Masaryk University Brno Faculty of Education Department of English Language and Literature
Jaroslava Gregorová
The Concept of Disguise in Shakespeare's Tragedy Hamlet, Prince of Denmark on the Background of the Crisis of Humanism and Renaissance
Bachelor Thesis
Brno 2015
Supervisor: Mgr. Jaroslav Izavčuk Declaration
I hereby declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
Jaroslava Gregorová ……………………. Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Mgr. Jaroslav Izavčuk and express my gratitude for his patience and supervision of my thesis. Annotation
The bachelor thesis concentrates on one of Shakespeare's dramatic means used in many of his works, the phenomenon of disguise, with focus on the tragedy Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.
It examines the utilization of the concept of disguise in that tragedy on the background of the historical crisis of Humanism and the Late Renaissance. The paper commences with a brief description of the disguise in the Renaissance society its perception and rules, as well as the
Elizabethan theatre with the disguised actors and divergent audience. It continues with the performance of a variety of Shakespeare's plays where the physical disguise is present to emphasize the difference via the following detailed analysis of non-physical, i.e. spiritual disguise in the tragedy Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. That analysis results in the presentation of the disguise as Shakespeare's medium to depict the refinement and inability of the Late
Renaissance man to solve definitely and strictly the problems of both a human as such and the entire society.
Key words:
William Shakespeare, disguise, Hamlet \, Prince of Denmark, Humanism, Renaissance Anotace
Bakalářská práce se zabývá jedním z Shakespearových nejpoužívanějších dramatických prostředků, konceptem převleku, se zaměřením na tragédii Hamlet, princ dánský. Snaží se prozkoumat využití konceptu převleku v této tragédii na pozadí historické krize humanismu a pozdní renesance. Práce začíná krátkým popisem převleků v renesanci, renesanční společnosti a v jejích pravidlech, a využitím převleku v alžbětinském divadle s maskovanými herci a publikem všech sociálních vrstev. Pokračuje rozborem několika Shakespearových děl, kde je využitý převlek skutečný, hmatatelný, aby byl zdůrazněn rozdíl mezi tímto druhem převleku a psychologickým převlekem v díle Hamlet, princ dánský. Podrobná analýza konceptu převleku v Hamletovi ukazuje, že Shakespeare jej zvolil vědomě, aby ukázal přehnanou kultivovanost pozdně renesančního člověka, který nedokázal definitivně a striktně řešit problémy jak
člověka jako takového, tak i celé společnosti.
Klíčová slova:
William Shakespeare, Hamlet \, princ dánský, převlek, humanismus, renesance Table of Contents
Introduction...... 7
1. Disguise in Renaisance...... 9
2. Disguise in Elizabethan theatre ...... 12
2.1. Disguise and the Elizabethan audience ...... 15
3. Disguise in selected Shakespeare's plays ...... 19
3.1. Disguise as a change of appearance …...... 19
3.1.1. The Merchant of Venice …...... 20
3.1.2. As You Like It …...... 23
3.1.3. King Lear …...... 29
3.2. Non-physical, “spiritual” disguise …...... 33
3.2.1. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark …...... 34
4. Conclusion …...... 50
Bibliography …...... 52 7
Introduction
“The use of disguise is an old stratagem in literature as well as in life. Achilles lived for a time undisturbed with his love because he was disguised as a maiden. Apollo in the stress of battle appeared in the guise of a common soldier and encouraged his favourite hero.
Odysseus returned from his wanderings in the shape of a beggar in order that he might not be recognized at home.” (Freeburg 1) The concept of disguise has been known from the ancient drama, continuing its journey through all important periods of time. It accomplished the most intensive revival in the Renaissance England being used by the biggest playwrights of that time.
It has been generally known that Elizabethan drama reached its climax in
Shakespeare's work. Shakespeare himself is the author of numerous dramatic means and methods which made typical features of his work. This thesis deals with one of the most frequent dramatic means of Shakespeare’s work, the concept of disguise.
The aim of the thesis is to examine disguise in selected Shakespeare’s plays and its use in a variety of forms with the main focus on the role of disguise in his absolute masterpiece, the tragedy Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, to point out that Shakespeare used the concept of disguise in that tragedy deliberately to demonstrate the impact of that period of time and its crisis to a Renaissance man.
The first chapter comments on the disguise in the Renaissance period and among
Elizabethan society.
The second chapter characterizes the Elizabethan theatre, not in detail, but from the aspect of disguise used on a stage. It depicts how the disguise was used according to the laws and social rules of that period of time. In the subchapter, the thesis examines the perception of 8 disguise by the Renaissance audience.
The third chapter deals with the disguise in selected Shakespeare's plays. The most typical and discussed type of disguise, a change of appearance – oftentimes used in many
Shakespeare's comedies, is studied in the first subchapter providing a few examples from
Shakespeare's comedies The Merchant of Venice, As You Like It, but also from the tragedy
King Lear.
The main focus of attention is the last subchapter in the third part of the thesis.
It examines the tragedy Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, in which the second type of disguise reaches its top, the concept of non-physical, psychological or “spiritual” disguise. It carefully anatomizes the role of disguise in the piece of work with the impact of the Elizabethan period to stress the fact that Shakespeare used that kind of disguise intentionally to demonstrate the problems of the era including examples and comments. 9
1. Disguise in Renaissance
In the Renaissance England, dress was the code of one's identity, symbolizing the gender and social status. Certain dress codes were required for the lower class (commoners) as well as for the upper class (nobility) and these rules were expected to be strictly followed.
Queen Elizabeth insisted, as her predecessor, on observance of so called “Sumptuary Laws”.
In the Elizabethan England, these laws attempted to restrict the sumptuousness of dress in order to curb extravagance, protect fortunes, and make clear the necessary and appropriate distinctions between the levels of society. (Secara) The English Sumptuary Laws were well known by all English people. “The penalties for violating Sumptuary Laws could be harsh – fines, the loss of property, title and even life! The Medieval period had been dominated by the
Feudal system – everyone knew their place! Clothing provided an immediate way of distinguishing 'Who was Who'!“(Alchin “Elizabethan Sumptuary Laws”) Those laws included what colour and material of clothes were allowed for a particular social class. People might have been easily classified according to the appearance of their dress.
If we recognize the disguise as a change of appearance, the Renaissance society had been exposed to the disguise in their everyday lives during various carnivals, celebrations, masquerades, etc. Carnivals played important roles “in the lives of individuals from aristocrats to commoners living in rural or urban locales in Renaissance England” (Vaught 4).
As Meg Twycross and Sarah Carpenter argues in Masks and Masking in Medieval and Early
Tudor England, “carnival masking did not belong solely, or even chiefly, either to the popolani or to the aristocracy or authorities. Either end of the spectrum might at times dominate or appropriate it.” (61) Carnival seasons were common in the time of Christmas,
New Year, Twelfth Night and Shrove Tuesday. Traditionally, as Vaught quotes, these 10 festivities were the periods when people devoted their time to food, drink and sex (4).
“Temporary misrule, role reversals, and disguises were recurring practices during the space and time of carnival in early modern England. Masks that featured long, phallic noses, crossdressing, and elaborate, hybrid costumes of wild men or women and animals were also common.”
(Vaught 4) As Mary Ann Mitchell mentioned in her dissertation The Development of the
Mask as a Critical Tool for an Examination of Character and Performer Action, the most interesting developments in the use of the disguise during that period were in occasions known as "mumraings" or "disguisings." "Mumming" was the name given in England to the masquerades of Shrovetide and New Year's Day. Those engaged in mumming wore disguises to hide their identity and then made visits to the households of acquaintances to bring them luck through the act of bearing gifts. The important element of disguise was passed on to the
Masques performed later in the Court.
