Hamlet as religious drama<<need your help

[Jim58]

Superficially the play is about revenge, more precisely delayed revenge. I think this is largely because that is how Shakespeare had received the old Amleth legend. Within this framework is where Shakespeare actually applied his artistry.

I am going to disagree with your theme. Though, I think you are on to something. Hamlet is an adolescent facing the duplicity and reality of an adult world. I don't see existenialism or government as the issue. Claudius is the source and spread of ill in the play. Not because he is the government but because he is not the rightful heir to the throne. He is a usurper.

To follow that, the play is to deterministic for existentialism. Hamlet has a role he must fill, rough-hew it how he will. I think Hamlet's anguish comes from certain basic realizations such as virtue, honor and nobility are not innate. That life is a double edge sword. Ambition is both good and bad. The line between love and lust is not a clear one. Image can be reality.

I do agree with your assessment of Hamlet.

[mofwoofoo1]

Thanks for your response. But I would appreciate how you might substantiate your claim that it is "deterministic". Since somehow you assume that an "existential" question couldn't be framed in a deterministic environment. In a play, characters are forever locked into a script, and there is a deterministic quality in that, but this being a condition of theatre, it must be overlooked. Things are clearly "out of joint" and need to be righted by someone. Hamlet is the most appropriate one to have to respond. He finds himself in a horrible situation where he must respond if he is a man. Denial could only lead to self-hatred. Life and death are the stakes as well as the kingdom of Denmark. We get the pleasure of watching how the most gifted acts in this crushing existential dilemma. Would we have not done the same, if it was us, instead of him? He is having to make tough decisions as he is swept along by events, by the deeds and actions of others. His difficulties, indecision, and pain is all too human. He dies like his father, thru the treachery of Claudius, but he takes everyone with him, and dies bravely. How it ends, is not how he intended, but as in real life, the situation was beyond his control.
Can you agree with this?

[Gladys]

Claudius...is a usurper.

Wasn't Claudius, as the brother of the King, elected by the Danish ruling council according to tradition? His succession is both legal and popular (e.g. his praise for Polonius in Act I ii, 47-50). Nevertheless, Claudius has murdered his predecessor.

the play is too deterministic for existentialism

I agree. Hamlet objectively considers the complex and terrible life choices available to him. He does not go so far as to reflect on his reason for being, his second-by-second place in the cosmos, and the absurdities of living and dying. His decisions are not subjective, looking inward, with himself as the crucial subject. For all his heartache, he is without existential angst.

The ideas of the Dane, Soren Kierkegaard (the father of existentialism), were genuinely original in the 1840's.

He is a prince among men

I struggle to understand, considering Hamlet's behaviour towards Ophelia and Gertrude, and his various murders.

[Jim58]

Thanks for your response. But I would appreciate how you might substantiate your claim that it is "deterministic". Since somehow you assume that an "existential" question couldn't be framed in a deterministic environment. In a play, characters are forever locked into a script, ...

I am not saying that determinism has Hamlet walking his required 4 hours on stage to his inevitable end. Hamlet recognizes in 5.2 that "there's a divinity that shapes our ends rough-hew them how we will." Hamlet's burden; his cross to bear is to set right the rule of Denmark. I don't think its fair to cite the strictness of the 4 corners of the script as a basis to dismiss the circumstances within the world of the play. I think they are two different things. Within the world of the play of course Hamlet is the one. That's the nature of determinism and the antithesis of existentialism.

I just think in a literary context existentialism carries the suggestion of existential material that either isn't present in the play or at the least is misinterpreted. Foremost is the revelation by Shakespeare of Hamlet's thoughts that from an existential standpoint can be misinterpreted as free will anxiety. If that is where you are heading I suppose I shouldn't jump the gun. Please feel free to expand your idea.

[Jim58]

Wasn't Claudius, as the brother of the King, elected by the Danish ruling council according to tradition? His succession is both legal and popular (e.g. his praise for Polonius in Act I ii, 47-50). Nevertheless, Claudius has murdered his predecessor.

Claudius attained the throne not by election but by murder and incest. Henry IV was a usurper and so was Richard III. Claudius' ambition in killing the king doesn't mean that he can rule in the king's stead. Claudius' rule brings disease to Denmark that infects everyone starting with Gertrude. Illness, sickness and disease is one of the primary images in the play. All because of Claudius. I don't think its a coincidence that Henry IV and his disease found its way into Shakespeare's works.

