Hamlet at Wittenberg
I awoke with a Shakespearean query and "High Lonesome" by The Gaslight Anthem coursing through my brain. The latter is probably because we're going to see them tonight (!!!) and I've been listening obsessively for weeks. The former is thus:
Now, considering the time period of Hamlet is never specifically addressed (either in terms of just how long the play takes place or at what time in history), the only inferences come from:
A) Hamlet's character within the play; and
B) The time period in which the play was written (namely around 1599)
Now, as pretty much everyone is aware, Hamlet is a pretty mopey bastard through most of the play. However, I think there is ample evidence in the play to suggest that Hamlet's melancholy is markedly different than his usual temperment. Gertrude's plea for Hamlet to
"Cast thy nighted colour off,
And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.
Do not for ever with thy vailed lids
Seek for thy noble father in the dust:",
as well as Claudius' comment in the same conversation that for Hamlet "to persever
In obstinate condolement is a course
Of impious stubbornness; 'tis unmanly grief;
It shows a will most incorrect to heaven,
A heart unfortified, a mind impatient,
An understanding simple and unschool'd:"
show that his attitude is remarkable to them. If he were always as melancholy and taciturn as he acts in the Danish Court at the beginning of this scene (I.III), they would have either ignored him or addressed his grief in another way. They both recognize that Hamlet is overly grieved over his father's death and their "o'er hasty marriage", specifically; were he a generally melancholy emo kid, they probably would not have singled out those events as the cause of his distemper. Likewise, I don't think they would have used Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to discover why he appears to go mad in Act II; instead, especially within the scope of the Medieval idea that melancholy and madness both stem from an imbalance in the humors, they probably would have just assumed that his madness was the logical fate of someone who was melancholy as a general temperment (like Jacques in As You Like It, for example).
Also, the "What a piece of work is man" speech at II.II suggests the mindset of a once happy man who had the ability to recognize "the beauty of the world" at one point in his life, but has "of late--but
wherefore [he] know[s] not--lost all [his] mirth, forgone all
custom of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily
with [his] disposition that this goodly frame, the
earth, seems to [him] a sterile promontory".
He acknowledges to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that his recent attitude is strange for him, but doesn't reveal to them why he's been feeling and acting this way (because Hamlet knows they can't be trusted).
So, Hamlet was a very intelligent person with various interests, as evidenced by his breadth of knowledge in Classical literature, religion, the philosophy of the period, fencing, and even theater. But the fact that he attended Wittenberg in the first place may be a clue. Martin Luther taught and studied there, and it was in the town of Wittenberg that Luther posted his 95 Theses. In Elizabeth's Protestant England, Luther's act against the corruption of the Church in 1509 signaled the beginning of the world in which they lived, and with Catholic uprisings and assassination plots always a threat to the Crown, the promotion of Protestantism, no matter how subtle, would have been paramount in Elizabeth's regime. Therefore, having Hamlet, who is trying to rid his country of corruption, attend Martin Luther's university would have shown him to be a good Protestant hero fighting against the morally bankrupt old (Catholic) regime of Claudius.
But what would have been Hamlet's "major"? The fact that Hamlet is passed over as King of Denmark may hold the key. Danish monarchy was elective until the 1660s, which is the prevailing logic for Claudius becoming king over Hamlet. But what if there was more to it? Yes, Claudius says Hamlet is "most immediate" to his throne, but, remember - Claudius has no heirs. Would it not be logical to assume that if Gertrude had a son by Claudius, Hamlet would be in serious danger (C.S. Lewis pulled this with the usurping King Miraz in Prince Caspian)? Claudius orders the English to execute Hamlet after Polonius's murder instead of protecting him, even after he claims to have adopted Hamlet as his son and heir. Even before he has a son, Claudius wants to get rid of Hamlet as a threat to his rule.
