33

CHAPTER-2 THE JOURNAL’S CRITICAL CREDO CREDO Good Literary Criticism is, however, a creative act, an undercurrent that runs through its readers but there is no denying the fact that the most brilliant criticism in English has been provoked by Shakespearean plays. With the dawn of the century, new schools of criticism emerged chronologically and flourished in the course of time, e.g. Structuralism, Deconstruction, Psychological, Feminism, Colonialism, Cultural Studies and so on—each representing contrasting or complementary critical views. In fact, the practicality of these approaches to Shakespeare has resulted in the production of admirable works by Brian Vicker’s Appropriating Shakespeare: Contemporary Critical Quarrels; Christopher Norris’s Deconstruction and the Interests of Theory, etc. The fundamental critical task of a historical critic is to explain Shakespearean plays in Elizabethan terms, i.e. Elizabethan theoretical conditions,

stage

and

dramatic

conventions,

or

philosophical,

psychological dimensions. J.M. Robertson, E.E. Stall, L.L. Schucking, Theodore Spencer and Lily Campbell, follow this doctrine and that distinguishes them from other critics of Hamlet, whether anti-historical,

34

such as G. Wilson Knight, unhistorical, such as A.C. Bradley, or historical, such as J. Dover Wilson. Weaving a story with the theme of usurpation of throne and problem of royal succession, etc. brings to light the political milieu of Elizabethan times−Queen Elizabeth’s advanced age and poor health; the precarious state of the succession to the British Crown. Something of Earl of Essex, former Elizabeth’s favourite, may be seen in Ophelia’s famous characterization of Hamlet: OPHELIA. O, what a noble mind is here o’erthrown! The courtier’s, soldier’s, scholor’s, eye, tongue, sword, Th’ expectancy and rose of the fair state, The glass of fashion and the mould of form, Th’ observ’d of all observers, quite, quitedown! (3.1.152-56) Claudius’s observation on Hamlet’s madness and his popularity with the masses also supports the same exposition: KING. I have sent to seek him and to find the body. How dangerous is it that this man goes loose! Yet must not we put the strong law on him: He’s lov’d of the distracted multitude,

35

Who like not in their judgment but their eyes, And where’ tis so, th’ offender’s scourge is weigh’d, But never the offence. (4.3.1-7) Robertson is of the view that by relating the play to its immediate conditions as the source, The Problem of “Hamlet” (1919), can simplify Hamlet. “The history of the play, is thus vital to the comprehension of it” (qtd. in Weitz 45). It is said that Hamlet, the play is derived from an earlier Hamlet, now lost, by Thomas Kyd: a semblance of

The Spanish Tragedy,

the First Quarto of Hamlet (1603)—Shakespeare’s first draft and the German version of Hamlet, Der bestrafte Brudermord (1710). Robertson’s explanation highlights the fusion of pessimism and the transfiguration of the characters in the Second Quarto (1604-05) and in the final version: Utter sickness of heart, revealing itself in pessimism, is again and again dramatically obtruded as if to set us feeling that for a heart so crushed [Hamlet’s] revenge is no remedy. And this implicit pessimism is Shakespeare’s personal contribution: his verdict on the situation set out by the play (qtd. in Weitz 47). As for the transfiguration of the characters: what Shakespeare did remains a miracle of dramatic imagination. In the place of one of the early and crude creations of Kyd, vigorous without verisimilitude, outside of

36

refined sympathy, he has projected a personality which from the first line sets all our sympathies in a quick vibration, and so holds our minds and hearts that even the hero’s cruelities cannot alienate them. The triumph is achieved by sheer intensity of presentment, absolute lifelikeness of utterance, a thrilling and convincing rightness of phrase, and of feeling where wrong feeling is not part of the irremovable material (qtd. in Weitz 47). And the ultimate fact is that Shakespeare, could not make a psychologically or otherwise consistent play out of a plot which retained a strictly barbaric action while the hero was transformed into a supersubtle Elizabethan. For Robertson, then, to criticize Hamlet is primarily to explain it. To explain it is to give up the attempt to render the play aesthetically consistent and to see it instead as an adaptation of older materials that is effective on the stage even though it fails in the study (Weitz 47-48). Theodore Spencer in Shakespeare and the Nature of Man (1942) says: Our aim is to describe the point of view that underlines all these things [the sources of Shakespeare’s plots, the texture of his poetry literary fashions, dramatic devices, and so-forth],

