Research Paper Source 2

8/2/2019 Research Paper Source 2

1/9

The Tragedy of Hamlet's World View

Richard A. Levine

College English, Vol. 23, No. 7. (Apr., 1962), pp. 539-546.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-0994%28196204%2923%3A7%3C539%3ATTOHWV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P

College English is currently published by National Council of Teachers of English.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ncte.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. Formore information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgSat May 12 04:39:43 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-0994%28196204%2923%3A7%3C539%3ATTOHWV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Phttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ncte.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ncte.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-0994%28196204%2923%3A7%3C539%3ATTOHWV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P


2/9

T H E T R A G E D Y O F H A M L E T ' S W O R L D V I E W 539Henry too is envisioned mi generis. Hismom entary trium ph over history is endedby mortality. The ending of Plutarch'slife, with its implication of the dissolu-tion of Alexander's achievement is putto use in Shakespeare's epilogue. Bothhave been bulwarks against chaos.W he n Alexander dies, it is th e signal fo rinternecine murder to begin. WhenHenry dies, it is the signal for anotherfall to occu r in the "world's best garden."W e can see f rom the H en ry V I plays

that the death of the hero results in aflood of ambitions and provincial hatreds,of chaotic desires laying at cross-pur-poses. This, the epiPogue concludes, "oftour stage hath shown."It would seem then that Henry Vtakes only its plot from Tudor politicalimpedimenta. It centers on a vlsion ofthe hero who would "th'Eternal1 over-take," and realistically traces both thebrilliance and darkness implicit in thefamiliar story of the intellect in action.

The Tragedy of Hamlet's World View

The problem of a "regeneration" inHamlet has constantly plagued Shake-speare critics. If there was a change inHamlet, that change has not yet bee11adequately described either in terms ofthe play itself or in terms of tragicdrama. With regard to the type ofchange or lack of change in Hamlet, w efind th at t here are essentially tw o schoolsof thought. One group of critics, repre-s e n t e d m o s t s t o u t y b y E. M. W.Tilly ard, feels that there is no real trans-formation in Hamlet's outlook. Hamletdoes no t gain an y enlightenment throughhis experiences and, therefore, at theconclusion of th e play he is no t a "differ-ent" man.A contrary view of Hamlet isheld by a second group of readers, byfar the majority group. In this viewHamlet is cast into the mold of the tra-ditional tragic hero who emerges fromhis struggles a better and more enlight-ened man. This second group sees posi-tive changes in Hamlet's world view;

Assistant professor at Miami Un ivers ity, M r.Leuine's area o f special interest is the Victorianperiod. Th is summer he will continue his studyo f the influence of the Middle Ag es in Victo ri-an England.

Hamlet becomes the Oedipus-like herowh o has painfully bu t trium phantly cometo see the supremacy of forces greaterthan himself and is the wiser for thisregenerative sight. My own view agreeswith neither of these. As I shall suggest,Ha mle t is a tragic hero, bu t his purgatio nis negative rather than positive. Further,his tragic flaw, his vacillating and faultyworld view, is reconciled by the last actof the play by means of the negativepurgation which he experiences.Hamlet is by no means a passive char-acter; he reacts to the circumstanceswhich envelop him. The point which wemust bear in mind in this respect and

which will offer one key to my furtherdiscussion is that the arena of action inthis play is the intellect. Hamlet's strug-gle is an intellectual one and b y th e ver yterms of that struggle, willful "practical"action becomes impossible. T o be sure,the tragic hero must not only strugglebut he must emerge from his strugglepurged and regenerated. Tillyard is con-vinced that no such changes occur inHamlet. He fails to see how Hamletundergoes any metamorphosis similar tothat experienced by either Samson or


