The Tragedy of Ophelia R. S. W H I T E ' H E impression of O p h e l i a most people c a r r y from the play is that of w i s t f u l pathos. H e r character is m a r k e d b y an incompleteness w h i c h tempts critics to add some dimension, r a n g i n g f r o m inexperienced demureness to the p h y s i c a l condition of pregnancy and the dep r a v i t y of one w h o " w a s not a chaste y o u n g w o m a n . " Inside the play characters appear to foist upon Ophelia interpretations for w h i c h there seems l i t t l e evidence i n her behaviour. L a e r t e s and P o l o n i u s r e g a r d her as h a v i n g the g u l l i b i l i t y to succumb easily to H a m l e t ' s blandishments, and they impute the same susceptibility i n her to physical desire w h i c h they w a n t to f i n d i n H a m l e t : 1

A y , springes to c a t c h woodcocks! I do know, W h e n the blood burns, h o w p r o d i g a l the soul L e n d s the tongue vows. (I. i i i . 115-7)

H a m l e t himself i n the n u n n e r y scene is ready to see i n O p h e l i a a l l the h y p o c r i t i c a l wiles of the harlot, and even such a sensitive reader of Shakespeare as J o h n K e a t s likens his o w n view of F a n n y B r a w n e to H a m l e t ' s of O p h e l i a : If m y h e a l t h w o u l d bear it, I could w r i t e a P o e m w h i c h I h a v e i n m y head, w h i c h w o u l d be a consolation for people i n such a situation as mine. I w o u l d s h o w someone i n L o v e as I am, w i t h a person l i v i n g i n L i b e r t y as y o u do. S h a k e s p e a r e a l w a y s sums u p m a t t e r s i n the most sovereign manner. H a m l e t ' s h e a r t was f u l l of such M i s e r y as m i n e is w h e n he said to O p h e l i a " G o to a N u n n e r y , go, go!" Indeed I should like to give up the m a t t e r at once — I should like to d i e . 2

It is distressing to f i n d H a m l e t ' s disordered v i s i o n of Ophelia i n v o k e d w i t h such vehemence. I t h i n k we do better to ignore the distortions of c r i t i c s and characters and to concentrate upon the v e r y i n c o m pleteness i n Ophelia's personality, the readiness for f i l l i n g

42

R. S.

WHITE

one of these roles r a t h e r t h a n any p a r t i c u l a r role. Ophelia is t a n t a l i z i n g l y insufficient because of her i m m a t u r i t y . T o be m o r e precise, since her sole preoccupation d u r i n g the play is her relationship w i t h H a m l e t , her i m m a t u r i t y m a y be defined i n terms of the b l i g h t i n g of this relationship. She is innocent, on the b r i n k of sexual commitment, s i m u l taneously f e a r i n g a n d d e s i r i n g a f u l l love relationship w i t h H a m l e t , and trapped b y circumstances outside her control. L a w r e n c e ' s poem, " B a l l a d of A n o t h e r O p h e l i a , " catches the tone of her f a i l u r e : N o t h i n g now w i l l r i p e n the b r i g h t green apples, F u l l of disappointment and of r a i n .

H i s line " W h a t , then, is peeping there hidden i n the s k i r t s of a l l the b l o s s o m ? " a n d its answer " Y e a , but i t is cruel w h e n undressed is a l l the b l o s s o m " gather the distress and pathos of Ophelia's complicated feelings about sexual love. W h a t , then, does go w r o n g w i t h the r e l a t i o n s h i p ? H a m l e t and O p h e l i a are ideal candidates for a r o m a n t i c comedy. T h e y are both i n the m o r n a n d l i q u i d dew of y o u t h , he intelligent and w i t t y enough to be a Benedick, she a graceful a n d reticent "rose of M a y . " H e has wooed her ardently and i n honourable f a s h i o n w i t h almost a l l the h o l y v o w s of heaven. H i s love-song (II.ii.114-8) betrays no deception o r indecency, a n d his declaration of love is as sincere and callow as t h a t of a n y Shakespearean l o v e r : O dear Ophelia, I a m i l l at these n u m b e r s . I h a v e not art to r e c k o n m y g r o a n s ; but that I love thee best, O most best, believe it. A d i e u . (II. i i . 119-21)

