During the play’s the thing scene, Hamlet asks his mother what she thinks of the claims of love that the play queen makes of her play king. Queen Gertrude responds with the famous line, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.” What I always found interesting was the real meaning of the word “protest.”
In the 16th century, to “protest” didn’t have today’s connotation of a statement expressing disapproval or of an objection to something, but it was simply a solemn declaration before a group or before god (pro=“forth/before” and testare=“witness”). Today, when we use the phrase “the lady doth protest too much,” what we’re really trying to say is that by objecting so vociferously, a large (or complete) degree of credibility is lost. But the way that Shakespeare wrote it, it meant the complete opposite: the play queen didn’t object, but affirmed herself to such a degree so as to ring hollow.
Which really makes one think…what did the Queen really think about the nature of love? The Player Queen’s declarations – her protests – were that “If once I be a widow, ever I be a wife.” That she’ll never love, never marry ever again…that life and love is static. Or, really, that life and love should be static.
But to Queen Gertrude it rings false. Love and marriage – life, in general – is not a fixed moment in time; life is not static, nor should it be. We are in flux. That is what it means to be human and to experience. To Gertrude, then, perhaps it’s better to see things clearly and — taking a line from Stoppard’s take on it — understand precedent and know which way the wind blows.
Perhaps, then, it is less about the protestations, and more about the living of it all.
Or is this just me avoiding commitment? Aware that it is highly unlikely that I’ll ever be accused of protesting too much? That I set up a false dichotomy and that there is, in fact, a middle ground?
