In both of our discussions on Hamlet, the motive of death was always
present and it seems that it shapes the whole play from the beginning to the
very end. The audience or the reader as well as the characters within the play
are always confronted with mortality. It serves as a threat, as basis for
public discussion as well as for solitary reflections; it is a source of power
and it is able to provide political profits and tragic losses. Death is an
everlasting mystery which is an important aspect within the fictional play as
well as in reality.
Murder frames the storyline of Hamlet: The killing of old Hamlet, the
protagonist’s father, opens the plot and several sub-plots even before the
beginning of the first scene and thereby initiates Hamlets conflict of revenge.
In the end, Claudius and most of the rest of the court are killed either by sword
or by poison (which is also a quite popular while insidious way to kill in the
play) – or both.
Besides descriptions of killing, death is
considered mostly from Hamlets point of view, and he keeps asking himself whether
or whether it is not legitimate to commit suicide, which could end his unbearably
torment and his struggle. His famous expression “to be or not to be” could
stand either for active or passive behavior or for questioning existence in
general. He connects dying with various spiritual and ethnical aspects,
including the aftermath in heaven, hell or in between, supernatural beings like
the ghost or physical remainders of the dead like Yorick’s skull or Ophelia’s
corpse.
Discussions and examination of death seems to
be popular in the 1600s as well as in the following centuries. As it is the
very end (is it?) of our existence, it keeps being interesting through people’s
desire to control it for themselves as well as for others. Its aftermath is a never-ending
riddle for everyone and the fear of uncertainty and mortality keeps us thinking
about it.
Death and all those questions, connected to it
seem to display mortality rates in the early 17th century. Death was
even more unpredictable than it is now, which could be a reason for its
increased concerns. Its confrontation on stage could provide emotional provisions
for people who had to experience it in their daily life.
This is an interesting perspective. The play has a LOT of death in it, doesn't it? There are more than a couple of Shakespeare's plays that finish with a pile of dead bodies on the stage, other than Hamlet - King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, and Macbeth come to mind.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, one does not simply die of natural causes during a Shakespeare play. Swords, daggers, asps, poison, drowning, implied suicide,cold-blooded murder, in battle, fratricide, and broken heart, all seem more likely to happen to a character than a peaceful departure. Shakespeare did not shy away from violence.
Maybe you are right, Sven, in saying that it was something of a preoccupation in the C17th. Life seemed to be short and brutal. Did other playwrights of the period have the same obsession?