Language as the course of the tragedy?

[_poptart_]

Hi there,
I am trying to plan an essay where the question: 'Language seems to be both the cause and the effect of tragedy.'

My tutor says that the ghost's story can be seen as the cause, however I am struggling to find anything 'deeper', or even to find a good argument!

For the effect I think it could be Hamlet's feigning madness or Ophelia's actual madness.. but even then I am not sure.

Please help!
Thanks

[_poptart_]

Sorry I meant 'CAUSE' not 'course' it is the stress!

[aemy]

Kind of a tough question. But re: language, Hamlet "acts" a lot, he "feigns", and often to protect himself, or to reproach others, his language is notoriously ambivalent. Do you have a good text which shows his punning - which reflects his general ambivalence? Maybe it's the ambivalence in and behind the "language" that is both the cause - and in some ways the effect of the tragedy. (I think "cause" is the stronger idea tho' ... the "tragedy" (what happens and why) IS the "effect". Or you could make a good case for that anyway. (Don't forget the travelling players ... more "acting".)

[_poptart_]

I have noted how Hamlet has to feign madness and so change his discourse; perhaps this could be listed as an effect of learning about the murder?
I also want to comment on the King and Polonius' artificial language and how Hamlet can see through that.
It is just a very tougth question, because although I can pick out lots of ideas about the play's language it is hard to match them to the question!

[Jim58]

Hi there,
I am trying to plan an essay where the question: 'Language seems to be both the cause and the effect of tragedy.'

My tutor says that the ghost's story can be seen as the cause, however I am struggling to find anything 'deeper', or even to find a good argument!

For the effect I think it could be Hamlet's feigning madness or Ophelia's actual madness.. but even then I am not sure.

Please help!
Thanks

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Ghost's appearance isn't the source of Hamlet's or Denmark's problem. The source is Claudius' usurpation of the throne. The Ghost is one effect of that. As Horatio notes in the first scene, "This bodes some strange eruption to our state." This also finds expression for example in the garden imagery and the sickness and disease imagery.

As for language, more pointed Shakespeare plays where language is a factor would be Richard II and Love's Labour's Lost. That isn't to say that Hamlet doesn't have language rich in texture, it does.

In Hamlet's "mad" moments or feigned mad moments his language can at first appear nonsensical as when he talks to Polonius. But then there is the nunnery scene where his language is difficult to follow but he speaks with clarity. When he speakes with Osric at the end of the play he plays word games but at this point in the play madness isn't an issue.

I guess I am having difficulty understanding your approach.

[_poptart_]

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Ghost's appearance isn't the source of Hamlet's or Denmark's problem. The source is Claudius' usurpation of the throne. The Ghost is one effect of that. As Horatio notes in the first scene, "This bodes some strange eruption to our state." This also finds expression for example in the garden imagery and the sickness and disease imagery.

As for language, more pointed Shakespeare plays where language is a factor would be Richard II and Love's Labour's Lost. That isn't to say that Hamlet doesn't have language rich in texture, it does.

In Hamlet's "mad" moments or feigned mad moments his language can at first appear nonsensical as when he talks to Polonius. But then there is the nunnery scene where his language is difficult to follow but he speaks with clarity. When he speakes with Osric at the end of the play he plays word games but at this point in the play madness isn't an issue.

I guess I am having difficulty understanding your approach.

Well guess what, it was my lecturer who emailed me back saying that the ghost's story was an example of how language is a 'cause' of tragedy!
Your difficulty in understanding might be because it mis-typed CAUSE as course - it wouldn't let me edit sorry about that.

So far I have narrowed down my 'cause' points as follows:

Hamlet needs to penetrate the King's artificial use of language to portray himself as innocent (very tenuous I know but its all i can come up with)

Ophelia's madness partly stems from Polonius' remarks that Hamlet's love is not to be believed.

[Regit]

Jim85,
Your difficulty with understanding comes from not reading the question properly. The question was not about the source of Hamlet's or Denmark's problems, it was about the cause and effect of tragedy. There is a great difference there. And the question focuses on language, not plot; what language of the play embodies Claudius's usurpation, which according to you is the cause? And you think that all of the cause and effect of tragedy (in relation to language) come from this alone?



