Taylor 1971

George Washington University
The Shakespeare Association of America, Inc.
The Conflict in Hamlet

Author(s): Michael Taylor
Source: Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Spring, 1971), pp. 147-161
Published by: Folger Shakespeare Library in association with George Washington University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2868804
Accessed: 03-11-2015 09:38 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
George Washington University, The Shakespeare Association of America, Inc., Johns Hopkins University Press
and Folger Shakespeare Library are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Shakespeare Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:38:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in Hamlet
The Conflict
MICHAEL TAYLOR
N our over-riding concern,as literarycritics,withthe drama

and the poetryof the earlypartof the seventeenth century,
we oftenlose sightof thefactthatneitherthedramanor the
poetrywas the staple readingdiet of the average "middle-
class" Elizabethan.A glance at Louis B. Wright'sMiddle-
Class Culturein ElizabethanEngland is revealing.We see
that what, in particular,concernedsuch an individualwere tractsdevotedin
some way or otherto self-improvement. Such a concerninvolvedthepromulga-
tion and dispensingof a hostof essaysdealingwiththenumerousethicalprob-
lems social mobilityproduces.Above all, religiouswritingsdealt not so much
with theologicalcruxesas with problemsof everydaymorality.In an article
devotedto religiouswritings,Wrightnotes:
dramatic
in Shakespeare's
. . .we are moreinterested developmentthanin
the careerand influence theReverendWilliamPer-
of his contemporary,
kins: but foreveryElizabethanwho saw or read one of Shakespeare's
plays,a hundredboughtand read Perkins'sermons.
He adds:
One factthatcannotbe emphasizedtoooftenis thatthemostpopularser-
monsweretheleastcontroversial; hencemanypuritanpreachers-and Per-
kins is a good example-whostuckto exhortations to godlinessand dis-
courseson practicalethicswerereadby all sects.The readingpublicwas
thanin ethics.1
in theology
lessinterested
It is the phrase"practicalethics"which is interesting.In a world where the
and new kindsof social actionseemedto be increas-
possibilitiesfordifferent
ing daily,therewas an awarenessthattraditionalmoralitywas not adequate
to meet the new demands.At the same time,some problems,becauseof their
verynature,remainedunchanged(man's relationship with God, the meaning
of death, etc.). Theologians,whatevertheirdenomination,were at pains to
emphasizethatmen may,in theirpride,confusetheirrightto make decisions
in secularmatterswith a rightto debate questionsconcerningthe faith.As
Roland Frye pointsout,Luther,Calvin and Hooker were at one in emphasiz-
ing thisdistinction.2
A new morality, then,would have to take cognizanceof
traditionalproblemswhile beingsufficientlyflexibleto be able to deal withthe
growingrealizationof the almostunlimitedpowerof man qua man. The most
delicateaspectof such a synthesiswas thatof definition:how does one define,
and hencelimit,man's power,to avoid theaccusationof an enroachment upon
of ReligiousWritingsin the EnglishRenaissance",IHI, I

1 "The Significance (0940), 59-68;
p. 59 and 66.
2 Shakespeareand Christian I963), pp. I57-I64.
Doctine (Princeton,
148 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
God's province? Anynew ethichad to steerclearof thepossiblechargeof

blasphemy.
In themajority ofthereligious
writingsof thistimethereis,aboveall,the
demonstration of an acuteconcernforthisproblem, and a patentfailureto
deal withit in a lucidor definitive
manner.Thereis a blurring of focus,a
casuistry
whichobfuscates. The problemis mostclearlystatedbya writer not
primarilyconcerned withreligion,
Machiavelli.He notes:
I am notunaware thatmanyhaveheldandholdtheopinion thatevents
arecontrolledbyfortune andbyGodin sucha waythattheprudence of
menhasno influence whatsoever.
Becauseofthis,theycouldconcludethat
thereis no pointin sweating
overthings,butthatoneshouldsubmit to
therulingsofchance.... Nonetheless,
becausefreechoicecannotberuled
out,I believe
thatitis probably
truethatfortune ofhalfthe
is thearbiter
thingswe do,leaving theother
halforso tobe controlled
byourselves.3
The Elizabethanswere greatlyinterested in the powerinvestedin sucha
phraseas the"prudence of men".Theythought of itsenactment in termsof
"policy".For example,in "The WholeTreatiseof theCasesof Conscience",
one of Perkins'sub-sections is headed:"Whether a man may lawfully and
withgood conscience use Policiein theaffairsof thislife?"4 He goeson to
assertthattheuse of "policy"is essential
in theaffairsofthisworld,particu-
larlyin orderto defeatone'senemiesor to determine truth. He even(in the
besttraditionof theendsjustifying means)countenances theemployment of
"deceit".He saysthatthereis "a kindeof deceitcalleddolusbonus,thatis,
a gooddeceit,and ofthiskindewastheactofJosua."5MosseadducesWilliam
Ames'ssupport fortheprinciple ofdolusbonus:"actsthatdo Sonarein malum,
havean evillsound. . . butbysomecircumstances comming to themtheyare
sometimes madegood.. . ."' For bothAmesand Perkinsthetestofthebonus
in thedeceitis theintention Amesnotes:"a goodintention
ofitsauthor. with
otherconditions dothmakeverymuchto theconstitution of a good action"
(p. 209). We maysaythatPerkins andAmesareattempting to cometo terms
withthereality oftheirtimes,butwe can seeimmediately, I think,howtheir
positionis fraught withall kindsof difficulties,
nottheleastbeingtheques-
tion:who determines and how is it determined thattheintention is good?
Perkinsemphasises fourcaveatsto hisacceptance of theuse of deceit:
Nothing whatevermustbe doneagainst
thehonorofGod;nothing must
be doneto prejudicethetruth,
especially
thetruth oftheGospel;nothing
mustbe wrought or contrived thejusticethatis duetomen;and
against
ofpolicy
all actions
lastly, mustbe suchas pertainto ourcalling.7
3"XXV. How far human affairsare governedby fortune,and how far fortunecan be op-
posed", The Prince,translatedby GeorgeBull (Harmondsworth, Middlesex,i96i).
4 The Works of M. WilliamPerkins(London, i63 ), II, i i6. Quoted in GeorgeL. Mosse's
article"The Assimilationof Machiavelliin EnglishThought: The Casuistryof WilliamPerkins
and WilliamAmes",HLQ, XVII 0953-54), 3I5-326.
5 Ibid., "A Commentary or Expositionupon . . . Galatians",Works,II, i83.
6 Ibid.,"The Marrowof SacredDivinity"(London, [i638?]), p. 2IO.
7 Ibid., p. 3I7. Cf. MartinLuther's"Means are not to be neglected,but we are to employ
thosemeans which it is possibleforus to use". Exp. Gen. xxxii; 6-8, in WhatLutherSays: An
Anthology, 3 vols., ed. Ewald M. Plass (St. Louis, I959), II, 2437, and also cf. JohnEliot,Dis-
coursesof Warreand Single Combat,by B. de Loque (0590), p. 52: "That vengenceappertaineth
THE CONFLICT IN HAMLET 149
The firstand secondcaveats(thesecondin particular) are,evennow,open

