Hamlet & Aristotle's Poetics, Ethics, & Politics
A feature of the period called the English Renaissance is its attention to Greek and Latin classical texts, which includes not only poetry and drama, but also philosophy - including Aristotle. Many students of Shakespeare are told to consider his tragedies in terms of Aristotle's poetics, which says that the main character has some tragic flaw which eventually brings out his downfall. But a number of elements in Hamlet invite us to scrutinize this limited approach.
[L: Roman copy Greek bronze bust of Aristotle by Lysippos, c. 330 BC. R: Detail from the Chandos portrait of Shakespeare, 1610.]
By this, many claim Hamlet's flaw is that his conscience makes him overthink and hesitate; but in fact as some scholars have recognized, many of his worst moments (his unkindness to Ophelia, his stabbing of Polonius) come from not thinking enough, not pausing before acting. If Hamlet simply kills Claudius at prayer, not only does he risk sending Claudius to heaven and failing at revenge, but (as Paul A. Cantor observes), he would become a moral monster little better than Claudius, or than Laertes in his moment of passion when he says he'd even cut the throat of his father's murderer in a church. Clearly, killing Claudius early and avoiding his own death (as well as that of many others) would not necessarily be the best solution if it means becoming like Claudius.
Aristotle is also famous for his ethics, which speaks of how people become happy and fulfilled by acquiring virtues and living a virtuous life; and also for his politics, which considers various forms of government and ranks them in part by how well they encourage virtue, and in part by various failings. As Paul A. Cantor explains, various forms of government or regimes (politics) tend to encourage certain virtues; certain political regimes get in the way of encouraging Aristotelian ethics (virtue and happiness). (The current US regime, for example, encourages impulse tweeting, crotch-grabbing, and not wearing masks during a pandemic, among other things).
Shakespeare shows how warrior-inclinations (fight enemies and prevail) and Machiavellian tendencies (poison the enemy) conflict with Renaissance Christian values (love enemies; take the plank or beam out of your own eye first before taking the mote or speck of dust out of your enemy’s eye). Caught in the cognitive dissonance of conflicting values, Hamlet ponders how to avoid the bad dream of damnation in the undiscovered country after death.
The Christian idea of temptation to sin - and repentance from it - is also present in the play, and parallels the idea of acquiring virtues, for example, in Hamlet's words to his mother in the closet scene, where he asks his mother not to go to bed with Claudius, and to strive to change her habits. In his book, Hamlet in Purgatory, Stephen Greenblatt writes of how Catholics in Shakespeare's time tended to believe that habits could be reformed by the acquiring of virtue - a Christian appropriation of Aristotle's ethics - and thereby works could play a role in salvation, while Protestants tended to believe that Christians are saved by faith alone, and not works.
But Hamlet's biblical allusions and plot echoes also invite us to scrutinize the idea of tragedy in light of the bible tale of Jesus and other prophets who spoke truth to power (John the Baptist to Herod Antipas, Jonah to the king of Nineveh, Jeremiah to the people of Israel, Nathan to King David). Prophets had a reputation for being abused and even killed: If you're sent to prophesy to a sinful people, they may not appreciate it (with the Jonah story being a notable exception, where Jonah's fear is greater than the eventual outcome, in which the king and people of Nineveh all repent).
So Christian tragedy in this sense is not about a flaw manifested in prophetic figures who are often persecuted and die tragically, but rather a flaw in a sinful king (such as Herod Antipas, or King David), or a political system (the Roman occupation), or a sinful people (of Israel, of Nineveh) who often reject the prophet of God.
St. Paul speaks of Jesus' death on a cross as a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks, the idea that one tortured and crucified by the authorities is not defeated, but victorious over death. The 1599 Geneva translation puts it this way in 1 Cor 23-25, a passage with which Shakespeare was familiar through regular church attendance required by law:
In Shakespeare's Christian culture, perhaps Hamlet seems a good Christian at first, speaking of changing names (and places: servant - lord) with Horatio in 1.2, and seemingly in love with Ophelia (judging by his letters); but he is tempted to revenge and sin that makes him not only feign madness, but descend into something like madness, until his re-conversion and submission to Providence on the sea-voyage, and his being reminded of the "infinite jest" and affection of Yorick in the graveyard, a kind of Emmaus-encounter.
