Why Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Must Die: Notes on Asimov on Hamlet, Part 6

When a country's leader is responsible for many crimes, either in secret or publicly known, including the murder of one or the deaths of many, and he shrouds his actions in lies, what is to be done with old school-friends who tried to hitch their wagons to the dark star of the corrupt regime? Are they, essentially, complicit in the crimes and deserving some share of any punishment, should it come?

Or were they just human beings who had average human ambitions to get ahead, and should not be held responsible for the evils in which they participated, even knowingly?

These were questions asked by the Nuremberg trials after World War II, and that some asked after the Bush-Cheney regime with its scandals of torture and lies that got the U.S. into a war with Iraq that violated international law.

They are questions that may soon be asked if Trump is replaced by Biden as U.S. president.

And they are questions we might consider regarding Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Shakespeare's Hamlet.

[RSC photo, Guildenstern & Rosencrantz, cropped]


AVOIDING A FRAGMENTED VIEW
One reason people are confused about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern may be that they are viewing their deaths in a too-fragmented way, rather than in the context of the rest of the action of the play. Sir John Gielgud (who acted in, and directed productions of Hamlet) noted that some productions focus on producing famous scenes, and some of these can be done well, but the line of the play's development is often lost.

IN THE CONTEXT OF HAMLET'S REDEMPTION ARC
Many people think Hamlet is merely a revenge play, but as I've noted before in recent weeks, and also in an installment of a longer series of posts last year on labors of gratitude and regret, it is in fact more a tale of redeption. It helps to view the play as the tale of Hamlet's spiritual descent into evil and vengeance, into what Hamlet calls "bloody thoughts" (4.4). Then, beginning with his capture by pirates who spare his life, he begins to turn toward mercy and redemption.

So in the context of this larger redemption arc for Hamlet, we should remember that when Hamlet changes the letter to have England execute his former friends, he is still at a low point in his redemption arc, still thinking his bloody thoughts, not yet converted to mercy by what he feels is a gift of Providence, working through the pirates as "thieves of mercy." On the ship, he feels he must use his wits to fight for survival; elsewhere he claims he feels both heaven and hell want him to avenge his father's death, but he also claims after killing Polonius that he will "answer for" having killed him. Before he boards the ship and says "My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!" (4.4), we might observe that this is a Hamlet who is not trusting heaven to avenge wrongs, but rather, seems to feel heaven has abandoned him, so he must avenge himself and fight for his own survival.

And in fact, there is some truth in that view: If he merely trusts heaven, then he would not open the letters and find the order for England to execute him, and then we would not have the Shakespeare version of the story which we have in the play. So to that extent, yes, Hamlet must fight for his own survival.

And yet, must he condemn his former friends to death? That doesn't seem very merciful. But still on the down-side of his descent toward evil, Hamlet is not yet in the mood for mercy.

Most changes of heart and mind require considerable processing, and this is certainly true for Hamlet. Famously, St. Paul (formerly named Saul) had been among the Jews zealously persecuting Christians, but he had a conversion when saw a blinding light and heard a voice from heaven ask him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4). His change was not instant: He was cared for in his blindness by a Christian disciple named Ananias of Damascus, and he had time to process the idea that, in persecuting Christians, believing they were heretical Jews, he was in fact persecuting manifestations of God on earth; he believed the voice from heaven was the voice of Jesus.

So although we find evidence that Hamlet has a turning point at sea (like Jonah) in his redemption arc, we might recall how Martin Luther King, Jr. said that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Hamlet's character arc, or redemption arc, is similarly long and slow, and although it bends toward mercy, it has not bent far enough toward mercy for him to consider sparing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern when he finds the death letter on the ship, and has no way of knowing whether they know its contents.

YOUTHFUL BIAS
Many approach the play and the problem of the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern with what I could call a youthful bias: It's hard for younger people who have not followed politics or read much in world history to fully grasp the idea that a king, Claudius, obtained the throne by killing his brother, and perhaps by pressuring Gertrude into what people in Shakespeare's time would have called an incestuous marriage, for the sake of projecting a strong image to Norway and the forces of Young Fortinbras that seem determined to attack. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Absent a full grasp of the wrongdoings of Claudius, young readers of the play may focus solely on the idea that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were once friends of Hamlet, and as far as we can tell from the script, Claudius doesn't seem to have revealed to them that the sealed letters include an order to have Hamlet killed. From a youthful point of view, imagining oneself in the shoes of the friends or the Prince, we certainly would not want to have the letter changed so that it orders our execution, and we might never wish to send old or former friends to their death for what they may not even know.

It just seems so unfair, for them to die, and for Hamlet to change the letter! Is Hamlet becoming another Claudius, to change the letter in that way? Or was Hamlet actually acting in a kind of self-defense in a very dangerous situation, unlike Claudius, who killed his brother out of ambition for the throne, not self-defense?

CLAUDIUS' INTENT
Although Claudius committed premeditated murder in the poisoning of his brother, with the intention of usurping the throne, one might argue that after viewing The Mousetrap, the play-within-the-play meant to catch the conscience of the king, we notice that instead of saying that the murderer is brother to the king, Hamlet says the murderer in the play is "nephew to the king." This makes Hamlet's words, and the play, seem more like a threat on the life of Claudius than a trap to catch the conscience of the king.

Some might be distracted and claim that Claudius is only acting in self-defense when he sends a seemingly-threatening Hamlet to his death. But that would be to miss the forest for the trees (or in other words, to miss the larger picture). Claudius wants to kill Hamlet because he finally realizes during the play that Hamlet seems to know about the poisoning. Yes, it seems Hamlet's words are a threat, but more importantly, Claudius realizes his secret may soon be revealed. That's why, shortly thereafter, in the prayer scene, Claudius tries to pray to heaven for forgiveness, but realizes he will not be forgiven because he is unwilling to give up what he gained by the murder.

Given that realization, confessing the murder of his brother and the usurping of the throne doesn't seem an attractive option at all. So he must get rid of Hamlet, who seems to know his secret.

WHAT DID THEY KNOW, & WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT?
In crimes where people are accused of being complicit in some larger evil, the question is often asked: What did they know, and when did they know it?

- If a person working at a Nazi death camp knew that Jews were being killed there, but did not quit or try to stop it, then that person may be considered complicit in the evil of the killings.

- If a U.S. soldier at Mỹ Lai, present during the massacre there in 1968,  or were in the helicopter conducting the air strike in New Baghdad filmed in July, 2007 in the video, "Collateral Murder", we might ask: What did they know, and when did they know it? As Lawrence Mosqueda noted in 2003, "The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders..." 

Mosqueda later notes, "The evidence from an international perspective is overwhelming. The United States Constitution makes treaties that are signed by the government equivalent to the 'law of the land' itself, Article VI, para. 2." A number of ratified treaties (which become "law of the land") apply: "Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Adopted on August 12, 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War," to name just one.

But in the case of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, it's much less clear than in war crimes about which we have the benefit of hindsight. Was the untimely death of King Hamlet, and the hasty and normally-prohibited marriage of his widow Gertrude to brother Claudius suspicious? If called upon to spy on a prince, their old school-friend, would most people jump at the chance for the possible financial rewards that might come from a monarch - even a suspicious one - or would some simply find a way to say no to the monarch? Was that even an option?

Hamlet says of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, "they did make love to this employment." They certainly seem to try harder to please Claudius than to please or help their friend, Hamlet. So this makes them false friends, in a kingdom where perhaps many suspected that something was not quite right with Claudius and Gertrude.  Hamlet tells his mother,

There's letters seal'd; and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. (3.4)

Perhaps Hamlet is right not to trust them, and in fact, perhaps he must not if he is to preserve his life? (More on that later.)

NOT ALL IN DENMARK WERE TAKEN IN BY CLAUDIUS' LIES
A weakness of his chapter on Hamlet in Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare is that Asimov assumes Claudius is popular, and perhaps even a good leader. But in fact, at the very start of the play (1.1), the sentinels have repeatedly seen a specter that appears to be the ghost of the dead king, and instead of telling the new king, Claudius, brother to the dead king, the sentinels make a point of it to report their encounters with the ghost to Prince Hamlet instead.

This is a strange bit of evidence, but perhaps enough to show that the "little" people (like the sentinels) may have been uneasy about the death of the king and the hasty marriage of Claudius to the widow, Gertrude, a marriage that the church would have prohibited to a dead brother's wife. In the case of Henry VIII, Catherine of Aragon claimed she and Henry's brother, Arthur, had never consummated the marriage, and this was the only reason why the pope allowed an exception, a special dispensation.

But in the case of Gertrude and Claudius, Gertrude and the dead King Hamlet have already borne a son, Prince Hamlet, and consummated the marriage (there is no claim in the play that Prince Hamlet was not the biological son of Gertrude and King Hamlet). 