H i s last words on the matter, beside her grave, are "I loved O p h e l i a " a n d his mother laments there, " I hop'd t h o u shouldst have been m y H a m l e t ' s w i f e " (V.i.238). It is not enough to point to Romeo and Juliet a n d Othello a n d say that there m a y be tragedies of love as w e l l as comedies. T h i s is to lower both comedy a n d tragedy to the level of conventional expectations, and to deny t h e m the possibility of c o m m o n access to psychological t r u t h . T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n the love itself to sow its o w n destruction, a n d there is

THE TRAGEDY

OF

OPHELIA

43

little to l i n k O p h e l i a w i t h the truly destructive situation, the m u r d e r of o l d H a m l e t a n d the hasty r e m a r r i a g e of his wife. T h e parental opposition of Polonius, f a r f r o m being a n impediment, w o u l d i n a comedy be an i n v i g o r a t i n g challenge for lovers, a n d he encourages l i t t l e more respect than the w a s p i s h E g e u s i n A Midsummer Night's Dream. Why, then, is Ophelia, " t h e young, the beautiful, the harmless and the p i o u s , " sacrificed so unjustly? 3

T o be f r a n k a n d formalistic, O p h e l i a c o m m i t s a s i n against the laws that w o u l d apply i n a comedy. Instead of a l l o w i n g her eyes a n d heart to teach her w h a t she must do, she listens to advice f r o m her brother a n d father. L i k e H a m l e t , she falls v i c t i m to the difficulty of determining how f a r " s e e m i n g " is being. E v e n t h o u g h she has received o n l y honourable c o u r t s h i p f r o m H a m l e t , the badgering of L a e r t e s and P o l o n i u s i n t h e i r separate ways i s so consistent, emphasizing a l i k e H a m l e t ' s y o u t h and the fiery, m e r c u r i a l n a t u r e of sexual desire, t h a t she is confused. "I do not know, m y l o r d , w h a t I should t h i n k " (I.iii.104) shows distressed d o c i l i t y and fear, pleading for t u i t i o n f r o m an experienced elder. T h e advice she receives i s " D o not believe h i s vows." The i r o n y is that her o w n subsequent conduct seems to H a m l e t , w h o is probably just as innocent as she, a calculated f r a u d w h i c h helps to shatter h i s own f a i t h i n appearances. H e r t i m i d words to h i m l a t e r reveal g l o w i n g hero worship, but they lack the strong-willed w a r i ness of a R o s a l i n d o r a P o r t i a , and she a n d h e r lover must pay for her l a c k of f a i t h i n the power of m u t u a l love. F o r H a m l e t , the t r u l y destructive circumstance is h i s mother's p r o m p t m a r r i a g e to the dead K i n g ' s brother. T h i s fact disquiets h i m a n d sets h i m apart f r o m the m a r r i a g e festivities even before he suspects C l a u d i u s of murder. W i t h the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c desire, noted b y Coleridge,* to abstract a n d generalize f r o m p a r t i c u l a r s he makes his mother's conduct an example of a l l w o m a n h o o d : " F r a i l t y , t h y name is w o m a n ! " (I.ii.146). H i s v e r y desire not to t h i n k on't drives h i m obsessively to d w e l l on her w i c k e d

44

R. S.

WHITE

speed, posting to incestuous sheets w i t h the p h y s i c a l "dext e r i t y " of a beast. T h e sane m i n d protests that there is more to m a r r i a g e t h a n sex, but H a m l e t ' s range of perceptions has been n a r r o w e d b y the event. If we m a y take the discussions between O p h e l i a and her father as being i n chronological sequence, then d u r i n g the two months between his father's death a n d his mother's m a r r i a g e H a m l e t ' s love-suit is s t i l l being seriously pursued. She shows no sign of recent neglect f r o m h i m , and both she and her father repeat that he has wooed her " o f l a t e " (I.iii.91, 99). T h e c r u c i a l change, then, comes w h e n she neglects him at the counsel of her brother and f a t h e r : Polonius. . . . What, have you given h i m any h a r d words of late? Ophelia. N o , m y good l o r d ; but, as y o u did c o m m a n d , I did repel his letters, a n d denied H i s access to me. (II. i . 107-9)