Being in disguise was a great part of entertainment for the Elizabethan aristocracy. To take part in Masquerade in the Elizabethan court was a great opportunity how to become someone or something else without being recognized. “The idea of masquerades came from
Masques. In Masques, people would dress to portray a character or mythical creature and often wore mask.” (Moore) A Masque was described as “a lavish, dramatic entertainment often spoken in verse.” (Alchin “Elizabethan Masques”) performed for the upper class from the time of Henry VIII. “Both Masquerades and Masques . . . share the common element of disguise.” (Moore) Although people might have felt a special kind of freedom in disguise, there were again the strict dress codes for both women and men. For instance, it was not possible to choose whatever colour or material. Alchin in her article about Sumptuary Laws 11 quotes “Whether a man was wealthy or poor he was not allowed to wear whatever he liked . . .” Sumptuary Laws were applied in all spheres of dressing.
Masks were used for disguising persons and personalities. “It was a medium to evade the glaring social eyes . . .” (Monson) People who must have been aware of what they said as they were affluent and from the highest social circles, very often took the advantage of being disguised. They could speak about their inner feelings, about their controversial opinions without being compromised. (Monson) Not only entertainment was the main aim of those disguised sessions. “At the backdrop of these parties, all kinds of human emotions and characters were being displayed and enacted. These included secret or illegal financial interactions, undue sexual favour, and anonymous transactions.” (Monson) Furthermore, being very popular, masquerades moved slowly among ordinary people. It is said that those
Renaissance masquerades enabled the nobleman and the servant to interact under the cloak of disguise. From all those points of view it is obvious that the disguise played a great role among the Elizabethans.
12
2. Disguise in Elizabethan theatre
Before the 1560s there were no theatres in Britain. Companies had to perform wherever they could. “There are records of actors performing in churches in the great halls of
Royal Palaces and other great houses, in Inn Yards, in Town Halls, in Town Squares and anywhere else that a large crowd could be gathered to view a performance.” (Larque) The easiest way of performance was playing in the Inn Yards. Wandering groups of actors came to the yard of the inn and played their plays. The decorations were a poor hint of a coulisse, they used chairs “disguised” as thrones, poles “disguised” as trees or columns (Pokorný 57). When they were successful and the inn guests changed, the actors stayed in the same place and the audience started to come to them. During the plays in Inn yards there were lots of disturbances and fights because of alcohol, pickpockets and thieves who exploited the situation. (Alchin, “Elizabethan Theatre”) James Burbage was an organizer of performances in Inn yards. Later, after the London Inn yards were restricted because of those disturbances, he built the first theatre in Finsbury Fields. (Alchin, “Elizabethan Theatre”) In a few years many more theatre buildings were built, following the pattern of the Inn yard. The stage was at the end of the yard. Galleries were suitable viewing places for the better sort of audience while common people could stand in the yard itself in front of the stage (Pokorný 57).
The first theatres were built not in London, but on the south bank of the Thames River. “This was to avoid the strict regulations of London at that time.” (Thomas) The city of London did not approve of theatre because public performances were thought to be a breeding ground for the plague and for unseemly behaviour (Howard 73). The theatre allowed to mix social groups together and served as a meeting place for the prostitutes and their customers, which many people found inappropriate (Howard 75). 13
Since this chapter comments on disguise in the Elizabethan theatre, it is interesting to point out that also among the audience there was a necessity of disguise. Men and women attended the plays, but the prosperous women would wear a mask to disguise their identity.
(Alchin, “Elizabethan Theatre”) “Even though women did attend the theatre, and even Queen
Elizabeth herself loved the theatre, women who attended theatre were often looked down upon. In fact, if a woman was attending the theatre it was generally assumed she was a prostitute.” (Thomas) This was because the theatre was perceived as an inappropriate place for women as they should be at home with their children (Howard 76).
As it was mentioned in the previous chapter, the Elizabethan society was bound by law according to their clothing. People had to abide by Sumptuary Laws in all situations. The theatres as public places were highly expected to follow the rules.
Accordingly, the costumes that actors wore on stage served to visually establish
their character’s place in the body politic before an audience that was highly
attuned to the specific fabrics and articles of apparel appropriate to particular
social classes. But costumes conveyed far more information than just one’s social
class. They also presented a character’s sex, occupation, nationality, and religion.
(Lublin 3)
When the disguised actors were on stage, the audience would have easily recognized the meanings behind specific styles of costume worn. Whether the characters were peasants or nobles, their social status and gender were obvious. The costumes were so specific that the occupation of the character was clearly distinguished as well, even if the actor did not say anything. “For instance, an actor performing the role of a shoemaker would not need to mention his occupation since the black leather apron and “Saint Hughes bones” (shoemaker’s tools) would make his character’s occupation obvious.” (Lublin 11) 14
Costumes on the Elizabethan stage were beautiful and very expensive, made of the finest materials. Theatre companies had a fortune in their costumes. (Pokorný 59) “Some were the actual cast-off clothing of nobles and gentlemen that came to them in various ways, sometimes as gifts, perhaps more often indirectly though the second-hand clothing trade.”
(Hyland, “Disguise on the Early Modern English Stage” 29) The costume gave the actor a special kind of freedom from the Sumptuary Laws. Although he had to have the right and suitable costume in the play according to the law, he was allowed “to switch costumes and identities in a bewildering range of ways that transgressed class, gender and national lines
(even, in some cases, spiritual lines, since there are characters who disguise themselves as ghost).” (Hyland, “Disguise on the Early Modern English Stage” 30) Even though the costumes were easily distinguished by the spectators, similar actors playing in disguise might have been sometimes confusing for the audience. The performance thus required an explanation.
“When the same characters disguised themselves (as, for example, many of Shakespeare's female characters disguised themselves as boys) speeches had to be included making it very clear that this was the same character in a new costume, and not a completely new character.” (Larque)
The late sixteenth century Renaissance society and culture was male dominated.
“There were laws in England against women acting on stage and English travellers abroad were amused and amazed by the strange customs of Continental European countries that allowed women to play female roles.” (Larque) All of the actors in an Elizabethan Theatre company were males, therefore, in essence, any female character was a male in disguise.
Consequently, as Hyland affirms in his work Disguise on the Early modern English stage, the actors on disguise must have changed and modified the tone, timber or accent, which was important for actors playing female roles and a necessity to convince the audience about the 15 change and gender of the character. Larque argues that “Boy Actors” as they were called, played young women until their teens and being older they might have played older and uglier women. The main reason for that might have been the change of the boys' voices in puberty.
The number and type of actors involved in the Elizabethan Theatre varied from one performance to another. “There are forty named roles in Julius Caesar along with an unspecified number of extra Plebeians and Senators, Guards, Attendants, etc. all played by the members of the fifteen strong cast.” (Larque) There were usually less actors than roles in the plays. Furthermore, the change of appearance, as mentioned by Hyland, was not only a change of the costume, it probably included the use of make up as well, the application of wigs, scars, patches or beards. Therefore it was demanded so that an actor was able to play numerous roles and changing his acting style, costume and make up to convince the audience he was a new person on stage each time.
2.1. Disguise and the Elizabethan audience
“Although the age of Elizabeth and James is usually considered as synonymous with the greatest age of English drama, it was also a period when the very idea of poetry and drama was most vocally under attack . . .” (Evans 3) The use of disguise in plays might have been one of the reasons why some groups of people considered the drama and the existence of theatres as “civil riots and disease” (Evans 3).
