Bound and determined: Hamlet, Prospero, and the puzzled will (Part Three)
Calisthenics for the will: Keeping 'out of the shot and danger of desire'
The Argument: “Desiring
this man’s [Prospero’s] art and that man’s [Hamlet’s] scope” [Sonnet 29], the
poet-playwright Shakespeare (known familiarly as “Will” and never indifferent
to punning) doubts that either of his famous creatures suffices to establish
the independence of human action.
"O, you must wear your rue with a difference."
-- Ophelia to Queen Gertrude ("Hamlet," Act IV, Scene 5)
Early in "Hamlet," the Prince is eager to see whether what may feel
like a determined course can be altered by force of will. Rising to the fore in this scrutiny is an abundance of sexual
disgust.
Why does sex preoccupy him so? I think Hamlet’s doubts about our command of will explain it. He is at one
with the view of St. Augustine, summarized like this by Bertrand Russell: “What
makes the ascetic dislike sex is its independence of the will. Virtue demands a
complete control of the will over the body, but such control does not suffice
to make the sexual act possible. The sexual act, therefore, seems incompatible
with a properly virtuous life.”
In "The Tempest," the Augustinian caveat seizes Prospero as well. He warns Prince Ferdinand against giving vent to lust before the solemnization of his union with Miranda, and repeats the warning fiercely not long afterward — despite the upright Ferdinand's immediate promise not to assail the virtue of the wizard's daughter. Prospero's need to control cannot countenance even secret fantasies of ungovernable desire.
Augustine saw lust's independence of Christian will. |
To warriors of the will like Hamlet and Prospero, the abyss opens up where lust is involved. Looking down
into it is irresistible.
If the adultery that resulted in his father’s murder were enough, why would Hamlet earlier have harangued the virginal Ophelia mercilessly, then subjected her to flippant bawdry as the court gathers to watch the visiting troupe’s play? Yet he has roaringly commanded the demure woman to enter a convent. (I’m among those who believe the scene’s context makes the Elizabethan slang meaning of “nunnery” as “whorehouse” unlikely.)
If the adultery that resulted in his father’s murder were enough, why would Hamlet earlier have harangued the virginal Ophelia mercilessly, then subjected her to flippant bawdry as the court gathers to watch the visiting troupe’s play? Yet he has roaringly commanded the demure woman to enter a convent. (I’m among those who believe the scene’s context makes the Elizabethan slang meaning of “nunnery” as “whorehouse” unlikely.)
And in the Closet
Scene, indifferent to the fact that he has just killed Polonius by accident,
Hamlet reviles Gertrude in vivid moralistic terms for her weak sensuality. When
she moans “thou has cleft my heart in twain,” Hamlet’s imperative to
“throw away the worser part of it” evokes Jesus’ hard saying: “If thy right eye
offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.” (One-third of an omniscient
Godhead in Christian theology, Jesus is also the avatar of a ferocious free
will, charged with rejecting sin and seeking salvation. It’s a contradiction so mammoth even Hamlet can barely acknowledge it.)
He is so focused on his mom-bashing lecture that the Ghost
reappears to remind him of his “blunted purpose” — the mission of revenge that
Hamlet no longer believes in. When he can bring himself to recall the body
behind the arras, he speaks dismissively of it, except for this: “For this same
lord, I do repent, but heaven hath pleas’d it so / To punish me with this, and
this with me, / That I must be their scourge and minister. I will bestow him, and will serve well the
death I gave him.”
Serve it with the King’s death, or with his own? It’s almost
a matter of indifference now. When all are dying in the final scene, Hamlet
kills Claudius last before succumbing himself. In his culture, regicide is the ultimate
challenge to the way things are supposed to be. Hypocritically, the usurping monarch has earlier calmed Gertrude, fearful of Laertes' rumored insurrection (Act IV), with this reassurance: "There's such divinity doth hedge a king / That treason can but peep to what it would, / Acts little of his will."
