Hamlet: Sin and Salvation - Essay Example

Evangeline Pointer “Hamlet: Sin and Salvation” Michael Flood April 12, Introduction In the Shakespeare play Hamlet, there is a certain dichotomy that forms the core of the play. Just as the most famous line is “to be or not to be,” there are opposing forces that form the foundation of the play. The audience is never sure if Hamlet is mad or acting that way. Hamlet has a conflict that keeps him from acting in one way or another, so he procrastinates acting. But one of the main conflicts that for the basis for the play is that of sin verses salvation. It is present in most of the main conflicts of the play. It is the difference between doing something for justice or for revenge. It is the difference between seeing purgatory strictly in the terms of the sins that brought the souls there and that talking about purgatory is a way of asking for salvation from the same. It is two opposing ways of reviewing Ophelia’s suicide. Sin and salvation are present throughout the main conflicts of the play, so sin and salvation, in general, is the main dichotomy of the play. Discussion Hamlet is about sin and salvation. One of Hamlet’s sin is his act of killing Polonius, which, in turn, led to Ophelia’s ultimate sin and presumptively usurped her chances for salvation. Hamlet kills Polonius in the Act 3, Scene 4, knowing full well what he was doing. He was in Gertrude’s suite, confronting her about how she could be with her own brother in law, when he heard Polonius’ cry from behind the tapestry. At this point, Hamlet plunges his dagger at the tapestry, pretending to kill a rat, but knowing that Polonius was behind the tapestry and was being murdered. This leads to Ophelia’s sin, in that Ophelia goes mad and kills herself because she was grieving for her father, and she was fragile in general. While non-religious people of today understand that suicide is not necessarily a sin, but, rather, a desperate act of a desperate person, this was not the case in the Elizabethan age, as suicide is considered to be the ultimate in sin. That Ophelia’s suicide was considered to be sinful is evident in both the speeches of the gravedigger who was digging her grave, and the priest who was conducting her funeral. For instance, the gravedigger showed evident disdain for Ophelia for killing herself when he stated that “the more pity that great folk should have countenance in this world to drown or hang themselves more than their even Christian” (V, i, 24-27). In other words, Ophelia was rich, and allegedly had more freedom to drown herself than the ordinary Christians, implying that most Christians do not have this freedom. Likewise, the priest who conducts the funeral showed even more disdain for Ophelia, stating that she “should in ground unsanctified have lodged…shards, flints and pebbles should be thrown on her…” (V, i, 210-213). The priest then goes on to say that he cannot sing the requiem to her, as it would “profane the service of the dead” (V, i, 219), which means that, if he gave her the same service that he would have given others, he would be insulting the others. However, Laertes is having none of this, for he firmly believed that Ophelia did not sin, and was not doomed, saying that “a ministering angel shall my sister be when thou liest howling” (V, i, 224-225). Thus, this is the dichotomy of what constitutes sin and what constitutes salvation – the traditional view of the suicide, which is evident by the attitudes taken about Ophelia’s death, is that her death would mean automatic damnation. Hamlet confirms that the Elizabethan view was that there was a divine law against suicide when he states that “the Everlasting had…fixed his canon against self-slaughter” (I,ii, 131-132). Laertes, on the other hand, believed that his sister was pure, but troubled, and that the judgment that others made about her is what the real sin is. Laertes has more of a secular view of the matter, preferring to believe that good works is what is needed for salvation, going against the evident societal view of suicide at that time. Therefore, the notion of suicide was evidently the subject of the dichotomy between sin and salvation, or, at the very least, between sin and neutrality. Laertes believed that it was not a sin; the prevailing wisdom apparently was different. Ghosts are another matter that was the subject of dichotomy and interpretation. Goldman (2001), states that the reader had to make the same judgment as Hamlet regarding the ghost’s intentions. The ghost was ambiguous, in that he was calling for Hamlet to murder Claudius. Therefore, the ghost Hamlet could be good, in that he actually wants revenge for Claudius murdering him. Or, he could be bad, and calling for the murder of an innocent man. This dichotomy echoes how Elizabethans viewed ghosts in general – that they could either be malignant or benign. Goldman (2001) states that the Elizabethan view of the ghost as being benign was that the ghosts would appear because they simply wanted to be remembered, as there was a widespread fear amongst the people that, after death, they would be forgotten. In fact, Goldman (2001) states that the ghost in Hamlet had as the imperative to remember him – the last words that King Hamlet told young Hamlet upon his initial meeting with young Hamlet was to “remember me” (I, v, 91). This theme, which also represents salvation of sorts, which is the salvation of the memory, plays out when Ophelia points out to Hamlet that King Hamlet had been dead for four months, so why should Hamlet be angry about his mother being with another man? To which, Hamlet responds, sarcastically, “Die two months ago and not forgotten yet?” (III, ii, 119-120). Another benign reason for ghosts to appear, according to Goldman (2001), is because they want the prayers of the living to help them leave purgatory. On the other hand, Goldman (2001), states that some Elizabethans, particularly the religious reformers, saw the ghosts as more malevolent, because the ghosts attracted individuals who were not a part of the traditional church hierarchy- the spiritual experts. Lay people also tried to deal with these ghosts on their own, and the results were unpredictable. For this reason, the religious reformers saw the spirits as being threatening, in that they were outside the official control of the church. There were also aspects of the dichotomy of sin and salvation in the fact