Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn: A Scholar (1631, The Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia)

Reception and Criticism

- "The character of Hamlet, about which so many millions of words have been written, and so much thought has been given by actors, and so much confusion and argument has been caused among scholars and audiences, the most important thing seems to me that he is a simple character, which really all Shakespeare's great heroes are." Sir John Gielgud: "Hamlet" – The Actor's View (BBC Third Programme, 1954).

Shakespearean scholarship began in earnest with Nicholas Rowe's 1709 collection of Shakespeare's works, which for the first time had a named editor and included a biography (with annotations on some of the plays), and thus went beyond the format of a straight textual collection which had characterized the three editions following the 1623 "First Folio" in 1632, 1663 and 1685 (as well as the so-called Fifth Folio, published ca. 1700, which however merely replicated the contents of the 1685 Fourth Folio). Since the days of its initial reception, there probably hasn't been any other play in the English language that has been as much written about and puzzled over, by actors, scholars, playwrights, and novelists alike, as the Prince of Denmark's tragedy. And according to the phrase or the addition of man and country, they have all found different answers to the questions moving them and their fellow critics: What, precisely, accounts for the play's lasting appeal – and is it any good to begin with? Why does Hamlet delay his revenge, and who exactly is he, this Prince of Denmark: an idealised character or someone we can all identify with? Brother-in-spirit to Young Werther, beset by Oedipean doubts, genuinely mad, or Christ-like saviour of his world? Truly in love with Ophelia, or romantically idolising her without any substance whatsoever? Who, for that matter, are the play's other characters, such as the Ghost of Hamlet's father, or Polonius and his fair daughter? Are they even set down with the required internal consistence? How should any of them, first and foremost Hamlet himself of course, be interpreted on stage? (And should critics who have no Thespian credentials themselves have any say in that matter at all?) Can we even determine the play's intended text with sufficient accuracy?

Here are a few of the better-known answers to these and a plethora of other questions associated with the play: presented with nary a substantive comment of my own, so as not to marr the reader's enjoyment of what has become one of the longest-lasting scholarly debates in literary history. (Note that for copyright reasons, I cannot reproduce in its entirety any text by a living author and/ or first published less then 70 years ago.) Although pretty much everybody besides Voltaire seems to agree that "Hamlet" is nothing short of a stroke of genius, the individual writers' reasons for coming to that conclusion (as well as the points where they do find fault with the play after all) are as diverse as their personalities and backgrounds, which makes their debate as a whole a scholarly roller coaster ride of the highest order. So buckle up, hold on tightly to the rails, and enjoy!