I’ve made the somewhat obvious (but no less satisfying) jump from ‘The History of That Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote de La Mancha’ to ‘The Tragical History of Hamlet Prince of Denmark’. The parallels are many, the discoveries joyous (even through Hamlet’s eternal gloom). While I would not be the first to point out these shared sympathies—I could read criticisms on the subject—there’s nothing better than making those discoveries for one’s self. Thus prefaced, let’s get to the Prince and Knight.

That William Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes died on the same day, is almost a little too perfect, propelling all observations into a kind of literary kismet (which, according to wikipedia is a bit of conceit, as Spain and England were using different calendars). In Bloom’s introduction to Don Quixote, he points out a similar murkiness in ‘authentic motives’ shared by the two characters. He doesn’t get much into the madness, and that’s where I’ll begin.

Hamlet’s story is the reverse of Don Quixote’s. Hamlet tells us in the beginning that he’s putting on the aires of madness. Don Quixote tells us in the end that he’s taking them off. Yet it’s hard to say how much control either one has over their madness, despite their claims to the contrary (Don Quixote has madness within madness in the Sierra Moreno). Yet they are their own stability. Those around them, all those kings, barbers, bishops, and dukes have their lives dictated to some degree by it. I.e., while Hamlet and Quixote are infirmed, it’s those around them who are affected.. Hamlet’s compatriots engage in the Quixote guessing game, trying to disprove madness with intelligence, and vice versa. They can’t hold the two values simultaneously, and this cognitive dissonance reverberates across both narratives.

Which makes me wonder just what was going on in Europe at the turn of the 17th century that engaged these two men to write these stories about characters who have so transcended the boundaries of their respective stories. I’m unable to answer the cause, but rather interested in  the effect. These characters are so transcendent because they break through their texts. Bloom points out that in Hamlet, “all the rules of normative representation are tossed away, and everything is theatricality. Part II of Don Quixote is similarly and bewilderingly advanced”. Both narratives contain critiques of their respective forms. Both narratives offer stories within their stories, external readings brought in to affect their characters actions.

And yet, as much as these two characters are so alive in our universe, it’s impossible to imagine them existing in the same universe. Sure, both live in corrupt and crumbling kingdoms, and suffers the slings—if not arrows—of outrageous fortune. But they could never meet. Their characters are of different forms, and different stuff. You can be mad like Quixote, or you can be mad like Hamlet. I think most people flatter themselves as the former, but the latter is probably closer to the truth.

Here’s an observation on kitsch, to back me up. Through my journeys to various antique stores and flea markets, I’ve noticed the preponderance of decor influenced by Don Quixote from the 60s and 70s: sculptures, paintings, and wall reliefs of Don Quixote and Pancho*. There’s a dearth of Hamlet book ends. Yet, how the play’s lines litter our speech. I’m not sure what we would say if Hamlet had never been written. Because of Don Quixote we know jousting at windmills, but because of Hamlet we know ‘murder most fowl’, ‘neither a borrower nor a lender be’, ‘methinks the lady doth protest too much’ and ‘to sleep, perchance to dream’. And many more. If Quixote decorated our dens, Hamlet still corners the market on adorning our words.

I leave it here, because I’m not yet done with Hamlet. I’ll get to that apology, anon.

 

*This probably has a good deal to do with Man of La Mancha, which is a different beast, true.