'Let Me Not Burst In Ignorance': Skepticism And Anxiety In Hamlet

Landau, Aaron

English Studies 2001 82 (3)218-230
(ReLIS:jul:juljig:y:2001:v:82:i:3:p:218-230)

Abstract:

Had murder and revenge per se been the prime dramatic motives in Hamlet, the Prince would have killed Claudius in the second act, and the play would there by have ended. Moral and/or psychological explanations of Hamlet’s reluctance, or incapacity, to act necessarily overlook the fact that under different circumstances Hamlet does not at all hesitate to kill Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and eventually the king himself. Similarly, the ‘aesthetic’ approach, which traces the suspension of revenge back to the Ur-Hamlet and the genre at large, fails to account for the particular way in which this formal demand is met in Hamlet, namely, for the fact that Hamlet’s delay is presented as due, once and again, to epistemological shortcomings. If, on the other hand, we consider the play within the context of the Reformation and the concurrent skeptical crisis, the distinctly epistemological making of Hamlet’s ineffectuality takes on an intriguing historical dimension: it suggests the utter neffectuality of human knowledge as this ineffectuality was advocated by contemporary skeptics.

Keywords: literatura inglesa ; Crítica
Pages: 218-230
Volume: 82
Year: 2001
Issue: 3

 (go top)