Hamlet

Hamlet. Most scholars and followers of classical literature place it somewhere on a scale between the greatest tragedy ever written by Shakespeare and the greatest play of any kind ever written by anyone. It is a worldwide phenomenon, translated into countless languages, performed constantly around the 24 time zones by amateurs, school and college groups, and professionals in its original form and in modernized variations, on live stage and screen.

Structurally, it is composed of three consecutive stories each with its own climactic scene. First a ghost story, next a detective story, finally a revenge story. Hamlet must first brave a meeting with a ghost of dubious identity, next play the sleuth to confirm whether the ghost has told him the truth, finally take the revenge that (he believes) only he can and should do.

Of course the whole issue of taking revenge is central in the play, especially for Christians who know that "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord" (Rom. 12:19 paraphrasing Deut. 32:35). But perhaps this is not a standard revenge story at all, considering that Hamlet can be seen as the rightful ruler of Denmark with the sole God-given authority and responsibility (Prov. 20:26) to crush a false usurper who has assassinated Hamlet's royal father. The throne may not have been automatically hereditary in the Denmark portrayed by Shakespeare, but seems to have been virtually so, probably dependent only upon the "voice" of the previous monarch. Hamlet from the beginning sees himself (reluctantly) as the one person in "out of joint" Denmark "born to set it right" (I.5.210-211). He says that the false king Claudius has come between "th' election" (being crowned king) and his hopes (V.2.73). Fortinbras, who will become king at the end on the strength of Hamlet's "dying voice" (V.2.392-393), closes the play by saying that Hamlet would have "proved most royal" if he had lived (V.2.443-444).

One could argue that David, anointed as Israel's king to replace Saul, did not kill the divinely "deposed" king (First Samuel 24:6, 10), but it is up to the reader to decide whether that situation is analogous to the situation between Hamlet and his Uncle Claudius. The usurper is certainly the assassin of a legitimate king, a crime worthy of death in itself, but who has the authority to bring him to justice?

Beyond his central crime of fratricide, we see other deep character flaws in Claudius. He cannot bring himself to confess to heaven and repent of his sins, although he tries to go through the forms (III.3.40-103), and in the end he chooses not to save Queen Gertrude's life because it would have exposed him for his plot to kill Hamlet (V.2.315-318). However, it is not Claudius' tragic flaw we are seeking, but that of our tragic hero, Hamlet himself. Most often, something like "indecision" is nominated, although it is debateable whether that qualifies as a tragic flaw. (See my "Topics" post on "Tragic Heroes.") Hamlet certainly chides himself for lacking sufficient internal motivation to act, and his delay certainly expands the tragedy to encompass the deaths of multiple people including himself. After watching an actor bring himself to tears by simply reciting a speech, Hamlet reproaches himself for not acting upon legitimate motivation (II.2.577-616), and later with even more justification he compares his inaction with the military determination of Fortinbras and his soldiers (IV.4.41-69).

Ironically, the one time he does act hastily it is to impetuously, mistakenly kill the wrong man (III.4.29). And the one time he has the perfect opportunity and the full intention of slaying Claudius, he gives in to a desire to make his revenge even worse, filtered through a faulty view of God's final judgment, and delays his action once again. Claudius appears to be praying, and Hamlet decides that killing him at such a pious moment will not result in sufficient punishment for eternity (III.3.70-103). The supreme irony here is that Claudius is not praying at all, but trying to summon the will to do so.

The search for Hamlet's tragic flaw is complicated for some readers by the question of his sanity. They find it difficult to hold a person in the grip of madness accountable for his faults. So the persistent question of whether Hamlet is insane, and to what extent, becomes relevant. Is his "madness" entirely feigned as a cover for his early detective work and his later maneuvering to kill the king? Some lines that may help with this question include II.2.223-224 and 399-403. In any case, Shakespeare later shows us Ophelia's genuine and pitiful insanity (IV.5.1-78) as a comparison/contrast.

Shakespeare has created a set of doctrinal assumptions, quite consistent with the Roman Catholic environment of the time when the play is set, within which Hamlet works, and it goes well beyond the prince's view of judgment day. The idea of Purgatory, a place of "burning off" unresolved sins before being finally delivered to heaven, is seen in I.5.5-28 and 81-88, as well as V.1.230-247, V.2.52 and Hamlet's decision to kill the king at a more "sinful" time, mentioned above. The idea of suicide being not only a sin, but beyond the range of God's full forgiveness, is implied or stated in I.2.133-136, II.1.64-96, and V.1.230-247.

A Bible doctrine that would be much less controversial across Christianity would be the strong denunciation of adultery that runs throughout the play. It starts with Hamlet's reference to "incestuous sheets" (I.2.162) before he even knows that there was a murder involved, because he considers a widow's marriage to her former brother-in-law to be adulterous. It continues in passages including I.5.49-64, III.4.49-60, and indirectly in III.1.146-162 where Hamlet's railing against women in general probably grows from his horror over his mother's adultery.

Hamlet seems to have a good grasp on biblical truth in areas such as seeking God's forgiveness (III.4.170-179) and exchanging human forgiveness (V.2.361-364). He knows the extent of his own sinfulness (III.1.131-140) and his "What is man?" speech (II.2.327-332) parallels Psalm 8:4-6. Most of all, he speaks eloquently of his death being in the hands of God, notably in V.2.233-238 where he cites Matt.10:29-31 on God's notice of a sparrow's fall. See also V.2.11-12.

Additionally, there are many references and allusions to the Bible itself, both serious and humorous, many of them based on relatively small details of scripture. These include I.1.174, I.4.43-49, II.2.434-436, IV.4.61, and V.1.79.

Aside #1: For me, an unfortunate aspect of the story is Hamlet's devious orders that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern be executed. They are, of course, traitors to his cause, but they are "small men" in the employ of Claudius, and relatively harmless in my view. I don't see that Hamlet had the moral authority to have them killed, and I don't see any necessity for their deaths. I'm waiting for someone to convince me otherwise, but I think that Shakespeare's decision to write that subterfuge into Hamlet's character detracts needlessly from the "noble heart" of the "sweet prince" that his friend Horatio speaks of at play's end (V.2.396).

Aside #2: Notice the extent of the similarities between the scene where the ghost of Old Hamlet intervenes to protect Gertrude from Hamlet's rage (III.4.118-159) and the scene in Macbeth (III.4.59-129) where the ghost of Banquo appears (but only to Macbeth) at the banquet. Compare Lady Macbeth's reaction to her husband's behavior with Gertrudes reaction to her son's.

Aside #3: Don't overlook the tools for teaching Hamlet mentioned in my post "Teachers' Resources on Shakespeare."