Sampson 1

Lindsay Sampson

Dr. Thurber

Shakespeare

18 March 2015

Communication and Reality - What Seems and What Is

Language and life itself are interwoven; if one lies with his words, if he is dishonest with

his actions, if she is masking herself with false expressions, then the very roads of communication

or shared reality crumble. Shakespeare knows that man is corrupt, and Hamlet portrays the war

between a truthful communication of reality and a perversion of it. The characters and readers

must continually question what seems and what is. Both of these are expressed through two

different means: physical expression appearance, facial expression, and action and language.

In Hamlet, Shakespeare champions the use of language and physical expression to reveal truth

more clearly, because communication of reality and reality itself are so intimately linked that to

threaten one is to threaten the other. He condemns using these means for dishonest purposes, for

when they become tools for characters to fool and abuse one another there becomes an evil rift

between seems and is. Throughout the play, the playwright himself demonstrates proper use

of language to express the often unseen but nonetheless experienced reality, through devices such

as an analogy exposing the depth of keen inward feelings or a well-worded utterance that just

captures the true state of things. Shakespeare thus demonstrates the power of words in relation to

reality.

The unguarded and intentional appearance of a character, including the unvoiced language

of their countenance and posture, can reveal true inward emotions and therefore communicate

reality. Hamlet demonstrates his understanding of the connection between appearance and reality
 Sampson 2

when he, clad all in mourning black, retorts to his mother, Seems, madam! nay, it is: I know not

seems I have within which passeth show; / These but the trappings and the suits of woe (I.ii).

This, as well as introducing to the play the concept of seems/is, reveals that Hamlet is eager to

keep reality consistent by communicating his inner turmoil in his appearance. This contrasts

sharply with Claudius and Gertrude, who rushed through an obligatory mourning period while

inwardly desiring the joy of each other. They were dishonest in their physical expression of

mourning, and Hamlet holds them in contempt for it. Again, Hamlet demonstrates his knowledge

of physical expression revealing deeper reality when he schemes to rewrite the play so that he may

catch the conscience of the king (II.ii). He thus instructs Horatio to observe [his] uncle in the

censure of his seeming, for Hamlet knows that this unguarded expression the seems

matches the is of Claudiuss inner wrath and fear (III.ii). All while Hamlet is directing the

players, Shakespeares philosophy on his own medium can be heard: he states that purpose of

acting was and is, as twere, the / mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature / scorn her

own image (III.ii). Acting itself, though it is false expression, is intended to display deeper truths

by imitating reality and human nature as closely as possible, and by this to allow an audience to

reflect. Shakespeare maintains that physical expression becomes a path for communication and

apprehension of deeper reality, a means for which seems may mirror is.

In Hamlet, action and language are twined together, for corrupt action is often masked with

corrupt, dishonest language, and action itself can function as both seems and is. Action is a

result of thought, and thought is an indicator of is and existence itself. Hamlet explores the

connection between his own thoughts and action, noting that the native hue of resolution / Is

sicklied oer with the pale cast of thought, / and enterprises of great pith and moment lose the

name of action (III.i). In the princes case, his lack of action is direct result of overwhelming
 Sampson 3

thought; his lack of action communicates truthfully his stalling reality. Not only does Hamlet lose

the ability to act, but he loses the very name of action, where name indicates the ability for

Hamlet to even understand action in communicable terms to himself (for thoughts and language

are so linked). Action functions as a sort of language itself. Hamlet acknowledges that murder

an act that most strongly communicates hatred though it have no tongue, will speak (II.ii). In

these cases, action is the seems revealing the is of inward emotions and ambitions. With this

in mind, as well as the idea that seems can be manipulated to mask the is, Polonius advises his

son to not give any unproportioned thought his act, for actions can be lies (I.iii). On the other

hand, action can be the is where language describing action becomes the seems. An oath or

vow is language that promises action to align with it. Thus, Hamlet is infuriated when he believes

his mothers actions of marrying her husbands brother is a violation of her marriage vows (Such

an act as dicers oaths III.iv). With all considered, Shakespeare is still propagating the notion

that reality and its means of communication should be consistent with one another.

