I wrote this on the 21/05/2016 for year 12 Advanced English. The assessment requirements were to write a thesis on a section of Hamlet by Shakespeare, so I decided to take a different approach to the traditional and suggest that Hamlet was in fact quite pious rather than scientifically enlightened. I hope you guys find this perspective interesting and that any other students out there are able to benefit from this. Feel free to provide feedback or ask any questions. Enjoy!
Hamlet: Religion and its Influences on Laertes and Hamlet
This study clarifies the relevance of religion in Hamlet with the intention of providing an interpretation of how religious beliefs have an impact on characters in the play. The analysis of two excerpts (Act 2 scene 2 520-579, Act 5 scene 1 197-249) and its use of literary devices provide an understanding of how religion affects a character’s motives, reactions to and actions taken towards certain events.
Religion Influences on Hamlet’s Decision Making:
Hamlet’s actions throughout the play signify that he is essentially more religious than other characters; therefore, he is hesitant on avenging his murdered father because of his fear of becoming a sinner. In Hamlet’s second soliloquy, “Oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” in act 2 scene 2, Hamlet reveals his true inner conflict of wanting to avenge his father by killing his uncle, but he cannot act due to his religious integrity. He also believes that he is a coward for not taking action sooner and thus after enduring an internal battle between emotions and intellect, breaks out of his state of passionate inaction and formulates a plan to “catch the conscious of the King.” (2.2-557)
Hamlet experiences a three way struggle between his educated self, religious self and loyal self. His educated self knows that killing King Claudius would be considered treason, his religious self tells him that killing Claudius will damn him to hell while his loyal self believes that he should have killed the King sooner out of loyalty to his father
“Oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” (2.2-520) is a double metaphor. “Peasant” meaning that Hamlet lacks the courage to avenge his father and “rogue” meaning that he has deceived his father in not avenging him sooner. Shakespeare positions this metaphor right at the start of the soliloquy so the audience is able to immediately identify Hamlet’s conflict. “The spirit that I have seen may be the devil: and the devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape; yeah, and perhaps out of my weakness and my melancholy, as he is very potent with such spirits, abuses me to damn me:” (2.2-570-575) Here Hamlet realises that his melancholy and cowardice may well be a result of the vices of the devil, and that the devil is attempting to manipulate him. He suspects that the devil may have presented in the form of his father’s ghost to encourage him to conspire against Claudius. Not unlike the snake convincing Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit (which relates to when the ghost said “sleeping in my Orchard, a serpent stung me.”(1.5-35-36)). “And can say nothing; no, not for a king, upon whose property and most dear life a damn’d defeat was made.” (2.2-539-541) is Hamlet’s intelligent self, reminding him that to accuse Claudius of murder based on nothing but the word of a ghost (who could possibly be the conniving devil) would be considered an attempt to usurp the crown, which is high treason, and punishable by death.
Hamlet also understands that if the ghost is in fact his father then he would be caught in a moral and religious dilemma. Hamlet states that he is “prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,” (2.2-556) which means that he has an obligation to his father to release him from purgatory by avenging him. However in doing so Hamlet will be committing an act of murder and he himself will be sent to hell.
Hamlet concludes his soliloquy by deciding that he needs evidence that Claudius killed his father. In doing so he will establish proof that the ghost was in fact his father, meaning vengeance would not lead to his damnation as he would be undertaking an act of righteous justice. It would also mean that he would not be accused of high treason. Shakespeare uses the synecdoche “For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak with most miraculous organ.” (2.2-565-566) to convey that although Claudius will never openly admit his sin, his actions will give him away. Hamlet creates an elaborate plan to have the players perform a piece similar to the alleged events of Claudius’ murder in the hopes that “if he but blench,” (2.2-569) he will know his cause.
Shakespeare wrote Hamlet during a time of religious confusion for England. They had only recently transitioned to Protestant rule, but were very familiar with catholic conventions and beliefs more strongly associated within the Renaissance. Shakespeare incorporated this new religious confusion into Hamlet creating a symbiotic relationship between the audience of the time and Hamlet. According to Catholic belief, Hamlet’s father is in purgatory doing penance for “the foul crimes done” in his “days of nature” (1.5-12), however Protestants believed all ghosts are considered evil. This means that an Elizabethan audience would likely support Hamlet’s desire to be sure of the ghost’s integrity before killing Claudius. Shakespeare uses this uncertainty to create a stronger bond between the audience and Hamlet.
Hamlet’s desperate dependence on religious justification for his actions ultimately leads to his downfall. Had he not taken the time to be sure of Claudius’ sin by concocting the elaborate mousetrap scenario and avenged his father at the earliest opportunity, Ophelia’s madness and eventual suicide, Polonius, Laertes, Gertrude, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and his own death would have been prevented. Even if Hamlet conducted the mousetrap in order to satisfy his intellectual need for proof, killing Claudius while he was praying would have still prevented these casualties.
