"He Descended into Hell": Descent & Redemption in Hamlet
Besides blogging here, I post links to new blog posts on FaceBook forums related to Shakespeare as well as on Twitter and LinkedIn. Last week, on LinkedIn, in a discussion thread below last week's blog post on anagnorisis, Dan Decker noted:
"Hamlet is a tale of redemption. It is not a revenge plot."
In fact, if one compares Hamlet (as many often do) to The Spanish Tragedy, it's interesting to note not only the many similarities scholars point out, but also how, while the protagonist in TST sinks deeper into revenge before the very bloody ending, while in contrast, Hamlet descends into violent and bloody thoughts, but then reascends after having his life saved by pirates, and after finding the skull of Yorick, identified with the help of the gravedigger.
Yes, he still fights with Laertes over Ophelia's grave, but something has changed in him. Yes, after being wounded by Laertes and unknowingly poisoned in what was supposed to be a fair fencing match, he fights back and wounds Laertes, not knowing the switched sword was poisoned. And yes, he had earlier sent Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths apparently without remorse. And yes, in end he finally kills Claudius, who by that time has not only killed his father, but unintentionally poisoned Hamlet's mother, Claudius' new wife, with the poison cup that had been intended for Hamlet.
In the final scene of The Spanish Tragedy, the violence is mostly in the hands of the protagonist (though his victims seem deserving of punishment). Unlike TST, with its bloody ending thoroughly planned out by the protagonist, Hamlet seems to shatter and decentralize the evil a bit more, with a protagonist who is not plotting to orchestrate revenge, but rather, suspecting danger, yet resolved to be ready, quoting scripture on how one must always be ready for death and to meet the judgment of heaven, because the day will come like a thief in the night, so one must be ready: "The readiness is all," says Hamlet.
Unlike TST, the violent actions of revenge and murder in the last scene are committed first by Claudius and Laertes with their poisons, and with Gertrude as the first victim, and then Hamlet responds, unaware of the poison sword at first, unknowingly poisoning Laertes before Laertes finally points to the king - "The King's to blame" - and Hamlet kills Claudius when he no longer has a throne to gain by the killing.
Dan Decker later noted,
"In order to be redeemed, Hamlet must first go to the dark place of revenge."
(Or as Malcolm X and others might note, perhaps we should not associate darkness with evil and light with good, as the experience of many people attests to the fact that fair-skinned people can be sources of great evil, just as dark-skinned people can be every bit as much the source of great good.)
Hamlet certainly descends into very evil acts and thoughts which have shocked some readers and critics: Before killing Polonius by accident, he catches Claudius at prayer, a fine opportunity to kill him. But Hamlet realizes that if Claudius is forgiven at prayer by God (like a good Protestant without needing a Catholic priest for the sacrament of confession, which the ghost seems to have needed), then killing him might send him to heaven. Hamlet wants to send his father's murderer to hell. He wants to play God, some have observed.
Some have found this repulsive. Samuel Johnson noted,
It seems Coleridge can't even comprehend such a descent into evil, so he assumes Johnson is mistaken, and Hamlet is merely finding an excuse for delay:
(I think Coleridge is wrong, and Johnson was right, at least about the horror of Hamlet's moral descent into evil.)
In later ages, some productions would edit this moment out of the script because they wanted to preserve Hamlet as their hero and leave him unblemished by such evil thoughts and choices. He wants to kill Claudius in the act of sinning, which is why he stabs the person behind the arras in his mother's closet, only to find it was Polonius he stabbed, not Claudius.
This sense of Hamlet descending into evil and sin is in harmony with certain religious ideas that were widely available to Shakespeare:
- In order to accomplish the work of redemption, Jesus must die and descend into hell, something mentioned in the Apostles' creed (and often called the "harrowing of hell"), in order to free the just who had died since Adam. This was retold in Old English poetry, influenced later works such as Dante's Inferno (1320), and was often portrayed in art, including famous renaissance paintings (which, in their turn, were often influenced by Dante's Inferno).
