Ophelia’s anagnorisis

As previously mentioned, Ophelia’s madness and death were largely interpreted and studied. The cause of her death was also a popular topic for discussion. Even until today, she is still considered as one of the most studied heroines of Shakespeare. Her characteristics and symbolisms can be discussed in various perspectives and fields.

However, covering all the different aspects of her studies will be a massive number of texts and literature. Therefore, in this particular section of the study, instead of agreeing to the idea of love causing her death, the following section will be an analysis of the cause of her death as through her transformation of identity and the process of anagnorisis.

The term anagnorisis originated from Aristotle’s Poetics, as one of the elements required to form tragedy. According to the online etymology dictionary, the origin of the Greek word anagnorisis came from the Latin root word of ana meaning again and gnorizein meaning “to make know, gain knowledge of.”¹⁷⁷ The definition of the word cannot be easily described, however, in the translated versions of Aristotle’s Poetics, the section for anagnorisis was translated into the word discovery¹⁷⁸ or simply

176 Marshall, Shakespeare in the Nineteenth Century, 273.

177 “anagnorisis.” Etymoonline.com. Online Etymology Dictionary, 2018. Web. 22 April 2018.

178 See Humphry House, Aristotle's Poetics. London: Rupert Hart-Davis Ltd, 1956, 97.

80

recognition.¹⁷⁹ In Samuel Henry Butcher’s 1902 edition of Aristotle’s Poetics, the passage about anagnorisis was translated in the following words:

Recognition as the name indicates, is a change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined by the poet for good or bad fortune. … Recognition, then, between persons, it may happen that one person only is recognised by the other – when the latter is already known – or it may be necessary that the recognition should be on both sides.¹⁸⁰

In comparison, in 1956, Humphry House’s translation named anagnorisis as the discovery, the same passage of Aristotle’s definition was written as following:

The “discovery” is in its essence, as Aristotle quite clearly says, “a change from ignorance to knowledge.” The recognition of a person, or the discovery of the identity of a person, like the recognition of Orestes by Iphigenia and of Iphigenia by Orestes, is merely one special kind of this “change from ignorance to knowledge” which is what it meant in general by “discovery.” … The “discovery” is the realization of which really is the right end, and of the fact that you had got hold of the wrong one, and also, perhaps, of a whole train of consequences.¹⁸¹

Either with the word recognition or discovery, the terms cannot fully describe

‘anagnorisis.’ Anagnorisis relates to the turning point of a tragedy in which the character acknowledges the truth and turns the story to a tragic ending.

179 Samuel Henry Butcher, ed. The poetics of Aristotle. New York: Macmillan, 1902 41.

180 Ibid., 41-43.

181 House, Aristotle's Poetics, 97-98.

81

Through the study of other contemporary scholars, the definition of anagnorisis in terms of the relation of tragedy can be seen in different ways. According to Lalita Pandit’s study, Aristotle defines anagnorisis as a change and the turning points of a drama where there is a reversal of a situation and recognition.¹⁸² Stephen Halliwell uses the simpler definition for the term, “a change from ignorance to knowledge.”¹⁸³ Similar to Halliwell, John MacFarlane adds up to the definition in his study of Aristotle’s Definition of Anagnorisis, that the term can be categorized as “a change from ignorance into knowledge, leading to either friendship or enmity.”¹⁸⁴ In his study of Henry Johnstone’s anagnorisis, Tom Heeney writes that Johnstone identifies

“anagnorisis as one of the keys to understanding the indissoluble link between tragedy and philosophy.”¹⁸⁵ In general, the term is often used to understand the change in a tragedy.

One of the examples used by Aristotle to describe the word was the story of Oedipus Rex. The plot of the story begins with a prophecy declaring that the son of the King will murder his own father and marry his mother. The king sentenced Oedipus, the protagonist, to death but was secretly saved and sent away to another kingdom by the queen. As the years went by and the king was murdered in the woods, the new king came to the throne and married the queen. It was only towards the end of the story that the protagonist acknowledged the truth that he unknowingly killed his father and married his mother. With this change or the process of anagnorisis, Oedipus suffered from a transformation of ignorance to obtaining the knowledge of the truth. The

182 Lalita Pandit, “Emotion, perception and anagnorisis in the comedy of errors: A cognitive perspective.” College Literature 33.1 (2006): 95.

183 Stephen Halliwell, The Poetics of Aristotle: Translation and Commentary. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987, 214.

