Hamlet

It seems that the underlying concept of almost all Hamlet criticism is that Hamlet suffers from a tragic flaw in his character--something akin to Oedipus' quick temper, Othello's jealousy, or Lear's senile vanity, which causes him to make the classic "mistake in judgment" that will lead to his downfall. It is true that one is able to detect such a flaw in the characters of many of Shakespeare's tragic heroes, but the fact that an idea is generally applicable should not lead us into the mistake of trying to apply it universally in cases where it manifestly does not fit. Hamlet appears to be one of these cases.

A consistent interpretation of Hamlet's actions can be made by examining the play in the light of the modern Theatre of the Absurd. The psychiatrists point out that the word "schizophrenia" is commonly misunderstood--to most people it has connotations of "split personality", while in actual fact the popular term "split personality" refers to a form of amnesia. Schizophrenia occurs when the individual finds himself incapable of communicating with the rest of society. It refers to the breakdown, for psychological reasons, of communications between the individual and the group. The Theatre of the Absurd is a reflection of social schizophrenia on a large scale. The Absurd, in the words of Eugиne Ionesco, is the situation in which man finds himself "devoid of purpose ... Cut off from his religious, metaphysical and transcendental roots, man is lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd, useless".1 Although a literary movement specifically dedicated to the treatment of this aspect of the human condition has only appeared in the twentieth century, there is no reason to suppose that the condition is peculiar to this century. Shakespeare was just as likely to observe the phenomenon in the sixteenth century, and to deal with it in the character of Hamlet, as Samuel Beckett was to observe it and deal with it in the characters of Didi and Gogo, in the twentieth.

If Hamlet is not the classic "flawed hero", how can his character be defined, and what are the factors which contribute to his downfall? In the first place, the evidence of the play seems to indicate that Hamlet is not a weak character, but a strong one. His "problem" is that he combines extreme sensitivity and perceptiveness with a degree of moral strength which enables him, or forces him, to act morally in an essentially immoral world. Hamlet is the picture of a humane man in a harsh world, a moral man in an immoral world, a sensitive man in a cruel society. Hamlet delays killing the king for the simple reason that killing a human being in cold blood is a morally repulsive action. The society in which he lives, in urging him to carry out the most primitive of all acts-- revenge--provides the force against which his nature instinctively reacts, thereby placing him in a situation analogous

to that of the characters in the Theatre of the Absurd.

Before going on to establish the evil nature of the society in which Hamlet lives, it is necessary to establish that Hamlet really has a strong moral character. On the negative side, it is easy enough to show that Hamlet is not a coward, that he does not suffer from any weakness of will or inability to act, that he does not lack the ability to think clearly, and that he does not suffer (with one clearcut exception) from any mental disorder. Hamlet does have a moment of madness, but mental illness is not a permanent factor in his makeup.

On the positive side, there are a multitude of factors pointing to the strength of Hamlet's character. Throughout the play, he displays a gentility and moral sense superior to that of any other person. His treatment of Horatio and the players is democratic and humane.

With his mother, even in his moment of greatest revulsion at her actions, he limits himself to "speaking daggers" to her even though he is sufficiently overwrought to use them on another, less fortunate person. His attempts to deal frankly with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, even after he suspects their duplicity, are almost pathetic in their sincerity. With Laertes, in the last moments before their duel, he is nobility and generosity incarnate; a fact which Shakespeare underlines by contrasting Hamlet's generosity with Laertes' oafishness and equivocation.

In his relationships with these most intimate of his associates, Hamlet offers open friendship, honorable treatment, and unfailing courtesy, until the enmity or immorality of the individual forces him reluctantly to change his approach. He is a man hoping always to find goodness predominant in human nature. The revulsion produced in him by the immoral conduct of certain individuals is one of the tragic elements of the play. But there is an infinitely more destructive factor which wears down his resistance and, at one point (the killing of Polonius), causes him to act as savagely as his fellows. This factor is his inability to verbalize his objection to the social code, to define exactly what it is that revolts him, while remaining under constant pressure (even from himself) to carry out the act of revenge. His refusal to kill the king involves him in all the metaphysical anguish of a man out of touch with his fellows; he thus finds himself in a position which is essentially Absurd.

It seems that to understand the play's significance in the modern day, one must take as a basic premise that society is one of the chief protagonists; a protagonist more pervasive, subtle and insidious in its evil effects than any poor mortal like Claudius could possibly be. The magnitude of the struggle in Hamlet and the impact of the tragedy are derived from the fact that, while Hamlet is morally revolted by the conduct of most of his fellow creatures and by the act which society as a whole urges him to commit, he himself remains a product of that society. That is to say, the effort to withstand its influence does not merely involve refusing to carry out an act of revenge, however dishonoring and shameful such a refusal might be. It involves far more than that. To succeed in his effort, Hamlet must consciously subdue that element of society which is part of his own personality, and which is reflected even in Horatio's philosophic complacency as well as in Gertrude's casual sensuality. The effort to maintain his moral position involves Hamlet in a rejection of the social order which is part of the warp and woof of his very character, without providing him with an alternative moral position.

Hamlet's rejection of the moral standards of his society is crystallized by the events which follow his father's death. The shock of that event, followed by young Hamlet's loss of the election to the