Performed at the Globe in 1601, Hamlet was produced at a time when theatre was a somewhat modern channel for expression. Renaissance plays were relatively aware of their own theatrical nature, as their writers explored the technical possibilities of the medium. We have to question what kind of truths can be displayed through theatre? What effect do plays have on the audience that perceives them?
The sequence that goes from Act 2 Scene 2 around lines 3 to 15 all the way through to Act 3 Scene 2, line 288, carves into Shakespeare’s representation of reality. The Globe’s audience watching this play in 1601 would evidently be more sophisticated perhaps than we are, in that they could accept an art that could abandon the illusion of stage representation and later take it on again. It is something that isn’t as common in modern theatre. However, since Shakespeare had this freedom with Hamlet, we might term this as a sort of meta-theatre; the idea that Shakespeare’s greatest characters were free artists of themselves and Hamlet ought to be described as the freest. However to curb ultimate freedoms, Shakespeare prevents this in order to contain his own writer’s freedoms to make this play a – “poem unlimited”.
The method therefore explains Hamlet’s ‘mousetrap’ to ‘catch the conscience of the King’. It points towards Hamlet’s own sense of self doubt and how he chastises himself for doing nothing thus far in response to the ghost’s wishes. Still uncertain about the authenticity of the ghost’s murderous tale, Hamlet finds himself approaching the idea of dramatisation to lure the truth out into the open:
Dramatic pieces may just be that of acting and make-believe, but they ignite emotions and responses from an audience member. Hamlet’s crime-scene approach to the use of The Murder of Gonzago, whereby he ‘observes’ his uncle’s ‘looks’ when viewing the startlingly biographical events of the play, creates the idea that theatre has a strong impact on those who view it through various ways.
So Hamlet is under some control by immersing us in plays within plays, we need to ask the question – what exactly is Hamlet’s intention?
The play-within-a-play is a crucial scene because it provides Hamlet with the evidence he needs to continue in his task to avenge his father’s death. Hamlet has been determined to fulfill his father’s asks, but his morality and his cautious nature haven’t given him the moment to act impulsively. He knows that the ghost may have been a devil in hiding, so he felt obligated to find hard evidence of Claudius’s guilt.
The performance of ‘The Murder of Gonzago’ is staged with an ulterior motive through theatrical objectives. The main aim is to lay out the fact that Claudius is aware before the piece is played that Hamlet has indeed learnt the truth regarding the death of his father- in turn putting the King on edge and reducing the chances of him showing any signs of guilt outwardly. This serves to heighten the dramatic tension during the play from formulating the possibility of Hamlet’s plan failing as a result of Claudius’ prior knowledge.
Critics have been puzzled by the fact that Claudius and Gertrude seem unaffected by the show. However, Claudius is a character who is no stranger to disguising his guilt. It is not that he is unmoved by the play; it is that he does not show that he is affected. Gertrude has no reason to be upset due to, as we learn in Act 3 Scene 4, having no idea her husband was in fact murdered. The actor Queen only acknowledges the murderer’s approaches after the actor King has passed away; suggesting that Gertrude and Claudius had been incestous lovers some time before King Hamlet was murdered. The show, therefore, would persuade Gertrude that the play was not biographical to her.
Archaic and artificial, The ‘Murder of Gonzago’ is intentionally false because it was necessary to appear under the guise of a stage-play performed for the characters in the main stage-play. Shakespeare tells us that this was formulated by none other than Hamlet himself. Hamlet has directed the piece, trained the performers, and persuaded the King and Queen to bare witness to his creation; more than once Hamlet says that the contents of the piece will be comparative to the likes of the murder. This dismisses the possibility of a coincidence between the events of King Hamlet’s death and the ‘Murder of Gonzago.’. The spotting of the “dozen or sixteen lines” added into the ‘Mousetrap’ is impossible, and it appears as though Shakespeare meant for this to be the case.
If the attempt must be made, the probabilities are in favor of the speech of Lucianus the Poisoner. The play is a test of the Queen’s guilt as well as of the King’s; Hamlet most likely willing to jump to the incorrect conclusion of his mother’s involvement based on the reactions the play produces.