3/9

5 4 0 C O L L E G E E N G L l S H0thello.l Tillyard is certainly correct-Hamlet's purgation is not the purgationof a Samson or an Othello, but this factby no means precludes the possibility ofa different kind of cathartic effect. Inreality, this is precisely the case. Ham-let's purgation is negative in nature; thereis nothing spiritually elevating in it.Nevertheless, it is the end prod uct of thehero's struggling and it climaxes the de-velopmental transformation of the hero'soutlook. In Aristotle's term, Hamlet ex-periences recognition as he moves fromignorance to knowledge. T h e major fail-ing of Hamlet criticism with regard tothis point has been the insistence that theknowledge gained through recognitionhad to be ennobling-an unrealistic viewat best. What then are the stages in thisprocess from ignorance to knowledge?

S. F. Johnson, in the process of coun-tering Tillyard's view, summarizes agreat deal of the criticism regardingHamlet's r e g e n e r a t i ~ n . ~His own posi-tion falls short although it remains supe-rior to Tillyard's against which Johnsonargues reasonably. T o Johnson, "Ham -let does not succumb to despair or be-come the victim of a deadening fatalism;rather he is the instrument of an inscru-table Providence . . ." (p. 206). By theconcluding act of th e play, Johnson feelsthat Ha mlet is no t only prepared to m eethis death, but that he is "fulfilling provi-dential purpose, . . . he has completelyaccepted his role as heaven's patient min-ister" (p. 205) . Th is providence of wh ich~ o h n s o h peaks is inierpreted as a Chris-tian prov ~de nce; ndeed, theJ lay itselfrevolves abou t a Christian amlet en-meshed in the process of C hristian purga-tion. Perhaps the t w o best briefs in behalfof a Christian Ham let are those by Fred-'E. M. W. Tillyard, Shakespeare's Problen~Plays (London, 195O), p. 14.'S. F. Johnson, "The Regeneration of Ham-let," Shakespeare Quarterly, 3 (1952), 187-207.

son Bowers and Irving Ribner.a Bowers'discussion, however, rests upon the ques-tionable assum tion that the Hamlet ofBct I11 is fun amentally the same Ham-let of Acts I V and V. Bowers is proba-bly correct in stating that in Act I11Hamlet believed Heaven was punishinghim. But Hamlet is still to undergo sig-nificant change so that whether he isminister or scourge becomes ultimatelyan unimportant concern f or Ham let. Rib-ner's work, Patterns in ShakespearianTragedy , is a considerable one. In themain, I have little quarrel with Ribner'sreading of Shakespeare. I d o argue, how-ever, with the place assigned to Hamletin Ribner's framework. Ribner agreeswith Bowers: Hamlet as divinely guidedminister gains salvation. M y objectionhere is essentially the same I have withBowers. Hamlet, in his process ofgrowth, did pass through an area ofspiritual confusion, but he ultimately re-jected the entire Christian complex in hissearch for a world view by which todirect real action.In terms of the play itself, Hamletdoes not emerge in Act V as a knowingand confident m inister of Christian provi-dence. To be sure, he has reconciled hisow n world view by t he time of th e fifthact, but the reconciliation is one in oppo-sition to a Christian world view. Herealizes that he is driven b y a force great-er than himself, but that force is morethe Stoic Logos than the Christian be-nevolent deity. Yet it is by this veryreconciliation in non-Christian terms thatHamlet is purged and purges.

I11Within a very short span of time,Hamlet is subjected to three extremeshocks: his father's death, his mother'soverly quick remarriage, and the revela-

.- 3Fredson Bowers, "Hamlet as Minister andScourge," PMLA, 70 (1955), 740-749; and Irv-ing Ribner, Patterns in Shakespearian Tragedy(London, 1960).