First of all, it should be noted that Shakespeare's audience might have had very mixed feelings about seeing disguise on stage “In classical comedy, where dramatic disguise finds its origins, the disguised trickster had a positive function, but by the time of Shakespeare most of this was lost.” (Hyland, “Shakespeare's Heroines”) Leo Salingar concludes: “There was 16 much in classical comedy that Elizabethans could not accept. Their attitude towards trickery, for instance, is morally cautious . . .” (qtd. in Hyland, “Shakespeare's Heroines”)
Disguise was understood as a trickery at that time since the audience were used to the evil disguiser from Morality plays. Virtues so important for the medieval times had no need to disguise themselves. Hyland concludes that “the first idea of the Elizabethan audience when faced with a character in disguise would be of the tradition of the evil trickster and it would expect a character who disguised himself to be doing so in order to manipulate others or to tempt them to their destruction.” (Hyland)
Under these circumstances every play where the “Boy Actor” had to disguise himself as he played a female role must have been understood as an evil play. Besides, there were lots of
Shakespear's comedies and tragedies in which the heroine disguised herself as another person.
“It was bad enough for a boy to impersonate a woman, so when the impersonated woman disguised herself as a man, the evil was compounded.” (Hyland)
The Renaissance audience was drawn from all levels of society. Anyone who had the necessary amount of money could attend the theatres. Gurr gives us a portrait of a public theatre scene in his Shakespearean Stage 1574 – 1642, where there was a standing room in the yard, the penny and twopenny galleries and the lords' rooms. (214) In the Elizabethan period the playhouses were available for almost all social classes from the working classes to nobles. Even the representatives of the Catholic or Protestant Churches visited the performances. “A Catholic Archpriest named William Harison discovered in 1623 that some of those priests were in the habit of seeing plays at the amphitheatres” (Gurr 212). However, with understanding, the Archpriest pointed out to them that “such plays are made to sport, and 17 delight the auditorie which consisting most of young gallants, and Protestants (for no true
Puritans will endure to be present at plays) how unlikely it is, but that there are, and must be, at least some passages in the plays, which may relish, and tickle the humour of such persons, or else good night to the players.” (qtd. in Gurr 212)
Harison took out the Puritans from the visitors of the theatres as they were a special group within the English Renaissance society. The Puritans were an influential minority of
Protestants who were dissatisfied with the Elizabethan Settlement. They desired a Church doctrine and rituals in detail. Puritan extremists were people “who saw plays and playhouses as the breeding grounds of civil riots and disease.” (Evans 3) Moreover, they had reservations not only about the plays and actors, but about the audience as well. “The spokesmen for
Puritan London described them [the audience] as riotous and immoral.” (Gurr 213) They considered everything connected with any kind of pleasure amoral. They saw those performances as a tool how to learn something bad and how to act against the God.
. . . there are good examples to be learned in them [in plays] . . . if you learn
falsehood, if you will learn to deceive, . . . to lie and falsify, if you will learn to
jest, laugh and fleer to grin, to nod, and mow, . . . to become proud, haughty
and arrogant, and finally, if you will learn to contemn God and all His laws, to
care neither for Heaven nor Hell, and to commit all kind of sin and mischief,
you need to go to no other school, for all these good examples may you see
painted before your eyes in interludes and plays. (Evans 11-12)
Among of the possible indulgences disguise was recognized as a “devil's tool”. The latter as well as the perception of the theatre as such supported Puritan endeavour to close London theatres and prohibit the performances. They achieved their goal when Parliament closed the 18 theatres in 1642 for a period of about eighteen years. Fortunately, not all members of the
Elizabethan society were Puritans. 19
3. Disguise in selected Shakespeare's plays
William Shakespeare (1564-1616) was a unique writer who had a rare power to penetrate even the hidden spheres of the human soul. He was able to enter to every emotion or depression of man to such a degree that he seemed to have had knowledge of for the others yet undiscovered science about human life. His masterpieces are still a boundless source for various researches.
One of the most important and repeated themes in Shakespeare's plays is disguise. It is important to learn that disguise does not always require the changes in the dress or wearing a different mask, but changing behaviour can achieve similar aims. It is evident from the frequency with which Shakespeare used the concept of disguise that he was apparently attracted to it. He alters the identity of a character and uses the disguise to draw the audience in, to reinforce the irony as well as to develop or advance the theme. Shakespeare created the characters being in different types of disguise. This chapter will open only two of them – disguise as a change of appearance and non- physical, “spiritual” disguise.
3.1. Disguise as a change of appearance
Disguise may be perceived in a lot of different ways. In this part the thesis will focus on the disguise which means changing identity through changing clothes, since it is the most frequent type of disguise in Shakespeare’s work also called “cross – dressing”. As Freeburg quotes in his work Disguise plots in Elizabethan drama “. . . disguise, in our discussion, means a change of personal appearance, which leads to mistaken identity.” (2)
It is generally known that “of the thirty-eight surviving plays attributed to
Shakespeare, about one fifth involve cross-dressing.” (“Cross-dressing”) The concept of 20 disguise as a change of appearance when women disguised themselves as men can be found in comedies such as The Merchant of Venice and As You Like It. Disguised women had various kinds of reasons why to guise themselves as boys. Freeburg states some of those reasons to whether they were “prompted by love, hate, the spirit of adventure, curiosity, jealousy, or infidelity. . .” (3) In contrast with the time when the comedies were played and an ideal picture of a woman was an “. . . obedient, modest, chaste, silent and passive creature never forgetting her subordination to men, especially her father and husband” (Johnová),
Shakespeare introduced his heroines as strong, witty, self-confident, self-reliant personalities equal to men and sometimes more powerful than men. Hidden behind the guise, women had more rights and freedom. Nevertheless, such digression from the rules was accepted by the audience because the plays ostensibly did not mirror the reality, they served only for entertainment.
Shakespeare utilizes this type of disguise in his comedies and he does not avoid using it in his tragedies as well. It will be demonstrated in a brief analysis of the tragedy King Lear where men do not change their gender via disguise but they simply change their appearance only.
3.1.1. The Merchant of Venice
There is a multiple disguise in the comedy The Merchant of Venice. Three women disguise themselves as men. However, not all three disguises are the same. In the story the first woman in disguise is Jessica. She is a daughter of Shylock, a Jew, and she wants to escape from home as she falls in love with a Christian man. She guises herself as a torchbearer or a page, however, in essence, she could escape in her common dress since her 21 father is away from home. Shapiro argues that in this case Shakespeare uses the concept of disguise “to verify the motif through repetition.” (97) Moreover, in contrast with another person in disguise, Portia, Jessica is not such a strong personality. Her aim is only to escape and be with her lover. When she flees from home, she feels ashamed of wearing male clothes and tells it to her beloved man. She does not like the guise at all.
Here, catch this casket: it is worth the pains,
I am glad 't is night, you do not look on me,
For I am much asham‘d of my exchange;
love is blind, and lovers cannot see
The pretty follies that themselves commit;
For if they could, Cupid himself would blush
To see me thus transformed to a boy. (II.vi.198. 33-9)
And after she finds out she should be a Lorenzo‘s torchbearer, she complains.
What! must I hold a candle to my shames?
They in themselves, good sooth, are too too light.
Why, 't is an office of discovery, love,
And I should be obscur‘d. (II.vi.198. 41-4)
But Lorenzo answers her with love. “So are you, sweet, / Even in the lovely garnish of a boy.”
(II.vi.198. 44- 45) The truth is, that Jessica's disguise is not only “a part of a sequential 22 arrangement” as Sapiro argued (97), Freeburg comments her role as if it “simultaneously invitates a new set of complications, which are in turn resolved by the revelation of identity.”
(71) Portia, seeing her, gets an idea to disguise herself and her maid.