H i s apparent madness manifests itself i n the f a m i l i a r B u r t o n i a n symptoms of love melancholy, clothes awry, h i s face pale, t r e m b l i n g a n d s i g h i n g so piteously and profoundly " A s it d i d seem to shatter a l l h i s b u l k A n d end his b e i n g " (II.i.94-6). It is to P o l o n i u s ' credit t h a t he recognizes h i s misjudgment of H a m l e t ' s motives a n d sees t h a t the suit has been i n earnest. B u t w h e n s a y i n g t h a t it is s i m p l y Ophelia's rejection that has made H a m l e t m a d , he is ignorant of the predisposed m e n t a l state of the y o u n g m a n caused b y his mother's r e m a r r i a g e a n d the recent encounter w i t h the ghost. C l a u d i u s suspects that there is more t h a n meets the eye when he mutters, " L o v e ! H i s affections do not that w a y t e n d " ( H I . i i . l 6 2 ) . W e cannot l i g h t l y b r u s h aside the suggestion made b y N i g e l A l e x a n d e r a m o n g others that H a m l e t ' s state is not caused b y love but b y his encounter w i t h the ghost, but the a m b i g u i t y is b u i l t into the scene. N o r can we dismiss t h e p o s s i b i l i t y raised by H a r o l d G o d d a r d that Ophelia's description of H a m l e t ' s behaviour i n her closet is a k i n d of h a l l u c i n a t i o n . W e can, however, suppose that she is b e g i n n i n g to perceive that her p r i o r caution, no doubt a justified device for testing the s i n c e r i t y 5

6

7

THE TRAGEDY

OF

OPHELIA

45

of her lover, has gone h o r r i b l y wrong, even though she is i g n o r a n t of the other matters t r o u b l i n g his m i n d . H a m l e t himself projects upon O p h e l i a the g u i l t and pollution he has found i n G e r t r u d e . Tossed helplessly between disillusionment, m o r b i d f i x a t i o n upon sex, and w e a r y ennui, his tendency to d r a w a l l objects into the web of his i m a g i n a t i o n reveals itself i n the w a y t h a t he accuses O p h e l i a of his mother's apparent s i n i n the " n u n n e r y " scene. I do not w a n t to retread g r o u n d covered b y H a r o l d J e n k i n s and J . M . N o s w o r t h y a m o n g others, but since the strangeness of the n u n n e r y scene lies i n the seemingly e r r a t i c switches of tone adopted b y H a m l e t , an e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e m m a y help understanding. O p h e l i a enters as he is engrossed i n a reflection on suicide, ended b y a resigned and r a t h e r soothing s h r u g about the meaninglessness of action. I n such a m o o d it seems u n l i k e l y that h i s greeting of " t h e f a i r O p h e l i a " holds a n y barb, for he is h a r d l y aware of her presence. A s she t i m i d l y tests the w a t e r w i t h " H o w does y o u r h o n o u r " she meets a c i v i l enough reply. B u t w h e n she raises the question of t h e i r t e r m i n a t e d love affair b y offering to redeliver the t r i n k e t s he h a d given her, it is not s u r p r i s i n g that h i s h u r t d i g n i t y should m a k e h i m haughty: 8

N o , not I; I never gave y o u aught.

(III.

i.

95-6)

Unwisely, she perseveres. I n her gentle voice she reproaches H a m l e t for j i l t i n g her, and since she is the one w h o f i r s t denied h i m access (II.i.108), his b r i t t l e composure snaps w i t h surprise: H a , h a ! A r e y o u honest?

