Postmortem Reflections

1. Now finished with "Hamlet", I can enthusiastically say that my reading of it exceeded my expectations. I knew that I would be able to find much having to do with the individual and existentialism in virtue of the fact that the play centers on an individual character, and the play's most famous line is an existential inquiry. However, I never expected  to find so much material within the play that was compatible with the ideas of some of the existential writers that I have read. The most satisfying and mind-bending part of the experience was the evolution of my thought as I would find evidence that corroborated my thoughts on the play, and then would stumble upon lines that seemed to put a hole in my theory. In the end I was able to meet my expectation of formulating an idea of Shakespeare's attitude toward existentialism, but I surpassed my expectation in being able to tie this attitude into the play's tragedy, and view the deaths of the individuals as being related to the philosophy.
2. Some of the questions I asked myself throughout the play were: "is 'Hamlet' an existential play?", "how does Hamlet embody the attributes of an existential man?", "does Shakespeare seem to be a proponent of existentialism?", and "how do the tragic deaths of the play's characters relate to existentialism, if at all?" Ultimately, I concluded that Hamlet is aware of the existential nature of man, and recognizes the realities of the world from which individual sovereignty arises. However, at the conclusion of the play, Hamlet rejects existentialism, bowing to what he believes to be the inherent order of the world that has prescribed him a fixed fate. This eventually leads to Hamlet's demise, which led me to conclude that Shakespeare too recognized existentialism as being a credible philosophy, but unlike Hamlet did no reject it in favor of a more fatalistic outlook on life. The deaths of the play's characters brought on by misjudgements and misinterpretation of both events and the world around them warn readers of the menace of meaning and dogmatism. Shakespeare essentially tells the reader not to proceed as his characters have, and to maintain individual sovereignty. The realities of the universe cannot be ignored, and failure to recognize them will result in downfall.

An Existential Play?

As I conclude my reading of "Hamlet", it is proper that I reflect ultimately on whether or not the work can be considered an "existential" play. While I have continuously blogged about the existential ideas that characters like Hamlet and Ophelia have seemingly spoken about, I have not mentioned that it does not suffice to simply understand existential ideas to be considered existential. I have identified many of Hamlet's lines that could have been taken out of Sartre or Camus, but now I must say that one must choose to live existentially in order to be deserving of such a label. From what I have observed in the final act of the play, Hamlet seems to reject this existential way of life. He says, "there's a divinity that shapes our ends," implying that his fate is in the hands of God, and thus he rejects his individual sovereignty. It is made clear that Hamlet chooses not the live the existential life, and his fatalism is further reinforced when he remarks, "if it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come." There is no escape from his destiny, he believes, and consequently he accepts Laertes's challenge regardless of his misgiving. It is this challenge that leads to the demise of nearly every major character in the work, and it could have been simply avoided had Hamlet not rejected his gut feeling. It can be said, then, that Hamlet's fatalism was a grave error, and I believe it is this folly that is in-part spoken of when Horatio names "accidental judgements" as a contributing factor to the fall of the court. This, however, suggests that "Hamlet" is an existential play even if Hamlet is not ultimately an existential character. Perhaps, then, the death of the Danish royal family is way of Shakespeare telling us how to live. The existentialist sees their deaths as saying, "do not misjudge the world around you. Do not let dogmatism blind you, and do not doubt the power of the individual." Many label Soren Kierkegaard as history's first existentialist, but I believe that I have made a significant case that William Shakespeare is deserving of this title.

"Where be your gibes now? Your gambols?"

Death is possibly the single certainty of human life, and is consequently a topic of considerable concern to existential thinkers. In fact, almost the entirety of existentialism is built upon the fact that death renders life to be meaningless. It may be relatively simple to believe such a statement with a 21st century perspective, given that we as a species now rely on science more than anything else to describe the universe, and that ideas critical of religion are able to be more widely spread with our modern freedoms of press and speech. However, it would have been quite another thing to believe that death is the ultimate end in 16th century Denmark (or, England), particularly if one had a noble background such as Hamlet. While his religious views are not certain, the graveyard scene in act 5 scene 1 certainly implies that the Prince is unsure about the significance of human life in the face of death. The scene naturally builds off his questioning of existence from act 3. The most significant feature of Hamlet's speech in 5.1 is his pervasive use of questioning. He inquires upon gazing at a skull, "why may not that be the skull of a lawyer? Where be his quiddities now, his quillities, his cases, his tenures, his tricks?" This questioning forces the reader to truly consider what life actually means, and conveys much uncertainty in the Prince's thoughts. From line 100 to 114 he continues this line of questioning, and later even poses questions to Horatio. Perhaps the most powerful instances of his questioning come when he considers where Yorick's merriment has gone, and then Alexander and Caesar's power. The emotional connection in the former and the sheer awe of the latter come together to paint a rather bleak and petty image of human life. This conception of the human condition, though, is essential to existential thought, and it is exactly because Hamlet questions thus that I consider him to be existential.