that the ghost was returning from purgatory. As noted above, King Hamlet, and ghosts in general, had a desire to be saved from purgatory, and this is the element of salvation. As Hunt (2007) notes, King Hamlet had at least a partial desire to be saved from his purgatory, which is the reason why he risked being seen by Hamlet in the first place. Hunt (2007) based this analysis on King Hamlet’s movements, which are furtive and anxious. This would imply that at least part of the motivation of King Hamlet’s ghost was for salvation from young Hamlet. That said, there is also indication that King Hamlet was in purgatory because of sin, therefore the purgatory in the play serves to show the dichotomy between sin and salvation as well. As King Hamlet said, he was doomed to purgatory because he was “cut off even in the blossoms of my sin, unhouseled, disappointed, unaneled. No reckoning made, but sent to my account with all my imperfections on my head (I, v, 75-80).” This was apparently the belief in the Elizabethan world, that one must prepare for death if one is not bound for purgatory, for one must first be able to purge his sins. If he does not, then there would be no salvation. This was expressed when Hamlet was tempted to kill Claudius when Claudius was praying. He chose not to, however, because Claudius was praying, therefore his sins were expurgated, and Claudius would be able to go to heaven – “Now might I do it pat. Now he is a praying. And now I’ll do it. And so he goes to heaven…That would be scanned. A villain kills my father, and, for that, I, his sole son, do this same villain send to heaven” (III, iii, 74-79). This implies that purgatory is a place where the soul goes if he has not had the chance to purge himself of sin, because, if he had, as Claudius would have, the soul would presumably go to heaven. In this way, purgatory is associated with sin. Hamlet’s delay can be explained by beliefs about sin and salvation, so the dichotomy between sin and salvation can be seen in the overall theme of the play. In this case, Hamlet was torn between revenge and justice, according to Lawlor (1960). This was the central conflict, according to Lawlor (1960). However, Hamlet hesitates and procrastinates in what he needs to do because he is not quite aware that this is the nature of the conflict – “the important consideration is that its nature remains unknown to Hamlet” (p. 67). This is shown by the fact that Hamlet gives different reasons for his delays, which shows that he does not understand the conflict that is inherent in the dichotomy between justice and revenge. Since justice is pure, and revenge is not, this is a dichotomy that is analogous to the dichotomy between salvation and sin. That Hamlet is conflicted in this way, yet might not be aware of such, is shown by examining two soliloquies. In one soliloquy, Hamlet promises King Hamlet that King Hamlet’s soul can rest, as Hamlet would repay the King and do what he can for him – “Rest, rest, perturbed spirit! So, gentlemen. With all my love I do commend me to you. And what so poor a man as Hamlet is may do, to express his love and friending to you” (I, v, 184-187). This would imply that Hamlet is considering killing the king to help King Hamlet find peace and seek justice for him. This would mean that he is seeking salvation for King Hamlet. Yet, in another soliloquy, Hamlet speaks of revenge – “Bloody, bawdy villain! Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kinless villain! O vengeance!” (II, ii, 555-559). This would imply that revenge is at the core of what he is doing, and this would be sin. Lawlor (1960) states that because Hamlet does not know exactly why he wants to kill the king – for salvation or sin, for justice or revenge – that he cannot make up his mind to actually act. This contradictory thoughts might have created a mental block for Hamlet, and would be a source of confusion, and this confusion is what is causing him to delay his actions. The conflict might be the reason why Hamlet is “on the borderland of madness” (Leech, 1950, p. 82). Conclusion Hamlet has an undercurrent of sin and salvation, and how both of these conflict and are present in the same situations, all the way through the play. Ophelia’s suicide is one example of this. The view of the day was that her suicide was sinful, and this was expressed by the gravedigger and the priest. Hamlet, too, acknowledged that God had forbidden suicide. However, Laertes did not see the suicide in this way. To him, Ophelia was saved and the people who judge her are the ones who are sinning. The ghost in Hamlet, similarly, represents sin and salvation as well. He could represent sin, although this is ambiguous, if he is calling on Hamlet to murder Claudius simply because King Hamlet was jealous. Young Hamlet is not sure if this is the case, which is why he staged the play to trap Claudius to see if Claudius is guilty – he doesn’t quite believe the ghost about this. Alternatively, the ghost might represent salvation – salvation of King Hamlet’s memory, and salvation of his soul. King Hamlet could possibly be reaching out to Hamlet for these benign reasons – desperation to save his soul and his memory. The purgatory also represented sin and salvation – King Hamlet might have needed saving from purgatory, which is why he reached out to Hamlet. It represents sin because sin is the reason why souls are in purgatory. Finally, Hamlet doesn’t act because he is never quite sure if he is acting out of salvation or sin – justice or revenge. Is he to kill Claudius because this would help his father rest, or is he to kill Claudius purely out of revenge? Hamlet does not know the answer to this central conflict, and this is what paralyzes him. Therefore, the entire play is based upon a conflict of sin and salvation, and this is what runs all the way through the play. References Goldman, Peter. “Hamlet’s Ghost: A Review Article.” Anthropoetics, 7.1 (2001): 1-12. Hunt, Marvin. Looking for Hamlet. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007. Print. Lawlor, John. The Tragic Sense in Shakespeare. New York: Harcourt Press, 1960. Print. Leech, Clifford. Shakespeare’s Tragedies. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press Publishers, 1950. Print. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. GR Hibbard. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Print. Hamlet is also about salvation. Read More