To Thine Ownself Be True

[Ray Eston Smith]

A unifying theme of Hamlet is "To thine ownself be true" (1,3,78). Of all the main characters, Hamlet is the only one who finally is true to himself. Consequently, of all the main characters, Hamlet is the only one who avoids self-slaughter.

Even Horatio is taught by Denmark to "drink deep" (1,2,175) and so tries to drink the last drops of poison from the cup. But Hamlet saves Horatio so that he can tell Hamlet's story and teach us all not to drink from the cup of self-slaughter (5,2,346).

Fortinbras Sr. and Fortinbras Jr. value land more than they value themselves. Fortinbras Sr "did forfeit his life" fighting for land (1,1,91). Fortinbras Jr goes to war, "exposing what is mortal and unsure to all that fortune, death, and danger dare, even for an eggshell" (4,4,51), "a little patch of ground that hath no profit in it but the name" (4,4,18), that is "not tomb enough and continent to hide the slain" (4,4,65).

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, willing spokes to the king's nave (2,2,30;3,3,15), are deliverers of their own death warrant (5,2,44-59).

Polonius is a busybody, minding everybody's business but his own. Thus he was killed by a sword-thrust meant for somebody else. (3,4,33)

Laertes subverts his own life so totally and unthinkingly to filial duty that he is willing to go to hell to revenge his father's death (4,5,131). Although he is satisfied in nature with Hamlet’s repentance, he continues the fatal duel until by some elder masters [Claudius] he has a voice and precedence of peace. Thus he is fighthing not for himself but for a cause borrowed from Claudius.

When Laertes allied himself with Claudius he dulled the edge of his husbandry. Then, in the subsequent duel with Hamlet, Laertes first wounded Hamlet with his poison-tipped sword, then accidently exchanged swords with Hamlet and was fatally poisoned with his own sword. Thus he was a borrower and lender of swords, and was killed by a lent sword while fighting for a borrowed cause. [Laertes may have symbolized Christopher Marlowe and that "go far with little" is a paraphrase of Marlowe’s "infinite riches in a little room." (The Jew of Malta,]

Gertrude cannot separate her too two solid flesh (this "solidity and compound mass",3,4,49) from the doomed flesh of Claudius. Her soul is grappled to his "with hoops of steel" (1,3,63) - wedding bands. So she drinks poison, extending her union into hell (5,2,331).

Ophelia lets her brother keep the key to her memory. She "does not understand herself so well as it behooves" Polonius's daughter, and so she lets her father tell her what to think (1,3,105). When she falls into the water, she makes no attempt to save herself because her true self has already been lost. She dies by falling into a mirror image of her father in the "glassy stream"

Both Claudius and Hamlet Sr are unable to separate themselves from their land. So they slaughter their own souls, dooming themselves to be dragged down into hell by their possessions. Hamlet Sr is "doom'd...to walk the night" (1,5,10) to "walk in death" for "extorted treasure in the womb of earth" (1,1,140). Claudius could save his soul by sincerely repenting, but he cannot repent because he won't give up his kingdom and he cannot "be pardon'd and retain the offense" (3,3,56), he finally drinks a poison "tempered by himself" (5,2,332).

In the end, Hamlet recovers his true self in time to save his soul, although not his life.

[Gladys]

A marvellous post, Ray. I have couple of questions.


She dies by falling into a mirror image of her father in the "glassy stream" Poetic expression, but how does this relate to the play?


Both Claudius and Hamlet Sr are unable to separate themselves from their land. So they slaughter their own souls, dooming themselves to be dragged down into hell by their possessions. In relation to Hamlet Sr, didn't you write that purgatory is a lower region of heaven? How does his murder relate to 'land'?

[Ray Eston Smith]

Ophelia failed to be true to herself because she let her father think for her.

The word-play chain from that to the "glassy stream" is long and, admittedly, highly speculative.

(1) Polonius "boarded" Hamlet, thereby joining the tedious old men in the book of Hamlet's brain. Old men have eyes "purging thick amber." Polonius is related to Poland by the "fruit to that great feast" parallel. Poland is famous for amber. Ergo "purging thick amber" points to Polonius. But amber is fossilized tree sap. So now we have Polonius as a tree (I warned you that the chain was long. This is just the beginning.)

(2) Polonius said, "... beshrew my jealousy!
By heaven, it is as proper to our age
To cast beyond ourselves in our opinions
As it is common for the younger sort
To lack discretion.

"Jealousy" is almost synonymous with "envy."

