"Again and again, in Shakespeare, in Calderon, battles fill the last act, and kings, princes, attendants and followers "enter fleeing." The moment in which they become visible to spectators brings them to a standstill. The flight of the dramatis personae is arrested by the stage. Their entry into the visual field of non-participating and truly impartial persons allows the harassed to draw breath, bathes them in new air. The appearance on stage of those who enter "fleeing" takes from this its hidden meaning. Our reading of this formula is imbued with the expectation of a place, a light, a footlight glare, in which our flight through life may be likewise sheltered in the presence of on looking strangers"
Walter Benjamin
10 comments:
Is this also from The Messianic Idea in Judaism?
No, it's from One Way Street.
Not then so "truly impartial", perhaps, if only because every live performance is a terrifying experience as much for the person on stage as for the onlooker. The dramatis persona is the thing they both agree on to make the experience bearable, yes.
Yes, It's striking that he says truly impartial, like he wants to underline it. I wonder whether, in terms of the old theatrum mundi metaphor, the audience are a kind of symbol of the 'impartial' gods?
Or, if not quite gods (they had, remember, their own geographical seat then more or less), then definitely judges.
Consider Fortinbras, though. A shadowy presence earlier in the play as someone who has a claim on a part of the kingdom, he turns up with all his rivals dead on the floor and says, sorry about the carnage but I'll take over now. There's something utterly banal, simple, realpolitikisch about it. After all Hamlet's struggles to overcome the Claudius order, in the end it's a bit of opportunist power politics that gets the kingdom. I'm not sure he's 'fleeing', is he? Isn't he entering into his own?
The way I see it, Fortinbras enters fleeing because he has been rapidly advancing upon Claudius/Hamlet's territory throughout the play, though the audience don't see him. The acute abruptness of the arrestation of his movement is all the more emphasized by the spectacle of the ultimate end ie. death all around him.
I like the way WB takes comfort in the premise of being "sheltered" by the presence of "impartial onlookers". He advocates non-judgment, a sort of a suspension phase, when an aura has time to construct itself. Very nice!
No I think I'll stick to my guns on Fortinbras. I think the sadness at the heart of the play is that Hamlet has all the arguments but none of the sinew necessary to overcome the Claudius order. Fortinbras's arrival, having knocked down (or finding that they've been knocked down for him) all the skittles, is to contrast with Hamlet's failure. Doesn't this match with Shak's preoccupations elsewhere about power, new orders, usurpation, when and how is it right to overcome kingly power, how do you do it? etc etc. The play seems to me to be in part about the role of the intellectual in that period. Surveying the Eliz/jacobean scene, couldn't Shaks see that it isn't intellectuals who have the weight and political muscle?
My familiarity with Shakespeare's plays, in particular the history plays, is painfully limited. Also, the original remark by WB touches on the plays only in passing. All the same I'd like to comment, in my blissful ignorance, if I might.
You seem to have got it right where you mention Hamlet as representing a type, the intellectual faced with his perpetual dilemma: knowing too much, doing too little in comparison.
However, the choice has never really been between action and inaction in the political sphere. Hamlet could act, would even be well positioned and possessed of enough cuuning to act, but he knows that a simple takeover wouldn't be enough, that he needs to take The decisive leap towards death.
If there is a political topic here, it is the contrast between the false sense of stability and prosperity prevailing in Denmark and the destabilizing force of a weak ruler who's just not of the right calibre to handle the affairs of the state.
Hamlet is more than just another chess piece on the political board however. He seems to act as the conscience of his people, anguished by the realization that this will not last, not for Denmark and not for him either.
Hamlet's only chance of personal liberation is in holding on to a death wish in which he himself would be both the perpetrator and the victim. Under such circumstances, he would not be so immature or naive as to entertain political ambitions. His way is a personal way, although the root cause of his sad aspect and the sad end awaiting Denmark might be seen to be one and the same.
Post a Comment