Laertes’ Struggle with Traditional Religious Values and Ophelia’s Suicide:
In Shakespearian times, suicide was effectively self-murder and was considered a terrible sin in the eyes of the church. Its view and condemnation of suicide were that it contravened the moral law governing man’s relationship to God. God alone gave life, and took it. Civil law also reflected the Christian belief that to take one’s life was a sin beyond forgiveness and attached a repugnance to the act that brought shame and despair upon the family’s honour.
In the excerpt taken of Ophelia’s burial, we have the Priest, when asked by Laertes if there is more to the funeral service, quite bluntly state that Ophelia had already had far more than she deserved. Religious beliefs of the time were that to commit suicide, meant being buried in disgrace, generally outside the city limits. The Priest says, “And but that great command o’ersways the order, she should in ground unsanctified lodge till the last trumpet.” (5.1-202-204) He is angry that the King has ordered him to bury Ophelia within the church graveyard as his belief is, through her suicide, she is “in ground unsanctified”. He proclaims to Laertes that Ophelia should have had “shards, flints and pebbles” thrown on her and certainly not been granted the honour of her “maiden strewments” and tolling of the church bells (5.1-205-207).
Laertes is not content with the Priests declaration and again asks if more can be done. Laertes is clearly distressed by his beloved sister’s death and believes she deserves more toward her funeral rites than the Priest does. “No more be done” meaning that the priest is adamant Ophelia will not be accorded the same “service of the dead” as given to “peace parted souls” (5.1-210-213). At the time of writing, Shakespeare would have understood his audience to have a clear familiarity of the Bible and Christianity whether they be Roman Catholic or Protestant. The strong theme of religion is dominant throughout the play and certainly the church’s position on suicide as the ultimate sin.
Shakespeare has Laertes draw on abstractions and concepts such as valour and purity, both of which he attributes to Ophelia while rudely lashing out at the “churlish priest”. Laertes astoundingly claims that his sister will be “a ministering angel” while the Priest will burn in hell due to his judgement of Ophelia (5.1-215-217). Such an outburst towards the church or minister could easily have brought upon Laertes a charge of blasphemy, not a crime to be taken lightly. Shakespeare is able to accentuate Laertes’ pain and heartbreak by adding such a serious and direct outburst to the Priest. An Elizabethan audience would have clearly understood to publically speak against a Priest, who is considered sacred, would mean imminent execution.
In order to diffuse the tension between Laertes and the Priest, Queen Gertrude steps forward and proclaims “Sweets to the sweet: farewell!” (5.1-219). Laden with irony, this statement would traditionally be explained as ‘sweet flowers for a sweet maiden’, however not only has Ophelia gone insane and can no longer be considered a sweet maiden, she has also committed suicide which was the worst kind of death for a Christian.
Abnormal behaviour such as Hamlet’s “antic disposition” was typically attributed to supernatural forces such as possession by the devil. In tune with Renaissance religious beliefs, Laertes believes that Hamlet had sold his soul to the devil. When Hamlet appears and leaps into Ophelia’s grave, Laertes exclaims “The devil take thy soul!” (5.1-235). As far as Laertes is concerned, Hamlet is the sole reason Ophelia is dead and is calling the devil to take Hamlet to hell to spend all eternity.
Shakespeare shows in Ophelia’s burial excerpt the entrenched Catholic renaissance view of suicide as an unforgiveable sin. However through Laertes questioning and disquiet of Ophelia’s funerary rites, he is also reflecting the very early beginnings of the Reformations stance on suicide. It was during this time that traditional thinking of suicide as a sin was eventually discarded as an offense against God, but more a matter of personal choice without shame or disgrace.
Conclusion:
Hamlet is located in a context of changing religious beliefs for its audience. The consideration of religion is critical to understanding the characters motives and reactions to certain events. Hamlet in particular, in shock not only from the sudden death of his father but also his mother’s hasty marriage to his uncle, becomes highly dependent on the more traditional Catholic faith to find his course of action rather than his learned intelligence. The need to justify his actions religiously ultimately becomes a catalyst to Hamlet’s downfall along with the people around him. The second excerpt studies Laertes who, in contrast to Hamlet, questions those traditional catholic beliefs during his sister’s funeral. Shakespeare cleverly uses Laertes’ passionate outburst to signal the more modern view of religion that comes out of the looming Reformation. Hamlet was a noble Renaissance man who, when challenged with adversity, retreats back to entrenched Catholic teachings while opposingly, Laertes in his grief, steps forward towards the early stages of the Reformation and ultimately Enlightenment.
By Jakob McDonald
Bibliography
Here are some of the sources and material I used to write this paper.
‘Religious Roles in Hamlet’-Helme!.com, http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=4507 (accessed 17th May 2016)
‘Significance of Religion in Hamlet’-Omar Abdulaziz Alsaif http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJEL/article-full-text-pdf/4EEE6673117 (accessed 19th May 2016)
‘Hamlet’s Soliloquy “Oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I!”-Amanda Mabillard http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/soliloquies/whatarogueanalysis.html (accessed 17th May 2016)