Horatio encourages Hamlet (in 5.2) to refuse the duel with Laertes if he senses it may endanger his life, counseling self-preservation. But Hamlet doesn't want to let Claudius (who he describes as a "canker of our nature") cause more evil. So Hamlet is willing to take the risk, to lay down his life for Denmark if need be, to stop his uncle, who he believes to be a lying, murderous tyrant.
So in that sense, the play is not about Hamlet as a static character with a tragic flaw that seals his fate, but about a dynamic character who descends into evil (in the Renaissance Christian sense, a "sinner") but later ascends to some kind of redemption that ends in death and apparent defeat which the world tends not to understand (the worldly would rather have Hamlet take the ghost's word at face value and kill Claudius sooner, regardless of the moral peril). But in a Christian sense, Hamlet's death might instead be viewed as self-sacrifice for others.This may be, in part, why Hamlet asks Horatio to tell his tale and save his wounded name: People would not understand.
Another passage with which Shakespeare would have been familiar through his required weekly church attendance is John 15:13, first as it would have appeared in the popular Geneva translation:
This idea of laying down one's life for a friend was not absent from Greek thought: For example, when Achilles refuses to fight, Patroclus, close friend of Achilles, uses the armor of Patroclus in battle as a disguise. Patroclus take the place of Achilles, and even disguises himself in the armor of Achilles. In that sense, one could say he dies in the place of Achilles, or lays down his life for him. Some might view this as an echo of what Shakespeare's culture would have viewed as Christian substitutionary atonement, where Jesus' death saves Christians from an eternity in hell. (Some modern theologians have trouble with the idea of a trinitarian father-God sending another person of the one-God - the son - to die and rise so as to save humankind - and rightly so - but to St. Paul, who speaks of Jesus dying for our sins, and to people in Shakespeare's time, this was commonplace.)
For those interested in exploring Aristotelian politics, Edward Clayton of Central Michigan University has a good entry in the IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, hosted by the University of Tennesee at Martin) on this. He considers not only the interplay with Aristotle's Ethics, but also considers limitations of Aristotelian politics.
For example, Aristotle doesn't have room for women and slaves in his ideas of citizens and democracy, and he assumes that workers (the "vulgar") would be required to serve the needs of the wealthier citizens who have more leisure to study philosophy and pursue a life of virtue. He believes that an agrarian society of farmers might be the ideal democracy, and assumes that all would be too busy working to become overly ambitious or greedy, but again, because they are so busy at farming (and therefore among the "vulgar"), they would not have leisure time to pursue philosophy. But more importantly, for Aristotle, there is clearly a hierarchy of forms of government, with freedom to pursue a life of virtue being most important, and with Tyranny being the worst and least compatible with a life of virtue.
Yet we know from the graveyard scene, which offended the sensibilities of some later generations, that Shakespeare either had a soft spot in his heart for those Aristotle called the "vulgar," or his theater depended on making plays that would be popular with those in the cheap seats. Aristotle doesn't have room for the "vulgar" except to serve the citizens who have leisure time for philosophy and the pursuit of a life of virtue, whereas Jesus championed the poor, saying that whatever one does to "the least of these" one does unto him (Matthew 25:40), and telling the tale of the beggar Lazarus who goes to heaven, shunned by the rich man who goes to hell (I have blogged in the past about how the ghost of Hamlet's father associates the effects of the poison on his skin with the beggar Lazarus ("Lazar-like"), as well as about other echoes of the Lazarus tale in the play). To Aristotle, the vulgar are left out of the ideal citizenry, but to the Jesus of the gospels, the poor and persecuted are "the salt of the earth" (Matthew 5:3-13).