They shall, Nerissa; but in such a habit,
That they shall think we are accomplished
With that we lack. I'll hold thee any wager,
When we are both accoutred like young men,
I'll prove the prettier fellow of the two;
And wear my dagger with the braver grace;
And speak between the change of man and boy
With a reed voice; and turn two mincing steps
Into a manly stride; and speak of frays,
Like a fine bragging youth; and tell quaint lies,
How honourable ladies sought my love,
Which I denying, they fell sick and died; (III.iv.205. 60-71)
Nerrisa’s answer “Why, shall we turn to men? (III.iv. 205. 78)” reflects her inferiority and emphasises the intelligence of Portia.
Portia's and Nerrisa's disguise is much more important for the plot than that of
Jessica’s. Portia decides to disguise herself as a wise lawyer Balthasar and her maid as a servant to be allowed to enter the court of justice and save her husband's fellow's life.
“Porita is also the only one of the Shakespeare's heroines to adopt and relinquish male 23 disguise not under the pressure of events from outside. . . but by her own choice of time and circumstances.” (Shapiro 100) It is only her decision which is not influenced by anyone else.
Portia with a wit and convincingly circumvents all the audience in the courtroom including her husband and his friends. She wins the “battle” and Shylock loses. Portia and Nerrisa in their disguises are given rings as an expression of gratitude by their husbands. In the last scene, after coming home, they confess to their disguise during the ring episode which is again full of wit and audacity in which Portia surpasses the men in the story. “Portia invents a role that will give her authority over the men in the play.” (Shapiro 100)
Speak not so grossly. You are all amaz‘d:
Here is a letter; read it at your leisure;
It comes from Padua, from Bellario:
There you shall find that Portia was the doctor;
Nerissa there, her clerk. Lorenzo here
Shall witness, I set forth as soon as you,
And even but now return'd: I have not yet
Enter'd my house. - Antonio, you are welcome; (V. i. 213. 266-273)
3.1.2. As You Like it
In As You Like It the reason of disguise is a bit different than in The Merchant of
Venice. In the previous comedy Portia disguises herself on her own will to help her beloved husband’s friend. Here, in As You Like It, the heroine Rosalind guises herself as a man to save her own life and to escape unrecognized from the dominion of Duke Frederick. The Duke 24 took her under his protection and gave her home after he had exiled her father from his home.
Although Frederick likes her as much as his daughter, as the time passes, he starts to be suspicious and accuses her of betrayal. She has to escape and Frederic’s daughter Celia joins her since they are like sisters. To be successful in their plan, they decide to disguise themselves. Rosalind guises herself as a young man Ganymede, because her body constitution is tall and reminds of that of man’s while Celia dresses herself as a poor girl called Aliena.
However, the decision to flee in disguise was the idea of Celia, not Rosalind.
No? Hath not? Rosalind lacks then the love
Which teacheth thec that thou and I am one.
Shall we be sunder'd? Shall we part, sweet girl?
No: let my father seek another heir.
Therefore, devise with me how we may fly,
Whither to go , and what to bear with us:
And do not seek to take your change upon you,
To bear your griefs yourself, and leave me out;
For, by this heaven, now at sorrows pale,
Say what thou canst, I'll go along with thee. (I.iii. 219. 93-101)
The reaction of Rosalind shows that she is no such a strong woman, although as Hyland 25 comments, “. . . as Ganymede, Rosalind does dominate the play.”
(“Shakespeare's Heroines” 33)
Why, whither shall we go?. . .
Alas, what danger will it be to us,
Maids as we are, to travel forth so far!
Beauty provoketh thieves soner than gold. (I.iii.219, 103-6)
Celia then promptly offers the way how they can manage their disguises and hide their women's beauty.
I'll put myself in poor and mean attire,
and with a kind of umber smirch my face.
The like do you: so shall we pass alonng,
And never stir assailants. (I.iii.219.108-11)
What confirms Hyland’s theory is the fact that after Rosalind hears about the possibility to disguise herself, she chooses an appearance of a young boy and begins to be stronger and more active than Celia. (33) As in the most of Shakespeare's comedies where women disguised themselves as men, it is apparent in this story how challenging it was for 26 female heroines to dress as men. What a kind of change in their characters was caused by that simple disguise! Being strong, free and self-confident, not under the strict rules of the society and without repressing their feminine intelligence, they are able to behave bravely and at the same level as men. Rosalind's increasing self-confidence and dominance within her sudden vision of her cross-gendre change is well seen in her reaction and in the rest of the story from that moment.
Were it not better,
Because that I am more than common tall,
That I did suit me all points like a man?
A gallant curtle-axe upon my thight,
A boar-spear in my hand; and in my heart
Lie there what hidden woman's fear there will. . . (I.iii. 219. 102-7)
Rosalind guised as Ganymede and Ceila as Aliena, both accompanied by Touchstone, escape from Frederick's court with the aim to go to the Forest of Arden where Rosalind's father is hiding. During their wandering, when they all are too tired, Rosalind shows her strength again saying:
I could find my heart to disgrace my man's 27
apparel, and to cry like a woman; but I must comfort
the weaker vessel, as doublet and hose ought to show
courageous to petticoat: therefore, courage, good
Aliena! (II.iv. 221. 4-8)
Rosalind falls in love with Orlando whom she sees only once during his wrestling match with Charles, Frederick's strongest man. She does not know he has fallen in love with her too. She finds it out when she, disguised as Ganymede, meets him in the Forest of Arden.
She offers him as Ganymede “to cure his love sickness” (“Cross-dressing”), pretending he
[Ganymede] is Rosalind, an object of Orlando’s love with all bad habits which women usually have. Rosalind, under that clever pretext, is able to tutor Orlando in love and find out what kind of a person he is and if he really loves her.
Rosalind spends in disguise quite a long time during the play, being disguised as
Ganymede, pretending he is Rosalind. The most apposite quote, a very famous one, depicts her transformations even if in the play it is not in interaction with Rosalind herself. It is when
Jacques states that “All the world’s stage, / And all the men and women merely players”
(II.vii.224.139-40) during the conversation between Orlando, who is looking for food in the forest and Duke Senior, who resembles the forest to the “wide and universal theatre”
(II.vii.224.137). It is the truth that all characters of the story take part in the play about the disguise, the play, in which Ganymede pretends to be Rosalind. They greet him, speak and behave to him as if he were Rosalind although they know he is a young man. “Ros: God save you, brother. / Oli: And you fair sister.” (V.ii.235.17-18) 28
The whole story is focused mainly on Rosalind. Freeburg emphasizes that femininity is present during the whole plot and it is only strengthened by the disguise itself (72). Also in
Cross-dressing in Shakespeare's comedies – and beyond, the author points out that “although the heroines show their masculinity in cross-dressing, they are still biologically female and physically weak sometimes. . .” It is apparent from the scene when Rosalind, seeing the bloody napkin brought by Orlando’s brother Oliver, swoons. However, after the Oliver’s reaction “Be of good cheer, youth. - You a man? You / lack a man’s heart.” (V.iii.234.163 -4) she argues that her swoon was only counterfeited to show she is strong enough as any other man is. “And here the girl again makes an attempt to assert her manhood.” (White)
White also points out that the absolute incongruity between the masculine and feminine part of Rosalind is the essence of the whole story. Nevertheless, despite her feminine part,
Rosalind's disguise is so persuasive that she outfoxes all persons she meets being in the role of
Ganymede, including her father and beloved Orlando.
