Curso de Letras-Inglês Literatura Inglesa: Drama

A COMPARATIVE ACCOUNT:

HAMLET / ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDERNSTERN ARE DEAD

Por: Guilherme Parisotto

Objective: This paper aims to compare the tragedies “Hamlet”, by William Shakespeare, and

“Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead”, by Tom Stoppard, explaining the relation of

transformations in those texts as to the times they were written, and setting patterns of the

contemporaneity and the values presented in each of them with notes and comments.

“Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead” challenges the readers’ understanding of

Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” and reflects the context in which Stoppard composed his play.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and Hamlet are contrasting texts. Each address similar issues,

themes, and concerns, revolving around wholly different contexts, values and societies. Each text

challenges the audience’s understanding of the other, and both reflect the context in which they were

composed.

Hamlet, written by William Shakespeare in 1601, is in itself a mixture of appropriations and

transformations, borrowed extensively from the classic Greek tragedies. The context in which it was

written is Jacobean and Elizabethan English society. These contexts are clearly reflected throughout

the play, in the themes, dialogues and values represented, and include fate, fortune, destiny, death, the

natural Chain of Being and religion.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, by Tom Stoppard, was written in 1964 and performed in 1966.

The text is an absurdist and existentialist transformation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. It was written to

challenge traditional theatre, viewpoints, values, and assumptions of a society undergoing massive

changes contextually. He relies on the audience’s already established knowledge of Hamlet and

transforms a revenge tragedy into an Absurd drama, which shifts the focus from royalty to common

man. Within Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Stoppard uses a play within a play to blur the line

that defines reality, and in doing so creates confusion both onstage - with his characters, and offstage -

with the audience. Using these techniques, Stoppard is able to make a statement about his society,

creating a play that reflected the attitudes and circumstances of the 1960s, therefore making it more

relevant and relatable to the audiences of that time. These changes are represented and reflected

constantly throughout Stoppard’s composition and include rebellion against authority, increasing

secularism, and existential ideas and concerns.

Fate, or destiny, or providence is a theme represented constantly throughout both texts. This theme is

part of Elizabethan/Jacobean context, as society believed in a higher power, and the idea of having a

pre-determined fate came with an acceptance born through suppression. The people of this time saw

their lot in life as final – there is no way to change the hand that fortune has dealt you. This is

represented multiple times throughout Hamlet, in lines such as:

“Thou strumpet, Fortune!”

“My Fate cries out!”

“The slings and arrows of outrageous Fortune”.

Fortune, or fate, is constantly capitalized along the text, indicating the level of importance placed upon

this theme. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, fate is also represented, and is portrayed in a

similar negative fashion, but with a differing purpose. In Stoppard’s text, fate is not a fact of life, as it is

in Hamlet. The fate of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern represents the hopelessness and danger of

modern society, and its misguided existence. Rosencrantz says, “We might as well be dead”. The fact

that they are destined to die compliments this quote, in that, together, they represent how insignificant

existence is in a modern setting. This also brings into account the existential context of the time of

Stoppard’s composition - questioning previously socially accepted ideas of a predetermined fate.

Death is another context of both societies reflected by the texts. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are

Dead, death is treated as a comic element, part of the vulgar humour that resounds throughout

Stoppard's play. The dialogue between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern known as the ‘life in a box’

passage is a good example of this :

“I mean one thinks of it like being alive in a box, one keeps forgetting to take into account that one is

dead… which should make a difference… shouldn’t it?”

Modern society regards death in an existential view. It questions the old views of Heaven, of an afterlife,

and of religion and the existence of God himself. This questioning has led to an increasingly secular

society and given rise to the notion that God is dead. Death is a constant theme, and its contemplation

throughout the play reflects the context of the 1960’s, in terms of rebellion against predetermined ideas,

and a rise in individualism and existentialism.

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, death is a major concern addressed and contemplated throughout the play.

In fact, the most well-known line from Hamlet is centered on death and the meaning of existence :

“To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows

of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to

sleep…”.

In this third soliloquy, Hamlet is contemplating humanism and the notion of his own identity, in

connection with death. He wants to know who he is, what the meaning of his existence is, and whether

life is worth continuing with the hand of Fate upon him. Throughout Hamlet, death is a constant

overhanging notion lingering in the wings of a stage. The death of Polonius, Ophelia and Old Hamlet

are constant reminders of this. The concern of death mirrors Elizabethan context in that death is

inevitable. It is not merely the lack of existence it is to modern society because of a fundamental trust

and acceptance in the existence of God, an afterlife and religion. To Elizabethan citizens, “death is the

unexplored country”. For Elizabethan England had a high faith and belief level in the natural Chain of

Being, and the balance of order. It is a significant part of this time’s context, and included the Divine

Rights of Kings, and religious traditions and beliefs. The level of faith placed upon the system of rightful

inheritance and hierarchy in those times that was reflected in the play Hamlet, though the portrayal of

the corruption of the state of Denmark after the rightful kings’ killing. The quote representing this is

Marcellus’s remark after seeing the ghost of Hamlets’ father:

“Something is rotten in the State of Denmark”.