And perhaps Claudius isn't even that great an administrator or diplomat as he thinks: He assumes that when Norway responds to his letter (2.2) with a claim that they have scolded Fortinbras and sent him to fight against Poland instead, this is good news. But in fact, Fortinbras requests permission to march across Denmark on the way to Poland, a very suspicious detail, given how recently Fortinbras wanted to attack Denmark, and very strange and naive that Claudius grants permission, given what a liar he is about poisoning his brother. Who is to say Norway wasn't lying about that march to Poland across Denmark? (In the Kenneth Branagh film version of Hamlet (1996), when Fortinbras enters in the last scene [5.2], it is in fact portrayed as a kind of invasion, delayed only by the diversion of the story about waging war against Poland instead.)

So perhaps a fault of Claudius is that lacks an honest self-assessment, and even believes the lie he would like to project about his own competence as king?

In Shakespeare's play, first published in the year of Elizabeth's death, Claudius would have been viewed as worse than Henry VIII, who had more than one of his wives executed, and who had claimed that his first marriage was incestuous. Claudius may have also had an affair with his brother's wife before he died, and unlike Henry, whose wife claimed her marriage to Henry's brother was never consummated, Gertrude's marriage seems to have been consummated because they had a son, Hamlet, and there's no evidence suggested that Hamlet was not the son of Gertrude and King Hamlet. So Claudius is a murderous, adulterous, incestuous usurper, and any former friends who seek to flatter him and gain advancement, as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do, would be viewed unfavorably by many in the early audiences of the play.

HAMLET PARODIES ROSENCRANTZ & GUILDENSTERN?
Asimov notes (II.126) that in 3.2 (after Rosencrantz asks the prince the cause of his "distemper" and complains, "you do, surely, bar the door upon your own liberty, if you deny your griefs to your friend"), Hamlet says, "Sir, I lack advancement."

We might do well not to assume that this is merely Hamlet, speaking seriously and honestly. Asimov seems certain that a central motivation for Hamlet, to him, is that he is ambitious and wants the throne, but this is not so clear as Asimov claims.

Yet Asimov does admit that Hamlet is mocking Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and that he is therefore speaking ironically about lacking advancement: In fact, it's much more obvious that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are seeking advancement by agreeing to spy on their friend, than it is that Hamlet seeks the throne. (So perhaps far too many readers and audience members of the play assume Hamlet is speaking plainly and honestly about a lack of advancement?)

In fact, in 2.2, after the players, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern exit, Hamlet, alone, says that he is "Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell. . . ." Perhaps Hamlet feels there are greater duties he must perform than being ambitious for his father's throne, lost to Claudius? It is Claudius who is ambitious for the throne, and (as the prayer scene shows) unwilling to meet the demands of heaven to give it up, be forgiven, and have a chance at a heavenly crown instead. Hamlet, on the other hand, feels prompted to revenge by both heaven and hell: Perhaps heaven let the ghost of his father out of purgatory (like a back porch of hell) to speak to the prince, because heaven wants Claudius removed from the throne as much as the ghost does?

THE ABSENSE OF REDEMPTION ARCS FOR ROSENCRANTZ & GUILDENSTERN
Above, I mentioned Hamlet's redemption arc. In a series of blog posts last fall (2019) about labors of gratitude and regret in Hamlet, I considered failed redemption arcs for Claudius and Polonius, and some evidence for successful ones not only for Hamlet, but also for Gertrude, Ophelia, and Laertes, and for Horatio, a turning from doubt (about the ghost) to belief, and from suicide (by poison in 5.2) to life (to tell Hamlet's story "aright." But it seems we have no such evidence of any redemption arc for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. We might feel a greater sense of loss and a need for dramatic justice if in fact there was evidence that they were developing more as characters, becoming better friends to Hamlet and better servants for the greater good of Denmark. But that evidence is lacking.

