Let The Punishment Fit The Crime

Stop crying about Hamlet being a jerk. Sure that's one way to look at it, but I'm sticking to the historical idea that he is a hero. That's how I read the play. It's not that he's mad, it's not that he's a bad guy, it's that he's human. He deserves justification, and it's not rationalizing to explain why he did things, but rationalizing for those who can't understand him.

He doesn't want to hurt anyone except for Claudius, and unfortunately he drives himself mad by trying to control things and ends up hurting other people. Whatever, other people hurt him and made this happen. Whose fault is it initially? --- Claudius. He started this mess before the play began and the whole upheaval and mess caused in the play is his fault. We just don't see the true beginning to this play and come in in the middle.

In one of my other classes, we have been discussing different motivation theories, and the one that truly applies here to Hamlet's choices and reasoning is the Equity Theory, pertaining to choices made when perceived inequity exists.

Hamlet has been dealt a shitty hand. His mother and father's love was his rock, his stability. He comes home from college and his world is turned over. His father has died and his mother has immediately remarried and it is his uncle, his father's brother, who Hamlet already dislikes. His parent's love has been made a joke by this new marriage, and on top of that, he meets a ghost who tells him his father did not simply die, he was murdered. Claudius is not only the one who murdered his father, but also in doing so, murdered their love and turned it into a public joke. Who wouldn't be driven crazy?

It is arguable that he may have had some mental condition arise from all of this, however let's look at it rationally in the perspective of this motivational theory, which is sincerely applicable to much of human decision. Hamlet has been given all of these troubles, piled on him without having done something to deserve them. He perceives the inequity, and without a legal body to represent him and punish Claudius, correcting this imbalance, he must take it into his own hands.

There is no crime scene investigation, no search to find out what caused his death, and the body is already gone, so Hamlet sets up his own creative investigation by using the play to confirm Claudius' guilt. He could have acted solely on the word of the ghost, which may or may not have truly been his father, but he didn't and that's pretty noble. It's not trying to control everything, it's leading an investigation and making sure that you get the right unaffected, unskewed answer.

Then, when he sees his suspicions confirmed as Claudius jumps up at the play-within-a-play's moment of truth, Hamlet follows the [imposter] king into his chambers and finds him praying asking for forgiveness. No matter whether or not Claudius' prayers are received in heaven, Hamlet cannot take the chance of killing him now. By killing him now when he has the chance for diving mercy and everlasting salvation, the imbalance will not be corrected. Claudius not only murdered Hamlet's father, but also took his mother and corrupted the marriage, and in doing so corrupted Hamlet.

Let the punishment suit the crime. A life for a life is an archetypal punishment, but what is the proper punishment for a life plus a whole lot more? Without beleiving in an afterlife, the only viable punishment would be a whole lot of torture and then execution. However, clearly Hamlet and the rest of the play's characters, as well as Shakespeare's audience, beleive in God and in heaven. While it is ultimately God's decision to determine a person's place in Heaven or in Hell, Hamlet can up Claudius' chances for the latter by killing him in a sinful state.

When noticing that despite the unbeleivably tempting opportunity before him, he would be doing Claudius a service by killing him now, he realizes more injustice in his father's murder. Killing Claudius now would be "hire and salary, not revenge," because Claudius would fly right no up to Heaven. At the time of Hamlet's father's murder, he was "full of bread, with all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May"(III, iii, 83-85). On top of all of the other horrible things, his father was not given this chance to ask God for forgiveness.

Passing up the chance to kill Claudius now is heroic, not insane. Hamlet is trying to get revenge, but the revenge must be worth getting. He is not trying to control too much. He can only kill Claudius once, and is only playing it safe in this scene to ensure that when he does kill him, that it be of the proper condition to correct the imbalance in equity.

I don't think people realize just how rational Hamlet's actions are. His thought process is not erratic. He doesn't act impulsively, he plans so that he can ensure perfection. When he acts on impulse rather than planning, bad things happen, such as his accidental murder of Polonius. This just justifies why he must have everythign figured out. He is not a lucky person, and without luck, one must have all of the cards laid out on the table before betting any chips.

So quit attributing ignorance and misunderstanding to be villainry, saying "people don't do that," because they do. People in extreme situations will think differently than people on the outside looking in. To fully understand and be able to critique, you have to get inside and look out.

