Things are not always what they seem. This statement is prevalent to Shakespeare’s “Hamlet’, emphasized in some connotations of the language used by Hamlet’s character in his second soliloquy. Throughout the play there remains a conflict of versus reality in 19th Century English Literature">appearance versus reality. In addition to revealing Hamlet’s plot to catch the king in his guilt, this soliloquy uncovers the very essence of Hamlet’s true conflict. Characters such as Polonium, Rosencrantz, and Claudius are all hiding behind a mask of fallacy.
Yet they appear to others as exactly what they are not. Hamlet, in his soliloquy, coincides with the idea of appearance differentiating from what is actually the truth. Hamlet portrays himself to be something far worse than he really is. He calls himself a rogue (line 555), an ass (589), a whore (592), and a drab (593).
Hamlet’s sense of himself is one of cowardice, derived from a crude, simplistic judgment turning on whether or not he has yet taken any action against the man who murdered his father. (lines 590-594).
... yet ironically impulsive character. Towards the end of the soliloquy, Hamlet’s tone towards his mother becomes cruel, yet full ... is rarely used from Hamlet prior to this soliloquy. The soliloquy serves as a major turning point for Hamlet. Hamlet now has evidence ... (iii. ii. 6). Strangely enough, Hamlet’s affection strengthens as the soliloquy progresses. Hamlet begins to be more empathetic towards his ...
His self-condemnation takes several bizarre forms, including imaginings of a series of demeaning insults in the soliloquy that he absorbs like a coward because he feels he has done nothing to take revenge on Claudius. The language he uses in lines 556- 566 even contemplates the person he is pretending to be, basically saying it is possible for him to force his own soul into believing the part he is playing so much so that all the powers of his body adapt themselves to suit his acting needs. Hamlet is displaying the duality of his nature through his words, therefore opening the same appearance versus reality conflict to the other characters and situations in the play. The harshness of Hamlet’s language of the second soliloquy also helps unravel the conflict occurring in the entire play.
Hamlet is undeniably committed to seeking revenge for his father, yet he cannot act on behalf of his father due to his revulsion toward extracting cold and calculating revenge. Such an issue causes Hamlet great internal struggle, as seen in his words. He speaks of “a dam’d defeat’ being made. (576).
His language is graphic and conveys a violent tone, as in lines 577-580, saying whoever is calling him “villain’ is “breaking his pate (head) ‘, plucking off his beard, blowing it to his face, and tweaking him by the nose. He calls himself pigeon-liver’d in lin 583.
In the Renaissance, the gentle disposition of the Dove was explained by the argument that it had no gall and thus no capacity to feel resentment or to seek revenge. The liver also was seen as the body’s storehouse for courage. Hamlet uses this to describe himself in another negative way. His strong emotions are further developed in his adjectives before the word villain in lines 586-587, such as bloody, bawdy, remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, and kindless. The language implemented in this soliloquy allude to Hamlet’s internal conflict about revenge and his father, one of the main conflicts of the play. O, What a rogue and peasant slave am I! (555).
... difference in narratives between the characters learning language, and those teaching it in both plays is very similar. Both Higgins and ... between higher and lower classes in both plays. Eliza’s relationship with Higgins’ language is similar to Caliban’s relationship with ... ” by Bernard Shaw. Though Shaw’s play is much more focused on the language based transformation of “Eliza Doolittle,” and the ...
Hamlet’s second soliloquy proves to be one of the major keys to unlocking the meaning of the entire play. The theme of appearance versus reality is opened, and his harsh language is indicative in many ways to his internal struggle, the essence of Hamlet’s true conflict.