(III.

i. 103)

If she h a d been " h o n e s t " i n s p u r n i n g h i m , then she cannot be " h o n e s t " now. She is, however, " f a i r " , a n d the solution to the c o n u n d r u m is t h a t either honesty a n d beauty h o l d no discourse, or t h a t the power of beauty m a y t r a n s f o r m honesty into a bawd. T h e second fits better h i s mother's conduct w h i c h h a d i n i t i a l l y suggested the " p a r a d o x " (III.

46

R. S.

WHITE

i.114), a n d Ophelia's behaviour now "gives it proof." A n d since her dishonesty is shared b y h i s o w n mother, the t e r r i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n is that he himself has i n h e r i t e d f r o m " o u r old s t o c k " t h a t v e r y dishonesty. Hence h i s certainty of another p a r a d o x : " I d i d love y o u once. . . . I loved y o u n o t . " I n a s p i r i t of w a r n i n g , he points out that i f she should breed b y h i m she w o u l d be a breeder of sinners, and the o n l y advice he c a n offer is that she should preserve her v i r g i n i t y b y g o i n g to a n u n n e r y . If she m a r r i e s , the old c a l u m n y w i l l be propagated. T h e only difference between a fool l i k e her father and a wise m a n is that the latter k n o w s w h a t he is d o i n g : Or, i f thou w i l t needs m a r r y , m a r r y a f o o l ; f o r wise m e n k n o w w e l l e n o u g h w h a t monsters y o u m a k e of them. To a nunnery, go; and q u i c k l y too. Farewell. (III. i . 13840)

T h a t w o m e n " m a k e of" m e n monsters surely bears both possible meanings, to t r a n s f o r m t h e m i n t o monsters (cuckolds) a n d produce monsters ( m a r r e d children) f r o m them, and the i m p l i c a t i o n is that the o r i g i n a l s i n was woman's. T h e tangle of his thoughts about the wantonness, ignorance and d u p l i c i t y of two w o m e n i n p a r t i c u l a r causes h i m to conflate t h e m i n t o a single identity, the U n t r u s t w o r t h y Woman. H a m l e t ' s q u i c k change i n this scene f r o m despair to a frenzy sustained i n b r u t a l b a n t e r i n g is s h o c k i n g , but when closely examined its "useless and w a n t o n c r u e l t y , " as D r . J o h n s o n calls it, is not inexplicable. W e need no recourse to D o v e r W i l s o n ' s interpolated stage directions n o r to an i r o n i c r e a d i n g of " n u n n e r y " as " b r o t h e l . " O n the other hand, the meaning cannot be understood by any one of the eavesdroppers for they, l i k e H a m l e t himself, are hampered by the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e i r own points of view. They " b o t c h the words up fit to t h e i r own t h o u g h t s " (IV.v.10), a h a b i t adopted b y a l l the eavesdroppers throughout the play. O p h e l i a mingles p i t y for the noble m i n d of H a m l e t , blasted w i t h love into madness, w i t h self-pity to f i n d herself involved as the " m o s t deject and w r e t c h e d " of ladies.

THE TRAGEDY

OF

OPHELIA

47

H a m l e t is too r a w l y sensitive to the p a i n caused h i m by the u n w i t t i n g l y irresponsible actions (as he sees them) of two women to endure the f u r t h e r p a i n of t r y i n g sympat h e t i c a l l y to understand t h e i r feelings. T o dull the p a i n he tries a b r u t a l detachment f r o m them, adopting a posture of swaggering toughness bred of b u r n i n g resentment. It shows i n the public glare of the " m o u s e t r a p " scene i n his short, sharp and bawdy retorts to O p h e l i a : " D o y o u t h i n k I meant c o u n t r y m a t t e r s ? " "Ophelia. T i s brief, m y l o r d . Hamlet. A s woman's love." " S o y o u mis-take y o u r husb a n d s " (III.ii.106-246 passim). O p h e l i a bears his taunts w i t h patience yet w i t h the occasional s p i r i t e d response: " Y o u are naught, y o u are naught. I ' l l m a r k the p l a y " (III. ii.143). H a m l e t ' s preoccupations are s t i l l sex a n d the perv e r s i o n of m a r r i a g e b y woman's infidelity, and the convergence of both i n his words to O p h e l i a shows that he is s t i l l m e r g i n g her identity w i t h t h a t of h i s mother. His m i n d is lacerated s t i l l f u r t h e r b y the h o r r o r that his i m a g i n ation can m a k e of sex between his m o t h e r and Claudius, and so he confronts G e r t r u d e : N a y , but to live I n the r a n k sweat of a n enseamed bed, Stew'd i n corruption, h o n e y i n g a n d m a k i n g love O v e r the n a s t y sty! (III. iv. 92-4)

