4) “He was not of an age, but for all time”
In understanding why Ben Johnson’s words still ring true about a tragedy written 400 years
ago, it is perhaps useful to think of an even earlier philosopher and playwright, Aristotle, who
argued that the perfect tragedy should imitate actions that excite “pity and fear”. He also
described the tragic hero as “neither a villain or virtuous”, and where “their misfortune is
brought about, not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty”. This certainly applies to
Hamlet. He spends so much time contemplating his actions and its consequences, yet his
unplanned killing of Polonius, led to the deaths of many more characters.
Hamlet has the most lines of any single Shakespearean character in an individual play, and
these words enable the audience to hear him in all his complexity. Through his own words,
we can hear the pain of his father’s unexpected death, the anger and confusion of his
mother’s sudden remarriage and understand some of the issues and reactions that he has to
process in respect of love, loyalty and his relationship with women. But we also hear his wit
with the gravediggers and his intelligence. Our generation may interpret him as misogynistic,
while a few generations earlier maybe his treatment of Ophelia would not raise too many
eyebrows. He is affected by religion and the supernatural, reacting to the appearance of his
father’s ghost asking Hamlet to avenge him. Interpretation becomes even more subjective,
depending on the lense through which different generations, countries or cultures extract
value from Hamlet, even if they do so by disagreeing with his perspective.
The corruption and injustice that permeates seventeenth century Denmark exists in many
countries today, and modern people are no more effective in eradicating these pertinent
issues than Hamlet was. Although his ultimate aim is unambiguous, Hamlet spends the vast
majority of his five acts in thought, rather than in action. This reflects a common human
quandary through the ages; people are sharp and absolute in detecting all that is abhorrent
and yet a profound lack of decisive redress remains painfully evident.
It is easy for people living in the modern era, riddled with injustice, fake news, corruption and
abuse of power, to relate to Hamlet’s predicament and maybe even excuse some of his .
Humans have an almost universal desire to right what they perceive to be wrong, particularly
wrongs done close to themselves. That is why even in the digital age, millions who sit in
comfortable unease, taking in tragic news on from a bright screen relate to Hamlet’s
inadequate efforts to kill the king. The dying forests and starving people that populate
Facebook timelines may well be Claudius, and each empty share, another soliloquy
Hamlet is driven by a cause, and in time his mission takes him further and further away from
all that he knows. The prince, completely consumed by his quest for vengeance ends up
isolated from those closest to him (his family and even his country). He rejects the potential
of love that Ophelia represents in his life, and resents his mother’s re-marriage, albeit with
good reason. This mirrors some of the skewed (toxic?) relationships which result in gender
violence today. In our era, there are numerous opposing ideologies, some very
fundamentalist, that demand loyalties which challenge many of the most basic of human
bonds of love and belonging. Feeling so intensely about something, whether through
perceived duty, social dislocation, commitment or base instincts, to the point that one is no
longer able to connect with loved ones, is certainly not a phenomenon restricted to Hamlet.
In understanding why Ben Johnson’s words still ring true about a tragedy written 400 years
ago, it is perhaps useful to think of an even earlier philosopher and playwright, Aristotle, who
argued that the perfect tragedy should imitate actions that excite “pity and fear”. He also
described the tragic hero as “neither a villain or virtuous”, and where “their misfortune is
brought about, not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty”. This certainly applies to
Hamlet. He spends so much time contemplating his actions and its consequences, yet his
unplanned killing of Polonius, led to the deaths of many more characters.
Hamlet has the most lines of any single Shakespearean character in an individual play, and
these words enable the audience to hear him in all his complexity. Through his own words,
we can hear the pain of his father’s unexpected death, the anger and confusion of his
mother’s sudden remarriage and understand some of the issues and reactions that he has to
process in respect of love, loyalty and his relationship with women. But we also hear his wit
with the gravediggers and his intelligence. Our generation may interpret him as misogynistic,
while a few generations earlier maybe his treatment of Ophelia would not raise too many
eyebrows. He is affected by religion and the supernatural, reacting to the appearance of his
father’s ghost asking Hamlet to avenge him. Interpretation becomes even more subjective,
depending on the lense through which different generations, countries or cultures extract
value from Hamlet, even if they do so by disagreeing with his perspective.
The corruption and injustice that permeates seventeenth century Denmark exists in many
countries today, and modern people are no more effective in eradicating these pertinent
issues than Hamlet was. Although his ultimate aim is unambiguous, Hamlet spends the vast
majority of his five acts in thought, rather than in action. This reflects a common human
quandary through the ages; people are sharp and absolute in detecting all that is abhorrent
and yet a profound lack of decisive redress remains painfully evident.
It is easy for people living in the modern era, riddled with injustice, fake news, corruption and
abuse of power, to relate to Hamlet’s predicament and maybe even excuse some of his .
Humans have an almost universal desire to right what they perceive to be wrong, particularly
wrongs done close to themselves. That is why even in the digital age, millions who sit in
comfortable unease, taking in tragic news on from a bright screen relate to Hamlet’s
inadequate efforts to kill the king. The dying forests and starving people that populate
Facebook timelines may well be Claudius, and each empty share, another soliloquy
Hamlet is driven by a cause, and in time his mission takes him further and further away from
all that he knows. The prince, completely consumed by his quest for vengeance ends up
isolated from those closest to him (his family and even his country). He rejects the potential
of love that Ophelia represents in his life, and resents his mother’s re-marriage, albeit with
good reason. This mirrors some of the skewed (toxic?) relationships which result in gender
violence today. In our era, there are numerous opposing ideologies, some very
fundamentalist, that demand loyalties which challenge many of the most basic of human
bonds of love and belonging. Feeling so intensely about something, whether through
perceived duty, social dislocation, commitment or base instincts, to the point that one is no
longer able to connect with loved ones, is certainly not a phenomenon restricted to Hamlet.