Ophelia drowned when she crawled out on an "envious sliver" which broke. Sliver apparently is a small branch. How a branch can be "envious," I don't know, but "envious" it was. I don't know if people back then ever talked about weeping willows. That would fit better with the purging amber. So I see Polonius as a tree, the willow tree. He cast his opinion (that Ophelia should dump Hamlet) out beyond himself and he cast his envious/jealous sliver out over the "glassy stream," which reflected an image of the Polonius/willow tree. The sliver broke (because it was a bad idea to dump Hamlet and/or because Polonius died), so Ophelia fell, appropriately into an image of the tree that was a metaphor for her father.

I admit the above interpretation is as shaky as a willow branch when the wind is north by northwest, however the basic idea that Ophelia was untrue to herself by letting her father think for her is basically sound without any support from the willow.

The association between Hamlet Sr and dirt is something I'm much more certain about. I'll explain that in my next post.

[byquist]

Well, you are rather charitable to Hamlet. Some call him a positive Machiavellian type. He causes a lot of carnage. He makes some drastic mistakes. Innocence is blasted by his indifference to Ophelia. I don't have as high a view of him as you do. Henry IV might fit in that category too -- good and bad, even if mostly good or intentioning to be good.

[Ray Eston Smith]

...He causes a lot of carnage. He makes some drastic mistakes. Innocence is blasted by his indifference to Ophelia. ...

He is certainly guilty of murdering Polonius, insanity plea, mistaken identity, and demonic possession not withstanding. He pays for that crime with his life, although after sincerely asking forgiveness he presumably escapes Hell.

He is NOT indifferent to Ophelia. He dumped her because he loved her so he didn't want to make her a "breeder of sinners [war-mongering kings]" and drag her down to Hell as Claudius (and Hamlet Sr) did Gertrude. His mistake was letting his uncle, his mother, and his dead father keep him prisoner in Denmark. He should have eloped with Ophelia back to Wittenberg to breed scholars instead of maggots. Except Ophelia would not have gone with him because she had ceded her self to her brother (who kept the key to her memory) and her father (who told her what to think).

However, I think he deserves some credit for saving thousands of lives by ceding the kingdom to Fortinbras thereby preventing another senseless war. But all the people he saved or killed in the play are fictional, mere shadows of reality. Mostly, Hamlet (or Shakespeare) deserves credit for all the real people he's taught not to drink from the cup of self-slaughter. (Except generations of critics have botched up his words into a romantization and glorification of self-slaughter.)


.
Some call him a positive Machiavellian type


The Machiavellian Prince in this play is Claudius. Hamlet is Erasmian. Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" in 1513. In 1516, Erasmus wrote "The Education of a Christian Prince." According to the wikipedia article on Erasmus: "Machiavelli stated that, to maintain control by political force, it is safer for a prince to be feared than loved. Erasmus, on the other hand, preferred for the prince to be loved and suggested that the prince needed a well-rounded education in order to govern justly and benevolently and avoid becoming a source of oppression."

[byquist]

Thanks for that Erasmus tip. I get a kick out of his "In Praise of Folly." Hamlet also sticks it to his school chums, and even Horatio momentarily finds that abit going too far. Interesting about Fortinbras. I can't go for "he dumped her because he loved her." What he does is wipe her out of his life; forget her. That is less than nice. Do you really believe, "I loved Ophelia" and all that rant about ten thousand somethings? Sounds rather effusive.

[Ray Eston Smith]

Hamlet dumped his girlfriend, then murdered her father. So he was not the ideal boyfriend. But, as Laertes warned, "his will is not his own."

His "school chums" had probably always been false friends. Hamlet "had his eye on them" as soon as they showed up. They were conspiring with Claudius to murder Hamlet, so he killed them in self-defense. At the time he changed the letter, he didn't know he would be captured by pirates. If he hadn't instructed the King of England to immediately behead R&G, they might have convinced the English King of Claudius' real instructions.

Still, Hamlet's treatment of R&G seemed to come from his dark (royal) side. Hamlet the scholar would have reasoned with them. He would have pointed out to R&G that Claudius undoubtedly planned to blame R&G for Hamlet's murder & then Claudius would kill R&G as soon as they returned to Denmark. Hamlet the scholar would have changed the letter to instruct the English King to give some money to R&G. (The carrot instead of the axe.)

I think Hamlet's ranting in the grave ("eat a crocodile?") was partly mocking Laertes' overdone ranting. It was also the last spasm of Hamlet's madness, "yet have I something in me dangerous." It had little to do with Hamlet's love for Ophelia. That showed itself most when he said, "Trust none of us...Get thee to a nunnery."

[Ray Eston Smith]

If you judge Hamlet as a real person, he is seriously defective. But Hamlet is not a real person. His entire existence from start to finish is four hours on a stage. That four hours must encompass all the circumstances of his life and all the nuances of his character. The magical stagecraft of Shakespeare gave Hamlet remarkable depth in some areas, but inevitably left empty voids where a real person would have the subtleties engendered by decades of real living.