The first part of the play focuses on the Queen’s behaviour before and after her husband’s death. If Hamlet is out to catch anyone’s conscience it is his mother’s he is after first, only then the King’s. We are told that in Act 5 that Hamlet is thirty. Pointedly, we hear that the player King and player Queen have been married thirty years. That detail would alert Gertrude to the play having an ulterior purpose. What we have, presumably as a result of Hamlet’s embellishments, is an indictment of Gertrude’s infidelity to her first husband.
Hamlet is drawn into studying and understanding the depth of his mother’s conscience.He poses the questions of whether his mother was conscious of the events surrounding Claudius and King Hamlet, and the possibility of her sharing a piece of the guilt within herself. These thoughts are not silenced until the scene in her wardrobe, in which Hamlet directly confronts her about the murder.
The response the Queen has to the confrontation seems to soothe his accusations, deeming them just that – accusations. After this, such accusations are never repeated. However, the Queen does not help but to fuel these suspicions during the performance of ‘The Murder of Gonzago’ and thus Hamlet’s mind is ruminating with the thoughts of her involvement and the extent of her guilt. It is when the Player Queen states,
Hamlet’s mother, though not guilty in the sense of association with the crime, winces visibly at the mention of the shame a woman should endure when marrying for the second time. Hamlet, who is plagued by suspicions up until this point, serves to delve further into the mind of his mother by publicly pressuring her responses after assuming her agitation is a sign of guilt – “Madam, how like you this play?” In the presence of the court, Gertrude can merely reply puzzled – “The lady doth protest too much methinks.” It is therefore fair to assume the accusations Hamlet has towards Claudius before the play is performed have been confirmed by the play as a device to capture guilt and confirm suspicions. In the case of the Queen, there play acts as a device in order to clear her name. It proves the accusations made by Hamlet internally to be false and without evidence.
The King however is observing for an opportunity to cover the guilt and any opportunity for suspicion to be cut off immediately, even if it means stopping the play for the sake of saving his reputation and appearance in front of his courtiers. However, to cut the play at this point would raise suspicions considerably, and would in effect sign his own guilty verdict in the eyes of his nephew. Getrude is visibly uncomfortable and unnerved – although we must not mistake this as guilt deriving from the dialogue in the play “none wed the second but who kill’d the first?” The taunts of women who have the audacity to marry a second time are yes, offensive – however they are not anything to discern Gertrude’s guilt depending on her reaction. The court is not oblivious to the idea of the Queen’s second marriage. Based on this, the stopping of the play on this remark would be to identify the obscenity of Claudius and Gertrude’s marriage – of which is a delicate topic regardless of the crass situation they find themselves in. The crass approach Hamlet has to the whole affair can be chalked up to his insanity and suffering mental health, much like his behaviour regarding Ophelia can be deemed in the same way. The actions of a man who is deemed less than sane cannot be considered offensive if they have no real meaning or stock behind them.
What is considered dangerous, is the knowledge the King must now possess that Hamlet is aware of the real events of his father’s passing. While Hamlet knows such facts about Claudius’ misdeeds, the danger that lies in him revealing such secrets threatens Claudius’ life and throws the throne of lines he has constructed into jeopardy. The play in this sense alerts Claudius to Hamlet’s knowledge and also could be considered as a method to identify the facts of the murder to the court in a way that is easier for the courtiers to understand. The King understands these situations and ultimately decides it will be more beneficial for him not to end the performance. Alternatively, he arranges to cut the play should it become totally necessary should a technicality occur. Stage-plays performed before royalty should contain nothing irritating to exalted sensibilities. When taking this into account, it’s clearly been assumed that the performance – that has been directed and altered by the Prince, of whom would be aware of such customs – has been adjusted to be suited to royalty. Although, using the excuse of Hamlet’s suspected insanity, the blunt blows to the royal family and the indecency of it can be looked upon as oversight. It would therefore provide Claudius with the means to stop the performance under this reasoning.
Therefore, the King has the option to take such measures should he see fit, at least if the situation should worsen. Interestingly, the strategicial approach by Claudius upon noticing the whispers rippling the court is done through appearing as though surprised and seemingly ignorant. His question “Have you heard the argument? Is there no offence in’t?” is actually aimed towards his courtiers in order to convey something like “I see no offence in this play as yet, but I observe that people are exchanging glances; are you sure that there is nothing inadmissible in the lines to come?” “As of yet I see nothing obtusely wrong with this performance, however I can observe that the surrounding court is questioning the decency of the contents of this piece. Are you sure that there is nothing inadmissible within the contents of this play?”