These notes will concentrate on the approach we have taken in class, but should not exclude exploration of the play from other parameters. Useful links will be found by clicking on Hamlet Links above.
 

A question worth asking is not "What would Hamlet without Hamlet be like?" but what would Hamlet without the soliloquies be like? They contain many of the lines that have remained firmly in the human consciousness; at the same time they suspend the action.

Family structures are crucial again both to the social milieu and to the tragedy:

	The only mother in the play is hated by Hamlet, so much so that that hate has been the subject of complete interpretations in itself (see, for example, Ernest Jones' article on the links page). Otherwise there is another mother missing - Ophelia's.
	The presence of Ophelia's mother would change the balance of the plot, and doubtless the characters - so it is worth asking how useful is it not to have her?
	Once again, this is a noticeable omission in many Shakespeare plays
	The situation is more complex here as Hamlet also does not have a father - the ghost is a father image rather than a father, and is noticeably completely uninterested in Hamlet, and is concerned only with himself (i.e. his revenge). So we have something here even more insidious than an absent father: a mother whom Hamlet would like to absent, but isn't, and a father who should be absent but isn't, and both parents more intent on their own satisfaction than concerned with any solicitation for Hamlet. The main solicitation for Hamlet comes from the offer by Claudius to substitute as his father - but this is in itself flawed.

 

The Romantic view Hamlet (1623)	Reading the play as if for the first time Our particular tack for this course was to look at the play as if we were the first audience, and knew nothing about the play or how it would develop. This is extremely difficult to do, for even if we haven't read the play, we have inevitably heard of Hamlet, probably something about him, and know something of the story, or at least some of the famous quotes. However, attempting this by a line-by-line reading throws up some interesting observations: The first Act is carefully self-contained and structured, starting with the ghosts and the battlements, and ending with the ghost and battlements. If we knew nothing more about the play by the end of the Act, we would be expecting some combination of - Elizabethan equivalent of melodrama (the setting, the ghost) - A revenge story - Another Shakespearean commentary on Kingship, since invasion by Fortinbras seems imminent - Another Shakespearean play in which part would be set on the battlefield - Hamlet as a major character, but within the pattern of the above However, the swing is in the first two scenes of Act II, where it becomes quite clear that these apparent themes are going to be dropped - or very heavily muted - in favour of the entire concentration on the character of Hamlet - This is shown by the changed relationship of the audience to the play. In Act I they are real-time observers. But Act II they are operating in a different time-period (the characters are living two months later, the audience have the activities of Act I fresh in their minds), and they are also now privy to knowledge that is denied many of the characters. - This relationship of audience to play will continue until Fortinbras' entry at the end of the play. - We noted in conjunction with this that the reporting of Hamlet's confrontation with Ophelia, rather than is realization on stage, further removes Act II from the melodrama of Act I, and increases the concentration on Hamlet's character. From this point onwards, the play continues in the mode and mood - and with the concentration on Hamlet's state of mind - that has become familiar through the centuries. However, those themes in Act I have more to contribute than a modern audience, familiar with the outlines of the play, may realize. It is a very long time before Claudius (if portrayed in such a way) actually seems an evil man. His earlier speeches are generally sympathetic and apparently caring.
Dubrovnik Castle, Croatia, where Hamlet is performed annually Kronborg Castle, Elsinor, where Hamlet is ostensibly set. Click on picture to go to its web site	The Kingship theme The theme of kingship and ruling in Hamlet is complicated, and it might be valid to argue that Shakespeare to all intents and purposes drops them in favour of the concentration on Hamlet's psyche. It is further complicated by Denmark's system of having the new king approved by Council (something that goes way back into the mists of Viking time). Shakespeare is aware of this - it is why Claudius is confirmed as King rather than Hamlet as the direct successor, with a regent if under age. However, Shakespeare seems to have otherwise seen Hamlet as the direct heir - in other words, treated him after this as if he was to be the next king. This is confirmed by Fortinbras, who was quite clearly expecting Hamlet to eventually rule. I think it is reasonable to state that any audience has the understanding that Hamlet is the heir-apparent. We noted that whereas the class saw Henry V as being in his 30s, and therefore a discussion of Kingship and rule by a young man coming into his prime, and whereas in King Lear we will see Kingship in old age, Hamlet seems to be a youth emerging from adolescence into adulthood. He seems to be, given his 'poetic' nature, his single-mindedness on revenge, and through his tactics, to be singularly unsuited to rule. Is Shakespeare trying to point this out, and through this question the assumption of the automatic inherent right of even unsuitable heirs to assume the throne as part of his overall theme of Kingship and power that runs through so many plays? The only person who seems to have the God-like mantle of rule and kingship (in a similar fashion to other Dukes and rulers in the plays - see for example, Romeo and Juliet, Measure for Measure, The Merchant of Venice), who occupies morally and in attitude that role, is Fortinbras, and he only appears at the very end. Machiavelli's comments on gaining a kingdom through foul means come into play here. (for a complete text of The Prince click here. Go to Chapter VIII for 'Concerning Those Who Have Obtained A Principality By Wickedness'. To read Zbignew Herbert's brilliant poem, The Elegy of Hamlet, which addresses this problem, click here. top
Denmark as a dysfunctional society This raises a further question. It is not difficult to analyze Hamlet in terms of the representation of a dysfunctional family. Indeed, Shakespeare is remarkably accurate in his depiction of the causes and effects of dysfunction in Hamlet's family, in terms of modern psychological understanding of the dynamics of such families. However, it is also possible to see the state of Denmark (or at least the state as represented by the court) as being equally, and classically, dysfunctional. It has all the hallmarks of a dysfunctional family writ large, from the desire to hide its guilty secret, to its exclusion of outsiders (unless, like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, they themselves are party to the dysfunction), to the creation of a wall around its members, who cannot easily get in or out, but are trapped within the unit and themselves get infected, to the attempt of the unit to cover its dysfunction by naming a scapegoat as 'mad' (namely, Hamlet), to actual madness and suicide within the unit (Ophelia). Hamlet is trapped in this dysfunctional, crazy world; almost everyone in it is interested only in their brand of survival within the framework, and even his father, the Ghost, is interested not in Hamlet, but only in revenge. Only when the outsider, uninfected by this collective dysfunction, arrives (Fortinbras) is any change or resolution possible. Fortinbras as the objective therapist, already seen, in the references to him, in terms of transference by his potential patients. It is possible, therefore, to see Hamlet as another, rather different, commentary on Kingship and governance within the thread of theme and idea on this subject that goes right through Shakespeare's plays. In a post-Renaissance, post-Trent Council, post-Copernicus age, with Europe divided against itself on religious and political lines, we have noted that one of the tensions of the age was how to reconcile the new intellectual, financial, empirical, and political ideas with the structures of government. There were three main possible solutions seen at the time. The first was a collection of essentially independent political units drawn in commonality, and thus interdependence, under a single Monarchy - this was the Spanish system, which had its advantages in the New World, but its considerable problems in Europe. The second was the one England had followed - a centralized constitutional monarchy, combined with an economically and geographically large unit, in which the individual units (e.g. Wales, and shortly Scotland) were subsumed to the central monarchy (England could afford to do this, since she had recently lost the French possessions that would have made such a system much more difficult to operate). The third was the one seen in much of mainland Europe (sometimes under the sway, nominal or otherwise of the Spanish), the concept of the small city state, usually ruled by a Duke or a Prince. This system had suited the medieval period, but was ill-suited to the demands of the new age; indeed much of the subsequent history of Europe was, in one sense, about the very slow change from such a system to a development of a more modern state, a process that still continues on a micro level in the Balkans and in a macro level in the European Union. It is perfectly possible, therefore, to see Hamlet as a commentary on what happens when this smaller unit (here Denmark, that shows none of the larger enterprise of Norway attacking Poland), in the throes of those tension, represented by symbols as far apart as the old revenge system seen in the Ghost to the modern education of Wittenberg, is rotten enough to implode. What is missing - and what keep other Shakespeare small city-states viable the internal tensions at bay, and the commonwealth of the state ordered and stable (for example, Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet, Measure for Measure) is the presence of the God-like Prince or Duke at the head of the hierarchy. There is no figure in Denmark - the action of Claudius' guilt prevents him from taking such a role - and Hamlet is certainly not one to assume it. That is left to Fortinbras at the end of the play. In this sense, Hamlet is another in the line of Shakespeare plays that deal with aspect of the general overall subject. top