So you the judges, bear a charitable eye. Not only is Hamlet circumscribed by the Voice of Denmark he is also encased in the "Wooden O" for his one brief afternoon of existence.

[Janine]

Hamlet also sticks it to his school chums, and even Horatio momentarily finds that abit going too far. Interesting about Fortinbras. I can't go for "he dumped her because he loved her." What he does is wipe her out of his life; forget her. That is less than nice. Do you really believe, "I loved Ophelia" and all that rant about ten thousand somethings? Sounds rather effusive.

This is the part I always get tripped up on, no matter how many times I see this played on the screen or stage. I also see his ranting as the last manic bit for Hamlet and yet he seems to express some true sadness for Ophelia's death during this emotional outcry ; however, back at the castle, he is totally calm, contained and in control of all of his emotions, appears nearly emotionless, up until he contemplates his own death with the 'fall of a sparrow' speech which is the scene that touches me the deepest. This beginning of the scene bugs me a bit though. I start to believe he is grieved at the gravesite, and I feel this deep sorrow/affinity towards Hamlet; but then back at the castle, I say to myself, "geez, he got over that (her tragic death) awfully fast". He first relays, even in an elated manner of speaking his adventures at sea and how he changed the orders, escaped the ship bound for England and finally, when Orsic appears he jokes and makes light fun of him, as though Ophelia's funeral day doesn't even exist and hasn't phased him one bit. Now if it is as you said byqiust, about him whiping out all memories and traces of Ophelia, then perhaps this part is believable, and you are right - what could be more terrible? Being totally denied and ignored is worse than being merely distanced by a past lover. I just can't see how Hamlet (if he is a real person) could do this so easily; we can hardly completely erase our memories or emotions, can we? It seems that once Hamlet leaves that gravesite and enters the castle again he is set appart and untouched by this momentary feeling of grief. Somehow, by the final scene Hamlet seems to come full circle again and embrass or accept fate and the idea of his own death. The end scene encompasses so much - the revenge, horror, emotion, rage, disbelief, death, forgiveness, acceptance, ending with the passing of the crown to the contender - the opposing kingdom and young prince, etc. That last 15, 20 mins in the play moves so rapidly to a conclusion and is filled with so much - the culmination of the play and all it's themes, right there in a nutshell. It is brilliant how Shakespeare sums up the play in this final totally dramatic way.

[Ray Eston Smith]

I just can't see how Hamlet (if he is a real person) ... The end scene encompasses so much - the revenge, horror, emotion, rage, disbelief, death, forgiveness, acceptance, ending with the passing of the crown to the contender - the opposing kingdom and young prince, etc. That last 15, 20 mins in the play moves so rapidly to a conclusion and is filled with so much - the culmination of the play and all it's themes, right there in a nutshell. It is brilliant how Shakespeare sums up the play in this final totally dramatic way.

Hamlet is not a real person. Shakespeare just did not have enough time in four hours to make him completely real. So he doesn't adequately demonstrate his feelings about Ophelia's death. Nevertheless, I offer the following lines (which are even truer at the end of the play than the beginning) in Hamlet's defense:

'Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forced breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected 'havior of the visage,
Together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief,
That can denote me truly: these indeed seem,
For they are actions that a man might play:
But I have that within which passeth show;
These but the trappings and the suits of woe.

In "real life," I've seen people handle their grief in a lot of ways, some that seem outwardly like indifference. I try to remind myself that I have no idea what's really going on in other people's heads so I shouldn't judge them based on my speculations about their feelings. Of course, in a work of fiction we generally expect the author to tell us what the characters are feeling, but, as in life, sometimes some feelings are left unknown.

[Beewulf]

Janine describes Hamlet's apprent forgetfulness "as though Ophelia's funeral day doesn't even exist and hasn't phased him one bit." I tend to agree with you on that. Certainly Hamlet is victimized during the play, but he also victimizes others. He commits involuntary manslaughter against Polonius, and Polonius' death and Hamlet's own harsh treatment of Ophelia contribute to Ophelia's madness and her death. While he expresses some measure of regret for killing Polonius and proclaims his vast love for the dead Ophelia, Hamlet doesn't appear to experience much self-critical examination for his role in the downfall of Polonius and Ophelia.

[AuntShecky]

I had been taught that the avuncular speech which Polonius gives to Hamlet is riddled with cliches, which were recognized as
such even in Shakepeare's day, even by the "groundlings" in the audience. Perhaps the platitudinous speech is not to be taken seriously, or as a way to contrast such superficiality (i.e. the recurrent word "seems" throughout the play) with the depth of Hamlet's emotions.