed regarding the details of Ophelia’s death which suggest a first-hand knowledge rather than the second-hand guessing that would have occurred had no one been witnessing the action. She tells the men, “Her clothes spread wide, / And mermaid-like awhile they bore her up, / Which time she chanted snatches of old lauds, / As one incapable of her own distress” (IV, vii, 174-177). With motive in her new husband’s admiration and anger at the girl’s rejection of her son, plus the reasonable assurance that she would not suffer any negative repercussions for the death and given the short time frame in which the death occurred, the actions of the Queen must be called into question regarding Ophelia’s death and, perhaps, in the death of the old king as well. In trying to prove that his uncle is guilty, Hamlet decides to use a troupe of players that have come to the castle, making the Mousetrap play equally play double duty as has most of the characters. He first directs the players to perform a specific play that comes close to mimicking what he believes must have happened between his father and his uncle in Act 2, scene 2. He reveals his purpose for doing this in soliloquy that closes the Act: “I have heard that guilty creatures sitting at a play / Have by the very cunning of the scene / Been struck so to the soul that presently / They have proclaimed their malefactions / … / I’ll observe his looks. / I’ll tent him to the quick. If ‘a do blench, / I know my course / … / The play’s the thing / Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king” (II, ii, 575-578, 582-584, 590-591). In preparing for the performance, Hamlet provides the players with specific lines and actions to include within the overall play they are about to perform and gives them lengthy instructions as to the acting of it so as to make it seem as real as possible. “Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o’erstep not the modesty of nature. For anything so overdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold, as ‘twere, the mirror up to nature, to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure” (III, ii, 16-23). In these careful instructions to the players, it can be seen that Hamlet does not want them to perform a simply play, but instead wants it to be as realistic as possible. Since it has already been revealed that his purpose is to ‘catch the conscience of the king,’ he wants the play to seem like a retelling, in front of the guilty man’s eyes, of the actual events that took place rather than a lighthearted evening of fun. The play is effective in bringing about the results Hamlet was seeking. As the players act out for the second time, the play having started with a silent tableau of the main action, the instance of a grasping relative administering poison to the king by pouring it in his ears, King Claudius starts up from his chair, ends the play abruptly, demands more light and leaves the room. Hamlet’s desire for proof of guilt has been fulfilled. The play within a play found in Hamlet serves both as a turning point in the story that is justified in many ways as well as helps to illustrate the concept that most of the characters in the play are actually playing double roles. Within the storyline of the play within the play, Hamlet is given the proof he needs that the ghost was in earnest in accusing King Claudius of killing the older king in order to gain riches, power and queen. However, this proof provided to Hamlet also serves to let the king know of Hamlet’s correct suspicions and therefore allows Shakespeare to increase the action of the play, adding a greater element of suspense and tension as the audience is left to wonder who will kill whom first. In addition, throughout the play, Hamlet and the other characters, such as the queen reveal a great depth of duplicity in their actions. In carrying these things out, all of the other characters’ duplicity is mostly hidden, such as that of the queen. Hamlet, because of the soliloquies, is made clear to us as his audience and provides another example of what to look for in the other characters. Works Cited Shakespeare, William. “Hamlet.” The Complete Pelican Shakespeare. New York: Penguin Group, (1969), pp. 930-976. Westlund, Joseph. “Ambivalence in the Player’s Speech in Hamlet.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900. Vol. 18, N. 2, (Spring, 1978), pp. 245-256. Read More