37

the framework that gave Shakespeare his terms and his values (qtd. in Weitz 66). In his study, he calls into question optimistic and the pessimistic aspect of man’s nature—deeply felt in his age. The political, economic and religious events fostered a growing pessimism during Elizabeth’s reign especially toward the end, when Shakespeare was writing Hamlet. Elizabethan conflict between optimism and pessimism is thus naturally integral to the hero’s consciousness. In Hamlet, we learn from Ophelia and others that he had been a confirmed optimist, unbounded in his faith in the established order but the discovery of Claudius’ crime and mother’s great alacrity shattered his faith. Suddenly everything is corrupt; Elizabethan conflict reflects the perennial struggle between good and evil and how evil becomes all pervasive in the cosmic, natural, and human world. “…We must see [Shakespeare’s work] as a reflection of deeper truths…” (qtd. in Weitz 73). All great literature, Spencer claims, revolves around man’s basic nature and the vicious cycle of birth, death and rebirth. In Hamlet, the theme is a similitude of the Elizabethan conflict and is proclaimed dramatically by Shakespeare as the ultimate truth about man. Also, consider Shakespeare’s famous poem, “All the World’s a Stage” (As You Like It). Hence, the value of Spencer’s historical approach is that it enables

38

us, provided we waive the truth or falsehood of these doctrines, to come to aesthetic terms with Hamlet as a work of art (Weitz 75). Critics with a psychological perspective view works through the lens of psychology, i.e. working of the human mind. They look either at the psychological motivations of the characters or of the authors, although the former is generally considered more focus-worthy. Most frequently, psychological critics apply Freudian angle to literary works, but other approaches (such as a Jungian approach) also exist. Freudian critics point out the sexual implications of symbols and imagery as Freud believed that all human behaviour is motivated by sexuality. Freudian critics also occasionally discern the presence of an Oedipus Complex (a boy’s unconscious rivalry with his father for the love of his mother) in the male characters of certain works. The element is subtly felt but not clearly pronounced even in Hamlet. According to Jung, a neurosis occurs when someone fails to assimilate one of these unconscious components into his conscious and projects it on someone else. The persona must be flexible and able to balance the components of psyche. In “Hamlet and his Other”, Robert Silhol says, a close reading of the first act of Hamlet reveals how the play demonstrates a great many truths about the way a human

39

personality is constituted and the nature of the psychoanalytic subject. In particular, we see matters of identity, the name of the father, the priority of mirroring, the necessity of going beyond the rational ego, and the importance of dreams and fantasies (web). Ernest Jones pursued a thorough study of the play in Freudian terms in Hamlet and Oedipus (1949). He is primarily concerned with correct explanation of Hamlet’s behavior and his mood vacillation in the play. His first assumption is that characters in the play are living beings and his second assumption is that like any work of art, Hamlet is the, expression of deep-seated mental processes in the artist’s unconscious; and consequently, that his work can be related to these processes: the source of Shakespeare’s inspiration in the creation of Hamlet lay in the deepest, i.e., the oldest, part of his being... (qtd. in Weitz 20). For Jones, “Hamlet acts in the way that real-life Hamlet’s act under the strains of their oedipal complexes” (Weitz 22). His hypothesis about Hamlet’s vacillation is, of course, derived from Freudian psychoanalytic doctrine; hence its plausibility depends at least in part on the adequacy of the general Freudian theory of psychoanalysis. That Hamlet is suffering from a specific neurosis explains Hamlet’s behaviour:

40

His inaction, taunts, lethargy, distractions, depressions, bad dreams, weariness, near-madness (which Jones diagnoses as a form of hysterias) and most important, Hamlet’s tortured conscience, the hidden ground for shirking his task, a ground which he dares not or cannot avow to himself (Weitz 22). Jones has nothing explicit to say about Hamlet’s loath for his father except his presumption that Hamlet must really hate his father and his father’s memory very deeply to talk so exaggeratedly about his father’s virtues. It seems as if “Jones cannot account for the expugnable textual fact that Hamlet loves his father, without reducing that love to a travesty. Whatever Hamlet protests too much about, he does not about his father” (Weitz 25). Dover Wilson does not come to terms with Jones’ exposition of Hamletlike people in real life or with psychoanalytic theory but agrees on the point that the drama is a representation of life. Wilson says: Apart from the play, apart from his actions, from what he tells us about himself and what other characters tell us about him, there is no Hamlet... . Critics who speculate upon what Hamlet was like before the play opens... or attribute his conduct to a mother-complex acquired in infancy, are merely cutting the figure out of the canvas and sticking it in a doll’s-house of their own invention (qtd. in Weitz 26).

41

Structuralism challenges the long-standing belief that a work of literature (or any kind of literary text) reflects a given reality. A literary text, is rather, constituted of other conventions and texts. Consider Hamlet, the Tragedie of the Prince of Denmark. Before Hamlet was written, the text of Hamlet was drawn from the Quarto of 1604, which was an early draft by Shakespeare. He could not but have been partially influenced by Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy. In my opinion, Plato’s exposition of ideas find some space even amidst Structuralism. He states that only the idea of a concept is original. The re-study of a literary text when assessed from structuralist’s point of view, denies any claim of privilege to any author, school, or period, or any correct explication. Even the Johnsonian thought that Shakespearean characters, “drawn from those general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated” (qtd. in Weitz 159) is also opposed. Structuralism rather focusses on how the construct of language generates meaning and considers characters not as real people but as functions and products of a textual system. Shakespeare’s play suffices it. In King Lear, Goneril and Regan’s infidelity and selfishness is contrasted with Cordelia’s fidelity thus satisfying function of restoration. In Hamlet, Hamlet’s delay in executing vengeance is a mechanism that regulates the entire play. Structuralists view literature as a system of signs; Signified is the concept for which signifier is the visible pointer. Hamlet signifies

42

intellectuality &

scepticism, cynicism, hyper-sensitivity, and the play

revolves alternately around one or the other strand. Similarly, in King Lear, Edmund signifies the betrayal of trust and Edgar signifies the keeping of trust. Ferdinand de Saussure stresses on the importance of considering each item in relationship to all other items within the system. Next to jump on the band wagon of criticism is , poststructuralism— an extension of structuralism. Poststructuralism labels the world we live in, as decentred; there is no possibility of certainty in any sphere of life, it rather stalks the streets of human science. That language generates multiple meanings may be one of the reasons, why Hamlet has rendered itself to be interpreted rigorously and so extensively. Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, etc. all are Shakespearean tragedies with an underlying assumption of Elizabethan codes and conventions. All these tragedies manifest the belief in abilities and capabilities of mankind—Renaissance Humanism. Ronald Barthes opines that all texts are connected to others in an unending chain of inter-textual relations. The interpretation of a text as part of a continuum thus forming the author’s viewpoint, was considered irrelevant by the iconoclasts of 1960’s. The Death of the Author by Ronald Barthes throws light on that wide spectrum of the reader, derived from the true experience of reading. He criticizes the biographical view indicating that it is not the real purpose of literary criticism. That Shakespeare is established by Plato

43

in effect, becomes today the grounding rationale of Western philosophic tradition. Through his works, Shakespeare has lionized the national language (English) and readers and critics the world over imitate Shakespeare for linguistic intimations (to use Derrida’s words, ‘Nationalism and Universalism’). So on one hand, is the strong determination to hold Shakespeare up as the naturalized voice of a peculiarly English character and style and on the other, Johnsonian deprecation: Not that always where the language is intricate, the thought is subtle, or the image always great where the line is bulky; The equality of words to things is very often neglected, and trivial sentiments and vulgar ideas disappoint the attention, to which they are recommended by sonorous epithets and swelling figures (qtd. in Norris 111). In Hamlet, the hero, putting off until later what is presently impossible, may be said to deconstruct the possibility of his self attaining full presence. Thus, the traditional reading of Hamlet as a tragedy of delay may be related to deconstructive deferral. In the words of Atkins the circumvent to Hamlet’s crises lay in the establishment of his legitimate difference from Claudius (and Laertes), than by proclaiming his difference with self and establishing it as his doubleness. Deconstruction is not a

