Entradas
This essay
will deal with the similarities and differences between "Hamlet" and
"Death of a Salesman" regarding the notion of internal conflict or
dilemmas related to the self. In order to do so I will put emphasis on
existentialist readings of both plays in order to establish links between them
and then I will suggest that one of their key differences lies in the way each
dramatist treats the issue of madness[1], which, I shall argue, in
both plays is the result of the character’s failures to solve their existential
and epistemological preoccupations.
Coleridge
understands "Hamlet" as a tragedy of thought. The character's
indecisiveness and inaction derived from his philosophical reasoning result in
catastrophe. Hamlet is, no doubt, unfit to be a hero. Some have argued that
this lack of action is due to external forces. Those who hold that view would
claim that his inability to kill Claudius is caused by the fact that Claudius
is a king and that there are certain external agents such as guards and
soldiers, or even Gertrude, who will stop Hamlet from accomplishing his
mission. This line of reasoning is clearly mistaken. The play suggests that it
is incredibly easy to kill a king. This is illustrated not only by late
Hamlet's death but also by the scene in which Laertes enters Elsinore and
points his sword to Claudius' neck in Act 4. What stops Hamlet and torments his
soul is rather and internal conflict and I think most critics will agree with
this interpretation. "Hamlet" is most clearly a play about internal
contradictions and the inability of human beings to achieve certainty, it is
because of this that Hamlet says: "I do not know why yet I live to say
'This thing's to do' sith I have cause and will and strength and means to do
it". The verb "to know" has been Shakespeare's choice in this
case, which suggests that Hamlet has some kind of internal epistemological
preoccupation. As Paul Cantor indicates, Hamlet lacks information. To go back
to the quotation, Shakespeare's use of the polysyndeton creates the effect of
accumulation, hence showing that Hamlet has plenty of reasons to kill Claudius
but feels unable to do so for some internal motive which he himself cannot
understand. This lack of understanding has dominated the critical debate
concerning the play. The critics are divided and there is a lack of consensus
as to what type of self-generated force stops Hamlet. Since the individual has
no control over such force, it must be an anti-humanistic force, some kind of
"special providence". This ties in with the existentialist readings of
the play (or rather anti-existentialist ones) because the reason that is
deterring Hamlet from fulfilling his revenge lies beyond his freedom as well as
beyond his knowledge. With this idea in mind, Hamlet can be understood as an
example of bad faith: he fools himself into thinking that he is unable to
choose when in fact he is actually choosing. Not choosing is in itself an
option, as Sartre indicates. Our metaphysical freedom, from an existentialist
viewpoint, is unlimited. Failure to realize that this is the case leads into
self-deception In Act 3, when Hamlet says "this is high in salary not
revenge" and decides to pardon Claudius' life, he believes that he is not
choosing, when in fact he is choosing, but his choice has no effect upon the
resolution of his conflict. It is this type of anti-humanistic self-generated
force that makes a fool Hamlet, he has not realized the power of his
metaphysical freedom. For an existentialist, I think, what matters is whether
or not this unknowable force, but what we can do with our freedom even if we
have got a self-generated limitation to it. As Sartre puts it, what matters is
what we can do with what the world has made of us.
This same
line of reasoning must be applied to the case of Willy Loman in Arthur Miller's
play. His life is, just like Hamlet's, a "successful failure": he has
succeeded into deceiving himself. This places Miller's lead character into the
same situation Hamlet finds himself in: he thinks he is unable to choose
because there is something in his life which he cannot control. This causes the "hamartia" of both characters: they do not realize what they can actually do. As
pointed out by Field, Willy's main problem is his incapacity to succeed, his
sons have been educated into the "wrong values dreams. All, all
wrong" and as a result they are morally and socially handicapped. They
simply fail in their lives. Such a failure stems from Willy's inability to
understand his own self or his faculties. He cannot understand what kind of
person he should be. When Willy asks Bernard "what is the secret?" he
is really trying to comprehend the secret of personal success. He does not
understand how the world around him works, no matter how hard he tries. This is
emphasized when he discusses paternity with Charley: "And you never told
him what to do, did you? You never took any interest in him", this
quotation implies that Willy has actually attempted to make an effort as a
father, but he simply has failed to understand the inner personal attributes
that make one fit for fatherhood. Both Hamlet and Willy are stopped in their
quests for self-knowledge by an inability to understand their true natures.