184 John MacFarlane, “Aristotle's definition of Anagnorisis.” American Journal of Philology 121.3(2000): 367.

185 Tom Heeney, “Henry Johnstone's Anagnorisis: Argumentum ad Hominem as tragic trope of truth.” Philosophy & Rhetoric (1995): 391.

82

recognition of oneself transformed the story into a tragedy and Oedipus shifted his role from the hero of the story to the protagonist of a tragedy. A tragedy is formed at the tragic moment when the characters and readers share a mutual understanding of the situation. With this change of ignorance to knowledge, the story of Oedipus Rex becomes a full tragedy.

Relating back to tragedy itself, Roger W. Herzel analyzes, “The word tragedy is routinely applied to any event in our daily lives which produces untimely death, serious inconvenience, or uninsured property loss.”¹⁸⁶ The origin of the term tragedy comes from Latin word of tragedia, a tragedy.¹⁸⁷ As said etymologically, tragedy, comes from the root words of tragos meaning goat and ode as in song. Hellenistic critics traced its practice to the awarding of a goat to contests honoring Dionysus.¹⁸⁸ Aristotle used three elements to describe the truth of tragedy. According to Alexander Nehamas, the three components are, “pathermata, or dramatic incidents and emotions; peripeteia, or reversals of fortune; and anagnorisis, understood adequately in the common sense of the English term recognition.”¹⁸⁹ These three are considered as the essential elements of a tragedy from Aristotle’s perspective. As MacFarlane mentions, “to understand the term anagnorisis, one has to understand the relationship between recognition and reversal.”¹⁹⁰ MacFarlane discusses that anagnorisis can be consider as the Greek word for recognition and peripeteia is more related to reversal. As for “a change of fortune is a reversal,”¹⁹¹ the close association between recognition and reversal is two-in-one,

186 Roger W. Herzel, “‘Anagnorisis’ and ‘Peripeteia’ in Comedy.” Educational Theatre Journal 26.4 (1974): 495.

187 “tragedy.” Etymoonline.com. Online Etymology Dictionary, 2018. Web. 22 April 2018.

188 Aristotle, Leon, and O. B. Golden. Aristotle's Poetics a Translation and Commentary for Students of Literature. New Jersey: Prentice-hall Inc., 1968, 112.

189 Alexander Nehamas. “Pity and Fear in the Rhetoric and the Poetics.” In Essays on Aristotle’s Poetics, 2015. 291.

190 Macfarlane, “Aristotle's definition of Anagnorisis," 376.

191 Ibid., 376.

83

meaning a “change of the things being done into the opposite.”¹⁹² In every tragedy, there is a change or a recognition while the plot for reversal may not be necessary.

Reversal itself may take place in the process of recognition, with reversal acting in the change of fortune. Oedipus Rex is the best example to describe the scenario. Aristotle believed that for Oedipus, recognition, and reversal occurred at the same time. The transition happened when he faced his unbearable self-discovering and knowledge of the truth. When the story ended with Jocasta dead and Oedipus blinded, he encountered a reversal change of his life.

In relation, Ophelia’s loss of patriarchal supports becomes the key element of her anagnorisis and she faces the separation of identity. Through her transformation of identity, she changes from a naïve young maiden to the mad woman who ends her life in madness. In this discussion, I will elaborate on the idea that Ophelia goes through a three-stage transformation, 1) the figure of a young maiden dominated by her patriarchal figures; 2) a being for Polonius's path to success; 3) a victim bit by reality and gave Hamlet a legitimate reason to act out his madness; and the becoming of the mad woman. Through her transformation, she crosses the borders of madness and experiences the destabilization of identity. The following discussion will be an analysis of Ophelia’s transformation from Act 1 to Act 4 of Hamlet.

Transformation 1 - Figure of a young maiden dominated by her patriarchal figures In the first stage, Ophelia appears as the ideal daughter and sister in a family that relies on her patriarchal figures. Her thoughts and decisions come later than any demands from her dominants. She represents the figure of a young maiden with the lack of agency. Ophelia is normally pictured as a naïve young maiden whose affections for

192 Ibid., 377.

84

Hamlet are pure and chaste. With no signs and mentions about her mother, the dominant figures of her life are set to be her father and brother. Gabrielle Dane says, "Motherless and completely circumscribed by the men around her, Ophelia has been shaped to conform to external demands, to reflect others' desires.”¹⁹³ Her actions and thoughts all relied on the two patriarchal figures around her. She appears to be an obedient daughter who is too naïve to make her own judgments. She is always accompanied by a significant male superior during her appearances. As described in the character list, she is known as ‘the daughter of Polonius and sister of Laertes.’ She is always introduced as a secondary and subsidiary to another character. Her image is built on her innocence of desire and knowledge.