[Follower of Hieronymus Bosch (circa 1450 –1516) Christ in Limbo, circa 1575; Indianapolis Museum of Art, via Wikimedia]
[From The Vaux Passional, illuminated manuscript circa 1503-4. Description: Harrowing of hell; Christ leads Adam by the hand. National Library of Wales. Via Wikimedia.]
- St. Paul, in 2 Cor. 5:17-21, notes:
Perhaps to Paul, Jesus crucified became like a sin offering, an unblemished dove or other animal to be sacrificed ritually for sin? Also note that Jesus broke the religious laws by healing on the Sabbath, and therefore technically was a sinner under a strict reading of the Law. So in this logic, Jesus becomes sin (a sinner by the Law, or a sin offering) to save others from sin. To Christians in Shakespeare's lifetime, required by law to attend church each Sunday, there was no escaping being exposed to and reminded of this logic of sin and salvation.
The biblical theology of sin and redemption also included the idea that God can take the evil actions of people and turn them to good purposes; God can take the evil action of people crucifying Jesus, and turn it to the good of salvation offered to all. In this way, in Genesis 50:20, Joseph, son of Jacob, explains to his brothers that although they sold him into slavery, God has used that sin of theirs for good, later putting Joseph in a position where he could save his family.
It's also related to the way Jews and Christians believed God could use the evil actions of others to test and correct the chosen: In Habakkuk 1:6, the prophet speaks of how God will "raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and furious nation, which shall go upon the breadth of the land to possess the dwelling places that are not theirs," explaining later in 1:12,
And yes, this sounds like people who suffer repeatedly and collectively from violent attacks and PTSD, passing on their own trauma to their children.
This is the idea of the scourge, language Hamlet uses to describe himself after killing Polonius:
Similarly, Hamlet is surprised at what he finds in the heart of evil: He had vowed to avenge the murder of his father, but in the process, the first person he kills is Polonius, someone else's father (Ophelia and Laertes). He has violated the golden rule as people in Shakespeare's time would have known it from Leviticus and Matthew:
Leviticus 19:18
"Thou shalt not avenge, nor be mindful of wrong against the children of thy people, but shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord." (1599 Geneva translation)
Matthew 7:12
"Therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: even so do ye to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets." (1599 Geneva translation)
In his bloody thoughts and actions, Hamlet has truly descended into evil, sending even his former friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths; but unlike the protagonist in The Spanish Tragedy, Hamlet spends a great deal of the rest of the play struggling toward an ascent and redemption.
In the Christian story, the descent into the heart of evil is not only Jesus' fabled descent into hell or limbo, but also simply Jesus tortured, crucified, and mocked on the cross. There, according to Luke's gospel account, Jesus prays, "Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do."(Lk 23:34). It is as if the story poses and answers the question: To what length will the grace of God go, to help people find redemption? Even the crucifiers are offered forgiveness.
Hamlet's journey is different, because he is not a sinless Jesus, but rather, a sinner. He confesses this to Ophelia in the nunnery scene, where he adds perhaps to his list of sins his cruelty to her. He kills Polonius, sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths, and holds a testosterone-charged argument with Laertes over Ophelia's grave regarding who loved her more.
After attempting a public apology to Laertes (which avoids admitting publicly that, when he killed Polonius, he was actually aiming for Claudius), a wounded and unknowingly poisoned Hamlet wounds Laertes in return, unknowingly poisoning him as well, in a vengeful impulse. Hamlet does exchange forgiveness with him before dying, but in this and other things, Hamlet, unlike Jesus, is clearly a sinner to the end, yet committed to the idea that he has been chosen by supernatural elements (the ghost of his father, and Providence or heaven) to remove what is rotten in Denmark from its throne.
In Shakespeare's time, as in Biblical times, many believed that monarchs were anointed by God to rule. For Claudius to kill his brother and usurp the throne was, in a way, to play God. So it's interesting that, in the depths to which Hamlet must sink before his redemption arc is complete, Hamlet, too, tries to play God by attempting to send Claudius to hell, and perhaps by sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths.
