Through Rose Colored Glasses: How the Victorian Age Shifted the Focus of Hamlet

by Rebecca Rendell

May 03, 2002

19th century critic William Hazlitt praised Hamlet by saying that, "The whole play is an exact transcript of what might be supposed to have taken pace at the court of Denmark, at the remote period of the time fixed upon." (Hazlitt 164-169) Though it is clearly a testament to the realism of Shakespeare's tragedy, there is something strange and confusing in Hazlitt's analysis. To put it plainly, Hamlet is most definitely not a realistic play. Not only are the events conveyed in the drama fantastic, the dialogue that brings it to the reader is overdramatic and often metatheatrical. The stirring monologues delivered throughout the play are theatrical speeches rather than genuine dialogue. Frequent references to acting and theater, especially surrounding the presence of the players, serve to make the audience aware of the play instead of drawing them into it. The tragedy's villain oozes evil, murdering the king and marrying his queen in just two months. Even more unrealistic is the presence of the king's ghost, surely there weren't really any apparitions floating around the court at Denmark. Then why does Hazlitt make this statement? Though it is tempting to simply write him off as a bad critic, similar statements made by other critics of the 19th century suggest that this view of Hamlet as a realist drama was commonly held in the Victorian Era. It seems clear that the ideals of the Victorian era caused a significant change in the way Hamlet was interpreted. Victorian society's high esteem for rationality and utility shifted the focus of Hamlet from the tragedy's fantastic nature to its realistic insights. The values of the age imply that a 19th century audience would not appreciate Hamlet as a fanciful tale, choosing instead to view the play as an accurate depiction of one man's difficult situation and internal struggle.

To understand this shift we must first look at the philosophies and ideologies that shaped the Victorian age. Two popular schools of thought effectively symbolize the move toward empirical observations and objective analysis that has become synonymous with the era. Comte's positivism and short-lived Utilitarianism characterize the move away from emotion and intuition in the Victorian Era. Positivism is the notion that over time an understanding of physical laws, rather that faith in religious or social doctrine, will enlighten humanity to the reality of its world. This idea was extended into personal states, where some believed that an understanding of the rules that governed human behavior would allow science to end evil and promote virtuousness. (Landow) This belief in the remarkable power of empirical observation shaped the consciousness of an era. After all, with such an incredible respect for factual knowledge, emotion and fiction stood little chance of getting any attention. It is for this reason that Hamlet needed a new spin for the 19th century; the classic interpretation of the play as an emotional, ideological struggle would not have appealed to the audience of the day. Utilitarianism is a more striking example of the same ideas highlighted by Positivism. This extreme school of thought reached beyond philosophy to impact government and even economic thought. (Landow) By applying some of the principals of Positivism, Utilitarianism offered the most effective solutions to problems, without any regard to their moral and ethical implications. Once again, we see why an unrealistic Hamlet focused on an individual's struggle would not hold the interest of a 19th century audience.

Serving as illustrations of the Victorian era's obsession with reason and practicality, these two examples clearly convey the need for a 19th century shift in the standard interpretation of Hamlet. Here we are faced with another dilemma; how can the interpretation of a play change without altering the characters or the text? Close examination of some popular criticism from the 1800s reveals how emphasizing some scenes and dialogues, while virtually ignoring others, can exact change in the meaning of the play as a whole. Coleridge uses this technique with expert skill to address the presence of the apparition discussed earlier. In his discussion of the Act I scene I, wherein the audience first sees the apparition, Coleridge focuses on the realistic doubt and fear conveyed by Marcellus, Bernardo, and Horatio. He praises the convincing dialogue, sighting line 3 in Act I scene I, " What, has this thing appeared again to-night." Coleridge applauds the lines realism, noting that, "even the word again' has a credibilizing effect." (Hazlitt 164-169) His critique is so focused on the dialogue's realism; he manages to completely ignore the fact that in this scene Hamlet's dead father has risen from the grave to appear before these soldiers.