I struggle to understand, considering Hamlet's behaviour towards Ophelia and Gertrude, and his various murders.

I think Hamlet's treatment of Ophelia and Gertrude and the killing of Polonius and R&G is a product of an adolescent mind.

[Gladys]

Foremost is the revelation by Shakespeare of Hamlet's thoughts that from an existential standpoint can be misinterpreted as free will anxiety. If that is where you are heading...

Can you please explain?

[Jim58]

I just don't think that Hamlet's "anxieties" make the play existential.

[Regit]

This comment is what interests me the most. The assumption that the theme is revenge is what I disagree with.

The play has more than one theme. Revenge, in whatever level you may perceive it to be, is decidedly one of them.

[Regit]

In kowtowing to the ghost of his father, Hamlet deems his mother the guilty party.

Not at all. He criticises her speedy marriage before he knew of the ghost.
Besides, he criticises her for her conduct, not her crime: "frailty, thy name is woman." This sentiment remains more or less the same after he finds out about his father's murder. Hamlet's sense of right and wrong is at least in this sense self-sufficient, not from kowtowing to anyone.

He barely listens to his mother because reassessment of his relationship with his father might make revenge unthinkable.

Again I disagree. Hamlet contemplates the morality of his revenge constantly; his uncertainty about the ghost, even about his father's authority is one of the main reasons why he procrastinates. Furthermore, it is not for the sake of maintaining his relationship with his father that Hamlet cannot accept Gertrude's conduct; it is because of the moral code by which he should live, no doubt influenced by social and genetic structuring, as you say, that he cannot accept it. Revenge and duty to his father are causes that come from principles, not motives that come from plotting.

The men hold the reins in this world. We need not discount ‘the positive’ in what the ghost and Hamlet say of Gertrude, since they are hardly likely to flatter her. And understanding their bias, we are more wary of ‘the negative’.

Yes, they are biased. We can disregard all of their saying that is not facts. If they were the judges, this case is out of the window. But fortunately we have other codes of morality to judge by. And sexism really belongs in a different thread.

At Elsinore, there is nothing but approval for Gertrude’s marriage to the newly elected king, apart from Hamlet and the ghost.

That is not verified. Horatio expresses his surprise at how quick the marriage is. The reason for lack of disapproval is because aside Hamlet no one else in Elsinore is really in the position to say anything (and even Hamlet has to reserve his sentiments to himself). And lack of disapproval does not mean approval. Any assessment as to the sentiment of Elsinore as a whole toward the marriage is a speculation, an invalid argument.

Gertrude remarried at least a month after Old Hamlet’s death, assuming that Hamlet’s, "within a month…a little month" refers to the time between funeral and wedding.

Yes, I think any reasonable interpretation of the speech would show quite clearly that this is indeed the case.

Remarrying soon after the death of a husband was less remarkable at a time when remarriage for peasants (and the spouse of a murdered king) ensured survival in a hard world. Were they all lacking in virtue?

Yes, we have heard this argument. Peasants are different from royalties; different in circumstance, education, upbringing, responsibilities, and therefore obligations. Even among royalties, the cases vary, between people with a different sense of duty. Gertrude certainly would not have much trouble surviving without remarrying quickly. I think the more likely motive for her marriage is lust, or very light affection, if it can be so easily replaced. "Sunny" is a good state, sure, for the right time and the right place, as every other human emotional state.

‘Gertrude as a woman’ is superior, a tower of strength compared with her son, who, living in the past, seeks his “noble father in the dust”.

Her husband having passed “through nature to eternity”, Gertrude shows virtue by living happily in the present, with fond memories.

Yes, that is certainly one interpretation. If Gertrude has real grief for the King as Hamlet does, then it must be that she is stronger than he. If their sorrows are equal, then she is superior, I concede. But that's not really it, is it? She grieves only as much as the other people, sporting the usual "trappings and suits of woe", and much less than Hamlet; and that's the reason why she doesn't have any urge to seek him anywhere at all. One cannot come to your conclusion by comparing the grief of two people with two different sentiments towards the dead. Unless you think that sorrow in itself is a weakness, grief in itself a human flaw. The "fond memories" that you mentioned finds its evidence in only one place, and in a most breezy manner. Perhaps it is more reasonable to think that Gertrude does not have any longing for the King, or have any fond memories of him, nor does she feel any duty towards him; and that is why she does with so little "fuss"?

