{"id":1167,"date":"2016-04-12T18:10:08","date_gmt":"2016-04-12T22:10:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/creatureandcreator.ca\/?p=1167"},"modified":"2016-07-07T19:59:43","modified_gmt":"2016-07-07T23:59:43","slug":"hamlets-will","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/creatureandcreator.ca\/?p=1167","title":{"rendered":"Hamlet’s Will"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"image_pdf\"<\/a>\"image_print\"<\/a><\/div>

This posting considers Shakespeare\u2019s Hamlet<\/em>. The play has become as fascinating and as meaningful as any scripture (Bloom, 2003, p. 3). The character of its hero admits to numerous interpretations, both on the stage and in the critical literature.<\/p>\n

Hamlet<\/em> was the first clear representation of how human beings choose to act according to their own lights. We are not completely determined. Most of our actions follow willy-nilly from our past. Sometimes, however, we act as conscious agents: we consider the consequences of our actions, and choose the right act rather than the reflex.<\/p>\n

I have discussed the concepts of freedom and determination in an earlier posting<\/a>. These ideas are now considered in relation to Shakespeare\u2019s Hamlet<\/em>. This is the longest of my posts so far. My apologies. Forgive me my obsessions.<\/p>\n

Interpreting Hamlet<\/strong><\/p>\n

Everyone wants to play Hamlet. Each actor plays him differently; no one fully understands him. Anyone who feels that he has him down pat does well to remember Hamlets upbraiding of Guildenstern, who thinks he knows the prince, but acknowledges that he cannot play the recorder:<\/p>\n

Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass: and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ; yet cannot you make it speak. ‘Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you cannot play upon me.<\/p>\n

Despite this warning,<\/p>\n

They all want to play Hamlet.
\nThey have not exactly seen their fathers killed
\nNor their mothers in a frame-up to kill,
\nNor an Ophelia lying with dust gagging the heart,
\nNot exactly the spinning circles of singing golden spiders,
\nNot exactly this have they got at nor the meaning of flowers\u2014O flowers, flowers slung by a dancing girl\u2014in the saddest play the inkfish, Shakespeare, ever wrote;
\nYet they all want to play Hamlet because it is sad like all actors are sad and to stand by an open grave with a joker’s skull in the hand and then to say over slow and over slow wise, keen, beautiful words asking the heart that’s breaking, breaking,
\nThis is something that calls and calls to their blood.
\nThey are acting when they talk about it and they know it is acting to be particular about it and yet: They all want to play Hamlet.<\/p>\n

Carl Sandburg (1922)<\/p>\n

\"John<\/a><\/p>\n

John Gielgud<\/p>\n

Sources <\/strong><\/p>\n

The legend of Hamlet originated in early Scandinavian history (Gollancz, 1926; Jenkins, 1982). The Prose Edda<\/em> of Iceland briefly mentioned Hamlet in a description of what must have been a huge whirlpool, where nine maidens \u201cin ages past ground Hamlet\u2019s meal\u201d (Gollancz, 1926, p. 1). This reference was interpreted by de Santillana and von Dechend in their 1969 book Hamlet\u2019s Mill<\/em> as a mythological description of the precession of the equinoxes \u2013 the universe rotating round the axis of the whirlpool. This is of little relevance to Shakespeare other than in the idea of divine providence that runs through the play: \u201cThe mills of the Gods grind slowly, but exceedingly fine\u201d is not far from<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a divinity that shapes our ends
\nRough hew them how we will.<\/p>\n

\"Saxo_Grammaticus<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The actual story of Prince Hamlet was first recounted in Latin in Saxo Grammaticus in the Historia Danica<\/em> (written around 1200 CE). A major part of this story concerns how Hamlet (Amlethus) feigned imbecility so that his uncle, who had murdered Hamlet\u2019s father and married his mother, would not believe that he posed any threat of revenge. Saxo\u2019s story was retold in French by Fran\u00e7ois de Belleforest in his Histoires Tragiques<\/em> (1570). Shakespeare was likely familiar with this book.\u00a0Many details of Shakespeare\u2019s play \u2013 the murder of Hamlet\u2019s father, the incestuous marriage, Hamlet\u2019s antic disposition, the altered message that leads to the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern \u2013 came from the early sources. The ghost, the players, Ophelia, and the gravedigger were new.<\/p>\n

In Shakespeare\u2019s adaptation, not everything makes sense. In the original story, it was common knowledge that Hamlet\u2019s father had been murdered and his throne usurped. Hamlet\u2019s feigned madness served a purpose. In Shakespeare\u2019s play, no one knows that Claudius murdered Hamlet\u2019s father until the Ghost returns and informs his son. As Greenblatt (2004, pp 305-307) points out Hamlet\u2019s antic disposition not only does not provide any protection, but actually calls attention to him.<\/p>\n

Shakespeare\u2019s son, born in 1585, was named Hamnet, likely after Hamnet Sadler, one of Shakespeare\u2019s friends in Stratford. However, the name may have caused Shakespeare to read Belleforest. Hamnet Shakespeare died in 1596, while his father was absent in London (Greenblatt, 2004a). Shakespeare\u2019s father John died in September 1601. In James Joyce\u2019s Ulysses<\/em>, Stephen Dedalus commented on how William Shakespeare likely played the Ghost when Hamlet was first produced in early 1601 (see also Greenblatt, 2004a). In this role he was speaking as though he were his own dead or dying father to his own lost son:<\/p>\n

