Sophia Metropoulos
Philosophical schools of thought are integrated into many, if not all of William Shakespeare’s works. Hamlet (c 1599), in particular, evokes the inspection of human desire, knowledge, and emotions through the creation of the character, Hamlet. In his soliloquies, Hamlet displays a concern for the existential human condition that involves a desire to find the value and meaning of his own life before death–revealing his neurotic, curious, and reflective qualities as he internalizes these considerations. With these possessions, he embarks on a journey of self-discovery and adjustment, while simultaneously being faced with challenges that contribute to his eventual quietus.
Although Hamlet’s downfall and internal conflicts may seem initiated by the discovery of his father’s death, the complexity of Hamlet’s character begs a closer inspection. Hamlet’s multi-dimensional identity is produced primarily by a growing curiosity in the existential human condition (both in life and death), his attempts to self-regulate behavior, and his desire to achieve autonomy and uniqueness above other men. His development of the self can be illustrated best by analyzing his soliloquies, concluding with an exploration of and comparison to Montaigne’s essays “On Solitude” and “To Philosophize is to Learn How to Die.”
Understanding the Existential Human Condition in Hamlet
Hamlet’s increased knowledge and embitterment coexist with his thinking abstractly about life and death, meaning, and purpose, and these elements significantly influence Hamlet’s character development throughout the play. Existentialism is a “philosophical movement or approach which focuses on the analysis of human existence and on individual human beings as agents freely determining by their choices [upon gaining knowledge] what they will become.”1 Jean-Paul Sartre, expanding this definition regarding existential thinking, argues, “humans […] try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe” (Mastin).Sartre’s extension not only notes the importance of an individual’s moral honesty and “authenticity […] to grasp human existence” (“Existentialism”)but also accentuates the influence external conditions have on human freedom—inhibiting rational decision making “despite existing in an irrational universe.” Considering the many ways that existentialism is defined in different contexts, Sartre’s idea of regarding the self as a victim of one’s environment seems very pertinent to Hamlet’s character. After Claudius and his mother speak to him regarding his father’s death and implore him not to return to school in Wittenberg, Hamlet reflects on their improperly “hasty” (2.2.57) relationship and the value and meaning of his life:
Oh, that this too, too solid flesh would melt,
Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew,
Or that the Everlasting had not fixed
His canon ‘gainst self-slaughter. O God, God,
How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable
Seem to me all the uses of this world! […]
O God, a beast that wants discourse of reason
Would have mourned longer!—married with my uncle,
My father’s brother, but no more like my father
Than I to Hercules. (1.2.129-34; 150-53)
The themes of death and decay are woven through this soliloquy: first in the contemplation of forbidden suicide in his line, “His canon ’gainst self-slaughter,” then when he discusses the pointlessness of life, referring to the world as “weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable,” and later comparing life to an untamed garden (1.2.132-134). Hamlet’s nihilism stems from his feeling that life is unfair and distressing as he struggles to be rational in an irrational world. His embittered emotional investment and anger about his father’s death and Gertrude’s relationship with his uncle connect to the existential condition by showing that he views the changes occurring in his life as uncontrollable.
Additionally, Hamlet’s behavior demonstrates how the intersection of experience and existential thoughts–life, death, human choice and value– can cause an individual to view the world with an obsessive caution. For instance, Hamlet creates a protective barrier against those “confidants” he fears will betray him, doubting “the nature of his former companions, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and even that of his mother” (Lloyd 23). Furthermore, as Peter Lloyd notes, he begins to doubt himself, causing his erratic behavior that, in turn, causes others to doubt him. Peter Holbrook further observes that this intersection in Hamlet’s mind not only manifests into a habit of wariness but also an obsession (34). Hamlet’s need to discover hypothetical truths, a motivation based in a desire for involvement and control, makes his identity and behavior mercurial. He does, however, attempt to manage these tendencies, revealing other challenges he endures.
