|
Hamlet has been severely chastized for hundreds of years by scholars, theater directors and critics for his indecision and lack of resolution. The legions of absolutely certain authorities have thoroughly convinced the small number of the classical drama-attending public and the slightly larger readership of serious drama that the young prince is unable to take action. As is typical of much of literary criticism, the critics are frequently more intent on enhancing themselves, while belittling the accomplishments of someone else. Prince Hamlet, arguably the most complex character in all drama, in arguably the greatest play in all drama, is tragically misunderstood. There are elements of the play that have not been
sufficiently explored by the academic authorities who are the primary interpreters of literature. For example: Denmark is a powerful kingdom in a time of ongoing struggle for dominance among rival countries. The king of Denmark is a strong monarch who exerts enormous influence on his neighbors and vassals, militarily and diplomatically, as far away as England. Yet when Hamlet the king dies, and his brother Claudius quickly marries his widow and ascends the throne, there is no apparent disruption of government, or opposition to the regime change.
 There is no information in the play about the Danish laws of succession to the throne, but Claudius' accession is obviously reasonably acceptable as a fait
accompli, since there is no resistance from popular or
special interests. Prince Hamlet harbors many strong
feelings about current events; the death of his
father, the hasty marriage of his recently widowed
mother, the pomp and ceremony of the new king, but he
gives no indication that his inheritance has been
stolen, or that he plans rebellion. Power resides in
the hands of his uncle, and Hamlet has no following of
powerful magnates, or influential courtiers to support
any claim he may have to the throne.
Except for Horatio, whom he had almost forgotten, and
some casual acquaintances among the soldiers in
Elsinore, Hamlet is completely isolated. As a prince
of a great house, well educated by contemporary
standards, Hamlet is fully aware of the politics of
his situation. He has no influence, no adherents, no
friends in a royal court just recently established
that is jealous of its prerogatives, not yet secure in
rulership, yet resolved to exercise power. Hamlet has
been shunted aside, while an uncle, whose earlier
relationship with him has not been explicated, rules
the kingdom. We have not been informed about Prince
Hamlet's expectations when his father was alive. It is
reasonable to assume that as a sophisticated prince he
must have anticipated that he would become king upon
his father's death, which he certainly didn't expect
to occur so soon.
The confrontation with the ghost of his father changes
everything for Hamlet, but alters nothing in his
circumstances. He is still alone and he dare not
confide in anyone. He has no proof of murder, except
for the word of a ghost, which enflames him with
horror and outrage. But the ghost provides no
assistance, only a call for vengeance. When Hamlet
pretends to be mad to conceal his purpose, he reveals
the poverty of his means to do anything overtly to
redress the current situation. He trusts no one, just
as any prince of a royal house would trust no one when
a throne is at stake. Once Hamlet accepts the word of
the ghost, he realizes that he is in a Medici-like
court, full of poisonous intrigue, but he is not a
low, brutal assassin, so he will not rush berserkly on
the usurper and hack him to death.
The only resources Hamlet has to redress a great wrong
are his sovereign reason and possibly Horatio. He is
woefully ill-equipped to dethrone a king, but
resolutely determined to take action. He immediately
decides that he can no longer afford the risks of
vulnerability in his relationship with Ophelia. We are
never certain how deep his feelings are for her, but
his duty to his murdered father takes priority over
any romantic or sexual considerations. He knows that
he must confront a ruthless monarch who has committed
terrible crimes to obtain a throne, and who must
indeed be feared.
It is a most superficial conclusion to assume that
Hamlet is indecisive and irresolute. He is a
combination of many qualities, human and royal. He
fully realizes that it is a daunting undertaking to
topple a king. He agonizes over the terrible burden of
seeking bloody vengeance. Scholarly commentators may
scrutinize the horror of murder and mayhem with too
much detachment to appreciate such an intimidating
undertaking. It is easy to glibly debase Hamlet with
accusations of doubt, inaction, or timidity, when his
efforts to carry out a dreadful deed are what make him
profoundly human. Despite overwhelming opposition,
Hamlet's determination never wavers, which confirms
that he is a man of deeds as well as words.
Hamlet is not a vainglorious Bonnie Prince Charlie, consuming his loyal Scots adherents in futile efforts
to restore the House of Stuart. He is not, as many
critics would seem to prefer, a Jacobean slaughterer,
eager to wade through blood to reach the throne. His
is an Elizabethan sensibility, set in a northern
kingdom that in Shakespeare's depiction is far more
Tudor than Nordic. From the moment he pledges the
ghost that he will avenge him, he is committed to
action. If he hesitates, if he questions his purpose,
those doubts only add to the magnitude of his task,
thus elevating his stature as a character.
It has conveniently been overlooked that Hamlet is as
handy with a sword as he is with his wit. A masterful
dramatist has given us much more than a butcher merely
programmed to kill. This much maligned Prince is a
true tragic hero, without the burden of great flaws,
or a curse on his house. His fate has not been
pre-determined by any fault of his. He is an innocent
victim, who has committed no crime, who is ultimately
destroyed by the ambition of another. Let us the more
appreciate that Hamlet, by not rushing precipitously
to murder Claudius until his evil doing is publicly
revealed, allows us to experience the full scope of
tragedy.
|
