Character Homologies in Hamlet
Character Homologies in Hamlet
Who are the characters in Hamlet? One way to approach this question is to look at the Speech Prefixes, and the Stage Directions (if any). However the Speech Prefixes in Shakespeare’s works, unlike the general situation with modern scripts, are a variable. There are several parameters in Shakespeare which are variables, where on the modern stage are constants -- or variables with a reduced range -- in addition to Speech Prefixes: such as Line Directionality (the intended destination of a line), and something we might call perceived-character-identity (or ability-to-penetrate-disguise).
Line Directionality is a variable with three potential values: dialogue (the default), “He speaks to Himself,” and aside. Aside is very likely much reduced in modern performances in comparison to then, especially in movie versions.
As for the Speech Prefixes, there are more of them in the earliest printed versions than later editors and commentators allow (so editors are allowing themselves to homologize). In F Macbeth Lady Macbeth is described as La. and Lad. These have been homologized. Similarly, in Q2 Romeo and Juliet Lady Capulet is described by several Speech Prefixes: Lady, Wife, Mo., and so on (the term Lady Capulet itself does not appear in Q2 Romeo and Juliet, interestingly enough). So, are there other characters out there who are homologous but occur under different speech prefixes? Are there homologies where the perception is difficult enough that they haven’t been noticed yet? For instance, in Macbeth, are Porter, Murderer, and Seyton the same character? What about Hamlet? How many characters are there, really? Are there any undiscovered homologies? There might be. I have the feeling there are about 10 less characters than there seem to be on the surface.
Another way to approach this problem is to examine the doubling schemes. Referring to Q2 Hamlet, there is a chart available showing possible doublings. There might be various ways to go about doubling some of these characters; here is one: Ghost, Reynaldo, Player King, Player Prologue, Captain, Gentleman, Sailor, Messenger, Gravedigger, Osric, Ambassador. According to Shaxicon Shakespeare acted Ghost and Player King. He might have acted the others. Various of these characters might fall under the term “functional doubling,” where characters, doubled, have some of the same characteristics. Taken to a logical extreme, functional doubling would result in character homology. I think that is what is going on in Hamlet. Namely, Ghost equals Reynaldo, equals Player King, equals Gravedigger, and possibly Osric, among others (all of them different disguises adopted by the evil spirit).
It might be objected that this is unreasonable, since if Reynaldo equals Ghost, somebody, such as Polonius, would notice.
Not necessarily. He would if perceived-character-identity were a constant, as it usually is on the modern stage. In F Tempest, there is the Stage Direction “Enter Ariell inuisible.” That’s two appearance forms for one character: spirit, and invisible – not just two garden variety forms, but in a situation where the characters inside the play and the audience perceive different things (invisibility counting as a disguise). There are other examples that could be cited, not only in Shakespeare but in other plays of the time. This is prominent with supernatural characters. One also recalls A Midsummer Night’s Dream, where there are several scenes involving misapprehension of character identity.
The Ghost is a supernatural character, so it is under suspicion. It is the minority view that the Ghost is an evil spirit (as opposed to being the actual ghost of Hamlet’s father). In many plays of that era devils appear disguised (such as Dr. Faustus and The Virgin Martyr). Maybe this character in Hamlet is another example. It could, then, have two “morphs:” alpha and beta. The alpha morph is perceived by the audience, and the beta morph is perceived by the characters within the play (there might be other combinations as well). In this case the alpha morph would be an evil spirit, and the beta morph would be the ghost of Hamlet’s father.
If one combines a variable character appearance with a variable Speech Prefix, then you can do anything. For instance with the Ghost in Hamlet the beta morph itself might be a variable: the spirit could be adopting a succession of disguises, so we could have a variable within a variable. The Speech Prefixes Ghost, Reynaldo, Player King, Gravedigger, Osric could in each case signify a different beta morph – where the alpha morph (evil spirit) is nevertheless perceived by the audience. If the wardrobe and make-up were distinctive enough, the audience would have no trouble identifying the alpha morph based on those signifying characteristics. Were this the actual situation on the original stage IT WOULD HAVE STRENGTHENED THE SPIRITUAL WARFARE ASPECT OF THE PRODUCTION.
This scenario also emphasizes the idea of levels of characterization. How about a scene where Richard Burbage, playing Hamlet, gives advice on acting to William Shakespeare, himself playing an evil spirit, disguised as Player King?
This line of thinking might be applied to Ophelia also. Apparently, Elizabethans recognized more than one kind of madness, with demon possession being one kind. It could be that is what’s happening in Hamlet 4.5. A boy or young man actor, portraying Ophelia, demon possessed (perhaps parsimoniously by the same evil spirit having appeared to Hamlet as the Ghost), who enacts the part of Gertrude, and then Claudius (as a kind of flashback).
Seems to me Ophelia is impersonating Gertrude by saying “Before you tumbled me,/You promised me to wed.” Then she impersonates Claudius by saying, “So would I a done, by yonder sun,/ And thou hadst not come to my bed.”
So she/it is on the verge of blowing their cover; no wonder Claudius asks “How long hath she been thus?” And the next thing you know Ophelia turns up dead (“drowned”). The Theory of the Progression of Evil all over again. It’s something one might expect in a play concerned with spiritual warfare.