Overall Major Stengths & Weaknesses: Notes on Asimov on Hamlet, Part 7

Some Shakespeare fans are huge fans of Asimov's two-volume work, Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare. It surveys all the plays, provides cross-references to how various plays share references, especially to elements of history and classical mythology, but also to a smaller number of biblical tales. It's also accessible, free of scholarly jargon that often makes many readers feel excluded from the intended audience.

These are among its greatest strengths. The explanations of distant European history especially helps to place Hamlet in a much larger and interesting context, especially in the sweep of political and military history, and that's quite interesting. It gives a sense that very old history matters, and that the forces of history keep finding expression even in the present.

But at least as far as its treatment of Hamlet is concerned, Asimov's Guide is not without a number of glaring weaknesses. First published in 1970, Asimov's Guide is terribly dismissive of Gertrude and Ophelia, and far too enthusiastic about Claudius as a capable and popular leader, in spite of some of the evidence of the text. In the case of Hamlet, Asimov is also remarkably dismissive of Freudian analysis of the play, sure to disappoint any fans of Freud seeking Asimov's opinion of the play (some may find his anti-Freudian arguments worth noting, some not). His list of biblical references is relatively very short, and he considers interesting history, but mostly history that was centuries old in Shakespeare's lifetime, and therefore neglects how the play might comment on historical events in, or closer to, the playwright's lifetime.

The overall effect in the case of his chapter on Hamlet is that the play is portrayed as a combination of very old European history, and mythological references that were popular in the Renaissance, but perhaps obscuring an awareness that Shakespeare was very much a man of his age and writing very much for his own time, very much aware of more recent events.

I'll address these moments in the text below.

His chapter on Hamlet also contains a disappointingly short list of Biblical references, especially in comparison to his treatment of history and mythology.

Consider the number of pages on which each of these get attention:
33 pages - History & Mythology
6 pages - Biblical references.

Asimov also misses a number of key biblical allusions that he comes close to, but either avoids or fails to notice, which I'll point out below.

HISTORY & MYTHOLOGY
First, here's a sort of informal index to some of the historical and mythological references in Asimov's chapter on Hamlet. All page references are to Asimov's Vol. 2:

77-81, 83, 84, 87-89 - History of England and Danish/Germanic Invasions
92 - Martin Luther, Wittenberg [no mention of Dr. Faustus]
93-4 - Mythology
95 - Canute & Emma, Edward the Confessor
100-1 - Saxo Grammaticus, Kyd, Belleforest
106 - Lucius Junius Brutus
112 - Hercules
113 - Roscius, Seneca, Pautus
114-15 - Pyrrhus (son of Achilles), Hecuba  [In relation to Achilles, who died by a wound to his heel (or Achilles tendon), Asimov misses a possible allusion to Henry VIII's leg wound/sore that plagued him later in life.]
116 - Cranes of Ibycus
120 - Canute, Sven Fork-Beard
126-27 - Nero, Agrippina
131-2 - Letter: Bellerophon, Lycia
[Asimov misses King David's letter arranging for death of Uriah, husband of Bathsheba]
135-6 - Switzers
138 - Normandy
141 - Ossa, Pelion & Olympus
145-6 - Suicide: "Antique Roman," Cato the Younger, Julius Caesar
146 - Canute, Magnus the Good

All of this is easy to read and to understand, and includes some cross-references to other parts of the two-volume work, where similarly accessible information can be found.

But by having so much treatment of historical and mythological matters (especially historical), perhaps Asimov wrongly implies that Shakespeare's Hamlet fits most neatly into world political history, and is somehow better explained by it, with a little help from classical mythology, than it is by placing it especially in the context of Early Modern English history, politics, and religion.

Asimov mentions Hamlet's "incestuous sheets" comment (II.94), but does not mention the first marriage of Henry VIII to the widow of his deceased older brother, a marriage that was allegedly (by Henry) incestuous (which Catherine of Aragon denied).

He also mentions that he requires Horatio and Marcellus to swear oaths (II.105), but does not mention the late Elizabethan "Bond of Association," which Karen Robertson describes[1] as follows: 

(223-224)

Things like the "incestuous" first marriage of Henry VIII, and later, the Bond of Association, and many other details of Early Modern history, deserve consideration as much or more than older history and classical mythology. Perhaps Asimov on this point is merely reflecting some of the other scholars before 1970 and their emphases?