The Greatest Struggle

The second half of act 4 forces the reader to consider Ophelia's madness, particularly its causes and what it represents. Now that Shakespeare has presented two characters that are considered to be "mad", it is critical that the madness Hamlet and Ophelia display be studied in order to understand the Danish idea of madness. My prevailing thoughts on the matter point to Ophelia's madness as being not so much insanity as it is realization. The verses she recites are all indicative of a realization about that world that is radically different from her preconceived notions. She has seemingly lost hope in the security and comfort of Christian life and has had an existential realization about the absurdity of the universe. One clue to this condition is her statement that "Lord, we know what we are but know not what we may be." This line relates the inherent uncertainty and doubt that fills human life, the same uncertainty that by chance took her father's life. Additionally, the hymns and songs which she quotes illustrates an apparent disillusionment with her expectations in the face of reality. She recites in act 4 scene 5 "tomorrow is Saint Valentine's day, all in the morning bedtime, and I a maid at your window, to be your Valentine." The verse is heavy with idyllic imagery and connotation, and is followed by the expression of an expectation that the love she possesses is eternal. However, the reader is aware of her failed relationship with Hamlet, and therefore can deduce that this expression is a way of grappling with her realization of the absurdity inherent in the universe. I have come to believe that the entirety of the play boils down to the greatest struggle an individual can have, that of accepting the idea of a world devoid of meaning in the face of dogmatism fostered by political and religious institutions. Hamlet and Ophelia each grapple with the problem, and the chief opponents to them are the conservative King and Queen that insist of judging behavior based on institutional, dogmatic standards.

My Thoughts be Bloody

Until the conclusion of act 4 scene 4, "Hamlet" can be viewed as the struggle of the protagonist to decide whether or not to act. In one of my previous posts, I mentioned how I believed that Hamlet had not yet justified to himself why he should act. Now, at the end of act 4 scene 4, I believe that he has finally reached a conclusion regarding this decision, and the reason is revealed in his closing monologue. The monologue opens with Hamlet acknowledging an obvious contradiction in the humanist view of mankind. Man is held as a creature of create virtue and reason, and yet "his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed." Both the possibility of man as a beast and man as a rational animal work against his taking of action, the former because of its mindlessness and the later because of its cowardice. However, in light of the fact that man acts essentially as a beast discredits the idea that he is the subject of some sort of divine destiny, a notion that gives rise to existential thinking, and perhaps, when coupled with his observation of Fortinbras's army, makes Hamlet realize that he should act. Hamlet captures perfectly the futility and vanity of Fortinbras's enterprise when he says "the imminent death of twenty thousand men that for fantasy and trick of fame go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot whereon the numbers cannot try the cause." However meaningless the plot of land for which he fights may be, Hamlet does not speak of Fortinbras with complete disdain, but rather his reference to the army is used to highlight the vanity of man is general and to juxtapose his own cause. Of his desire to kill Claudius, Hamlet says "I have cause, and will, and strength, and means to do 't," which is much more than can be said of Fortinbras. Consequently, Hamlet realizes that because he does have cause, unlike many others who act without it, he should not take it for granted and go forward with his vengeance. At last, he has overcome the metaphysical barriers to his revenge, and finally is able to confront the King in the physical world.

Hamlet and Ophelia: Physicality and Lust

In observing Hamlet's interactions with Ophelia, there is an obvious sexual and very physical undertone. For example, as the Prince sits down next to her at the start of the play within the play, he comments that "that's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs". Additionally, he continues to make innuendo later during the play when he says "it would cost you a groaning to take off mine edge". I began to think of this overtly physical framework of their relationship in terms of how it relates to Hamlet's existential crisis, and in doing so made an important connection to Albert Camus's "The Stranger". In Camus's piece, the protagonist solely finds sexual interest in his girlfriend, expressing his boredom in conversation between the two, and occasionally day dreaming of physical contact. I believe that such thoughts have a similar meaning in "Hamlet" as they do in "The Stranger". The desire for physical sexuality is reflection on man's ephemeral existence. Given that Hamlet is an existential character who views the world existentially, his sexuality reflects his outlook on life. There is no real sincerity in the way of sentimentality in his conversations with Ophelia. He is, though, very blunt about his sexual drive, and even warns Ophelia in the "nunnery" speech that she should beware of men for all are "sinners" that can only harm through superficial interests. What this observation has done is serve as another piece of Hamlet's existential framework. I am slowly accumulating more aspects of the overall framework, and what consequences arise from it. My hope is that by the end of my reading, I will be able to coherently synthesize all aspects of his behavior and thought that make Hamlet "existential", and how he has decided to channel this philosophy.

To Be or Not To Be? An Existential Question

With his utterance of "to be or not to be," Hamlet voices the single most important question of human existence, the question that all of existentialism is built upon and the question that every human, regardless of race or religious affiliation, must ask themselves at least once. The question of existence, particularly its purpose, lies at the base of our lives, and is considered by some to be the motivation behind human institutions and petty strife. Hamlet's approach being is rather secular and open-minded, as he does not consider God as a motivation to prolong one's life. In fact, he believes the sole reason for man to "bear the whips and scorns of time" is to delay the death that man knows nothing of. Yet, it is obvious that this finitude deeply disturbs him, regardless of what is to come after the death, because of the implications death has for the actions of the living. He says that in light of death, "enterprises of great pitch and moment with this regard their currents turn awry and lose the name of action," implying that action becomes difficult to justify in the absence of meaning that is caused by death. Our hero is still left with the question of how he should act, and more importantly, why he should act. As I mentioned in my last blog post, Hamlet has already been confronted by these questions, and has since sought some physical meaning in the reaction of Claudius in order to justify his revenge. While I feel that physical meaning has answered for Hamlet the question of why he can act, the "to be or not to be" soliloquy relates that the Prince has still not answered why he should act. An answer to this question is the ultimate purpose of my reading of the play through this lens, but the inconclusive way in which Hamlet ends the soliloquy indicates that he has not found an answer to this question himself.