How far do you support the view if god is dead, or if god is clearly known, the tragedy cannot exist in your analysis of Hamlet?

The spirit that I have seen may be a de’il, and the de’il hath power to assume a pleasing shape,

and their subsequent discussion which overrides Hamlet’s religiousness, leaving a vengeful determination in its wake: for when Hamlet ponders suicide after said meeting with the Ghost, he does not cite fear of damnation as a reason against it, as he had previously, rather a fear of the unknown represented by death (“For in that sleep of death what dreams may come”). This may show that Hamlet feels that God has forsaken him (although Hamlet never goes so far as to deny God’s existence), and has turned to raw logic in order find some solution to his misery. It is clear that Goldmann’s view echoes what is a rather cynical, and very Marxist, outlook that God is an inhibiting factor in life: Marx believed that “the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness” would lead people to “demand for their real happiness”, and accordingly it is the fundamental reality of the Ghost which lends it an overriding authority exceeding that of the unseen God which Hamlet believes in, giving Hamlet a final purpose in life. However, the ultimate decline in importance of God in Hamlet’s motivation does not detract from his tendency to postpone his actions, defying Goldmann’s view though, in the main (especially from a Marxist stance), the uncertainty concerning God is central to Hamlet’s hamartia and tragedy.

So, it has already been established that a key criteria of tragedy, hamartia, would be negated by the confirmation or destruction of God as an entity. However, this negation has somewhat of a ‘domino effect’, wherein (in this case) Hamlet’s conjectural lack of procrastination results in the obliteration of a multitude of vital aspects of tragedy.

Let it be assumed, for example, that God is dead: initially, Hamlet contemplates suicide but cites God as a reason against it:

Or that the everlasting had not fix’d his cannon ‘gainst self-slaughter.

In the absence of God, Hamlet would be free to do so (or would else refrain from doing so for fear of the unknown), negating pathos, as the audience would view his actions to be fuelled by cowardice, and naturally think themselves above Hamlet - the original play maintains pathos in that Hamlet is only moved to fear the unknown after fearing God’s wrath, and his desperation for absolution is all too plain to see, as it has built up throughout the play. Even if Hamlet lived on past this stage to receive his orders from the Ghost, the confirmation that God did not exist would allow him to exact revenge as he pleased, again negating pathos, as the audience (more an Elizabethan audience than a modern audience, but modern audiences also) now view him simply as one who has avenged his father through a continuation of violence, rather than the trapped figure of despair and uncertainty he actually is. Whatever the case in this Godless scenario, the world would become a melting pot for the material whims of man, and true tragedy would not exist, as many of its key components become lost and there would be no empathy from the audience, and the purpose of tragedy for many is to have an effect on the audience: the reality of circumstance and emotion which links the audience to the play would be lost. In the situation wherein God is dead, then, tragedy of an Aristotelian nature categorically cannot exist, whether in terms of strict form or in terms of audience reaction to the situation presented.

Conversely, suppose that God is indeed clearly known: under such circumstances, Hamlet is highly likely to let God judge the fate of Claudius, even to forgive Claudius, thus revenge cannot be exacted, directly violating Freytag’s Pyramid in that there would be no rising action or climax, meaning that the situation does not become worse for the tragic hero, inhibiting mythos. Additionally, the lack of climax would mean the eradication of any feeling of catharsis, a crucial aspect of tragedy. It is the feeling of catharsis, according to Aristotle, which allows the audience to gauge emotions correctly, meaning that he thinks of tragedy as a calibrator of sorts. Fundamentally, the scale of the tragedy witnessed in the play would usually dwarf the problems in the lives of the audience, purging them, theoretically making them feel happier: this cathartic concept in particular central to the primary purpose of tragedy - thus, the removal of the cathartic effect and of mimesis through verification of God has a hugely weakening effect on tragedy.  However, speaking from a Marxist perspective (which is of course the perspective from which the quote in the title is derived), catharsis is not always desirable. Bertolt Brecht, another Marxist and a prominent dramatist, believed that his plays should be a representation of reality, but not reality itself: he did not want a perfect representation of human emotion, which Constantin Stanislavski endorsed, but instead proposed his own “Verfremdungseffetkt” or “distancing effect” theory, making scenes alien to the audience in order to discomfort them: he is scathing of Aristotle’s idea of catharsis in ‘Poetics’ in his own theoretic work ‘A Short Organum for the Theatre’, saying that the cathartic effect left the audience unconcerned, even apathetic, that “what the ancients, following Aristotle, demanded of tragedy is nothing higher or lower than it should entertain people”, rather than making them recognise social injustice and feel a sense of duty to society. Thus the removal of catharsis via the confirmation of God’s existence, while diminishing an Aristotelian aspect of tragedy, may well enhance Marxist tragedy.

 In the event that God is clearly known, perhaps Claudius does not kill King Hamlet at all, as the ultimate consequences of his actions would be laid bare before him, and the fear of damnation exceeds his greed, meaning the entire plot (mythos, which includes peripateia and nearly all aspects of tragedy) collapses. Even if Hamlet chooses to seek revenge, he would be seen as foolish by the audience (especially the typical Elizabethan audience, who were typically God-fearing and strongly Christian), as he knows that God will unquestionably punish him, and that God would have punished Claudius regardless of Hamlet’s own actions, again diminishing pathos and with it the overall tragic qualities of the play.

However, perhaps tragedy may still exist in a less strict sense if God is dead or clearly known. If God was clearly known, and yet the killing of King Hamlet, who the audience have been told multiple times was a just and honest ruler (“So excellent a king that was, to this, Hyperion to a satyr””), was allowed to continue, the (short-term, at least) success of evil over good could yet inspire pathos, a feeling of sympathy from the audience towards Hamlet (although this may be more the case for the more emotionally empathetic and less God-fearing modern audience rather than the more devoutly religious Elizabethan audience), as he must then question the morality of God, pondering whether God is necessarily omnibenevolent - there would still be scope for uncertainty, even with the verified existence of God. In Hamlet, uncertainty is the key to tragedy: it is uncertainty which lends Hamlet his fatal flaw, which results in the mistakes that lead him to his ineluctable death and the collapse of the Danish royal family. Also, ambiguity concerning the nature of the Ghost and its importance relative to God (should God exist) could also inspire procrastination within Hamlet: should he obey his father, his creator, or the ultimate creator? Furthermore, as mentioned above, the apparent declining importance of God in Hamlet’s motivation and reasoning as the play progresses is indicative of the fact that tragedy can still exist (and not be hugely impacted at that) without God as a factor. It is therefore possible to achieve aspects of tragedy while categorically affirming or denying the existence of a God.

Overall, though, the general ambiguity regarding God is vital in preserving true tragedy. Goldmann’s quote may have been borne mainly out of his Marxist tendencies, but its message holds true for Hamlet. And while it has been established that certain facets of tragedy (pathos and hamartia) can remain in the face of hypothetical absolute truth, some components of tragedy are usually lost when God is dead or clearly known, as hope and faith, according to Marxism at least, fuels acceptance of social injustice and perpetuates suffering.

bibliography

Hamlet - William Shakespeare

Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right - Karl Marx

Marxist Literary Theory - Terry Eagleton & Drew Milne

Word Count - 1615

---