Concerning Shakespeare's Hamlet, the
issues of free will and a corrupt world are not necessarily
connected.
Free will relates to fate or God's plan or,
today, one's upbringing and genetics (nature vs. nurture) as deterministic. In
Shakespeare's day, predestination was an issue, and the world was seen as
ordered.
The issue of a corrupt world is not really
related to the free will issue. Some see Hamlet as a moral and incorruptible human in a
corrupt world. Just because he is a moral man surrounded by the corrupt, doesn't mean
he doesn't have free will. He can be, let's say for argument sake, in a winless
situation, but still have free will, his own choices to make. And he can have the power
to make them. If I'm trapped in a situation that I can't win, I can still choose to go
along or give in or commit suicide or kill someone else, or whatever. Being surrounded
by corruption isn't the same as not having free will. The two are not necessarily
connected.
And Hamlet certainly is surrounded by
corruption. Ophelia, for instance, tries to play Hamlet just like almost everyone else
in the play does. Hamlet doesn't reject her love, she uses his. She is a victim, too,
of her father and her brother and of a patriarchal society, but she spies on Hamlet and
returns his gifts in order to elicit a response. Hamlet doesn't reject her love. He
rejects her thinking she is smarter than him and thinking that she can play him. You
can argue that Hamlet overreacts, but you cannot argue that anyone but Ophelia initiates
the destruction of their relationship. Horatio is the only character that comes to mind
that doesn't try to trick Hamlet or pull something over on him, as they say.
Thus, viewing Hamlet as a moral man in a corrupt world is
one option, or one way to interpret the play. You can argue that if Hamlet behaves
morally, the tragedy is bound to happen. You can argue he cannot win, as a moral man in
a corrupt world. But those arguments probably have nothing to do with the free will
issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment