Perhaps
Shakespeare's most famous play, Hamlet
has been the center of critical debate ever since its creation. As noted
Shakespeare scholar Michael Neill states in his article “Hamlet: A Modern
Perspective,” part of what makes Hamlet important
is its ability to support wildly different readings, readings which have
changed as cultural context has changed. He points out that as schools of
literary criticism have changed over the ages, different readings of Hamlet emerge. Most often, this debate
centers on what should be considered the 'facts' of the play, most notably, the
nature of Hamlet's madness (Neill 320-321). In my own personal experience, I
have seen how wildly different people's opinions on Hamlet's madness can be, as
my own personal interpretation varied significantly compared to almost every
other peer in my undergraduate Shakespeare class. This leads us to question
what it is about the nature of Hamlet
that creates these wildly different readings, and it can be argued that the
answer to this question can be found in the very language of the play.
Studying
the specific figurative language used in the play allows us to see a possible
answer for the ambiguity that surrounds Hamlet.
The creative style of writing, which can be used to define most fiction
writing, including plays and stories, often employs various schemes and tropes
that help shape the meaning of the text involved. While tropes focus on
creating a variation of meaning for a specific word or phrase, schemes focus on
creating variations of standard word orders. Despite their differences, both of
these techniques work in ways that help shape meaning in language. Their
intention is to create layers of meaning within language, where meaning is
dependent on your personal interpretations of how these tropes and schemes
interact. Focusing on a speech made by Polonius in Act II, where he claims that
Hamlet is mad, we can see how creative variations on language create a sense of
ambiguity that leads to arguments over true meaning.
Literary
critics often appear to be wasting their time in attempting to decode exact
meaning from certain texts, as many would argue there is no true meaning.
However, it could be argued that the goal of literary criticism is to bring to
light facts and ideas about human nature that are revealed by literature. This
is a main reason that debate continues to be centered on Hamlet and its main character, because understanding Hamlet’s
relationship with his mind could help us understand our own views in life. If
the main character, who at the outset of the play feels very truly the depth of
the human experience, has truly lost his mind, perhaps it is a warning that
over-thinking life’s philosophical questions can cost you dearly. And if he
hasn’t lost his mind, how can we explain the deep detachment that Hamlet feels
to the world in the end of the play? Understanding Hamlet can shed light onto
how we as humans deal with the realities and unanswerable questions of everyday
life.
This
quest for insight into a personal, difficult topic explains why the ambiguity
created by the creative style is important to study in Polonius’ speech, as
well as throughout the entire play. If this debate is centered on
philosophical, potentially unknowable concepts, then the language used by those
involved must aim to invoke inquiry into the topics. A simple re-phrasing of a
direct accusation takes what is plain fact and subjects it to questioning and
examination. Furthermore, an understanding on such topics could never be agreed
upon by all people, which also shows the need for any discussion on the topic
to hold an ambiguous aspect. In allowing us to construct our own interpretation
of one fictional character, we are given the tools to begin relating these
ideas back to our understandings of ourselves.
In
his speech, Polonius uses a large number of tropes and schemes, many of which
are very common in Shakespeare's writing, who is renowned for his ability to
employ styles in his writing that many others cannot compare to. In this
passage, however, the way he employs three specific techniques serve to create
the ambiguity that is present throughout Hamlet.
He employs two tropes, metanoia and apophasis, and one scheme, hyperbaton, in
key moments of the passage, to create that effect. Apophasis refers to stating
an idea only for the purpose of denying it, while metanoia is the technique of
stating an idea, and then restating it in hopes of presenting it in a clearer
manner. Hyperbaton is a scheme which refers to usage on non-typical word order
in sentence structures. Studying the lines below, we see these techniques being
employed at the moments where Polonius is declaring Hamlet as mad.
I will be
brief: your noble son is mad:
Mad call I
it; for, to define true madness, 100
What is't
but to be nothing else but mad?
But let
that go.
[.....]
Madam, I
swear I use no art at all.
That he is
mad, 'tis true: 'tis true 'tis pity; 105
And pity
'tis 'tis true: a foolish figure;
But
farewell it, for I
will use no art.
Mad let us
grant him, then: and
now remains
That we
find out the cause of this effect,
Or rather
say, the cause of this defect, 110
For this
effect defective comes by cause:
Thus it
remains, and the remainder thus. Perpend
Both
instances in which Polonius is making an accusation that Hamlet is mad, he
varies his sentence structure through hyperbaton. Instead of following a
standard subject-verb-object construction, Polonius places the object first in
each case. Instead of reading 'I call it madness,' he states “Mad call I it.”
While the two seem to be sending a similar message, by placing the object
first, Polonius is taking away the aspect of accusation. With this
construction, we no longer have the subject directly accusing Hamlet of
madness, it is just implied. In the second instance, Polonius states “Mad let
us grant him,” rather than 'Let us grant him mad'. Again, the object has been
shifted to the beginning of the phrase, which separates the subject and verb,
making it an indirect accusation. This creates a sense of Polonius being
hesitant to directly implicate Hamlet as mad, which would have an influence on
the audience. If the character who is making the claim is uncertain, that's
more than reason enough for an audience to begin doubting the claim as well.
The
tropes used by Polonius also give the audience ways to begin doubting the
validity of his claims. Polonius uses metanoia when he states “or rather say,”
as well as “Mad call I it; for, to define true madness.” Polonius is searching for better ways to
state his ideas, as if he is not sure whether what he is saying is actually
correct or not. This constant re-clarification of his ideas shows Polonius’
uncertainty regarding Hamlet’s madness. Due to this, the audience would begin
to doubt whether they actually believe Polonius' claims or not; consequently,
the audience would begin to form their own opinions. This idea is further
supported by Polonius' use of apophasis in lines immediately after he claims
that Hamlet is crazy.
Apophasis
is a technique of bringing up a subject just to deny its existence. In both
sections given above, we hear Polonius asking the listener to forget what he
had just stated. First, after implicating that Hamlet is mad, he instructs us:
“but let that go,” and second, after again discussing Hamlet’s madness, he
says: “but farewell it.” If the audience hadn’t already been given enough
reason to begin to doubt Polonius, here he is using apophasis to directly ask
the listener of his speech to disregard what he is stating. All of this
uncertainty created by Polonius means that it is up to the reader to determine
their own interpretations.
Is
Hamlet crazy or not? Polonius can’t seem to decide, and because of this, it has
driven scholars mad for years trying to decide whether his madness is real,
imagined, or a cross between the two. The specific ways creative style is being
used in the speech shows how easily a few ambiguous phrases can create a sense
of uncertainty. This uncertainty is key due to the nature of the idea in
question, because whether or not you consider Hamlet as crazy has implications
on the ways you interpret your own thoughts in regards to some of the deeper
philosophical questions at play in Hamlet.
Has the exploration of what comes after death, of what constitutes revenge,
and of the purpose of life damaged Hamlet’s mind to the point that it is no
longer logical? Or is it all a ploy that he does not have time to retract
before the end of the play? Depending on your answer, your personal exploration
of these issues will take on different dimensions, and you have to consider
whether an answer is possible, or if it is fruitless philosophical searching
that will leave you dying without an answer. Due to this, there is no end in
sight for the discussion of Hamlet,
and there is no hope for a definitive reading on the true nature of Hamlet’s
madness. So, just how crazy is Hamlet?
Written By: Brandon N.
No comments:
Post a Comment