I like the commentary in my Shakespeare edition (Kittredge, ed.) even though there isn't very much of it. The quality of this one point in the preface to Hamlet leads me to believe that the rest may be of unusually high quality as well. The commentator states that there is something important about the drama that modern readers often do not think about. As a result, they are more likely to mistakenly attribute Hamlet's famous indecision to a weakness of character not supported by the text.
Actually, Hamlet's quandary is chiefly based on the problem of discernment of spirits.
A spectre appears to Hamlet, ostensibly the ghost of his father, telling him that his father did not die of natural causes, so that it is incumbent upon him to avenge the death.
Hamlet believes that the apparition is indeed the ghost of his father and that it has told the truth. Yet it may be a demon in his father's shape, tempting him to kill an innocent man. This doubt as to the ambiguous apparition accords with ancient doctrine and was perfectly intelligible to any Elizabethan audience. Disregard of Hamlet's dilemma has led to misinterpretation of his character...
I always wondered about that (I think this almost has to occur to a Catholic who tries to analyze such a thing in the framework of Catholic teaching on such things), but the fact that nobody ever, ever brought this up in anything I read or was taught about Hamlet made me doubt myself, despite the fact that Hamlet, Horatio, and Bernardo repeatedly express their anxiety over this very point (this didn't jump out at me because it is such a natural and reasonable thing to do - I know that's somewhat illogical, but just because all the pieces were there in my mind didn't mean I put them together).
Unlike modern readers, who - paradoxically - seem to be more likely to trust any strange ghost who wanders by, Hamlet cannot act until he corroborates the ghost's testimony somehow. "Then, and not till then, will action be possible for a reasonable man. 'The play's the thing!'"
The commentary ends there, but it seems to me that even while the question of murder vs. death by natural causes is answered, the question of the ghost's authenticity is still unresolved. That is, is the ghost actually Hamlet's father making a visit from Purgatory as he says, or is it a deception from the devil? I don't think that just because the spectre told at least part of the truth about one thing prove's it's not diabolic; the devil often baits his traps with a little bit of truth so that people get excited and swallow the hook. To the point (for instance), why would the devil want the truth to come out and a murderer to be punished? Well, have you read the rest of the play? Something I don't know, though - in Shakespeare's lingo, can the word "revenge" ever mean the just punishment meted out by civil authority to a wrongdoer, or does it always mean personal vengeance? Fortunately I know a couple of Shakespeare scholars.
Comments