Chapter Four
Hamlet:
The strain of despair comes from a theological background. It appears in many of the morality plays and is present in The Faerie Queen. In Susan Snyders Article "The Left Hand of God: Despair in Medieval and Renaissance Tradition." We see that theological despair is not something that was new to the renaissance. From the early teaching of Augustine up to Luther, Snyder points that there is a rich history in the power of despair. It was through despair that a person could come to see the greatness of God or wallow in the sense of hopelessness that is despair.
In her assessment of Augustine we are given a glimpse at the medieval roots of despair. She cites his sermon on justice and its connection to biblical text. In the letter to Romans Paul can be said to assert that "law (without grace) makes sin abound and that the letter (without the spirit) kills." Augustine pushes this a little further and claims that "the law gives us fear, which is a check on presumption; then grace gives us hope, lest we despair…Fear is a gift of God, but if not followed by hope it is death-dealing." (22)
Shifting from the older scholars to the theologians of the Renaissance Snyder focuses in on Luther’s concept of despair. Once again Luther focuses in on law and the gospels. "Man is totally corrupt; in order to realise his depravity he must undergo the rigors of the law and recognise himself as damned. Out of this despair of his own powers comes an absolute dependence on God’s…Salvation comes through despair." (24) Through the law, Man comes to see his own failings and must come to see that only through the grace of God can he achieve salvation. Therefore it is essential to go through despair before one can gain salvation.
We see in the writings of Augustine and Luther the idea that it was essential for Man, during Medieval and Renaissance times, to experience despair before one would be capable of salvation. This is a sentiment that is echoed through the works of the literature of the English Renaissance. In Dr. Faustus we see first hand the struggle that Faustus faces as he denies himself the grace of God in favour of his own judgement. Time and again he is capable of repenting and recognising his own wickedness, but he is unable to jump free from his despair and is therefore damned. In The Faerie Queen "the experience of Redcrosse underlines the paradoxical nature of despair: awareness of and sorrow for past sin, always the first step of fallen man on his way to salvation, my lead him into such self-loathing that he feels-and therefore is-beyond the reach of God’s mercy." (20)
In referring to the despair of Hamlet, McGee tries to show a connection between this and renaissance thought. He states that Hamlet can avoid the slings and arrows referred to in his to be or not to be soliloquy by acting "as a Christian should, and as an Elizabethan had been taught since childhood to do, that is turn to God and pray for guidance." (97) This statement reflects the influence of protestant religion's relevance on faith in God and the almost universally held belief in protestant England that when in despair Man can and must turn to faith.
McGee goes on and explains Hamlet’s depression in terms of Elizabethan theological despair. He uses this connection to explain Hamlet’s seeming madness. Hamlet has lost his way. He has lost hope that he is loved and can find solace in God (97). This is a strong sense of theological despair that explains Hamlet’s thirst for self-slaughter. His despair is the result of the dilemma he faces. There is his duty to avenge the murder of his father, but in doing so he could very well be damned for his act. As a result of this he experiences despair and dotes on the idea of suicide as a way out of this hopeless situation (97-98).
Like Kierkegaard’s knight of faith, Hamlet can also escape from this despair through faith. But at the time of the to be soliquy he is still mired down in despair and confusion. Only by accepting the grace of God and utilising it for himself can Hamlet escape his despair. Until he does so he will continue to suffer and be unable to become closer to the religious realm that is described by Kierkegaard.
For a modern audience to fully understand Hamlet’s despair and madness we must first understand the inner conflict he is facing. The appearance of the ghost has thrust him into a deep conflict. Before this he had lost his father and was distraught with his mother’s quick marriage. But "something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Hamlet is surrounded by a court involved in corruption, an incestuous Queen, and a fratricide for a King. On top of this he has been thrust from the role of student into the role of prince and obedient son.
As Prasser points out in Hamlet and Revenge there was no clear resolution to the dilemma presented to Hamlet about the ghosts call for revenge. Hamlet can avoid this problem by concentrating on whether the ghost is a goblin damned. After this is resolved during the performance of "The Mousetrap" Hamlet can no longer wonder whether the ghost is an evil spirit. He has seen Claudius’ reaction to the play is which he reveals his guilty conscience. Hamlet must face the plea of his father’s ghost and proceed with the act of revenge or to disobey the ghost’s command.
Once the issue of the ghosts nature has been resolved it seems that Hamlet can not but choose to avenge his father. His procrastination can be seen as the result of the inner conflict he is facing over whether or not to kill Claudius and thus avenge his father. One view is that he must do the deed to satisfy the ghost and another presents him with the possibility of eternal damnation for such a deed.