This leads to their respective failures (as an avenger and as a father) and to
their respective self-deceptions, since, from an existentialist line of
reasoning, none of them realize that they can in fact change things and do
something constructive from a metaphysical viewpoint regardless of their inner
extra-human difficulties or their lack of understanding. This becomes a vicious
circle which is reproduced in both protagonists.
This failure
to overcome these difficulties results in a loss of contact with the self or
with reality. This establishes one of the main differences between both texts,
since the way each dramatist tackles the issue of madness is drastically
different. In Willy's case, mental instability is represented by the fact that
Willy finds himself frequently lost in the drama. In Act 2 of "Death of a
Salesman", when Biff tells him the details of his meeting with Oliver,
Willy simply ignores the content of what his son is trying to tell him. The
proof of this is that while Biff is trying to speak to him, Willy suddenly
reacts violently saying: “If you hadn’t flunked”, which has nothing to do with
what Biff is explaining. Moreover, this quote and the use of the re-enactment
of the moment when Biff as a young boy failed maths, shows that Willy is a man
who lives in the past. He constantly evokes the past and frequently uses
expressions like “in those days…”. However, these phrases also imply that Willy’s
world is lost, he is unable to go back to “those days”, but yet he cannot help
recreating them in his mind. Furthermore, Willy also remembers his “Chevvy” in
Act 1, which again establishes a reference to his past glory which cannot be
re-lived. In addition, he constantly modifies his own past, as if to create a personal
identity which differs from his own. He claims with all certainty: “In 1928 I
had a big year. I averaged a hundred and seventy dollars a week (…)”, but yet
Howard’s comment “(…) You never averaged…” tells the audience that this
information is false, Willy is trying to modify his past and glorify himself,
but this leads to a misrepresentation of reality and a lack of an objective
relationship with it. Miller uses these allusions to his past to demonstrate
that the tragic hero has lost his self in the process of constantly evoking the
past. He does not live in the present, Willy is someone who lives in the past. Willy
has not realized that the times have changed, he no longer is the person he
used to beHe inhabits a former reality and a former self. This causes him to
lose contact with reality and lose the sense of his present self. This
psychological state is originated by Willy’s failure as a father, which has
been discussed earlier. If he had been able to solve his inner existentialist
puzzles, it is absurd to claim that he would have lost track of his identity in
the way the play suggests.
The way
Shakespeare deals with madness and the loss of the self is very different. The
spectator does not know to what extent Hamlet is playing with his “antic
disposition” or whether he has actually gone crazy. He is presented as a highly
self-aware character: “My uncle-father and aunt-mother are much deceived (…) I’m
but mad north-north-west, when the wind is southerly I can tell a hawk from a
handsaw”. This declaration is in itself problematic since it reproduces the
Cretan liar paradox, in other words, when someone says: “I am a liar”, this
creates a paradox, for if that person is lying, he is not but at the same time
he is a liar, and if he is telling the truth in this case he cannot be a liar.
When Hamlet states he is not mad, the spectator is uncertain as to whether he
is pretending to be crazy when he says he is crazy or whether he is actually
crazy when he states that he is not so. The spectator simply does not know if
Hamlet has lost contact with reality or not. He certainly does not seem to lose
consciousness of his self, he does not forget his identity nor his mission.
This contrasts with Ophelia, who does not recognize Laertes in Act 4. Hamlet is
not mad insofar as self-awareness is concerned, but regarding the issue of his
relationship with the outer world, the spectator is left in a state of
confusion. We, like Hamlet, are unable to understand his own personality. With
these ideas in mind, I believe it is safe to say that Miller and Shakespeare
present madness in very different ways. Whilst Miller offers us a protagonist
who is obsessed with his past and this destabilizes his relationship with both
the current reality and his current self. In the case of Hamlet this dual
relationship is rather blurred. Even though he does not lose sight of his
identity (which may be a reason to suggest that Hamlet is not mad), it is
unclear or even impossible to determine the extent of his extravagant
behaviour.
To conclude, this
essay has examined how Hamlet and Willy Loman relate to one another by applying
and existentialist understanding of their freedom and their notion of the self.
In both cases, the failures of the characters are caused by a failure to
understand themselves, one of the the effect of these failures is madness. It
is in this last idea that both characters are radically different.
[1] Insofar as this essay is concerned, the term “madness” will be
understood as a loss of contact with reality and/or the self.