ASIMOV'S HASTY DISMISSAL OF FREUDIAN CONSIDERATIONS
Asimov claims that it is mostly the haste of the marriage of Claudius and Hamlet's mother Gertrude to which the prince objects; Asimov gives a nod toward the idea of incest and certain forbidden marriages, such as a brother to the widow of his deceased brother, but he emphasizes the haste: "It is the haste with which the marriage took place, the rapidity. That's what bothers him really, fro he comes back to it again and again." Asimov clings to this importance of the hast of the marriage to justify his claim that Hamlet is mostly disappointed about not being king, so his main goal, to Asimov, is to get the throne back from Claudius:

Asimov's insists on the importance of their haste denying Hamlet the throne (and not Gertrude's haste showing disrespect to King Hamlet's memory for not mourning long enough). Asimov under-emphasizes the sinfulness, in the eyes of the church as well as the civil law of the time, of an incestuous marriage, in favor of this haste.

Freudians might (rightly) respond that what Hamlet says about the haste of the marriage doesn't exclude the possibility that he has an unhealthy fixation on his mother (and, many observe, a fixation on his mother's sex life).

Freudians might bracket the possibility that Hamlet, thinking he has seen his father's ghost, perhaps from purgatory, is sincerely concerned with his own eternal soul as well as his mother's: He doesn't commit suicide because heaven has "fixed his canon 'gainst self-slaughter" (suicide), and now he feels he has been given a commission by heaven and hell to bring Claudius to justice and avenge his father's death ("Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell," 2.2).

Hamlet may in the closet scene be especially concerned with the fate of his mother's soul, because she ("incestuously") married her brother-in-law; before the closet scene, he even suspects she may have known of, or helped in, the murder.

Freudians might bracket these possibilities in order to emphasize the relatively newer idea that Hamlet wants to kill his father (or father-figure Claudius, who has already killed Hamlet's father) and marry his mother (Claudius beat him to it). Heaven and the Father-God, to Freudians, can be illusory and merely projections of super-ego and a need for a strong father.

But if Asimov was accepting the Freudians on their own terms, he might acknowledge that what Hamlet says about haste doesn't rule out an unhealthy relationship to his mother that has made him too obedient, too much under her control, while scheming to kill her new husband.

Asimov does believe that Hamlet wants the throne of Denmark; he believes Hamlet wants the throne even more than he wants to inherit "a crown of righteousness" in heaven, as St. Paul put it (2 Timothy 4:7-8). So to that extent, Asimov is actually in agreement with many of the Freudians against whom he protests, who believe, like him, that Hamlet wishes to kill Claudius so that he can replace him (and his father, King Hamlet) on Denmark's throne. In Freud, the son wishes to kill and take the place of the father, not save Denmark and perhaps die in the process but inherit a heavenly crown.

We might say that Asimov's easy dismissal of Freudian interpretations is a bit (a-hem) hasty.

ASIMOV ON THE COMPETENCE & POPULARITY OF CLAUDIUS
Asimov believes Claudius is both popular and capable, but the evidence might show otherwise:

He believes that, because Claudius shows a "gift of charm" (for example, in the second scene of Act 1, but also in when he "wins over Laertes at a dangerous moment," and according to the ghost, charming in the sense of winning over Gertrude's affections. And yet the sentinels who have seen an apparition that seems to be the deceased king, brother to Claudius, do not seek to share the news of the visitation with Claudius first, but rather, with Hamlet, who it would appear they trust more than Claudius.

Asimov imagines that Polonius may have been instrumental in the election of Claudius over Prince Hamlet: "Did he maneuver the nobles into supporting the brother rather than the son? Did he persuade the widowed queen to marry her brother-in-law? We can only guess" (90). Yes, we can guess, but the fact that Asimov explains the feeling of indebtedness on the part of Claudius toward Polonius (1.2) with these conjectures and not others is interesting and helpful, but perhaps it implies that Claudius may not have been so popular, and powerful people needed convincing to help him secure the throne?

After the death of Polonius, Claudius later says of Hamlet, "Yet must not we put the strong law on him. He's loved of the distracted multitude, Who like not in their judgment, but their eyes" (4.3). It would seem from Claudius' own words that Hamlet is more popular than Claudius?

Asimov says Claudius "is shown to us throughout the play as a capable and intelligent king and, except for what he has had to do to get and keep the crown, even a likeable one" (104). And yet Claudius is not very intelligent or capable in winning over the affections of Hamlet in 1.2 when he uses a list of insults to try to intimidate Hamlet into giving up his mourning for his father.