Is it possible that player Shakespeare, a ghost by absence, and in the vesture of buried Denmark, a ghost by death, speaking his own words to his own son\u2019s name (had Hamnet Shakespeare lived he would have been Prince Hamlet\u2019s twin) is it possible, I want to know, or probable that he did not draw or foresee the logical conclusion of those premises: you are the dispossessed son: I am the murdered father: your mother is the guilty queen, Ann Shakespeare, born Hathaway? (Joyce, 1922, Episode 9, Scylla and Charybdis, pp. 186-7)<\/p>\n

The ghost is one of the great scenes in the history of the theater. The ghost\u2019s most memorable speech is his description of purgatory.<\/p>\n

I am thy father’s spirit,
\nDoomed for a certain term to walk the night,
\nAnd for the day confined to fast in fires,
\nTill the foul crimes done in my days of nature
\nAre burnt and purged away.<\/p>\n

\"hamlet<\/a>\u00a0Patrick\u00a0Stewart<\/p>\n

As Greenblatt (2004b) has pointed out, Shakespeare\u2019s father, John Shakespeare, was a likely a covert Catholic, and William was certainly aware of Catholic beliefs, if not himself a practising Catholic. Neither ghosts nor purgatory were acceptable beliefs in the Church of England. Nevertheless, old ideas persist, no matter what the law tells people to believe.<\/p>\n

Texts<\/strong><\/p>\n

Shakespeare\u2019s play was likely first performed in early 1601 (Jenkins, 1982; Thompson & Taylor, 2006a). However, another play about Hamlet had been produced on the London stages between 1594 and 1596 and perhaps even earlier. This is often referred to as the Ur-Hamlet<\/em>. All that we know is that the play contained a ghost that urged Hamlet to revenge. The rest is speculation. Some have attributed this play to Thomas Kyd, who wrote another revenge play called The Spanish Tragedy,<\/em> and who died in 1594. Others have wondered whether it was actually an early version of Shakespeare\u2019s Hamlet<\/em>, one that he later revised (e.g., Bloom, 1998).<\/p>\n

Three early versions of Hamlet <\/em>were published: by itself in Quarto 1 (1603) and Quarto 2 (1604), and as part of the collected works in Folio 1 (1623) . Quarto 2 and Folio 1 are very similar and the Hamlet text we know today is based on either or both of these versions (Rosenbaum, 2002). Quarto 1 is very different from the other versions: it is much shorter, the scenes occur in a different order, and the poetry is banal. The Quarto 1 version of the most famous speech in the history of the theater:<\/p>\n

To be, or not to be \u2013 ay, there’s the point.
\nTo die, to sleep \u2013 is that all? Ay, all:
\nNo, to sleep, to dream, \u2013 ay, marry, there it goes,
\nFor in that dream of death, when we\u2019re awaked
\nAnd borne before an everlasting judge,
\nFrom whence no passenger ever returned \u2013
\nThe undiscovered country, at whose sight
\nThe happy smile, and the accursed damned.<\/p>\n

holds no candle to the one we know:<\/p>\n

To be, or not to be \u2013 that is the question:
\nWhether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
\nThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
\nOr to take arms against a sea of troubles,
\nAnd by opposing end them; to die: to sleep \u2013
\nNo more, and by a sleep to say we end
\nThe heartache and the thousand natural shocks
\nThat flesh is heir to: ’tis a consummation
\nDevoutly to be wished \u2013 to die: to sleep \u2013;
\nTo sleep, perchance to dream \u2013 ay, there’s the rub,
\nFor in that sleep of death what dreams may come
\nWhen we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
\nMust give us pause<\/p>\n

Exactly what this \u201cbad quarto\u201d represents is unknown. It may be the early play (the Ur-Hamlet) <\/em>by Kyd and\/or Shakespeare,<\/em> a shortened acting version of the play for performance on tour or in small venues, or someone\u2019s reminiscence of a performance published to make quick profit from a popular play. A short German version of Hamlet called Der Bestrafte Brudermord<\/em> <\/a>(\u201cFraticide Punished\u201d) appears to have been performed in Germany in the 17th<\/sup> Century. This is more similar \u00a0to Quarto 1 than to the other English versions of Hamlet<\/em>, but it may have been more closely related to the Ur-Hamlet<\/em>. It has no soliloquies.<\/p>\n

In recent years, several productions of the Quarto 1 Hamlet<\/em> have been presented (Thompson & Taylor, 2006b). This version of the play is remarkable for its narrative drive. Some aspects of Quarto 1 have also been incorporated into other productions of Hamlet. Most particularly the \u201cTo be or not to be\u201d scene is placed before rather than after the arrival of the players and Hamlet\u2019s decision to present The Murder of Gonzago<\/em> before the king. Gibson (1978, pp. 140-148) provides forceful arguments for this shift of scene. The thoughts in this soliloquy seem incongruous if Hamlet has already decided on a course of action. Gregory Doran\u2019s memorable 1996 Hamlet<\/em> with David Tennant and Patrick Stewart followed the sequence of Quarto 1.<\/p>\n

Pennington (1996) thinks differently, and prefers the usual Quarto 2 sequence. Mott (1904) found that locating this speech after the decision to have the players perform for the king fits with Hamlet\u2019s recurring pattern of resolution followed by inertia (or if you will, of first and second thoughts). Lyndsey Turner\u2019s Hamlet<\/em><\/a> with Benedict Cumberbatch originally moved the soliloquy to the very beginning of the play (as prologue to the action rather than a part of it), but an outcry during previews caused her to move it back.<\/p>\n

