INTRODUCTION

The exploration of the epoch that we call the Renaissance or the Early Modern Period revolves

around the question of humanism. The question of centrality of the human situation as has

usually been held to be the foremost aspect of the intellectual milieu/environs of the times

however suffers from its own constraints, propelling it toward a position of ambiguity. David

Riggs’s argument concerning the implications of the Copernican discovery does, in my opinion,

itself make this position manifest. The relegation of the earth away from the centre it had so long

held signifies both a challenge to the notion of the privileged human position at the centre of the

universe, but also, interestingly and at the same time conveys the human intellectual and logical

ability to foreground his status as man- as part of a wider cosmological unit. In fact this

resembles the work of the other intellectual works of the times like that of Pico de la Mirandola

which also attempts to ground the position of Man in the universal chain-of-Being. The earlier

discovery therefore in terms of its two-fold and contradictory connotations throws up an aura of

‘undecidability’, that is an ‘undecidability’ of signification. In terms of this ambiguity, which as

the discussions and references will show, is central to the epoch under consideration, Hamlet

offers us an adequate ground for delving into the intricacies of religious positions as corroborated

within the play, pointing to the aforesaid epochal aspect and its being enmeshed with the other

discursive concerns that religion offers. In this respect, what can thus be attempted is a close

analysis of the religious dilemma, as elaborated in the play, with foremost concern on the

character of Hamlet as it is shaped in the course of the play’s movement and in its association

with other characters that appear in it.

To begin with, let us first peer into the contexts that suggest the dominance of a certain

politically sanctioned religious idea-that of Protestantism. Hamlet’s being a student at

Wittenberg as well as the prince of Denmark signifies an amicable relationship between the

Danish kingdom and the Protestant ethic. Even Claudius’s consolation to Hamlet bears the

imprint of what shall be explained subsequently as the importance of “this-worldliness” as

opposed to “other-worldliness”. His arguments with their garb of logic however merges into the

final turn -of –attention statement : ” You are the most immediate to the throne”, indicating the

ethos of reasoning to be fixated on one’s devotion to the responsibilities and duties that one has

to shoulder in one’s life. It is this aspect of ‘this-worldliness’ that plays a considerable role in the

elaboration of the experimentation with Protestant ethic that the play mirrors in terms of the

character of Hamlet. As Max Weber has outlined in his path-breaking work, The Protestant ethic

and the spirit of capitalism ,the very sentiment of religious protests that the Reformation

comprised was the harbinger of a new set of ideas that prioritized what he regards as ‘worldly

asceticism’. Now, though at a first glance the juxtaposition of the two terms might appear to be

paradoxical, it is important to note that even the notion of contemplation was one parameter of

difference between the earlier religious belief that privileged one’s contemplation over

transcendental realities, and the new reformist doctrine that in its zeal to promote a sense of

assurance (of one’s being an Elect, and of which one could not be sure) spoke of the deeds in this

realm of existence as a fundamental testimony to the same. In the case of Hamlet, it would not be

precarious to state that his motive is solely justified on religio-legal grounds, if we analyze it in

terms of the dictum of the ‘Homily against Disobedience and Wilfull Rebellion’ which states that

any such rebellion is only justified on religious grounds, that is, they must be ratified in terms of

religion. Also, Hamlet’s identification of his uncle’s sin as ‘incest’ is not a wholly negligible

indictment. Its heinous façade is subtly concealed through the power of rhetoric

(“words,words,words”) like all other such inconsistencies in the world of Hamlet as Alexandra

Dixon has observed. In this respect, his vengeance would appeal to him as a morally just act.

Therefore as a would-be king (who would be vested with the onus of the maintenance of law,

which needless to say never parts with religious strictures) this act of revenge could turn out to

be decisive – that is, decisive in terms of the assurance that has been explained vis – a – vis the

ethic of the new faith. As Hamlet says in his first encounter with the ghost in act 1,scene iii –

“Be thou spirit of health or goblin damn’d

Bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell

Be thy intents wicked or charitable’

Thou com’st in such a questionable shape

That I will speak to thee. I’ll call thee

Hamlet,

King, father, royal Dane.”