The end of the story brings denouement and revelation of Rosalind herself as it is usual in all stories of that type. What is not common is Rosalind's epilogue. She herself admits at the beginning of the epilogue that it is strange to have a female character and to give the epilogue since it is mostly a male's issue. Nevertheless, it is a matter of fact that there were only male actors on the Elizabethan stage. “It is not the fashion to see the lady the epilogue; / but it is no more unhandsome, that to see the lord the / prologue. . .” (Ep.238. 1-3)
As for disguise, the last lines of the epilogue are quite important if we take account of the fact again that on the stage at that time Rosalind was a male actor. 29
. . . If I were a
woman, I would kiss as many of you as had beards
that pleased me, complexions that liked me, and
breaths that I defied not; and, I am sure, as many as
have good beards, or good faces, orsweet, breaths,
will, for my kind offer, when I make curtsy, bid me
farewell. (Ep.238.16-22)
3.1.3. King Lear
As it is shown above, the concept of disguise in Shakespear's work is not only a privilege of his comedies, but it also appears in tragedies. However, it is not the cross-gendre disguise, it is a simple change of appearance. The characters pose as another persons and not another gender. The fact is, as it was mentioned in previous chapters that on Shakespeare's stage the only actors were men, and men disguised as women evoked humorous situations more suitable for comedies. In contrast, in tragedies the cross-gender disguise might have had outrageous effects since the plot was tragic and sad.
There are two characters who change their appearance in King Lear. They are Earl of
Kent and Edgar, son of Earl of Gloster. They both disguise themselves as lower social status people being expulsioned by their own class. As Lind quotes, “each of these characters, through their so called disguises, deal with their transgression and banishment from their noble class.” 30
Kent is a nobleman who passionately supports King Lear. However, he is banished by the King because he intercedes with him for Cordelia while Lear disowns her since she does not show the right affection towards her father. Neverheless, Kent disguises himself as a servant Caius and remains loyal to the king. Before he enters Lear's castle being disguised, he speaks to himself.
If but as well I other accents borrow,
That can my speech diffuse, my good intent
May carry through itself to that full issue
For which I raz'd my likeness. - Now, banish'd Kent,
If thou canst serve whre thou dost stand condemn'd,
(So may it come!) thy master, whom thou lov'st,
Shall find thee full of labours. (I.iv.837.1-7)
Kent uses his speech diffusion as a tool to help him to be unrecognised. In Shakespeare a jeviště svět Hilský comments on a bit different kind of disguise. He argues that the change of
Kent's speech means his “real disguise” (611). The nobleman who in the first scene speaks in a blank verse will change his form of speech to more shocking and familiar one (Hilský 611).
This transformation is well seen in the situation when Kent meets Oswald and to his question
“What dost thou know me for?” (II.ii.841.13) he answers: 31
A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats;
a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited,
hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave;
a lily-liver'd, action -taking knave; a whoreson,
......
. . . a beggar, a coward, pander,
and the son ad heir of a mongrel bitch; . . . (II.ii.841.14-22)
Kent disguised as Caius guides Lear during the whole story and his character does not change. His main focus is to receive king's trust again and therefore he is honest in every situation. When he is asked by Lear “What are thou?” he answers sincerely, “A very honest- hearted fellow, and as poor as a king.”(I.iv.837.19-20) His devotion and service to the king is appreciated by Edgar who speaks about him with the Duke of Albany in the last scene.
“Kent sir, the banish'd Kent; who in disguise / Follow'd his enemy king, and did him service /
Improper for a slave.” (V.iii.860.220-2)
The second disguised character who changes his physical appearance in the tragedy
King Lear is Edgar. He disguises himself as a beggar after his younger brother Edmund victimizes him since Edgar is the first born and therefore the inheritor of their father's property. Initially, Edgar wants “to preserve himself.” (Maclean 51) In a soliloquy, he states,
I will preserve myself; and am bethought 32
To take the basest and most poorest shape
That ever penury, in contempt of man,
Brought near to beast. My face I’ll grime with filth,
Blanket my loins, elf all my hair in knots,
And with presented nakedness out-face
The winds and persecutions of the sky. (II.iii.842.6-12)
“Self- preservation is a prerequisite to a second and more active purpose which disguise makes possible” (Maclean 51) “. . . to prevent the fiend and to kill vermin” (III.iv.848.160)
Edgar is in his nature good and honest. As his brother Edmund admits, Edgar's nature is
“. . . far from doing harms” (I.ii.836.136). Two times during the story Edgar nearly gives away his disguise because of feeling pity to others. Firstly, in the scene with the almost mad king Lear “[Aside] My tears begin to take his part so much,. . .” (III.vi.849.59) and secondly, seeing his own father bleeding from his eyes.
Poor Tom is cold – [Aside] I cannot daub it
further.
......
[Aside] And yet I must. - Bless thy sweet
eyes, they bleed. (IV.i.851.52-6)
However, the circumstances change him a bit. As the time passes, Edgar disguised as a poor 33
Tom wants to get his revenge. His character undergoes a certain transformation and development and therefore, his motive of the disguise becomes quite different from that of
Kent's.
Both of them, Kent and Edgar, want to preserve their existence either saving life or social status or observing loyalty to the King. Both characters, being disguised experience dreadful situations through the entire story to the very end. It is obvious that the use of disguise in the tragedy is quite different from that in comedies as it has to correspond with the obligatory recognition of dramatic rules valid for tragedies.
3.2. Non – physical, “spiritual” disguise
As it was mentioned in the previous chapter, the disguise of appearance usually occurs in comedy, while in tragedy the disguise of manner or behaviour is exploited prevailingly.
These kinds of disguise are not limited by wearing masks or changing clothes, however, they are intangible. In her work Shakespeare and the Use of Disguise in Elizabethan Drama, M.C.
Bradbrook broadens V. O. Freeburg's conception of disguise. She considers that Freeburg's work has not been superseded, but his concentration was on disguise as a dramatic device and he conceived of it only as a change of personal appearance. Bradbrook, however, prefers
“to define disguise as the substitution, over- laying or metamorphosis of dramatic identity, whereby one character sustains two roles. This may involve masquerade deliberate or involuntary, mistaken or concealed identity, madness or possession.” (160)
To follow the Bradbrook's theory, the next part of the thesis will analyse madness as a type of disguise in Shakespeare's tragedy Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. 34
3.2.1. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
It is no surprise that Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is considered to be one of the best
Shakespeare's tragedies . In fact, since it is a family drama where all kinds of relationships are present, ranging from friendship and friendship betrayed, the nature of duty to oneself, the truth, seizing and losing control to pretence and disguise, it has engaged people for more than four hundred years. As the society continues to change, the topicality of those issues remains.
This part of the thesis examines and analyses that masterpiece from the point of non-physical, i.e. spiritual disguise.
The valiant King Hamlet has died. “The death of Hamlet’s father is obviously a breaking point for the Prince. We can assume from the play’s words and action that it changes every relationship in his life. For starters, Hamlet does not become king.” (William Thornton) His brother has succeeded him as King of Denmark and also as a husband of Queen Gertrude,
Prince Hamlet's mother. The new King is fully in control of the court, despite his hasty and incestuous marriage. Prince Hamlet alone is still in mourning for the late King and when
Gertrude marries Claudius within two months after his father's death, Hamlet feels his mother betrayed the memory of his father.
So excellent a king; that was, to this,
Hyperion to a satyr; so loving to my mother
That he might not beteem the winds of heaven
Visit her face too roughly. Heaven and earth!
Must I remember? why, she would hang on him, 35
As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on: and yet, within a month--
Let me not think on't--Frailty, thy name is woman!--
A little month, or ere those shoes were old
With which she follow'd my poor father's body,
Like Niobe, all tears:--why she, even she--
O, God! a beast, that wants discourse of reason,
Would have mourn'd longer--married with my uncle, . . . (I.ii.802.139-152)
At that time, a ghost closely resembling the late King appears at the castle. He reveals to Hamlet that his brother seduced the Queen and poisoned him. He commands Hamlet to avenge his murder. Hamlet vows to undertake the task. From that point, Hamlet starts to behave oddly. He pretends madness. There are lots of theories whether Hamlet was or was not really mad. “. . . Hamlet does appear to be acting as a madman, it becomes difficult to decide, whether or not he is truly mad, or simply feigning madness. Although Hamlet has stated that he may find reason or need to act mad the insane behaviour which follows appears to be without motivation . . .” (Jeremy DeVito) Another author sees Hamlet's conversations with his only friend Horatio as a “crutial point in deciding for or against the sanity of Hamlet”
(“Hamlet's Madness As a Strategy of Disguise”) The fact is that Hamlet, after meeting the ghost, announces to Horatio and Marcellus that he will behave strange if it is necessary and he forces them to swear not to tell anybody.
