Hamlet's Crisis

In Shakespeare's Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Hamlet has an ongoing struggle with worldview/philosophy/religion which he must resolve in order to fulfill his "duty" to his diseased father and determine his own eternal state after death.

In understanding Hamlet's dilemma, it is necessary to first understand the context of his times. The play is written in the context of the medieval times, when two religions were dominant; that is Catholicism and Protestantism. The Catholics believed that before death, a person must be "shrived" of their sins (or must have time to repent and be cleansed). If a person died without having performed this essential step, and if they were not bad enough to go to hell, their soul would find itself in Purgatory in order to burn its sins away so that it would eventually be qualified to enter into heaven. Therefore, it was possible for souls from Purgatory to appear as ghosts to give warning to the living. The Catholics also believed that a person who committed suicide would not be allowed entrance into heaven. The Protestants believed that an individual is saved through grace alone by faith alone, and therefore, if one was saved, one would go immediately to heaven after death. In the Protestant worldview, ghosts did not appear, but demons might possibly reveal themselves in order to deceive humans.

In the beginning, Hamlet's religious stance is revealed through his desire to study at Wittenberg (a place that would be associated, in the minds of Shakespeare's audience, with Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation). The king addresses Hamlet's "intent in going back to school in Wittenberg" in Act I (I, ii, 12-13).

When the ghost appears to him and speaks to him, Hamlet seems to be more swayed toward the Catholic belief. Hamlet is convinced that the ghost is his father and went the ghost entreats that Hamlet remember him, Hamlet replies "Ay, thou poor ghost, whiles memory holds a seat in this distracted globe" (I, v, 96-97).

Even so, Hamlet is not completely free of doubt. After the players come and play Hecuba and Priam, Hamlet discourses with himself, speculating that "the spirit that I have seen may be the devil, and the devil hath power t' assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps out of my weakness and my melancholy...abuses me to damn me" (II, ii, 526-531). Because of this, Hamlet devises a way to test the spirt by asertaining that it told him the truth.

Before the play occurs, Hamlet contemplates whether he should commit suicide. However, he is uncertain of "what dreams may come, when we have shuffled off this mortal coil" (III, i, 67). Hamlet is very confused as to which worldview is correct. Were he to take his own life, the Catholic view would condemn him eternally, whereas, in the Protestant view, although killing is wrong, it would not force him into hell. The conclusion which Hamlet reaches is undecided, for "concience does make cowards of us all" (84).

After the play verified the ghost's word, Hamlet concludes "I'll take the ghost's word for a thousand pound" (III, ii, 250).

Soon after, Hamlet is prepared to kill Claudius while he is lammenting his sin. However, Hamlet realizes that Claudious would then be sent straight to heaven (III, iii, 74-87). Therefore, he resolves to take his life while Claudious is sinning and send him to hell (89-95). This demonstrates the Catholic worldview because a Protestant would not believe that salvation can be taken away, and that what a person is doing at a given moment can change the state of their salvation.

Thus, Hamlet continues in the Catholic mindset for a time, and even sees the ghost again while he is talking to his mother. However, the murder of Polonious by Hamlet begins a gradual change once again. He seems hardly sufficiently remorseful for the murder of Polonious, who did not have any direct part in the King and Queen's sins, and he speaks of him in physical terms, without much mention of where his soul migt suffer or rest. Hamlet tells the King that Polonious is at supper and goes on to describe what happens to a man after he dies; "We fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots. Your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service--two dishes, but one table. That's the end" (IV, iii, 20-24). In other words, Hamlet is saying, it doesn't matter what a person is in life, everyone will face death and everyone will end the same, as food for worms. This is all very secular humanistic because humanists only look at the world from a purely physicas perspective and they insist that there is no supernatural.

Again in the cemmetary, Hamlet reveals his new humanist bent as he speculates on who the bones were before they died and reflecting on their fate now, that they must be kicked around in the dirt. He tells Yorick "Where be your gibes now?... Not one now, to mock your own grinning? Quite chopfallen? Now get you to my lady's chamber and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favor she must come" (V, i, 152-155). Again he addresses the idea that once a person dies, it doesn't matter what they were in life, in death they will all be the same.
Hamlet continues in this mindset, even telling Horatio about his murder of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern with evident pleasure.

