But I am not following you if you say that he was duplicitous. Are you saying that he was duplicitous, hiding behind his double-mindedness?
Not necessarily. Hamlet learned the ways of the court well, likely from his mother (we know from earlier in the play that he was not the cold-hearted warrior that his father was). He very astutely decieves Claudius, Polonius, Gertrude, and Ophelia into believing that he is mad (insane). This deception brings its own tragedy when Ophelia (who truly goes mad) commits suicide.
So Hamlet is certainly part of the web of duplicity. His intentions are more in line with his protaganist character, but he is as deeply involved as Claudius, Laertes, Gertrude, and the others.
Honestly, I’m not sure that there is a great realization that makes
Romeo & Juliet any less of a tragedy than
Hamlet. It is perhaps less complex and probably a battle between more juvenile emotions.
Yes, Marx should count himself lucky…LOL
Nice moves. Well done. Thank you.
Thank you. I’m not sure I did it full justice. I never really liked any Marxist critiques of Hamlet. They tend to take the view that Hamlet was very weak of character and that he lacked essential Marxist qualities. On the other hand, their view of the ruling elite of Denmark is probably a good literary critique.
Note that one could also make a very Protestant critique of
Hamlet (and this has been done). Notice from where Hamlet returns at the very beginning of the play - Wittenberg. There is probably no city more associated with Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany than Wittenberg. It was at the Schlosskirche that Luther nailed his
95 Theses. The tombs of Luther and Phillip Melanchthon are here as well.
Of course a 13th century Danish Prince would have yet to experience this, but a late 16th and early 17th century playwright would know these well - especially in England, where the tensions between Protestantism and Catholicism ran high for many reasons.
So some read the play as an oppressed reformer watching the continued moral decline of Catholic hegemony. As Abi pointed to earlier, Elizabethan Britain represented a very difficult time for Catholics in the British Isles.
Yes. Because it lacks insights into the non-material.
This is partly a product of Marx’s own
zeitgeist. He is often demonised today (and especially during the Cold War), but often by people who did not read his works or care to understand them.
What Marx sought to create was a scientific socialism to replace the utopian socialists that preceded him. He wanted to lay out a plan that involved the Hegelian system, but put to use in a practical way for the betterment of mankind.
Remember that most of the religion Marx knew was Judaism and especially Protestantism. The conditions he and Engels witnessed in industrial cities like Manchester (as one of Engels famous essays describes) were truly horrific. Not only was this considered acceptable, it was even defended by
some of the clergymen of those Protestant Churches (especially the Anglicans in Britain).
You’ve probably read some of Dickens work, where he describes life at this time. He knew something about this as his father was often in debtors prisons and he worked in horrible conditions as a child. The Poor Laws and the workhouses were deliberately degrading to the poor (as a means of “forcing them to work”) and went so far as to separate families and children. In fairness, some Church of England officials, who ran poor and workhouses, were very kind and attempted to obtain resources in extra-legal ways. Others relished their role and bought into the Calvinist idea that the poor should be punished.
When Marx discusses exploitation and alienation, they were very real concepts of his time. When he holds some disdain for religion (though in some essays he actually has quite high praise for it) it is with some justification. I wish that he had found Catholicism, but at the same time I don’t believe he was the horrible evil that many made him and his philosophies out to be.
But that’s another thread.
Thank you for the synopsis of Hegel.