The Quarto 1 version does not support the idea of Hamlet as someone who vacillates \u2013 deciding what to do and then wondering whether this might not be worth it. His actions in Quarto 1 show a clear trajectory toward a purposeful end.<\/p>\n

Plays within plays<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hamlet<\/em> is intensely concerned with the workings of the theater. The first time we see him in Act I, Scene II, Hamlet is concerned by the need to be true to his feelings rather than to play a role. The speech turns on the very idea of what seems and what is true, what is enacted and what is real<\/p>\n

These indeed \u2018seem,\u2019
\nFor they are actions that a man might play,
\nBut I have that within which passeth show,
\nThese but the trappings and the suits of woe.<\/p>\n

\"penningtonXB\"<\/a>

Michael Pennington<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

The play Hamlet<\/em> comes to a head in Act III, Scene II with a performance before the court of The Murder of Gonzago<\/em>. This play, which tells a story similar to what actually happened in Denmark, is used successfully to \u201ccatch the conscience of the king.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

However, this is not the only piece of theater within the play. When the players first arrive in Denmark, the lead player performs a speech from another play \u2013 probably a version of Dido and Aeneas<\/em>. Christopher Marlowe had written such a play ten years before. However, the speech of the lead player uses words by Shakespeare rather than by Marlowe.<\/p>\n

The player\u2019s speech multiplies the levels of imagined reality. The audience watches an actor playing Hamlet as he listens to another actor playing an actor playing Aeneas as he recounts the events of the fall of Troy. The player\u2019s speech presents the gist of Shakespeare\u2019s play \u2013 Pyrrhus, the son of the slain Achilles, is taking revenge on the family of Paris, his father\u2019s killer. The moment he is about to slay Priam, father of Paris, he pauses<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0For lo, his sword,
\nWhich was declining on the milky head
\nOf reverend Priam, seemed i’ th\u2019air to stick.
\nSo, as a painted tyrant, Pyrrhus stood
\nAnd, like a neutral to his will and matter,
\nDid nothing.<\/p>\n

So later will Hamlet pause and forego to kill Claudius.<\/p>\n

Priam\u2019s wife, Hecuba, rushes to her husband and her grief brings a tear to the eye of the first player. This leads Hamlet to consider why he is unable to feel even as much as an actor playing a part.<\/p>\n

What’s Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,
\nThat he should weep for her? What would he do,
\nHad he the motive and the cue for passion
\nThat I have? He would drown the stage with tears
\nAnd cleave the general ear with horrid speech,
\nMake mad the guilty and appal the free,
\nConfound the ignorant, and amaze indeed
\nThe very faculties of eyes and ears. Yet I,
\nA dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak,
\nLike John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause,
\nAnd can say nothing. No, not for a king
\nUpon whose property and most dear life
\nA damned defeat was made.<\/p>\n

Triggered by what he has heard and seen, Hamlet decides on a course of action. He will prove the truth of the murder recounted by the Ghost by watching Claudius\u2019 response to the same murder played out on the stage. Theater will be truth\u2019s touchstone.<\/p>\n

The meaning of theater within Hamlet<\/em> can also be consider in another way. Throughout the play, Hamlet decides what he should do by trying out a role within his mind. Acting can be either theatrical or behavioral (or both). Hamlet will allow himself to be moved just like the lead player. Imaginative role-playing is often how we make conscious decisions. We try out the consequences in our mind; then, if the envisioned future fits, we go there. Colin McGinn (2006) finds this an example of the \u201cdramaturgical nature of the self:\u201d<\/p>\n

He exemplifies the transition from formless consciousness to personal determinacy, or the closest he can get to that. It is not that Hamlet\u2019s character unfolds <\/em>during the course of the play, with his \u201creal self\u201d finally revealed by the end; it is rather that he finally succeeds in forging a self from the dramatic materials at his disposal \u2013 he finds a part he can play<\/em>. (p. 48)<\/p>\n

The idea of theater pervades the ending of Shakespeare\u2019s play. The dying Hamlet requests Horatio<\/p>\n

If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart
\nAbsent thee from felicity awhile,
\nAnd in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain,
\nTo tell my story.<\/p>\n

Then after Hamlet\u2019s death, as Horatio begins to tell Fortinbras what has happened, it is as if the first presentation of the play Hamlet<\/em> were beginning:<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0give order that these bodies
\nHigh on a stage be placed to the view,
\nAnd let me speak to th\u2019yet unknowing world
\nHow these things came about
\n\u2026
\nBut let this same be presently performed,
\nEven while men’s minds are wild; lest more mischance
\nOn plots and errors, happen.<\/p>\n

It is impossible not to understand the theatrical connotations of \u201cstage\u201d and \u201cperformed.\u201d As Critchley and Webster (2013, p. 226) point out, \u201cHamlet <\/em>ends with the promise to perform the tragedy of Hamlet.\u201d Olivier\u2019s 1948 movie began with a brief scene showing Hamlet\u2019s body being borne to a platform high upon the battlements of Elsinore.<\/p>\n

Thinking Makes It So<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Renaissance brought back much of the classical literature, and with it a philosophy of life based on humanism rather than theism. Man once again became the measure of all things. This principle originally derived from the Greek Sophist philosopher Protagoras (490-420 BCE). The controversy that it had engendered between relativism and absolutism had during the Middle Ages been clearly resolved in terms of the latter. God determined what was right and man obeyed. Until the Renaissance.<\/p>\n