What seems interesting is the observation that in spite of Hamlet's initial doubts about the

identity of the ‘ghost’, he does not seem reluctant to address it as ‘king’ and therefore regard it to

be the spirit of his bygone father. At a time when the divine right of kingship was still the

governing norm of administration, the ghost’s ordeal would in turn be interpreted as divine duty,

the fulfillment of which would therefore translate into the obedience of a divine commandment

thereby granting the assurance explained earlier. However, Hamlet with his entire

epistemological conviction of skepticism, appears to be steeped completely in doubt about the

sanctity of the act of revenge which is actually akin to murder, as in his famous soliloquy in Act

3, scene i, he cites the uncertainty of one’s position in the life that is to come ‘after death’ as the

primary deterrent to the act of vengeance. This itself demonstrates his inability to decide upon

the legitimacy of the act. Besides the apprehension that the inability to act promptly in the face of

circumstances would lead him to endure a sea of torment for the rest of his weary life is also not

a hopeful testimony of his religio-ethical situation. Also, what appear significant are the

attitudes of Hamlet and Horatio towards the ghost in the play. What unites both their attitudes in

this regard is the fundamental and contextually significant stance of verification. Verification, as

it might be argued, foregrounds a certain sense of individuality in as much as the question of

making an individual investigation is inevitably conceived with its evocation. Horatio initially, as

we are informed, is reluctant to believe in the presence of the ghost while Hamlet, in spite of

knowing how essential to his purpose the apparition might be, wishes to know for himself the

veracity of Francesco and Bernardo’s claims. In this context of verification, one can distinctly

point out a certain essence of the new religious fervor that privileges the Lutheran idea of one’s

fullest reliance on the Letter which one can fathom without an intermediary, as though the onus

of finding out the suggestions of the written sign rests with the individual alone. In spite of such

an implicit display of this ‘new’ religious discourse, a subtle skepticism about the validity of its

claim lingers at a certain juncture in the text. While such an idea of individual authority of

scriptural reading does cast a shining light on the platform of democracy (as it is Weber in his

text mentions in his argument an idea manifest in Franklin’s work , thereby creating a more

than obvious link between the new idea and the liberal notion of political democracy one of

whose champions is the famous American statesman, himself a devout Protestant), it could lead

to innumerable mis-readings which is expressed impressively in Horatio’s recalling of the events

of the night before Caesar’s assassination. Interestingly, his account is explicitly suggestive of

Casca’s enumeration of the events of the aforesaid night in Shakespeare’s own, Julius Caesar.

What this incident showcases is therefore the dangers of succumbing to an overtly literal

understanding of documents which is a possibility in case of a popular democratization of

reading – a reading which bypasses the fiction embedded in a core of facts, that is, it shows a

complete and condemnable ignorance of their symbolic inscriptions. In Shakespeare’s times

when the social milieu was un-bereft of superstitions and prejudices, the possibility of such

readings was all the more high and the fact that it is Horatio who ultimate falls prey to it shows

his one failing as a scholar. More importantly, it highlights an important aspect of the play which

will stand out eventually in the course of this discussion- that no scholar, be it Hamlet or Horatio

is left uninfluenced by the ideological underpinnings of his own social standing, of his

‘fallenness’ into a world with its own orientations. Horatio’s insistence on one’s realization of

the ‘sovereignty of reason’ which undeniably stands for the primacy of rationality and the

pejoration of passions and irrational beliefs (which are synonymous with the agendas of the new

faith) is therefore paradoxical. Before essaying in full detail to criticize the idea of an unitary,

unilinear, and unhindered position of religion in the play there are a few points which need to be

first established – points which will perhaps aid our discussion of how the play, as a document of

the temporal currents of thought, limits all claims to a sustained comprehension of the undivided

individual self. Here the question of Hamlet’s consciousness of his own social station (and

therefore of his own class position) can be first taken up for elucidation. In act 4 scene ii, after

Hamlet has had a conversation with the players about to enact Gonzago’s tale and after

Rosencratz and Guildernstein have taken their leave, he reproaches himself for his inability to act

by calling himself a ‘ rogue and peasant slave’. This bears with it an immediacy of his awareness

of the values and codes that are intrinsic to his own class-position. His being a prince (as a flag-

bearer of the virtues of the State, and subsequently the theological virtues sponsored by the state)

demands of him to be more conscious of the avenues that would sustain the norm of the land. His

official onus (that of preventing anarchy that would surely be reaped by regicide) conflicts with

his own duty as the obedient son(that of vengeance), the latter however also amounting to an

officious duty if considered in the light of its redressing the act of regicide itself. This is again

one of the most illustrative junctures in the play that brings to light the disturbingly ambiguous

universe of Hamlet . Needless to say this would certainly plague Hamlet all the more because

his failure to determine his responsibility and redress the ‘total depravity’(in the Calvinian sense)

of his world would in turn be a negative testimony of his own position as a Christian prince.