In two previous posts (here and here), I noted some ideas from Paul A. Cantor, who edited and wrote an introduction to the Cambridge University Press Hamlet (2004, 2012). I also mentioned his 3-part lecture series on Hamlet, part of a series on Shakespeare and politics. About 10:30 into his second video-lecture, Cantor has a good explanation of why politics matters in Hamlet (and in fact, in other plays):
Hamlet's father counsels revenge, which conflicts with Christian values (and many would argue, with Aristotelian virtues as well). He believes his father was a good and honorable king, but why would the ghost ask for revenge, if that might damn him? Claudius has prepared Denmark for war, as described in 1.1 by Horatio, with laborers working day and night and violating the sabbath to make weapons and defenses, against a possible attack from Fortinbras. But how could Hamlet complain about Fortinbras wanting his father's land back, when Hamlet himself had his hopes to be king disappointed, when Claudius killed his father? Christianity would have Hamlet remove the plank from his own eye before removing the speck or "mote" of dust from the eye of Fortinbras, whose father had been killed by Hamlet's father. (Horatio alludes to this passage in 1.1 with the word "mote".)
So as Paul Cantor notes in his introduction to the Cambridge Hamlet and in his video-lectures, different value systems come into conflict, with even conflicting religious values being alluded to (Wittenberg, the Diet of Worms, "by St. Patrick" as a reference to the Catholic idea of Purgatory, and conflicting expectations of burial customs for suicides, hinting at major changes in burial rites for English Protestants, from earlier Roman Catholic practices). Hamlet must find a way to deal with these conflicting expectations, and he makes many key mistakes before the end.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages in many of my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over any other, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to point out how the Bible may have influenced Shakespeare, his plays, and his age.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading!
My current project is a book tentatively titled Hamlet’s Bible, about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider subscribing.
[L: Roman copy Greek bronze bust of Aristotle by Lysippos, c. 330 BC. R: Detail from the Chandos portrait of Shakespeare, 1610.]
By this, many claim Hamlet's flaw is that his conscience makes him overthink and hesitate; but in fact as some scholars have recognized, many of his worst moments (his unkindness to Ophelia, his stabbing of Polonius) come from not thinking enough, not pausing before acting. If Hamlet simply kills Claudius at prayer, not only does he risk sending Claudius to heaven and failing at revenge, but (as Paul A. Cantor observes), he would become a moral monster little better than Claudius, or than Laertes in his moment of passion when he says he'd even cut the throat of his father's murderer in a church. Clearly, killing Claudius early and avoiding his own death (as well as that of many others) would not necessarily be the best solution if it means becoming like Claudius.
Aristotle is also famous for his ethics, which speaks of how people become happy and fulfilled by acquiring virtues and living a virtuous life; and also for his politics, which considers various forms of government and ranks them in part by how well they encourage virtue, and in part by various failings. As Paul A. Cantor explains, various forms of government or regimes (politics) tend to encourage certain virtues; certain political regimes get in the way of encouraging Aristotelian ethics (virtue and happiness). (The current US regime, for example, encourages impulse tweeting, crotch-grabbing, and not wearing masks during a pandemic, among other things).
Shakespeare shows how warrior-inclinations (fight enemies and prevail) and Machiavellian tendencies (poison the enemy) conflict with Renaissance Christian values (love enemies; take the plank or beam out of your own eye first before taking the mote or speck of dust out of your enemy’s eye). Caught in the cognitive dissonance of conflicting values, Hamlet ponders how to avoid the bad dream of damnation in the undiscovered country after death.
But Hamlet's biblical allusions and plot echoes also invite us to scrutinize the idea of tragedy in light of the bible tale of Jesus and other prophets who spoke truth to power (John the Baptist to Herod Antipas, Jonah to the king of Nineveh, Jeremiah to the people of Israel, Nathan to King David). Prophets had a reputation for being abused and even killed: If you're sent to prophesy to a sinful people, they may not appreciate it (with the Jonah story being a notable exception, where Jonah's fear is greater than the eventual outcome, in which the king and people of Nineveh all repent).
So Christian tragedy in this sense is not about a flaw manifested in prophetic figures who are often persecuted and die tragically, but rather a flaw in a sinful king (such as Herod Antipas, or King David), or a political system (the Roman occupation), or a sinful people (of Israel, of Nineveh) who often reject the prophet of God.