When dancing the limbo (or listening to conservative shock-jock Rush Limbaugh), the question is, "How low can you go?" The question for Hamlet is similar. The lower he goes, the more potential he has for evoking our disgust and pity, and the more he has potential to elicit our sympathy in the end as his character arc ascends toward redemption.
What might this mean to us in our own age? There are still many who believe in heaven and hell (and still Catholics who believe in purgatory). Others question the idea of a male God-figure who acts as a harsh judge, and the idea of sin: Some people assumed in previous ages to be damned would be considered psychopaths or sociopaths, and perhaps incapable of free choice. For those who believe in an afterlife, is it too hard to imagine that a transcendent deity could have mercy on them as well?
If we disbelieve in an afterlife or are agnostic on the question, we might still believe that our choices sometimes have a chance of outliving us in their consequences for later generations. If even that alone is true, then perhaps Hamlet's choice to remove a murderous usurper from the throne could be considered a redemptive one, even in a very secular sense.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
"Hamlet is a tale of redemption. It is not a revenge plot."
In fact, if one compares Hamlet (as many often do) to The Spanish Tragedy, it's interesting to note not only the many similarities scholars point out, but also how, while the protagonist in TST sinks deeper into revenge before the very bloody ending, while in contrast, Hamlet descends into violent and bloody thoughts, but then reascends after having his life saved by pirates, and after finding the skull of Yorick, identified with the help of the gravedigger.
Yes, he still fights with Laertes over Ophelia's grave, but something has changed in him. Yes, after being wounded by Laertes and unknowingly poisoned in what was supposed to be a fair fencing match, he fights back and wounds Laertes, not knowing the switched sword was poisoned. And yes, he had earlier sent Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths apparently without remorse. And yes, in end he finally kills Claudius, who by that time has not only killed his father, but unintentionally poisoned Hamlet's mother, Claudius' new wife, with the poison cup that had been intended for Hamlet.
In the final scene of The Spanish Tragedy, the violence is mostly in the hands of the protagonist (though his victims seem deserving of punishment). Unlike TST, with its bloody ending thoroughly planned out by the protagonist, Hamlet seems to shatter and decentralize the evil a bit more, with a protagonist who is not plotting to orchestrate revenge, but rather, suspecting danger, yet resolved to be ready, quoting scripture on how one must always be ready for death and to meet the judgment of heaven, because the day will come like a thief in the night, so one must be ready: "The readiness is all," says Hamlet.
Unlike TST, the violent actions of revenge and murder in the last scene are committed first by Claudius and Laertes with their poisons, and with Gertrude as the first victim, and then Hamlet responds, unaware of the poison sword at first, unknowingly poisoning Laertes before Laertes finally points to the king - "The King's to blame" - and Hamlet kills Claudius when he no longer has a throne to gain by the killing.
Dan Decker later noted,
"In order to be redeemed, Hamlet must first go to the dark place of revenge."
(Or as Malcolm X and others might note, perhaps we should not associate darkness with evil and light with good, as the experience of many people attests to the fact that fair-skinned people can be sources of great evil, just as dark-skinned people can be every bit as much the source of great good.)
Hamlet certainly descends into very evil acts and thoughts which have shocked some readers and critics: Before killing Polonius by accident, he catches Claudius at prayer, a fine opportunity to kill him. But Hamlet realizes that if Claudius is forgiven at prayer by God (like a good Protestant without needing a Catholic priest for the sacrament of confession, which the ghost seems to have needed), then killing him might send him to heaven. Hamlet wants to send his father's murderer to hell. He wants to play God, some have observed.
Some have found this repulsive. Samuel Johnson noted,
"This speech, in which Hamlet, represented as a virtuous character, is not content vith taking blood for blood, but contrives damnation for the man that he would punish, is too horrible to be read or to be uttered.
It seems Coleridge can't even comprehend such a descent into evil, so he assumes Johnson is mistaken, and Hamlet is merely finding an excuse for delay:
"Dr. Johnson's mistaking of the marks of reluctance and procrastination for impetuous, horror-striking, fiendishness!"