One Elizabethan perspective, supported by Bradley and others, is that "Shakespeare’s audience endorsed bloody revenge as an unquestioned duty." Conversely, as Prosser pointed out, there is much critical support that "Elizabethan orthodoxy unanimously condemned private revenge." (3) This is the same sort of conflict that causes Hamlet’s despair. The two extremes are unresolvable and thrusts Hamlet into a hopeless paradox.
The act of revenge was seen as a filial duty. Some people would have supported Hamlet’s claim for revenge on this ground. On the other hand the established authorities condemned private revenge and stressed the subservience of Man to God. For them it was God’s task to exact justice and not Man’s (5-7). This is what creates the ethical dilemma for Hamlet; an ethical dilemma that is the same that faces Kierkegaard’s tragic hero and leads to the possibility to make the existential leap of faith. A leap that Hamlet makes much later on in the play.
When the action starts we see Hamlet as a brooding man. The Ghost has already appeared to the guards but Hamlet is unaware of this event. He is sitting alone sulking whilst his Uncle is giving his opening speech. It can be said that Hamlet is almost pouting over the lose of his father and is not handling the situation in the most Princely manner. Claudius has taken over the role of King rather quickly and is able to make decisions. Hamlet however is too busy grieving over the lose of his father to do anything else but grieve. He also recognises that he is surrounded by a corrupt court.
Despite the evil deed of Claudius, his opinion that Hamlet’s grieving "Tis unmanly grief. It shows a will most incorrect to heaven, a heart unfortified, a mind impatient, an understanding simple and unschooled" (I.ii 94-7) is one that would have been widely held by the originally audience. Hamlet has not taken on the duty as a Prince. He must put aside his grief in order to take on the role of successor. As Bradley has pointed out he has not yet escaped from his role as student and takes on the responsibility that his birth has forced upon him. Unless he acts like a prince and someone of royal birth he will not make a good King when the time comes.
At this point in the play Hamlet is still mired in the aesthetic stage of life. He is too self involved to recognise that he has other duties or obligations. As an aesthetic he only sees what he wants and is unwilling to face up to the horrible reality of his situation. Hamlet is thrust into a situation where he has lost all of his comforts. Since his fathers death he has stared to realise that he must take on the role of the Prince. Instead he has taken on the doleful role of a mourner. But his grief is prolonged and renders him unable to act or fulfil his duty. Hamlet’s claim of "how weary, stale flat, and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of this world!" (I ii 133-34) expresses his grief at the bleakness of the human condition.
Like DeBeauvoir’s sub man he is not willing to accept his situation and has adopted the blinding view of a mourner. As a mourner he can block out all the duties he has and focus on the desire for suicide that seems to be a way out of his hopeless situation.. He does not have to become the prince or an ethical being. He fails to cast himself into the world and acknowledge his own lack of being (42). Instead he wants to hide from this choice and any other choices that might come along.
Once he finds out that a ghost has appeared in the image of his father Hamlet starts to realise that he might have a purpose to grasp onto. It will give him a task that he will be able to grab onto and involve himself in. It will provide a distraction from the conflict that has enveloped his soul. He has progressed from the early aesthetic stages and is ready to move into the ethical sphere but requires something to push him into it.
As Bielmeier explains there are a few stages of the aethetic sphere for Kierkegaard. Hamlet has moved through the early phases and has now reached what is termed s the melancholic aesthetic. Hamlet has become hopeless of his finite existence. His melancholic brooding is a result of the realisation of the empty sort of existence he has been living up till now. He has gone through the indulgent stages of life and realises that he will not find satisfaction in that sort of life. As a student he was able to distract himself from his ethical role but it has also led him to certain despair.
"The aesthete recognises the futility of seeking infinite variety in a finite world, and a reflective sadness ensues." (3) Like the situation of the man who has seen the law of man and has come to realise his own infinite flaws Hamlet has come to see that he will not find inner peace in his finite world. This is wonderfully shown in his speech with his school friends. He finds no delight in the corporeal world. His statement where he reveals that he sees Denmark as a sort of prison lets us see that he has become distraught with the existence he has lived up to know.