Language in Hamlet becomes the most freeing and impactful means for characters to

express or understand their reality; language in its proper use aligns seems with is. In fact,

language and life itself are interwoven. Hamlet puts his entire existence in the form of language

when he ponders, To be or not to be: that is the question (III.i). Even more intimately illustrated

Gertrude laments, if words be made of breath, / and breath of life, I have no life to breathe / what

thou hast said to me (III.iv). Therefore, Shakespeare intimates that language in a sense is reality,

for there are few other ways to comprehend life. Language deciphers reality. If these are true, then

it becomes pivotal to suit the action to the word, the / word to the action (III.i). Shakespeare via

Hamlet accomplishes this task. When Hamlet asserts that frailty, thy name is woman, he

translates his disregard and contempt for his mother into language, and this language affects how
 Sampson 4

he treats all women who, in the play, are just Gertrude and Ophelia (I.ii). When Hamlet mulls

What a piece of work is a man! man delights me not, he is able to understand and wrestle

with the abstract concept of man through precise language. Language becomes the means for

which seems most accurately reflects and expresses is.

Limited language by extension limits the ability to communicate and grapple with reality.

For example, Ophelia inherently communicates her madness through babbling; but while her

babbling also contains apparent profound truths, the unshaped form of it may cause her listeners

to misunderstand her and botch the words up to fit their own thoughts (IV.v). Such unsteady use

of language fogs up communication of reality. Still, this is better that the inability to express

oneself through language. Twice Hamlet expresses the great internal strife his inability to speak

causes him (But break my tongue I.ii; Yet I, and can say nothing II.ii). He will not lie at

these points and congratulate his mother and uncle, but he still cannot properly express his reality.

When this road from inward reality to outward expression is hindered, then one is left

misunderstood, lonely, and in pain.

In pursuit of their selfish ambitions and schemes, characters abuse language through

dishonesty, causing a disconnect between the seems of language and the is of reality, and

corrupting both in the meanwhile. This corruption of language begins with corruption of reality

through thoughts. Shakespeare through Hamlet claims that there is nothing / either good or bad,

but thinking makes it so (II.ii). Thus he asserts that thoughts begin and dictate reality; they

become the truest form of is. In turn, the reality of thoughts dictate the value of language.

Claudius grasps at this notion when after his insincere prayer, he acknowledges that words

without thoughts never to heaven go (III.iii). Because his words did not truly echo his thoughts,

they meant nothing. In the same way, when action becomes the is and language the revealing
 Sampson 5

seems, corrupt action causes the corruption of it corresponding language. Vows and oaths again

become the perfect example of this: broken vows or vows which are falsely made for one owns

ends abuse the expressive nature of language. Ophelia is naive to such corruption when she

contends to her father that Hamlet hath given countenance to his speech with almost all the

holy vows of heaven (I.iii). Countenance calls to mind facial expression, which can easily be

manipulated to mask hidden intentions. So Polonius admonishes his daughter, saying Do not

believe his vows; for they are brokers. Personifying vows as brokers captures how they are

dishonest by nature, how they will promise anything to get what they want, which Polonius

assumes Hamlet is doing to Ophelia. In such an intrigue-filled environment as the Danish court,

Polonius is wise to assume that words should not be taken at face value. Languages original

purpose to express and communicate is so twisted by evil men. Claudius even acknowledges this,

musing that The harlots cheek, beautied with plastering art, / Is not more ugly to the thing that

helps it / Than is my deed to my most painted word (III.i). Claudius acknowledges that language

is beautiful in and of itself, but in its usage he devalues it and its beauty by covering up his ugly

deeds. Hamlet is full of the misuse of language, where characters manipulate the seems to mask

their evil is and accomplish their own selfish schemes.

Shakespeare illustrates that the end of every character including Hamlet, Claudius, and

Polonius who pervert language for their own ends is their own demise; in the meantime, they

cause strife in the lives of those around them: for example, Hamlets false madness and murder

drove Ophelia to insanity, and Claudiuss eagerness to cover up his own crime resulted in the

death of Laertes and his own beloved wife. Through this, Shakespeare condemns those who abuse

the means of communication the seems and pervert the truth of reality the is.

Shakespeare argues how expressive and uninhibited language and physical display, which are
 Sampson 6

uncoincidentally the two most communicative means in playwriting, can be when used properly.

Shakespeares takes the role of poet and playwright quite seriously, and he understands the benefits

and consequences of his own craft. Through punning and poetry, he demonstrates a keen

understanding of the flexibility of language. Through climactic action in his works, he reveals his

understanding of the power physical expression has in revelation of a characters true inward self.