Hamlet ya da Hekuba : Zamanın Oyuna Baskını

by Carl Schmitt, Cana Bostan (Translator)

Yirminci yüzyılın en önemli düşünürlerinden biri kabul edilen Carl Schmitt 1956 tarihli Hamlet ya da Hekuba adlı bu incelemesinde Shakespeare’in tragedyalarının zihinsel arka planını ve tarihsel bağlamını derinlikli bir kavrayış ve yenilikçi bir bakışla analiz ediyor. Schmitt, Shakespeare’in eserlerinin “kraliçe tabusu” ve “intikamcı figür” üzerine inşa edildiğini ortaya koyarken, bu unsurları kültürel bir mit yaratımı örneği olarak kullanıyor. Schmitt’in çalışması, edebi eleştiri veya tarihsel analizden ziyade Walter Benjamin ve Theodor Adorno tarafından geliştirilen estetik-siyaset ilişkisinin kapsamlı bir teorisini de ortaya koyuyor.

Genres: Nonfiction, Literary Criticism, Shakespeare, Philosophy

96 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1956

About the author

Carl Schmitt's early career as an academic lawyer falls into the last years of the Wilhelmine Empire. (See for Schmitt's life and career: Bendersky 1983; Balakrishnan 2000; Mehring 2009.) But Schmitt wrote his most influential works, as a young professor of constitutional law in Bonn and later in Berlin, during the Weimar-period: Political Theology, presenting Schmitt's theory of sovereignty, appeared in 1922, to be followed in 1923 by The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, which attacked the legitimacy of parliamentary government. In 1927, Schmitt published the first version of his most famous work, The Concept of the Political, defending the view that all true politics is based on the distinction between friend and enemy. The culmination of Schmitt's work in the Weimar period, and arguably his greatest achievement, is the 1928 Constitutional Theory which systematically applied Schmitt's political theory to the interpretation of the Weimar constitution. During the political and constitutional crisis of the later Weimar Republic Schmitt published Legality and Legitimacy, a clear-sighted analysis of the breakdown of parliamentary government Germany, as well as The Guardian of the Constitution, which argued that the president as the head of the executive, and not a constitutional court, ought to be recognized as the guardian of the constitution. In these works from the later Weimar period, Schmitt's declared aim to defend the Weimar constitution is at times barely distinguishable from a call for constitutional revision towards a more authoritarian political framework (Dyzenhaus 1997, 70–85; Kennedy 2004, 154–78).

Though Schmitt had not been a supporter of National Socialism before Hitler came to power, he sided with the Nazis after 1933. Schmitt quickly obtained an influential position in the legal profession and came to be perceived as the ‘Crown Jurist’ of National Socialism. (Rüthers 1990; Mehring 2009, 304–436) He devoted himself, with undue enthusiasm, to such tasks as the defence of Hitler's extra-judicial killings of political opponents (PB 227–32) and the purging of German jurisprudence of Jewish influence (Gross 2007; Mehring 2009, 358–80). But Schmitt was ousted from his position of power within legal academia in 1936, after infighting with academic competitors who viewed Schmitt as a turncoat who had converted to Nazism only to advance his career. There is considerable debate about the causes of Schmitt's willingness to associate himself with the Nazis. Some authors point to Schmitt's strong ambition and his opportunistic character but deny ideological affinity (Bendersky 1983, 195–242; Schwab 1989). But a strong case has been made that Schmitt's anti-liberal jurisprudence, as well as his fervent anti-semitism, disposed him to support the Nazi regime (Dyzenhaus 1997, 85–101; Scheuerman 1999). Throughout the later Nazi period, Schmitt's work focused on questions of international law. The immediate motivation for this turn seems to have been the aim to justify Nazi-expansionism. But Schmitt was interested in the wider question of the foundations of international law, and he was convinced that the turn towards liberal cosmopolitanism in 20th century international law would undermine the conditions of stable and legitimate international legal order. Schmitt's theoretical work on the foundations of international law culminated in The Nomos of the Earth, written in the early 1940's, but not published before 1950. Due to his support for and involvement with the Nazi dictatorship, the obstinately unrepentant Schmitt was not allowed to return to an academic job after 1945 (Mehring 2009, 438–63). But he nevertheless remained an important figure in West Germany's conservative intellectual scene to his death in 1985 (van Laak 2002) and enjoyed a considerable degree of clandestine influence elsewhere (Scheuerman 1999, 183–251; Müller 2003).

Unsurprisingly, the significance and value of Schmitt's works

Reviews

[Rüveyda · Rating 4 out of 5]

hamlet, tanrı'nın inayetiyle, yas oyunu için yegâne seyircidir; ama onu tatmin edebilecek şey, onun için sergilenen bu oyun değil sadece ve sadece kendi kaderidir.

[deniz · Rating 3 out of 5]

finals forced me to read a fascist's opinion about hamlet...

[Kapo Kap · Rating 3 out of 5]

No Hecuba just Hamlet. Because of the title I thought it is going to be a comparative analysis of two revenge plays, but laughs on me, because it was mostly Carl Schmitt drawing parallels between Hamlet's characters and historical figures of the time of the play's creation and speculating how it affected the final work. He argues that contemporary audience would link Hamlet's plot to King James and his late mother Mary Stuart who may or may not have killed his father. Presumably, this historical reality is what prompted Shakespeare to leave the question about the mother's involvement in the Hamlet's father murder unanswered.

[Hakan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eser, Carl Schmitt'in aslında bir bakıma Walter Benjamin'e cevaben yazdığı bir Hamlet incelemesini ihtiva ediyor. Burada Hamlet'in zaman çerçevesi ve egemenlik ilişkisi irdelenirken bunlar tarihsel bir bağlam içinde anlamlandırılır ve Schmitt'in, belki de hep yaptığı gibi, konu, ek bölümlerde, bir egemenlik meselesine de kaymakta. İlgilisi olanların okumasını tavsiye ederim. Anca önce Hamlet eserinin kendisi mutlaka okunmalı.

[Emine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hamlet'in tarihselci bakis acisi ile yapilmis tefsiri. Hamlet'in absurt davranislarini anlamlamdirma acisindan faydali buldum ama sadece Hamlet'i ve iktidar iliskileri baglaminda konuyu incelemis, keske Ophelia'nin yaptiklarini da anlamlandirma firsati sunsa idi.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

«[…] η ευρωπαϊκή ποίηση δημιούργησε τρεις μεγάλες συμβολικές μορφές: τον Δον Κιχώτη, τον Άμλετ και τον Φάουστ. Από αυτές η μία τουλάχιστον, ο Άμλετ, μετατράπηκε ήδη σε μύθο. Και οι τρεις, όλως περιέργως, είναι αναγνώστες βιβλίων, και άρα διανοούμενοι, αν μπορούμε να το θέσουμε έτσι. Και οι τρεις είναι διαταραγμένοι πνευματικά. Ας προσέξουμε την προέλευση και την καταγωγή τους: ο Δον Κιχώτης είναι Ισπανός και ρητά καθολικός· ο Φάουστ είναι Γερμανός και προτεστάντης· ο Άμλετ στέκει μεταξύ των δύο, στη μέση του σχίσματος που καθόρισε τη μοίρα της Ευρώπης.»

[Piper Rutchik · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty good, a little circular but I guess he wanted to make points clear…though I still am not fully sure where he stands DESPITE his “results” page. Some good thoughts in there and was worth the read to know more history and analytic history of Hamlet…though it was funny because it was wrong…

Weird semi-expected undertones and an attack on Nietzsche but…oh well.

[Jonas · Rating 4.5 out of 5]

4,5/5- Ich bin Hamlet Fan, Fan der griechischen Mythologie, Schmitt Fan, früheres Theater Kind, es ist also wirklich das perfekte Buch für mich und es hat nicht enttäuscht. Die Argumentation war logisch und ich konnte nahezu allem folgen, ohne großartig googeln zu müssen. Die historischen Fakten waren mir mehr oder minder bekannt, jedenfalls haut davon alles sehr gut hin. Schmitt argumentiert, dass Hamlet zu großen Teilen auch ein Produkt seiner Zeit - also durch diese beeinflusst - ist. Darin sieht er die besondere Rolle der Mutter sowie des Hamlet begründet, welche sich von denen, die man ansonsten in klassischen „Rache-Stücken“ entdeckt.
Die Differenzierung zwischen Tragödie und Trauerspiel sowie die Bezüge auf Benjamins Werk des deutschen Trauerspiels haben gepasst und wurden von Schmitt entsprechend treffend eingeordnet.
Kleine Abzüge dafür, dass die Bezüge zu Hekuba doch sehr wenig waren, aber vielleicht sollte das auch so, wer weiß. Jedenfalls hätte ich mir für ein Werk mit dem Namen „Hamlet oder Hekuba“ etwas mehr erwünscht.

[Christine · Rating 1 out of 5]

My main quibble with this piece, which I did read in its entirety, is the fact that Schmitt uses the words "objective historical reality" in the same sentence sequentially...and he doesn't use the phrase derisively...

[Melanie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Meh. Inoffensive literary criticism at best, and gross historical pastiche at worst.