He could be bound in a nutshell and still consider himself a king of the infinite. But the cause of his dismay is that his mind has become infected with ‘bad dreams’ (II.ii 258-60) If he were to eliminate his despair he could be confined to a prison sell and still consider himself free. The freedom he is talking about of course is the despair that he is faced in the unsatisfactory life he has been leading. As an aesthetic he has attempted to live in the world and to find happiness. But he has not been able to do so. It is not only the death of his father that has brought this about but also the reality of his situation. It is the arrival of the ghost that proves as the crucial element that will make it possible for him to move out of this worldly despair in pursuit of a higher good.
For Renaissance audiences that would have been familiar with the theological issues discussed by Luther, Hamlet is a prime example of someone who is going through theological despair. And as Wymer points out it is through despair that redemption is possible (6). For the moment though Hamlet is so self-involved he is not near the point of redemption. He has yet to make the leap from Aesthetic to Ethical. But he is extremely close. Kierkegard’s description of the different types of Aesthete shows us that Hamlet is ready to make the leap. A leap that would have been pertinent to the theme of salvation in the renaissance and one that is important if a person is to progress from to the religious sphere of Kierkegaard’s philosophy.
As Bradley and the romantics are so apt to point out Hamlet is a melancholic man. Although the type of melancholy we think of in contemporary terms is different then that of the renaissance it is a good way of seeing into the mindset of the Renaissance audience. In theological terms Hamlets melancholy is a result of the despair he is facing since he has lost his father. Once again it is not so much the lose of his father; that is only the catalyst for his despair. His melancholy is a result of his lose of hope in his world. He has started to come to realise that he will not find contentment in the pleasures of the world.
When he confronts the ghost he has the opportunity to move from this state of melancholy to the ethical. For the Ghosts call for vengeance is an ethical claim to Hamlet. It is something that would have been understandable to a Renaissance audience. Even though it does cause an inner conflict in him it is a situation that is one that he must confront. His desire to discover whether or not the ghost is a damned image or a truthful ghost is a way for Hamlet to make sure that he is not too rush in his action. He could immediately believe the ghost and then proceed to confront his Uncle but Hamlet is not yet ready for such an action. He has been cast into setting the world right and therefore takes on the position of the ethical hero.
His Uncle is a man of action. He is an Aesthetic character in that he knows what he wants and will go after it. He is very much like Macbeth. He was willing to kill his brother in order to obtain his crown and wife. He relishes the role of King and is in that role to fulfil his own desires. He does have moments of despair but they pass. After the play within the ply he tries to repent but knows that he can not because do so and still enjoy the fruits of his evil deed. He was close to making the jump into asking for God’s mercy but he is too tempted by his own aesthetic desires. That is why he is a damnable character.
Hamlet on the other hand is a bit more patient. What some people might view as a sign of weakness is Hamlet’s salvation. If he had acted on the call for revenge he would have been a mere tragic hero. Instead he has some doubts in his mind. These doubts are not just concerning his Uncle’s guilt but also whether or not he would be justified in pursuing revenge. By killing his Uncle he would have taken the law into his hands and done the job of God. It is God’s place to punish Claudius and Hamlet knows this. But this knowledge does not come until after he returns from his trip to England. It is then that he realises that there is a degree of providence in all things in life. He lets God deal out justice.
Before he makes this jump to the religious we should talk briefly about his time in the ethical stage. For most of the play he is determined to enact revenge for the ghastly sin that Claudius has committed. He has taken the advice of his Uncle and decided to throw of the veil of melancholy and take on the role of obedient son and Prince. By doing so he has made the step from aesthetic to ethical. He has also made the jump from sub-man to the serious man. He has found a task he can absorb himself in. Instead of filing accept his condition he has seen that he must progress and take on the role of his own being.
This role he adapts is one that would have been expected of him during the renaissance. Indeed until he makes this leap he is a rather weak figure. He does show unmanly grief and shows himself as someone unfit for the position that he will someday have to take on. It would be unsuitable for Hamlet to become King if he was unable to handle the death of his father: something that is a common theme throughout time. He accepts the role of Prince and obedient son and by doing so escapes from his melancholy for a time.
This melancholy comes back to him when he is contemplating suicide. His role as avenger and Prince has not been enough to resolve his despair. The To be or not to be soliloquy reveals the utter despair that Hamlet is feeling. In a corrupt world he does not know if there is a God who loves him or will exact justice. He fears the unknown spectre of death but also fears the utter lose of hope he has experienced. The only person he seems to trust is Horatio. With this lose of hope in the human existence he is pondering death as a form of escape from his earthly suffering. But he does not know what will await him if he does kill himself (III.i 56-88).