Regarding the efforts of Claudius to avoid war with Norway by diplomacy, Asimov observes, "This does show Claudius as an efficient and capable king" (108). And yet the fact that Fortinbras enters at the end of the play (5.2) claiming he has some "rights of memory" in Denmark implies that perhaps the diplomacy has not been so successful, and in fact Claudius has been naive to allow Fortinbras and his army to march through Denmark on the way to wars in Poland, not suspecting that he may have been hoodwinked by the pretending of Norway in the name of diplomacy. Perhaps not so efficient and capable after all?

So it seems Asimov places too much faith in Claudius as a popular and effective king.

ASIMOV ON GERTRUDE AND OPHELIA
Consider how the following Asimov quotes about Gertrude and Ophelia may show that he is too confident in his assessment of them, which is quite negative (in each case, bold & italic emphasis mine):

106 - "In particular, Hamlet must beware of Ophelia, not for her own sake (for she is quite an artless girl, no more shrewd and worldly-wise than Queen Gertrude)...."

128 - [After the prayer scene with Hamlet and Claudius, Asimov notes:] "Hamlet finally reaches his mother. From his new position, he can speak to her openly at last and he begins with such self-confident firmness that she fears (remember, he has labored hard to convince her that he is mad, and she herself is, in any case, not very intelligent) he will murder her. She calls for help."

130 - [Regarding what Hamlet says in the closet scene to Gertrude:] "He cannot lose himself in a pointless rating of his mother, who has gone far past the point where her limited intelligence can accept what he is saying anyway."

131 - "[Hamlet] knows he cannot rely on his mother's good sense, for she has none. He can only hope. As impressively as he can, he orders her not to reveal his secret."

132 - [After the death of Polonius, when Gertrude next speaks to Claudius:] "The Queen does not say Hamlet is really sane and would indeed have killed the King had he been there (but Claudius is shrewd enough to know that without being told). On the other hand, the King does not say he really intends to have Hamlet Killed, and the Queen is by no means shrewd enough to penetrate that hidden intention."

Some who have played the roles of Ophelia and Gertrude might disagree with Asimov's assessment of Gertrude and Ophelia here. We might observe that Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare was published in 1970, five years before the publication of the first edition of Julia Dusinberre's Shakespeare and the Nature of Women, which Dympna Callaghan calls "the founding text of feminist Shakespeare studies" (1994, quoted on the back cover). Perhaps Asimov's assessment of Gertrude and Ophelia reflected a prevailing opinion of predominantly male scholars at the time, before new possibilities were considered especially by feminist scholars?

ASIMOV'S (FEW) BIBLICAL REFERENCES - AND NEAR MISSES
It's disappointing that Asimov has a very short list of Biblical references he notes, and some he misses that one thinks he might have noted:

86 - [Regarding the crowing of the cock in 1.1 when the ghost leaves:] "'Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning' (Mark 13:35)."

This is helpful, but Asimov misses an opportunity here to mention very related passages that connect this one in Mark to Hamlet's remark, "The readiness is all," by way of Matthew 24:34-44, which includes in verse 44: "Therefore be ye also ready: for in the hour that ye think not, will the Son of man come." (1599 Geneva), which is very similar to Luke 12:35-40.

113-14 - Asimov gives a good explanation of the story of Jephthah, a judge of Israel.

119 - Asimov quotes Hamlet in the nunnery scene (3.1.), telling Ophelia of his sins, and saying "it were better than my mother had not borne me," an important quote, but he misses the connection to the book of Job, in which Job speaks of cursing the day he was born.

121 - In response to Hamlet's line, "it out-herods Herod" (3.2), Asimov explains this with reference to Herod the Great allegedly ordering the "slaughter of the innocents," the killing of all male children under a certain age because of news from the wise men that a new king has been born.
- This Christian Biblical passage makes Herod the Great appear like the Egyptian Pharaoh, and Jesus like a new Moses.
- While this is a helpful bit of information, as I've pointed out in the past, there was another Herod, Herod Antipas, who ordered the beheading of John the Baptist for condemning Herod's incestuous marriage to his brother's divorced wife.

127 - Asimov notes Claudius' lines in 3.3 about "the primal eldest curse," "a brother's murder," and explains this with reference to Cain's murder of his brother Abel.