\"montaigne<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) perhaps epitomizes the spirit of the Renaissance (Foglia, 2014). He read widely in the classics but he did not let his erudition stifle the freedom of his thought. His Essays<\/em> are characterized by a profound humanism and a humble skepticism. He took as his motto the question \u201cQue scay-je?\u201d (What do I know?), and had it engraved on a medal with a weighing-balance. We must always carefully judge what we do and do not know. Montaigne\u2019s essays were translated into English by John Florio and published in 1603.<\/p>\n

Shakespeare certainly read Montaigne, probably in the Florio translation, and quoted him extensively in his 1610 play The Tempest<\/em>. He may also have read some of Florio\u2019s translations prior to their publication, and there are several instances in the 1601 Hamlet<\/em> that recall the ideas and sometimes the wording of Montaigne (Hooker, 1902). One is Hamlet\u2019s comment to Rosencrantz<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0for there is nothing
\neither good or bad, but thinking makes it so<\/p>\n

which resonates with<\/p>\n

If that which we call evill and torment, be neither torment nor evill, but that our fancie only gives it that qualitie, it is in us to change it. (Florio translation, Volume 2, Book I: Chapter XL That the taste of Goods or Evils doth greatly depend on the opinion we have of them<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

Even more striking are some of the parallels between \u201cTo be or not to be\u201d and<\/p>\n

Death may peradventure be a thing indifferent, happily a thing desirable. Yet is it to bee beleeved, that if it be a transmigration from one place to another, there is some amendement in going to live with so many worthy famous persons, that are deceased ; and be exempted from having any more to doe with wicked and corrupted Judges. If it be a consummation of ones being, it is also an amendement and entrance into a long and quiet night. Wee finde nothing so sweete in life, as a quiet rest and gentle sleepe, and without dreames. (Florio translation, Volume 5, Book III: Chapter XII Of Physiognomy<\/em>)<\/p>\n

In his lecture of Hamlet, Rossiter (1961, p. 186), suggested that Hamlet is \u201cthe first modern man.\u201d What or who is modern clearly varies with what is being considered past and present. However, Rossiter is correct to consider Hamlet as modern rather than as medieval. Hamlet makes his own judgments about what he should do and calls into question all that he has been taught or told. Shakespeare allows the audience to follow his thinking through the soliloquies and asides that occur throughout the play. More so than ever before, we become privy to the thoughts of a person as he works through his motivations, doubts and fears. Hamlet follows the advice of Montaigne<\/p>\n

It is no part of a well-grounded judgement simply to judge ourselves by our exterior actions: A man must thorowly sound himselfe, and dive into his heart, and there see by what wards or springs the motions stirre. (II: I Of the Inconstancie of our Actions<\/em>)<\/p>\n

In the soliloquies we can watch as Hamlet proceeds from despair to resolution. He is working things out for himself; he is not following the rules. Hamlet thinks and acts more like a human being than a hero.<\/p>\n

Dalkey (1981) presents a tongue-in-cheek analysis of the \u201cTo be or not to be\u201d speech using the principles of modern decision-analysis. Hamlet weighs the costs and benefits and comes up with the best course of action. The decision is to be. But then Hamlet also analyses how he came to this decision and wonders whether too much thinking actually has a negative effect on action.<\/p>\n

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
\nAnd thus the native hue of resolution
\nIs sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
\nAnd enterprises of great pith and moment
\nWith this regard their currents turn awry
\nAnd lose the name of action.<\/p>\n

Hamlet is also aware of other difficulties. Even though we might decide how to act, we may not always maintain our resolution to act, and, even if we do, we cannot fully control the outcome of our actions. During The Murder of Gonzago<\/em>, the player King responds to his wife\u2019s insistence that she will not remarry when he dies<\/p>\n

I do believe you think what now you speak;
\nBut what we do determine, oft we break.
\nPurpose is but the slave to memory,
\nOf violent birth but poor validity,
\nWhich now, the fruit unripe, sticks on the tree
\nBut fall unshaken when they mellow be.
\n\u2026
\nOur wills and fates do so contrary run
\nThat our devices still are overthrown.
\nOur thoughts are ours, their ends none of our own<\/p>\n

Bloom (1998, p 424) wonders whether this speech may have represented the lines that Hamlet asked to be inserted in the original play. The speech is likely intended for his mother, who may have become unwittingly entrammeled in Claudius\u2019 evil.<\/p>\n

Being<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"branagh<\/a>

Kenneth Branagh<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cTo be or not to be\u201d is the most famous speech in all literature. Hamlet is considering the essential problem of being human \u2013 how to act in a life often characterized by suffering and always leading to death. His words portray \u201cthe exaltation of mind \u2026 as this grandest of consciousnesses overhears its own cognitive music\u201d (Bloom, 2003, p 36).<\/p>\n

Yet the speech has been interpreted in many different ways (summarised by Petronella, 1974, and Jenkins, 1982, pp 484-493). A common interpretation is that Hamlet is deciding whether or not to commit suicide (e.g., Bradley, 1905; Knight, 1935, p 127):<\/p>\n

He is meditating on suicide; and he finds that what stands in the way of it, and counterbalances its infinite attraction, is not any thought of a sacred unaccomplished duty, but the doubt, quite irrelevant to that issue, whether it is not ignoble in the mind to end its misery, and, still more, whether death would<\/em> end it. (Bradley, 1905, p 132).<\/p>\n

However, the actual words seem far more generalized. As Pennington (1996, p. 81) points out<\/p>\n