. . . But come; 36
Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,
How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself,
As I perchance hereafter shall think meet
To put an antic disposition on,
That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
With arms encumber'd thus, or this headshake,
Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
As 'Well, well, we know,' or 'We could, an if we would,'
Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,'
Or such ambiguous giving out, to note
That you know aught of me: this not to do,
So grace and mercy at your most need help you, Swear. (I.v.805-806.168-181)
It is obvious from the citation that to disguise his behaviour to pretend being a madman is
Hamlet's strategy how to learn the truth about the father's death. According to Hilský, the
“process of verifying” may be the reason why Hamlet pretends madness.
(“Když ticho mluví” 124)
Not only Hamlet is disguised in the tragedy. King Claudius, Hamlet's uncle, who killed Hamlet's father, also disguised his behaviour. He seems to be morally an excellent man, a soft husband and loving uncle. He pretends to repent the death of the former king, his brother.
Though yet of Hamlet our dear brother's death 37
The memory be green, and that it us befitted
To bear our hearts in grief and our whole kingdom
To be contracted in one brow of woe,
Yet so far hath discretion fought with nature
That we with wisest sorrow think on him,
Together with remembrance of ourselves.
Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen,
The imperial jointress to this warlike state,
Have we, as 'twere with a defeated joy,--
With an auspicious and a dropping eye,
With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage, . . . (I.ii.801. 1-12)
And,moreover, that he loves Hamlet as his own son.
As of a father; for let the world take note,
You are the most immediate to our throne;
And with no less nobility of love
Than that which dearest father bears his son,
Do I impart toward you. (I.ii.801.108-12)
Claudius is the only person in the play who suspects Hamlet's insanity. Anxious, the
King asks the Prince's fellow students, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to spy on him. There is another type of disguise as a change of behaviour – hypocrisy shown. Hamlet's fellow 38 students, disguised as his best friends, investigate why he behaves so peculiarly. However, after Hamlet asks them to tell him the truth, to his question “Were you sent for?”
(II.ii.809.277) they admit after hesitation “My lord, we were sent for.” (II.ii.809.295)
Hamlet wants to ascertain himself whether the Ghost told the truth and he sets up the players' performance which is a re-enactment of his father´s murder and he believes that
Claudius' reaction will indicate his guilt.
Play something like the murder of my father
Before mine uncle: I'll observe his looks;
I'll tent him to the quick: if he but blench,
I know my course. The spirit that I have seen
May be the devil: and the devil hath power
To assume a pleasing shape;. . . (II.ii.811.605-10)
Hamlet confides his intention to Horacio, his loyal friend, and asks him to observe Claudius' reaction.
There is a play to-night before the king;
One scene of it comes near the circumstance
Which I have told thee of my father's death:
I prithee, when thou seest that act afoot,
Even with the very comment of thy soul
Observe mine uncle: if his occulted guilt
Do not itself unkennel in one speech, 39
It is a damned ghost that we have seen,
And my imaginations are as foul
As Vulcan's stithy. Give him heedful note;
For I mine eyes will rivet to his face,
And after we will both our judgments join
In censure of his seeming. (III.ii. 813.75-87)
In the scene about the mousetrap there is the second piece of evidence that Hamlet only pretends his madness. He warns his friend Horatio that the King and Queen are coming and he must play a madman not to be revealed. “They are coming to the play; I must be / idle:. . .”
(III.ii.813.89-90) “He [Hamlet] is completely capable of switching from his mad state to a state of complete sanity and masterful thought.” (Free Essays, “Hamlet's Words”)
During the play Hamlet as well as Horatio see Claudius' reaction of confession. Martin
Hilský describes the situation in the play within the play as if the protagonists were in the mirror chamber in which each mirror “shows the past, the present and the future.”
(“Shakespeare a jeviště svět” 512) Hamlet learns that the Ghost told him the truth and
Claudius is the murderer, Claudius discovers that Hamlet knows about his crime and that he only pretends his madness. And here is the break-event point of the entire tragedy. “Till that moment Hamlet's question was: “Does the Ghost tell the truth? Is Claudius a murderer?” and after the play within the play Hamlet's question changes to: “What will I do?” (Hilský,
“Shakespeare a jeviště svět” 513)
Being alone after the play within the play in his soliloquy, Claudius describes his inner feelings. He knows he should repent his crimes, but he cannot renounce what they have won 40 him – the crown and the Queen. He knows that God will judge and punish him, however, he cannot make the sacrifice which would earn him his mercy.
O, my offence is rank it smells to heaven;
It hath the primal eldest curse upon't,
A brother's murder. Pray can I not,
Though inclination be as sharp as will:
My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent;
And, like a man to double business bound,
I stand in pause where I shall first begin,
And both neglect. What if this cursed hand
Were thicker than itself with brother's blood,
Is there not rain enough in the sweet heavens
To wash it white as snow? Whereto serves mercy
But to confront the visage of offence? (III.iv.817.36-47)
Hamlet in rage is prepared to deliver justice. After the confirmation of the Ghost's testimony he was ready to “. . . drink hot blood.” (III.ii.816.391) However, seeing Claudius he starts to hesitate. Claudius seems to be praying and Hamlet does not want to “kill him in that situation, when Claudius has made his peace with God.” (McCain) Hamlet thinks his dead father would not wish a revenge which would send Claudius into Heaven. Moreover, it is against his virtues and religion to kill a man at prayer. 41
Now might I do it pat, now he is praying;
And now I'll do't. And so he goes to heaven;
And so am I revenged. That would be scann'd:
A villain kills my father; and for that,
I, his sole son, do this same villain send
To heaven.
O, this is hire and salary, not revenge.
He took my father grossly, full of bread;
With all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May;
And how his audit stands who knows save heaven?
But in our circumstance and course of thought,
'Tis heavy with him: and am I then revenged,
To take him in the purging of his soul,
When he is fit and season'd for his passage?
No! (II.iv.817.73-87)
“Thanks to that scene, Hamlet was perceived as a volatile, indecisive man, not able to act.”
(Hilský, “Shakespeare a jeviště svět” 515) Moreover, Mara McCain acknowledges in her essay Hamlet's admirable delay that “Hamlet's inability to make the snap judgements necessary to kill Claudius has often been cited as the reason for the tragic end of the play.”
The fact is that if Claudius had been killed during the scene when he was praying, Hamlet would have become the king and it would have been the end of the story, however, not the end of the tragedy. As Hilský quotes in his book Shakespeare a jeviště svět, “tragical hero must 42 die” as it is the rule of all tragedies (515). Hamlet's indecisiveness caused many unexpected and grievous events. Pollonius would not have been killed, Ophelia would not have committed suicide, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would not have been sent to England to be executed. And finally, the most tragical scene would never have happened. Indecisiveness accompanies Hamlet through the whole story. His comments and soliloquies are full of hesitation and allusions, and moreover, without any action. “. . . It is not nor it cannot come to good; / But break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue!” (I.ii.802.158-159) He expresses his doubts why he is the one who should have the solution of the revenge in his hands at the end of the first Act. “. . . The time is out of joint: - O cursed spite, / That ever I was born to set it right!” (I.v.806.189-90)
When the Ghost set him the task, he suggested that Hamlet would be “. . . duller shouldst . . . than the fat weed/ That roots itself in ease on Lethe wharf” (I.iv.804.32-3) if he failed to act. In his second sololiquy Hamlet responds to that taunt, worrying that he is indeed
“dull and muddy-mettled” (II.ii.811.575.) The great part of the monologue expresses how angry he is with his own passivity and irresolution.