4/9

T H E T R A G E D Y OF H A M L E T ' S W O R L D V I E W 541 tion from the ghost that Claudius hadmurdered the elder Hamlet. T h e incon-trovertible effect of these tremendousshocks on H amlet is that they force himinto a state of reflection. His se renity hasbeen destroyed and he must reconcilethese events somehow w ith a world view,i.e., man's place in the universe and theultimate ends of action and existence.W e can assume that Ham let had previ-ously considered such ultimate problemsbut rarely. It is logical to infer th at m eta-physical considerations played at besta small part in the rather carefree, com-fortable, and secure life of "The expect-ancy and rose of the fair state,/ Theglass of fashion and the mould of form,/T h e observ'd of all observers. . . ."Butwith the triple shock, Hamlet wasthr ow n into the alien state of melancholyand he was forced to grapple with theintrinsic arrangement, causative factors,and final ends of th e universe. I t is at thismost crucial moment that the audienceperceives Hamlet's unstable and inade-quate Weltanschauung. And it is thisvery world view which emerges as thehero's tragic flaw by which he will fall.Yet by the solidification of his Weltan-schauung, Hamlet learns and is purged.

The traditional view thar Hamlet 'stragic flaw lies in his inability to act ispartly true. However, this inability toact is a direct result of his vacillatingworld view. Traditional religious beliefand an attenuated stoicism contend forth e mastery of Hamlet's ethos. T h e inter-play between belief in a world hereafterand belief that death ends all is carriedon throughout the first four acts of thelay. (Coupled with the latter view is agelief that there is a divinity operativein the universe, but it is not divine inspecifically Christian terms, not benevo-lent.) By the conclusion of the first act,the organizing elements of the p lay havebeen set in motion. Each of the threeshocks has been delivered and Hamlethas promised the ghost that he willavenge his father's murder. However,

from this point t o th e conclusion of ActIV, Hamlet, the avenger, is incapable ofstraightforward action. H e can not will-fully act because he is uncertain as tothe final end of action and he cannotresolve that uncertainty. The universe isat once ruled b y th e benevolent ChristianGod and is an orderless, meaninglessplace:0 , hat this too too solid flesh wouldmelt,Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew!O r that the Everlasting had not fix'dHis canon 'gainst self-slaughter! 0 God!

0 God!How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable,Seems to me all the uses of this world!Fie on't! oh fie, fie! 'Tis an unweededgarden,That grows to seed; things rank andgross in naturePossess it merely.(I. ii. 129-37)Thus in this first soliloquy, even beforethe crushing third shock, the basic con-flict in Hamlet's world view is pre-sented.T h e task which Ham let has to performis a double one. It is not only to avengehis father's m urde r, bu t also t o cleansethe cou ntry of the new order. Denmarkis a morally sick state; Hamlet is to purgeit. Yet Hamlet's final comment in Act Iregarding his fun ction is most telling:

T he time is out of joint;-0 cursedspite,That ever I was born to set it right!(I. V. 189-90)

H e realizes this early that he is incapableof the necessary action. T he re is no e thicby which he can direct action, thus thefinal end of action is doubtful and un-certain. In Act 11, his world view con-tinues to hover between an immortal anda mortal conception of man:What a piece of work is a man! How

noble in reason! H ow infinite in faculty,in form and moving! How express andadmirable in action! How like an angel


5/9

542 C O L L E G E E N G L I S Hin apprehension! How like a god! Thebeauty of the world! The paragon ofanimals!

yet counterbalancing this:wh at is this quintessence of dust?(11. ii. 315-22)A ct I11 is in m any ways t he crucial acti n b o t h t h e d ev e l o ~ m en tof Hamlet'swo rld vie w and of 'his inability t o ac twillfully. In the first scene we have theapex of Hamlet's soliloquies. Through-ou t this magnificent speech there are tw omelodies in a contrapuntal arrangement:

death as the victor and ultimate end ofexistence counterpointed against the pos-sibility of death as a transitional area tofurther existence.