Self-Regulation in a World of Men
The frequent use of “soft” in the soliloquies illustrates the underlying conflict of thought and action in Hamlet’s internal regulation. After discovering that Claudius is responsible for the death of his father, Hamlet does not quickly take his revenge. Instead, he plots with obsessive caution. In this process, his attempt to regulate his actions is sometimes indicated through the use of the word “soft.” One example occurs in his fifth soliloquy: “Now could I drink hot blood, / And do such business as the bitter day / Would quake to look on. Soft, now to my mother” (3.2.362-64). The Oxford English Dictionary defines “soft” in a now-obscure sense more common in Early Modern English as, “to calm or restrain oneself.”2 Its frequent use in his soliloquies illustrates his underlying conflict in regulating thought and pursuit. Often, when considering taking physical action against someone, he pauses to maintain rational control over decision making. This consideration demonstrates Hamlet’s battle between the incongruous identities of pursuit and thought—as Hamlet observes about his words and inclinations, “My tongue and soul in this be hypocrites” (3.2.369). Hamlet is imprisoned by these two contradictory impulses. While his “tongue” wishes to “drink hot blood,” his “soul” wishes to restrain him from doing so.
While trying to regulate these two antithetical desires, the possible ramifications of his actions guide his behavior. Holbrook notes Friedrich Nietzsche’s observation that Hamlet “has peered into the ‘abyss’ of being–comprehended the meaninglessness of existence and futility of all action, including punishment” (46). In his fifth soliloquy, for example, Hamlet recognizes his capability to spite and harm others, but he self-regulates to prevent acting out against them unless it is worth doing so: “O heart, let not lose thy nature! Let not ever / The soul of Nero enter this firm bosom. / Let me be cruel, not unnatural” (3.2.365-67). Similarly, Harold Bloom argues that Hamlet modulates his thoughts through critique and revision: “Hamlet modifies himself by studying his own modifications. […] Hamlet is the paradigm for all introspection” (233). Bloom’s analysis of Hamlet suggests that there is a familiarity to Hamlet’s thought process related to the human condition; while Hamlet’s efforts should produce a stronger, more regulated moral compass, his excess of thoughts prevents him from having clear direction. These attempts by Hamlet to gain control over himself illustrate the conflicting dimensions in his identity, which only further complicates his decisions, leading to his suffering and prolonging his mental anguish.
Another existential quality that leads to Hamlet’s mental anguish is his desire for autonomy. In his studies on masculinity in Shakespeare’s works, Bruce Smith recognizes that men who do not fulfill society’s expectations—holding authority in their homes and politics, governing, protecting, and fiscally supporting their wives and homes, and being highly educated—may not be considered smart or valuable enough: “Men, while emasculating other men, devalue the individual and can lure them to existential, deviant thoughts and actions” (Smith 92). Conversely, Margreta de Grazia argues that in his search for autonomy, Hamlet intends to gain success and pleasure not from his “interiority,” but from what he applies to himself externally, his “‘antic disposition’” (8). She argues that Hamlet’s hyperactivity throughout the play likens him more to a “clown of medieval folk tradition” than an individual who exhibits introspective consciousness (9). However, given Gertrude and Claudius’s relationship, Claudius’s murder of his father, his inability to rely on Gertrude for guidance or nurturing, and being surrounded by uncertainty, he nevertheless adapts to this irrational environment.
In addition to his desire of autonomy, Hamlet’s commitment to his vows further prolongs and increases his mental anguish, specifically his vow to the Ghost. Mark Matheson argues that Hamlet arrives at his first main source of internal conflict when he battles between his already-established commitment and self-regulation of ethics and pride: “Shakespeare makes a point representing Hamlet as a product of Humanism and (more cautiously) of the Reformation. […]. [H]e cannot simply, as he vows to do, ‘wipe away’ an act of will. In respect and self-pride, he is resilient in fulfilling his commitments” (385). This observation also evokes the question of how society influences Hamlet’s identity: is it a matter of adjustment for Hamlet or external reliability? These concerns of dependency, influence, and supernatural fears can be further understood through Michel de Montaigne’s analysis of solitude.
On Montaigne: Hamlet’s Identity and Repair
The central foundations of Montaigne’s essay “On Solitude” pertain to independence and dependence. In order to prosper individually, he argues, one must not rely on loved ones for happiness or let their happiness be contingent on the well-being and stability of another (100-101). Giulio J. Pertile observes that an “ability to detach himself from himself at the very moment of experience [is] what I shall call instantaneous self-reflexivity,” a revolution in the history of self-consciousness (43). This ability to detach is challenging for Hamlet because although he feels that he can no longer depend on Gertrude, he still desires a connection with her, complicating his actions and decisions.
