Read all five pages/topics. Then, type three separate responses to some or all of the questions
posed in three of the topics (150 wds. each).
1. Hamlet and the anatomy of reason
In the Renaissance Anatomy of the Soul, there are two levels of reason--discursive reason and
intuitive reason. Discursive reason (also called empirical reason) involves reasoning based on
observation--what we might call scientific reasoning and what the Renaissance called scientia.
Intuitive reasoning was considered the higher form of reason, and it involves an intuitive
apprehension of truth, or what we might call faith. This form of reason was associated with what
we might call wisdom and what the Renaissance called sapientia
The problem with intuitive reason is that man, in his fallen state, cannot always tell the
difference between true intuitive reason and imagination. Thus, fallen man must supplement his
intuitive reason by using his discursive reason.
Hamlet is aware of his responsibility to use discursive reason, and much of his delay comes from
the fact that he feels it necessary to guide his actions by discursive reason--"Sure He that made
us with such large discourse,/ Looking before and after, gave us not/ That capability and godlike
reason/ To fust in us unus'd" (IV.iv). He wants "grounds more relative than this" before taking
the ghost's word about Claudius's guilt. Despite what seems at first to be his intuitive trust in the
ghost--he swears to obey it without question--he recognizes that he must control his emotions,
which could be interfering with his rational evaluation of the situation. He knows that the ghost
could be "a devil ... [that] abuses me to damn me" (II.ii).
But Hamlet's attempts to find empirical evidence against Claudius are possibly flawed.
Nonetheless, Hamlet finds that he feels justified in his vengeful actions (starting with the killing
of Polonius)--"heaven hath pleased it so/ To punish me with this, and this with me,/ That I must
be their scourge and minister" (III.iv).
But the basic question remains: Is Hamlet correct in his intuition that he is serving as the
instrument of God? Or is he acting on emotion instead of faith? Hamlet himself knows that his
delay is predicated on his understanding that he might be wrong in his impulse to act--"Thus
conscience does makes cowards of us all,/ And thus the native hue of resolution/ Is sicklied o'er
with the pale cast of thought" (III.i).
Are Hamlet's actions justified? Shakespeare isn't going to answer this question for you--every
reader has to confront the elemental question of moral responsibility. As you consider the
question, look at more than just his actions against Claudius. Is his killing of Polonius justified?
When Hamlet decides not to kill Claudius when he's praying, is Hamlet trying to usurp God's
powers of judgment? What about his betrayal of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, whom Hamlet
plans to send to hell for the crime of being toadies? Is it possible that the Ghost can be telling the
truth about the murder, but still be misleading Hamlet into believing he should take revenge into
his own hands? Or has Hamlet finally put himself in God's hands and become heaven's "scourge
and minister"?
2. Who’s there?
The opening line of the play asks a question that we have to keep asking all the way through.
Both the audience and the characters in the play have to keep trying to come to conclusions
about characters that are ambiguous. For instance:
The Ghost of Old Hamlet -- is he to be trusted? Where is he from? Is it even really Old
Hamlet's ghost, or is it a demonic trick? Is he "a spirit of health, or goblin damned"?
Claudius -- is he a "remorseless villain"? Or is he an essentially moral man who feels horrible
guilt over having committed a terrible crime? Is he guilty of what the ghost accuses?
Ophelia -- does she truly love Hamlet? Was she betrayed by him, as she suggests at the
beginning of Act III? Is she totally innocent? Is she to be damned as a suicide?
Laertes -- is he a noble and loyal son and brother who is defending the honor of his family, or an
over-emotional dupe of Claudius who is manipulated into committing murder?
Gertrude -- how much did she know about what Claudius was up to? Was she a co-conspirator?
Did she sleep with Claudius while her husband was still alive? Or was she innocent of all except
her "o'er hasty marriage"?
Polonius -- is he a loquacious self-important fool, as he appears in scenes such as I.iii and II.ii?
Or is he a scheming Machiavellian plotter, as he appears to be in II.i?
Fortinbras -- is he a loose cannon, or an admirable and daring warrior?
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern -- Are they heartless betrayers, or basically good-natured
schmucks who are in over their heads?
Hamlet -- is he a sane man pretending to be mad, or a madman who thinks he is sane? Is he a
coward who is afraid to act, or does he have courage of his convictions to resist a knee-jerk
reaction?
3. By indirections find directions out
The characters in Hamlet seem to assume that people are deceiving them, and that what appears
to be true cannot be trusted. Over and over again, you see characters who feel they must trick
the truth out of someone who is likely to be concealing something.
Hamlet: Why does he adopt the disguise of madness (or is it a disguise)? What does he intend
to accomplish with the play within the play? Why doesn't he take a more direct approach? Does
he do anything that muddles his attempt to discover the truth through indirection?
Polonius: This master of indirection is the one who gives us the explicit description of how this
process works. In Act II scene i we see him set up an elaborate scheme to spy on his own son,
who has gone away to college. He tells Reynaldo to go around spreading rumors about Laertes,
with the hope that someone will confirm those rumors and let slip the "truth" about Laertes.
Polonius tells his spy to catch the truth as though it is a wary fish that will not otherwise take the
hook:
See you now
Your bait of falsehood take this carp of truth,
And thus do we of wisdom and of reach,
With windlasses and with assays of bias,
By indirections find directions out....
Polonius pursues this same tactic in his investigation of Hamlet's madness, setting up Ophelia as
his spy and trying in various ways to pry the truth out of Hamlet. And perhaps because he is so
devious, he suspects everyone else of lying, too. When Ophelia protests that Hamlet has made
honorable protestations of love, Polonius calls Hamlet's words "springes to catch woodcocks"
[traps that catch gullible birds].