There is no personal pronoun at all in its thirty-five lines, so it is in a sense drained of Hamlet himself: although the cap fits, it also stands free of him as pure human analysis.<\/p>\n

The speech can therefore be considered as a meditation on the human condition:<\/p>\n

The question, then (crudely paraphrased as \u2018Is life worth living?\u2019) is essentially whether, in the light of what being<\/em> comprises (in the condition of human life as the speaker sees it and represents it in what follows) it is preferable to have it or not. (Jenkins, 1982, p 487).<\/p>\n

A third approach to Hamlet\u2019s speech relates it to Hamlet\u2019s decision to revenge his father\u2019s death. What is to be or not to be is the act of killing Claudius. Hamlet\u2019s decision revolves upon whether this is right or not, given that one may in the afterlife be damned by sin:<\/p>\n

Thus the complete development of the soliloquy shows that the full implication of “To be, or not to be” is not a simple choice between passive endurance and vitally destructive activity, as at first appears, a choice that Hamlet, who has no fear of death itself, could make unhesitatingly; but that the choice is rather between a distasteful passive endurance and a destructive activity that may also bring the stain of deadly sin. (Richards, 1933, p. 757).<\/p>\n

This interpretation may fit with the mention of \u201cconscience\u201d and \u201cresolution\u201d at the end of the speech. However, it does not really ring true with Hamlet\u2019s view of the afterlife, which he simply describes as \u201cundiscover\u2019d.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Who would fardels bear,
\nTo grunt and sweat under a weary life,
\nBut that the dread of something after death,
\nThe undiscover’d country from whose bourn
\nNo traveller returns, puzzles the will
\nAnd makes us rather bear those ills we have
\nThan fly to others that we know not of?<\/p>\n

Hamlet does not fear eternal damnation, he is just uncertain about whether the afterlife might indeed be worse than the present life. He is skeptical about what he has been taught. In those days, being from Wittenberg was probably akin to being from Missouri <\/a>in our day.<\/p>\n

A final interpretation turns on the fact that Hamlet\u2019s speech is not a soliloquy. Hamlet is being overheard by Claudius and Polonius. If Hamlet is also aware of this, as well he might be, then the speech may be part of his efforts to convince Claudius that he is not a threat. Hamlet may be feigning both melancholy thoughts of suicide and a total lack of resolution.<\/p>\n

Hamlet pretends to speak to himself but actually intends the speech itself or an account of it to reach the ears of Claudius in order to mislead his enemy about his state of mind. (Hirsh, 2010, p 34)<\/p>\n

However, if Hamlet were indeed feigning, he would likely have been far more illogical in his thinking. His words convey more poetic insight than antic disposition.<\/p>\n

So I think that Hamlet in this speech is indeed considering the human condition. The habit of his \u00a0mind is to interprets the events of the moment according to eternal principles. The student from Wittenberg is an inveterate philosopher. Hamlet\u2019s meditation on the skull of Yorick shows a similar way of thinking..<\/p>\n

\"kozintsev<\/a><\/p>\n

Innokenti Smoktunovsky in Kozintsev’s Movie<\/p>\n

Revenge Delayed<\/strong><\/p>\n

One common view of Hamlet is that he cannot move from thought to action. He is unable to take revenge on Claudius because he worries too much about his motives and the consequences. This was the interpretation of Samuel Taylor Coleridge in a lecture given in 1819:<\/p>\n

In Hamlet he [Shakespeare] seems to have wished to exemplify the moral necessity of a due balance between our attention to the objects of our senses, and our meditation on the workings of our minds,\u2014an equilibrium between the real and the imaginary worlds. In Hamlet this balance is disturbed: his thoughts, and the images of his fancy, are far more vivid than his actual perceptions, and his very perceptions, instantly passing through the medium of his contemplations, acquire, as they pass, a form and a colour not naturally their own. Hence we see a great, an almost enormous, intellectual activity, and a proportionate aversion to real action, consequent upon it, with all its symptoms and accompanying qualities. This character Shakespeare places in circumstances, under which it is obliged to act on the spur of the moment:\u2014Hamlet is brave and careless of death; but he vacillates from sensibility, and procrastinates from thought, and loses the power of action in the energy of resolve. (Coleridge, 1907, pp 136-137)<\/p>\n

A variant of this interpretation is that Hamlet is too sensitive and inward to cope with the rough needs of the external world. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe gives this idea to his character Wilhelm Meister, who focuses on Hamlet\u2019s words at the end of Act I and senses that the prince cannot cope with the demands made by his ghostly father:<\/p>\n

The time is out of joint: O cursed spite,
\nThat ever I was born to set it right!<\/p>\n

In these words, I imagine, will be found the key to Hamlet\u2019s whole procedure. To me it is clear that Shakespeare meant, in the present case, to represent the effects of a great action laid upon a soul unfit for the performance of it. In this view the whole piece seems to me to be composed. There is an oak-tree planted in a costly jar, which should have borne only pleasant flowers in its bosom; the roots expand, the jar is shivered.<\/p>\n

A lovely, pure, noble, and most moral nature, without the strength of nerve which forms a hero, sinks beneath a burden which it cannot bear and must not cast away. All duties are holy for him; the present is too hard. Impossibilities have been required of him, not in themselves impossibilities, but such for him. He winds, and turns, and torments himself; he advances and recoils; is ever put in mind, ever puts himself in mind; at last does all but lose his purpose from his thoughts; yet still without recovering his peace of mind. (Goethe, 1796, Book IV Chapter 13, pp 304-5)<\/p>\n

