Hamlet begins at the open mouth of the Void. Barnardo and Francisco call to each other and in the darkness; they stand atop a naked guard platform in the open air and night. Each character's entrance is punctuated by a series of questions, as characters already on stage try to ascertain the identity of those who have just arrived and are still invisible. The darkness isolates these men from each other as they stand on the edge of civilization, the place where the solid stones of Elsinore Castle open to the world of night and the supernatural. The nature of the ghost remains questionable: Horace initially insisted that the guards' delusions had evoked the ghost (1.1.21), and, even accepting the reality of the apparition, Catholic teaching (ghosts are spirits of the dead who come from purgatory ) and Protestant doctrine (all ghostly apparitions are demons in disguise) have divergent opinions on the nature and origin of ghosts (Garber 12/15). The men gathered on the guard platform, which became a kind of stage within a stage. They have come to see a visitor who is a creature of hallucinations, purgatory, or hell. This ghost is coming out of the open jaws of the night on and around the platform; what is known clings to the ramparts, and all the rest of existence comes from the void, the unknown, the imagined, the demonic. When Barnardo reports to Marcellus, “I saw nothing” (1.1.20), the word “nothing” takes on a number of meanings. He did not see the apparition; looking out into the darkness, he saw almost nothing. But "seeing" is still expressed positively, and so "nothing" becomes something to be seen. It is more than absence: the void itself exists as an object. He saw nothing; he is staring into space. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The Oxford English Dictionary's list of uses and definitions of the word "nothing" is astonishing in that so many uses of "nothing" most emphatically mean something. By limiting the examination to those meanings in use in Shakespeare's time, the list remains broad and rich: "nothing" can mean "an insignificant event" (OED 2nd edition, sv "nothing", 6a); "that which does not exist" (5a); "not any thing (material or immaterial)" (I.); "that which is not any number and possesses neither quantity nor value; the figure or character which represents it; nothing (4); a person without note (6c). "Nothing" also denotes "extinction or destruction" (5b ) or "the final point, stage or state of the process of destruction" (5c) The position of Nothing is paradoxical: it is what does not exist, yet I have to give it a name, invent a number for it, use its concept as the point of reference last? In the graphic representation of models ed mathematical equations, the coordinates (0,0) mark the starting point of all things, the center of infinity. In use, "nothing" as a concept is constitutive of reality, as a thing it does not help us define what is The word indicates the open jaws of the darkness that immediately begin on the border where the castle of Elsinore and the world end, while the boundaries of the "nothing", in turn, help to mark the contours of the. "invades constantly the territory of something: its appearance draws attention to the inadequacies of language, to the dissolution of action into inaction, to the form and formlessness of madness, to the emptiness of death. of the word "nothing" illustrates how "nothing" can be constitutive of concepts and ideas; rhetorically, the word here seems closest to "no thing (material or immaterial)" (OED 2nd edition, s.v. "nothing", I.), and in this function it is used as a point ofemphatic reference. “My lord, lady, to protest…For day is day, night is night, and time is time, / If it were but to waste night, day, and time” (2.2.87-90). "We were nothing but" is a phrase of being: it means, essentially, what is. The "but" separates the real qualities of the act from what it is not. Exposing the reason for time is nothing more than wasting time; the act has no meaning or effect other than its waste. The phrase “nothing but” has been used to isolate the effect of waste as a solitary consequence of a philosophical discussion about time. Here the boundaries between nothing and something are clear: we can know, according to Polonius, what an act means and what it does not. Indeed, Polonius shows that thanks to the isolating power of the word "nothing", an act can mean exactly one thing. In the world of Polonius everything is simple, since day is day, night is night and time is time; there is no barrier between perception and reality, concept and object. He uses "nothing" similarly just a few lines later: "? Crazy, I call it that, to define true madness, / What is it but to be nothing but crazy? / But leave it alone" ( 2.2.94-6 ). Here Polonius uses "nothing" to insist on the purity of categories and the transparency of things. The "nothing" here carries the sound of obviousness, of transparency: madness is nothing