to extremes of application. Who is to decide(and how) thatthepolicyis
"againstthehonorof God"? Is the"truthof theGospel"so self-evident that
we knowimmediately whena particular policyis contravening it? In a sense,
theimpossibility ofan easyanswerto thesefundamental questionsat thattime
is indicatedbytheoutbreak ofcivilwarin i642.
The earlypartoftheseventeenth century wasa periodofaccelerated change
causingconfusion in ethicaland religious thought. Suchconfusion is mirrored
in theconflict in Hamlet,which,in turn,is reflected in thecriticism of the
play.For thequantity of commentary on Hamletis a symptom (if nothing
else) of a particularkindof baffled concernfortheplay'smeaning.It might
be arguedthattheconfusion createdbytheperversity ofthisvastbodyofcon-
tradictory theoryrevealsthe mode of ambiguity intendedby Shakespeare.
Thereis somejustification, withregard, say,to Antonyand Cleopatra, forus
to be,to paraphrase Keats,negatively capable,and notto reachirritably after
factand reason.But withAntonyand Cleopatra, theambiguity is nota mis-
leadingone.We are reminded continually of thecontradictoriness of there-
sponseof theprotagonists to theirdilemma, notsimply bywhattheysayand
do aboutit,butby theplay'sdialectic. If at theclosewe are leftundecided
as to thereality, say,of Antony's and Cleopatra's love,suchindecision is an
integralpartof thedirection of thetotalmeaningof theplay.Stressing the
difficultyof a simplejudgment of Antonyand Cleopatraseemsto me to be
oneof Shakespeare's purposes. EvenwithAntony and Cleopatra, however, one
is unsureoftheextent towhichdeliberate ambivalence is intended.Cleopatra's
dialoguewithDolabellain thelastact,forexample, seemsto hintat a positive
resolution of theplay'sessential ambiguity. Her definition of the"reality" of
herconception of Antonyis couchedin a versewhosedensity revealsShake-
spearewriting on a levelsignificantlydifferentin qualityfromthatofthegen-
erallyexclamatory natureof theexchanges betweentheprotagonists. When
shesays
... Nature
wantsstuff
To viestrange
forms
withfancy;yet,
t'imagine
AnAntony werenature's
piece'gainst
fancy,
Condemning shadows
quite.
(V. ii. 97_I00)8
the versehas thatfamiliarseriouscomplexity of totalinvolvement,and the
themeis one whichhas obsessedShakespeare fromthewriting of Venusand
Adonisto The Winter's Tale. It is almostas thoughat thisfinalpointShake-
spearewishesus to erasetheplay'scentral paradoxfromour minds,hinting,
it seems,at somekindof Platonicessencesuperior to therough-and-tumbleof
thepoliticalconflict
and thesuperficiallytreacherous natureof thelove-affair.
unto God only. . . . Thereforeit followeth, thatwhosoeuerdo the reuengehimselfe,committeth

sacrilege.. . . That seeingthe wrongthatour neighbourdoth,happenethnot withoutthe pru-
dence of god, it is not lawful for vs to resistand withstandit by oblique and sinistermeanes,
and suchas displeaseGod."
8 All quotationsfromShakespeareare fromthe New CambridgeEditioneditedby W. A. Neil-
son and C. J.Hill.
Althoughthisis provocative to shifttheemphasis

enough,it is notsufficient
fromthe undecidedto the decisive.Such a hint becomesa fragmentin the
kaleidoscopicstructureof theplay addingan essentialqualificationto any sim-
plifieddescriptionof Antony'snature.It is, of course,primarilyintendedto
balance Antony'sown condemnationof himself,where he sees himselfin a
conditionof incessantand meaninglesstransmutation like the 'vapour' which
is sometimes
likea bearorlion,
A tower'dcitadel,a pendent rock,
A forkedmountain, or bluepromontory
Withtreesupon'tthatnoduntotheworld
And mockoureyeswithair.
(IV. xiv.3-7)
I would argue,then,that a hesitancyin judgmenton our part indicatinga