With her first appearance in Act 1 Scene 3, “Do you doubt that?” (1.3.4) is her first response to Laertes’s demand to write to him. In response, there is no need to question her obedience to her brother’s request. Before leaving for France, he showed his concern towards his sister’s reputation and private life. In contrast to her innocence, Laertes, aware of men’s and women’s desire, tells Ophelia to not fall for Hamlet’s affection. Instead of advising or warning her, he sentenced Hamlet's affection towards Ophelia as a temporal flirtation.

For Hamlet, and the trifling of his favor, Hold it a fashion and a toy in blood, A violet in the youth of primy nature, Forward, not permanent, sweet, not, lasting, The perfume and suppliance of a minute – No more. (1.3.5-10)

193 Gabrielle Dane, “Reading Ophelia's Madness.” Exemplaria 10.2 (1998): 406.

85

Besides from considering any details between the relationships of the two, he gave his comments on how the prince act and his feelings towards his sister. He treated his sister’s private life as a family business. Without questioning and doubts, Ophelia replied with “I shall the effect of this good lesson keep / As watchman to my heart”

(1.3.45-46). She does not acknowledge her agency and the knowledge of challenging her superiors.

With Polonius’s entrance, the conversation continued on the topic about her recent relationship with Hamlet. As Polonius asked and questioned the truth, Ophelia responded with "I do not know, my lord, what I should think" (1.3.104). Her response fits perfectly with her role and created the image of an obedient daughter. Pleased with her answer, he immediately took the role to educate and command his daughter. Similar to Laertes, he also made the decision for her feelings towards the prince.

…In few, Ophelia,

Do not believe his vows, for they are brokers, Not of that dye which their investments show, But mere [implorators] of unholy suits, Breathing like sanctified and pious bonds,

The better to [beguile]. This is for all: (1.3.127-131)

Without hesitation and doubts, she accepted the lecture and took it as her thoughts. She acts on the behalf of her male superiors. Dominated and confronted by her father and brother’s instructions, she simply responses, I shall obey, my lord” (1.3.136). At this point in time, Ophelia is still portrayed as an obedient daughter who lacks the knowledge of her own voice and judgments.

86

Transformation 2 - A being for Polonius’s path to success

Lacking the knowledge to challenge, Ophelia obeys Polonius’s order and rejects Hamlet’s letters. Her obedience can be seen as she replies her father, “no, my good lord.

But as you did command I did repel his fetters and denied His access to me” (2.1.107).

For Ophelia, who lives in a patriarchal society, the commands from the men in the house are seemly equivalent to the law. Erin Campbell writes, “if she refuses Polonius, she risks social ostracism and grave insult to the man who capriciously controls her future.”¹⁹⁴ As the plot moves on with Hamlet’s madness, Polonius offers his daughter to King Claudius and Queen Gertrude as an ‘object’ to testify Hamlet’s psychological state. He states Ophelia as his possession,

I have a daughter—have while she is mine—

Who in her duty and obedience, mark, Hath given me this. (2.2.108-110)

With her act of obedience, it becomes her duty to be under her father’s control and supervision. At this state, her role as the ideal daughter transforms into the being or object for Polonius’s path to success.

As Lord Chamberlain of the king, Polonius’s will and duty are to please the king.

Claudius and Gertrude are confused and shocked by Hamlet’s sudden madness. In order to help and gain trust from the king, Polonius seeks to solve the problem. He assumes that Hamlet has gone mad out of love and offers his daughter to present proof to the king and queen. The idea of lovesickness as the cause of Hamlet’s madness saves the

194 Erin Campbell. “‘Sad Generations Seeking Water’: The Social Construction of Madness in O (phelia) and Q (uentin Compson).” Faulkner Journal 20.2 (2004): 58.

87

couple from their feeling of guilt (of which Gertrude was aware of the pressure coming from the death of King Hamlet and her remarriage.) In Act 2 Scene 2, Hamlet calls Polonius Jephthah¹⁹⁵ and sings the lyrics from a song about Jephthah.

HAMLET. O Jephthah, judge of Israel, what a treasure hadst thou!

POLONIUS. What a treasure had he, my lord?

HAMLET. Why,

One fair daughter and no more, The which he loved passing well.

POLONIUS. (aside) Still on my daughter. (2.2.375-381).