other than the state of madness. The word fits the thing; a thing is what it is and its boundaries are marked unequivocally by what it is not. According to Polonius, definitions not only clearly indicate, through the word "nothing", states of being: they are precisely those states of being. He insists on purity: his definition is not simply madness but "true madness", maintaining the boundaries between a pure "madman" and a non-madman. When Polonius speaks, he proposes a vision of the world in which cause and effect remain distinct, where brevity is one thing and boredom another, where categories are pure and contained within impenetrable conceptual boundaries. To describe something it is enough to say that it is that and nothing other than that. But "nothing" already creates problems: Polonius' sentences tend to reverse themselves, reducing his statements to meaninglessness. "That we find the cause of this effect? ​​/ Or rather say 'the cause of this defect', / For this defective effect comes from the cause" and "So it remains and the rest so" (2.2.102-105) are two outstanding examples of the emptiness of his sentences and his reasoning. His use of "nothing" means that his definitions are ultimately circular and unstable. While Polonius uses "nothing" to show the transparency of categories and the knowable qualities of things, Hamlet says "nothing" in the same scene and refers to the inadequacies of language and himself, and the permeability of the barriers between categories. His use of the word destabilizes the boundary between what exists and what does not exist, between "nothing" and reality. Referring to an actor's ability to fake pain, Hamlet exclaims in amazement that the actor was able to create such a feeling out of nothing: A broken voice and all its function fitting with forms to his conceit? And all for nothing. For Hecuba! What is Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba, That he should cry for her? What would he do if he had the reason and drive for the passion that I have? (2.2.533-9)"Nothing" here seems to denote relative insignificance or unimportance (OED, 2nd edition, s.v. "nothing", 3rd). Hecuba, as a person, had no intimate contact with the actor. “Nothing,” in this case, is a starting point, a catalyst for the player's imagination and art. But the word "nothing" is meant to downplay Hecuba's meaning, reminding us that she is a character, a bit of fiction and unreality. Here, Hamlet becomes self-referential theater, as an actor playing an imaginary character asks whatanother character (an actor playing an actor playing a character) would do if he were in the first character's place. This moment of self-referentiality transforms Hamlet into a strange bridge between fiction and real man, between character and audience: speaking of his own position in terms of motive and cue, he lowers himself to the level of Hecuba; he is a character, "nothing". But perceiving his words on a different level, the audience sees a real man, dismayed by his life's failure to live up to the models provided by art. The transformations occur in multiple directions: Hamlet, comparing his real self to the player and discovering himself lacking, distances himself from "nothingness", from the inconsistency of fiction and unreality. At the same time he calls attention to the artifice of the theater and his own status as a fictional character, but by proclaiming that his own life does not fit established artistic formulas, Hamlet aligns himself with the audience. Hamlet then denounces the inadequacy of his life. words: "...And yet I, / A dull, muddy-tempered scoundrel, rise / Like John-a-dreams, not pregnant with my cause, / And can say nothing? No, not for a king..." . (2.2.543-546). Yet, in loudly denouncing his lack of speech, Hamlet is saying something. He mourns his father with words; he certainly didn't say "nothing". Contradicting himself a few lines later, Hamlet denounces his own excess of speech: "Yes, indeed, this is very brave, / That I, the murdered dear's son, / Driven to my vengeance by heaven and hell, / Must, like a whore, empty my heart of words / and curse like a very dull man (2.2.560-4) He begins by saying that he cannot say anything, and then denounces the inadequacy of the language itself case, it is a necessary part of his filial duty. Speaking is nothing; strangely, Hamlet compares himself to a prostitute, an occupation not known for its dependence on language seems to emphasize the cheapness of words (whores have a quality of "nothing" in the sense that they are considered insignificant people (3a), and in seeking revenge their only recourse is to curse), but Hamlet has used the most carnal and corporeal of occupations of his simile. The entire soliloquy deals very confusingly with the "nothingness" of fiction, imagination and abstraction becoming real, concrete and carnal, while Hamlet himself is paralyzed, paradoxically, by silence and too many words. , from