complexmoral world is one of the effects aimed at in Antonyand Cleopatra.
However,so variousis that world that the attempt(if thereis one) to give it
some kind of transcendental stabilityis almost completelyunconvincing. One
could not deny thata similar moral complexity is to be found in Hamlet. If
we merelyfollowedHamlet's self-questioning we should be made adequately
aware of the difficulty of straightforward judgments.But the restof the play
stressesinsistentlythe interrogativemood. Doubt, hesitancy, suspicionare com-
plementedinevitablyby erroneousconclusionsand mistakesin action.9Unlike
Antonyand Cleopatra,however,thereis not simplya hintof resolutionof the
dilemma:theresolutionis statedin emphaticterms.In otherwords,theresolu-
tion,becauseof theemphasisplacedupon it,is notcaughtup in the dominant
mood of doubt and confusionwhichseemsto be characteristic of Hamlet,but
is an attemptto breakthroughit to some kind of transcendental sanity.Cleo-
patra'sdescription of Antony,ifwe wereto take it as Shakespeare'sfinalword,
would, I believe,invalidatehis presentation in the previousfouracts. Such a
resolution,if it were apartfromthe generaltenorof the play,mightgive rise
to an ambiguitywhichcould be unsatisfactory, inconsequential.This is, in fact,
my thesiswith regardto Hamlet. We can see, I think,how such a thesismay
be relatedto theshiftingElizabethanattitudeto thenatureand extentof man's
power to determinethe patternof his life.The essentialconflictin Hamlet, I
believe,is that betweenman as victimof fate and as controllerof his own
destiny.
Criticshave noticed,of course,Hamlet'schangeof hearton his returnfrom
England in thefifthact.JeanCalhoun,for'example,notes:
Far moreperplexing, really,thanthedelayis the finaltransformationof
Act V. It is as if,by his almostmiraculous escapefromtheEnglishvoy-
age, Hamlethas workedthroughhis earlierdoubtsin a singleexperience
of successfulaction,yetthatverymiraculousness to himthe
has suggested
of humanplans.On his return,
fallibility he doesnotexudeconfidence in
sad-
his abilityto repeathis success.Instead,he seemsfullof theterrible
9 For a good analysisof the play along theselines,see HarryLevin's The Questionof "Ham-
lci" (CompassBooksEdition,New York,i96i).
nessof a man who sees humanimpotence, ratherthanhumanpower,in
thehaphazardworking outofhisownlife.'0
AlthoughMiss Calhoun sees the"transformation" as "perplexing"she does,in
fact,explainit in terms of the reactionof a bruised psyche.If thisexplanation
has the meritof simplicity it also suggests a too easy relianceon thatkind of
charactercriticism we associate with Bradley. More importantly, it mustsurely
seem odd thatShakespeareshould relyupon an reported
off-stage, actionas a
a
explanationforwhat seemsto be complete
satisfactory volte-face on the part
of his hero.Miss Calhoun indicatesthatshe regards Hamlet's change of heart
as momentous,but can findit easy to relegatethe cause of it to what, all
to
intentsand purposes,does not existin the bodyof the play at all.
Hamlet's change of heartis indeed momentous.The firstfouracts of the
play have stressed,with qualificationswhich I shall deal with later,the need
forthe play of human intellecton certainproblems.Almostall the characters,
Hamlet notablyincluded,are frenetically involvedin schemesof discovery. The
firstfouracts are a complexof plot and counter-plot: a bewilderingmaze of
spyingand counter-spying wherethe generalmethodis thatof a complicated,
and sometimesfiendish,intrigue.The methodis pertinently describedby Po-
loniusin his adviceto Reynaldo:
... See you now,
Yourbaitoffalsehoodtakesthiscarpoftruth,
Andthusdo we ofwisdom, andofreach,
Withwindlasses,andwithassaysofbias,
out.
finddirections
By indirections
(II i. 59-63)
The end ("the carp of truth")justifiesthe means ("the bait of falsehood").

We mightargue that Perkins'dolus bonus is here given its fundamentalex-
of himselfas one of thosewho are
pressionin the play. Polonius' description
we would
"of wisdom,and of reach" is, of course,finelyironic.Nevertheless,
say,withcertainreservations,thatsuch a descriptionappliesto theprotagonist.
Similarly,we can apply anotherstatementof Polonius' credo to him. How
much more appropriatewould the followingbe fromHamlet:
leadme,I willfind
If circumstances
Wheretruthis hid,thoughitwerehidindeed
WithintheCentre.
(II. ii. I57-9)
Much dependson what is meantby "truth".For Polonius,as forClaudius,it

consistsof discoveringthe reason for Hamlet's behavior.For Hamlet the
of his father'sdeath is only a partof the search
"truth"of the circumstances
10 "Hamlet and the Circumference of Action",RN, XV (I962), 281-298; pp. 296-297. Cf.
S. F. Johnson's"The Regenerationof Hamlet" in SQ, III (1952), 187-207, where he defends
in thefollowingterms:
Hamlet'sbeliefin providence
Briefly, Hamlet felt,beforehe leftDenmark,that all occasionsinformedagainsthim
(IV. iv.32, ommittedfromFolio); while at sea, on the contrary,all occasionsinformed
(P. i99)
in hisfavour.
creationof the critics:
is an unnecessary
Johnsonfeelsthatany uneasinessas to the regeneration
. The desperationascribedto Hamlet is the existentialistdespairof criticswho must at
all costsbelievein theirown freewill. Hamlet is theirscape-goat.(P. I94)
forsomekindof all-containing "truth"whichcouldexplainthehumanpre-

dicament. The question,"To be or notto be",withitsbrooding metaphysical-
ity,is notonethatcouldbe askedbyPolonius.
Thereseem,then,to be at leasttwokindsof "truth"-onelocaland con-
tingent, theotheressentialandabsolute-stated for-
forus in Polonius'abstract
mulation. The majorqualitativedifferencebetween thesetruthsmaybe a clue
to Hamlet'sabruptchangeofheartin thefifth act,froman absorbed, frantic
involvement in thepursuitofknowledge, in theinevita-
to a stoicresignation
bilityof event.That is, Hamletmaybe expressing theonlypossiblestanceto
be takenwhenhe realizesthat,in pursuing thecircumstances of his father's
murder, he is movingtowardssomekindof fundamental questioning of in-
evitableLaw, thedangerof whichCalvin,Lutherand Hookerso constantly
stress.JamesFeiblemanhas noticedan ethicaldualityin Hamletwhich,he
says,is dramatized ofthehero.On theonehand,there
in theself-questionings
is the worldof absolute,immutable valuesof whichonlyHamletis really
aware,and on theother,thereis theworldas it actuallyis withall its"im-
perfection and conflict"withwhichHamlethas to contend. Feiblemangoes
on to say:
Let us supposethathe comprehends thathe feelstherela-
or,stillbetter,
tionshipbetweenthetwoordersin termsofwhat-isandwhat-ought-to-be.
therealmofactuality
The realmofbeingis therealmofwhat-ought-to-be;
is therealmof what-is.
or existence Now,assuredly,what-isis notalto-
getherwhat-ought-to-be.11
PerhapsHamlet'schangeofheartis meantto conveyan irrevocable limitation
to man'scapacity, unaidedbythesupernatural, thetwoworlds.
to synthesize
If thiswerethecase,onewouldexpectthefirst fouractsoftheplaytoprepare
us adequately, in someway or other,forHamlet'srecognition of thisinca-
pacityexpressed in his famousstoicalremarks:"The readinessis all" and
"There'sa specialprovidence in thefallofa sparrow". Where,in effect,does
theemphasis lie?
The firstfouractsare pervadedby a senseof man as agentof his own
destiny.12 The stressis on therealityofman'scapacity to findouttrutheven
if it is hidden"WithintheCentre".Consequently, Elsinoreis a-bustlewith
feverish activity,theonlystillcenterbeingtheself-communings of Hamlet.
The imagery oftheplayreflects essential
thenatureofthisactivity-its method.
When ClaudiusemploysRosencrantz and Guildenstern to spyon Hamlet
("lawfulespials"),Hamletconfronts them:"Whydo yougo aboutto recover
thewindof me,as if youwoulddriveme intoa toil?"The metaphor from
hunting reminds and "assaysof bias".Similarly,
us of Polonius'"windlasses"
thisemphasis on thepolicyof "indirection" in Hamlet'sresponse
is reflected
to Claudius'deviceof sendinghimto England("For thedemandofourneg-
lectedtribute")in the care of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to have him
killed:
11'The TheoryofHamlet',IHI, VII (April,1946), 131-150; p. 148.

