Thurston 1

Ashlyn Thurston

Prof. Erin Kelly

English 441-01

25 April 2020

The Significance of Sight and Sound in ​Hamlet

In storytelling, writers often employ the five senses of sight, sound, touch, smell, and

taste through their use of language in appealing to the reader’s interest to engage with the text

and bring these sensations to life. Though it is considered in literature that no one sense is more

important than another, two of the five basic senses predominate in William Shakespeare’s tragic

play ​Hamlet​. Throughout the tragedy, there is a deliberate focus on the senses of sight and sound.

Characters frequently make references to the eyes, to vision and seeing, as well as to the ears, to

sound and hearing. While writers often employ sensory details in their works, Shakespeare uses

the senses of sight and sound to signify something greater—connecting characters’ perceptions

of human sensation to deeper themes of madness, reason, and doubt. Through the discourse of

Hamlet​, Shakespeare infers how the reliance on one faculty impacts the characters’ reasoning

and can lead to misunderstanding, death, and tragedy. In other words, Shakespeare demonstrates

how a balance between the senses of sight and sound is essential in maintaining sound judgment

wherein reason governs the characters’ motivations and behavior.

The eye and the ear motif used in ​Hamlet​ plays a prominent role throughout the story in

determining the characters’ actions, or rather inactions, as well as distorting the lines between

reality and fantasy. Therefore, it seems appropriate that the play begins on a speculation of sight

and sound with the first line spoken by Barnardo, “Who’s there?” (1.1.1). The focus on the sense
 Thurston 2

of seeing by the guards effectively sets up Shakespeare’s attention to detail regarding sensation.

As guards, the men are required to be on high alert with their eyes and ears open and though they

agreed to have witnessed the apparition, the ghost has not spoken to either of them which is what

leads the two to involve Horatio. This connects to the idea that one should not rely purely on a

sensuous experience using one faculty to make a sound judgment and act. If the guards had just

excused what they had seen to be shadows or a trick of the mind and not told Horatio, Hamlet

would have never encountered the ghost of his father. The guard’s choice to tell him what they

have seen only on the basis of sight effectively sets up the course of events and eventual demise

of the characters—signifying the importance of reaching an equilibrium between the faculties of

sight and sound before making a decision and taking action.

The concept of how relying purely on vision negatively influences characters’ reasoning

is prevalent throughout the play. Alan Ackerman notes how “The world of sensible objects

enters and clouds the space of the mind” (Ackerman 120). When Horatio and the guards visit

Hamlet to report what they have seen, Hamlet reveals that he already sees his father “In [his]

mind’s eye” (1.2.185). While this phrase foreshadows Hamlet’s eventual meeting with the ghost

in scene five, the exchange also introduces the problem between appearance and reality. A

sensible object is an idea that exists only in the mind of their perceivers. In the play, the father’s

ghost functions as a sensible object—a visual representation of something real or natural that is

held in the mind. The death of the King still on their minds, the guards believe what they see to

be the truth, “Looks ‘a not like the King?” which is what drives them and Horatio to tell Hamlet

(1.1.42). On the other side, Hamlet is haunted by mental images of his deceased father before he

learns of Horatio’s witnessing of the apparition and though he is able to differentiate

 Thurston 3

metaphorical thought from concrete reality, Hamlet is convinced by Horatio’s news that his

father has taken the form of a ghost before even seeing it himself. This further illustrates the

problem of relying on one sense, just from a different faculty—hearing. Hamlet takes the visions

seen in his mind’s eye to be the truth. As Ackerman claims, the “mind’s eye is not an inner,

hallucinatory site but a metaphor for the experience of the spirit through sensuous form”

(Ackerman 143). Though Hamlet eventually sees the ghost for himself, this only further

complicates things. The ghost’s visual appearance to Hamlet versus what he has seen in his

mind’s eye are emblematic of the dialectic between the senses and the thematic problem of

relying on one faculty to take action. If Hamlet had not acted on the basis of what he heard from

Horatio, he would have never been burdened by his father’s demand for revenge that led him

down the path to tragedy.

