Hamlet: Revenge and the Critical Mirror
M. Andrews
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1475-6757.1978.TB01380.X
1978-12-01
English Literary Renaissance
Abstract:A M L E T is a highly personal play. We bring to it all that we are. As L. C. Knights has observed, “more than with any other play, critics are in danger of finding reflected what they bring with them.”l The gratifications of interpretation may turn out to be gratifications of another sort; instead of serving the play, we are likely to make it serve us. Kenneth Muir, commenting on C. S . Lewis’ view of Hamlet, emphasizes this danger: “It was inevitable, Lewis thinks, that Coleridge should ascribe to Hamlet his own weaknesses; it was equally inevitable that the pacifists should regard Hamlet as a pacifist, and that the Freudians should diagnose their favourite complex. To Lewis, the explanation is that Hamlet is not an individual at all, but Everyman, haunted by the fear of being dead, and burdened by original sin. But Lewis’s theory, ingenious as it is, invites the retort that he too, the amateur theologian, has saddled Hamlet with his own prepossessions.’’2 Both protagonist and play, one may add, have appealed to one of our current prepossessions. Valuing multiplicity of meaning as we do, we hold Hamlet in our heart of hearts. It is a play in which many meanings dance. And, of course, since Hamlet has so much in it, critics are encouraged to find more -something overlooked, misconstrued, or imperfectly sensed by previous writers. Contemplating the vast outpouring of heterogeneous commentary, Elder Olson began a discussion of Hamlet with the melancholy observation: In the present condition of Hamlet studies, it is almost useless to offer one more interpretation of the play.”3 Yet the play persists; like its por6 6
Art,Philosophy