CRITIQUE OF ‘“I AM MYSELF INDIFFERENT HONEST”: HAMLET AS OPHELIA’S SEDUCER” Steven Johnson
Northern Highlands Regional High School
In his article ‘“I am myself indifferent honest”: Hamlet as Ophelia’s Seducer,” David Buck Beliles argues that Hamlet seduced Ophelia. In order to prove his thesis, he examines Hamlet and Ophelia’s relationship throughout Hamlet chronologically and analyzes their characters and personalities, ultimately synthesizing his claims to suggest that Hamlet seduced Ophelia. While Beliles’s argument has some merit, he weakens his argument by relying on assumptions and circular logic, contradicting himself, failing to refute or acknowledge other interpretations, providing insufficient explanation or evidence, and taking focus away from his thesis, all of which ultimately leave the reader unconvinced of his argument. Beliles does not thoroughly support his claim that Hamlet’s inability to “carve for himself ” (I,iii,23) and his higher status suggest “the possibility” that Hamlet is a sexual adventurer who uses his princely status to seduce women (78). To describe and contextualize Hamlet and Ophelia’s relationship, Beliles begins with Act I, scene iii, in which Laertes and Polonius forbid Ophelia from seeing Hamlet.
Scholarly Essay
Since both Laertes and Polonius recognize Hamlet’s inability to select his own wife, Beliles asserts the fact’s significance and claims that it signifies that Hamlet is promiscuous. Unfortunately, Beliles leaves this claim mostly unsubstantiated and does not explain the connection between Hamlet’s inability to choose his own wife and his reputation as a seducer, so this claim does not function as convincing evidence of his thesis. Furthermore, Beliles fails to acknowledge and refute other interpretations of Act I, scene iii. Laertes concedes that even though Hamlet cannot choose his own wife, he may love Ophelia (I, iii, 15-24). Hamlet’s potential love for Ophelia, therefore, may have led him to engage in a romantic relationship with her regardless of his ability to marry her, as opposed to the purely sexual one that Beliles argues. Beliles’s claim is not necessarily wrong, but he does leave it open to rebuttal by failing to explain his claim fully and acknowledge other valid interpretations of this scene. In addition to lacking sufficient explanation, Beliles contradicts himself in his analysis of Polonius’s conversation
11