THE BOTTOM LINE: CONSIDER HAMLET'S POINT OF VIEW
So instead of imagining (with perhaps a youthful bias) that we are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, trying to get ahead in the kingdom by doing the king and queen a favor, we should consider it from Hamlet's point of view:

- He is right to mistrust Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
- His mistrust is justified when he opens the letter at night on the ship and finds the order for his execution in England.
- At this point, he does not know that he will soon become the prisoner of pirates, and saved by them, brought back to Denmark for some reward.
- Rather, he believes he is on his way to England to die, and he cannot merely ask Rosencrantz and Guildenstern if they happen to know the contents of the letter. What if they know its contents and lie to him (as they have already tried in earlier circumstances), and claim they knew nothing - only to arrive in England and have the two of them tell the authorities that Hamlet destroyed a letter ordering England to execute Hamlet?
- Because Hamlet cannot be certain what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern know about the sealed letters, once he finds the order for his execution, to save himself and keep his oath to the ghost, he must change the letter and have them executed, in case they know and bring about his death.
- This is not a drinking game or game of chess, or a slight misunderstanding between old or former friends; it is a matter of life and death.
- Hamlet later observes to Horatio (in 5.2) about changing the letter,

'Tis dangerous when the baser nature comes
Between the pass and fell incensed points
Of mighty opposites.

He means that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were much less powerful people who got between two powerful adversaries, Claudius and Hamlet, so they put themselves in that dangerous position.

If the future of Denmark is at stake, what matters more? Two lives of former friends? Or perhaps thousands of lives, should Denmark go to war with Norway, for example?

It is also (in Hamlet's view) a duty to heaven and hell, both, to fulfill his oath to the ghost, to avenge his father's death. Or at least, while Hamlet is still thinking "bloody thoughts" on the ship, changing the letter, that's the way he views it.

After Hamlet is spared by the pirates (and by heaven, or "Providence," with the help of the pirates), Hamlet's thoughts may become less vengeful, less bloody, more merciful, preparing him to reconcile with Laertes, and to give his dying voice to Fortinbras to become the next king of Denmark.

But for that moment on the ship, given Hamlet's descent and bloody thoughts, and given the blind service and flattery that his former friends offer a king about whom they should have been most suspicious, seeking only their own advancement, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern must die.

WHAT WOULD DESMOND TUTU SAY?
It would be wrong to claim that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are simply innocent people making neutral choices in serving and flattering Claudius. Desmond Tutu is often quoted as having said,

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."

They choose the side of the oppressor, a dangerous position between mighty opposites.

In spite of whatever fun and insight we may glean from Tom Stoppard's play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, in the end, this much is true:

They have to die.

~~~~~~~~
ELECTION DAY IN THE U.S.A.
Speaking of how people should not choose the side of the oppressor, it is election day today in the U.S. If you are a U.S. citizen and have not yet voted, please get out and vote. Wear a mask, keep a distance of at least six feet in lines whenever possible, and be prepared in some cases to wait in long lines, and to have to research alternative voting places if your normal voting place has been closed down due to high rates of COVID-19 in some areas.

Be prepared for it to take a while for all votes to be counted. Remember that it is a long tradition that mail-in absentee votes from military members should be accepted and counted, even if they arrive after election day, so under the idea of equal justice under the law, in a time of pandemic, all votes from all citizens should be counted even if they arrive late, regardless of what candidates claim.

Also be prepared for a degree of chaos before inauguration day in January, as well as protests, and possibly violence. We have seen in recent months a great many protests, and also evidence of right-wing provocateurs who have infiltrated protests and committed acts of violence against persons and property. There is a tendency of some to believe that when there are protests and violence, this must mean those on the left are violent, but this might sometimes be an illusion created by provocateurs.

There are many in the U.S. who support each candidate, and regardless of the outcome, there will still be many problems to address:
- The COVID-19 pandemic
- The economic fallout of the pandemic, including high unemployment, food insecurity, foreclosures, evictions, and increased homelessness
- The educational fallout of the pandemic, including coming school budget shortfalls as school districts across the U.S. find that decreased tax collections result in smaller budgets for education
- Climate change
- Racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination
- Unsustainable military spending pushed by a military-industrial complex and multinational corporations with holdings both in the major media and also in weapons manufacturing and military contracting
- And many more.

Consider being active in advocating regularly for positive change, regardless of the election's outcome.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THIS POST HAS BEEN PART OF A LARGER SERIES, reflecting on an in reaction toIsaac Asimov's treatment of Hamlet in his two-volume work, Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes on Asimov on Hamlet:

Part 7: Overall Major Stengths & Weaknesses (Asimov on Hamlet)
Part 6: Why Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Must Die
Part 5: Chameleon Hamlet & 1 Cor 9
Part 4: Suicide, Survival, Adaptivity, & Resistance
Part 3: Power-Broker Polonius, Ungenerous Jephthah
Part 2: Niobe & the Nemean Lion
Part 1: Wicked Uncles

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.