Sergio Romero
William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet (c. 1599) and Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment (1866) are two works that have been widely acclaimed for their complexity and depth. Despite having been written more than two hundred years apart, they have several similarities that make their analysis an interesting prospect. An area in which both works resemble each other is their protagonists, Prince Hamlet and Rodion Raskolnikov. These two characters share three key traits. First, both characters possess a tendency towards reflection, often hesitating to act decisively. Second, both protagonists are shown to be “not themselves” to a certain degree. This uncharacteristic behavior is exemplified by Hamlet’s staged “madness” and Raskolnikov’s erratic nature, so foreign to his family and his long-time friend Razumikhin. Finally, both protagonists admire those individuals who, unlike themselves, are capable of decisive action and are not delayed by thoughtful reflection. For Hamlet, this individual is Fortinbras, while for Raskolnikov, it is Napoleon (1769-1821).
These three key traits appear in Hamlet and Raskolnikov even though the characters greatly differ in social status and wealth. Despite their socioeconomic differences, both characters share an important attribute: they are former university students. This shared characteristic is significant because the protagonists have been isolated from ordinary society and their families while studying far away from home. The present essay argues that the isolation resulting from their studies is the primary cause of the three traits previously outlined. Their education has fostered excessive introspection, leading both characters to hesitate when decisive action is needed. It has separated them from ordinary life and their families, contributing to the psychological instability that manifests throughout the stories. Ultimately, their isolation leads them to admire those individuals who are not burdened by excessive reflection and are instead capable of decisive action.
To begin, it is necessary to contextualize these characters’ academic backgrounds. Scene two, Act one establishes Hamlet as a student at the University of Wittenberg. Lines such as “For your intent / In going back to school in Wittenberg / It is most retrograde to our desire” (1.2.112-114) indicate that Hamlet has had to interrupt his studies to attend his father’s funeral. Similarly, Raskolnikov is established early in the novel as a former law student who stopped his studies due to financial difficulties. Porfiry Petrovich recognizes Raskolnikov as intelligent despite his madness and a gentleman despite his poverty (Dostoyevsky 284, 379).
In addition to their shared status as students, Hamlet and Raskolnikov are similar because their education isolates the protagonists in two main ways, physically and intellectually. First, both characters have been physically separated from their homes and places of origin. In Hamlet’s case, his studies in Wittenberg situated him far away from the royal court in Denmark. Raskolnikov studied in St. Petersburg, well removed from the province in which his mother Pulcheria and his sister Dunya lived. Second, their shared academic background isolates them intellectually from most other characters in their stories, many of whom lack any kind of formal education. In this regard, their intellectual aptitude hinders the protagonists’ ability to relate to their social environments. For Hamlet, this intellectual disconnect is one of the reasons he is unable to participate naturally in court life. In Raskolnikov’s case, intellectual isolation often leads him to withdraw from social interaction, preferring to wander alone or remain trapped in his room with his thoughts.
Hamlet and Raskolnikov throughout their stories often hesitate to act, being frequently shown as absorbed in introspective thought. Neil Rhodes identifies Hamlet’s student status as one of the reasons he is unable to act more decisively throughout the play, recognizing in his “To be or not to be” soliloquy a recipe for inertia with a clear academic origin (124). Rhodes further emphasizes that, as a well-educated humanist, Hamlet rejects the revenge ethic, favoring thoughtful reflection instead of violence. Hamlet’s education in Wittenberg has isolated him from the aristocratic expectations of revenge, which would typically demand an immediate and violent response to his father’s murder. Furthermore, Elizabeth Hanson indicates that Shakespeare’s play delivers a distinctly feudal and aristocratic plot adorned by academic elements of the early modern university, such as rhetoric or intellectual preoccupations (226-227). Despite his aristocratic background, Hamlet embodies these academic elements through his tendency towards reflection rather than immediate action. Hamlet thus becomes isolated from others in the play; he is an early modern scholar among a court of feudal characters.
Raskolnikov, despite committing his heinous act much sooner than Hamlet, still shows an intense degree of deliberation before and after the deed. Before the murder he is shown walking aimlessly, pondering his radical ideas, and formulating plans for reconstructing St. Petersburg. After the murder, Raskolnikov continues wandering and remorsefully reflecting, incapable of taking purposeful action. This level of introspection demonstrates that he remains shaped by the isolating habits of his student life. As a former student, his daily life revolved around study, contemplation and theoretical analysis instead of physical labor. Even after interrupting his studies Raskolnikov continues to cling on to these habits, considering “thinking” to be his only “work” (24). Raskolnikov’s reticence to find work beyond occasional teaching indicates the extent to which his identity as an intellectual has isolated him from ordinary labor. Raskolnikov’s educational background has led him toward excessive reflection and separated him from broader society. Just like Hamlet, he is isolated from most other characters in the story; he becomes an intellectual bourgeois among the urban proletariat.