The murder of the King has disrupted the natural order and the Elizabethans expect that it be restored

to balance. Hamlet’s destiny has chosen him as the avenger of his father’s death. In the extract of

Hamlet’s soliloquy from Act IV he convinces himself that it is circumstance combined with his inaction

that is preventing him from fulfilling his filial duty:

‘How all occasions do inform against me

And spur my dull revenge’

Hamlet is given the illusion of control and thus yields the power of choice over his destiny. He chooses

to avenge his father’s death, to fake a disposition, he chooses not to kill Claudius at prayer and he

accepts the duel with Laertes. Hamlet’s Christian morals form the basis of his dilemma. The belief in the

existence of ghosts and the presence of supernatural forces of good and evil leads to Hamlet’s resolve

to seek more convincing evidence and “catch the conscience of the King” through the device of the

“play within a play” – the murder of the Gonzago as a way to ascertain Claudius’ guilt rather than wait

for the judgement of God. Ultimately Hamlet gives up his struggle against destiny and asserts that there

is a divinity which shapes our ends reinforcing the Elizabethan Christian belief in Divine Providence and

acknowledging a sense of justice in fate.

In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, the natural Chain of Being and the balance of order are

upset. The noble hero is silenced and his philosophies, reasonings, and conflictions (the soliloquies in

Hamlet) are not given to the audience. Instead, the danger of the “common man” is highlighted. The

previously unquestioned hierarchy of Elizabethan times is challenged in Stoppard's text and context.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead portrays Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the little man and the

common man as main characters. This reflects the social context of democracy in the 1960’s, as well

as communism and the rise in the importance of the common man.

Religion is another major concern in both texts. Again, both are presented to the audience in completely

different ways. In Hamlet, religion is the backbone of the text, exactly just as it is the backbone of

Elizabethan and Jacobean societies. Religious connotations are everywhere in Shakespeare’s text. In

dialogue between characters, and in references to God, etc. “Get thee to a nunnery” is a repeated

theme stating the level of impact religion had upon the lives of those living in Elizabethan times.

In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, religion is a non-event, insignificant, not playing a major

role, not shaping the lives and actions of characters. In Stoppard's text, the absence of religion is of a

major significance, because it reflects the same absence in society at the time of composition, the

1960’s, a time of increasing individualism, secularism and existential questioning. This means that

society was moving further and further from the notion of prescribed religion and a God, and began to

question the meaning of life, the nature of truth and chance. Nihilism and the idea that God is dead

began to arise. The repeatedly used Lord’s Prayer shows the lack of importance placed on religion by

society in the 1960’s in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Guildenstern repeatedly uses the

Lord’s Prayer out of context and uses the wrong words, changed to fit the scene :

“Call us this day our daily tune…”, and “Give us this day our daily cue…”.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead challenges an audiences’ view of Hamlet by questioning

traditions, values and assumptions made on understanding throughout Hamlet. For example, the

Elizabethan elevation of a ‘noble hero’ character so much expressed by contemporary society is

challenged by Stoppard's use of the common, insignificant man as a main character. Another example

of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead challenging the readers’ understanding of Shakespeare’s

Hamlet is in truth and language. In Elizabethan times, medieval man was beginning to see truth from a

humanist perspective. The nature of truth is just starting to be questioned, and is represented through

the character Hamlet and his indecision about the nature of Claudius’ guilt, and the consequences this

has on Hamlets’ character – he moves from a man of action to a man of inaction – a perfect example of

this is in Act 3-Scene 3, when Hamlet is questioning the positives and negatives of taking irrational

action, and not considering whether or not Claudius is guilty and whether the Ghost was speaking the

truth, or merely a version of the truth. Whereas, in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, “truth is

only that which is to be taken to be true. It is the currency of living.”

Humour is also an important feature of both texts. In Hamlet, black humour is used through Hamlet’s

musings on death, especially during Yorrick’s scene, and after Polonius’ death, jokingly implying that

Polonius is “not where he eats, but where he is eaten.” This consistent interplay between reflection of

death and humour suggests Hamlet’s recognition of humour is his response to the “terrible thought” of

death. Stoppard however uses the idea of humour more predominantly in Rosencrantz and

Guildenstern are Dead to highlight the absurdist nature of the play.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a tragedy by nature, containing definite stages of development with the

expectation of resolution. However, Hamlet’s flaw is his possession of irresolution, where his mind was

in constant conflict. Whereas Hamlet is a tragedy that contained elements of comedy, Stoppard’s

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is more an absurdist comedy that ends in tragedy.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s fatal flaw was their powerlessness, and the audience sympathizes with

their “little deaths” of common individuals because they are eminently related as laypeople. In

transforming Hamlet, Stoppard is showing that tragedy can actually happen to normal individuals.

