Philosophy and the Puzzles of Hamlet

A Study of Shakespeare's Method

Leon Harold Craig

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN:
  9781501317286
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781628920482
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Literary Criticism of Shakespeare
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Shakespeare's famous play, Hamlet, has been the subject of more scholarly analysis and criticism than any other work of literature in human history. For all of its generally acknowledged virtues, however, it has also been treated as problematic in a raft of ways.

In Philosophy and the Puzzles of Hamlet, Leon Craig explains that the most oft-cited problems and criticisms are actually solvable puzzles. Through a close reading of the philosophical problems presented in Hamlet, Craig attempts to provide solutions to these puzzles.

The posing of puzzles, some more conspicuous, others less so, is fundamental to Shakespeare's philosophical method and purpose. That is, he has crafted his plays, and Hamlet in particular, so as to stimulate philosophical activity in the "judicious" (as distinct from the "unskillful") readers. By virtue of showing what so many critics treat as faults or flaws are actually intended to be interpretive challenges, Craig aims to raise appreciation for the overall coherence of Hamlet: that there is more logical rigor to its plot and psychological plausibility to its characterizations than is generally granted, even by its professed admirers.

Philosophy and the Puzzles of Hamlet endeavors to make clear why Hamlet, as a work of reason, is far better than is generally recognized, and proves its author to be, not simply the premier poet and playwright he is already universally acknowledged to be, but a philosopher in his own right.

1

Horatio and the Pirates

Action is consolatory. It is the enemy of thought and the friend of flattering illusions. Only in the conduct of our action can we find the sense of mastery over the Fates.

Joseph Conrad, Nostromo

Who is Horatio, and what is his relationship to Hamlet? Start with the simple facts. He is a fellow student at Wittenberg, apparently Danish; he speaks repeatedly of the elder Hamlet as ‘our King’, of Denmark and Danes as ‘our climatures and countrymen’ (1.1.79, 83, 90, 124).¹ But unlike Hamlet’s childhood playmates, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (2.2.11–12), Horatio is not from Elsinore. He is not familiar with certain customs of the Danish court (1.2.174; 1.4.12), nor with various persons one would likely encounter there (such as Laertes, or Osric; 5.1.213; 5.2.69–70). He speaks of having seen King Hamlet but ‘once’ (1.2.185). Presumably this would have been somewhere else in the realm, perhaps on a royal progress through his home town; and it must have been fairly recently, as by then the King’s beard, like that of the ghost, was ‘grizzled’ (‘It was as I have seen it in his life: / A sable silvered’; 1.2.237–9). Horatio also recognizes the armour King Hamlet had worn when he achieved his famous victory over King Fortinbras of Norway (1.1.59–60). As this was a memorable event in Danish history – hence, known by practically everyone in the country (1.1.81–94; cf. 5.1.135–9) – we may presume the King’s ‘very armour’ would be prominently on display in the castle’s Great Hall.²

Even prior to his belated meeting with Hamlet, Horatio is received at Elsinore as a gentleman, is accommodated within the royal environs, has made himself known to some of Hamlet’s friends and partisans, and is privy to some court gossip (such as the reason for all the feverish military preparations; 1.1.74–9). But again in contrast to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, all the textual evidence attests to his being a loyal and trustworthy friend to Hamlet. Moreover, he is viewed as such by others who are similarly loyal, notably the soldiers Marcellus and Barnardo.