T o die; to sleep;N o mo re; and by a sleep to say we endT h e heart-ache and the thousand naturalshocksThat flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummationDevoutly to be wish'd. T o die; to sleep-T o sleep? Perchance to dream! Ay,there's the rub.(111. i. 60-65)Hamlet's world view has moved to a po-sition where we find the former elementhaving gained a superseding status, buthis Weltanschauung is by n o means com-pletely resolved at this time. Yet it is thevery possibility of life hereafter in tra-ditional Christian terms which preventsHa mle t fro m taking positive action, evenif that action be suicide.

Thus conscience does make cowards ofus all;And thus the native hue of resolutionIs sicklied o'er with the pale cast ofthought,And enterprises of great pith andmomentWith this regard their currents turn[awry]' "And lose the name of action.It is still in the realm of the intellectthat Hamlet must act. And what is theplay within the play but an exercise in

intellectual battle? Ha ml et acts--and actspositively-within the fram ew ork of th eimaginary. Fur ther , h is s laying ofPolonius is another act clothed inimagination and far removed from will-ful action. hT ot on12 was there no timefor Hamlet to re ect upon the deed,but neither did he see his adversary nordid he conceive of Polonius in humantemls.Queen. What wilt thou do? Thou wiltnot murder me? H e l ~ . e l~ . o!Pol. [Behind] ha;,' ho!' 'help, help,heln!...r - Ham. [Drawing] How now! A rat?Dead. for a ducat. dead!Hamlet's encounter with Claudiuswh ile at prayer is of c ardinal imp ortance .It is at this point-perhaps mo re thanan y other-that w e see th e confusion ofHamlet's world view and his need forcertainty regarding the final ends ofaction. The religious elements of thatworld view have asserted themselves,

but in that very assertion we perceivethat the religious view has become atbes t semi-Chr is t ian. Cer ta inly thedamned soul need not be launched intothe afterworld at a moment of commis-sion of further sin. Albeit Hamlet'soutlook in this case is more Christianthan stoic, it is a truncated Christianitywhich lacks any realization of final ends.Just as in his speech on suicide (I. ii.129ff.) Hamlet's Christianity is based onsuperstition and fear rather than on anypositive love and faith. Francis Fergus-son approaches the crux of the cosmo-logical problem inherent in the playwhen he states that "the Player-Kingpresents very pithily the basic vision ofhuman action in the play, at a level sodeep that it applies to all the characters:the guilty, the free, the principals, thebystanders, those in power and the dis-possessed."* The Player-King says:

'Francis Fergusson, The Idea of a Theater(N ew York, 1953) , p. 138.


6/9

T H E T R A G E D Y O F H A M L E T ' S W O R L D V l E W 543Our wills and fates do so contrary runThat our devices still are overthrown;Our thoughts are ours, their ends noneof our own.

(111. ii. 221-223)Out of context, one could conceivablymake a case for this statement as beingChristian. However, considered in theframework of the play, there is littlerelevance possible between this speechand any traditional Christian theology.It is a stoic comment on the ends ofexistence and, as we shall see directly,it encompasses within it the final recon-ciliation of the contending forces withinHamlet's world view.By Act V, Hamlet has completelyrejected all thoughts of afterlife. Stoicdeterminism with its motivating force

intrinsic to the constitution of the earthhas emerged as Hamlet's world view.Dea th is the victor over life and the soleend of life; the Christianity which fora time contended with this view hasbeen rejected. Hamlet states his newlysolidified belief clearly in the first sceneof A c t V-no minister of prov iden ce isthis Prince.Did these bones cost no more thebreeding, but to play a t loggats with 'em?Mine ache to think on't(V. i. 99-101)T he very conveyances of his land willhardly lie in this box, and must be in-heritor himself have no more, ha?(V. i. 119-121)Let me see. [Takes the skull] Alas,poor Yorick!(V. i. 202-203)