Stoppard’s exploration of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s stage life and off-stage lives is a means to

question the purpose of modern existence. “On-stage” Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have a very

defined purpose, yet “off-stage”, they lack direction. By associating with a modern audience, Stoppard

has created a text reflective of a new era in which certainties and beliefs of the Elizabethan period have

eroded, resulting in Stoppard’s effective slants on the classical Hamlet’s values and attitudes.

The language in the texts plays a major role, too.

The language in Hamlet is to create meaning. It is a sublime human achievement, and indeed

Shakespeare's language has been valued throughout the centuries as the pinnacle of linguistic artistry.

Language in Hamlet expresses beauty, truth and reason as well as being a tool of deception and

manipulation. It therefore has transcendent meaning which when analyzed will reveal “truth”. Traditional

criticism, based as it is on Liberal Humanist values, focuses on a universal humanity which can be

understood through a close analysis of language and form. In Hamlet we find Shakespeare's full

repertoire of language skills: verse, prose, formal, colloquial, dialogue, soliloquies, aside, puns, irony,

parody, a range of imagery, etc.

In Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, the language on the other hand expresses the

ambiguous nature of truth. There is no underlying fixed meaning in words. The lack of control over their

lives is mirrored in the fragmentation of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's language and their persistent

use of question. The language games that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's engage in owes an

intertextual debt to the influential 20th century philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Stoppard has

appropriated one of Wittgenstein's theories of language which essentially states that language cannot

express a universal truth. Language resembles “moves” in a game and outside of the game has no

meaning whatsoever. This notion of language having no transcendent value is another point of

difference between the two plays. Stoppard also reveals his range of verbal artistry. His play is rich in

the playful use of cliché, black humour, irony, puns, burlesque, cultural reference. His use of colloquial

and clichéd language to state humankind's existential dilemma serves to undermine the value

traditionally attached to Shakespeare's elevated poetry. The numinous authority of Shakespeare's

language is thus deflated. Notwithstanding all this, we should never lose sight of the fact that Stoppard

is a playwright and his intention is to entertain us. Stoppard's style, especially his humor, wit and

comedic timing, is the means by which the bleakness of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's (and by

analogy our own) predicament is made palatable through the medium of drama.

Conclusion:

Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead are very different texts. Both contrast in values,

attitudes, language, setting and each challenge understanding of the other. But they are still similar

texts, in that both address parallel issues, themes and concerns throughout their content. Both also

reflect to a large extent the context in which they were written. As a transformation of Hamlet, Stoppard

challenges the values and attitudes of the renaissance era while challenging our reading of hamlet by

providing a contrary viewpoint and making the audience think about the assumptions made on them.

The greatness of Hamlet is unquestionable, otherwise it would not still be a prominent text in present

day society. By recognizing this, Stoppard has applied many themes and values to make his own

transformation of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. It is true to say that Stoppard’s work would

appeal well to his contemporary audience. However, his work is only a success due to the prevailing

themes of Hamlet which bring meaning to its audience. Therefore, it is both Hamlet and Rosencrantz

and Guildenstern are Dead that appeal to a contemporary audience, owing to their significant values

present and how they are articulated in each text.

References: Burnett, Mark, ed. New Essays on Hamlet. New York: AMS Press, 1994. Kastan, David Scott, ed. Critical Essays on Shakespeare's Hamlet. New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1995 Lee, Sir Sidney. A Life of William Shakespeare. Smith, Elder, and Co. London: 1899 . Ludowyk, E.F.C, Understanding Shakespeare, Cambridge University Press, 1962. Part One, The Background, is excellent on Shakespeare’s times, stage and audiences. Newell, Alex. The Soliloquies of Hamlet. London: Associated University Presses, 1991 Schafer, Elizabeth, “Onstage and Offstage in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead,” Metaphor, NSW English Teachers’ Association Newsletter, August 1997, Issue 3. Elizabeth Schafer lectured in Drama at the Royal Holloway College, University of London. Shakespeare , William. Hamlet, edited by Robert Hapgood, Cambridge University Press, 1999. Stoppard, Tom. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. London: Faber and Faber, 1968. Vonwiller, Benjamin, “The Spectre of Shakespeare in Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead,”

Sydney Studies pages 63-82 .