Even so, his view shift yet again when he feels his death approaching, and he turns once again to the spiritual side. He assures Horatio that "there is special providence in the fall of a sparrow" (V, ii, 185-186), alluding to a passage from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

Finally, after Hamlet has died, Horatio bids him goodbye saying, "Now cracks a noble heart. Good night, sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!" (V, ii, 327-328). By these words, it is implied that Hamlet's soul went directly to heaven and to his eternal peace.

Senior Quote

"Here is the great truth that, only when we see things in the light of God, do we see things as they are. It is only when we see things in the light of God that we see what things are really important, and what things are not."
William Barclay

Christian Tragedies

In exploring the genre of tragedy from a Christian perspective, I found it very thought-provoking to ponder the darkest truths about Christianity. The first things that came to my mind were topics such as: man is sinful and that separates him from God and Hell is a real place where some people go. But as our group began working on the tragedy, I realized that there are other aspects of Christianity that are hard to accept as well. Our group based our tragedy on the tragic flaw of self-righteousness, exploring the theme of how Christians can be so caught up in themselves that they hinder other people from coming to salvation. In working on this plot, I realized how often I am just like the tragic hero in our play, how I think that my way is the right way, and furthermore, it is the best way. I think, how much more of an effective witness I could be if I just relaxed a little bit and humbled myself. After all, intellectually, I realize that so many other things are so much more important than the things I concern myself with and that in some areas there are multiple good ways of doing things. Moreover, I really don't have the right to make those types of judgements and that I am just as imperfect, if not more so, than the next person. Thus, in constructing a tragic play around the idea of self-righteousness, I came to recognize all the more, my own tragic shortcomings and how I often need to change my attitude toward myself and towards others.

"Evangelizing" Oedipus Rex

Oedipus has the common hamartia of hubris. This is a sin, as is evident as he lashes out in anger toward Laius and kills him. In bowing to his pride, he sets himself up for the most shameful humility. His pride and subsequent anger further prevent him from listening to advice or truth given by Tiresias, and this is contrary to the Biblical Proverb which says "listen to advice and accept instruction and in the end you will be wise". Furthermore, we see, just as the Bible teaches, that sins have very real consequences. However, when Oedipus finally sees the sins he has committed, he choses rightly to accept the consequences.

In Oedipus Rex, the characters are frequently guilty of attempting to take matters into their own hands, not acknowledging that they are not in possession of that type of power. In Christianity, it is evident that when humans rely on their own strength, things go awry and life is meaningless--just as Oedipus realizes at the end that his glory as king and champion (those things that were achieved by his own work as well) were meaningless in light of the bigger picture which he was unable to see before.

Also, Oedipus Rex explores the theme of truth and searching it out. Oedipus commits to finding the truth at the beginning of the play, then he searches for it, finds it, and finally accepts it and responds to it. Biblically "the truth will set you free", and though it seems like as if the opposite occurs in Oedipus' case, in reality, it did function to "set free". First of all, it set Oedipus free from his life of unconscious sin and secondly, it set the people free from the plague. In order for the truth to have this freeing quality, it was necessary for Oedipus to accept the truth and act on it. If he had not, the truth would have bound him more--in that he would then be living in a life of conscious sin with the guilt of knowing he was the cause of the people's suffering. Similarly, when non-believers hear the truth that Christ offers and don't respond, they are held even more accountable when the time comes to be judged. Also, while they are living, their knowledge of the sins they commit bind them in guilt even more.

Impressions on Dr. Bryan Burton's presentation of Dostoevsky

I found it interesting, after reading Crime and Punishment, to step back and look at the author and his beliefs. It was clarifying to understand Dostoyevski's association with existentialism and how that affected the way he wrote. He wanted to not just communicate a message, but he wanted to make the reader feel and experience that point. As an existentialist, he focused on being, so experience would have been a big part of that. Dr. Burton also said that Raskolnikov embodies existentialism. I think that Raskolnikov is a very sensitive character, sensitive to his own existence and experiences, although, on the other hand, he seems like he does not excercise very much control over his own fate, which I thought was a major tennant of existentialism.