The isolation that Hamlet and Raskolnikov have experienced during their education is also a contributing factor to the psychological instability they display throughout their stories. Their mental distress manifests through a lack of empathy and apparent madness demonstrated in erratic behavior, particularly apparent during their conversations with other characters. Both protagonists’ strange conduct is noted by several other characters. Hamlet is widely perceived at court as mad, with many believing grief and heartbreak to be the cause. Also, Hamlet’s scornful comments towards Ophelia are especially indicative of his emotional volatility and lack of empathy. Similarly, Raskolnikov’s family and his friend Razumikhin recognize that something is different about him, ascribing his erratic behavior to sickness. Additionally, Raskolnikov’s desire to shed blood without remorse exemplifies his unempathetic attitude. His madness is equally manifested in his physical appearance and the “dreadful closet” where he lives (Movsesian). Multiple factors contribute to these abnormal behaviors in the protagonists. For Hamlet, grief over his father’s death plays a significant role, while Raskolnikov’s extreme poverty puts a strain on his mental state. These pressures are intensified by the characters’ physical and intellectual isolation. Thus, because their isolation cuts the characters off from those who might provide support, it becomes a central factor in the development of their psychological instability.
This psychological instability is further manifested through the characters’ erratic nature and the intermittent return of their sanity throughout the story. In Hamlet’s case, certain scenes with Horatio, as well as his conversation with the Players, show him capable of acting in a rational manner. Additionally, his grief after Ophelia’s death indicates he still retains a degree of empathy beneath his apparent madness. Raskolnikov also oscillates between rationality and psychological breakdown. For example, while his theory is flawed, it is grounded in logic and reason (Movsesian). Moreover, his capacity to empathize is revealed in his compassion toward Sonia and his sister, Dunya, as well as during his dream of the beaten horse (46-50).
One significant aspect of Hamlet’s psychological instability that needs to be addressed is the question of its authenticity. Whether Hamlet’s madness is feigned or not, it is directly linked to his educational background and the isolation he experiences. In Act 1, Scene 2, we see a greatly distressed and even suicidal Hamlet, yet it is commonly accepted that only after his interaction with his father’s ghost in Act 1, Scene 5, does he truly display signs of madness. In this latter scene, he proclaims, “As I perchance hereafter shall think meet / To put an antic disposition on” (1.5.169-70). Hamlet’s madness has been a subject of much scholarly debate, with many discussions about its veracity. Tenney L. Davis approaches this debate by arguing the following:
If Hamlet [is] really mad, his psychosis [is] that of an intellectual, a hypertrophy of that inner eye whose function it is to perceive meanings, relations and implications; while if he [is] only feigning his insanity, then he [does] it by taking things too strictly, too literally, by a general social perverseness manifested in a desire to quibble and split hairs. His madness, whether real or feigned, [is] an excess of sanity. (630)
Davis’s present approach is particularly apt; he avoids a definite position that cannot be confirmed while accurately recognizing the intellectual nature of Hamlet’s madness. If his madness is genuine, naturally it manifests primarily in his thoughts because the isolation resulting from his educational experiences has led him to favor inward reflection over impulsive acts and outward displays of emotion. If his madness is feigned, his academic background and capacity for thoughtful reflections allows Hamlet to utilize this mad role to pursue his revenge. Characters like Laertes and Fortinbras, who perhaps lack a comparable educational formation, do not conduct their revenge in such strategic fashion, opting instead for direct acts of violence. Hamlet’s intellectualism allows him to use his feigned madness as a unique tool for his revenge, while his isolation intensifies the psychological pressures that could make him genuinely mad.
Raskolnikov’s madness, like Hamlet’s, can be linked to his educational background and the isolation it produces. Raskolnikov status as a student and an intellectual has allowed him more access to Western philosophical ideas than his uneducated contemporaries, leading him to learn about nihilism and to formulate his “great man” theory. Intellectual isolation plays a role in his embrace of the “great man” theory since it removed him from the ordinary morality of society, allowing him to rationalize the acts of men like Napoleon. These ideas also conflicted with his natural values, destroying his faith and creating a breach in his personality. Raskolnikov’s altered mental state is the result of this schism, a divide between his genuine self and the cold-blooded despot he wants to become. Nikolay Strakhov recognizes Raskolnikov’s schism as a fight between his life and his theory. He contends that the murder is not only an act against the pawnbroker’s life, but also one against Raskolnikov’s own life (485-486). This schism (Russian = raskol), present even in the character’s name, is the key to his madness and the result of his isolation. In trying to become a “great man,” Raskolnikov acts against his own compassionate nature. This internal rupture explains the moments where Raskolnikov shows hints of lucidity and empathy throughout novel and demonstrates his old self prevailing over his cruel theory. Alfred L. Bem describes compassion as the most important sign that spiritual resurrection and equilibrium are still possible (612). The intermittent reappearance of Raskolnikov’s empathy is crucial evidence that he can still be saved. His internal duel is solved in the epilogue, in part through his rejection of Western philosophical ideas and the reacceptance of Eastern Orthodox Christianity into his life. More importantly, Raskolnikov’s rehabilitation comes as a result of Sonya’s love: “Love had raised them from the dead, and the heart of each held endless springs of life for the heart of the other” (463). Sonya’s love represents the end of the isolation that had driven him to madness and crime; it demonstrates the return of genuine human connection to Raskolnikov’s life.