Hamlet's view of man's place in the uni-verse is now definite:H o r . 'Twere to consider too curiously,to consider so.H am . No, faith, not a jot; but t o followhim thither with modesty enough andlikelihood to lead it; as thus: Alexanderdied, Alexander was buried, Alexanderreturneth into dust, the dust is earth,of earth we make loam, and why of that

loam whereto he was converted mightthey not stop a beer-barrel?(V. i. 227-235)Believing that man's existence ends withdeath and that the controlling force inthe earth is intrinsic to the earth (V, ii .5-10), Ham let is able to enter into a stateof knowledge; recogni t ion i s nowpossible.W e remember that one of H amlet'spurposes was to cleanse the state ofDenmark. However, as we have justseen, b y A ct V he has realized tha t deathis th e primary operative end of existenceand the victor over life. From thisworld view, Hamlet is purged of hisinitial desires of purging Denmark. H erealizes he can not change th e world andthereby undergoes a negative purgation.T h e controlling force is based on neithergoodness nor right; Hamlet is power-less to challenge its order. As manycritics have said, Hamlet's was an innerconflict and an intellectual one. But hedoes reach a conclusion although it isa negative one and an intellectuallypassive one. Hamlet's world view doesnot remain unreconciled as so manyreaders claim. In the very terms of hisintellectual struggle and final resolution,willful action is made almost ludicrous.However, Hamlet does kill Claudius andto this action we must turn.Hamlet's speech on augury (V. ii.230ff.) has caused considerable specula-tion. Again, it is my point that if thisspeech is read ou t of c ontext a Christianinterpretation can be given it. Further,whenever a Christian framework is un-justifiably superimposed onto the play,this speech is naturally invoked as evi-dence. However, in terms of the play,Donald A. Stauffer comes closest to thetruth of the speech when he sees in itan over owering stoicisnl: "augury isdefied, iestiny is bitterly acknowledged,and a passive readiness is all."If one"onald A. Stauffer, Shakespeare's World ofImages (New York, 1949), p. 129.


7/9

544 C O L L E G E E N G L I S Hagrees with the development of Ham-let's world view as presented in this dis-cussion, there should be little problem inunderstanding why Hamlet abandonsreason an d follow s "destiny." H e fightsthe duel because there is no sense inescaping it. I n this last scene of the playHamlet can slay Claudius whereas hewas incapable of performing this sameact previously. In th e prayer scene therehad still been conflict between religionand stoical-nihilism; by the time of theduel scene the mental conflict had beenreconciled. (Further , might we notspeculate that a secondary reason forHamlet's killing Claudius is that Hamletthen feels death to be the worst punish-ment he can mete out. If there is noafter-life and since this life is all, whatmore devastating blow than ending life,especially a powerful life?) A furtherimplication of Hamlet's rejection ofChristian values is to be seen in his deathspeech to H oratio. T h e Christ ian wh o iso n the verge of m eeting his Maker looksforward, not backward. How ever , Ham -let, believing as he does in worldly ex-istence as finite, urges Horatio to remainalive only to tell Hanllet's story, to savehim in earthly terms.So it is that Hamlet leaves life, havingconcluded his long and anguished in-tellectual struggle. That the contendingforces in this struggle were Christianityand a particular brand of stoicism is notsurprising. Shakespeare's age was em-broiled in this very same intellectuals truggle; Hamlet is in many ways anembodiment of that struggle. However,w e should no t assume tha t I-Iamlet'sultimate reconciliation is either the re-conciliation of Shakespeare's age or thereconci l ia t ion Shakespeare foresaw.Rather it is the response to the givensituation by a particular man-althoughthe situation, the man, and the responseare so deeply rooted in the universalthat the play will always be meaningful.Even though Hamlet's reconciliationis pessimistic and un-Christian, there is