(I think Coleridge is wrong, and Johnson was right, at least about the horror of Hamlet's moral descent into evil.)
In later ages, some productions would edit this moment out of the script because they wanted to preserve Hamlet as their hero and leave him unblemished by such evil thoughts and choices. He wants to kill Claudius in the act of sinning, which is why he stabs the person behind the arras in his mother's closet, only to find it was Polonius he stabbed, not Claudius.
This sense of Hamlet descending into evil and sin is in harmony with certain religious ideas that were widely available to Shakespeare:
- In order to accomplish the work of redemption, Jesus must die and descend into hell, something mentioned in the Apostles' creed (and often called the "harrowing of hell"), in order to free the just who had died since Adam. This was retold in Old English poetry, influenced later works such as Dante's Inferno (1320), and was often portrayed in art, including famous renaissance paintings (which, in their turn, were often influenced by Dante's Inferno).
[Follower of Hieronymus Bosch (circa 1450 –1516) Christ in Limbo, circa 1575; Indianapolis Museum of Art, via Wikimedia]
[From The Vaux Passional, illuminated manuscript circa 1503-4. Description: Harrowing of hell; Christ leads Adam by the hand. National Library of Wales. Via Wikimedia.]
.jpg){kind=link}
- St. Paul, in 2 Cor. 5:17-21, notes:
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, let him be a new creature. Old things are passed away: behold, all things are become new.What does this mean (or what did it mean in Shakespeare's time), for God to be in Christ, but to make him "which knew no sin" "to be sin for us"?
18 And all things are of God, which hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given unto us the ministry of reconciliation.
19 For God was in Christ, and reconciled the world to himself, not imputing their sins unto them, and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then are we ambassadors for Christ: as though God did beseech you through us, we pray you in Christ’s stead, that ye be reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, which knew no sin, that we should be made the righteousness of God in him. (1599 Geneva translation)
Perhaps to Paul, Jesus crucified became like a sin offering, an unblemished dove or other animal to be sacrificed ritually for sin? Also note that Jesus broke the religious laws by healing on the Sabbath, and therefore technically was a sinner under a strict reading of the Law. So in this logic, Jesus becomes sin (a sinner by the Law, or a sin offering) to save others from sin. To Christians in Shakespeare's lifetime, required by law to attend church each Sunday, there was no escaping being exposed to and reminded of this logic of sin and salvation.
The biblical theology of sin and redemption also included the idea that God can take the evil actions of people and turn them to good purposes; God can take the evil action of people crucifying Jesus, and turn it to the good of salvation offered to all. In this way, in Genesis 50:20, Joseph, son of Jacob, explains to his brothers that although they sold him into slavery, God has used that sin of theirs for good, later putting Joseph in a position where he could save his family.
It's also related to the way Jews and Christians believed God could use the evil actions of others to test and correct the chosen: In Habakkuk 1:6, the prophet speaks of how God will "raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and furious nation, which shall go upon the breadth of the land to possess the dwelling places that are not theirs," explaining later in 1:12,
"O Lord, thou hast ordained them for judgment, and O God, thou hast established them for correction."So the Bible preaches, "spare the rod and spoil the child," assuming that children need to be beaten when they disobey; and they interpret history in the same way, that when the children of Israel suffer at the hands of their enemies, God is punishing them for sins out of love; God is not sparing the rod with God's chosen.
And yes, this sounds like people who suffer repeatedly and collectively from violent attacks and PTSD, passing on their own trauma to their children.
This is the idea of the scourge, language Hamlet uses to describe himself after killing Polonius:
For this same lord,In this way, Hamlet expresses his belief that God is using even his mistakes, to punish Polonius for his, and perhaps using the meddling of Polonius to punish Hamlet with his act of killing. Hamlet's faith in this moment is that God is a punishing, exacting God, and from this God, there is no escape. So Hamlet descends further into evil, vowing that all his thoughts should be bloody, or they are worth nothing:
I do repent; but heaven hath pleased it so
To punish me with this, and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister.