Yet de Grazia (2007) points out that Hamlet\u2019s procrastination only became a major part of the critical literature after the late 18th<\/sup> Century. Before then no one had mentioned the delay let alone made it the touchstone of the play. There is a clear trajectory linking the death of Hamlet\u2019s father, the apparition of the Ghost, the decision of Hamlet to test the Ghost\u2019s claim by putting on a play that represents the murder, and Hamlet\u2019s conclusion that Claudius is indeed guilty. Hamlet is not lacking in will: he simply subjects it to careful scrutiny.<\/p>\n

A brief\u00a0pause occurs during the \u201cTo be or not to be\u201d soliloquy and, as previously mentioned, even that might be solved by placing it in the order of the First Quarto: before rather than after the players arrive. Or by considering it as a moment of philosophical reflection prior to an already determined action.<\/p>\n

\"HamletDavidTennant10<\/a>

David Tennant and Patrick Stewart<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The major source of the supposed delay occurs when Hamlet comes upon the solitary Claudius at prayer \u2013 \u201cNow might I do it pat \u2026\u201d Yet Hamlet worries that he might send the repentant Claudius to Heaven, and does it not:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Up, sword, and know thou a more horrid hent:
\nWhen he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,
\nOr in the incestuous pleasure of his bed;
\nAt gaming, a-swearing, or about some act
\nThat has no relish of salvation in’t;
\nThen trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,
\nAnd that his soul may be as damn’d and black
\nAs hell, whereto it goes. (Act III: Scene 3)<\/p>\n

This speech was often considered shocking. Many of the audience could not accept that Hamlet really meant to send Claudius to eternal damnation. De Grazia (2007, p 159) quotes Samuel Johnson who considered the speech \u201ctoo horrible to be read or to be uttered.\u201d Human justice could take away the mortal life, but should not damn the soul to everlasting perdition.<\/p>\n

Hamlet\u2019s desire in the prayer scene to damn a soul to eternal pain is the most extreme form of evil imaginable in a society that gave even its most heinous felons the opportunity to repent before execution. (De Grazia, 2007, p. 188)<\/p>\n

De Grazia reviews the various ways we have tried to reconcile our romantic concept of Hamlet as a sweet and thoughtful prince with this terrible speech. A simple way is to state that Hamlet does not really mean what he is saying. Finding himself unable to kill Claudius, he comes up with a plausible excuse for delaying his revenge. Another view might be that the speech is a way for Hamlet\u2019s consciousness to prevent the deep hatred in his unconsciousness from taking control of his actions. He subdues the unconscious with a rationalization that revenge will be better at another time. In either of these interpretations, Hamlet is deceiving himself.<\/p>\n

Hamlet certainly practises deception. He puts \u201can antic disposition on\u201d to convince Claudius that he is too foolish to be considered dangerous. Yet Hamlet does not deceive himself. In his soliloquies he seeks to understand what he should do. He looks for reasons, not for rationalizations.<\/p>\n

So I think we should take Hamlet\u2019s speech about damning Claudius at face-value. Hamlet is not kind; he cruelly rejects Ophelia; he rashly kills Polonius; he has no sympathy for his mother; he callously sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths. There is a harshness rather than a gentleness at his core. De Grazia even wonders whether there is something demonic about Hamlet in the latter parts of the play. Perhaps Shakespeare is demonstrating that even the most self-reflective of heroes is not immune to cruelty. Hamlet cannot stop the general corruption in Denmark without becoming infected by its evil.<\/p>\n

Hamlet does ultimately take his revenge. Claudius has no time for repentance.\u00a0And Hamlet dies, victim of the evil that he has fought against.<\/p>\n

Tragedy<\/strong><\/p>\n

A pervasive idea is that tragedy results from the downfall and death of a great man that is mainly due to a moral defect in his character \u2013 the \u201ctragic flaw.\u201d This concept derived from Aristotle\u2019s proposal that the key to tragedy was hamartia<\/em>. However, the Greek word means \u201cmissing the mark\u201d \u2013 an error or failing that may or may not be related to the tragic hero (Golden, 1978). In the Greek New Testament hamartia <\/em>was translated as \u201csin,\u201d in the sense of general failure rather specific wrongdoing.<\/p>\n

\"olivier<\/a><\/p>\n

Laurence Olivier<\/p>\n

The concept of the tragic flaw may not be helpful in understanding Hamlet<\/em>. To consider the hero\u2019s flaw as the mainspring of the tragedy \u201cleads to a narrowing of scope and significance which is stultifying and crippling\u201d (Hyde, 1963). Perhaps the most outrageous example of stupid simplification is the voice-over at the beginning of Laurence Olivier\u2019s 1948 film: \u201cThis is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind.\u201d This was completely out of keeping not only with Shakespeare\u2019s play but also with Olivier\u2019s portrayal, which showed Hamlet as decisive and active.<\/p>\n

Although Bradley (1905) supported the idea of the tragic flaw as the key to tragedy, he also perceived other contributing factors. In particular \u201cmen may start a course of events but can neither calculate nor control it\u201d (p. 9). We may be unable to predict what happens when we decide to act. This sounds very similar to the true meaning of hamartia<\/em>: we may miss the mark.<\/p>\n