This lack of knowledge in God is what holds him back from making the leap into the religious sphere. It is also what prevents him from accepting the grace of God. Like Faustus he is unwilling to accept the grace of God and pursues his past strain of thought in trying to remedy his solution by his own means. He has set himself on the path towards revenge. Once he discovers the truth of the ghost he is ready to such bloody deeds as murder. This determination leads him to the killing of Polonius. He has become so involved in his desire for to void his despair that he acts blindly in order to fulfil his purpose.
With the murder of Polonius we see the justice of God come to fruition. Instead of killing the usurping king, Hamlet has slaughtered an innocent man. It was his blindness to accept the will of God that led Hamlet to kill Polonius. After this point Hamlet is damned to die a tragic heroes death, but there is still the chance of gaining salvation by turning to God. But he does not make this step until he comes back from his sea journey.
He has started a bloody chain of events. He has become the tragic hero by killing Ophelia’s father. His action is understandable. His determination to do nothing but bloody deeds is also understandable. He has broken free from the Aesthetic in order to fulfil his duty to the ethical. But in doing so he has also committed a crime. This crime is unforgivable unless Hamlet is willing to accept the will of God. But when he leaves at the end of act four he seems bent on exacting his own revenge.
At this point he is both a tragic hero and a serious man. He has become so involved in his task to fulfil his ethical duty that there is nothing and no one that will get in his way. We sympathise with this attitude but also see Hamlet ruination is imminent if he follows this plan. If he were to have acted out his plan for revenge in a calculated way then he would have died a tragic hero with the sin of Polonius’ murder on his head. But something happened on his journey and he comes back a changed man. He is no longer the Prince out to avenge his father. He recognises the grace of God and his divine order.
When he appears at the grave of Ophelia he has a moment of weakness where he tries to show up Laertes. Here he plays the part of a spurned and distraught lover, but he is quick to realise his folly. The claim that fate will come about (V.i 294) shows us that he has resigned himself to the will of a higher being. The dog will indeed have his day but Hamlet will not force the issue. It will come bout of its own accord. He knows that Laertes is not to blame for his father’s death and there is no reason to take his anger out on him.
Laertes embraces the aesthetic at this point and becomes bent on avenging his father’s death at whatever cost. In the beginning of the play we see him as an ethical hero but at this point he has slipped back into the self-indulgent phase. As Hamlet progresses he falls back. Even though he has an ethical claim to his desire he is acting more on personal desire. Hamlet however has been able to subdue his personal desires and let providence take its course.
At this point we can understand Laertes grief and desire but we are confounded by Hamlet’s inaction. It appears as though he has lost the desire to avenge his fathers murder. This is what the romantics grasped onto and used as a basis for the claim that Hamlet was a weak character unable to take action on his ethical duty. In this light he should be acting like Laertes and thirsting for revenge. Instead he has become subdued by the idea of God’s justice and does not act.
Despite the many claims that Hamlet is a tragic hero it is clear here that he has become the Kierkegaardian knight of faith. If he were to kill Claudius out right we would understand and forgive his action. It is what is expected of him. Instead he has decided to not act. He has become an absurd character. But this is what will be his salvation.
When he is called upon to fight with Laertes he has an innate reaction that something is not right but he decides to take part in the contest despite this. This is explained by the simple reason that there is a reason why things happen. The fall of the sparrow is just as providential as this dual. He has placed his fate in the hands of God. Unlike the wit he shows in uncovering the Kings plot in sending him way to England to his certain death Hamlet ignores his intuition here. It is at this point that he has truly become the knight of faith. He will go to the contest and no matter what happens he will accept it as providence.
The last scene depicts the vengeance of God. Hamlet could not have planned a more fitting end to Claudius. But Hamlet’s death is also in God’s plan. He is slain because of the action he took when he was trying to do what he thought was expected of him in the ethical. In this scene we see that Hamlet has trusted in providence and is able to exact his revenge. Unfortunately he must dies in the process for being unwilling to do this earlier.
Claudius is revealed as the fratricide that he is when Laertes reveals the plan. He is exposed in front of the whole court as trying to murder Hamlet. Hamlet is guiltless of the death of the King because it is his just end. If he had killed him before this the cause of his action would have been hidden from the court and Hamlet would have been perceived s a regicide. Instead he is perceived as a tragic hero. An apologetic Laertes also absolves him of the death of Polonius. If he had not fought this dual he would have died with the murder on his head, but instead he has gained salvation by allowing providence to take its course.
