How Is Hamlet Traditionalism

The forces of literary traditionalism must often take the field of battle against the raging hordes of heterodoxy. The standard bearers for traditionalism are often the ghosts of once influential critics, such as the romantic era poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who is assailed by the contemporary Irishman Seamus Heaney. Their battlefield, the Shakespearean play Hamlet, with its spectral overtones, is a fitting text for the living to slay the dead in the combat of ideas and interpretations. Shakespearean tragedies had an insurmountable influence on English literature and literary criticism; with the themes and meanings of Hamlet being agreed upon for generations. Hamlet’s flaw was clear, his inability to act is Shakespeare’s way of impressing
“the truth that action is the chief end of existence.” In the modern era however, deconstructionists and revisionists have torn down these established criticisms and replaced them with a melange of interpretations drawing upon Freudian psychoanalysis, the theories of critical gender and racial scholars, and the contextual ideals of New Historicism. These new theories decry the Romantic view that Hamlet’s flaw is his inaction, instead positing that “dithering [and] blathering” lead to his downfall. Both of these polarizing interpretations are fallacious constructs; instead, Hamlet’s tragic flaw is his paranoia, which manifests itself through both inaction and rash hyperactivity. In order to analyze the tragic flaw of Prince Hamlet, one must first understand the strengths of his character.
Hamlet truly is a “man living in meditation.” His intellectual faculties are unmatched by any character in the play. All of the characters in Hamlet are members of the royal court, from Polonius the elder statesman and advisor, to Horatio the scholar, to the trusted courtesans Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Despite being surrounded by Denmark’s leading lights Hamlet’s intellect is prominently displayed by his rhetorical brilliance and beauty, with his paronomasia evoking the courtly teachings of Baldassare Castiglione. No rhetorical flourish goes unused during Hamlet’s many conversations, speeches, and soliloquies. The famous “To Be Or Not To Be” soliloquy contains both anaphora and asyndeton in the same sentence, “to die: to sleep/To sleep, perchance to dream.” His excoriating speech on human nature to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Act Two, Scene Two employs slight of hand rivaling David Vernon. A rhetorical question first appears to be answered with the traditional metaphysical worldview of the day, but then shifts into revealing the Renaissance belief on the “quintessence of dust” being the true state of mankind. This lexicographical illusion requires prodigious intellect, particularly given its extemporaneous
nature. Hamlet’s intellect is not limited to the spoken word.
He understands that the subconscious mind of Claudius will cause him to reveal his guilt during the play; a display of remarkable psychoanalysis, particularly considering the pre-Freudian world Hamlet inhabits. On matters historical, Hamlet’s intellect remains acute; by having the “election light upon Fortinbras” with his “dying voice,” Hamlet shows his understanding of the ancient rights which give Fortinbras claim over Denmark’s throne. Through this rhetorical brilliance, armchair psychology, and historical erudition, it is clearly proven that Hamlet does have the brilliant faculties of intellect which Coleridge lectured
on. This does not mean however, that the intellect is responsible for Hamlet’s fall because it causes inaction. Even the charge of inaction demands Hamlet’s acquittal; for he commits many actions throughout the play. Hamlet murders his ex-girlfriend’s father, successfully navigates the web of intrigue present at Elsinore, valorously duels with Laertes, and finally vanquishes his usurping uncle. Indeed, the very reason Laertes wanted to duel Hamlet was because Hamlet had acted to kill both his sister and father. Hamlet’s actions kill at least five of the characters in the play. The story of Pyrrhus, as told by the First Player, whose vengeance “made milch the burning eyes of heaven/and passion in the gods,” denounced rash and unconsidered retaliation; and Hamlet understood that he needed to carefully execute Claudius’s execution if he is too truly avenge his father’s demise. As a product of the Victorian era, Hamlet wanted Claudius to burn in eternal damnation, and it was this desire which caused him to delay striking down Claudius, not fear or indecisiveness. Hamlet’s desire to see Claudius have “his heels…kick at heaven/ and that his soul may be as damn’d and black/ as hell is a microcosm of his actual tragic flaw, which was paranoia, both justified and unjustified. Hamlet was so worried about Claudius possibly going to heaven that he delayed murdering the usurper. This same paranoia manifests itself in Hamlet’s demands of Ophelia to “get [to] a nunnery,” as his mother’s betrayal has left Hamlet distrusting of even the loving Ophelia. Furthermore, Hamlet’s decent into madness through his “antic disposition” is hastened by a paranoia required for Hamlet to survive in the spider web of intrigue woven by Claudius’s schemes. In order to elude the machinations led by Polonius the spymaster, Hamlet is forced to constantly question the motives of everyone around him. The buffoonery of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern hides their true motivation: the utter ruin of Hamlet. Hamlet uncovers this motivation, and outwits the hapless courtiers, sending them to their demise in England. This clever triumph required Hamlet’s paranoia, but this selfsame paranoia which allows Hamlet to survive brings about much of the play’s tragedy. This paradoxical flaw of paranoia is also responsible for the “dithering” and “blathering” of which Seamus Heaney accuses Hamlet. Hamlet stabs Polonius through a curtain because his paranoia leads him to believe that the “wretched, rash, intruding fool” is actually Claudius. Hamlet even refers to Polonius as a “rat,” the colloquialism for a traitor. Upon realizing he has not slain Claudius, but rather Polonius, Hamlet does not apologize. Rather, his paranoia allows him to continue screaming at Gertrude, accusing her of collusion in King Hamlet’s murder, a crime Hamlet has no proof of her committing. Hamlet needs no evidence however, as paranoia allows him to connect her “[blurring] the grace and blush of modesty” with being an active conspirator in murder. This is the hyperactive conclusions of a man driven mad by the paranoia he needs to survive in the insane world around him. It is this paranoia which is responsible for both Hamlet’s inaction, and his hyperaction. In his writings on political life, the Greek philosopher and polymath Aristotle posited that all ideas start with a thesis, are opposed by their polar opposite, the antithesis, and are then combined in a synthesis. This process produces the moderate and correct result. In the realm of literary criticism, this holds true through the modern era. The thesis of the Romantic traditionalists has been countered with the antithesis of modern revisionists such as Seamus Heaney. The synthesis of their ideas and ideals is to justly conclude that paranoia was Hamlet’s tragic flaw, with its’ manifestations being both tragic inaction and tragic hyper-action.