Something that seems to be
consistent amongst many of the main characters in Hamlet is that they tend to act outside of their roles. I am most
specifically referring to the characters within the court: Claudius, Gertrude and
Hamlet. It is interesting to note how each one of them falls short of their
expectations considering their status in regards to the Danish government.
First and foremost we have Claudius who has taken the
responsibility of the throne after the death of his older brother. His
character encompasses the roles of a King, a husband, a father, a brother, and
an uncle. He fails to fully fit the criteria for any of these positions because
he is dishonest in his behavior and intentions. For example, as a brother we
learn that he took the concept of sibling rivalry too far when he admits to the
murder of the King in 3.3, “Oh, my
offence is rank. It smells to heaven./It hath the primal eldest curse upon ’t,/A
brother’s murder.” In addition, as Hamlet’s new father he goes as far as to
tell him to stop being “unmanly” (Act I) by continuing to mourn for the loss of
his real father and start respecting Claudius as his replacement. Instead of
rightfully earning any of the responsibilities he claims to own Claudius just takes
them, which is uncharacteristic to anyone who is true to those titles.
Gertrude
displays similar flaws in her role as a wife and a mother. She sort of just
assumes that she deserves the respect of a queen and a mother despite how
unholy her actions are. She begs Hamlet to respect her prayers in Act I and
defends Claudius as though he became the man she fell in love with as soon as
he took the crown. It is not until Hamlet slaps some reality into her in the
last scene of Act III that she begins to realize that her incestual acts deemed
her an unfaithful wife and lost her the respect of her son, “O Hamlet, speak no
more!/Thou turn’st mine eyes into my very soul,/And there I see such black and
grainèd spots/As will not leave their tinct.”
Then we
have Hamlet, with the single consistent role as the King’s son. I believe this
singularity allows him the clearest view of his purpose in the play: to avenge
his father’s death. It is interesting that he is constantly being accused of
being crazy when he is perhaps the only character who knows exactly what needs
to be done to achieve peaceful order. However, just because his mission is
clear this does not make him immune to the concept of identity crises that is
displayed by both Gertrude and Claudius.
In
the fourth scene of Act III Hamlet subject his mother to his harsh scrutiny. He
speaks to her as though she is the filthiest sight he has ever seen. When
Gertrude asks him if he has forgotten who she is (in response to his
disrespectful behavior towards her and Claudius) he says, “You are the queen,
your husband’s brother’s wife,/And—would it were not so!—you are my mother.”
Hamlet pursues this condescending tone and brutally attacks the entire essence
of Gertrude’s being throughout the remainder of this scene in the hopes of
getting her to understand the extent of her sins.
Although
his intentions in speaking against his mother are meant to re-establish the
structure that has been broken because of the true King’s death, Hamlet is not
representing himself as the son of the royal family in a noble manner. As a
son, Hamlet is expected to obey the wishes of both his mother and his father
and to protect the family’s reputation. However, considering Hamlet’s family
(his real one) is in a situation that transpired through Claudius’s acts of
corruption he feels the only way to fix it is to assert himself against his
mother’s will. However, despite his honorable intentions towards his real
father’s family—even from a modern-day perspective—it is considered a great
sign of dishonor and weakness to disrespect the woman who gave you life.
The dynamics of the royal family in
Hamlet succeeds in humanizing people
in power. Just like those who look up to them, they experience feelings of
envy, denial and vengeance, which
effectively blur the boundaries of their highly defined positions. They are
supposed to be role models, and yet, none of them seem to really know how to
assume their roles in a proper way.
1 comment:
Christine,
I found your post this week extremely interesting. I wholeheartedly agree with your belief that certain characters “are supposed to be role models, and yet, none of them really know how to assume their roles in a proper way.” Is Shakespeare making a profound social statement? Maybe he is asking us to re-examine the tremendous value that we place on authority figures, or even certain roles in society. Perhaps he is conveying the idea that people should not simply “assume” that they deserve respect. Instead, he suggests that people need to work for the reverence of others. Furthermore, I enjoyed your observation regarding the way Shakespeare succeeds in “humanizing” people of power. You are certainly right, for they experience the same types of emotions as the “common” people. I think that this is Shakespeare’s way of demonstrating that no matter what position one has in society, people still share universal characteristics and feelings.
Post a Comment