St. Paul speaks of Jesus' death on a cross as a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks, the idea that one tortured and crucified by the authorities is not defeated, but victorious over death. The 1599 Geneva translation puts it this way in 1 Cor 23-25, a passage with which Shakespeare was familiar through regular church attendance required by law:
23 But we preach Christ crucified: unto the Jews, even a stumbling block, and unto the Grecians, foolishness:The traditional Aristotelian poetic analysis might say, for example, that Hamlet hesitates too long, or has too strong a conscience, letting perfection get in the way of his own self-interest, so he doesn't kill Claudius at prayer, and many people die, including Hamlet, instead of Hamlet becoming king and perhaps marrying Ophelia in a bad revision of the play (see David Bevington's Murder Most Foul for examples of how the original text of Hamlet was sometimes adapted to suit the interests of theatergoers in past eras, including revised versions in which the prince does not die, but prevails).
24 But unto them which are called, both of the Jews and Grecians, we preach Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1599 Geneva, modernized spelling)
In Shakespeare's Christian culture, perhaps Hamlet seems a good Christian at first, speaking of changing names (and places: servant - lord) with Horatio in 1.2, and seemingly in love with Ophelia (judging by his letters); but he is tempted to revenge and sin that makes him not only feign madness, but descend into something like madness, until his re-conversion and submission to Providence on the sea-voyage, and his being reminded of the "infinite jest" and affection of Yorick in the graveyard, a kind of Emmaus-encounter.
Horatio encourages Hamlet (in 5.2) to refuse the duel with Laertes if he senses it may endanger his life, counseling self-preservation. But Hamlet doesn't want to let Claudius (who he describes as a "canker of our nature") cause more evil. So Hamlet is willing to take the risk, to lay down his life for Denmark if need be, to stop his uncle, who he believes to be a lying, murderous tyrant.
So in that sense, the play is not about Hamlet as a static character with a tragic flaw that seals his fate, but about a dynamic character who descends into evil (in the Renaissance Christian sense, a "sinner") but later ascends to some kind of redemption that ends in death and apparent defeat which the world tends not to understand (the worldly would rather have Hamlet take the ghost's word at face value and kill Claudius sooner, regardless of the moral peril). But in a Christian sense, Hamlet's death might instead be viewed as self-sacrifice for others.This may be, in part, why Hamlet asks Horatio to tell his tale and save his wounded name: People would not understand.
Another passage with which Shakespeare would have been familiar through his required weekly church attendance is John 15:13, first as it would have appeared in the popular Geneva translation:
13 Greater love than this hath no man, when any man bestoweth his life for his friends. (1599 Geneva)Or as Shakespeare would have heard it in church, from the Bishop's bible:
This idea of laying down one's life for a friend was not absent from Greek thought: For example, when Achilles refuses to fight, Patroclus, close friend of Achilles, uses the armor of Patroclus in battle as a disguise. Patroclus take the place of Achilles, and even disguises himself in the armor of Achilles. In that sense, one could say he dies in the place of Achilles, or lays down his life for him. Some might view this as an echo of what Shakespeare's culture would have viewed as Christian substitutionary atonement, where Jesus' death saves Christians from an eternity in hell. (Some modern theologians have trouble with the idea of a trinitarian father-God sending another person of the one-God - the son - to die and rise so as to save humankind - and rightly so - but to St. Paul, who speaks of Jesus dying for our sins, and to people in Shakespeare's time, this was commonplace.)
For those interested in exploring Aristotelian politics, Edward Clayton of Central Michigan University has a good entry in the IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, hosted by the University of Tennesee at Martin) on this. He considers not only the interplay with Aristotle's Ethics, but also considers limitations of Aristotelian politics.
For example, Aristotle doesn't have room for women and slaves in his ideas of citizens and democracy, and he assumes that workers (the "vulgar") would be required to serve the needs of the wealthier citizens who have more leisure to study philosophy and pursue a life of virtue. He believes that an agrarian society of farmers might be the ideal democracy, and assumes that all would be too busy working to become overly ambitious or greedy, but again, because they are so busy at farming (and therefore among the "vulgar"), they would not have leisure time to pursue philosophy. But more importantly, for Aristotle, there is clearly a hierarchy of forms of government, with freedom to pursue a life of virtue being most important, and with Tyranny being the worst and least compatible with a life of virtue.