The thought of self-annihilation marking his almost vociferous lament in the first act is

apparently a negation of the fructification of earthly existence- an utter desolation and depravity

marking the post-lapsarian human position- but is immediately followed by a sudden flash of

awareness of the need to follow the law to the letter (and herein lies the significance of the

authority of the scripture qua the Letter) and a consequential denouement of suicide. This is

indicative of a certain dialectic waged between two tenets of the same doctrine, revealed in

circumstances that exacerbate the problematic dynamics of the play. More importantly, one

cannot but fail to note the ambivalence that crops up when Hamlet in a moment of utter distress

contemplates a theme as spiritual as Death in terms that are essentially corporeal, with their own

economic import, probably reminiscing one of the thematic aspects of the sonnets to W.H.

Now, what can perhaps be reasoned out is the importance of the grave-digger’s scene. Since it

has been explained that the issue of Death occasions the most consummate exposition of the

dilemma and also the ambivalence in the play, Hamlet joins the coterie of the most important

figures of the Early Modern period. In this respect, one needs to call up Stephen Greenblatt’s

elucidation of the situation of Sir Thomas More. Greenblatt argues that there is a certain degree

of ambivalence (quite akin to the kind we have observed in the context of our discussion) in

More’s cosmological view- an outcome of his attempt to, like every Renaissance personality

fashion his own self and thereby find it influenced by the ideological currents of his times.

More’s world is presented as one where “people are ready to uphold conventions without

believing them, and therefore the political world of More, unlike Machiavelli’s is opaque.” A

certain duality that exists in More’s cosmological view is shown to be prefigured by his

‘estrangement’, that is, distrust for the world of appearances where the necessity for holding

firmly onto conventions is of manifold significance (and this includes the nitty-gritty of all arts

embodying the spirit of the age) while one’s own belief and spiritual comprehensions (suggestive

of a distrust for this exaggerated display of things) are subservient to it. This is presented as the

standard epochal motif through Holbein’s painting The Ambassadors where the Renaissance

world with all its intricacies and splendor is portrayed as just one single perspective of

contemplation while the other (to view which of course one’s angle and direction of vision must

be altered) negates all of it through the presentation of the theme of Death (signified by a skull

that has an anamorphic representation in the painting). So Death as the ultimate boundary of

negation- negation that, however, remains through its transience a standard signifier of the

prevalence of duality –finds a reception in ‘Hamlet’ too. Hamlet’s contemplation of the futility

of worldly supremacy and privilege in the graveyard, foregrounding the iconic Biblical notion of

“dust returneth to dust” is therefore ultimately a negation of what we had presumed earlier-his

identity as a prince grounding his reproachment for being something baser than what his station

demands of him.

‘The Ambassadors’ by Richard Holbein (1553)

It is also a point worth considering that Hamlet as a prince-scholar, displays his erudition in all

situations that give him avenue for the purpose. His erudition is revealed in his allusions-

innumerable as they seem to be. However none of his allusions contain references to classical

philosophy or philosophers for that matter, albeit there are occasions when he speaks of heroes

like Achilles or Hercules. This complicates the demarcation between the antique and classical

tradition of the hero and the Christian tradition of the same, as critics like Paul A. Cantor have

essayed to show. Rather a blend of the two is what seems more expedient for the purpose and

ethics of humanism. While Cantor perceives the presence of the Roman philosophical tradition in

Hamlet,(especially in the tone in which Hamlet delineates the character of Horatio), it must be

concluded that no overt reference to such a tradition is there in the play. As Peter Harrison points

out, “one of Luther’s and Calvin’s major ideas about the cause of corruption of Roman Catholic

Church was its contamination by pagan philosophy”. Hamlet succumbs to this pedagogy, which,

as has been earlier established, he is also at pains to keep intact and stable as an official duty of

his.

