This student owes a great deal of intellectual debt to Louise Cowans, thanks in great part to the theoretical criticism expressed by the author in her introduction to The Comic Terrain. An example of the brilliance of her critical theory can be found in an extended quotation from the introduction:
Infernal Comedy” is a state in which grace
There is utter absence where selfishness prevails.
Malice should not prevail. The community has come to accept this.
It’s in a fallen condition and is cynically pessimistic.
It attributes its corruption to the way of.
The world is a beautiful place, but it can also be harsh and unforgiving. Love cannot thrive in an environment that is filled with negativity and hate.
Society can make us feel like we are fundamentally alone.
Though hypocrisy and self-serving tendencies may be present,
The appearance of friendship” (paragraph 23).
Specifically, the term infernal” referenced in the statement alludes to Dante’s three landscapes: hell, purgatory, and heaven. Cowans postulates a classification of comedy based on the dramatic “terrain” in which it occurs.
How is such a typology relevant to a dark tragedy like Hamlet? This essay answers this question by underscoring it in the form of the following thesis statement: Hamlet is capable of sustaining two worlds (the major tragic and the minor comic) within itself, as Professor Peter Saccio of Dartmouth opined that Shakespeare’s works, taken as a whole, are so abundant” (Lecture 1). The central thesis then holds this notion within the comedic portion of the play’s space. Furthermore, the fact that this space is “infernal” under Cowan’s definition explains the comic identities of various characters.
In regards to this, Erich Auerbach states, “In most of Shakespeare’s plays which have a generally tragic tenor there is an extremely close interweaving of the tragic and comic, the sublime and the low” (315). In truth, Hamlet is permeated with aspects of comedy. This is obvious when one examines the various humorous undertones present throughout the work. It is a simple fact that many of the play’s characters are funny and their humor plays an important role in relation to the narrative structure. From Polonius’ bombastic speech to Laertes as he departs (I:iii;52-81) to Osric’s exit after presenting a summons for a fencing match with Hamlet (V:ii;180), there is a great deal of humor. Hamlet himself often plays a humorous role, particularly in regards to his method” to his “madness.”
In fact, there is so much comedic material in the Hamlet role that it can present a potential hindrance to an actor who is not completely aware of the humorous undertones. Richard Burton’s Hamlet, directed by John Gielgud, is often criticized for being “too funny”. If one were to watch the DVD of the play with only the ability to hear the audience’s response and not the words spoken by actors, one might get the impression that it was a pure comedy due to their laughter. This presents a problem as much of this issue centers around Hume Cronyn’s portrayal of Polonius as being too droll and Burton alternating between bombastic excess in tragic parts and a sly low-comic voice and demeanor in funny parts. Similarly, Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet also appears too jovial and self-consciously witty. However, Gielgud’s own performance of Hamlet (currently available as an archived audio recording from decades ago) did not succumb to this tendency nor did Laurence Olivier’s famous performance.
Of the wit present in the play, much of it is laced with irony. Even poor Ophelia’s part can be played to include a touch of irony. In the BBC production of Hamlet starring Derek Jacoby, Lalla Ward delivered these lines to her brother Laertes after he advised her to guard her “chaste treasure” against Hamlet’s attempts: “Do not as some ungracious pastors do, Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven, Whiles like a puff’d and reckless libertine, Himself the path of dalliance treads, And recks not his own rede” (I:iii;48-51). Ms. Ward delivered these lines with a somewhat mocking and ironic smile. However, humor in this play is not limited to irony alone. Polonius’ part is loaded with low farce while Osric’s pompous diction also partakes of that trait. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are “low” characters (in the spiritual sense) with comic overtones where they indulge themselves in bawdy humor such as Guildenstern’s “Faith, her [Fortune’s] privates [private parts] we” (II:ii;233).
The comic interweavings in Hamlet create a unique space within the play that serves many functions. This space is substantial, even though it is surrounded by the greater tragic space in which it resides. Cowan’s conception of an infernal” comedic terrain fits clearly into this comedic space. It is a place where there is no theological grace, and selfishness and malice prevail (as seen in Hamlet’s coarse jesting with Ophelia before the play-within-a-play). Furthermore, the community of Elsinore has accepted its own fallen state, as evidenced by characters like Polonius and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. As Harold Jenkins notes in his introduction to the Arden Shakespeare edition of the play, “Love cannot dwell in such a society,” as shown through Hamlet’s rejection of Ophelia – which Jenkins argues is a rejection of the marriage bed itself (149-150).
The infernality” of the space determines the comic identities of the characters within it. This is evident when comparing Shakespeare’s comedic character Sir John Falstaff to any character in Hamlet. Falstaff, who describes himself as “not only witty in myself, but the cause that wit is in other men,” would be out of place in Hamlet due to his expansive, stage-filling jesting and delightful nimbleness in lying (I:ii;8-9). While these eccentricities fit well within the comedic terrain of Henry IV and Merry Wives, they are too big and boisterous for Hamlet’s subterranean space. Different comedic spaces require different identities.