O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!
Is it not monstrous that this player here,
But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,
Could force his soul so to his own conceit
That from her working all his visage wann'd,
Tears in his eyes, distraction in's aspect,
broken voice, and his whole function suiting 43
With forms to his conceit? and all for nothing!
......
A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak,
......
A damn'd defeat was made. Am I a coward?
Who calls me villain? breaks my pate across?
But I am pigeon-liver'd and lack gall
......
Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain!
O, vengeance!
Why, what an ass am I! . . . (II.ii.810-811. 557-592)
The character of Hamlet is from the beginning a shattered personality. Firstly, he is prostrated with the unexpected death of his father and after the encounter with the Ghost he is absorbed by the immorality of the whole world and society. Moreover, Hamlet is in a really difficult situation promising the Ghost to commit a sin. It is easier and safer for him to express his feelings and decide what to do while being a madman. Marvin Rosenberg calls it “. . . a private violence of a man at war with himself” (Rosenberg 206) Hamlet, hidden behind his disguise of madness can more easily express his disgust with the state affairs, early marriage of his mother and the whole world.
. . . What should a
man do but be merry? for, look you, how cheerfully 44
my mother looks, and my father died within these two
hours.(III.ii.813-14.125-8)
He also complains about the spoiled world, in which it is hard to live.
How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable,
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on't! ah fie! 'tis an unweeded garden,
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely. That it should come to this! (I.ii.801.133-7)
“Hamlet has been under such pressure that he could hardly breathe. In his heart there is a kind of fighting. . . he cannot get away, and the pressure is still intensifying . . .” (Rosenberg 206)
It is apparent that in such state of mind he thinks several times of what a perfect solution of all the problems he has a suicide would be. His words affirm his hopelessness not only in the first line of his famous soliloquy “To be, or not to be, that is the question” (III.i.812.56) but also in the following citation.
O, that this too too solid flesh would melt
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!
Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God! God! (I.ii.801.129-32) 45
Not only Hamlet, but also Shakespeare himself went through the conflict of the period in they lived in. To confront Hamlet's irresolution with the historical period, it is necessary to have a short view of the history.
The sixteenth century was a period of Renaissance and Humanism. Renaissance means
“rebirth” of ancient learning and values. The main feature of the new ideology, Humanism, is viewing the man as an equal human being, emphasizing the importance of each individual, his nature and the place in the Universe. An analogical part of the humanistic philosophy was to educate predominantly male learners to be ideal gentlemen, universal men, which was a reminiscence of the Greece-Roman ideal. Hamlet is an ideal, representative, man of
Renaissance. The Shakespeare's hero's humanistic education supported by his university studies results in the fact that Hamlet becomes “a humanist who dreams about unsullied man. . .” (Stříbrný 106) The characteristics of Hamlet as a university student shows the importance of education and the concept of individual. Hamlet holds to the extraordinary value of the human mind “. . . What a / piece of work is a man, how noble in reason! how / infinite in faculty!” (II.ii.809.307-9) He also presents his contemplations about the life cycle in conversation with Horatio in the churchyard.
HAMLET
To what base uses we may return, Horatio! Why may
not imagination trace the noble dust of Alexander,
till he find it stopping a bung-hole?
HORATIO
'Twere to consider too curiously, to consider so. 46
HAMLET
No, faith, not a jot; but to follow him thither with
modesty enough, and likelihood to lead it: as
thus: Alexander died, Alexander was buried,
Alexander returneth into dust; the dust is earth; of
earth we make loam; and why of that loam, whereto he
was converted, might they not stop a beer-barrel?
Imperious Caesar, dead and turn'd to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away:
O, that that earth, which kept the world in awe,
Should patch a wall to expel the winter flaw! (V.i.828.210-224)
However, by the end of the Renaissance, “humanist thinking became more sceptical.”
(Wood 92) General crisis of the Late Renaissance caused a chain of changes in all spheres of the Late Renaissance England. First of all it was the substantial religious upheaval performed by the English Reformation by Henry VIII and the establishment of the Church of England.
(Charvát 196) The religious conflict was also joined by political uncertainty. After fifty years of stability, the reign of Queen Elizabeth was coming to an end “with no certainty about what would happen when she died.” (Wood 92) Elizabeth was the last of the Tudors and she was dying without an heir. England was a small country at risk of invasion from Scotland, Ireland and Spain. But the most substantial changes occurred in economy. The decline of the period marked the decline of Feudalism and beginning of Capitalism. The new economic relationships directed by longing for profit resulted in revolutionary changes in coping with 47 new, aggressive and basically immoral acting of the landowners, so called New Aristocracy and ravenous, ruthless bourgeoisie. (Charvát 204) Factually, the desire to be successful without any respect to man as such, his feelings, moral principles and humanity was apologized in advance. The philosophy of the new era accepted any means to succeed and become wealthy. Any lie, betray, trickery even a murder were proper and justifiable.
Comparing the two different ways of thinking and views of the world, it is rather easy to recognize the crisis of a Renaissance man in changing conditions.
Shakespeare's Hamlet was written and performed in the final years of Queen Elizabeth I's reign. Considering all the above mentioned circumstances, the Late Renaissance people longed for certainties in the unstable world of the Late Tudor England where moreover
“Rumour was rife, and conspiracies (real or imaginary), government spies and informers were everywhere.” (Wood 92)
The play mirrors the period of those great changes and uncertainty. And so does Hamlet, the tragic hero, still performs a “member of the great world that Shakespeare loved and praised and which goes to ruins.” (Pokorný 158)
Since every play was a subject to government censorship at that time (Wood 92),
Shakespeare exploited masterly the concept of non-physical, “spiritual” disguise in Hamlet for inconspicuous, however, fierce criticism of the society to point out the problems of those days. Shakespeare's critics of the society is apparent in Hamlet, Act V in the churchyard.
HAMLET
How long will a man lie i' the earth ere he
rot? 48
First Clown
I' faith, if he be not rotten before he die--as we
have many pocky corses now-a-days, that will scarce
hold the laying in--he will last you some eight year
or nine year: a tanner will last you nine year. (V.i.827.169-174)
Besides, Hamlet expresses his opinion about his native Denmark. He compares Denmark with a prison. As Pokorný comments in his book Shakespearova doba a divadlo, “the picture of the social crisis is repeated here . . . and England appears here dressed in the external costume of the Denmark.” (157) From Pokorný's quotation it is noticeable that Shakespeare in the tragedy emhasizes the unstable situation in England.
HAMLET
Then is doomsday near: but your news is not true.
Let me question more in particular: what have you,
my good friends, deserved at the hands of fortune,
that she sends you to prison hither?
GUILDENSTERN
Prison, my lord!
HAMLET
Denmark's a prison.
ROSENCRANTZ
Then is the world one. 49
HAMLET
A goodly one; in which there are many confines,
wards and dungeons, Denmark being one o' the worst. (II.ii.808.240-249)
As a real man of Renaissance, Hamlet observes the humanist thought deeply fixed in his nature and acting, which is in deep antagonism with the new times. The antagonism is a source of his scepticism, indecisiveness and hesitation.
