Publication History: The book I used has the following notice: First published 1930 by Oxford University PressAdditionally, in the first part of the "Prefatory Note," dated 1947, Knight writes, This re-issue . . . contains the original text complete with only some insignificant, mainly typographical alterations. My two original essays on Hamlet, "Hamlet's Melancholia' and "The Embassy of Death', are, for neatness, grouped as one. . . . Where there are additions, as with my 'additional notes' and my three new essays, I have dated them. Of these essays, the first, on 'Tolstoy's Attack', was originally published as an English Association pamphlet and is reprinted here by kind permission of the Association. The other two, 'Hamlet Reconsidered' and 'Two Notes on the Text of Hamlet' are quite new."Hamlet Reconsidered" is dated 1947 and appears on pages 338-366. Thesis: In "Hamlet Reconsiderd" Knight notes that "I challenged the obvious reading of Hamlet as wholly -- or almost wholly -- sympathetic and Claudius as a thorough stage villain" (339). This is putting it mildly. Knight not only challenges the obvious reading, he reverses the roles of Hamlet and Claudius. In "The Embassy of Death" Knight characterizes Hamlet as "a spirit of penetrating intellect and cynicism and misery, without faith in himself or anyone else, murdering his love of Ophelia, on the brink of insanity, taking delight in cruelty, torturing Claudius, wringing his mother's heart, a poison in the midst of the healthy bustle of the court" (41-42). Claudius, on the other hand, "is distinguished by creative and wise action, a sense of purpose, benevolence, a faith in himself and those around him, by love of his Queen" (41). Towards the end of "The Embassy of Death," Knight sums up his thought: The lesson of the play as a whole is something like this -- Had Hamlet forgotten both the Ghost's commands [i.e., to "revenge" and to "remember"], it would have been well, since Claudius is a good king, and the Ghost but a minor spirit; had he remembered both it would have been still better -- Hamlet would probably have felt his fetters drop from his soul, he would have stepped free, then -- but not till then -- have been a better king than Claudius, and, finally, the unrestful spirit would know peace. But, remembering only the Ghost's command to remember, he is paralysed, he lives in death, in pity of hideous death, in loathing of the life that breeds it. His acts, like Macbeth's, are a commentary on his negative consciousness: he murders all the wrong people, exults in cruelty, grows more and more dangerous. (48-49) Bottom Line: More eloquent than persuasive. |