A n d again, even as he harangues the middle-aged w o m a n , the younger i s not f a r f r o m h i s m i n d : Rebellious hell, II thou canst m u t i n e i n a m a t r o n ' s bones, T o f l a m i n g y o u t h let v i r t u e be as w a x A n d m e l t i n her own f i r e ; p r o c l a i m no s h a m e W h e n the compulsive a r d o u r gives the charge, Since frost itself as actively doth b u r n , A n d r e a s o n panders w i l l . (III. iv. 82-8)

F e m a l e s e x u a l i t y simultaneously frightens and fascinates h i m , and f r o m these feelings he creates a stereotype that he affixes upon both his m o t h e r and O p h e l i a . T h e responsibility for the incomprehension is tangled and shared. Ophelia, b y her p l i a b i l i t y , has set the process i n motion, but

48

R. S.

WHITE

H a m l e t has subsequently distorted her behaviour so r a d i c a l l y that the g r o u n d cannot be retrieved. Ophelia's position after the death of P o l o n i u s is intolerable and cannot be faced d i r e c t l y w i t h o u t o v e r w h e l m i n g m e n t a l pain. H e r lover has f o r s a k e n and abused her, he has refused her trust, he has apparently gone m a d and k i l l e d her o w n father. W o r s t of a l l , according to her father's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of p r i o r events, her o w n conduct has been a p r e c i p i t a t i n g cause of the whole sequence: B u t yet I do believe T h e o r i g i n a n d c o m m e n c e m e n t of his g r i e f S p r u n g f r o m neglected love. (HI. i . 176-8)

F o r a g i r l w i s h i n g nobody h a r m , a n d one prone to harmless hero-worshipping, the sense of i m p l i c a t i o n is as bad as the events themselves. I n order to defend h e r most sensitive feelings, and i n order to m a k e some sense of w h a t has happened, O p h e l i a becomes distracted. T h e defence mechani s m unconsciously discovered b y h e r m i n d is to disappear into a w o r l d where such h o r r o r s are shared commonplaces — the w o r l d of the ballad. T h o u g h t a n d affliction, passion, f a v o u r a n d to prettiness.

hell

itself,

she turns to (IV. v. 184)

I n the w o r l d of ballads, events l i k e death a n d f o r s a k e n love are swung free f r o m feelings of sharp p a i n and transformed into aesthetically pleasing patterns of r h y t h m s a n d r h y m e s laced w i t h a r c h a i c words, w h i c h supply the buffering reassurance of u n i v e r s a l cycles. E v e n suffering becomes an aesthetic object, f u l l of contemplated pathos, to be accepted or mocked but not to be experienced i m m e d i a t e l y o n the pulses. M o r e significantly, the ballad w o r l d frees i n d i viduals f r o m g u i l t a n d responsibility, for it is peopled not w i t h named characters but w i t h " h e " and " s h e " . T h i n g s s i m p l y happen because they have always happened and always w i l l ; h u m a n agents are accidental. W e should be grateful that Ophelia's instincts for self-protection f i n d such beautiful and appropriate refuge f r o m r a t i o n a l awareness of her plight. She dies c h a n t i n g snatches of old lauds,