One final trait that connects Hamlet and Raskolnikov is their admiration for those individuals capable of decisive action, such as Fortinbras and Napoleon. Hamlet’s admiration for Fortinbras is shown most explicitly through his soliloquy in Act 4, Scene 4. In this soliloquy, Hamlet admires how the “delicate and tender prince” Fortinbras can lead thousands of men to their death over a worthless piece of land: “The imminent death of twenty thousand men / That for a fantasy and trick of fame / Go to their graves like beds” (4.4 47; 59-61). In this same soliloquy Hamlet feels shame for not conducting his revenge more directly despite possessing a just cause to act. In this scene, Hamlet’s plans for revenge seem to have been thwarted by Claudius’ schemes. Hamlet knows that if he had possessed Fortinbras’ resolve, he would have already carried out his revenge.
Hamlet’s admiration for Fortinbras mainly stems from this shame over his own inaction. His predisposition for reflection intensifies his sense of inadequacy, emphasizing the divide between his contemplative nature and the decisiveness he envies. Furthermore, Fortinbras is not a classical hero or a warrior king like Old Hamlet; in Fortinbras, Hamlet sees someone akin to himself, but one who is unburdened by his own thoughts and doubts. The difference between both characters lies in how they approach their revenge. Fortinbras, not shaped by intellectual isolation, conducts his revenge in a decisive manner, while Hamlet’s scholarly background fosters extensive reflection, preventing him from definitively enacting his revenge.
Raskolnikov’s admiration for Napoleon and other “great men” originates from and is intensified by the isolation he experienced as a student. Raskolnikov’s academic background exposed him to nihilism. For Mikhail Bakunin (1814-76), who coined the term, nihilism meant suppressing emotion to guarantee the triumph of the revolution and the advancement of humanity (Palmieri). Such suppression further alienates Raskolnikov from the people around him, cutting him off from ordinary human connections and empathy. Nihilism and his intellectual isolation led him to entertain the “great man” theory, whereby the exceptional individual must suppress their empathy to achieve their goals. In adopting these ideas, Raskolnikov replaced Christian morals and social values with the ideology of the “great man” figure.
Chief among these “great men” is Napoleon. To Raskolnikov, Napoleon is the epitome of what he desires to become, a despot with the will to sacrifice thousands of lives to achieve his own ideas. Like Hamlet’s admiration for Fortinbras, Raskolnikov’s admiration for Napoleon is likely enhanced by the parallels he perceives between them. They are both students from a lower-class background, striving for acknowledgment at a young age. Napoleon’s recognition began at the siege of Toulon in 1793 when he was twenty-four years old (Chandler 28). Raskolnikov is twenty-three years old, which may lead him to believe that he, too, can become a “great man.” However, unlike Napoleon, he is not a military man: “[Raskolnikov] understands that the traditional path of great men – political and military leadership – is not open to him” (Rosenshield 84). Thus, Raskolnikov decides to achieve “great man” status through intellectual rather than militaristic means, by uttering a “new word” (2). Ultimately, his admiration of Napoleon highlights the contrast between his isolated intellectualism and the decisiveness in action he envies in others.
Hamlet and Raskolnikov are united by three key traits: excessive reflection, psychological instability, and admiration for men who can act decisively. These shared traits are primarily caused by the isolation they experienced during their studies. Their separation from society conditioned them to deliberate excessively, hindering their ability to take decisive action. Isolation further worsened the emotional and mental pressures exerted by their circumstances, leading to strange behaviors, a lack of empathy, and internal conflict. Finally, excessive reflection made them aware of their inability to emulate men of decisive action like Fortinbras and Napoleon. The troubled states of the protagonists highlight the danger of social isolation, while Raskolnikov’s rehabilitation at the end of the novel demonstrates that human connection and compassion can restore the balance to one’s life.