Dr. Burton also brought up the idea that perhaps the whole of Raskolnikov's story is a retelling of the raising of Lazerus. Now that I think about it, it does rather seem as if Dostoyevski does make that parallel, however, in my opinion, to say that they are parallel stories is a stretch. Lazerus, as far as the Bible tells us, did not have a specific sin that casued his death and he did not go through the phychological battles and conflicts of conscience that Raskolnikov subjected himself to (and these seem to be such an fundamental point in Crime and Punishment, that I think we would be remiss to say that it is too related to the story of Lazerous).

In addition, Dostoyevski believed that redemption only comes through pain and suffering. It is true that our redemption came only through the pain and suffering of Jesus, but I think Dostoyevski means our own human pain and suffering. In this I disagree. If we say that our redemption is attained through our own suffering, that is just the same as saying we can earn our own way back to God. But we know that is not true. However, it is certain that pain and suffering can lead us to redemption, as opposed to buy our redemption.

Did Raskolnikov Repent?

Raskolnikov does realize his sin and in a sense repent, in that he has changed the attitude of his heart and his life's direction so that his sin will no longer haunt him in the future (though the consequences of it will remain with him for a long while).

First of all, as he goes from Sonya's presence to confess to the police, he says of himself, "I am a beggarly, worthless scoundrel, I am a miserable wretch!" (504).

However, he seems to say this more in reference to his behavior toward Sonya, and not to his murder, but it is a step in becoming sensitive to sin and wrongdoing.

Furthermore, when he arrives at the crossroads of the street, he recalls Sonya's instruction to, "Go to the cross-roads; bow down before the people, and kiss the ground, because you are guilty before them, and say aloud to all the world, 'I am a murderer!'" (505).

As a result, Raskolnikov, "so crushed" by his burden, "softened on the instant and the tears gushed out. He fell to the ground where he stood...He knelt in the middle of the square, bowed to the ground, and kissed its filth with pleasure and joy" (505).

If Raskolnikov did not believe himself to be, to some extent, guilty, he would feel no need to demonstrate such an act of humility and, in a sense, penance. Furthermore, if he did not believe himself to be guilty, the act would not have brought about any satisfaction, but rather something akin to disgust.

However, later in the prison in Siberia, Raskolnikov once again relapses into denial of his guilt saying that he had failed, "This was the sole sense in which he acknowledged his crime, that he had not succeeded and that he had confessed" (521).

Nevertheless, "he already felt in his heart that there was something profoundly false in himself and his beliefs. He did not understand that that feeling might have been the herald of...his coming resurrection, of a future new outlook on life" (521).

Whether or not the readers receive an actual confession from Raskolnikov, stating that he acknowledges his sin, the author tells the audience that this is what eventually happens.

Finally, Raskolnikov, ill in the Siberian hospital, dreams a dream of men who are infected with a consuming certainty of their own rightness and rigid belief in his own perception of truth (523-524). This dream has great implications for Raskolnikov, and he deliberates for quite some time over his dream. I believe that at this point in time, he finally recognizes that he was wrong, just as the people in his dream were wrong.

However, his repentance was not completed; he had recognized his wrongdoing, but his life had not come to the point of change. This occurs when he and Sonya reunite after their illnesses, and Raskolnikov "cast[s himself] at her feet. He clasp[s] her knees and [weeps]...But at once, in that instant, she [understands]" (526).

This is the moment when we can know that Raskolnikov has experienced a change of heart and that the direction of his life has changed and that he has repented and turned from his nagging sin.

Therefore, Raskolnikov, although at first unwilling to admit to his moral guilt (as opposed to his legal guilt), gradually acknowledges his own sin and repents of it, a necessary step in the process of redemption.

Quotes from "Mere Christianity"

"Aim at Heaven and you will get earth 'thrown in': aim at earth and you will get neither" (134).

"The real test of being in the presence of God is, that you either forget about yourself altogether or see yourself as a small, dirty object. It is better to forget about yourself altogether" (125).

"...every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before" (92).