Books 2: Hamlet, William Shakespeare

Actually, this about book 7, but I haven't had the time to write up the others to my own content. Even this is a bit rough, and not fully thought out. Sorry!

The last time I actually read through some Shakespeare was back in high school. Over five years I think I must have looked at more than a dozen plays, between English (and English Literature for graduation), and drama studies. Of course, Hamlet featured strongly in my final year. Our teacher was an ex-university Literature professor whose passion was clear but communication was poor. Despite having a very literary, annotated version of arguably Shakespeare’s greatest work, if not his most well-known, at 16 I don’t think I really “got it”.
Click the post title to continue reading...

So, after seeing it on my bookshelf out it came. At more than double the age at which I first read it I think I understand more of what Hamlet is going on about, and whole point Shakespeare is trying to make.

Firstly through a few thoughts:

• I didn’t realise that Hamlet contains so many quotations and “proverbs” we use today, even without knowing it. (It’s quite possible that they were common in Shakespeare’s day as well.)
• There is an enduring debate about Hamlet’s motivations and madness. Until this rereading I was quite content to believe in Hamlet’s madness as the source of Shakespeare to allow him to do anything he wanted. Now though, it’s not so clear cut. I don’t actually think that Hamlet goes mad at all during the play. He gets mad, most certainly, and he acts in rash ways that any of us could, under the pressures placed on him and he places on himself. However I don’t think he actually crosses the line into irrationality. He is very clever.
• The play is over very quickly. Sure, it’s long, but that’s not what I mean. There is a big, big build up to the climax – the sword fight – but it arrives almost out of nowhere, and as soon as it’s over, so is the play.

Whilst all of this is interesting, I want to look in depth at another aspect of the play – what it is that causes Hamlet so much grief in the first place. At the outset, a ghost appears claiming to be his father, the old king, who died not long before. His mother (Gertrude) has since remarried his uncle (Claudius), who just so happens to be the new king. Understandably, Hamlet is upset at this turn of events. The ghost tells Hamlet that he was murdered by his uncle, and that he must revenge his father’s death.

Ok, stop right there. What would you do? In Shakespeare’s day revenge was perfectly ok, a natural part of life and death. Would you revenge your father? Would you wimp out? It is, after all, killing the king, too.

Much has been made of Hamlet’s delay and considerations. He chooses to verify the ghost’s claim, and then act on it if necessary. In the meantime, he ponders the meaning of life and death – what does it mean to be alive? So many expectations and pressures have just been placed on him. Is life worth this much trouble? Eventually he feels caught by the situation, he wants to avenge his father’s murder, but he does not want to kill.

Hamlet’s response is to go through with it. He takes out his anger and suspicion on a head of state and friend of the family (Polonius), and eventually in the dual that gets him killed. However, I think there are better responses. At least, I think there is a Christian response that must be considered.

Jesus said, Give to Caesar what is his; Give to God what is His (Matt 22:17). Jesus was talking about money here. The implication being that we must pay our taxes, be good citizens, and uphold peace and order. Likewise, we need to honour God, love and serve Him, and do that all He expects of us. However, God is god of Caesar, too.

The same might apply to our morals and duties and the expectations of others that have sway over us. There needs to be a pecking order, so to speak, of the people to whom we give our time and energies. As with Jesus’ instruction, God is at the top of that. Underneath fall the government and those who are in positions of power over us, our employers, our family members and other people who speak into our lives.

Hamlet’s tragedy is that he lets his society, and particularly the ghost of his father for whom he longs dictate his path. He talks about it. He talks about the uselessness of all talk and no action (another major theme in the play). He eventually falls into action as it overcomes him, rather than seeking it out himself. Without a Godly perspective he looses sight of better options. The only ones he has lead to death, and guilt, and more pain.

Doesn't that still happen when we lose sight of God?