Hamlet and Son
The Shakespeare Geek has asked yet another interesting question that got me thinking quite a bit. “What do you think Hamlet’s relationship was with his father?” and later says, “… I think much of Hamlet’s hesitation comes out of a fear to acknowledge his true feelings about his dad.” The following is mostly in response to the aforementioned post.
Whether or not Hamlet Sr. was a loving and affectionate father, it’s hard to say. Perhaps he was lacking some tenderness toward his son, but I have no doubt that Hamlet had the utmost respect for his father as a person and as a king.
Look at how Hamlet compares his father to Claudius:
So excellent a king, that was to this Hyperion to a satyr
That’s a huge comparison there. His dad is a sun-god and his uncle is a sex-mongering goat man. Hamlet’s comparison here illustrates that he has the most respect for his father and none at all for his uncle.
so loving to my mother That he might not beteem the winds of heaven Visit her face too roughly.
If King Hamlet wasn’t a tender father, he certainly was a very loving husband — at least in Hamlet’s eyes. These words describe the marriage as very caring, very gentle. Back to Hamlet’s relationship with his dad…
If [the ghost] assume my noble father’s person,
Noble isn’t just there because he was a king, or an extra word to fill the pentameter line. If Hamlet calls his dad noble, he thinks that of him in this case. I don’t think there is any irony here. I think you’re starting to get my point. Skipping ahead to the “closet scene,” look at how Hamlet describes his father in the picture he shows to Gertrude.
See what a grace was seated on this brow:
Hyperion’s curls, the front of Jove himself,
An eye like Mars, to threaten and command,
A station like the herald Mercury
New lighted on a heaven-kissing hill,
A combination and a form indeed,
Where every god did seem to set his seal
To give the world assurance of a man.
This was your husband.
And her current husband is nothing but “A slave that is not twentith part the tithe Of your precedent lord.” I’m quite convinced that Hamlet didn’t have a bad relationship with his father. Maybe he feared him some, but not because his was horribly distant or cruel, but because he was a powerful, stern, yet respectable man and king.
As for Hamlet’s hesitation because he’s working out his feelings for his father, I don’t agree. As you can see from what I’ve already said Hamlet is quite clear on how he feels about dear dad.
Hamlet – in his mind – isn’t so much hesitating as being careful. He needs to some time to show the court that he is mad so that he will not be thought of as a threat to the king. He then uses the players to be absolutely sure of Claudius’ guilt. Hamlet wants to be king after (“He that hath [...] Popp’d in between th’ election and my hopes”) and he can’t afford to be wrong about anything. So when Hamlet find Claudius praying, it is really the first time they have been alone together. No is his chance to kill him. But Hamlet doesn’t just want to kill him… he wants to send his uncle’s black soul to hell. The man must be punished, not just released from his Earthly body.
But then Hamlet mistakenly kills Polonius. After this he is sent off to England so his revenge is delayed again (“How all occasions do inform against me.”) But he realizes now that the only way to be revenged is to stop being so careful, and just DO IT.
O, from this time forth, My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!
Hamlet gets back, gets in a fight with Laertes over Ophelia’s grave, and is challenged to a fencing match for “sport.” At this point it’s rather unclear what Hamlet’s plans are toward his uncle, but he’s only been back for a day it would seem. Ever respectful Hamlet’s plans are delayed until after the match. He’s not about to say no to the wishes of the king and his mother I suppose. Maybe he was planning on killing Claudius that night.
But Hamlet ends up mortally wounded, and his mother is poisoned. Laertes tells him “Thy mother’s pois’ned. I can no more—the King, the King’s to blame.” So Hamlet kills Claudius for killing his mother.
Hamlet isn’t procrastinating, and he’s not unsure of whether he should revenge based on his feeling for his father. He is instead trying to carefully plan (“thinking too precisely on th’ event”) so that he can be king after the treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain is sent to hell.