44

dismantling of the structure of a text but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself and has nothing to stand upon; like a flower without stem or a stem without root—manifests the absence of some type of an atmospheric chemical mixture—a potion. Hamlet, the magnificent work of scholarship has further undergone a considerable change with the coming up of Feminism. The development of feminist thought uncovers the ideology of patriarchal society in works of art. Writers like Mary Wollstonecraft in A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792), male authors like J.S. Mill in the Subjection of Women (1869) and Fredrich Engels in the Origins of the Family (1884) opine that its impact has led to the reorientation of values and will continue to challenge long-held beliefs and practices. For feminists, the text is a battle ground; power struggle between men and women. Various issues seem to be in consonance with this doctrine; Hamlet’s loathing of his mother; his hatred of women brings about his own doom; role of women in Elizabethan society—Ophelia must obey her father without question; the ghost lies in the “womb of earth” (1.1) and walks in an unwholesome night in which a “witch has power to charm” (1.1) banished only by a male figure, the crowing “cock” Claudius has taken his wife “our sometime sister, now our queen” albeit with “a defeated joy,/ With an auspicious, and a dropping eye,/ With mirth in

45

funeral, and dirge in marriage” (1.2.8-12). Gertude is revised by a feminist critic, Carolyn Heilbrum. She reflects decorum and sensitivity in her speech to Laertes upon Ophelia’s death. The distorted image of Gertrude is “she knows lust is her sin, and she admits it. But this is quite different from being an accomplice to murder” (qtd. in Guerin et al. 220). Taking Othello into consideration—the story of a Moor in love with a beautiful girl, unable to justify the ignominy of Desdemona. In The Second Sex (1949), we rightly seek to understand the relegation of a woman into a second sex. She is treated as Other. The crises of sons and father is over, and the world of political power is renewed, but the problem of the feminine realm remains unresolved. In the end, Heilbrum sums up Gertrude as, “.... if she is lustful, (she) is also intelligent, penetrating, and gifted” (Guerin et al. 220). Making an attempt to contribute to feminist’s exposition, the text naturalizes

the

oppression

of

woman

through

its

stereotypical

representation of woman as weak, vulnerable, seductress. We consider the thoughts of Hamlet, “Frailty thy name is woman” (1.2.146). Gertrude and Ophelia are the two sides of the same coin. One is temptress and seductress and the other is too good, too fair—symbol of purity, goodness subject of Hamlet’s dreams, but despite that, she suffers. We discuss her predicament, thrown into the storm-tossed life of Hamlet, she perishes and we mourn her tragic fate.

46

Study of appositional roles in terms of power structure illuminates Cultural Studies and New Historicism, may it be power structures within a society, a community or literature, its implications deeply affect the lives of people. These may be the relationship between Hamlet and Claudius in Hamlet or Duncan and Macbeth in Macbeth or Shylock and Bassanio in The Merchant of Venice or Rosencrantz and Guildenstem in relation to Claudius and Hamlet in Hamlet. Cultural critics and new historicists open new perspectives in readings in Shakespeare. Considering culture as a man-made part of society and taking into its realm the “knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society,” (qtd. in Guerin et al. 245) to the opponents of cultural studies, this world as well as the shelf of great literature can suddenly appear quite empty. The individuality of two characters, i.e., Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is marginal. They spy, try to pry from Hamlet his inner thoughts and at the same time are accountable to Claudius. The two powerful antagonists, i.e. Hamlet and Claudius consider these minor characters as pawns, sponges: HAMLET. …Besides, to be demanded of a sponge—what replication should be made by the son of a king? ROSENCRANTZ. Take you me for a sponge, my lord? (4.2.11-13)