THE TRAGEDY

OF

OPHELIA

49

" A s one incapable of her own distress, O r l i k e a creature native a n d indued U n t o that element" (IV.vii.17). She has made herself safe f r o m the bad dreams t h a t plague H a m l e t . W e cannot condemn her retreat as i n a n y w a y " c h i l d i s h " , for the ballad itself is s u r e l y " a d u l t " i n i t s assertion of a fatalistic d i g n i t y i n the face of pain, t u r n i n g p a r t i c u l a r events into the shared m e m o r y of a c o m m u n i t y . Her words are d i s t u r b i n g to listeners, as i f she speaks f r o m a different r e a l m (or even a different p l a y ) , the i n a r t i c u l a t e snatches g r o w i n g to s o m e t h i n g of great constancy: H e r speech is nothing, Yet the u n s h a p e d use of it doth m o v e T h e hearers to collection. (IV. v. 7-9)

L a e r t e s recognizes t h a t " t h i s nothing's m o r e t h a n m a t t e r " (IV.V.171), but nobody can decipher its hieroglyphics. B y a k i n d of sympathetic magic, the conditions w h i c h face O p h e l i a f i n d t h e i r w a y into her songs, i n oblique and confused fashion. Some snatches refer to h e r elderly father — " H e is dead and g o n e " — but the most consecutive song refers to forsaken love a n d reflects her own experience. T h e r e is a n interesting s w i t c h of s y n t a x f r o m the personal to the impersonal. T h e song begins i n the present tense — " T o m o r r o w is S a i n t V a l e n t i n e ' s d a y , " and i n the first person — " A n d I a m a i d at y o u r w i n d o w To be y o u r V a l e n t i n e " (IV.v.45-9). A s if even t h i s stylized expression is too close for comfort i n tense a n d person, i t changes to the past and to the t h i r d p e r s o n : T h e n up he rose, a n d d o n n ' d his clothes, A n d dupp'd the chamber-door; L e t i n the m a i d , t h a t out a m a i d N e v e r departed more. (IV. v. 50-3)

H e r e is the b a l l a d mode and tone, i m p l y i n g t h a t the event has occurred not just once but m a n y times f r o m t i m e i m m e m o r i a l . I n r e l a t i o n to O p h e l i a , the change has the added force that, although she d i d stand outside H a m l e t ' s door to be his V a l e n t i n e , i n fact she was not allowed entrance. T h e p a r t of her t h a t w i s h e d to enter a sexual

50

R. S.

WHITE

relationship w i t h h i m is personified i n the other " m a i d " . T h e second verse approaches the u n c e r t a i n question, " W h o s e f a u l t ? " I n the general scheme of things the m a n seems to be responsible: Young men B y Cock,

w i l l do't, i f they come to't, they are to blame. (IV. v. 58-9)

B u t the m a n c r u e l l y transfers to her the blame for b r o k e n relationship b y f a l l i n g back on a quibble:

the

Q u o t h she, ' B e f o r e y o u t u m b l e d me, Y o u p r o m i s ' d m e to wed'.

H e answers: 'So w o u l d I 'a done, b y y o n d e r sun, A n thou hadst not come to m y bed'. (IV. v. 60-4)

A l t h o u g h O p h e l i a undoubtedly dies a m a i d and is buried w i t h her v i r g i n crants and m a i d e n strewments (V.i.227-8), the song reflects the equivocal n a t u r e of the break-up of the relationship, a n d surveys the options she h a d . D i d she forsake h i m , or he her? A n d i f she h a d been m o r e f o r w a r d and yielded her c h a s t i t y to h i m instead of s u c c u m b i n g to fear, w o u l d she not s t i l l have been discarded? O n one v e r s i o n of the facts, she has caused the r i f t b y being too fearful to pursue her love. B u t her love has been constant, and w h e n she h a d begun q u i e t l y to express it, she was rudely rebuffed and called a whore, as i f her declaration of love amounted to unchastity. E q u a l l y , she m u s t s t i l l be u n c e r t a i n whether H a m l e t was not t h r o u g h o u t c r u e l l y dallyi n g w i t h her, as she h a d been w a r n e d . T h e r e is a c r u e l l y p r o b l e m a t i c a l incompleteness i n her experience of love, and the songs are a n attempt to supply a dimension w h i c h w i l l at least f i n d an ending t h a t has some meaning. T h e flowers she strews f u r t h e r emphasize the a m b i g u i t y of the unlived future, s y m b o l i z i n g on one side the past — m e m o r y and love-thoughts — o n the other the potential p a i n of the future — flattery, cuckoldry, sorrow, repentance a n d dissembling. T h e flowers of faithfulness s i g n i f i c a n t l y ceased