131-2 - Regarding the sealed letter Claudius sends with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to England with Hamlet, Asimov notes similarities with an "incident in Homer's Iliad" and with the biblical tale of Joseph and Pontiphar's wife in Genesis 39:7-20.
- But Asimov misses a more similar and more meaningful connection with the story of King David's affair with Bathsheba, and his arranging by letter to have her husband, Uriah, die at the front of a battle line when the other troops are ordered to fall back. The prophet Nathan later catches the conscience of the king in a story. I have discussed this link in past blog posts here.

144 - Asimov quotes Hamlet's lines about how "There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow" and identifies this as a reference to Matthew 10:29, where Jesus says, "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your father" (Asimov's quote of Mt 10:29).

To his explanation of the Jephthah reference, Asimov adds the claim that it helps to understand the reference if one assumes Hamlet overheard the plans of Claudius and Polonius to use Ophelia to spy on Hamlet:

(II.113-114)

I find this an interesting interpretation: Does Hamlet's Jephthah remark simply come out of the blue? If Hamlet doesn't know of the eavesdropping plan, how does the Jephthah story relate to Polonius forbidding Ophelia to continue to see Hamlet? If he knows of the plan, it does make sense in the way Asimov describes.

But of course, perhaps there are other possibilities as well. Jephthah unknowingly put his daughter at risk by his foolish vows to a higher power. Perhaps Hamlet believes Polonius has harmed his daughter and her development as a young girl by trying too hard too keep his felt allegiances to the king, and not to offend Claudius and Gertrude by presuming the prince might one day wish to marry his daughter.

FORGIVE THEM, LORD; THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO
Asimov notes (II.129) the following exchange between Gertrude and Hamlet immediately after he has killed Polonius, but misses an obvious Biblical echo:

In Luke 23:34, Jesus on the cross says, "Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do." Shakespeare's Elizabethan audiences were required by law to attend church, and may have, in the schedule of readings in The Book of Common Prayer, been required to listen to this reading each year; many others, by their religious devotion and interest in Bible reading, may have encountered it even more often. This scene casts Hamlet with the crucifiers (those who "know not what they do") in the minds of those early Elizabethan audiences of the play, They would have heard the Biblical echo and made the connection. But Asimov does not.

THE SHORT LIST ABOVE of Biblical references Asimov does point out are all helpful - and in fact, Asimov notes more of these than some editions of the play do in their introductions. By 1970 when Asimov's Guide was published, a number of works had already attempted to reflect on or catalogue Biblical references and influences in Shakespeare and been well received, including books by Charles Wordsworth (1864), William Burgess (1903), Thomas Carter (1905), and Richmond Noble (1935). Each of these found many more Biblical references in the play than Asimov did. Granted, such books go in and out of fashion, and yet Asimov makes a great deal of space for very old historical references. His brief chapter on Hamlet (II.77-147) need not have been exhaustive in this way, but it may have given a bit more treatment to Biblical references.

We might also note that, although Asimov was a popular science fiction author and sold many copies of his Guide to Shakespeare, we don't know if early drafts of his chapters included more Biblical references, and perhaps his editors advised him that they would not make the cut because other authors, such as those mentioned above, had already dealt with those, so he should emphasize those aspects of his own work that were more unique? One might research this topic for a doctoral dissertation....

CONCLUSION
Those interested in biblical references in the play, as well as feminist and Freudian Hamlet scholars who are not already familiar with Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare, may be disappointed in Asimov's treatment of Hamlet. But his two-volume work is still popular with many Shakespeare actors and fans, and in spite of its shortcomings (such as those described above), it has many insights that readers have obviously enjoyed and found helpful.

[1] This excerpt (223-4) can be found in Karen Robertson's essay called "Rape and the Appropriation of Revenge" in the book, Representing Rape in Medieval and Early Modern Literature (2016), edited by C. Rose, E. Robertson.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
INDEX: NOTES ON ASIMOV ON HAMLET:
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2024/08/index-asimov-on-hamlet.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YOU CAN SUPPORT ME on a one-time "tip" basis on Ko-Fi:
https://ko-fi.com/pauladrianfried

IF YOU WOULD PREFER to support me on a REGULAR basis,
you may do so on Ko-Fi, or here on Patreon:
https://patreon.com/PaulAdrianFried
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages or mention religion in many of my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over another, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to explore how the Bible and religion 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 FOLLOWING.
To find the FOLLOW button, go to the home page: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/
see the = drop-down menu with three lines in the upper left.
From there you can click FOLLOW and see options.