Only Human

People are half good, half bad. Some show more of the good, some the bad, but every human has both parts in them. It’s called a conscience, and unfortunately in this world, all we can see, hold, and touch is human-related. There are those few parts of the world where someone gets to be the first person to view its beauty, but for the most part, everything has already been seen, been held, and been touched. The world we live in is dominated by human choice and human decision. Some choices and decisions good, some bad.

People hurt people, and people get hurt by people. What good can come out of a world where humans make the choices, and screw everything up: friendships, relationships, even the planet that is our home. Humans essentially have the capability of being good, but often choose the bad as it is more appealing the easy way out and advertises itself as the self-bettering, more life-improving option.

As we have seen in Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus, good doesn’t advertise itself with the tricks we see and learn about in marketing classes. The good angel says to repent, that it is not too late to make the right choice. It has the better rewards in the end: the rewards and gifts of heaven, the promise for everlasting happiness after death, and God’s eternal love, which is the greatest gift of all. The evil angel, however, pulls out all the stops: emotional appeal, bribery, and whatever else he can think of to keep Faustus’ mind off of the good angel. And Faustus chooses evil.

“He’s only human,” someone might say, as though it is okay to make bad decisions. Being human, you’re allowed to mess up. Humanity, God’s creation, is reduced down to nothing more than an excuse to sin. Humans are part good and part bad.

During the Early Modern Period, angels were seen as God’s way of putting more good into the world. Miracles were explained by angels. If it couldn’t be explained in human terms, it was believed that the miracle was caused by angelic intervention. If the person/people affected by the intervention were living immoral lives, the event was explained as a “call to repentance as a means of averting divine wrath.” (Marshall, 21)

If people are only half good, and evil tries too hard to make itself appealing, it is fitting that God sends angels to work more good into the world. Even if we can’t see it, we see its results. Heaven’s not on a television commercial, not shown as a beautiful cruise destination of sandy golden beaches and crystal blue waters. Good leaves its mark as angels pass in and out of our lives, fixing some of the bad caused by evil and human mistakes and touches the hearts of so many.

Proof of Angels' Existence?

The world is already difficult enough as it is with human problems, pain and suffering. Throw supernatural angels and demons into it and it just gets even more complicated. What is it that makes humans need to further complicate their lives?

Is it the yearning for external explanations to explain their misfortunes? Is it the need to feel as though their lives mean something beyond wasting space and energy on this planet? Is it the fear of death and the need for hope that life does not end there?

Renaissance Protestants were strong supporters of this last possibility, and were fascinated with death. A 17th century account describes a woman at the edge of death surrounded by loved ones, exclaiming during her last moments that she could see angels standing around her ready to defend her soul. (Oldridge, "Angels on a Pinhead") This idea echoes the philosophies of Jacobus de Voragine, who in the 13th century published The Golden Legend. In this work, he described the existence of a good angel and an evil angel for each person - the evil angel to test him and the good angel to protect him. During sickness and death, the struggle between the two heightens, as the ultimate prize of the person's soul is at its nearest.

Angels in the Early Modern Period existed to reassure people that good could triumph over evil, that God cared about their souls, and that there was purpose in leading godly lives, to live eternally with Him after death. He sent angels to protect them and guide them, and these angels carried the messages of God.

Pictured above is the Enochian alphabet, discovered by Elizabeth I's court astrologer John Dee. Dee used a special crystal and a medium, Kelley, to summon and speak with angels. In many of these "angelic conferences," (Deacon, John Dee, 146) Dee used a chart like the one above to transfer symbols into tables; these tables would then be translated into English. The works produced were believed by Dee and his supporters to be a new scripture that would bring together the two sides of Christianity -- the Catholics and the Protestants -- who were in large conflict at the time.

The fact that these examples of the language of angels and how completely different it is from any other pattern of language created by man gives credibility to Dee's research. Scholars today are still translating his charts, and because the language is so different from any other studied, it is a long and tedious process, however upheld as a true language that can be translated. Is it really the voice of the angels?

The writings not only bring public attention to Dee and his possible corruption, but they highlight angel belief from the time period. Is this the communication and proof of angels' existence? Angels were and are today very important as moral compasses. If they are God's eyes and ears and they're all around, we are more likely to act in ways we would be proud of.

It is important that we have angels because they give us hope. They force us to act wisely and encourage our belief in God. Angels serve an important purpose in our world, and perhaps make it simpler and easier to make the right choices as we navigate through this difficult earthly world.