Bradley and Hazlitt are contemporaries of Coleridge who further exemplify the shift in focus that reshaped Hamlet for the 19th century. These two critics center their attention on the inconsistencies in Hamlet's character. In his analysis, Bradley examines Hamlet's shifts between violent action and confounding inaction. Since these emotional swings are so severe, they make the character of Hamlet appear totally unrealistic. Bradley confronts this issue of Hamlet's character by saying that these extreme personality changes are the result of the highly confusing and conflicted situation that Hamlet finds himself in during the course of the play. Focusing on the last section of Act III scene iii, the prayer scene, Bradley offers an example of the situational intensity that affects Hamlet. When the young prince happens upon his uncle kneeling in prayer, Hamlet is given the perfect opportunity to exact his revenge. After all, the mousetrap scene has just given Hamlet positive proof that Claudius is indeed his father's killer; he no longer has any reason to stall. But Bradley claims that Hamlet's decision is really quite logical for two distinct reasons. The first explanation centers on the fact that the need for proof of guilt was merely an excuse for Hamlet to stall. If this is true, then it no longer seem terribly strange that Hamlet doesn't act immediately when he obtains proof of his uncle's guilt. The extreme nature of the situation serves as Bradley's second reason as to why Hamlet's actions are not unrealistic. Hamlet knows Claudius is a murderer, but the scene finds him kneeling in prayer there is no other activity he could be doing which would make him seem more helpless or give Hamlet a better reason to delay his revenge. (Bradley 110-118) Here Bradley offers a convincing explanation for Hamlet's swings between action and inaction.

Hazlitt offers the same reasons for the extreme actions and emotions of Hamlet's character as Bradley, but through an alternate example. Examining the scene where Hamlet is set-up to have a run in with Ophelia, Hazlitt blames Hamlet's strange actions on the situation at hand. Specifically, Hazlitt is addressing the astonishing cruelty of Hamlet's words as he berates Ophelia. Here the critic makes the assumption that Hamlet must know about his hidden audience; his ire is just part of the performance that he is putting on for them. This explanation of Act III, scene i offers a convincing defense for the plausibility of Hamlets actions. As Hazlitt says, this interpretation makes Hamlet's "conduct toward Ophelia [seem] quite natural in his circumstances." (Hazlitt 164-169)

The interpretation that Hazlitt supports is a familiar one to modern Hamlet audiences. The notion that Claudius and Polonius give themselves away to Hamlet, either before or at some point during the scene, is present in the film versions of Branaugh and Olivier, as well as most modern stage productions. This idea, which became widely accepted during the Victorian period, clearly still influences our thoughts on Shakespeare's tragedy. In fact, the influence of the Victorian period on modern interpretations of Hamlet is quite strong in many ways. To this day we praise the tragedy for its realism when there are obviously many fantastical elements germane to the work. In a recent New Yorker article, Liev Schriber is praised for his convincing portrayal of the young prince, even though the texts suggests that Hamlet's actions are improbable and irrational. (Lahr 46-51) It is plain to see that the Victorian desire to find reason and practicality still impacts our understanding of William Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Works Cited

Coleridge, Samuel T. "Notes on the Tragedies: Hamlet." Essays in Criticism. Second ed. Ed. Cyrus Hoy. New York: Norton, 1992. 157-164.

Hazlitt, William. "Characters of Shakespeare's Plays: Hamlet." Essays in Criticism. Second ed. Ed. Cyrus Hoy. New York: Norton, 1992. 164-169.

Bradley, A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. New York: Fawcett Premier, 1904. 110-118.

Landow, George P. "Philosophy Overview." <http://landow.stg.brown.edu/victorian/religion/philov.html>. Cited 12 December 1999.

Lahr, John. "Fresh Prince; Why Liev Schreiber is ready to play Hamlet." The New Yorker December 1999: 46-51.

Essays on Hamlet

ClassicNote on Hamlet

Advertise with Us