cf. JohnLawlor's chapteron Hamlet,"Agentor Patient",in his book
12 For this terminology,
The TragicSensein Shakespeare(London, i960).
THE CONFLICT IN HAMLET I53
... letit work,

For 'tisthesporttohavetheenginer
Hoistwithhisownpetar,and'tshallgo hard
ButI willdelveoneyardbelowtheirmines,
And blow themat themoon: ....
(III. iv. 205-209)
We have, of course,to be aware of the note of hysteriain Hamlet's descrip-
tion of his activityas "the sport"-his energyis morefrenziedthansporting-
but the lines do reveal a certaindelightin the pittingof his intellectagainst
the wiles of his enemies.The complications of the devicesto probe the heart
of Hamlet's mystery reacha climax,afterthe failureof usingOphelia as bait
and thepatheticdeathof theeavesdropping Polonius,in Claudius'plan to have
Hamlet murderedby Laerteswhile ostensibly takingpartin a fencing-match.
Claudius' intriguesfail.If thesewere the onlyones,theirfailurewould,in
itself,point up the justiceof abandoninga faithin the designsof existential
man. But Hamlet,using the same deviousnessas his antagonists, is eminently
successful.Indeed,it is possibleto see the unavailingplotsof Claudius et al. as
a meansof underlining thesuccessthatHamlet enjoys.The parallelismbetween
the methodsemployedby Hamlet and his opponentsis striking, and has been
commentedon byW. V. Shepard:
That patternis as follows:He letshis adversary attackfirst.Then,using
theweaponofhisadversary, he strikes
swiftlyhome.
This happensnotonce,nor twice,but timeand timeagain.We have
notedabove how Hamletemployedthisdevicein his use of the words
'son', 'common',and 'seems'.As he uses words,so he uses players;as he
uses players,so he uses sailingcraft;as he uses sailingcraft,so he uses
documents; as he uses fencingfoils,so he uses poison.13
But the similaritybetweenthe instruments to hand is outweighedby thatof
the general method-of "indirection".The oblique approach is common to
both camps. The machinations of "policie"are seen to be essentialto the "af-
fairesof thislife".Hamlet'stwo mostimportantdevicesare his feignedmad-
ness and his use of the play "The Murderof Gonzago", whichhe calls "The
Mouse-trap".Despite the stormof controversy overHamlet'sstateof mind,we
are neverreallyallowedto forgetthepurposehis madnessservesto camouflage.
Even Polonius sees some "method"there,while Guildensterndescribesit as
a "craftymadness".Claudius,himself,is profoundly troubled:
Love! hisaffections
do notthatwaytend;
Nor whathe spake,thoughitlack'dforma little,
Was notlikemadness. There'ssomething in hissoul
O'er whichhismelancholysitson brood,
And I do doubtthehatchandthedisclose
Willbe somedanger
(III. i. 170-I75)
Hamlet is occupiedby his intrigueuntilhis returnfromEngland.14Even in
13 "HoistingtheEnginerwithhis own Petar",SQ, VII (I956), 283-285; p. 282.
14If this analysisis acceptable,then thereis no delay in Hamlet, unlesswe wish to describe
Hamlet's grave concernfor the truthas constituting such. It seems to me, however,that any
necessaryconditionforan actioncannotconstitute a delayalof thataction.Indeed,therehas been
I54 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
the fifthact his account to Horatio of his outwittingof Rosencrantzand

Guildensternhas a residualelementof "the sport".He describesthe contents
of the letterhe forgesfromClaudius to the King of England:
conjuration
An earnest fromtheKing,
As Englandwas hisfaithful tributary,
As lovebetweenthemas thepalmshouldflourish,
As Peaceshouldstillherwheatengarlandwear
Andstanda comma'tweentheiramities,
And manysuch-like as-esofgreatcharge,
That,on theviewand knowofthesecontents,
Withoutdebatement further,moreorless,
He shouldthebearers puttosuddendeath,
timeallow'd.
Not shriving
(V. ii.38-47)
The contrastbetweenthe politeflourishes of diplomacywith whichthe letter
beginsand the mercilessness of the finaldemandis contemptuous. Hamlet can
stilltakea delightin thiskindofmanipulation.
The firstfouracts reveal,then,the major characters' concern(with theex-
ceptionof Ophelia and Horatio) for an intriguedesignedto increasetheir
controlover theirown destiny.Only Hamlet, because he is in possessionof
information which places him in a superiorposition,has any real degreeof
success.We are, I think,made aware thateven in the grubbyworld of the
court of Elsinore it is possible,providedthat the rightmethodis used, for
human ingenuityto teaseout at leastsomeof the truthof a situationhowever
deceptiveand misleadingits appearancemay be. Up to thispointin Hamlet,
Shakespeare's"preoccupationwith man's subjectionto illusion''"5 seemsto be
stressingthe potentialin man as a rationalcreatureto make a significant con-
tributionto the directionof his fate,in a way whichwould have been under-
stoodby a writerlike Perkins.The oblique,indirectmethodof discovery, with
its importantimplications,is reflected in the play's language.In no otherof
Shakespeare'splays,it seemsto me, is languageused so self-consciously to dis-
guise and reveal meaningat one and the same time.As one mightexpect,it
is Hamlet, himself,who manipulateslanguage in this mannermost consist-
ently.His situationforceshim to make languagea tool in his variousschemes
for probing,under cover of apparentirrelevance, the stancesof his enemies.
They are bothmystified and made uncomfortable by his use of pun,oxymoron,
nonsense,paradox.Hence, Hamlet's "wild and whirlingwords",in particular,
much unenlightened discussionof thisproblem,and it is with a senseof reliefthatone turnsto