At his death we see that his despair has vanished and his soul has found peace. The rest is silence for him. This would not have been possible if he had taken the ethical course. He has become the knight of faith and genuinely free man. He was not acting on aesthetic terms but was acting out the will of God. All those that perish have been guilty of ignoring the grace of God and trying to eliminate despair by human means. Some die as aesthetics but Hamlet is the only one who is a knight of faith. His delay is what has enabled him to die a man free of despair.
Macbeth:
In Macbeth we get a much different depiction of how existentialism is applied to literature. Instead of a character that progress from the aesthetic to the religious we get a main character that begins in the ethical and moves back to the ethical. We also see the anguish that this character experiences as he forgoes the ethical and religious in order to fulfil his desires.
In the beginning of the play we see Macbeth prised as a glorious warrior. He is referred to as "brave Macbeth" (I.ii 16) who is able to turn the tide of war in the favour of his King. But this image of him is soon put into question. Once he is hailed by the three witches as the King he stands back in amazement. He has been given the opportunity to see what might be. This is compounded when one of the witches’ prophecies comes to fruition. Macbeth is tempted by the possibility of being King.
As Cheung points out there is an underlying theme of dread present from this scene with the witches. It starts when Macbeth stumbles back at the prophecy. He is aware then of the possible actions that could lead to his becoming King. This is made worse when he is passed over as the next possible heir. With the goading of his wife he is able to develop the determination to act in order to obtain his own ends.
Macbeth becomes an Aesthete when he decides to kill the king in order to become the same. He has no great desire to be a good King but only seeks the title. He has forgone the ethical in order to gain this end. As he starts out we see the strains of dread that envelops him at this choice to pursue his base desires. He must be pushed by his wife to do this bloody deed. Once he does this deed he is constantly bothered by feelings of remorse. He knows that what he has done is wrong and yet he does not repent. Like Claudius he has chosen to fully partake in his damnation.
It is not necessary for him to continue his bloody deed but he does so in order to protect his first action and retain his Kingship. After the first moment of dread he has become the opposite of the existential hero. After giving into the possibility he accepts his despair as part of his life. He does not try to move back into the ethical. Instead he becomes more and more involved in evil deeds. Like Faustus he never gives salvation a chance. He has made his choice and will stick with it even though he knows it will be his damnation.
He also ignores the will of God by trying to protect his interests and create and fulfil his own destiny. The murder of Banquo is unsuccessful because he has gone against providence. He was willing to accept that he would be King but he is threatened by the prospect that Banquo’s heirs will be Kings. And despite his efforts to squash the possibility of that prophecy coming true he is helping it to come true. Everything he does to protect his interests just helps to fulfil the witches prophecy.
He fails in becoming an existential hero because he never even tries to embrace the ethical or the religious. He does however experience the sense of despair that could lead to his salvation. But he ignores these pangs of conscience. He is too absorbed in his aesthetic desires to break free from despair and create his own lack of being. Since he is unwilling to embrace God’s grace he will succumb to the judgement reserved for his evil deeds.
Unlike Hamlet he does not have any desire to progress. Stuck in the lowest sphere of life he will be damned to despair in life. He shows the characteristics of the serious man in that he devotes himself to the tasks he has set for himself. But he is less then the serious man. He wavers in between the sub man and serious because of his desire to avoid the dread of possibility. He could gain salvation but is unwilling to embrace his freedom. He makes his own existence revolve around being King.
Conclusion:
An Existential reading of Shakespeare can help us to identify with the theological issues of the Renaissance. Considering the religious environment of the time this is an important aspect of reading these plays. Without recognising the religious undertones of Hamlet and Macbeth we can miss important aspects of how these plays were originally perceived. Considering the close connection between the theology of Luther and Kierkegaard existentialism can prove a good cipher for looking into the hidden issues of the drama of the Renaissance.
Also considering the rise of the protestant religion during this time an existential reading can provide us with a more in-depth understanding of the theological influence on the literature of the Renaissance. There is a great deal of work that can steal be done in looking at Renaissance literature as a form of theological writing. Whether the works were intended as theological works or were a product of the religious environment is at the moment something I can not tackle.
During the renaissance the literature reflected the main theological issue of the time: the question of providence. Many early protestant theologians focused on this issue and the topic ran over into literature. It had become an issue not just for scholars but an issue for the theatre going public. To understand the drama of the time it is important to understand the impact that theology had on people. Once we can grasp how people dealt with these issues we can come to a better understanding of the literature of the time.