The meeting with the ghost of his father sparks a significant change in Hamlet that affects

his ability to make judgments. Though the visual appearance of his father is what drives Hamlet

to follow the ghost, the words in this scene are mostly concerned with hearing. The ghost orders,

“Now, Hamlet, hear” to further accentuate the importance of sound and its function in this scene

(1.5.34). He relays to Hamlet the truth of his murder with, “A serpent stung me; so the whole ear

of Denmark / Is by a forgèd process of my death / Rankly abused” (1.5.36-38). This quote refers

to the means by which the King was poisoned as well as symbolizes the destructive effect of his

brother’s manipulation of words to distort the truth and manipulate the state of Denmark to his

own will. The analogy comments on how both the people of Denmark and the King have been

poisoned through the ear—figuratively for the people and literally for the King. Claudius’ words
 Thurston 4

are described as a “forgèd process” which refers to his exploitation of rhetoric and authority in

controlling the nation of Denmark.

The ghost further explains his bizarre murder and how Claudius “With juice of cursed

hebona in a vial / And in the porches of my ears did pour / The leprous distilment” (1.5.62-67). It

is interesting to note the plurality of ‘ears’ in this section since Claudius did not put the poison in

both of his ears. While it could be a reference to the simple act of hearing and its simultaneous

penetration of the ears when a sound is heard, it could also suggest that the knowledge gained

through the faculty of hearing without its complementary senses can corrupt both the conscious

mind and the physical body. After all, Claudius is asleep when he is poisoned—meaning his eyes

were closed—suggesting a potential clarity in the guise of sensual wholeness. This also connects

the poison to language and further strengthens the claim that information gained through hearing

alone without eyesight is pernicious to both mind and body. Furthermore, all five of the senses

are mentioned in the ghost’s speech and immediately following it, Hamlet says the word “all”

five times in his references to forms of print such as “records,” “books,” “commandments,”

“volumes,” etc.—swearing to replace “all” previous memory and knowledge with the word:

“remember” (1.5.111).

After speaking with the ghost, Hamlet is resolved to avenge his father, but is stunted in

doing so for a number of reasons: the act of revenge is unlawful and immoral, there is a major

question as to whether the intangible spirit of his major source is credible, but mostly, Hamlet is

uncertain whether or not he can rely on one of his senses in making a rational judgment. The five

senses of sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste present an image of completeness that none of the

characters seem to possess when making decisions. This is what keeps Hamlet from exacting his
 Thurston 5

revenge as he is torn between what he sees and what he hears. As Mary Anderson writes, “The

profusion of eye and ear imagery in the play . . . reflects Shakespeare’s philosophy about the

dialectical relationship between the eye and the ear and reason” (Anderson 311). When one or

more of these senses are lacking or absent completely, this presents a deficiency in reason and

judgment resulting in misguided actions with profound consequences.

This concept “that information gained through the ear alone can be malignant, and that

information gained through the eye alone can be incomplete or ineffectual” in bringing about

action or inaction based on clouded judgment is best shown in the prayer scene and the killing of

Polonius in Act III (Anderson 302). When Hamlet goes to kill Claudius, he finds him praying for

forgiveness and decides against it for fear that Claudius will go to heaven. However, Claudius is

not praying, but rather speculating on the action as he says, “Pray can I not: / Though inclination

be as sharp as will” (3.3.38-39). It is important that Hamlet sees Claudius merely in the position

of repenting, but does not actually hear his words as his reliance on sight and lack of sound are

the reason for his inaction. Shakespeare “sets up a comparison between the eye and the ear as the

two faculties by which sense data are transmitted to the reason[ing]” behind Hamlet’s decisions

and indecisions (Anderson 299). By relying only on the image of his uncle praying, Hamlet is

now sure that he is guilty, but he is not aware of the fact that Claudius is not actually praying,

which would have allowed him to act with certainty. Without the faculty of hearing, Hamlet

again highlights how the reliance on one sense does not determine truth.

Immediately following the prayer scene, Hamlet goes to confront his mother about the

murder and tells her, “You go not till I set you up a glass / Where you may see the inmost part of

you” (3.4.19-20). With the truth of the King’s murder confirmed, Hamlet wants Gertrude to feel
 Thurston 6

the guilt and remorse for choosing Claudius over his father. Hamlet will not let her leave until

she holds a mirror to her face so that she may see the deep shame and darkness of what she has

done inside her, and more importantly, allow Hamlet the satisfaction of seeing his mother suffer

greatly with his own eyes. It is only after Hamlet forces her to do this that she sees the error in

her ways and cries out, “Thou turn’st my very eyes into my soul, / And there I see such black”

(3.4.89-90). By turning her attention inward through introspection, the Queen sees beneath the

mask of her ignorance and comes face-to-face (literally) with the horror of her blindness to the

truth. It is important to note that Gertrude is one of the only characters to go through a rational

process of discerning truth from illusion “in which the externally induced emotion of shame

achieved through the eye, is internalized into guilt through the ear and reason” (Anderson 308).