As for his character and temperament, it is variously indicated that he regards himself, and is recognized by others, as classically learned and philosophically self-conscious. Speaking more precisely, he is apparently some combination of a sceptical empiricist, for whom (accordingly) rationality and perceptual evidence is authoritative, and a moral stoic (‘more an antique Roman than a Dane’; 5.2.325). Indeed, the former is the first thing we learn about him, and the latter is the last. Marcellus tells Barnardo of his recruiting Hamlet’s friend and fellow ‘scholar’ to witness ‘this thing’ that had previously appeared to them: ‘Horatio says ’tis but our fantasy / And will not let belief take hold of him / Touching this dreadful sight twice seen of us.’ But after the Ghost has first come and gone, Barnardo challenges him: ‘How now, Horatio? You tremble and look pale. / Is not this something more than fantasy?’ Horatio affirms as much, citing his own criteria for rational judgements: ‘Before my God, I might not this believe / Without the sensible and true avouch / Of mine own eyes’ (1.1.22–8, 41, 52–7). Moreover, with the existence of such phenomena apparently confirmed, he is readier to credit what he has read in ancient sources about supernatural events attending the death of Caesar. Likewise, having seen for himself the Ghost’s second departure upon the crowing of a cock, he allows that this supports what he has heard about ‘extravagant and erring spirits’ fleeing to their ‘confine’ upon the approach of day. By contrast, he remains more guarded concerning Marcellus’s report of what ‘some say’ about the salubrious qualities of the Christmas season: ‘So I have heard and do in part believe it’ (1.1.147–55, 164).³

Hamlet seems well acquainted with Horatio’s principled scepticism, hence with his corresponding emphasis on dispassionate objectivity in observation and analysis; we see Hamlet appeal to that spirit by way of drafting his friend’s participation in the ‘Mousetrap’ conspiracy. Indeed, given the Prince’s own meditative nature, it is likely that shared philosophical interests is a – if not the – basis of their relationship. What else could it be, given their radically different social and economic circumstances? But while shared philosophical interests imply a degree of philosophical agreement – on the value of pursuing wisdom, if nothing else, though usually much more – it need not imply complete accord. Quite the contrary: such a relationship may thrive precisely by virtue of a respectful diversity of perspective. That some such diversity exists is suggested by Hamlet after his own emotionally charged encounter with the Ghost, chiding his friend concerning the limitations implicit in ‘your philosophy’.

Horatio is not, however, a really close friend, if by that we mean a person with whom ‘one has all things in common’, whether good or bad⁴ – the sort of bosom buddy with whom Hamlet shares his innermost thoughts and troubles and intentions, upon whom he relies for guidance or counsel, from whom he keeps no secrets, and to whom he tells no lies.⁵ Much less is he, as some suggest, Hamlet’s alter superego.⁶ True, the Prince sometimes speaks as if Horatio were such a soul-mate, most notably in recruiting him to be a second judge of the King’s reaction to the so-called Mousetrap, gushing that Horatio is ‘as just a man’ as Hamlet has ever laid eyes on:

Nay, do not think I flatter,

For what advancement may I hope from thee

That no revenue hast but thy good spirits

To feed and clothe thee? Why should the poor be flattered?

. . .

Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice,

And could of men distinguish her election,

Sh’ath sealed thee for herself; for thou hast been

As one in suffering all that suffers nothing –

A man that Fortune’s buffets and rewards

Hast ta’en with equal thanks. And blest are those

Whose blood and judgment are so well co-meddled

That they are not a pipe for Fortune’s finger

To sound what stop she please. Give me that man

That is not passion’s slave, and I will wear him

In my heart’s core – ay, in my heart of heart –

As I do thee. (3.2.52–70)⁷

All in all, a panegyric worthy of the noble Osric. Well might Horatio express embarrassment. There are, of course, numerous reasons to flatter besides hope of material reward. For example, one may simply wish to please by gratifying a person’s vanity. Especially pleasing is praise of that in which one knows the person takes special pride. One may thereby – not incidentally – gain or strengthen his affection. Beyond this, a flatterer may wish to ingratiate, perhaps encouraging the flattered to do one’s bidding, or otherwise seek to please in return, if only by being agreeable. And there are grounds for suspecting that Hamlet has an ulterior purpose in attributing exemplary Stoicism to Horatio, something to do with the service this flattery prefaces. Hence we might see in it more than a touch of irony. So too, then, in what would otherwise pass as a declaration of closest comradeship.⁷

While certainly cordial beyond mere politeness, one would not presume a deep personal friendship from the manner in which Hamlet greets his schoolfellow upon first encountering him at Elsinore. Horatio, accompanied by Marcellus and Barnardo, has sought out the Prince in order to report the three men’s several encounters with a ghost in the likeness of Hamlet’s father. However, prior to Horatio’s understandably hesitant telling of their implausible story, the following exchange takes place.