Caught up in the death-dealing final scene and acting little of his will, Hamlet has failed to "pluck out the
heart of [his] mystery,” which his creator implies is all mankind’s. Where does our freedom lie, when even the
most clear-headed act may be the product of a mistaken assumption of personal autonomy?
The Prince imputes so much to nature or to heaven as
determinants that his own thoughts and acts are famously given over to “a divinity that
shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.” Something rough-hewn is not
botched or ineptly made, it should be remembered, but rather sketched out, planned or inchoate.
The more conventionally pious Horatio expresses a similar view much earlier, on the battlements of Elsinore. To Marcellus’ “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" — the second-most famous line in the play (after “To be, or not to be”) — Horatio prophetically says: “Heaven will direct it.”
The more conventionally pious Horatio expresses a similar view much earlier, on the battlements of Elsinore. To Marcellus’ “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" — the second-most famous line in the play (after “To be, or not to be”) — Horatio prophetically says: “Heaven will direct it.”
Dr. Johnson wrote, likely in astonishment, that “Hamlet is
through the whole play rather an instrument than an agent.” The iron hand of
foreordainment descends upon all the characters, but the Prince is the only one
with the wit and imagination to resist it. Johnson goes on to marvel at
Hamlet’s weak will after the play-within-a-play reveals the King’s guilt on
both counts — adultery and murder.
It’s significant that, as fervent a Christian as Johnson was,
he recognized Hamlet’s reluctance to kill the King at prayer as an excuse for
non-action. Christian scruples never bother Hamlet elsewhere in the play, so why should they here? His spiritual depth bears an uneasy relationship to conventional religion. When he interrupts the Ghost's revelations to cry, "O my prophetic soul!" he is really saying, in amazement: "O my imagination!"
That considerable faculty has too much to process in Hamlet's encounter with his martially attired
father, who imparts terrifying information and instructions on how to proceed. Hamlet Senior's posthumous sufferings cannot even be spoken of, he warns. On this side of mortality, how is the Prince to weigh the truth of any of this? The poet Wallace Stevens, in his essay "Imagination as Value," may be helpful here: "If the imagination is the faculty by which we import the unreal into what is real, its value is the way of thinking by which we project the idea of God into the idea of man."
That considerable faculty has too much to process in Hamlet's encounter with his martially attired
For Wallace Stevens, imagination brings the universe down to earth. |
If such a willed projection is indeed Hamlet's, its daring scope bumps quickly against necessary limits in a predetermined universe. Sex is the joker in the vulnerable hand human beings are forced to play. Laertes had spoken
more truly than he knew when he warned Ophelia about her strange lover: “His
will is not his own.”
In "The Tempest," Prospero has no reason to suppose his will is not his own, or that it is anything but absolute. True, his capable servant Ariel shows some initiative and a feeling for the liberty the sprite is desperate for, but it's of the fulfilling kind under the rule of a master "whose service is perfect freedom," in the happy phrase of the Book of Common Prayer.
The deposed duke's complete authority on the island has not made him happy, however. As Ferdinand, forced to fetch and haul wood to show himself worthy of Miranda and motivated by true love rather than concupiscence, says of his future father-in-law: "He's composed of harshness."
Emerson speaks with his usual gnomic authority, applicable to both Prospero and Hamlet, when he says: “Character teaches above our wills.”
In "The Tempest," Prospero has no reason to suppose his will is not his own, or that it is anything but absolute. True, his capable servant Ariel shows some initiative and a feeling for the liberty the sprite is desperate for, but it's of the fulfilling kind under the rule of a master "whose service is perfect freedom," in the happy phrase of the Book of Common Prayer.
The deposed duke's complete authority on the island has not made him happy, however. As Ferdinand, forced to fetch and haul wood to show himself worthy of Miranda and motivated by true love rather than concupiscence, says of his future father-in-law: "He's composed of harshness."
Emerson speaks with his usual gnomic authority, applicable to both Prospero and Hamlet, when he says: “Character teaches above our wills.”
Comments
Post a Comment