ACT II, 2: THE ACTOR’S SPEECH ON
THE DEATH OF THE TROJAN KING
The inclusion of metatheater continues during Hamlet’s dialogue with the actors (beginning in line 405). In fact, the use of metatheater is so widespread that it forms a minor theme in the play. But the inclusion of it is also directly related to the play, for it contributes to the plot and to the character development of Hamlet.
At this point in the scene, Hamlet asks one of the actors, whom he knows well, to recite a passage from a play. Hamlet describes the play as one that “pleased not the million. ‘Twas caviare to the general” (418). Hamlet is stating that the play was not very popular because it was too good – most people who attend the theater want simple and easy stories to follow. Caviar, which are the eggs of a sturgeon or some other similar fish, is a delicacy and a finely acquired taste. They are expensive, but most people also do not like them. Hamlet uses caviar here as a symbol of something that is fine and wonderful but mostly unappreciated by the public. Once again, this use of metatheater is also social criticism. Shakespeare is criticizing audiences who do not appreciate great poetry and great drama.
Hamlet asks the actor to recite “Aeneas’ tale to Dido” (426-27). Aeneas is the Roman hero of The Aeneid, the Classical epic by Virgil. The speech in Hamlet, then, is inspired by Virgil’s work. The student, incidentally, should also note that Christopher Marlowe was also greatly inspired by Virgil and wrote a play entitled Dido, Queen of Carthage.
In the speech the actor describes the death of the Trojan King Priam. During the Trojan War, Priam encounters the Greek Pyrrhus (who was the son of the hero Achilles). The actor relates how Pyrrhus (who wants to avenge his father’s death) comes covered in blood and gore to face King Priam. During the struggle Priam is knocked down to the ground. But before Pyrrhus can strike the fallen king, the burning walls of Troy come crashing down to the ground. The noise distracts Pyrrhus, and he hesitates:
So, as a painted tyrant, Pyrrhus stood,
And, like a neutral to his will and matter,
Did nothing. (460-62)
The expression “painted tyrant” refers to the picture of a tyrant in a painting. Pyrrhus seems frozen like an image in a work of art. But Pyrrhus’ hesitation lasts only a brief moment. He then raises his sword and kills Priam.
There are a couple of similarities to the plot of Hamlet. Pyrrhus is also a prince whose father has been murdered. And Pyrrhus seeks vengeance. And, like Hamlet, Pyrrhus hesitates. But his hesitation is only for a moment. Hamlet’s hesitation lasts much longer. And so, the audience may wonder if Pyrrhus’ vengeance will foreshadow Hamlet’s own or if
Hamlet, perhaps, will hesitate for too long.
After a brief interruption by Polonius and Hamlet, the actor continues his speech and describes the reaction of Queen Hecuba, the wife of the nowdead King Priam:
The instant burst of clamor that she made – Unless things mortal move them not at all – Would have made milch the burning eyes of heaven, And passion in the gods. (495-98)
In other words, even Jupiter (Zeus) and the other gods above would cry upon witnessing the grief and mourning of Queen Hecuba. Hecuba is a contrast to Queen Gertrude. The Trojan Queen reacts properly, in Hamlet’s mind, upon the death of her husband. But Hamlet’s own mother, the prince feels, did not show the proper respect or grief when old King Hamlet died.
ACT II, 2: THE RESPONSE TO THE
ACTOR’S SPEECH
Before the actor finishes his speech on the death of Priam, Polonius interrupts and exclaims, “This is too long” (478). To Polonius, the speech is caviar; and caviar is not at all to his liking. Hamlet apologizes to the actor and explains that Polonius likes only “a jig or a tale of bawdry, or he sleeps” (480-81). The word jig here stands for broad physical comedy or silly comic dances; and bawdry refers to dirty or crude stories involving sex. Polonius thus symbolizes the masses of audiences who cannot appreciate great literature or great art. But, ironically, Polonius is supposed to be a wise and learned advisor to King Claudius. Once again, Hamlet is ridiculing Polonius. And once again, Shakespeare is inserting metatheater and social criticism in his play.
After the speech is over, Hamlet tells
Polonius to treat the actors well, “for they are the abstracts and brief chronicles of the time” (50304). Hamlet is praising drama and actors in this line. The actors, in the plays they memorize, preserve history. Hamlet is not suggesting just a mere catalog of names and events. Rather, he is referring to universal truths. Shakespeare, here, is distinguishing history from literature. For a history of events, one should read chronicles and historical texts. But for a history of ideas and the way man thinks, one should read literature. And the main form of literature during the Renaissance was drama. Thus, in drama, in the words of the actors, one could find the history of the way man thinks. And, thus, Hamlet is implying that the actors hold a valuable and important role in society.
