Hamlet in History

[steepholm]

Oh, Hamlet. It always comes back you to you.

calimac and I have been having a conversation (interesting to me and I hope to him) about Shakespeare’s historical sense, or lack of it. This post isn’t really a contribution to that discussion, but it grows from it at a tangent.

My feeling about Shakespeare, as I was saying the earlier post, is that he often leaves his settings ambiguous in terms of both time and place. Perhaps he doesn’t care about being specific, or lacking a modern historical sense he doesn’t realize what it would mean to be specific, or perhaps he’s being deliberately unspecific in order to futureproof the present text. These possibilities are neither exhaustive not entirely mutually exclusive, of course, nor does the same answer necessarily apply to every text. Whatever Shakespeare’s intention, however, it’s worth considering the effects that historical and geographical ambiguity may have, beyond an aesthetically pleasing (or not) vagueness. Take Hamlet, for example. The earliest major source is Saxo Grammaticus in the twelfth century. His Amleth is a fairly brutal tale with its roots in Denmark’s pre-Christian past, and manifests a largely pre-Christian attitude to such matters as blood-feud, rape, murder, family obligation, etc. Shakespeare got the story from the longer version by Belleforest, and no doubt other sources such as Kyd’s Hamlet. By the time Shakespeare got his hands on it the story bore the mark of Renaissance, twelfth-century and perhaps pre-Christian ways of thinking, which aren’t altogether compatible - though whether that is more apparent to us than it was to him is a debatable point.

So, when is Shakespeare’s Hamlet set? If we seek a definitive answer, we’ll be disappointed. The court looks like a sixteenth-century court in many ways, and Hamlet, like a good Renaissance prince (but very unlike a twelfth-century one), has gone to Germany to get himself a university education. He fences with foils, too, the very model of a modern Prince of Denmark. On the other hand, the Danish king has authority over the King of England, which seems to throw the date back into Viking days. Also, the King is elected rather than succeeding by right of succession – again, a throwback to the days of Amleth. (Despite this, I’ve read in many an essay that Claudius has usurped the throne that should be Hamlet’s by right, so perhaps the play isn’t as clear about this as it might be, or perhaps my students are seeing what they want to.) One could multiply examples: the short answer is that the play is set both in the early medieval period and in the sixteenth-century. Or, if you prefer, in neither, or in some atemporal story-zone. Whatever.

This gets really interesting, though, when you think about the moral universe of Hamlet. If you consider his most notable predecessor as a revenge protagonist, Hieronymo from The Spanish Tragedy, one really striking difference is that Hieronymo is oppressed by (amongst other things) the morality of taking revenge. As a Christian, he knows that God has claimed vengeance for himself – what’s a body to do? What’s remarkable about Hamlet is that, despite wittering for Wittenberg on almost every other subject under the sun, he never once questions the morality of taking revenge. (Again, I’ve seen many essays that claim the contrary, but they just assume he must, I think.) It’s true that Hamlet worries about suicide from a Christian perspective, and it’s true that he gets exercised about whether Claudius is really responsible for murdering his father, but his duty to take bloody revenge should Claudius prove guilty is one thing he neither doubts or questions, even though he appears to be living in a Christian court and has a father apparently suffering in Purgatory. It’s as if Shakespeare took the mind of a Renaissance Christian humanist and grafted onto it a piece of unreconstructed blood-feud morality (or unthinkingly adopted such a juxtaposition from his heterogeneous sources, if you would rather deny him conscious historical awareness). And of course the two don’t fit, even as they are made inextricable in Hamlet and in the ambiguous setting of the play. This is vagueness of the kind I was discussing before, but in addition it’s a way of conveying meaning. Perhaps it’s why Hamlet has bad dreams.

Comments

[eglantine-br.livejournal.com]

Do you think Kyd wrote an ur-Hamlet? It seems like he was playing with a lot of Hamlet-ish ideas for the Spanish Tragedy, makes me wonder.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

It's partly Shakespeare's own times. Go back to the 11th century, and the monarchy was elective within the late king's close relatives. Formally encoded, immutable laws of succession were a creation of the late 17th century. In between was an odd time, where the monarchy was basically successive by primogeniture, but this could be overriden when it seemed necessary, a situation asking for some deadly arguments to follow, as sometimes they did.

But partly, yes, it's the mix of times that went into the play.

The thing is, though, that I don't see any of the kind of cognitive dissonance you're describing here in The Merry Wives of Windsor.

[aerodrome1.livejournal.com]

I wonder about differences in ideas of revenge by class and geography... A humanist scholar may be oppressed by the problem of Christian morality, but would one of Castiglione's courtiers not take revenge as an imperative? Where in 16th-c. Europe is the idea of blood-feud and an obligation to take personal vengeance strongest?

[nineweaving.livejournal.com]

...or perhaps he’s being deliberately unspecific in order to futureproof the text.

I really can't imagine he would think of that. So far as we know, he didn't even bother with preserving the text. (Heminges and Condell saw to that.0 Plays were as mayflies. Or banquets--eaten and gone.

Nine

[lilliburlero.livejournal.com]

I suppose you could also ask what "setting" really meant in Shakespeare's theatre? It doesn't seem to be a matter of recreating the material culture of the past at all, seeing as players wore contemporary dress and material anachronism along the lines of Julius Caesar's infamous clocks doesn't seem to have worried anyone (or indeed, Hamlet's foils from the future). Political culture on the other hand seems to be represented with a fair degree of accuracy, and I think the dissonances of Hamlet probably indicate that Shakespeare thought about authenticity in some form when representing mores and ethics. There seems to be a recognition that Hamlet has returned to a more primitive place in coming home to Elsinore (I'm not sure if that has any textual support, but it's how I've always thought of it) and Shakespeare would surely have known from his sources that blood-feud in Scandinavia persisted well after Christianisation; and being so central to culture was a deal harder to eradicate than doubts about suicide or the doctrine of Purgatory were to instil. So I think it's not unreasonable to assume that if Shakespeare didn't have an exact date in mind, because reproducing the precise mood of a particular date is not the way he or his theatre seem to have thought about setting anyway, he wanted to represent a culture in transition from barbarism to civilisation. But he also recognised that certain entrenched cultural features persist almost unchallenged even when the moral landscape has changed around them to such a degree that they no longer make sense. So I think I mean that the Renaissance features are not there primarily to signify modernity, but to signify civilisation -- and the 12th-century features indicate not primarily the past, but barbarism, and Hamlet, questioning every little thing except perhaps the one big moral question that we feel should preoccupy him, is a fascinating study in the psychology of transition.