Philip Edwards' sensibledescriptionof the problemof dclay in The Spanish Tragedywhich,
mutandis,
mistatis can be as well appliedto Hamlet:
That Hieronimo'sconscienceshould accuse him for being tardy (III. xiii.135) is a
measureonly of the stresshe is underand the (lifficultieshe faces,and of the lepthof
his obligation;thatBel-imperia and Isabellashouldspeak of delay (III. iv and IV. ii. 30)
is a measureonlyof theirunderstandable impatienceand does not mean thatHieronimo
could have acted more quickly.It is the sense of delay which is real, and not delay
itself.Hieronimodoes everything possibleas quicklyas possible."Introduction", The
RevelsPlays(London, i959), p. lvi.
15 This phraseis takenfromL. C. Knights'sbook An Approachto 'Hamlet' (Stanford,i96i),
p. 12.
reflect boththe problem(in theirdisguising meaning)and the pervasive

methodof solvingtheproblem(by covert "indirection").
The obscurityofthe
languageis portentous. One or twoexamples shouldmakethisclear.Consider,
forexample, hisopeningremark: "A littlemorethankin,and lessthankind"
(I.ii.65), or his baitingof Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: "I am but mad
north-north-west; whenthewindis southerly, I knowa hawkfroma hand-
saw" (II. ii.396-8),orhispertreplyto theirenquiry afterPolonius:"The body
is withtheKing,buttheKing is notwiththebody"(IV. ii.29-30).The ob-
scurity oftheseapophthegms concealsfora timetheirominoussense,although
evenin thetheatre we are aware,to adapta phraseof Knights's,of'a partic-
ularvibration inthesaying'.
One mightargue,however, thatthisparticular modeof employing lan-
guageis thrust uponHamlet.The madnesshe feignsis indicated bythemad-
nessof hisspeech.We knowthathe is reallysane; so we shouldnotbe sur-
prisedby thesensewe findin thenonsense. But thisuse of languageis not
confined to thehero.It cropsup timeand againin situations whicharesome-
timescomic,as withPoloniusor theGravediggers, and sometimes tragic,as
withthemadnessof Ophelia.For example,Poloniusmakesnonsense of his
definition of "wit"in theprocessof defining it,butat thesametime,in his
digression, toucheson someof Hamlet'sand theplay'scentral concerns:
Myliege,and madam,to expostulate
Whatmajesty shouldbe,whatdutyis,
Whydayis day,nightnight, and timeis time,
Werenothing buttowastenight,day,and time;
Therefore,sincebrevityis thesoulofwit,
And tediousness thelimbsand outwardflourishes,
I willbe brief.
(II. ii. 86-92)
Hamlethas,indeed,wasted"night, day,and time"wondering "Whatmajesty
shouldbe,whatdutyis".Polonius'amusingelaboration delaystheconveyance
of hisinformation,and confuses
and exasperates
hishearers;in theprocess of
theelaboration,however, Shakespeare
has reminded us of matters evenmore
germanethanthepointPoloniusis trying to make.If theabsurdities of Po-
loniusarean exampleofthecomicuseofthelanguageofindirection, Ophelia's
languagein hermadnessis an exampleofthetragic. We notethatin hermad
scene(Act IV, Scenev), herapparently inconsequential
speechesare,in fact,
emphasizing the themesof deception
in love,the rankness of sexuality,
the
problemof identity,and theproblemofknowing:all ofwhichhavebeenim-
portantelements in themeaningoftheplayas a whole.We wouldagreewith
Laertes,thoughperhapswithdifferent considerations
in mind,whenhe says
of Ophelia'stalk:"Thisnothing's
morethanmatter" (IV. v. I74). The Gentle-
manbestsumsup theeffect ofOphelia'smadness:
... Her speechis nothing,
Yettheunshapeduseofitdothmove
The hearerstocollection.
Theyaimat it
Andbotchthewordsup fittotheirownthoughts;
Which,as herwinksand nodsand gestures
yieldthem,
Indeedwouldmakeonethinktherewouldbe thought,
Thoughnothingsure,yetmuchunhappily.
(IV. v. 7-I3)
The languageof the play,then,as well as the activitiesof the major char-
acters,stressesthemethodof solutionopen to humanagency.That is,theverse
itself,in its play with meaning,is "actingout", on a metaphoricallevel,the
major characters'involvement withthe twistsand turnsof theirintrigues.In-
trigueand language fuse to underlinethe thesisthat,in the "affairesof this
life",it is necessaryto employthe "indirection" of "policy".If it were not for
the protagonist, these firstfour acts would be almostpurelyin the spiritof
Marlowe with his absorptionwithwilled purpose.The shiftto a dependence
on God's providencewhich characterizes the fifthact would seem utterlyout
of place. There are, however,indicationsin thesefouracts of somethingbe-
yondthe boundariesof mererationalism. Indeed,it is a consideration of these
which informsthe tensionof Hamlet's debateswithhimself.He sees himself,
unlike the othercharacters, as an actorin a greatuniversaldrama as well as
the chieffigurein the specificdramaof Revenge.Everything he does or does
not do has the Universalas its framework of reference.He is, above all, aware
of the limitationsof human actionwhen it has only the human intellectas
its sourceof power. He is consistently dubious as to the correctness of what
he is doing. He longs fordeath,but cannotkill himself,as he sees his death
withinthe traditionalcontextof the Christianconceptionof sin and punish-
mentwhichcauseshim to wish that"theEverlastinghad not fixed/Hiscanon
'gainstself-slaughter"
(I. ii.I3I-I32). Despitehisinvolvement
withhisintrigues
forestablishingthe truthand despitehis successwiththem,he sees himselfas
the victimof a maliciousFortune,particularly
in itscallinghim to perform
the
onerousdutyof revenge:
The timeis outofjoint,0 cursedspite,
ThateverI wasborntosetitright!
(I. v. i89-i90)
This attitudeis reiterated
afterhismurderof Polonius:
. . .For thissamelord,
I do repent;
butheavenhathpleaseditso,
To punishmewiththis,and thiswithme,
ThatI mustbe theirscourge andminister.
(III. iv.I73-I75)
This is not the place for an extendedanalysisof Hamlet's character, but we
should bear in mind that his presentation is many-sided.There is much to
condemnas well as to admire in what Shakespearerevealsof his hero. We
mightargue thatone of his characteristic stancesis thatof self-doubt.
He con-
trastshimselfunfavorably with Horatio,the actorin the murderof Priam by
Pyrrhus,and Fortinbras;but in all of these,even the one involvingHoratio,
thereis some degreeof self-deception involved.Much of his self-condemnation
concernshis inabilityto take action,but we are made to see thatthisinability
is Hamlet's strength,that,in thefaceof the naiveteor Machiavellianism of an
actiontakenby a Laertesor a Fortinbras, his determination to know thetruth
beforehe does anythingmakeshim theethicalcenterof theplay.It is possible,
then, that Hamlet's despair is a resultof that personal melancholywhich
Shakespeareis at pains to emphasize,thathe is one of those"particularmen"
who "forsome viciousmole of naturein them"are in a stateof perpetualself-
to thebenevolentdriftof eventswhich
disgust.If thisis so, thenhis resignation
is what he holds as his final attitudecould, perhaps,be explainedas merely
anotherindicationofhisbasicweakness.
But (as we are oftenreminded)Hamlet is morethan Hamlet. We are,by
now, aware of the generalimplicationsof Shakespeare'splays,of his concern
with certainthemes.It seemsunlikelythatHamlet was intendedpurelyas a
psychologicalstudyof an individual,whateverhis degree of fascination.It
seems even more unlikelythatShakespeareintendedHamlet's "regeneration"
as solelythe concernof the protagonist, and not intimatelylinked with the
meaningof the play as a whole.We cannot,I think,explainHamlet'sconver-
sion in the way thatwe mightexplainthe aberrational conductof an Antony
or a Cleopatra,where,anyway,such conductis, as I have pointedout,partof
the largermeaningof the play.I feel surethatwe are meantto see Hamlet's
adjustmentas the only workablecompromise.Are there,then,otherindica-
of Hamlet's compromise?Do
tions in thesefirstfouracts of the inevitability
we get a sense,despitethe placingof the emphasisthatI have outlinedabove,
of therightness, say,ofthefollowing?
... letus know
Ourindiscretionsometimes servesus well,
Whenourdeepplotsdo pall,andthatshouldlearnus
thatshapesourends,
There'sa divinity
Rough-hew themhowwe will.
(V. ii. 7-II)
There is, I think,some generalopposition(which we mightcall conserva-

