Gravediggers in Hamlet

Hamlet is Shakespeare’s best-known tragedy, his longest play, and viewed by many as his greatest work.  To me, one of the most interesting scenes is act 5, scene 1 – commonly referred to as “the gravedigger scene”.  In the scene, two gravediggers shovel out a grave for Ophelia while arguing whether or not she should have a “proper Christian” burial in accordance with the church doctrine because her death appeared to be a suicide.  The scene stands out in the play due to the colloquial manner in which the gravediggers joke with each other and Hamlet.  Especially in the Elizabethan era, when religion was so dominant and strict, this was a very bold (same may say callous) move on Shakespeare’s part.  The character of the gravedigger is prevalent throughout the majority of Shakespeare’s works, always as the peasant or commoner who gets the best of the nobility.  During the time of the play, these characters were especially appealing to the groundlings as they had someone they could relate to.  Finally, the scene reinforces one of the most prevalent themes throughout the play: Hamlet’s confrontation with death.  First seen in the death of his father, the theme continues with his ponderings over Yorik’s skull and the death of Ophelia, and comes to a fitting close in the graveyard over Ophelia’s death.  The entire scene is a step out of the norm of the time, however it is fairly standard when looking through Shakespeare’s other works.  The lack of respect shown for the church, humor and wit of the peasants, and the impact of death after the actual event are all reoccurring themes in Shakespeare’s plays, and combined into one scene, they make the gravedigger scene a very interesting one to read.

Omens in Julius Caesar

In many of his histories/tragedies, Shakespeare uses omens and the supernatural to convey ideas in a way that makes the audience question the role of the supernatural.  The first way he introduces this idea to the audience is through the storm in Act 1, scene 3.  In Casca’s words:

But never till tonight, never till now,
Did I go through a tempest dropping fire.
Either there is a civil strife in heaven,
Or else the world, too saucy with the gods,
Incenses them to send destruction. (Julius Caesar I.iii.9-13)

Clearly, through Casca’s description, Shakespeare conveys the idea that this is no ordinary storm.  During the storm, Cassius discusses with Casca his contempt for the thunder, which is a traditional representation of the power of the Gods, solidifying the idea that the storm is much more than a normal rain shower.  The storm symbolizes the growing conspiracy against Caesar and his supposed evil, and by including the Gods, plants the idea of some higher power controlling the fate of Caesar.

    During the same storm, Casca sees three interesting omens; a man on fire but not burning, a lion on the capitol steps not harassing people, and an owl screeching at midday.  Both the lion and the owl are out of their natural habitats, and are acting in an inconsistent manner compared to their normal archetype.  The man on fire is perhaps the most interesting, as it is an allusion to the Gods giving Prometheus the gift of fire, and shows the influence of the Gods early on in the play. All three of these omens represent an upset in the natural balance, and demonstrate the inclusion of divine power on the lives of the people of Rome, and Caesar in particular.

The Changing Richard III

The play Richard III is a tragedy - so right from the beginning we know Richard will go through a dramatic change. What we don’t know however, is just how drastic that change will be. The play starts off with a monologue by Richard recounting the end of the War of Roses, and lamenting on his deformed body and the evil that comes attached to that deformity. On lines 28-31, he says, “And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover/To entertain these fair well-spoken days,/I am determined to prove a villain/And hate the idle pleasures of these days.” These lines give us a glimpse of things to come, a window into Richard’s conniving mind and his evil plans. So from the very first lines, we learn that Richard has evil in store for all around him.

Throughout the monologue, Richard uses the word “I” 8 times. This is not because of Shakespeare’s lack of creativity; it is, in fact, just the opposite. Shakespeare does this to convey an important character trait of Richard – his certainess of his plans. Richard has himself irrevocably convinced that “these fair well-spoken days” must come to an end, and that he is the one who must change it. He must become King.

Now compare these traits to one of Richard’s final speeches, starting on line 178 of Act V, Scene 3. Richard exclaims, “What do I fear? Myself? There’s none else by./Richard love Richard; that is, I and I./ Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am./… Alack, I love myself. Wherefore? For any good/That I myself have done unto myself./Oh no, alas, I rather hate myself.” I can keep going, but you get the idea. He is having an argument with himself, and the “myself” is overriding the “I”. Richard breaks when the ghosts of all the people he had a hand in murdering come to visit him. The use of the word “myself” gives us the idea that Richard is now two people, the cunning evil of the beginning of the play, and the needless evil of the end. Moral of the story? Don’t kill – easy enough.