I will bestow him, and will answer well
The death I gave him. (3.4 2548-53)
"Oh, from this time forth,Joseph Campbell and others have described this important moment in stories and myths as a descent into the heart of evil, sometimes as a passage into the mouth of hell. It is Jonah, in the belly of the fish; it is Hamlet on the ship, finding the letter from Claudius to England, ordering his death, and later, captured by pirates. It is Hansel and Gretel, imprisoned in the witch's house, with Gretel being asked by the witch to light the oven and become complicit in the killing of her brother. In the first Star Wars film, the descent into evil involved going into the Death Star and its trash compactor, which of course contained a monster that could pull the heroes down; soon it involved facing Darth Vader, the dark father, and the death of Obi Wan Kenobi. In other stories, it involves somehow going to the heart or source of evil and confronting it. In a later Star Wars sequel, it will involve Luke beheading an image of Darth Vader, and behind Vader's mask, finding his own face.
My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!" (4.4.2743.59-60)
Similarly, Hamlet is surprised at what he finds in the heart of evil: He had vowed to avenge the murder of his father, but in the process, the first person he kills is Polonius, someone else's father (Ophelia and Laertes). He has violated the golden rule as people in Shakespeare's time would have known it from Leviticus and Matthew:
Leviticus 19:18
"Thou shalt not avenge, nor be mindful of wrong against the children of thy people, but shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord." (1599 Geneva translation)
Matthew 7:12
"Therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: even so do ye to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets." (1599 Geneva translation)
In his bloody thoughts and actions, Hamlet has truly descended into evil, sending even his former friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths; but unlike the protagonist in The Spanish Tragedy, Hamlet spends a great deal of the rest of the play struggling toward an ascent and redemption.
In the Christian story, the descent into the heart of evil is not only Jesus' fabled descent into hell or limbo, but also simply Jesus tortured, crucified, and mocked on the cross. There, according to Luke's gospel account, Jesus prays, "Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do."(Lk 23:34). It is as if the story poses and answers the question: To what length will the grace of God go, to help people find redemption? Even the crucifiers are offered forgiveness.
Hamlet's journey is different, because he is not a sinless Jesus, but rather, a sinner. He confesses this to Ophelia in the nunnery scene, where he adds perhaps to his list of sins his cruelty to her. He kills Polonius, sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths, and holds a testosterone-charged argument with Laertes over Ophelia's grave regarding who loved her more.
After attempting a public apology to Laertes (which avoids admitting publicly that, when he killed Polonius, he was actually aiming for Claudius), a wounded and unknowingly poisoned Hamlet wounds Laertes in return, unknowingly poisoning him as well, in a vengeful impulse. Hamlet does exchange forgiveness with him before dying, but in this and other things, Hamlet, unlike Jesus, is clearly a sinner to the end, yet committed to the idea that he has been chosen by supernatural elements (the ghost of his father, and Providence or heaven) to remove what is rotten in Denmark from its throne.
In Shakespeare's time, as in Biblical times, many believed that monarchs were anointed by God to rule. For Claudius to kill his brother and usurp the throne was, in a way, to play God. So it's interesting that, in the depths to which Hamlet must sink before his redemption arc is complete, Hamlet, too, tries to play God by attempting to send Claudius to hell, and perhaps by sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths.
When dancing the limbo (or listening to conservative shock-jock Rush Limbaugh), the question is, "How low can you go?" The question for Hamlet is similar. The lower he goes, the more potential he has for evoking our disgust and pity, and the more he has potential to elicit our sympathy in the end as his character arc ascends toward redemption.
What might this mean to us in our own age? There are still many who believe in heaven and hell (and still Catholics who believe in purgatory). Others question the idea of a male God-figure who acts as a harsh judge, and the idea of sin: Some people assumed in previous ages to be damned would be considered psychopaths or sociopaths, and perhaps incapable of free choice. For those who believe in an afterlife, is it too hard to imagine that a transcendent deity could have mercy on them as well?