tive) in the firstfouractsto the idea of man pittinghimselfagainstforcesbe-
yond his control.Hamlet's continueddistraction at his father'sdeath is criti-
cized by Claudius and, althoughit is ironicthatClaudius is the speaker,one
can imaginean Elizabethanaudiencerespondingto his commonsense stand:
Forwhatwe knowmustbe andis as common
As anythemostvulgarthingtosense,
Whyshouldwe in ourpeevishopposition
Take it to heart?
(I. ii-98-ioi)
Such a positionis backedbyGertrude:

Thou know'st'tiscommon, all thatlivesmustdie,
Passingthrough natureto eternity.
(I. ii. 72-3)
To them,thereis somethingalmostblasphemousin Hamlet's continuingto

questionthe workingsof destiny.His "opposition"is "peevish"becausehe is
apparentlyquestioningthe natureof thingsas theyhave been divinelyor-
dained by God forthe benefitof man. In his searchfortruth,Hamlet seems
i58 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
to be going"againstthehonorofGod".The Elizabethans would,presumably,

reactina similar
fashiontoPolonius'solipsism:
Thisaboveall-tothine ownselfbetrue,
Anditmustfollow, as thenight
theday,
Thoucanst notbefalsetoanyman.
(I. iii. 78-80)
Fryecomments:
In Christian terms,
thefaultwithsuchintegrity
as Polonius
recommends
is thatit placesman'sreliance
entirely
uponhimself,
without
reference
to
God.... (P. i89)
Thereis, also,somesupport forHamlet'sheavy-hearted awareness of himself

as a victimof a maliciousfortune. A prevalentattitudetowardsthecaprices
offortune in theplayis condemnatory. Sheis twicereferredtoas a "strumpet",
at II. ii. 228-247 (theconversation between Hamlet,Rosencrantz and Guilden-
stern),and at II.ii.5I5 (the FirstPlayer'sspeechrecounting the deathof
Priam).The PlayerKing,following thesentiments of Hamlet'ssoliloquies,
succinctly statestheproblem:
Thisworldis notforaye,nor'tisnotstrange
Thatevenourlovesshould withourfortuneschange,
For'tisa questionleftusyettoprove,
Whether loveleadfortune,orelsefortune
love.
(III. ii. 2I0-2I3)
Sucha concern withthepoweroffortune is humorously debatedbytheGrave-
diggers,whentheyare considering, aproposof Ophelia,thedistinctions be-
tweensuicideand deathby misadventure. The FirstClownsays:
Giveme leave.Hereliesthewater;good.Herestands theman;good.If
themango tothiswater anddrown himself,itis,willhe,nillhe,hegoes,
-mark youthat?But if thewatercometo himand drownhim,he
drowns nothimself; argal,he thatis notguilty ofhisowndeathshortens
nothisownlife.(V. i. i6-22)
The feelingthateventsare beyondthecontrol ofmanis,I suppose, alsosug-
gestedbythepresence oftheGhostitself, although thedramatic convention of
theGhostand Hamlet'sunwillingness to acceptit on face-valuealone,helpto
dissipateitspoweras controller ofHamlet'sdestiny. Thereare,too,otherindi-
cationsof something takingplacebeyondthekenofman'sintellect. The first
sceneof theplay,forexample,withits emphasis on portent and mysterious
sicknesssuggests,in a mannersimilarto theopeningsceneofMacbeth, that
an evilexistsof a forceincomprehensible to meremortals. Nevertheless,none
of thisis sufficient
to dispeltheimpression of vitality
thatwe getin man's
capacityto overcome "theslingsand arrowsof outrageous fortune".
Perhapsthemostimportant qualification ofthisimpression,is thecontinual
presence, in someshapeor form, ofdeath.WilsonKnight'sessayson Hamlet
in The WheelofFirearedevoted toits"themeofdeath",andAdrienBonjour
believesthatdeathis theunifying "factor"in a "various"play.16The orgyof
deathsthatclosestheplayseemsto bearwitnessto thefruitlessness of man's
endeavorto controlfate.But thereis paradoxheretoo.It couldbe argued
la Unityin Hamlet",ES, XXI
"On Artistic (I939), 193-202.
thatHamlet'ssubmission of eventis as muchthecauseof