Murder At Lake Elsinore Legendary artist Jim Steranko made this original poster image for DeanQuixote's play-within-a-movie "Hamlet: Murder at Lake Elsinore"

Illusion and deception Some brief Hamlet notes to continue our class-long theme of the illusion and deceptions of the theatre, and through them the illusions of life Hamlet is, of course, one of the Shakespeare plays in which the illusion of the theatre, and through that a commentary on the illusion of the world itself, is at its strongest, with its associated themes of deception, madness, dream, and night It is easy to forget that an Elizabethan audience, for this play, are walking into the equivalent of a castle, and indeed the round high walls of the Elizabethan theatre easily recreate the sense of being in a castle court (see Castel Coch on the links page) Indeed, it is possible to see the whole play as the illusion - or delusion - of the character of Hamlet, played by an actor, making everything up: a psychological projection. Most obvious is the play-within-a-play, which is not only a play-within-a-play theatrically, but also a play within the power play in the plot, thus going three levels deep. The changed function of the audience after Act I has already been noted. Throughout the play the relationship between what the audience knows, what some characters know, and what some characters don't know, is extremely complex, and constantly shifting. A new level of illusion is created by the ghost - he is real to the audience, and real to those who see him, but his original creation is an illusion of stage, and his appearance may also be an illusion to the characters. To make matters more complex, he cannot always be seen by all the characters, nor even at all times by the audience (his cries from underneath the stage). And he may be totally a figment or projection of the imagination, anyway. Another form of illusion is madness, as already noted in the class. Here we have an actor, playing a man, who is himself apparently acting the part of a mad version of himself, while we have a boy, playing a woman, who apparently does go mad. Night and sleep are major themes, both symbols of illusion (and of transformation) Deceptions are rife in the play, from Claudius through Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (double deception), through Laertes, to Hamlet himself. top