Kitto (1960) proposed that Hamlet<\/em> shows many similarities to the classic Greek tragedies. Like them, Shakespeare\u2019s play has characteristics of a religious drama. The corruption of Claudius infects everyone. Gertrude is seduced; Polonius becomes Claudius\u2019 spy; Ophelia is convinced to act as bait for so that Hamlet may be spied upon; Laertes is co-opted to the murder of Hamlet. \u201cSomething is rotten in the state of Denmark\u201d and needs to be cleansed away:<\/p>\n

[T]here is an overruling Providence which, though it will not intervene to save Hamlet, does intervene to defeat Claudius, and does guide events to a consummation in which evil frustrates itself, even though it destroys innocents by the way. (Kitto, 1960, p 321).<\/p>\n

Hamlet considers the actions of Providence at the beginning of the play\u2019s final scene. As well as telling Horatio of the \u201cdivinity that shapes our ends,\u201d Hamlet decides to engage in the proposed duel with Laertes despite his forebodings:<\/p>\n

We defy augury: there is special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be, ’tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all, since no man of aught he leaves knows what is’t to leave betimes. Let be.<\/p>\n

These comments can be understood in two ways. Hamlet may be recognizing that he cannot fully control what happens, and that he must believe that what will happen will be good. Or perhaps Hamlet is losing his nerve, giving up control and letting events unfold without him.<\/p>\n

By the end of the play those attainted with corruption have died, and a new government is in place in Denmark. Unfortunately, Providence has not really provided for those who were most innocent, such as Ophelia, or those who began in innocence, such as Hamlet. Providence may work for the general good but it is not specially concerned with individuals. Sparrows die.<\/p>\n

Shakespeare differs from the Greeks in questioning that all is necessarily for the good. At the end of the play, Denmark has been freed from Claudius, but we are far from sure that country under Fortinbras will be a better place.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, Hamlet<\/em> demonstrates the need to rid society of corruption, regardless of the personal cost. This need is general to all human societies. We should not stand by and let evil spread:<\/p>\n

Hamlet<\/em> is a tocsin that awakens the conscience. (Kozintsev, 1966, p 174)<\/p>\n

The real tragedy of Hamlet is that Denmark did not make him king. Denmark settled for Claudius, and wound up with Fortinbras. Shakespeare explains this clearly in the final speech of the play:<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Let four captains
\nBear Hamlet like a soldier to the stage,
\nFor he was likely, had he been put on,
\nTo have prov\u2019d most royal<\/p>\n

Envoi<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Boris<\/a>

Boris Pasternak<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Hamlet has become a part of our life. In a sense we all play this role. We may not face the same problems that Hamlet encountered. Yet we each have our own decisions to make, and their outcomes will prove some mixture of what we will to occur and what happens nevertheless. Boris Pasternak\u2019s character Doctor Zhivago wrote a poem about playing Hamlet. Here again are many levels: Pasternak conceives of Zhivago who writes a poem about an actor playing Hamlet. This poem was recited at Pasternak\u2019s funeral despite government efforts to prevent any eulogies (Ivinskaya, 1978, p 331). The superb translation<\/a> is by Ann Pasternak Slater, the novelist\u2019s niece.<\/p>\n

The murmurs ebb; onto the stage I enter.
\nI am trying, standing in the door,
\nTo discover in the distant echoes
\nWhat the coming years may hold in store.<\/p>\n

The nocturnal darkness with a thousand
\nBinoculars is focused onto me.
\nTake away this cup, O Abba, Father,
\nEverything is possible to thee.<\/p>\n

I am fond of this thy stubborn project,
\nAnd to play my part I am content.
\nBut another drama is in progress,
\nAnd, this once, O let me be exempt.<\/p>\n

But the plan of action is determined,
\nAnd the end irrevocably sealed.
\nI am alone; all round me drowns in falsehood:
\nLife is not a walk across a field.<\/p>\n

Russia in the time of Stalin was strikingly similar to Denmark in the time of Claudius. Violence pervaded all society; everyone was under surveillance. Pasternak translated Hamlet<\/em> into Russian in 1939, at a time of the Great Terror when he was unable to write poetry. His translation was used for the 1964 Kozintsev movie of the play. Pasternak\u2019s view was that Hamlet took on the \u201crole of judge in his own time and servant of the future\u201d (Pasternak, 1959, p 131). This was Hamlet\u2019s legacy.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bradley, A. C. (1905\/1961). Shakespearean tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth<\/em>. London: Macmillan. Available at arkiv.org<\/a><\/p>\n

Bloom, H. (1998). Shakespeare: The invention of the human<\/em>. New York: Riverhead Books.<\/p>\n

Bloom, H. (2003). Hamlet: Poem unlimited<\/em>. New York: Riverhead Books.<\/p>\n

Coleridge, S. T. (1907). Coleridge’s essays & lectures on Shakespeare: & some other old poets & dramatists<\/em>. London: J.M. Dent. Available<\/a><\/p>\n

Critchley, S., & Webster, J. (2013). Stay, illusion! The Hamlet doctrine<\/em>. New York: Pantheon Books (Random House).<\/p>\n

Dalkey, N. C. (1981). A case study of a decision analysis: Hamlet’s soliloquy<\/a>. Interfaces<\/em>, 11(5), 45-49.<\/p>\n

Dorani, G. (1996\/2010) Hamlet.<\/em> Royal Shakespeare Company. Warner Home Video.<\/p>\n

Foglia, M. (2014) Michel de Montaigne<\/a>, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. <\/em><\/p>\n