"A tower of strength" is a phrase that describes better the overcoming of something very difficult, rather than the lack of difficulty. It doesn't belong in your sentence.

Of course, I accept that Western culture has sympathy for him. This culture has fostered the sanctimonious virgin-whore dichotomy, the scriptural “Blessed are they that mourn”, romantic notions "truly in love", and the idea of faithfulness to a departed spouse. I think Hamlet, an ambassador for the culture, fares poorly alongside sunny Gertrude.

Surely, you're not suggesting that the Eastern and other cultures do not recognise the process of grief, or the idea of remaining obligated to the dead, the idea of the purity of a virgin, the idea of a whore? Well, I think they do at least match it. So if you accept that Western culture has sympathy for Hamlet's argument, then you must accept that pretty much every other culture does, especially in the time of the play.

Must every widow palpably shoulder a notional sense of duty to a departed husband - ‘keep a promise to a dead person’ - a promise only ‘for as long as we both shall live’?

No indeed, they don't; not according to laws or doctrines, as I have already conceded. If they do, it is for their own human sentiments and/or sense or morality, nothing else. Rules, not morality is forced upon people.

Hamlet, the ghost, the Players, and some today are keen ‘to cast the first stone’. Bereaved Gertrude’s life is hers to live even though chauvinistic Hamlet and the ghost feel otherwise. Is a ghost virtuous? Glib moral judgments abound.

Aren’t the ongoing and heinous crimes of her accuser, the murderer Hamlet, sufficiently distracting?

I never made a case otherwise concerning Hamlet and his father, I haven't sufficient thought here. Suffice to say that one has little to do with the other. I am making a case against Gertrude, which is neither strengthened or weakened by the conduct of accusers, if one has a code to measure against. Surely, the ethical code of the society in which the characters all live must be the objective rule. If you are arguing against that, then it is a different argument. But it must have independence to what I am arguing. Yes, the practice of peasants and spouses of kings, you say. It's a practice, and with necessity as its motive. But a code more consistently portrayed in this play is the sense of duty and more than emotional longing towards the dead: Hamlet to his father, to Yorick, Fortinbras to his father, Horatio to Hamlet, Ophelia to her father, Laertes to his father, Laertes to Ophelia, Hamlet to Ophelia, Hamlet to Gertrude, and so on. By that, in this play, Gertrude lacks.

‘How can a personality be solely based on the present’? By ‘personality’, I mean the mode in which one prefers, and so is accustomed, to operate (science tells us two thirds of personality is determined genetically or in infancy).

Those are called choices. Personality covers more than the deliberate. But, letting it pass, are you saying that "the mode which one prefers to operate" depends solely on the present, without any regard for the past or the future? That sounds more and more like carelessness. That is no defence. Moreover, "infancy", surely, is the social influences of the past, as I have argued?

A significant fraction of mankind (male and female) grows up using little intuition and introspection, if we are to believe personality-tests (such as the Myer-Briggs).

We are not. Those concepts may reflect different things in the tests than in the play. Let us employ the social framework of the play which has more weight on the character of Gertrude and the concepts in their general meanings.

It seems passing strange to decry Gertrude,

Does it? I think it is reasonable to analyse her flaws since her conduct is the focus of the argument. You yourself made it so, and set the first standard with the Virgin Mary. And I set out to disagree with that, and must resolve to focus on her flaws. Like I said, I recognise many good qualities in Gertrude, I see many flaws in Hamlet and the ghost, and I am by no means sentencing her. But like you said:

...whose only sin might be a nebulous lack of respect or reverence toward a dead husband,

and the only flaw I wished to condemn, the fact itself a signal of many other interpretations of sin.

[Gladys]

I am making a case against Gertrude, which is neither strengthened or weakened by the conduct of accusers, if one has a code to measure against. Surely, the ethical code of the society in which the characters all live must be the objective rule. If you are arguing against that, then it is a different argument.

I am indeed arguing that the behaviour of the husband, her accuser, affects the duty of the wife. Applying rigid, simplistic moral codes to individuals is necessarily false: to quote Kierkegaard, ‘Subjectivity is truth’. It is impossible to stand in another’s shoes. Ethics should deal in complexities rather than simplifications. With scant information on Gertrude’s past, how are we to appreciate the intricacies of her ethical situation, and her hurried remarriage? Since we must simplify to judge, our judgment can only be wrong. At least, we should put the best construction on her actions.