Horatio.		Hail to your lordship.
Hamlet.		I am glad to see you well – Horatio, or I do forget myself.
Horatio.		The same, my lord, and your poor servant ever.
Hamlet.		Sir, my good friend, I’ll change that name with you. And what makes you from Wittenberg, Horatio? Marcellus!
Marcellus.		My good lord.
Hamlet.		I am very glad to see you. – [to Barnardo] Good even, sir. – But what in faith make you from Wittenberg?
Horatio.		A truant disposition, good my lord.
Hamlet.		I would not hear your enemy say so. Nor shall you do my ear that violence To make it truster of your own report Against yourself. I know you are no truant; But what is your affair in Elsinore? We’ll teach you to drink deep ere you depart.^8
Horatio.		My lord, I came to see your father’s funeral.
Hamlet.		I prithee do not mock me, fellow-student, I think it was to see my mother’s wedding.
Horatio.		Indeed, my lord, it followed hard upon.
Hamlet.		Thrift, thrift, Horatio. The funeral baked meats Did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables.

(1.2.160–80; cf. 3.2.177)

So, based on this initial conversation, what might we surmise concerning the Hamlet–Horatio relationship? Hamlet is clearly surprised to see Horatio – indeed, seems not even to recognize him at first, displaced from their Wittenberg context. But perhaps the sky is overcast, the light within the castle accordingly dim. Be that as it may, Hamlet finds Horatio’s presence in Elsinore, entailing as it does his absence from school, sufficiently puzzling as to justify his persistent inquiry. Horatio has no chance to respond the first time asked, Hamlet’s attention being diverted to Marcellus, whom he recognizes at once and greets by name (they must be on familiar terms, as the soldier knew where to find the reclusive Prince at this time of day; 1.1.173–4), then by his acknowledging Barnardo, with whom he apparently is not so well acquainted. When Hamlet turns back and asks a second time, Horatio mocks the question with a bit of self-deprecating humour, alleging ‘a truant disposition’. Perhaps he assumes the reason for his presence would be obvious, thus the question a mere formality inviting a light-hearted response. But since Hamlet’s curiosity is genuine, this does not satisfy him, so he inquires yet a third time (and mind the meter): ‘But what is your affair in Elsinore?’ – adding the sort of quip that one might upon welcoming an unexpected first-time guest. Notice, however, for all Hamlet’s puzzlement, he never hints at a possibility that Horatio has been ‘sent for [by] the Good King and Queen’ (whereas Hamlet immediately suspects this of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, having known them since childhood).⁹

Possibly somewhat abashed, Horatio modestly explains, ‘My lord, I came to see your father’s funeral.’ If Hamlet regarded Horatio as a particularly close friend, he would hardly have needed to be told this. A close friend’s presence in these circumstances would be perfectly natural, first as a mark of respect for both father and son, but primarily to offer his condolence and whatever support and comfort he could in the unhappy time. Indeed, this sort of thing practically defines really close friends. Moreover, Horatio has already been at Elsinore at least a month (supposing he arrived in time for the funeral), but Hamlet was unaware of the fact. Evidently he had neither noticed nor been approached by Horatio at the funeral. Even presuming that before and after the solemnities the Prince had kept himself in mournful seclusion, a close and dear friend would ensure that somehow Hamlet was informed of his presence, thus of his availability should Hamlet feel the need of sympathetic companionship. Obviously Marcellus, who knows where the Prince may be found at a given time, would willingly have conveyed such a message. Whereas, were it not for the Ghost, who knows how long Horatio might have waited for a suitable occasion to meet with his royal schoolmate.¹⁰

However, rega...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Prologue
• 1 Horatio and the Pirates
• 2 Whichever Way the Wind Blows
• 3 The Theatre of Reality
• 4 ‘Why, What a King Is This!’
• 5 Hamlet’s English Madness
• Epilogue
• Notes
• List of Works Cited
• Index