Claudius: He well practiced in deceit, so he has learned to distrust others as well. His main
instruments for spying are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, whom he convinces to spy on their
childhood friend, Hamlet. Look for the various ways in which Claudius uses this unlucky pair,
and try to figure out how much they actually know about what it is they are doing (and how
much choice they have about doing it)
When Hamlet is questioned by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern after the play within a play, he tells
them that they are foolish to think they can trick the truth out of him. He shows them a little
recorder (a flute-like instrument) and asks them to try to play it. When they can't, he mocks
them: "Do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe?" (III.ii) This raises a question that
Hamlet should ask himself, and all these characters using indirection should consider. Are their
indirections finding what they hope to find? Can a human being be manipulated and tricked into
revealing the truth? Can anyone be played upon like a pipe?
4. The double bind
Several characters are caught in situations in which they are confronted with an impossible
choice. In these double bind situations, the individual must choose between two equally valid
duties. By choosing one duty, the individual must reject the other. Thus, no matter which choice
the characters make, they will be doing something that they consider to be wrong.
Ophelia: Ophelia is caught between her duty to her father, and her love and loyalty to Hamlet.
According to Renaissance guidebooks for women, unmarried women had an absolute duty to
obey their parents, since the parent (especially the father) spoke as God's voice in the household.
Thus, disobeying her father would be a fault against God. Yet Ophelia also has a certain
responsibility to a higher truth, and those same guidebooks that tell women to obey the authority
of their parents and husbands also tell women that when authority tells them to do something that
is against God, they must obey God first. So Ophelia must confront this problem: does she
stand up to her father, and defend what she believes is true (her love and trust in Hamlet, as she
describes it in I.ii)? Or does she do as she's told, submitting herself to her father? If she chooses
the first, she betrays her duty to authority and is therefore wrong. If she chooses the second, she
betrays her duty to truth, and is therefore wrong.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: Like Ophelia, R&G are caught between duty to Hamlet and
duty to authority. The authority that commands them to spy is their king--and kings, like fathers,
have a God-sanctioned authority in Renaissance society. But they are being asked to betray the
confidence of their childhood friend, and to use their friendship against him. Like Ophelia, they
will be wrong no matter what they do. If they obey Claudius, they are betraying their friend and
the truth, and that is wrong. If they choose to resist the order, they are betraying their sovereign,
and that, too, is wrong.
Hamlet: Hamlet's double bind, like those listed above, also is the result of a tension between
what authority has commanded and what he thinks is his moral duty. In his case, the authority is
the ghost, who has commanded that he take revenge on Claudius. But we and Hamlet both know
that revenge is a questionable undertaking--"Revenge is mine, saith the Lord"--and that Hamlet
will be coupling the act of revenge with the act of regicide, thus committing two damnable acts.
Hamlet looks to find a way to resolve the double bind. He tries to find objective proof of
Claudius's guilt, so that he would be acting as an instrument of justice rather than acting
vengefully on the authority of the ghost. He convinces himself that he has succeeded in proving
Claudius's guilt, and he calls himself God's scourge and minister. Yet we have to ask ourselves:
Is he really acting on behalf of God, or is he following his own desires and attributing those
desires to God? Has he decided to take God's power of judgment into his own hands (planning
to deny the possibility of repentance to Claudius and to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as though
he doesn't trust God to take care of this properly)?
In the end, has Hamlet successfully resolved his double bind, or has he still ended up doing
something wrong in the process of making his choices?
5. The readiness is all
One of the key issues in the play is Hamlet's lack of action. He is puzzled by his competing
duties (see The Double Bind), and though he has reason to hesitate before killing Claudius, he
feels guilt for his delay.
In I.v., after hearing the ghost say, "revenge [my] foul and most unnatural murder," Hamlet says
that the ghost's "commandment all alone shall live/ Within the book and volume of my brain."
Yet even before the scene ends, Hamlet has set up a plan that will require some delay. He will
"put an antic disposition on," meaning that he is already planning to act mad in order to find a
way to test the truth of the ghost (see "By indirections find directions out")
In II.ii, we hear about both his guilt at his delay and his understanding of why it is necessary. He
calls himself "A dull and muddy-mettled rascal" who "can say nothing," Emotionally, he is
filled with self-loathing. But rationally, he knows that he must take his time: "The spirit that I
have seen/ May be a devil," he says, and as a result he wants rational proof--"grounds/More
relative than this"--before he will act. Yet in his very next speech, Hamlet seems to worry that
he's being over-scrupulous, and that "conscience doth make cowards of us all."
By IV.iv, after passing up the perfect opportunity to take his revenge while Claudius was
praying, Hamlet is feeling disgust for his delay: "I do not know/ Why yet I live to say this thing's
to do,/ Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means/ To do't." His conclusion: "From this
time forth/ My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth." The problem is that he's heading
directly away from the place where his bloody actions would need to occur.
By Act V, we see that Hamlet has somehow found a new perspective. Instead of driving himself
to act on his own bloody thoughts, he has decided to leave things in the hands of God: "There's a
divinity that shapes our ends,/ Rough-hew them how we will." Instead of planning his action, he
is going to let fate or God take control: "There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow. 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--the
readiness is all."
Hamlet seems to have justified his failure to act by saying that he will place everything in God's
hands. But we must ask ourselves: Has Hamlet finally resolved his dilemma? Or is he forgetting
his responsibility to guide his own actions and trying to shift the decision from off his own
shoulders?
We have a parallel situation that raises the same questions: Did Ophelia commit suicide? She
didn't seek to drown herself, but when she fell into the brook she took no action, allowing the
weight of her wet clothes to drag her under. Is she responsible for her own death, since she
evaded her responsibility to take action?
Is Hamlet evading responsibility when he says "the readiness is all"?