At 8:31 PM +0000 2/2/03, Robin Hamilton wrote:
>My own overall take on the play is that it's about revenge vs. justice, with
>a bit of politics thrown in. The triumvirate of Hamlet, Laertes, and
>Fortinbras, all with dear slaughtered dads but with very different ways of
>of engaging with their situation, shows a bit of this.
I've read essays exploring the notion that Hamlet is the beginning of
"modern" consciousness, a shift from the feudal notions of authority
and self to individuality. It's interesting to compare Hamlet with
the Oresteia, where action takes place clearly and is exterior. The
cycle of murder/revenge murder /revenge murder goes all the way back
to Tantalus, and the question of legitimacy is an engine for all the
struggles in the house of Atreus - because they all have competing
and valid claims - until the Eumenides are propitiated by Athena's
justice, Orestes is relieved of his torment and the rule of
patriachal law is instated in the play's resolution. In Hamlet, the
revenge action is stymied by Hamlet's modern doubt, which extends to
language, to the existence of his father's shade, the legitimacy of
his revenge, and so on, questioning the whole basis of the feudal
economy of action on which he is urged to act: and the tragedy moves
inward. The result is of course catastrophe and there is no
resolution. If you move further forward to Buchner, c. 1700, tragedy
becomes wholly psychological - Lenz's imaginary murders and real
madness; Woccek's madness, the result of his being "experimented" on
by the doctor, his poverty and illiteracy, and his jealousy: an
interior tragedy of implosive inaction. And the tragedy in Beckett
is wholly interior and wholly negative: "There is no more painkiller".
Best
A
--
Alison Croggon
Home page
http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/
Masthead Online
http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/
|