Also important, is the figure of the ghost with its own insignia of the netherworld which becomes

a site for the display of Hamlet’s ambivalence. While Hamlet is not certain about the intentions

of the ghost or even its identity(that is its being “heavenly” or “hellish”) he does not even in such

conditions fail to address it as ‘king’. This is not due to any utter lack of skeptical spirit in him

but because his own situation of doubt( of duality) must be kept in check or even momentarily

dislodged in order to sustain him.

Ophelia’s treatment in the play is perhaps one of the most important arbiters of the religious

convolutions in the world of Hamlet. A wider social perspective on the issue of the ethos of

religion can be taken from the viewpoint of both Ophelia’s treatment in the hands of Hamlet and

also from her treatment in the hands of her brother, Laertes. In both these cases, it might be said,

the very idea governing the negation or, rather, authorial subversion of a certain proposition

exists, or for want of a better word, co-exists. Hamlet’s insistence on Ophelia’s going to a

nunnery is predicated upon his wish to prevent her from being “a breeder of sinners”. This stems

from the doubt that his act of murder would be a sin, in which case she would also become a

party to the sin. Such an approach aligns itself closely with the Calvinist doctrine which states

that in marriage, the woman or the man do not stand outside each other. However like the other

negations that have been discussed earlier, a certain stance of nullification governs this segment

of the play also, and most importantly, the playwright makes the agency of subversion the

prerogative of the woman. Laertes’s dictation of terms to Ophelia before he takes her leave is

promptly met with Ophelia’s retort reminding him of the need to practice what he preaches.

While Ophelia accepts the need to submit to authority here (by acquiescing in her brother’s

counsel) she also reinforces her status as a subject with an agency to grant directives. However

the fact that the idea of resistance cannot have any singular and unanimous declaration points to

the imperfect pervasion of the ethos of a faith born out of this ideal itself. It is in a similar note

therefore that the notion of England as a nation where everybody is mad as the gravedigger

suggests is indicative of a subtle celebration of vigilance- vigilance marked precisely by the

proliferation of diverse opinions(political and social) , exemplified by the presence of Puritan

(who, remarkably as Weber mentions were influenced by the new currents of religious thought)

and other sects and also by what would take place years later in the aftermath of Cromwell’s

rebellion , showing therefore a certain affinity for freedom in the ‘English’ character that situates

itself on the other side of autocracy and monarchical whimsicality. The fact that Hamlet’s

madness is perceived to be one with an order behind it also bears a distinct resemblance with the

kind of ‘order’ existing in spite of the unscrupulous extortion of wealth in the capitalist spirit

which Weber identifies as the stress on regular labour, methodical system of role assignment and

the division of labour backed by the doctrines of Luther and Baxter (Weber,107). Therefore

Hamlet’s lack of repentance for his murder of Polonius is not merely emblematic of frantic

lunacy but shows the ‘order’ which he would wish to follow to eliminate all those who stand in

the way of his almost unrealized and unrecognized goal, showing thereby how a discourse on

‘order’ is slowly beginning to take shape. Such slices of indications throughout the play therefore

lead us to prove the assumption with which we began, and, the general trajectory of the play is

peppered with them.

CONCLUSION

The world of the play, therefore with all its complexities opens itself up as document of the most

pertinent spirit of the age. Such an uncertainty of positions, which though had not always been

explored to its deepest recesses, perhaps lay in the minds of all who stopped for a moment to

suggest that Hamlet was the true Renaissance man. Stretching this overtly literary element

further, one can also find its congruence with the wider social aspects of the age- an age which

always perhaps tried its best to conceal the stratum of rust beneath its prized golden goblet.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Greenblatt, Stephen, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, The University of Chicago Press,

Chicago, 1980.

2. Harrison, Peter, “Philosophy and the crisis of Religion”,pp.234-249, The Cambridge

Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, New York , 2007

3. Dixon, Alexandra, “Hamlet and the discourse of reason”, mETAphor, issue 2, 2008,

English Teacher’s Association of NSW,pp.41-43

4. Cantor, A. Paul, Landmarks of World Literature: Hamlet, Cambridge University Press,

New York, 2004

5. Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Routledge, London &

New York, 2001

6. Riggs, David, The World of Christopher Marlowe, New York, Henry Holt, 2004