This further strengthens the claim that a balance of the senses must be reached for reasonable

actions to take place and wholesome judgments to be made.

Unknowingly to Hamlet, Polonius has been behind the curtain listening to their entire

conversation. When Hamlet becomes verbally aggressive and orders her forcefully to look in the

mirror, Gertrude cries out of fear for her life which causes Polonius to call out for help while he

is still hiding behind the tapestry. Hearing someone behind the arras and suspecting that it might

be Claudius, Hamlet draws his sword through the tapestry, killing Polonius. Later on, the Queen

relays the scene to the others where Hamlet “Behind the arras hearing something stir, / Whips

out his rapier, cries ‘A rat, a rat,’ / . . . And in this brainish apprehension kills / The unseen good

old man” (3.4.227-229). Polonius’ demise is ironic in that he is known for obtaining information

and gathering knowledge based solely on the things he hears as truth, whether it's hearsay or

gossip, which is exactly the reason Hamlet chooses to stab the tapestry. During the scene, Hamlet
 Thurston 7

hears him behind the tapestry, but cannot see him, yet he chooses to act rashly on the basis of

what he hears alone—directly reflecting Polonius’ own personal methods of discernment.

Without the complementary sense of sight, Hamlet “becomes a victim of his own poor judgment

based on that which ‘seems’, which is an erroneous assessment of the data available to him”

(Anderson 307). In a dramatic juxtaposition of misguided action influenced by the faculty of

sense provided to the tragic hero, Hamlet does not kill Claudius because he can see but cannot

hear, but he kills Polonius by accident instead because he hears but cannot see.

The dialectic between the faculties of the eye and the ear dominate the discourse of the

play. ​Hamlet ​uses these frequent and deliberate sensory details to provide insight and encourage

the deeper analysis of such language through a comprehensive framework that allows for a better

understanding of the text. Through language, Shakespeare demonstrates a polemical relationship

between the eye and the ear in illuminating the importance of attaining balance of the two senses

wherein reason and judgment can be fully realized before free will is called into action. ​Hamlet

provides numerous examples of how reliance on the eye or ear alone can lead to distortions of

truth and drastic outcomes. Many characters in the play exhibit these dependencies on one sense

or another and how this impacts their judgment, but no one is more affected by the influence of

certain faculties in failing to separate illusion from fantasy to see the truth than the tragic hero of

which the play is named after, Hamlet. Afflicted by the sadness and grief of his father’s death in

his first introduction of the play in scene two of the first act, the audience watches as the young

Hamlet transforms from a depressed, mournful prince into an exasperated, pensive tragic hero

driven blindly to self-destruction and madness by the deception of his uncle, the demand for

revenge from the ghost of his father, and the misguided reliance on one sensation or another in
 Thurston 8

confirming truth and certainty to take action or not. This is what leads Hamlet to his tragic end

and why Shakespeare uses human sensations to provide the audience a look into how Hamlet is

led astray. The motifs of the eye and the ear are a significant feature of the play that continually

stress the importance of attaining some kind of equilibrium between the senses in differentiating

fantasy from reality, illusion from truth, appearance from absoluteness, and what ‘seems’ from

what simply ‘is’ to encourage others to make the correct judgement and do the right thing.
 Thurston 9

Works Cited

Ackerman, Alan. “Visualizing Hamlet's Ghost: The Spirit of Modern Subjectivity.” ​Theatre

Journal​, vol. 53, no. 1, 2001, pp. 119–144. Print.

Anderson, Mary. “Hamlet: The Dialectic Between Eye and Ear.” ​Renaissance and Reformation /

Renaissance Et Réforme​, vol. 15, no. 4, 1991, pp. 299–313. Print.

Shakespeare, William. “Hamlet”. ​The Norton Shakespeare​, edited by Stephen Greenblatt et al.,

3rd ed., W. W. Norton & Company, 2016, pp. 1764-1853. Print.