After Polonius exits, Hamlet speaks further with the actors and asks them to perform a play about “the murder of Gonzago” (514-15). This play, which is referred to later as The Mousetrap, depicts a story where a man kills his brother in order to become king. Hamlet wants this play to be performed before King Claudius because then Claudius will reveal his guilt and the role he played in the death of old King Hamlet. Although this idea may make sense to modern audiences of today, Renaissance audiences would have been aware that Hamlet is still hesitating. He is delaying the action that he promised to take – getting revenge for the death of his father. Hamlet is breaking his promise to the ghost, and Hamlet is fully aware that he is acting improperly and shamefully.
ACT II, 2: SOLILOQUY: “WHAT A ROGUE AND PEASANT SLAVE AM I!”
The second act concludes with a soliloquy. If the members of the audience had been unaware that there is a problem with Hamlet’s hesitation up to this point, Hamlet now emphasizes the problem and reveals how he feels about himself. Essentially, Hamlet hesitates or delays in getting revenge because of an internal conflict (a conflict of Hamlet vs. himself). There is no rational explanation for this hesitation. Rather, it is about feelings and emotions as well as a sense of confusion within Hamlet. And Hamlet strongly dislikes himself because of this. The opening line of the soliloquy clearly expresses this: Hamlet declares himself to be “a rogue and peasant slave” (527). Peasant slaves are the lowest level of the social ladder, and a rogue or criminal is actually lower because he opposes society and challenges the social order. Hamlet is thus declaring himself to be at the lowest level of society because he cannot act, because he cannot get his revenge against Claudius. Hamlet contrasts himself to the actor who recited the speech on the death of King Priam. During the speech, the actor becomes emotionally overwhelmed by the lines that he himself speaks. He turns pale and tears appear in his eyes (see lines 499500). Hamlet wonders how an actor can get so emotionally bothered and upset by lines from a work of fiction when he (Hamlet) himself cannot work up enough emotion to take revenge on Claudius. Hamlet then asks the question, “What would he do had he the motive and cue for passion that I have?” (537-39). The actor’s emotion comes from something fictional, from something unreal; yet his emotions or passions are extremely intense and vivid. Hamlet, on the other hand, has a real and true cause for emotion – the murder of his father. Yet Hamlet cannot seem to find the intense and vivid emotions within himself to take what he feels to be the proper form of action.
Hamlet then answers his own question.
Hamlet asserts that the actor’s emotions would be raised to a furious pitch had he real cause for emotion:
He would drown the stage with tears,
And cleave the general ear with horrid speech,
Make mad the guilty and appal the free,
Confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed
The very faculty of eyes and ears. (539-43)
To put it simply, the actor would be so emotional and so furious that he would shock and amaze everyone around him. What Hamlet is really saying here is that this is how he should be behaving. Hamlet should be emotionally overwrought. Hamlet should be furious. But he is not. And Hamlet wonders at himself for not having what he believes should be the appropriate emotions for someone in his situation.
Hamlet continues to criticize and condemn himself (lines 543-48). And then he asks a question of himself: “Am I a coward?” (548). Hamlet believes that he is acting very much like a coward. And since he has no other explanation for his actions, he feels that he must, indeed, truly be a coward. Hamlet adds that if he were brave, he would have already “fatted all the region kites with this slave’s offal” (556-57). A kite is a scavenger bird, like a vulture, that seeks for and eats dead animals. And, of course, Hamlet is referring to Claudius as the slave. Hamlet realizes that he should have already killed Claudius by now.
A clue to Hamlet’s problem also appears in this soliloquy. Despite having more than sufficient motivation to seek and take revenge against Claudius, Hamlet instead states that he “must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words” (563). Hamlet thinks too much! He ponders and evaluates and studies and plans. But a man of action does not waste time with words. There is an old expression that is appropriate to mention here: actions speak louder than words.
Hamlet has the words, but he is unable to act.
The soliloquy ends ironically. Once again Hamlet thinks about the plan of having the actors perform a murder scene that will be quite similar to Claudius’ own murder of old King Hamlet. If Claudius becomes pale or exhibits some other emotional trace, Hamlet will then be convinced that Claudius is truly guilty of murder. “The play’s the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King” (581-82). Hamlet is declaring that he will then be absolutely certain of Claudius’ guilt and will then be able to get his vengeance. The irony here is that Hamlet is just hesitating again. Even though he has just admitted that he should not hesitate but instead take immediate action, Hamlet is not doing that. He is waiting. He is hesitating. He is putting off the action that he should have already done much sooner.