The So What? Question
The “So what” question prompt asks what new understanding my version gives to an “educated reader”, but here’s the thing- I’m not trying to give anything new to a person already knowledgeable about Hamlet. This is meant for the uneducated reader. This scene in Hamlet, particularly his “to be” speech pervades Western Culture, but that doesn’t suddenly make it easier to parse out for a novice. The volume of critical work on this play, and this scene in particular, means there are a multitude of interpretations, perspectives, and arguments about its meaning. No one text can capture all of this scholarly work, nor would I think such a text would be helpful for a student. Instead, I have taken what I have learned from scholarly work and performance to make notes about the parts that hold the most contention. I want to offer some possible ideas which the reader can choose to accept or reject based on their own readings. By linking these comments to specific parts of text, I encourage the reader to make their interpretations based on what the text actually says. As I mentioned in the introduction, the strategy I took in creating glosses from other editions and the OED means that there is no deeper meaning in choosing them. Because of this, much of the literary significance of this text is in the other notes.
In pursuit of this purpose, I made sure to include a few notes on Background information which I had not previously seen across the three texts. It’s essential to understand that Hamlet is linking these two things before examining the speech’s deeper meanings. The first of which is on the connection between sleep and death. Secondly, I included a note on melancholy on Claudius’ penultimate speech. In this case, Claudius is probably talking about melancholy as it relates to madness more than its modern meaning. In both cases, the meaning is likely familiar to Early Modern scholars, which may be why it has been overlooked.
I chose to include many performance notes because I wanted to convey the multiple possible understandings of these texts. Though performances are not necessarily “scholarly”, Hamlet was written to be performed, so the most believable interpretations are those that can be reasonable portrayed on stage. Theater can work as a “authenticating material dimension” for a play filled with ambiguities (Dillon 75). The versions I chose to look at are widely acclaimed, so their portrayal of this famous scene must also have some reasonable support.
My performance note on Claudius’ response to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern before dismissing them highlights the uncertain meaning of Claudius’ apparent joy. Claudius may be truly happy to hear Hamlet is taking interest in something outside his grief, or, like a true Machiavellian, he could be “hiding his cruel face from people around him” in order to “loyal and convinced of his good nature” (Erdem Ayyildiz 1045). Such a meaning would be conveyed through an actor's tone, as Q2 does not give a clear indication of his true feelings. Such ambiguities open debate about Claudius’ “quick determination” to send Hamlet to England. Does he want to get rid of someone with a rival claim to the throne? Does he truly believe that Hamlet is mad, and is working in Denmark’s interest in keeping a madman away from rule? The answers to these questions affect audience understanding of Claudius’ character, and their degree of support for Hamlet’s revenge scheme. Claudius’ actual feelings towards Hamlet and his true reasons for trying to have him killed are never explicitly stated, so his character can vary between versions as actors and directors see fit.
Most of my notes for this speech are glosses for specific words, rather than overall meaning. He does not engage in wordplay as he does when interacting with others. He’s in conversation with himself, in the isolated condition of the soliloquy; such performance is not necessary. Whatever he is referring to, these are his innermost debates and thoughts. For a character as opaque as Hamlet, this is a precious insight into his psyche. This widely accepted understanding of the “to be” speech means the debates over its intent hold much more significance. Most performances of the speech, however, vary in nuanced choices. The performance notes for the “to be” speech, then, indicate the broad strokes of the different renditions, as covering the more nuanced variations would be too distracting from the work itself.
If he’s contemplating suicide, but fears the unknown place after death, such an interpretation much be indicated by movements, tones, or props. For example, In Branagh’s version he pulls a dagger out when he says “bare bodkin”, and keeps it out for much of the speech. That he may be considering suicide proves his grief in his first appearance to be utterly real, exposing the depth of his despair. The authenticity of the ghost then becomes far more important. Learning his father was murdered by Claudius increases his anguish exponentially, but it may be assuaged if the ghost is false. Furthermore, the uncertainty of what follows death has stopped him from suicide, but the ghost has revealed exactly what happens in the afterlife. His description follows a Catholic understanding of purgatory and suffering for forgiveness. Failing to avenge his father, then, may well result in being sent to purgatory or even hell after death. Hamlet’s revenge plot, then, is not just an issue of honor, but of the state of Hamlet’s soul.
If the question is about passive suffering versus active resistance, then Hamlet is likely considering the point in enacting revenge at all. Death is a result of his revenge, but it would also be “tranquil release from the afflictions of life” (Newell 43). It is not, however, a solution to what is rotten in Denmark, so “it may be nobler to suffer passively in defiance of outrageous fortune rather than to die in active but futile defiance” (Newell 43). I included the note about the “to be” question’s ambiguity because many performances take the suicide interpretation, but the work itself does not necessitate such an interpretation.
The performance notes included from Hamlet’s “Soft you now” to his “to a nunnery, go”, widely referred to as “the nunnery scene”, are closely linked to each other. Decisions about Hamlet’s relationship with Ophelia, his sanity, and his knowledge that Claudius and Polonius are spying on him determine the action of this section. In Zeffirelli's adaptation, Hamlet notices shadows in a doorway and realizes they’re being watched for asking Ophelia if she is “honest”. In both Doran and Almereldy, he notices the device which is being used to watch him (a security camera and a body wire, respectively), before asking Ophelia, “where’s your father?” Up until this point in Doran and Almereldy, he is reacting to Ophelia’s rejection, proving that he cares for her. In Zeffirelli's version, these same lines are said in anger, reacting to Ophelia’s complicity in deceit rather than her rejection. The work as it exists in Q2 can support both meanings, as well as the notion that Hamlet is ignorant of being watched. My version seeks to highlight this ambiguity rather than determine a “correct” idea, so the reader can create their own ideas and analyze the implications for Hamlet and Ophelia’s relationship, the exact nature of which is never clearly defined.
How this scene characterizes their relationship determines what Hamlet’s outburst reveals whether Hamlet himself is cruel. As I previously mentioned, Hamlet is a notoriously enigmatic character. Analyzing actor’s writing on this scene, Carol Carlisle found six main ways they account for his actions. The adaptations I watched aligned with three of them: “mental anguish over the necessity of breaking with Ophelia… [a] reaction to Ophelia's earlier refusal to see Hamlet”, or “anger aroused by Ophelia's duplicity” (131-132, 132). In actual performances, more than one may be the case. If Hamlet truly cares for Ophelia, then the cruelty he shows her bares an inner viciousness as he quickly abandons his live for malice towards his enemies. If he is angry at Ophelia’s duplicity, or at Polonius and Claudius for using her, then his anger may be more justified, though not morally correct. In Branagh, this anger is directed at Ophelia to get back at Polonius and Claudius, who had themselves used her to get to Hamlet. If Hamlet is willing to use Ophelia as a tool, then how his he better than them in this moment?