In kowtowing to the ghost of his father, Hamlet deems his mother the guilty party. I mean, ‘deems…guilty’ only in the sense that Hamlet presumes his dead father remains worthy of conjugal respect. Although we know little of Old Hamlet’s past, some marriages are less than happy with adultery, wife-bashing, incest, paedophilia, and mental cruelty. Should an innocent Gertrude feign mourning?

He barely listens to his mother because reassessment of his relationship with his father might make revenge unthinkable. Is it right to avenge, and if so, to avenge a reprobate father? It’s a sad moral code that naively divorces ‘duty to father’ or ‘duty to husband’ from mutual obligation. A ‘moral code’, which appeals to precedent, to popular opinion, to the culture, to religion, tends to ignore real-world complexities. Hamlet may be deemed to act in ‘good conscience’ towards Ophelia, Polonius, R & G, and Gertrude, and yet be ethically bankrupt.

Remarrying soon after the death of a husband was less remarkable at a time when remarriage for peasants (and the spouse of a murdered king) ensured survival in a hard world. While conventional morality may disapprove of the hurried remarriage, some of us – and perhaps Shakespeare himself – understand that life is rarely as simple as church and state would portray.

Of course, I accept that Western culture has sympathy for him. Sunny Gertrude is ‘a tower of strength’ in that she is not slavishly beholden to cultural dogma, Western or otherwise. Her husband having died, she treats the living with respect and kindness. In my view, Shakespeare creates in Gertrude an ethically courageous woman.

How can a personality be solely based on the present? To live - to act justly - in the present is truly courageous. The words ‘solely based’ are Regit’s, not mine.

A significant fraction of mankind (male and female) grows up using little intuition and introspection, if we are to believe personality-tests… Shakespeare deals with the same human behaviour as do ‘personality tests’ and, it seems to me, great literature sometimes addresses human behaviour more competently than science. Let’s not limit and, by so doing, belittle the bard.

Having existentialist sympathies, I am inspired by Gertrude, acting authentically in the moment. Most of us are happy to escape spinelessly into the past or the future, or into a sterile morality governed by rule and regulation.

[Any1there4me]

As clear as it has been made by others that Gertrude, whether or not justified, married a little too soon after the late Hamlet. One thing I haven't seen mentioned AT ALL is how Shakespeare satirizes the sanctity of marriage (link with religion bit, if anyone is confused--marriage is a huge event in any religion). In the play, "Marry" is used often as a light oath (referring to the Virgin Mary) or a way of saying "Indeed," but is that really all? Personally, I find that Shakespeare is mocking the sanctity of marriage.

Gertrude marries almost immediately after the death of late Hamlet, then the whole situation between Hamlet and Ophelia--whether there is mutual love and possible marriage. Claudius and Gertrude had been hoping to have Hamlet wed Ophelia, for they suspect that Hamlet loves her, just as Ophelia suspects; but then Hamlet denies his love for Ophelia. Then, later on after Ophelia's death, Hamlet states his love for her at her soon-to-be grave.

I can't think of anything more to add to this right now, but when I do, I'll try to continue on.

[Gladys]

... on after Ophelia's death, Hamlet states his love for her at her soon-to-be grave

Shouldn't his words, "I lov'd Ophelia", be understood in the earlier sense of, "I did love you once"?

In the play, "Marry" is used often as a light oath (referring to the Virgin Mary) or a way of saying "Indeed," but is that really all?

An interesting conjecture but unlikely, I now think. The string "Marry," is used 12 times in Hamlet and 243 times in all his plays. In Hamlet, the string is rarely used in a context related to marriage.

[byquist]

In his long monologue when he shouts "Vengeance!" at the end there, when he devises the "play" as a perfect test, he has the flash that maybe the "devil" is taking a shape to lead him to do some awful thing. He says, "I'll have grounds more relative than this." So apparently he was brought up to believe in an actual personified devil, sort of ala Job with the devil going "to and fro on the earth." Well, he saw a ghost, so that has an impact as well. He not only thinks about the invisible world, but also saw that world when his father appears, as did Horatio and the guards.