present in the play a more theologicallyoriented viewpoint which Hamlet is in-capable of perceiving. Of all the char-acters in the play, the gravediggerclowns are those literally and perhapsfiguratively closest to the universal factof death (one of the clowns has beendigging graves for thirty years). ActV, which offers not only the resolutionof the play's overt events but also ofHam let's m etaphysical questioning, openswith the appearance of the clowns.T h u s in this most telling act, it is theclowns who are given the stage as thedenouement begins. As so often before,the clowns are individuals able to pene-trate truth al though clothing this truthin the caps and bells of jesters. Ostensi-bly, they are speaking of the forthcom-ing inhabitant of the grave they are pre-paring. But let us look more closely attheir words:1 Clo. It must be "se ofendendo," it can-not be else. For here lies the point: ifI drown myself wittingly, it argues anact, and an act hath three branches; itis to act, to do, and to perform; argal,she drown'd herself wittingly.2 Clo. Nay, but hear you goodmandelver,-I Clo. Give me leave. Here lies thewater; good. Here stands the man; good.If the ~ n a n o to this water and drownhimself, it is, will he nil1 he, he goes,-mark you that? But if the water cometo him and drown him, he drowns nothimself; argal, he that is not guilty ofhis own death shortens not his own life.(V. i. 9-22)

From one perspective these clowns areforetelling Hamlet's resolution of hisworld view and rehearsing his past con-flict (note even the shift in person).Hamlet had been incapable of enteringthe water of knowledge (a commonsymbolic association) due to the veryreason given by the clown: Hamletcould not act, do, or perform since hehad no understanding of the ultimateends of action. Further, as we learn


8/9

T H E T R A G E D Y O F H A M L E T ' S W O R L D V1ET.V 545moments later, Hamlet 's world view hasbeen solidified and the resolution is inprecisely those terms used b y th e clown:Hamlet has decided to let the watercome to him. Such a juxtaposition be-tween the c lowns ' s ~e ec he s nd H am-let's en tran ce make; close read ing oftheir conversation necessary.

T h e exchanges betwee; Ha mle t andthe gravedigger are again an exercise incontrapuntal arrangement. Hamlet 's in-tellectual resolution is both un-Christianand literal whereas the gravedigger isoriented to the traditional Christian viewof death and his expression is relativelyfigurative. T h e coun terpointing beginsw i t h t h e e n t r a n c e o f H a m l e t a n dHorat io . The c lown s ta tes that thehouses he makes last till doomsday, anassertion which has as its basis the viewof death as merelv a transitorv realm.Fu rthe r, th e clow; sings of t h i grave'slack of finality (for one is only a guestwh en visiting). Yet this is the v ery scenein which Hamlet states most clearly hisrecently reconciled world view. If Rib-ner is correct in assuming that "everyone of th e tragedies is a separate attem pt,if not finally to answer the great prob-lem of man's relation to the forces ofevil in the world, at least to pose it insuch a way that new facts may befreshly illuminated in terms of humanex pe ri en ~ e, "~hen the gravedigger sceneis of even greater significance; forShakespeare has delicately set u p a co un-ter melody to Hamlet 's.

L et us no w particularize on o ne aspectof Hamlet's continued cogency andpopulari ty. Roy W. Battenhouse sug-gests the interesting view that Hamlet 'stragic flaw is Original Sin. "Adherenceto the Word through the grace of bap-tism, therefore, is th e on ly medicine aridcure: what is needed is a radical re-

orientation of man's affection^."^ T h e o -dore Spencer sees Hamlet's conflict asthe Renaissance conflict between thecontrasting pictures of man as he shouldbe and as he is. "But in Hamlet . . . ,they [traditional beliefs] are an essentialpart of the hero's consciousness, and hisdiscovery that they are not true, hisawareness of the conflict between whattheory taught and what experienceproves, wrecks him."8 By coupling thesetwo views, we can see clearly the mod-ernity of Hamlet's tragic problem. Inmany ways, both Battenhouse andSpencer, while referring to Hamlet,highlight the twentieth-century crisis ofWestern civilization.Is not Hamlet's intellectual struggle inessence the very struggle which everyfeeling human being must go through?In Hamlet 's case the particular qualityof his path toward reconciliation is thecontrapuntal arrangement of the con-flicting ethics wh ich w e observed previ-ously. Not only is the humanity of the