THE TRAGEDY

OF

OPHELIA

51

to be, after the t r a u m a t i c event w h i c h destroyed her trust, w h e n her lover k i l l e d h e r father: I w o u l d give y o u some violets, but they w i t h e r ' d all, w h e n m y father died . . . . (IV. v. 181)

One hopes that L a e r t e s speaks p r o p h e t i c a l l y i n his benedict i o n over her g r a v e : L a y her i ' t h ' e a r t h ; A n d f r o m h e r f a i r and unpolluted flesh M a y violets s p r i n g ! (V. i . 232-4)

T h e Queen's elegiac dirge-description of the death of O p h e l i a shows her o w n capacity for i n t u i t i v e l y reaching into the feelings of another character and t o u c h i n g them w i t h beauty. T h e r h y t h m s of her poetry, l i k e the folds of the maiden's clothing, h o l d and h a n g h e r suspended upon the water's surface: And

H e r clothes s p r e a d wide mermaid-like, a w h i l e they bore her u p ; (IV. v i i . 176-7)

w h i l s t Ophelia's ballads allow her to rise above " h e r own d i s t r e s s " w i t h the same buoyancy. M i l l a i s ' p a i n t i n g matches the words, for i t allows O p h e l i a to hover upon a surface of jewelled richness. A g a i n s t the u p w a r d pressure the tug of the w a t e r is a v i o l a t i o n of her floating p u r i t y : B u t l o n g it could not be T i l l that her garments, h e a v y w i t h their d r i n k , P u l l ' d the poor w r e t c h f r o m her melodious lay T o m u d d y death. (IV. v i i . 181-4)

T h e p l a c i n g of " P u l l ' d " and the l o a d i n g of " h e a v y w i t h t h e i r d r i n k " t u r n poignant regret into dismay, just as does the j u x t a p o s i t i o n i n g of " C l a m b ' r i n g to h a n g " a n d " F e l l i n the weeping b r o o k . " O p h e l i a dies beneath the w i l l o w , the E l i z a b e t h a n emblem for forsaken love, a fit m o t i f for her life as w e l l as her death. 9

T h e l y r i c a l adagio of Ophelia's death is followed a b r u p t l y b y the gravediggers' legal quibbles about whether she c o m m i t t e d suicide, whether she came to the w a t e r or the w a t e r came to her, i n the terms of the celebrated l a w case. 10

52

R. S.

WHITE

It is significant that H a m l e t ' s entrance is greeted b y a snatch of song f r o m the gravedigger, and the mode and subject-matter recall Ophelia's songs. T h e first verse celebrates the carefree sweetness of love i n y o u t h , the second contrasts age, whose stealing steps have clawed h i m i n its c l u t c h as i f he had never been young. H a m l e t himself has acquired a new voice, more controlled and reflective, less self-tortured. A t t h i r t y he can h a r d l y be the m a n who was e m p h a t i c a l l y " y o u n g " w h e n c o u r t i n g O p h e l i a (I.iii.7, 41, 124), y o u n g enough to be suspected of irresponsibly sowing his w i l d oats i n carefree y o u t h . H e now has the self-possession to regret his outburst against L a e r t e s i n the grave (V.ii.73-9), a n d to accept his destiny as p a r t of the w a y of the w o r l d : 1 1

. . . the readiness is all. Since no m a n owes of a u g h t he leaves, w h a t isn't to leave betimes? L e t be. (V. i i . 215)