Gibson, W. (1978). Shakespeare’s game<\/em>. New York: Atheneum.<\/p>\n

von Goethe, J. W. (1796, translated by T. Carlyle, 1824, reprinted 1901). Wilhelm Meister’s apprenticeship<\/em>.<\/a> Boston: F.A. Niccolls & Co.<\/p>\n

Golden, L. (1978). Hamartia, ate, and Oedipus. Classical World,<\/em> 72, 3\u201312.<\/p>\n

Gollancz, I. (1926). The sources of Hamlet with an essay on the legend<\/em>. London: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

De Grazia. M. (2007). Hamlet without Hamlet<\/em>. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n

Greenblatt, S. (2004a). The death of Hamnet and the making of Hamlet<\/a>. N.Y. Review of Books<\/em>, (21 October 2004) 51.16.<\/p>\n

Greenblatt, S. (2004b). Will in the world: How Shakespeare became Shakespeare<\/em>. New York: Norton.<\/p>\n

Hirsh, J. (2010). The “To be, or not to be” speech: evidence, conventional wisdom, and the editing of “Hamlet.” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England<\/em>, 23, 34-62.<\/p>\n

Hooker, E. R. (1902). The relation of Shakespeare to Montaigne. Publications of the Modern Language Association (PMLA), 17<\/em>, 312-366.<\/p>\n

Hyde, I. (1963). The tragic flaw: is it a tragic error? Modern Language Review<\/em>, 58, 321-325.<\/p>\n

Ivinskaya, O. (translated by M. Hayward, 1978). A captive of time: my years with Pasternak<\/em> London: Collins & Harvill.<\/p>\n

Jenkins, H. (Ed.) (1982\/2003). Shakespeare, W. Hamlet<\/em>. London: Arden Shakespeare.<\/p>\n

Joyce, J. (1922\/1946). Ulysses<\/em>. New York: Random House.<\/p>\n

Kitto, H. D. F. (1960). Form and meaning in drama: A study of six Greek plays and of Hamlet<\/em>. London: Methuen.<\/p>\n

Kozintsev, G. M. (1964\/2006). Hamlet.<\/em> Facets Video.<\/p>\n

Kozintsev, G. M. (translated by J. Vining, 1966).Shakespeare; time and conscience<\/em>. New York: Hill and Wang.<\/p>\n

McGinn, C. (2006). Shakespeare’s philosophy: Discovering the meaning behind the plays<\/em>. New York: HarperCollins.<\/p>\n

de Montaigne, M. (1580-83, translated by J. Florio, 1603\/1891). Essayes<\/em>. Volumes 1-6 London: Gibbings. Available at Internet Archive: Vol 2<\/a>, Vol 3<\/a> and Vol 6<\/a> are quoted.<\/p>\n

Olivier, L. (1948\/2006). Hamlet.<\/em> Criterion Collection.\u00a0 (Text used in the movie\u00a0is documented in Olivier, L., Furse, R., & Shakespeare, W. (1948). Hamlet<\/em>. London: B. Pollock.)<\/p>\n

Pasternak, B. L. (1959). I remember: Sketch for an autobiography<\/em>. New York: Pantheon (includes an essay on Translating Shakespeare<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Pennington, M. (1996). Hamlet: a user’s guide<\/em>. London: Nick Hern Books.<\/p>\n

Petronella, V. F. (1974). Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy: Once more unto the breach. Studies in Philology, 71<\/em>, 72-88.<\/p>\n

Richards, I. T. (1933). The meaning of Hamlet’s Soliloquy Publications of the Modern Language Association (PMLA), <\/em>48, 741-766.<\/p>\n

Rosenbaum, R. (2002). Shakespeare in rewrite<\/a>. New Yorker<\/em>. (13 May, 2002) 68-77.<\/p>\n

Rossiter, A. P. (Ed. G. Storey, 1962). Angel with horns and other Shakespeare lectures.<\/em> London: Longmans.<\/p>\n

de Santillana, G., & von Dechend, H. (1969). Hamlet’s mill; an essay on myth and the frame of time<\/em>. Boston: Gambit.<\/p>\n

Thompson, A., & Taylor, N. (Eds.) (2006a). Shakespeare, W. Hamlet<\/em>. London: Arden Shakespeare.<\/p>\n

Thompson, A., & Taylor, N. (Eds.) (2006b). Shakespeare, W. Hamlet: The texts of 1603 and 1623<\/em>. London: Arden Shakespeare.<\/p>\n

Wilson, J. D. (1935). What happens in Hamlet<\/em>. Cambridge, U. K.: University Press.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This posting considers Shakespeare\u2019s Hamlet. The play has become as fascinating and as meaningful as any scripture (Bloom, 2003, p. 3). The character of its hero admits to numerous interpretations, both on the stage and in the critical literature. Hamlet was the first clear representation<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":127,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,10,5,12,9],"tags":[228,229,230,222,231,226,225,227,223,217,215,224],"class_list":["post-1167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-literature","category-philosophy","category-poetry","category-psychology","category-religion","tag-boris-pasternak","tag-carl-sandburg","tag-david-tennant","tag-determination","tag-grigori-kozintsev","tag-john-gielgud","tag-kenneth-branagh","tag-michael-pennington","tag-motivation","tag-saxo","tag-shakespeare","tag-tragedy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/creatureandcreator.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1167","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/creatureandcreator.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/creatureandcreator.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creatureandcreator.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creatureandcreator.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1167"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/creatureandcreator.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1167\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1263,"href":"https:\/\/creatureandcreator.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1167\/revisions\/1263"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/creatureandcreator.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creatureandcreator.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creatureandcreator.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}