47

This small exchange highlights supremacy of power, authority over servile. Such is the incorporation of power politics in the play that Rosencrantz and Guilderstern though fellow students at Wittenberg along with Hamlet, could not gain a distinct stature in the play as did Hamlet. Glimpses of power politics and power struggle garnish Shakespeare’s plays. Sixteenth Century, the world of kings and queens and the reign of Queen Elizabeth, etc. wherein power struggle might have been a common feature. The empirical outlook hinges a good deal on the loss of stature of the two characters—Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in the present times. Consider Tom Stoppard’s, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (first staged in 1966). The two characters figuratively and constantly try to decipher themselves and their destination. Their downsizing reflects the condition of human beings caught up in unbridled political forces. Thus, the reality of power in Shakespearean times and in the twentieth century radically presents a different world view. In other words, the cultural and historical view that was Shakespeare’s is radically reworked to reflect a cultural and philosophical view of the present times. It seems in the fitness of things that these approaches formulate the journal’s credo. It will be worthwhile to consider the following in the context of the comprehensive canvas of Hamlet Studies:

48

Mythili Kaul. Rev of. Shakespeare’s Analogica1 Scene: Parody as Structural Syntax, by Joan Hartwing. Hamlet Studies 10.1-2 (1988); Mac D.P. Jackson. “Editing Hamlet In The 1980’s Textual Theories and Textual Practices”. Hamlet Studies 11.1-2 (1989); Eugene P. Wright. “Hamlet: From Physics to Metaphysics”. Hamlet Studies 14.1-2 (1992); R.F. Fleissner. “The Dilatory Prince and the Striving Soul-Searcher: The Hamlet-Faust-Complex”. Hamlet Studies 14.1-2 (1992); R.K. Kaul. Rev. of Myth, Ritual and Shakespeare, by Rajiva Verma. Hamlet Studies 15.1-2 (1993); R.W. Desai. Rev. of Reinventing Shakespeare: A Cultural History from Restoration to the Present, by Gary Taylor. Hamlet Studies 16.1-2 (1994); Sushila Singh. “The Readiness is All” Hamlet at Yale, A PostModern Presentation. Hamlet Studies “Productions” 17.1-2 (1995); Rani Drew. The III Act Hamlet–a Feminist Extension / Reconstruction of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Hamlet Studies “Productions” 17.1-2 (1995); R.W. Desai. Rev. of Woman as Individual in English Renaissance Drama: A Defiance of the Masculine Code, by Carol Hansen Hamlet Studies 17.1-2 (1995); Mark Reschke. “Historicizing Homophobia: Hamlet and the AntiTheatrical Tracts”. Hamlet Studies 19.1-2 (1997); Lisa Dickson. “The Hermeneutics of Error : Reading and the First Witness in Hamlet”. Hamlet Studies 19.1-2 (1997); James P. Lusardi. “Hamlet on the Postmodernist Stage : The Revisionings of Bergman and Wajda”. Hamlet Studies 19.1-2

49

(1997); Ranjini Philip. “Rereading Hamlet in a Multi Cultural Context”. Hamlet Studies 20.1-2 (1998). A conspicuous perusal of the articles in various volumes (25) connotes editor’s non-committal and objective presentation of these approaches. The journal is like an open prison with strict adherence to guidelines inscribed in MLA Style Sheet new or old; simultaneously left open to new interpretations, discoveries, facts about that text, or highlighting the unhighlighted aspects. The peremptory part takes into account minor discoveries, reference to new schools, minor characters and above all, one perceives that the articles are a confluence of rich scholarly, editorial and textual work. Scholarly work on Hamlet, i.e. textual illumination: M.K. Chubby Raj. “Hamlet A Soul in Conflict”. Hamlet Studies “Notes” 21.1-2 (1999); Daniel Meyer-DinkGrafe. ““My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth” – “The readiness is all ... Let be”: Hamlet at the Cross roads”. Hamlet Studies “Notes” 8.1-2 (1986); Greg Bentley. “Melancholy, Madness and Syphilis in Hamlet”. Hamlet Studies “Notes” 6.1-2 (1984); Robert E. Burkhart. “Hamlet: Is He Still Delaying?”. Hamlet Studies “Notes” 6.1-2 (1984). Some articles hinge on theatrical performances of Hamlet:

50

Tilottama Daswani. Rev. of Shakespeare’s Mystery Play: The Opening of the Globe Theatre (1599), by Steve Sohmer. Hamlet Studies 22.1-2 (2000); J.L. Styan. “On Seeing Hamlet In Performance”. Hamlet Studies 9.1-2 (1987); Bernice W. Kliman. “Joseph Papp Presents Hamlet”. Hamlet Studies “Productions” 6.1-2 (1984); Vesna Pistotnik. “Teater ITD’s Hamlet”. Hamlet Studies “Productions” 4.1-2 (1982); Bernice W. Kliman. “The

BBC

Hamlet,

a

Television

Production”.

Hamlet

Studies

“Productions” 4.1-2 (1982); Gordon Ross Smith. “The Mc Carter Theatre Company’s Hamlet”. Hamlet Studies “Productions” 4.1-2 (1982). Some articles bring to light scrutinization of the literary text: R.W. Desai. Rev. of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, ed. Robert Hapgood. Hamlet Studies 23.1-2 (2001); Y.S. Bains. The First Quarto of Hamlet, ed. Kathleen O. Irace. Hamlet Studies 23.1-2 (2001); Paul M. Edmonson. ““A sad story tolde”: Playing Horatio in Q1 Hamlet”. Hamlet Studies 22.1-2 (2000); Y.S. Bains. “Biography, Bibliography and the Making of Shakespeare’s Hamlet”. Hamlet Studies 22.1-2 (2000); Gunnar Sjögren. “Producing the First Quarto Hamlet”. Hamlet Studies 1.1 (1979). Then there are articles such as: Yoshiko Kawachi. “Hamlet in Japan—from Drama To Novel”.Hamlet Studies 8.1-2 (1986); Yoshiko Kawachi. “Translating Hamlet into

51

Japanese”. Hamlet Studies 23.1-2 (2001); Mahmoud F. AL-Shetawi. “Hamlet in Arabic”. Hamlet Studies 22.1-2 (2000). Another aspect frequently touched upon: the Indian angle. It has welcomed articles related to Hamlet Studies in India: R.W. Desai. “Hamlet Studies after Two Decades in India—A Retrospective Analysis”. Hamlet Studies 21.1-2 (1999); Vikram Chopra. “When Hamlet came to Mizoram”: A Film on Hamlet. Hamlet Studies “Productions” 17.1-2 (1995). To conclude one can say that the editor has been very eclectic in his inclusion of articles for the Journal. As there is no one way of reading a piece of literature that can capture all that is in it, just as no simplistic notion can embody all that the human being is. For that we need many approaches.

52

Works Cited Guerin, Wilfred L, et al. “Cultural Approaches”. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: OUP, 1992. 239-301. Print. ---. “Feminist Approaches”. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: OUP, 1992. 196-238. Print. Jenkins, Harold. ed. The Arden Edition of Works of William Shakespeare: Hamlet. London: Methuen, 1982. Subsequent citations are from this edition. Print. Norris, Christopher. “Post-structuralist Shakespeare: text & ideology”. Alternative Shakespeares. Leichester: Leichester University Press, 1992. 109-25. Print. Silhol, Robert. “Hamlet and his Other”. PSYART: A Hyper Link Journal for the Psychological Study of the Arts. Mar. 23, 1999. Web. Oct. 28, 2010. . Weitz, Morris. “Ernest Jones”. Hamlet and the Philosophy of Literary Criticism. London: Faber & Faber, 1965. 19-26. Print ---. “The Major Tradition”. Hamlet and the Philosophy of Literary Criticism. London: Faber & Faber, 1965.144-65. Print. ---. “Some Historical Critics”. Hamlet and the Philosophy of Literary Criticism. London: Faber & Faber, 1972. 44-94. Print.