In Hamlet's second soliloquy, the prince berates himself for his inaction compared to the First Player. Shakespeare explores ideas of role, character and integrity.
Hamlet’s second soliloquy, “O what a rogue and peasant slave am I!”, comes directly after he has seen the performance of a speech by the First Player. Hamlet compares himself to the actor, and finds himself wanting. The First Player has produced such an effective performance, with “Tears in his eyes, distraction in’s aspect” (II.2) with only a pretended cause for emotion, a “dream of passion”, whereas Hamlet berates himself for having a greater “cue for passion” and not acting.
“Acting” is a double-edged word, though. Hamlet notably compares himself to an actor, and considers himself a “dull and muddy-mettled rascal”. He does not make a comparison with Claudius, Fortinbras or Old Hamlet, all of whom have undertaken real actions instead of simply “playing” them.
Of course, the comparison with an actor is effective because it is extreme, since an actor has no motivation for his expressions of emotion: as Hamlet remarks, “What’s Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba?” However, what Hamlet praises is his apparent integrity of mind and body: “his whole function suiting/ With forms to his conceit” It is not the First Player’s honesty he admires, but his ability to bring all his powers together for one purpose. He is impressed, not by a good person, but by good acting.
This might suggest that Hamlet is having difficulty fitting himself for the “role” which Hamlet imposes upon him. There seems to be a distinction throughout Hamlet between role and character, and Hamlet, though a fascinating character, is something of a failure in the role of revenger.
Even when Hamlet realises that by he will achieve nothing by swearing and soliloquising (remarking ironically “sure, this is most brave”) he describes himself as “like a whore...like a very drab”. It’s a striking simile after what he has just said, since the one thing whores are famous for is not keeping an integrity between their outward “function” and their inward “conceit”. Hamlet doesn’t make this connection explicit, but there is no other obvious reason why “whore” is the first insult he reaches for in this context.
What seems like a fairly straightforward speech by Hamlet, ticking that favourite thematic box “appearance versus reality”, is in fact far more complex and far-reaching. Hamlet admires the First Player for his complete integrity in an arbitrary role, something which the prince has been unable to achieve. After all, if Hamlet’s concern was with truth and honesty, why does he end the scene by deciding to put on a play, to go one level deeper into falsehood?