Yet we know from the graveyard scene, which offended the sensibilities of some later generations, that Shakespeare either had a soft spot in his heart for those Aristotle called the "vulgar," or his theater depended on making plays that would be popular with those in the cheap seats. Aristotle doesn't have room for the "vulgar" except to serve the citizens who have leisure time for philosophy and the pursuit of a life of virtue, whereas Jesus championed the poor, saying that whatever one does to "the least of these" one does unto him (Matthew 25:40), and telling the tale of the beggar Lazarus who goes to heaven, shunned by the rich man who goes to hell (I have blogged in the past about how the ghost of Hamlet's father associates the effects of the poison on his skin with the beggar Lazarus ("Lazar-like"), as well as about other echoes of the Lazarus tale in the play). To Aristotle, the vulgar are left out of the ideal citizenry, but to the Jesus of the gospels, the poor and persecuted are "the salt of the earth" (Matthew 5:3-13).
In two previous posts (here and here), I noted some ideas from Paul A. Cantor, who edited and wrote an introduction to the Cambridge University Press Hamlet (2004, 2012). I also mentioned his 3-part lecture series on Hamlet, part of a series on Shakespeare and politics. About 10:30 into his second video-lecture, Cantor has a good explanation of why politics matters in Hamlet (and in fact, in other plays):
10:15 - “...Shakespeare investigates even more deeply the effects of Christianity on the soul and indeed its creation of the soul in the modern sense, and how much that complicates human life and specifically politics.If the regime values honor and war, then certain virtues are encouraged, and Aristotle would not be happy: For Aristotle, war is only a last resort to achieve peace, so for example, the city of Sparta is too warlike, and too narrow in the virtues it promotes. But in Shakespeare's time, many believed that too much peace led to sin and vice, so wars or crusades every so often served to make people more focused on others and the common good. What's a bard (or a Christian prince of Denmark) to do with a war-like state?
When I talk about politics [...] I do so in the broadest possible sense, where political questions are the fundamental human questions[…] I’ve been trying to suggest that, for Shakespeare, people live under distinct regimes, and those regimes emphasize different sets of virtues and vices, and how people approach their world is rooted in that, so that there is no simple universal human condition in the world for Shakespeare.
So for example, on as fundamental an issue as suicide, the ancient Romans have such a different approach to the question of suicide than the modern Christians, and we’ll see how much that figures in Hamlet. It means that Shakespeare characterizes his figures in terms of distinct sets of beliefs.
Again, it’s very easy to get that confused with Shakespeare’s beliefs. I’m bracketing out that question; we have no direct access to what Shakespeare’s beliefs were. We can see, though, the set he imputes to his characters, and Hamlet is a particularly rich example of the diversity of beliefs that Shakespeare shows. Hamlet is the deepest Christian in this play [....]
Hamlet's father counsels revenge, which conflicts with Christian values (and many would argue, with Aristotelian virtues as well). He believes his father was a good and honorable king, but why would the ghost ask for revenge, if that might damn him? Claudius has prepared Denmark for war, as described in 1.1 by Horatio, with laborers working day and night and violating the sabbath to make weapons and defenses, against a possible attack from Fortinbras. But how could Hamlet complain about Fortinbras wanting his father's land back, when Hamlet himself had his hopes to be king disappointed, when Claudius killed his father? Christianity would have Hamlet remove the plank from his own eye before removing the speck or "mote" of dust from the eye of Fortinbras, whose father had been killed by Hamlet's father. (Horatio alludes to this passage in 1.1 with the word "mote".)
So as Paul Cantor notes in his introduction to the Cambridge Hamlet and in his video-lectures, different value systems come into conflict, with even conflicting religious values being alluded to (Wittenberg, the Diet of Worms, "by St. Patrick" as a reference to the Catholic idea of Purgatory, and conflicting expectations of burial customs for suicides, hinting at major changes in burial rites for English Protestants, from earlier Roman Catholic practices). Hamlet must find a way to deal with these conflicting expectations, and he makes many key mistakes before the end.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages in many of my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over any other, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to point out how the Bible may have influenced Shakespeare, his plays, and his age.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading!
My current project is a book tentatively titled Hamlet’s Bible, about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider subscribing.
Comments
Post a Comment