If we disbelieve in an afterlife or are agnostic on the question, we might still believe that our choices sometimes have a chance of outliving us in their consequences for later generations. If even that alone is true, then perhaps Hamlet's choice to remove a murderous usurper from the throne could be considered a redemptive one, even in a very secular sense.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Paul,
ReplyDelete1) I love the Joseph Campbell reference (I'm a Jonathan Young fan).
2) Please read this -- https://prezi.com/tha_tiftrl4d/redemption-in-hamlet/
3) The Dual Nature: In Genesis 2:7, the Torah states that G-d formed (vayyitzer) man. The spelling of this word is unusual: it uses two consecutive Yods instead of the one you would expect. The rabbis inferred that these Yods stand for the word "yetzer," which means impulse, and the existence of two Yods here indicates that humanity was formed with two impulses: a good impulse (the yetzer tov) and an evil impulse (the yetzer ra).
The yetzer tov is the moral conscience, the inner voice that reminds you of G-d's law when you consider doing something that is forbidden. According to some views, it does not enter a person until his 13th birthday, when he becomes responsible for following the commandments. See Bar Mitzvah.
The yetzer ra is more difficult to define, because there are many different ideas about it. It is not a desire to do evil in the way we normally think of it in Western society: a desire to cause senseless harm. Rather, it is usually conceived as the selfish nature, the desire to satisfy personal needs (food, shelter, sex, etc.) without regard for the moral consequences of fulfilling those desires.
The yetzer ra is not a bad thing. It was created by G-d, and all things created by G-d are good. The Talmud notes that without the yetzer ra (the desire to satisfy personal needs), man would not build a house, marry a wife, beget children or conduct business affairs. But the yetzer ra can lead to wrongdoing when it is not controlled by the yetzer tov. There is nothing inherently wrong with hunger, but it can lead you to steal food. There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual desire, but it can lead you to commit rape, adultery, incest or other sexual perversion.
The yetzer ra is generally seen as something internal to a person, not as an external force acting on a person. The idea that "the devil made me do it" is not in line with the majority of thought in Judaism. Although it has been said that Satan and the yetzer ra are one and the same, this is more often understood as meaning that Satan is merely a personification of our own selfish desires, rather than that our selfish desires are caused by some external force.
People have the ability to choose which impulse to follow: the yetzer tov or the yetzer ra. That is the heart of the Jewish understanding of free will. The Talmud notes that all people are descended from Adam, so no one can blame his own wickedness on his ancestry. On the contrary, we all have the ability to make our own choices, and we will all be held responsible for the choices we make.
Thanks, Michael! I will check out the link ASAP, and glad to hear you're a Jonathan Young fan - I am too ;-D <--wink/smile
DeleteWhat you describe about the yetzer ra and yetzer tov sounds like something Jung would appreciate, with his sense of the necessity of the shadow, and of Western cultures being out of balance in that way.
I am guessing that Shakespeare may not have been familiar with such teachings because of the expulsion of most Jews from England long before his time (unless we accept the hypothesis of some that Shakespeare himself was a Jew, an interesting thought-experiment).
I'm realizing lately that I have not written enough about the Genesis themes and allusions in Hamlet (perhaps because many of them are quite explicit). But it fits into the Christian catechetical sense of Adam as the Old Man, Jesus as the New Man.
The ghost certainly wants to define himself as the old Adam, betrayed by the serpent, his brother, and by Gertrude, his Eve; and himself as Abel, slain by his brother Cain (Claudius).
Thanks again for the comments and link!
Michael: I checked out your link at Prezi - I guess it's impressive that students would do this sort of work, but disappointing that they seem to take the position of the Ghost (avenge my foul murder) as the main path to redemption for all the characters (I suppose I would secretly like to find many others in the world who view the sea-voyage as a turning point and Jonah story, and the graveyard as an Emmaus moment, both more redemptive than revenge). But it makes sense that they would then take Laertes' turn against Claudius as an attempt to gain redemption through - revenge upon Claudius, who deceived him? rather than redemption by turning away from revenge against Hamlet, and reconciling with him. But interesting in its own way, to see students engaged enough with the text to product this sort of presentation.
Delete