Polonius did not catch the irony within Hamlet’s words. He was still caught in his idea of Hamlet suffering under the loss of love. It makes him even certain on his plan to set Ophelia as the key to check on Hamlet’s madness. Relating to how Laertes and Polonius see Ophelia, as Dane says, “Ophelia is [an] angel to Laertes, she is [an] asset to Polonius, a commodity to be disposed of, ideally at the greatest profit to himself.”¹⁹⁶ By all means, Ophelia now has become an essential being and “bait”¹⁹⁷ participating in Polonius’s politician career.

Transformation 3 - Victim bit by reality and the becoming of the mad woman As Polonius planned, Ophelia plays in the act to testify Hamlet’s affections towards her. It was her first encounter with Hamlet’s madness. Acting completely different from how he treated her, he tells her to “Get thee to a nunnery” (3.1.23).

195 In the biblical story of Jephthah (Judges 11:31), Jephthah vows to sacrifices the first person who comes out of his house after his returns from the victory in a battle. However, the first person who he met was his daughter and he sacrifices his daughter.

196 Dane, “Reading Ophelia’s Madness,” 407.

197 Jacques Lacan refers Ophelia as “the object Ophelia” and the “piece of bait named Ophelia,” in his Desire and the Interpretation of Desire in Hamlet. He objectifies her as Hamlet’s desire.

88

Becoming suspicious, Hamlet asks Ophelia where Polonius is and due to her ‘duties’

and obedience, she responses with a lie. Aware that Ophelia may have lied to him, Hamlet performs his madness in front of Ophelia and the others behind the curtain. He rages and curses her then leaves.

If thou dost marry, I’ll give thee this plague for thy dowry. Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny. Get thee to a nunnery, go Farewell. Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery, go, and quickly too. Farewell. (3.1.136-142).

Left hurt and crushed by reality, Ophelia now becomes a victim of this tragedy. Her role has changed from a minor to an essential part of the play to move on. Her real tragedy comes when Polonius was later killed in Act 3 Scene 4. With the death of her father and the far away Laertes, she is now left with no patriarchal supports.

After the death of Polonius, Ophelia becomes the isolated figure in the patriarchal society. As an isolated figure, it was also the time where she has the chance to obtain her own voice and wills. Despite from becoming a solid figure, she succumbs to madness. With the consecutive absences of the three men in her life, she transforms into the mad woman who suffered in separation. David Levernes writes in his The Woman in Hamlet: An Interpersonal View, that as she was “not allowed to love and unable to be false, Ophelia breaks…” and “she goes mad rather than gets mad.”¹⁹⁸ Instead of

198 David Leverenz, “The Woman in Hamlet: An Interpersonal View.” Signs 4.2 (1978): 301.

89

making the choice to become the mad woman, Ophelia’s fragility and passiveness forced her to get mad. The loss of patriarchal figures leaves her with the separation of identity. She loses her identity as the obedient daughter and out of life ‘duties.’ It is the time in which she can get hold of her own self. However, unlike the present thinking of agency, she fails to perform herself with a new identity. Thus, madness becomes the result of her separation.

Ophelia’s madness is an accumulation of tragedies. She falls into madness as Hamlet pretends to be. When she reenters the play in Act 4 Scene 5, she is described as

“distracted” and is reported by the gentleman that “she speaks much of her father…”

and “her speech is nothing” (4.5.4-8) but at the same time it presents a deeper meaning within. Even with the return of Laertes, he was not able to revive Ophelia’s sanity, in which, she has them gone to Polonius’s grave. Within this stage, she crosses the borders of sane and insanity. The story of Ophelia has now become a tragedy through her anagnorisis. As Duncan Salkeld writes, “Ophelia’s body reads as ‘a document in madness,’ inscribed with an insanity soon to be erased altogether.”¹⁹⁹ In the last stage of her transformation to madness, Ophelia has become the woman that delivers her thoughts and voice through her madness.

As previously discussed, Ophelia was ignorant about her own identity and agency.

It was when she becomes an individual figure that obtains the knowledge that she is now on her own and have to make her own decisions. There will not be any dominants to command her and for her to follow anymore. Acknowledge this truth, she was not able to step out of grief and vulnerability. The result of her anagnorisis follows with her

It was when she becomes an individual figure that obtains the knowledge that she is now on her own and have to make her own decisions. There will not be any dominants to command her and for her to follow anymore. Acknowledge this truth, she was not able to step out of grief and vulnerability. The result of her anagnorisis follows with her