Yet, despite Hamlet's claim that he is very ambitious (III.I.135), he doesn't seem to be. If he was ambitious, would Claudius be king? As the younger of the two men as well as the heir of the old king, Hamlet should have been next in line for the Throne, even with the election, as Denmark usually promoted the eldest son of the last monarch to the Throne. But Claudius became king, and Hamlet does not seem to protest his ascension until after the Ghost tells him that Claudius murdered in order to gain his new status (Hamlet is more concerned with the fact that his father is dead and his mother sluttishly married so soon after). This suggests Hamlet may have had other plans in mind other than ruling Denmark.
So, if Hamlet was not really interested in being King of Denmark; was attending Martin Luther's University of Wittenberg; and takes it upon himself to rid his country of the moral corruption plaguing it, perhaps he had aspirations to a religious life modeled after Luther's teachings. This would explain his semi-abdication, as well as his disgust at the drunkeness, licentiousness, and other unsavory tendencies of the Danish court against which he rails (I.IV). Likewise, his hesitancy to commit regicide would also be more understandable; as a possible future member of the clergy, I would expect he would have more issue with murder than someone else in his situation, no matter how justified it might be. Also, in this light, his relationship with Ophelia would have another dimension. When Laertes tells her "his will is not his own", he is speaking of Hamlet's political position as a prince of the realm, but this could allude to the fact that he might not remain in the laity. Hamlet loves Ophelia (despite how abysmally he treats her while trying to keep Claudius guessing); perhaps their relationship gave him pause for entering a religious life, thus fueling his animosity to her and all womankind along with his disgust at the actions of his mother.
I'm not the first person to propose this thesis, but I think this subtext would make for a very compelling staging of the play. I found online a play called Wittenberg that speculates exactly this, with Dr. Luther trying to convince Hamlet to enter the priesthood and help him clean things up. I'm not sure as to Hamlet's characterization in this play (i.e. whether or not he's melancholy), but his speculative life prior to his father's murder is quite similar.
As for Horatio, I think he would have at least been studying something in a similar vein as Hamlet, though, perhaps, with a less religious bent. Hamlet says "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Could this suggest Horatio leaned more toward the study of Philosophy, such as Humanism and the Greeks, while Hamlet was more interested in Theology?
Now, considering the time period of Hamlet is never specifically addressed (either in terms of just how long the play takes place or at what time in history), the only inferences come from:
A) Hamlet's character within the play; and
B) The time period in which the play was written (namely around 1599)
Now, as pretty much everyone is aware, Hamlet is a pretty mopey bastard through most of the play. However, I think there is ample evidence in the play to suggest that Hamlet's melancholy is markedly different than his usual temperment. Gertrude's plea for Hamlet to
"Cast thy nighted colour off,
And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.
Do not for ever with thy vailed lids
Seek for thy noble father in the dust:",
as well as Claudius' comment in the same conversation that for Hamlet "to persever
In obstinate condolement is a course
Of impious stubbornness; 'tis unmanly grief;
It shows a will most incorrect to heaven,
A heart unfortified, a mind impatient,
An understanding simple and unschool'd:"
show that his attitude is remarkable to them. If he were always as melancholy and taciturn as he acts in the Danish Court at the beginning of this scene (I.III), they would have either ignored him or addressed his grief in another way. They both recognize that Hamlet is overly grieved over his father's death and their "o'er hasty marriage", specifically; were he a generally melancholy emo kid, they probably would not have singled out those events as the cause of his distemper. Likewise, I don't think they would have used Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to discover why he appears to go mad in Act II; instead, especially within the scope of the Medieval idea that melancholy and madness both stem from an imbalance in the humors, they probably would have just assumed that his madness was the logical fate of someone who was melancholy as a general temperment (like Jacques in As You Like It, for example).
Also, the "What a piece of work is man" speech at II.II suggests the mindset of a once happy man who had the ability to recognize "the beauty of the world" at one point in his life, but has "of late--but
wherefore [he] know[s] not--lost all [his] mirth, forgone all
custom of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily
with [his] disposition that this goodly frame, the
earth, seems to [him] a sterile promontory".