hero thus emphasized, but the nature ofthe struggle itself is highlighted. With-ou t faith, Pascal's "gamble," th e strugglemust end in terms similar to Hamlet 's.Instead of the more personal awarenessof H amlet 's case, we have today t heviews of scientific materialists whosestatements-as th e thre e shocks to Ham-let-force us int o Ham let's state of re-flection. For example, the shock ofphilosopher W. T. Stace:For it came about in this way thatfor the past three hundred years therehas been growing up in men's minds,dominated as they are by science, a newimaginative picture of the world. T heworld, according to this new picture, ispurposeless, senseless, meaningless. Natureis nothing but matter in motion. Themotions of matter are governed, not

'Roy W. Battenhouse, "Hamlet's Apostropheon Man: Clue to the Tragedy," P M L A , 66(1951), 1111.'Theodore Spencer, Shakespeare and the Na-ture o f Man (New York, 1942), p. 94.


9/9

546 C O L L E G E E N G L I S Hby any purpose, but by blind forces and1aws.O

O r the shock of Bertrand Russell:Such, in outline, but even more pur-poseless, more vo id of meaning, is theworld which Science presents for ourbelief. Am id such a world, if anywhere,our ideals henceforward must find ahome. That man is the product of causeswhich had no prevision of the end theywere achieving, that his origin, hisgrowth, his hopes and fears, his lovesand his beliefs, are but the outcome ofaccidental collocations of atoms; that no

OW. T . Stace, "Man Against Darkness," A t-lantic M onthl y, 182 (September 19481, 54.

fire, no heroism, no intensity of thoughtand feeling, can preserve an individuallife beyond the grave . . . -all thesethings , if not qu ite beyond dispu te, areyet so nearly certain, that no philosophywhich rejects can hope to stand.1

Indeed, how like Hamlet 's view is Rus-sell 's (the literal view of science). Un-doubtedly, in intellectual terms to agreater or lesser extent, every man mustwage Hamlet 's struggle, and for thisreason alone Hamlet is perhaps the m ostcompelling of all Shakespeare's plays forthe modern reader.wBertrand Russell, "A Free Man's Worship,"Mysticism and Logic (London, 1918), pp. 47-48.

An Existential Examinationof King Lear

JAMES V. BAKER

The central preoccupation of existen-tialist philosophy is a concern for man'sbeing in real i ty, or for human real i tyas it is present in this world. Its businessis, in part, at least, descriptive, that is todescribe th e experiential stru cture f o r allhuman beings. Existentialism is the phi-losophy of human existence.If one looks closely a t the h um an con-dition, one notices that severe limitationsare imposed upon it; i t is extremelybounded. I t is bounded by birth anddeath. Not only that , but each one ofus is, if I may be permit ted the expres-sion, "in a fix," situated, at this p articulartime, a t this part icular place. W e canno tT h e author , wi th an MA. from Oxford Uni-versity, England, and a PhD. from Michigan,

is professor of English a t the University ofHou ston. His study of Coleridge, The SacredRiver, was published by L.S.U. press (1957).

escape time and space. Time and spaceare our jailers in the elementarv iail .Man is time-bound creature. ~e 'hasonly a very limited amount of t ime inthis wo rld.I t will be necessarv t o define the te rmcategory, because & is a very usefulte rm under which the human condi t ioncan be studied. I define a category as an

instrument fo r inquiring into a problem.The basic existential categories are asfollows: First , being born into thisworld and finding ourselves here. Sec-ondly, being towards others and findingourselves existing among other peoplewho are similarly bounded as ourselves;this is the whole realm of intersubjec-tivity, of ou r relations w ith others.Third, experiencing certain elementaryemotions, such as fear, love, or hate; theexistentialists have made particular capi-tal ou t of th e study of an emotion whichis called anguish. Anguish is experienced

Documents

Research Paper Source 2