Posted on August 14, 2008
Michael J. Main Aug 14, 2008
Gedaly,
I totally respect what you raise here in response to the question, but I struggle to discount Hamlet’s delay to simple caution. I look at his vehement speeches in Act 1, scene v; Act 2, scene 2; and Act 4, scene 4 (along with comments throughout Act 3). In all of those spots, Hamlet sets his will to kill Claudius (as well as yelling at himself for not doing it yet in Act 2 and Act 4). Yet, every time that we see him after those speeches, he not only does not act, but also he finds new distractions and new places for his “anger.” I guess for me, I think he knows he should love his dad, but why forgo so many opportunities. The toughest one for me is Act 4, scene 4. “My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!” Why give the protagonist that line and then not have him act on it for an entire Act, unless you want the viewer/reader to question Hamlet’s motivation. Thanks for getting me to think about this more, and an even bigger thank you for promoting the Bard in blog form! You do the world a great gift.
A.K.Farrar Aug 14, 2008
I’m back to Wittenberg – what was Hamlet doing there?
Gedaly Aug 14, 2008
Michael, thank you very much for the kind words. And my argument about Hamlet’s delay does have it’s share of holes that I need to work out. But I’m still sure that it’s not merely procrastination or not being able to make up his mind. Perhaps much of his caution is trying to find a way retain his own reputation? He has to perhaps figure out a way to set Claudius up, prove his guilt so that he will be damned and Hamlet made king. I must think more on’t.
I’m pretty sure, Alan, that Hamlet was at Wittenberg studying. That’s about the extent of my knowledge on the subject.
Unfortunately Hamlet himself has trouble understanding why he hasn’t acted yet: “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.” I intend to understand this play better.
A.K.Farrar Aug 15, 2008
Two clues – Martin Luther and Dr Faustus
Duane Aug 15, 2008
I wonder, Gedaly, how much of Hamlet’s building up of his dad is too little too late. What you say about a man after he’s gone is not always what you truly thought of him when he was alive. Hamlet is already pretty manic by the time we see him, so it’s no surprise to me that he takes all the negatives he sees in his uncle and attributes the reverse to his now gone father.
What if the ghost’s visitation in the closet scene is a complete hallucination? Hamlet’s guilt getting the better of him? He even speaks to it first, saying the Shakespearean equivalent of “I’m sorry I didn’t do what I said I would, Dad!” How much he’s changed from Act I where the ghost’s command would supposedly fill the book and volume of his brain.
Perhaps it’s not so much that his relationship to his father was one of fear, but maybe it just wasn’t strong enough to motivate him? Sure, strong enough for him to talk a good game, but when you come right down to it, marching up and killing the present king is a pretty big deal. I don’t fault Hamlet for being careful, and for having some sort of plan to prove the king’s guilt. The problem is that even by his own rules (he certainly caught the conscience of the king), he still does nothing, and there’s no explanation of that.
But yet Laertes says “It was the king”, and *bam*, Hamlet is on him. What changed? The poisoning of his mother, or the realization that he, too, is going to die? I think that even in the best case, when Hamlet finally kills Claudius, his own father is pretty far from his thoughts. “Follow my mother,” after all. Not “my father”. That doesn’t mean he hated his dad, just that he had a better relationship with his mom.
Duane Aug 15, 2008
Aw, man, I *should* have said:
“Perhaps it’s a case of the good that King Hamlet did living after him, and the evil being interred with his bones?”
By the way, “Hamlet and Son” reminds me of this: http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2008/01/othello-and-son.html
which is not at all the same thing
A.K.Farrar Aug 15, 2008
What was Hamlet studying? What did anyone study at the time – basically one of two things, the law or Theology.
If Hamlet is studying Theology in Wittenberg, the place Luther hammered home his Protestant reformation, there is a very good reason for his not ‘acting’ – The Sermon on the Mount – forgive your enemies, turn the other cheek – take no revenge.
In addition, Protestantism denies the existence of purgatory: therefore, the ghost is not the ghost of Hamlet’s father … the ‘there’s more in Heaven and Earth …’ comment to Horatio suggests Horatio is firmly Protestant and Hamlet doubts.