to theinevitability
as arethebungling
thefinalcatastrophe plotsofLaertesandClaudius.Hamlet
repudiatestheominous"augury"he feelsabouttheoutcomeof thefencing-
match:
Nota whit;we defyaugury. There'sa specialprovidence in thefallofa
sparrow. Ifitbe now,'tisnottocome;ifitbenottocome,itwillbenow;
if it be notnow,yetit willcome;thereadiness is all. Sinceno manhas
aughtofwhathe leaves, whatis't to leavebetimes?(V. ii. 230-235)
Such indifference to his suspicionswouldhavemadehimtheeasyvictimof
the"indirections" of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in thethirdact.(It is in-
incidentally,
teresting, to notetheway in whichthestructure of thespeech
seemsto workagainsttheassertion of serenity it is apparentlymaking.The
logicalplayof "If it be now,"etc.,is morein keepingwitha mindstillana-
lytically
probing, thanwithone at peacewithitself. We shouldcontrast, per-
haps,theplainness ofLear'sacquiescence: "I am a veryfoolish, fondoldman",
King Lear IV. vii.60-67).
Nevertheless,in thesefirst fouractsdeathand theconceptofdeatharean
partof thereality
essential of Hamlet'sworld.One can seehowsuchan em-
phasiscouldleadto thestoicattitude. We mightbe madeto acceptthepropo-
sitionthatan intrigue devotedto thediscovery oftruthwouldhaveto stopat
thebournefromwhichno traveller returns. The truthcouldsimplybe that,
beyonda certainpoint,therecan onlybe mystery. Humaningenuity is irrele-
vantand pernicious in theworldof thespirit.In effect, theconceptof death
is presented as essentiallymysterious,and thelocusclassicusforthisis Ham-
let'ssoliloquy"To be or notto be". It couldbe arguedalso thattheactual
visitationof deathin thesefirst fouracts(i.e. thepathetic madnessand death
of Ophelia,and thedeathofPolonius)is a directresultofan involvement on
Hamlet'spartin his attempt to control matters.Here again,however, we are
awarethatbothof thesedeathsare a resultof Hamletdeparting fromhis
normalethicalscrupulousness and carein action.In thecaseofOphelia,Ham-
let'srejectionof heris basedon thefallacyof arguingfromtheparticular to
thegeneral.Gertrude's "rankness" becomes, forHamlet,therankness of all
womenand as Opheliais a womanshe toomustbe condemned. In thecase
of Polonius,we see Hamlettakingactionin themannerofLaertes.His sur-
renderto impetuosity is in vividcontrastto thatdelicacyof judgment which
prevents himfromkillingClaudiuswhenthelatter is apparentlyat prayer and
in a stateofgrace.Thesetwotragicdeaths, then,seemto underline theneces-
sityof an elaborate, carefulanalysisof circumstances and situation.Far from
destroying thevalueof Hamlet'sethical' hesitancy, theyserveto showthathe
is nothesitant,notscrupulous, enough.In thelastanalysis, theyareverymuch
partof theemphasis ofthesefirst fouractswhichI havediscussed above.
My argument, then,is thatthefirst fouractsofHamlet,in theiremphasis
upon"policie", uponHamlet'sadroituse ofthe"prudence ofmen",uponthe
bittervitalityin his takingup armsagainsthis troubles, haveonlyhintedat
thepossibility of hisfinalstoicism. Thereis thusan abrupt, and to mymind
disturbing,anagnorisis in ActV whenHamletrecognizes thatthedesignsof
"policie"are of no avail.Essentially, theproblem is an aestheticone,forwe
havenotbeenmadeto feelthejustification ofHamlet'sfinalbeliefthatthere
x6o SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
is an irrevocablelimitationto a man's capacityto influencehis destiny.Assert-