inaction. Fittingly, at the end of the soliloquy he decides to use a play to reveal Claudio. In the same speech, Hamlet first called a fictional character "nothing" of meaning and then decided to use art as a strategic weapon against his father's murderer. No wonder Hamlet fails to make Polonius's confident distinctions between real and unreal, art and life. Throughout the soliloquy, the categories are always destabilizing and are confused with their presumed opposites. Ophelia's relationship with the word "nothing" is particularly painful. The girl tells Hamlet that her thoughts are neutral or insignificant. When Hamlet asks Ophelia what she thinks, she replies "I think nothing, my lord" (3.2.106). Subsequently, "nothing" will once again be used to describe his mental state, as he thinks of nothing that is fully understandable to others. Here, “nothing” also refers to the female genitals (Norton, p. 1710), with the vagina connected to the digit 0. “What,” slang for penis, also reminds the audience of the etymology of “nothing” (Norton, p.1710), predicting a series of obscene jokes: nothing, nothing, nothing. In this series of spicy puns, having nothing means having nothing, i.e. having no penis means having a vagina.Hamlet's obscene statement that "nothing" is "a fair thought to lie between a woman's legs" (3.2.107-9) again shows the ways in which "nothing" is used in a constitutive function. Woman, as a category, is formed here based on what she does not have. Ophelia does not actively participate in this play on words; instead, he is the semi-conscious target of Hamlet's dirty jokes. "Nothing" is what is between her legs, "nothing" is what is between her ears ("I think nothing"), and "nothing", in the sense of an unimportant or impotent person, is what she is . He will become a victim of Elsinore's intrigues, deprived of Hamlet's phallus and consequently Hamlet's potential ability to protect himself. The bawdy puns return when Gertrude describes Ophelia's death: when she drowns, the girl is adorned with a garland of flowers named after the male genitals by the shepherds (5.1.141, Norton 1740). “Nothing,” in this earlier passage with Hamlet, foreshadows Ophelia's fate. After Ophelia goes mad, her words reflect her fundamental helplessness: Horatio informs the queen that "her [Ophelia's] speech is nothing" (4.5.7). Horace, trained in philosophy and in the categorizations of Renaissance thought, relegates his digressions to the realm of nonsense. Because they are not coherent or cohesive statements, they become "nothing", relatively worthless or insignificant (OED 2nd edition, s.v. "nothing", 6th), perhaps with an additional meaning of "nothing" as they represent the final stages of dissolution ( 5c) as Ophelia's mind deteriorates completely. Yet here Ophelia's words and gestures finally affect some events in Elsinore: she hands Gertrude fennel and columbine, symbols of flattery and marital infidelity (4.5.177). Responding to his ramblings, Laertes observes, "This is nothing but matter." (4.5.172). “Nothing” here suggests that Ophelia no longer respects the rules of how and what to communicate in civilized society and in Elsinore. Talking nonsense frees her to tell a version of the truth, albeit without significant effect on events. "Nothing" and its meanings come through heavily when Hamlet's father appears to Hamlet again in Gertrude's bedroom: QUEEN GERTRUDE: To whom do you speak thus? HAMLET: Don't you see anything there? QUEEN GERTRUDE: Nothing at all, yet I see everything. HAMLET: And do you hear anything? QUEEN GERTRUDE: No, none other than ourselves. HAMLET: Why, look here. See how it goes. My father, in his suit as he lived. See where he goes even now, out of the portal. EXITS THE GHOST (3.4.122-7) The ghost has appeared again, but this time only Hamlet sees him. We must once again ask ourselves the origin of the ghost: delirium? purgatory? hell? Are both ghosts "nothing"? Without any material or immaterial substance? Is the first ghost "real" and the second ghost, as Gertrude insists, "nothing?" Both possibilities leave many questions unanswered (and unanswered). Gertrude's statement seems almost too confident, as if she were trying to convince herself: "[I see] Nothing, and yet I see everything." In this play, with the dark rooms and intrigues of Elsinore, the Queen's claim to see "all that is" is patently ridiculous. “Nothing” appeared here for four consecutive lines. Even if the room is empty of a "real" ghost, Gertrude's claim to see nothing does not speak in her favor. A basic example of a "nothing" that she cannot perceive is the actual absence of her first husband. The emptiness of her marital bed, so quickly filled, is the "nothing" that she certainly has not seen and does not allow herself to see. Hamlet's father has become a "nothing", a nobody, a person of no note (OED 2nd edition, sv "nothing", 6c), quickly forgotten by his wife and avenged with exasperating slowness.