He acknowledges to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that his recent attitude is strange for him, but doesn't reveal to them why he's been feeling and acting this way (because Hamlet knows they can't be trusted).
So, Hamlet was a very intelligent person with various interests, as evidenced by his breadth of knowledge in Classical literature, religion, the philosophy of the period, fencing, and even theater. But the fact that he attended Wittenberg in the first place may be a clue. Martin Luther taught and studied there, and it was in the town of Wittenberg that Luther posted his 95 Theses. In Elizabeth's Protestant England, Luther's act against the corruption of the Church in 1509 signaled the beginning of the world in which they lived, and with Catholic uprisings and assassination plots always a threat to the Crown, the promotion of Protestantism, no matter how subtle, would have been paramount in Elizabeth's regime. Therefore, having Hamlet, who is trying to rid his country of corruption, attend Martin Luther's university would have shown him to be a good Protestant hero fighting against the morally bankrupt old (Catholic) regime of Claudius.
But what would have been Hamlet's "major"? The fact that Hamlet is passed over as King of Denmark may hold the key. Danish monarchy was elective until the 1660s, which is the prevailing logic for Claudius becoming king over Hamlet. But what if there was more to it? Yes, Claudius says Hamlet is "most immediate" to his throne, but, remember - Claudius has no heirs. Would it not be logical to assume that if Gertrude had a son by Claudius, Hamlet would be in serious danger (C.S. Lewis pulled this with the usurping King Miraz in Prince Caspian)? Claudius orders the English to execute Hamlet after Polonius's murder instead of protecting him, even after he claims to have adopted Hamlet as his son and heir. Even before he has a son, Claudius wants to get rid of Hamlet as a threat to his rule.
Yet, despite Hamlet's claim that he is very ambitious (III.I.135), he doesn't seem to be. If he was ambitious, would Claudius be king? As the younger of the two men as well as the heir of the old king, Hamlet should have been next in line for the Throne, even with the election, as Denmark usually promoted the eldest son of the last monarch to the Throne. But Claudius became king, and Hamlet does not seem to protest his ascension until after the Ghost tells him that Claudius murdered in order to gain his new status (Hamlet is more concerned with the fact that his father is dead and his mother sluttishly married so soon after). This suggests Hamlet may have had other plans in mind other than ruling Denmark.
So, if Hamlet was not really interested in being King of Denmark; was attending Martin Luther's University of Wittenberg; and takes it upon himself to rid his country of the moral corruption plaguing it, perhaps he had aspirations to a religious life modeled after Luther's teachings. This would explain his semi-abdication, as well as his disgust at the drunkeness, licentiousness, and other unsavory tendencies of the Danish court against which he rails (I.IV). Likewise, his hesitancy to commit regicide would also be more understandable; as a possible future member of the clergy, I would expect he would have more issue with murder than someone else in his situation, no matter how justified it might be. Also, in this light, his relationship with Ophelia would have another dimension. When Laertes tells her "his will is not his own", he is speaking of Hamlet's political position as a prince of the realm, but this could allude to the fact that he might not remain in the laity. Hamlet loves Ophelia (despite how abysmally he treats her while trying to keep Claudius guessing); perhaps their relationship gave him pause for entering a religious life, thus fueling his animosity to her and all womankind along with his disgust at the actions of his mother.
I'm not the first person to propose this thesis, but I think this subtext would make for a very compelling staging of the play. I found online a play called Wittenberg that speculates exactly this, with Dr. Luther trying to convince Hamlet to enter the priesthood and help him clean things up. I'm not sure as to Hamlet's characterization in this play (i.e. whether or not he's melancholy), but his speculative life prior to his father's murder is quite similar.
As for Horatio, I think he would have at least been studying something in a similar vein as Hamlet, though, perhaps, with a less religious bent. Hamlet says "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Could this suggest Horatio leaned more toward the study of Philosophy, such as Humanism and the Greeks, while Hamlet was more interested in Theology?