ing that this in fact is the case is much less satisfying than convincingus
throughtheplay'sdialecticthatit mustbe thecase. The consequentambiguity,
then,unlikethatof Antonyand Cleopatra,is not one thatthe play'sstructure
persuadesus is (unambiguously)inevitable.
As we have seen, this is not to say that Shakespearewas unawareof the
problem.The openingscene of the fifthact, forexample,servesto link that
omnipresent concernwith the finalityof death demonstrated in the firstfour
actswithHamlet'sacquiescenceto theshapingdivinityin thePlay'sfinalscene.
The greaterpartof V. i, fromtheGravediggers' emphasison the "strength" of
their"building"to Laertes' despairover Ophelia, underscoresHamlet's own
awarenessof the absolutenessof death,whose inevitability makes life's"quid-
dities"and "quillets"seem merelytrivial.Fool, politician(i.e. schemer),law-
yer,courtier,the matchlessleaderof men,the proud and beautifulwoman all
succumbto "Lady Worm"whosesovereignty is climactically
renderedas Ophe-
lia's cortegemoves acrossthe stage.If this,then,is the favorto whichwe all
must come, Hamlet's impatiencewith Laertes' gravesideprotestations(for
words are shadowsof eventswhich are themselvesonly shadowswhen com-
pared with death'sreality)is readilyunderstandable.17
It seemslikely,however,thatno singleexplanationof Hamlet's changeof
heart will suffice.What may be of importanceto noticeis that this central
dilemmain Hamlet is a versionof the classicdilemmaof theRevengedrama-
tist.18Revengedrama,fromThe SpanishTragedyto Middleton'sand Rowley's
The Changelingor Ford's The BrokenHeart,revealsat bestan equivocalatti-
tude on the partof the playwright to revengeand revenger,for,althoughthe
revengerin his pursuitof revengeoccupiesan heroicpositionon the English
stage at this time,he never enjoys unqualifiedapprovalhowevernoble his
cause. This reluctanceto accepthim accountsfora shiftof emphasisfromthe
presentation of the revengeras equivocal hero to thatof him as unequivocal
villain: a movementaway fromthe Kydian formulaforrevengeto thatfirst
indicatedin Marlowe's The Jewof Malta whereBarabas standsas the proto-
typeofthecriminalavenger.Bowersnotes:
This questionoutlinesin sharpreliefthe fundamental problemfacing
everywriterof revengetragedy whoseprotagonist is a hero.The audience
is sympathetic
to his revengerso longas he doesnotbecomean Italienate
and so longas he doesnotrevenge.
intriguer,
At theconclusion theaudienceadmitsits sentimentalsatisfaction
with
theact of personaljusticebutitsethicalsensedemandsthepenaltyforthe
ofdivinecommand.
infraction (P. 95)
17 It is interesting
thatthe verbaldexterityespousedby Hamlet in the firstfouracts is abjured
by him in thisfinalact. At first,Hamlet is jocular,as withthe Gravedigger:"How absolutethe
knave is: We mustspeak by the card, or equivocationwill undo us" (V. i. 148-9). His comment
on Osric (despitehis own satiricalindulgencein Osric'slanguage) is morepointed:
Thus had he . . . only got the tune of the time and outwardhabitof encounter;a
kind of yeastycollection,whichcarriesthemthroughand throughthe mostfondand
winnowedopinions;and so but blow them to theirtrials,the bubblesare out (V. ii.
I96-202).
18I am indebtedfor what followsto F. T. Bowers'ElizabethanRevengeTragedyI587-I642
(Princeton,1940), passim.
THE CONFLICT IN HAMLET i6i
Beaumont'sand Fletcher'sThe Maid's Tragedy (c. i6ii) bringsinto promi-
nence a solutionadoptedby laterwriterslike Ford and Massinger,wherethe
doctrine"vengeanceappertaineth unto God only"19is followed,and revenge
leftto Heaven. Such a shiftin treatment
is intimated,not onlyin Hamlet it-
self,but in the difference
betweenthetwo main sourcesforShakespeare'splay,
the narrativesof Saxo Grammaticusand Belleforest.Again, Bowersnotes:
The difference in spiritbetweenthe two narratives, however,is distinct.
Saxo, tellinghis primitive
tale,is neverin doubtaboutthejustnessof the
revenge, or,indeed,of anyotherrevengein his history. notat
Belleforest,
all influencedby thepaganScandinavian tradition,
is dividedbetweenhis
Renaissance Frenchappreciation of a bellavendetta
and theChristian doc-
trinethatall revengemustbe lefttoGod. (P. 87)
Shakespeare,then,may,in Hamlet,be reflecting a conventionalethicaldu-
alitycommonto significant revengeplays.For the full tragiceffect,Hamlet
mustdie in innocence,uncharacteristic of him thoughthisstatemay be. If he
does not do so, his death,like Ophelia's,may be marredby an unsympathetic
reservationof judgmenton the part of his audience-hardlyan appropriate
responsefor a tragedy.Whetheror not Ophelia committedsuicide is of no
greatimportance.What is importantis Shakespeare'sconcernforthe effectof
thesuspiciouscircumstances of herdeath.The Clown asks: "Is she to be buried
in Christianburialthatwilfullyseeksher own salvation?"(V. i. I-2). We our-
selveswitnessher Christianburial,but one withoutthefullsolemnity and rich
ceremonythata Christianof herrankwould normallyenjoy.Such a "churlish"
attitudeby the churchis not dissimilarto the Elizabethanaudience'sambiva-
lent responseto the positionof the avengerin Revenge Drama: grudging,
wary acceptance.Such an audiencewould, one imagines,believethatHamlet
dies into "felicity"and thatflightsof angels will sing him to his restbut only
if he, like some of his fellow avengers,abjures his personalvendetta.Only
then,it seems,can Fortinbrasbe justifiedin treatingHamlet as the noble
warrior:
Let fourcaptains
BearHamlet,likea soldier,to thestage,
Forhewaslikely, hadhebeenputon,
To haveprov'dmostroyally; and,forhispassage,
The soldiers'
musicandtheritesofwar
Speakloudlyforhim.
(V. ii. 406-4ii)
"Sweets to the sweet"forOphelia and "Soldiers'music and the ritesof war"
for Hamlet: we would agreethattheydeserveno less. But in Hamlet's case,
the dignifiedsimplicityof his finalexit is in ironiccontrastwithour previous
experienceof his living,and in our awarenessof thisironyin the play'sdying
momentsis containedthatbewilderment with Hamlet which this paper has
attemptedto explore.Fortinbrasremainshowever-and perhapsthis is the
greatestironyof all.
ofNew Brunswick
The University
19 See Note 7.

Taylor 1971

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taylor 1971

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

George Washington University

The Shakespeare Association of America, Inc.

The Conflict in Hamlet

N our over-riding concern,as literarycritics,withthe drama

of ReligiousWritingsin the EnglishRenaissance",IHI, I

God's province? Anynew ethichad to steerclearof thepossiblechargeof

The firstand secondcaveats(thesecondin particular) are,evennow,open

unto God only. . . . Thereforeit followeth, thatwhosoeuerdo the reuengehimselfe,committeth

Althoughthisis provocative to shifttheemphasis

I would argue,then,that a hesitancyin judgmenton our part indicatinga

The end ("the carp of truth")justifiesthe means ("the bait of falsehood").

Much dependson what is meantby "truth".For Polonius,as forClaudius,it

forsomekindof all-containing "truth"whichcouldexplainthehumanpre-

11'The TheoryofHamlet',IHI, VII (April,1946), 131-150; p. 148.

The TragicSensein Shakespeare(London, i960).

... letit work,

the fifthact his account to Horatio of his outwittingof Rosencrantzand

much unenlightened discussionof thisproblem,and it is with a senseof reliefthatone turnsto

reflect boththe problem(in theirdisguising meaning)and the pervasive

There is, I think,some generalopposition(which we mightcall conserva-

Such a positionis backedbyGertrude:

To them,thereis somethingalmostblasphemousin Hamlet's continuingto

to be going"againstthehonorofGod".The Elizabethans would,presumably,

Thereis, also,somesupport forHamlet'sheavy-hearted awareness of himself

thatHamlet'ssubmission of eventis as muchthecauseof

is an irrevocablelimitationto a man's capacityto influencehis destiny.Assert-

You might also like