Philosophy: Hamlet, the Reformation, Hegel, and Marx

[Ani_Ibi]

Vaclav came up with this fascinating insight into Hamlet on another thread. I thought it would make a good thread on its own. So here it is.

Let’s start with this question: Marx might look for Marxian virtues in Hamlet and not find them. Are there other kinds of virtues in Hamlet? If so, what kind of virtues?

Vaclav:

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 Ani pointed to earlier, Elizabethan Britain represented a very difficult time for Catholics in the British Isles…

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… 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…

Ladies and gentlemen: your thoughts please. And since this is a philosophy thread please respect the spirit of the ‘founders’: reason, reference, and humour.

 

[Vaclav]

Apologies, I was away this weekend and did not have time to get back to this.

First, let me say that I am Catholic, so I’m not arguing that the interpretation of Hamlet as a Protestant text is necessarily correct, just that it is a point of view that has been expressed.

To take this view one has to make a few assumptions (which is required of any view, to be honest):

1. That Wittenberg was chosen by Shakespeare for specific intent.
2. That Hamlet’s Father, Uncle, and Mother all represent something or someone in relation to the Church.
3. That historical events surrounding the play simulate actual events surrounding the times under which the play was written.

Let’s start with #3 first.

The “bad quarto” (first quarto) of Hamlet was published and staged somewhere between 1600 and 1602. We know that Shakespeare borrowed material from other sources including a medieval history known as “Deeds of the Danes.” There was also a French tale, closely resembling the authentic story of Hamlet found in Histoires Tragiques.

Yet, Shakespeare went far beyond those and as many modern writers do, he took a historical account and added dramatic license to it.

Queen Elizabeth was nearing the very end of her reign when Hamlet was first introduced to English audiences. At the end of her reign Elizabeth warred with the Spanish and had Mary Stuart beheaded (she carried her rosary and prayer book to her execution). Elizabeth also had many troubles in Ireland, including one of England’s worst defeats there - The Battle of the Yellow Ford. Also note that it was Elizabeth who officially separated the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church and created a class of “recusant Catholics” (more about that later).

So the timing seems fine. Of course Hamlet could stand on its own with the masses because fratricide, regicide, power, sex, and philosophical soliloquy was a winner in its day, and still is!

So let’s go back to #1: That Wittenberg was chosen by Shakespeare for specific intent.

In the authentic legends of Amleth (on whom Hamlet is based) there is no mention of studying abroad or of Wittenberg itself. The University of Wittenberg (which is interestingly not in Wittenberg proper, but in Halle) was not created until 1502 and by the time of Shakespeare it was known as a center of the Reformation (it was only 15 years old when Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the Power of Indulgences to the church door in Wittenberg.

So, without a doubt, Shakespeare included Wittenberg for a reason.

Now #2: That Hamlet’s Father, Uncle, and Mother all represent something or someone in relation to the Church.

So, if Hamlet is the protaganist and does represent the Protestant reformer (let’s assume this point of view is correct) then what do the other’s represent?

It is interesting that Hamlet’s Father has been murdered and is now in Purgatory. Listen to what he says:

I am thy father’s spirit,
Doom’d for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confined to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away.

Clearly the ghost is claiming to be in Purgatory. Interesting, no?

Hamlet’s Uncle has murdered him in a cowardly way (he poisoned him while he slept, we know that Hamlet’s father was a warrior). Gertrude is an adulterer, but is a difficult character to judge outright. She is not altogether terrible, nor did she know of the murder. She is passionate and very prone to her passions. In some ways she is in stark contrast to Hamlet’s Father who was cold, a competent warrior, and a good king, but without any real passion (possibly why he is in Purgatory).

Note another issue here is with Shakespeare’s real life. Remember the recusant Catholics I mentioned before? From historical data we know that William’s father was a recusant Catholic. These were Catholics who refused to attend services at the Church of England. It is unknown what Shakespaere’s religious beliefs were and attempts to identify them through his writing and historical evidence have not proven effective.

So in this case I think the question is ultimately what is Denmark? Is it the Church that is rotten and hence Hamlet comes from Wittenberg to reform it? Is it England that is rotten and much of the duplicity revolves around the battle between Catholicism and Protestantism, which was a real issue at the time of the writing? Is it neither of these and a completely different interpretation is needed?

 

[need_to_know]

I’m really enjoying this thread; I would never have thought to look at Hamlet in this way!

-Joe

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I’m inclined to think – for reasons I haven’t the time to discuss at the moment – that the above “Protestant reading” is, at best, a stretch.

Shakespeare’s plays are rife with topical symbolism, but not one of them can be demonstrated to be a top-to-bottom allegory with an agenda.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I’m inclined to think – for reasons I haven’t the time to discuss at the moment – that the above “Protestant reading” is, at best, a stretch.

Shakespeare’s plays are rife with topical symbolism, but not one of them can be demonstrated to be a top-to-bottom allegory with an agenda.Peace,Dante

Perhaps it is best all round if you were to wait until you do have time to support your claims.

 

[Contarini]

Vaclav came up with this fascinating insight into Hamlet on another thread. I thought it would make a good thread on its own. So here it is.

Let’s start with this question: Marx might look for Marxian virtues in Hamlet and not find them. Are there other kinds of virtues in Hamlet? If so, what kind of virtues?

Ladies and gentlemen: your thoughts please. And since this is a philosophy thread please respect the spirit of the ‘founders’: reason, reference, and humour.

There was actually a doctoral dissertation that made this argument. I read (or at least skimmed) it once, but found it far-fetched. However, I believe I objected primarily to the way the author argued her case rather than to the basic idea, which is rather intriguing if you don’t push it too far.

Here are three points one could get out of this interpretation, all of which are both historically true (in my opinion) and just conceivably might have been intended by Shakespeare (though I think that’s far more dubious):

1. The old order was itself a corruption of an older and more righteous state of affairs, and badly needed reform;
2. The reform that came from Wittenberg, noble as its intentions were, led to widespread death and destruction, and
3. It paved the way for the rise of a new, authoritarian order based on force and indifferent to the real issues behind the older conflicts.

Edwin