It m a y be the last lesson that his lover, b y her death, has t a u g h t h i m , and i f so, then her frustrated life is given a greater value. In the gravedigger's song the aged lover m a y w e l l renounce h i s love, but such a j a u n t y recollection of the past is as m u c h an insult to Ophelia's f a i t h i n love as are the " m a i m e d " rites accorded her body and the u n seemly scuffle i n her grave between H a m l e t and Laertes. A t last there is occasion for H a m l e t to recognize unequivoc a l l y h i s own feelings w i t h the r u s h i n g r h y t h m s of spontaneous e m o t i o n : I l o v ' d O p h e l i a : forty thousand brothers C o u l d not, w i t h a l l their q u a n t i t y of love, M a k e up m y sum. (V. i. 264)

Despite the value given to Ophelia's tragedy by the purposefulness that it unleashes i n H a m l e t , her death rem a i n s a sacrifice to the general meaninglessness and loneliness p e r v a d i n g the play. I n the w o r l d of comedy, lovers' t r i b u l a t i o n s take m e a n i n g f r o m a c o n s u m m a t i o n w i t h i n t h e i r lifetime instead of after t h e i r death. W h e n V i o l a i n Twelfth Night speaks of herself as the neglected lover w h o " n e v e r told her love, B u t let concealment, l i k e a w o r m i '

THE TRAGEDY OF OPHELIA

53

t h ' b u d F e e d on her damask c h e e k " (Twelfth Night, Il.iv. 109-10) we k n o w t h a t h e r instincts w i l l be answered, the past redeemed a n d misunderstandings cleared up. In the w o r l d of comedy t h e p a t h f r o m innocence to experience is gently guided b y circumstances. B u t i n Hamlet the past is responsible for t h e future to the b i t t e r end. Ophelia is the loser. U n l i k e B l a k e ' s T h e l she has h a d no k i n d and m a t r o n l y guide into the l a n d of sexual experience a n d her desire to see " t h e secrets of the l a n d u n k n o w n " [The Boole of Thel, plate 6) is a lonely a n d fearful quest w h i c h leaves her at t h e end still on the threshold. Ophelia's o w n words, w r y r a t h e r t h a n bitter, show some comprehension of w h a t has happened: " L o r d , we k n o w w h a t we are, b u t k n o w not w h a t we m a y b e " (IV.v.41). NOTES i D a m e Rebecca West, quoted b y H a r o l d J e n k i n s , " H a m l e t and O p h e l i a , " British Academy Lectures 49 (1963), 135. The Letters of John Keats, ed. M . B u x t o n F o r m a n (4th. ed., L o n d o n : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1952), p. 503. »Works of Samuel Johnson, viii, Johnson on Shakespeare, ed. A r t h u r S h e r b o ( N e w H a v e n : Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1968), p. 1011. Passages from the Prose and Table Talk of Coleridge, ed. W . H . D i r c k s ( L o n d o n : J o h n M u r r a y , 1894), p. 202. R o b e r t B u r t o n , The Anatomy of Melancholy, ed. H . J a c k s o n ( L o n d o n : J . M . Dent, 1932), T h i r d P a r t i t i o n , M e m b . 3. N i g e l A l e x a n d e r , Poison, Play and Duel ( L o n d o n : Routledge, 1971), p. 129. ^ H a r o l d G o d d a r d , " I n Ophelia's C l o s e t , " Yale Review, 35 (1945), 462-74. See Jenkins, " H a m l e t and Ophelia," and J . M . Nosworthy, " H a m let a n d the P a n g s o f L o v e , " Elizabethan Theatre IV, ed. G . R. H i b b a r d ( T o r o n t o : M a c M i l l a n , 1974), pp. 41-56. See also L e o K i r s c h b a u m , " H a m l e t a n d O p h e l i a , " P.Q., 35 (1956), 376-93 a n d C . J . C a r l i s l e , " ' C r u e l t y ' i n the N u n n e r y Scene", Shakespeare Quarterly, 17 (1967), 129-40. S e e Much Ado About Nothing II. i . 193. J . D o v e r W i l s o n (ed.), Hamlet (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ e r s i t y Press, 1936), p. 231. S e e A . C . B r a d l e y , Shakespearean Tragedy (2nd. ed., L o n d o n : M a c M i l l a n , 1905), pp. 407-9. 2

5

6

8

9

1 0

n