Montaigne further argues that the soul of each individual has two parts: the public and the private. As demonstrated by his dissonant soliloquies, Hamlet’s identity is detrimentally complex because he has unified both the private and public parts of his soul, leaving little room for effective self-reflection. He has developed a dependency on Gertrude’s commitment to his deceased father and, given his highly emotional disappointment that she has married his brother, feels an insecure attachment to her—further adding to his need for self-regulation.
Montaigne likewise believes that clear thought processes and concrete ideologies result from an effective detachment from the world: “We should set aside a room, just for ourselves, at the back of the shop, keeping it entirely and establishing there our true liberty, our principal solitude and asylum” (100). Montaigne believes that personal self-development builds a better sense of the self, leading to stronger bonds with others. On his journey of self-discovery, Hamlet progressively develops more existential concerns that result in both withdrawal from and insecure attachment to nearly every character in the play, including Gertrude and Ophelia. In this way, Hamlet experiences a kind of cognitive dissonance in his identity, a trust-distrust effect concerning his friends and family.
For Montaigne, humans cannot fulfil their desires without first acknowledging the reality of death. He argues that repressing fears of “after virtue” prevents individuals from living happily and fearlessly: “To practise death is to practise freedom” (24). In addition, Montaigne’s concept of achieving ‘solitude’ and ‘freedom’ through understanding death suggests that when a virtuous and existential life are harmonious, both the body and, more importantly, the mind, are made strong.
However, the community must be unified in practicing “death together.” Colette Gordon connects Hamlet to the tragicomedy of Kapoor’s clowns, noting that the careers of characters like the Gravedigger and clowns and “tragicomic figures” lead them to have “one foot in hell or at least firmly planted in the rotting earth” (133); while they accept that death will one day occur for them as it already has for others, their other foot is planted in the present life, and their solitude does not allow death to be feared. If Hamlet were more supportive of these questions regarding existential concerns, and if other characters would have engaged in conversations about death with each other, it is plausible that we would recognize the most gratifying and stable life as one contingent primarily on cultivating a comprehension of death.
Hamlet does not effectively distinguish his public and private side, resulting in less comprehension of his emotions, ethics, interests, and beliefs. As a result, he battles with his two identities, the “tongue and soul” (3.2.369), which differentiate thought from pursuit. Also, by exploring Montaigne’s concept of the soul and identity, Hamlet’s complicated character can be simply explained as the result of his development and self-understanding. Between struggling with existential concerns, attachment, and infidelity, he explores his identity. As Montaigne observes, “We have a soul able to turn in on itself; she can keep herself company; she has the wherewithal to attack, to defend, to receive, and to give. Let us not fear that in search of solitude as that we shall be crouching and painful illness” (100).
Works Cited
Bloom, Harold. “Hamlet.” Hamlet, edited by Harold Bloom, Chelsea House, 1990, pp. 229–244.
De Grazia, Margreta. Hamlet without Hamlet. Cambridge UP, 2008.
“Existentialism.” The Stanford Encycolpedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/.
Gordon, Colette. “To Hold Up the Mirror: Hamlet – The Clown Prince and ‘Sharing History.’” Shakespeare in Southern Africa, vol. 26, no. 1, 2014. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5805e25ed482e93165f6ae42/t/5832b3c915d5db9bb62399ef/1479717840064/Colette+Gordon+-+review+of+Hamlet+The+Clown+Prince.pdf
Hamlin, William M. “Montaigne and Shakespeare: The Emergence of Modern Self-Consciousness.” Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 69, no. 3, 2016. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/e26559918.
Holbrook, Peter. Shakespeare’s Individualism. Cambridge UP, 2013.
Lloyd, Peter. Perspectives & Identities: the Elizabethan Writer’s Search to Know His World. Rubicon, 1989.
Mastin, L. “Existentialism.” The Basics of Philosophy.https://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_existentialism.html.
Matheson, Mark. “A Matter Tender and Dangerous.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 4, 2002. https://doi.org/10.2307/2870978.
Miola, Robert S., ed. Hamlet by William Shakespeare. Norton Critical Edition, Norton, 2019.
Pertile, Giulio J. Feeling Faint: Affect and Consciousness in the Renaissance. Northwestern UP, 2019.
Screech, M. A., ed. and trans. The Essays: A Selection by Michel de Montaigne. Penguin, 2004.
Smith, Bruce R. Shakespeare and Masculinity. Oxford UP, 2012.
[1] Oxford English Dictionary, “existentialism,” 2.
[2] Oxford English Dictionary, “soft,” 7.