Add to the religious element the setting of Dr Faustus in the same town and realise the temptation of Faustus by a devil mirrors the ghost of Hamlet’s father in some respects and you really do start to understand why Hamlet doesn’t act … (could it have been played by the same actor originally? – and that would be Shakespeare!)
The question is not of Hamlet’s relationship to his father, but of the relationship to the ghost.
Gedaly Aug 16, 2008
Duane, I think you’re on to something there with the evil being interred with his bones. Hamlet’s description of his father is most likely no wholly objective, but I still don’t think that he’s trying to resolve his feelings about his dad throughout the play. I’m quite sure there’s something else there… I’ll need some time with this one.
Alan, I hope there was more to study than just those two, although those were common. Hamlet’s a pretty smart guy, maybe he was studying law. Maybe a subject for another explorative post.
And I don’t think that Horatio’s religious beliefs (protestant or otherwise) are really relevant at this point. Horatio is a student of sciences, very objective in his observations. A realist. He, after all, doesn’t believe in ghosts to begin with, until he sees it. “I might not this believe Without the sensible and true avouch Of mine own eyes.”
But your reference to Hamlet’s quote to Horatio being about his religious beliefs I’d have to respectfully disagree with. Horatio, while running to new ground to swear on Hamlet’s sword says, ” O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!” To which Hamlet replies, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Philosophy is the subject title of what we know commonly refer to as science. Hamlet is telling Horatio that not everything out there is explainable in a scientific manner.
And I don’t think Hamlet is really taking the forgive your enemies, take no revenge thing to heart. I think he intends to do it, but there are obstacles in the way… not that whether he should or not, but perhaps how he should go about doing it. Otherwise we don’t really have a revenge tragedy, do we?
A.K.Farrar Aug 16, 2008
You’re missing my point -why Wittenberg?
Wittenberg to an English audience meant Protestantism (Martin Luther) and Faustus – not law.
You went to a university to study either Theology or Law, both were needed for the average English gentleman. Medicine is a possibility but not at Wittenberg.
Hamlet going to Wittenberg suggests a ‘religious bent’ – and gives an indication of why he was ‘passed over’ as King. It also suggests a Henry VI link. He is also, to give it a more positive slant, possibly heading for ‘Philosopher King’ status.
Philosophy certainly was not what we refer to as science – which didn’t come in to being until after the Elizabethan period. ‘Natural’ Philosophy is but one aspect of philosophy.
Look at Marlowe’s Faustus and how his ‘experiments’ lead to summoning a devil. This was done at Wittenberg.
Remember there is every probability that the first actors of Hamlet acted Faustus and it is probable Hamlet and Faustus were played by the same actor.
The philosophy Hamlet is talking about is religious belief of the physical world – it suggests Horatio has taken on the new ideas of Protestantism (and hence is immune to the ghost’s temptation which cannot come from a purgatory which Protestantism rejects) and Hamlet is toying with the occult (like Faustus) or Catholic (and equally damned in the eyes of the Protestant).
Objective is not a complement in terms of Elizabethan belief – unless Bacon really did right the play. “All the World’s a stage” – illusion; truth is not to be ‘seen’ it is to be worked out through ‘philosophy’ and based on biblical text.
Is this a Revenge Tragedy? Or is the whole point that it exposes the great weakness of revenge tragedies – they actually send all the protagonists to hell because they act instead of leaving it to God?
There are references to the Sermon on the Mount in the text – several. The ‘heroic’ in Hamlet is his ability to doubt – that is what makes him admirable in a Christian World … acting on his impulse to revenge is Pagan.
Hamlet expresses doubt after meeting the ghost that it is really his father’s ghost … he gives us a what if.
Much of the ideas people are discussing as to the relationship between Hamlet and his father are coming not from that relationship, but from Hamlet’s reaction to the ‘ghost’ of his father and what that ghost says.
To understand that relationship it is important to ask what is Hamlet’s belief system.
Gedaly Aug 17, 2008
But we can’t really be sure that the Wittenberg reference is to directly link Hamlet to Faustus is it? Maybe just a reference for certain audience members to perk up their ears and think “Ooh, just like in that other play.”