_poptart_,

Hamlet needs to penetrate the King's artificial use of language to portray himself as innocent (very tenuous I know but its all i can come up with)

Ophelia's madness partly stems from Polonius' remarks that Hamlet's love is not to be believed.
Both good points, I believe. But I think Claudius's use of language has more purposes than just to portray himself as innocent. First, as you said, he uses it to conceal his foul play, which I am sure you can find examples for. But he also uses language to manipulate members of the court. In fact, Hamlet's very first line is a reaction to Claudius's effort to manipulate him with his language: "my cousin Hamlet, and my son." "A little more than kin and less than kind" immediately repels that suggestion that artificial use of name or status can make a difference in the fact that they are different 'kinds' or in what 'kind' they are. Look also at where Claudius speaks to persuade Laertes to turn his anger from him towards Hamlet and use this anger to persuade Laertes to commit to a criminal plan, which, in the end, was revenged by Laertes's revelation of Claudius's murderous plot (here is a perfect example of the cause and effect of tragedy, which, in the 'revenge' genre, describes foul play and revenge).

Of Hamlet's words to Ophelia, I think you can definitely develop on this idea as well. Polonius's command (rather than remark) that Hamlet's language of love is false is not only the partial cause of Ophelia's madness, but it is also the source of many misunderstandings. Polonius's misinterpretation of Hamlet's languages on the whole, in fact, is what causes the whole court (except for Claudius) to believe that Hamlet acts mad because of his love for Ophelia. (I must express here once again that I do not think Hamlet ever intentionally feigns his madness; it comes from others' misinterpretation of his words.)

So, again, both good points that can be developed. But why stop there?

The purpose of the ghost's language, apart from the obvious which is to reveal Claudius's foul play, was also to manipulate (which is my strong belief), or at least to persuade, Hamlet. And the ghost was the only character in the play that was able to intimidate Hamlet. Many of Hamlet's actions are led by the commands of the ghost. Of course your tutor is right that this is a cause of tragedy. There are several instances where Hamlet reacts negatively to the ghost's command. Hamlet's play within the play is a direct result of his doubts in the ghost. Notice how the lines "the play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King" come right after "The spirit that I have seen may be the Devil... abuses me to damn me"; and the fact that Hamlet still sees his father as the true King: this line could be interpreted to say that Hamlet's play within the play is chiefly to test the validity of the ghost's claims, and its tests for Claudius is merely incidental. That might also explain the disruptive behaviour of Hamlet during the play.

The use of language is also apparent in the interaction between Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who are the chief source of communication between Hamlet and the court. These interactions can be seen as describing the tension between Hamlet and the court.

The most key use of language as the cause and effect of tragedy, however, I think comes from Hamlet's conversations with the Queen, especially in Act III, Scene 4. It is a significant belief that Hamlet's main cause for hatred for Claudius or melancholy comes not from his father's murder but from his mother's incestuous marriage with Claudius. This is seen through the "Oh, that this too too solid flesh would melt, thaw, and resolve itself into a dew" soliloquy. The sorrow expressed in this speech is not surpassed, even though this was before the ghost's appearance. In the Act III conversation, one can see how Hamlet's not content with the Queen's misunderstanding of his words. He does not care if Polonius, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Ophelia, or even Claudius misinterpret his words, but he will not accept Gertrude's wrongs. In is respect, this is as significant as the ghost's appearance.

I think a great conclusion might be to mention how rights and wrongs are achieved with action, but tragedy, given that tragedy has always been a form of poetics, can only be achieved with the help of language and its power of communication which includes truth, lies, persuasion, manipulation, not to mention misunderstanding that also comes from communication or lack of it. Thus there is no doubt that "language seems to be both the cause and the effect of tragedy."

Good luck with it.

[_poptart_]

Thanks Regit that has been really helpful. One of my favourite phrases to display Claudius' concealment of his foul play is found in III.i 'The harlot's cheek, beautied with plastering art, Is not more ugly to the thing that helps it Than is my deed to my most painted word.'

The queen's inability to understand Hamlet's frenzied distress in III.4 can be seen by her discomfort at his use of language: 'these words like daggers enter in mine ears', revealing the tragic division between mother and son.

Thankfully the exam needs me to explore two other plays, so I will make use of the most revealing points and then comment on the plays that are easier to grasp!
Thanks again you've been really helpful