Considering unexpected changes in politics and society of he Late Tudor England and detailed analysis of Hamlet's feelings and acts, it is evident that Shakespeare uses the motif of madness as psychological disguise intentionally to draw people's attention to the instability and uncertainty of that period. He shows the Late Renaissance society their picture in a mirror where they can see themselves as indecisive human beings. That picture is disguised in the thoughts and acts of “mad” Hamlet. 50
4. Conclusion
The main focus of the bachelor thesis was the examination of disguise in selected
Shakespeare's plays emphasizing the analysis of the role of disguise in the tragedy Hamlet,
Prince of Denmark from the aspect of non-physical, i.e. psychological or spiritual disguise as the utmost form of this dramatic means on the background of the crisis of the Late
Renaissance and the Renaissance man.
The study of the work also shows that there are more forms of non-physical disguise in there. Hypocrisy and pretence reflected in the characters of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and
King Claudius are also very important and, moreover, playing a very dangerous role as they are not visible.
With the careful analysis of the tragedy Hamlet, Prince of Denmark a number of examples was given, in which Hamlet in his disguise of a madman criticises the state affairs and society. The investigation of the Renaissance and predominantly its late period brought a picture of the unstable Late Tudor England with religious and political uncertainties. It shows that the Renaissance man influenced by Humanism in his beliefs and ideas was full of doubts. The doubts are reflected in Hamlet´s indecisiveness as the examination of the text clearly indicates. The thesis anatomizing provides a great many illustrations from the work demonstrating Hamlet's irresolution and hesitation.
The analysis proves that Shakespeare uses the concept of disguise as a literary means to draw attention to contemporary problems. The concept of disguise as madness in Hamlet,
Prince of Denmark enables him to transfer the hidden message to both the reader and the audience, because, as it is mentioned in the last chapter, all works were strictly censured in the
Elizabethan period. Despite the fact, Shakespeare was able to point out the feelings of 51 uncertainty of people living in his period of time.
Although it was originally not intended, in the thesis it is shown that in comedies the disguise of women as men included a hidden meaning as well. It is apparent from their analysis that Shakespeare gave his heroines disguised for various purposes much bigger rights than they had in the Elizabethan society, acting on their own with a great amount of braveness utilizing the disguise for their own aims. The study of the text performs that Shakespeare comprehends his heroines as intelligent, quick-witted and brave women instead of ordinary, insignificant beings – the picture of women as they were perceived in the Elizabethan period.
On the base of the examination it is shown that through the disguised heroines the great playwright wanted to send a message to the Renaissance audience to point out that the question of women's rights at that time should have been opened.
Beyond all doubt, the message of Shakespeare’s dramatic work in its versatility is timeless. 52
Bibliography
Primary sources:
Shakespeare, William. The Illustrated Stratford Shakespeare. London: Chancellor, 2001. Print.
Secondary sources:
Alchin, Linda K. "Elizabethan Sumptuary Laws." Elizabethan Sumptuary Laws. N.p., 16 May 2012. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
Alchin, Linda K. "Elizabethan Theatre." Elizabethan Theatre. N.p., 16 May 2012. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
Alchin, Linda K. "Elizabethan Masques." Elizabethan Masques. N.p., 16 May 2012. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
Bradbrook, Muriel C. "Shakespeare and the Use of Disguise in Elizabethan Drama." Essays in Criticism 2 (1952): 159-68. Oxfordjournals.org Web. 1 Mar. 2015.
Charvát, Jaroslav. Svetové Dejiny. Bratislava: SPN, 1978. Print DeVito, Jeremy. "False Appearances and (Un)Reality in Hamlet."Shakespeare's Hamlet. N.p., 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.
Dusinberre, Juliet. Shakespeare and the Nature of Women. London: Macmillan, 1975. Print.
"Cross-dressing in Shakespeare's Comedies - and beyond." N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.
Evans, G. Blakemore. Elizabethan-Jacobean Drama: The Theatre in Its Time. New York: New Amsterdam, 1988. Print.
Freeburg, Victor Oscar, Ph.D. Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama a Stady on Stage Tradition. New York: Columbia UP, 1915. The Internet Archive. 19 Nov. 2009. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.
"Free Essays - Hamlet's Words." 123HelpMe.com. 24 Mar 2015
Gurr, Andrew. The Shakespearen Stage 1574-1642. 3rd ed. London: Cambridge UP, 1992. 53
Print.
"Hamlet Madness As A Strategy Of Disguise English Literature Essay." UKessays.com. 11 2013. All Answers Ltd. 03 2015
Hilsky, Martin, and Ludmila Korecka. Když Ticho Mluvi. Praha: Portal, 2007. Print.
Hilsky, Martin. Shakespeare a Jeviště Svět. Praha: Academia, 2010. Print.
Howard, Jean E. The Stage and Social Struggle in Early Modern England. London: Rout- ledge, 1994. Print.
Hyland, Peter. Disguise on the Early Modern English Stage. Farnham: Ashgate Limited, 2011. Google Books. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.
Hyland, Peter. Shakespeare's Heroines: Disguise in the Romantic Comedies. N.p.: U of Calgary, 1978. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.
Johnová, Lucie. "Patterns of Crossdressing in Shakespeare's Comedies." Thesis. Charles University, n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.
Larque, Thomas. "A Lecture on Elizabethan Theatre." Shakespeare and His Critics. Thomas Larque, n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2015.
Lind, Lauren. "The Critical and Dramatic Significance of Disguise and Deception in King Lear?" Literature Academic Discussions and Essay. 18 Jun. 2013. Web. 1 Mar. 2015.
Lublin, Robert I. "Costuming the Shakespearean Stage: Visual Codes of Representation in Early Modern Theatre and Culture." Diss. The Ohio State U, 2003. Web. 17 Feb. 2015.
Maclean, Hugh. "Disguise in King Lear: Kent and Edgar." Shakespeare Quaterly 1st ser. 11 (1960): 49-54. JSTOR. Web. 1 Mar. 2015.
McCain, Mara. "Hamlet's Admirable Delay." Sample Essays. City College of San Francisco, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2015.
Mitchell, Mary Anne. "The Development of the Mask as a Critical Tool for an Examination of Character and Performer Action." Diss. Texas Tech U, 1985. Texas Tech University Libraries. Texas Tech Univerity, 18 Feb. 2011. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. 54
Monson, Toren. "Masquerade Masks – From Past to Present." Venetian Masks Collections. N.p., 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
Moore, Autumn. "The Master of Disguise." N.p., 31 Mar. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
Pokorny, Jaroslav. Shakespearova Doba a Divadlo. Praha: Orbis, 1955. Print.
Rosenberg, Marvin. The Masks of Hamlet. Newark: U of Delaware, 1992. Google Books. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.
Secara, Maggie. "Who Wears What I." Elizabethan Sumptuary Statutes. N.p., 14 July 2001. Web. 10 Feb. 2015
Shapiro, Michael. Gender in Play on the Shakespearean Stage: Boy Heroines and Female Pages. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan, 1994. Print.
Stříbrny, Zdenek. Proud Casu: Stati O Shakespearovi. Praha: Karolinum, 2005. Print.
Thomas, Melissa. "Theatre Culture Of Early Modern England." N.p., 2009. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.
Thorntorn, William. "Brilliant Disguises." : The Hamlet Project: The Play's the Thing. N.p., 16 Jan. 2014. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.
Twycross, Meg, and Sarah Carpenter. Masks and Masking in Medieval and Early Tudor England. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate, 2002. Print.
Vaught, Jennifer C. Carnival and Literature in Early Modern England. Farnham: Ashgate Limited, 2012. Ashgate E-books, July 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2015.
White, Richard Grant. Studies in Shakespeare. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1887. Shakespeare Online. 20 Aug. 2000. 18.2.2015
Wood, Jeff. Hamlet, William Shakespeare. London: York, 2013. Print.