Consider Polonius. He is a courtier and a fool, unbelievably prolix and obtuse. Despite his proximity to the throne, there is no hint of rebellion in him with respect to the status quo. However, he realizes that his new master, Claudius, is a Satyr to Hyperion” (I:ii;140), as Hamlet puts it. We are not supposed to find Polonius “cute” or overly sympathetic; this remains the central flaw in Hume Cronyn’s portrayal of the role in Burton’s Hamlet. Hamlet shows no concern for Polonius’ corpse: “now most still, most secret, most grave,/Who was in life a foolish prating knave./Come sir, to draw toward an end with you” (II:iv;214-217).
Holland points out that there is irony in these lines. Polonius, in seeking to find out the secrets of others, is ultimately destroyed by Hamlet’s sword thrusting blindly through the arras where he has concealed himself (179). In a way, this is poetic justice as Polonius remained a minister of a corrupt king. He shows no trace in the play of any doubt respecting his high position. His comedic identity is established by his pretensions of a “low” type occupying a “high” position. His position has seduced him into thinking of himself as a “wise” and “grave” man of affairs.
Conversely, Polonius’ comic identity also serves a function. At Elsinore, Hamlet states: The time is out of joint” (I:v;196). The fact that the first minister of the state and confidant of the king and his wife is a conniving worm who speaks in lofty tones but lacks the scruples to fawn on royalty or spy on Hamlet indicates a bland acceptance of evil.
Indeed, Elsinore is filled with such people. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are quintessential ciphers, wholly amoral in their posing as Hamlet’s friends while prepared to cause his death. As Jenkins has pointed out with respect to Hamlet’s line to Horatio justifying the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, “Why, man, they did make love to this employment” (V:ii;57), there is no evidence in the text that they knew of their commission to assist in Hamlet’s death. However, Hamlet assumes the worst in them and we should do so as well (n. 57). Their “hail fellow, well met” pretensions of camaraderie with Hamlet are wholly false. They are amoral Renaissance courtiers with no ethical compass which unexpectedly makes them comedic characters. For instance, Osric’s character exemplifies a type of aide-de-camp that a monarch like Claudius might employ.
Also, the Grave Digger scene serves several thematic and ideological functions. One such function is to present a view of human mortality from a dark comic perspective that emphasizes certainty. The Grave Digger’s literalness in saying that it is not a woman but one who was once a woman who is to be buried in the grave he digs, which Hamlet characterizes as absolute” (V:I;132), is a piece of dark humor that emphasizes the distinction between living and dead and the inevitability of the passage from one existential realm to another amidst scenes of death and burial.
Finally, there is a portion of time in which Hamlet himself spends in the comic space of the tragedy. While volumes could be written on this subject, it would be accurate to simply characterize his dominant brand of comedic expression as bitterly ironic. Numerous functions are served by his use of irony, one of which is to illustrate his intelligence. For example, the line A little more than kin, and a little less than kind” (I:ii;65) demonstrates the nimbleness of mind through a mixture of irony and word play. This type of word play would have been more familiar to people during the Renaissance era and enjoyed by them compared to modern audiences. However, Hamlet’s ability to seem mad while sending barbed shafts into his auditors also serves his use of irony.
In conclusion, there is a great deal of comedy in the tragedy of Hamlet, and the nature of this comedy is influenced by the specific comedic terrain. According to Cowans, this terrain is infernal” in this particular play. The comedic identity of characters who live or frequent that terrain is shaped by their environment and reflects that conditioning. This process provides insight into the kind of place Elsinore exists within. The blending of comic and tragic genres in Hamlet greatly enriches it, going beyond mere “comic relief” in complex ways.
Works Cited
Auerbach, Erich’s Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature” has been translated by Willard Trask.
Princeton University Press published this book in 1974.
Cowan, Louise. Introduction.” The Comic Terrain. Electronic reprint. Downloaded on March 2.
2007. Retrieved from: http://lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/ComicTerrain.html
Holland, Norman. The Shakespearian Imagination.” Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
1964.
Saccio, Peter. William Shakespeare: Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies” DVD Lectures.
Chantilly: The Teaching Company, 1999.
William Shakespeare’s Hamlet” was edited by Harold Jenkins and published by Methuen in London in 1997. This edition is part of the Arden series.
Shakespeare.
William Shakespeare’s 2 Henry IV” is included in “The Oxford Shakespeare” edited by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005. Pages 537-594.
Note that Auerbach equates low” with comedy and “high” with tragedy. This distinction goes all the way back to Aristotle and became connected to a general tendency in Western literature to match “style” with “matter.” A “high” tale of heroism, courage, etc. is represented in a “high” rhetorical style, while a “low” matter of buffoonery or cowardice, etc. is represented in a “low” rhetorical style. Shakespearean tragedy is socially stratified, with tragic or sublime characters tending to be noble (314). However, the fact that tragic characters are of high rank does not imply that men and women of high rank always have tragic stature. This is not the case in Hamlet.
But note that within the play, outside the comedic space within it, there can be love. Horatio certainly loves Hamlet; for example: “Goodnight sweet prince,/ And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest” (V:ii; 364-365).
