Samuel Who?

Ah, another philosopher I have never heard of, how delightful. This time time around its Samuel Johnson, a man whose name bears no resemblance to any type of military ordnance. However the man's name is irrelevant, as well as my familiarity with him. This my friends, is once again about Hamlet. Now, for a couple of entries, I have discussed why I find Hamlet and the eponymous character so fascinating. However little have I discussed the play's legacy in literature. Johnson's essay focuses on Hamlet's importance at a literary level while addressing the play's most important aspects

There is no denying that Hamlet has played a pivotal role in modern literature. Johnson acknowledges this legacy formed upon Shakespeare's piece is mostly due to its complexity and variety. He believes that one of the play's greatest charms is the spontaneity it has, such as characters appearing every other scene. As I read the play, I paid little to no attention to the character's entrances and exits. While I can't identify with Johnson here, I have to admit I was startled by Laertes' unexpected return following the death of his father. 

It appears Johnson, much like myself is most interested by the prince's duality. In order to accomplish his goals, Hamlet believes that the only way to hide his intentions is to deceive others through his behaviors. Through a mask of madness, the young prince 

hopes to avenge his father's death. Why madness you may ask? I wish I could answer that myself. Like Johnson I find that feigning madness is a rather useless and often cruel attempt at disguising his murderous objective. By acting like a madman Hamlet is not only making the labor of killing his uncle harder on himself but also brings forth collateral damage to those around them. With each passing scene hamlet arouses both sorrow and suffering to those close to him, such as Ophelia and Gertrude.

Johnson however seems to believe that Hamlet is not the main actor here but rather an "instrument rather than an agent". I believe that he interprets the prince as being a mere pawn who tries in vain to manipulate his surroundings into that which sees fit. If he is not in control of the situation then who is? When I read the essay I immediately associated this lack of control with destiny, silently pulling the strings behind the play's events. When I read Macbeth as part of last year's English course, it was clear that destiny was a recurring theme in the tragedy. Could this be the case with Hamlet? Johnson seems to believe so, referring to "the untimely death of Ophelia, the young the beautiful, the pious." This statement seems to draw heavily on the common interpretation of destiny, being the hidden power believed to control what will happen in the future. But was this really Shakespeare's idea, questioning once again the presence of destiny in a world driven by free will? Or is Johnson just pulling a Hamlet and over thinking the situation?