I looked up Philosophy in a few different Shakespeare dictionaries/lexicons and they all define it as Natural Philosophy, Science with the play we speak of as the source. I have a feeling that Philosophy is not certainly or necessarily about religion in this instance. However I have no reason to believe that it’s not, either. It could be both. To me, the line’s meaning is more concrete and easily understood to be taken to mean Natural Philosophy.
I do think it is still a revenge tragedy. I’d much rather see a play where I’m rooting for the protagonist, rather than knowing he’ll be sent to hell. I like to think of theatre as entertainment, and avoiding acting on impulse because of religious reasons while exposing the faults of revenge tragedy as a genre isn’t as entertaining as the play I’m familiar with.
And now, without dismissing your theory ( because I am interested in trying to view the play from this point of view), how does the relationship between Hamlet and his father’s ghost affect his inability to act quickly?
Ian Thal Aug 19, 2008
A.K. is ever on target.
“Philosophy” (or “natural philosophy”) did not, in that era, mean “the natural sciences” as we know them now, but rather those areas of knowledge that could be known by means of reason and the senses– this was distinguished from theology, which used the tools of philosophy (i.e. reason) to rationally interpret that that was taken as a matter of faith (scripture, the Creed of Nicea, et cetera.) Law, on the other hand, was understood to be made by men for purposes of expediency, whether divinely inspired, or rationally constructed.
Now, if I understand what Alan is getting at, Hamlet is wrestling a.) whether or not he’s buying into Protestant or Catholic theology (he possibly has doubts about both); b.) whether or not he is engaged in God’s work or the Devil’s work when he sets out to avenge his father.
I’m not particularly conversant on Lutheran theology, but if Hamlet is uncertain about whether the ghost is his father or a devil, isn’t this close to the conundrum that vexed another Dane, Søren Kierkegaard some centuries later in Fear and Trembling?
Thom Sep 3, 2008
Regarding Hamlet at university, and the significance of both Luther & Faustus in relation to Hamlet’s father issues, let me direct your attention to this new play on the subject I saw in March:
http://www.ardentheatre.org/2008/wittenberg.html
Laura Lee Sep 20, 2008
Hamlet’s praise for his father is so grand in the closet scene with Gertrude, that it seems like admiration at a distance, the love of a son who stands in the shadow of a great man, and who as his son has access that other’s might want, but not the closeness someone who is the son of a lesser man might enjoy.
He has had to share his father with the nation of Denmark, and part of his suffering may well be a lack of acknowledgement of his special grief at the loss of his father.
They probably had a great state funeral and the nation mourned, but his grief as the son hasn’t been acknowledged to the extent he needs. And his mother’s marriage moves the country, and his family, from mourning to celebration.
This would also explain his overreaction to Laertes at Ophelia’s funeral. Once again he is not being acknowledged as someone with individual grief.
Abraham Camhy Nov 10, 2008
The question of what is Hamlet’s relationship to his father is a great one and obviously subject to a number of different interpretations. Hamlet was of two minds when it came to his father. On the one hand he thought of his father as a god like figure against which Hamlet was very small in comparison and at the same time he thought of his father as an ordinary man.
You are correct to note that the lines comparing Hamlet senior to Hamlet’s uncle reveal one part of ***Hamlet’s*** mind as to his own father. He makes the comparison, “My father’s brother, but no more like my father than I to Hercules”. In this analogy – in Act One – Hamlet is saying that his uncle is as inferior to his father, as Hamlet is when compared to Hercules. Both Hamlet and his ***uncle*** are mere men in this analogy and Hamlet’s father is likened to the god. The analogy shows that Hamlet feels very small in comparison to his father; as small as he would if compared to Hercules.
At the same time we have the following dialogue between Hamlet and Horatio:
HORATIO
I saw him once; he was a goodly king.
HAMLET
He was a man, take him for all in all,
I shall not look upon his like again.
So, which is it to Hamlet: Father, god or ordinary man?
Abraham Camhy, Attorney