Happy Ending in the Grave Scene

[Ray Eston Smith]

I'm feeling more cheerful today and I've thought of a more upbeat interpretation than my "Elegy to a Kissing Carrion."

Perhaps while in the grave Hamlet returned his father's ghost to the dust where it belonged, to the "treasure in the womb of earth" for which he had walked the night. And perhaps, while in her grave, Laertes returned the key of her memory to Ophelia's ghost so that she could ascend to heaven with her chaste treasure (which was really her soul rather than her "secret parts") in tact.

Then, with his mother close by, Hamlet was re-born from the "womb of earth" with his true self restored.

As Gertrude said (while Hamlet was ranting in the grave):

This is mere madness:
And thus awhile the fit will work on him;
Anon, as patient as the female dove,
When that her golden couplets are disclosed,
His silence will sit drooping.

Hamlet's last words: "The rest is silence." He was finally free from the voice of Denmark.

(There's still more than a little sexual confusion in this interpretation - Hamlet laying eggs while being reborn from a womb of earth, which was also the bride-bed and final resting place of his bride-not-to-be's chaste treasure, while his mother stood by. And that's a very crowded grave, with Ophelia and Hamlet and Laertes and Hamlet's father's ghost and Polonius' ghost, not to mention Yorick and the lawyer and the "great buyer of land." Its a plot of land not tomb and continent to hide the slain.)

[Gladys]

Perhaps while in the grave Hamlet returned his father's ghost to the dust where it belonged, to the "treasure in the womb of earth" for which he had walked the night.

Ray, I seem to be missing something. To what 'treasure' did old Hamlet's ghost return? And why has he 'returned' to that treasure with his murderer, Claudius, still alive?

The Ghost walked the night in search of treasure in the womb of earth. He usurped the sovereignty of reason of his son and namesake until, at last, that dutiful son brought him into the bride-bed and grave of filial fidelity, Ophelia, and her chaste treasure in the womb of earth.

I also fail to see what 'extorted treasure' old Hamlet had buried while alive, that his ghost has returned to collect. Is there evidence that Old Hamlet before or after his murder had designs on Ophelia?! He certainly has designs on Claudius.

Admittedly, Horatio's words to the ghost do seem applicable to Ophelia's 'chaste treasure', lying in 'the womb of earth':

Or if thou hast uphoarded in thy life
Extorted treasure in the womb of earth
(For which, they say, you spirits oft walk in death),
[The **** crows.]
Speak of it!

Your observations on Hamlet and Gertrude are interesting. I am impressed that you frequently tackle the more difficult passages in the play.

[Ray Eston Smith]

I think "extorted treasure in the womb of earth" is a metaphor for all the earthly possessions and powers that King Hamlet had acquired (and especially the land he won from Fortinbras Sr, which made him the "question of these wars)." Ophelia's grave, dug by the gravedigger hired on the day King Hamlet won the land from Fortinbras, is a metaphor for that land. "Womb of earth" is also evoked by the fact that Hamlet was born on that same day. And "not tomb and continent to hide the slain" comes naturally to mind when the gravedigger is unearthing multiple prior tenants of that grave.

I don't think King Hamlet had any literal designs on Ophelia. But Ophelia might be in part an allegory for "filial duty," which is a major theme of the play. So her grave is an allegory for both the death caused by filial duty and for the death of filial duty, as Hamlet finally shakes off his father's spirit when he exits Ophelia's grave.

I think one meaning of "dram of eale" is a pun on "drama filial" or "Drama Ophelia." The whole play is a filial drama about Hamlet and Ophelia being untrue to themselves because filial duty leads them to follow their fathers' values instead of their own. The Mousetrap is Hamlet's filial drama, endangering his own life in order to fulfill his father's commandment.

Thus "extorted treasure in the womb of earth" and "chaste treasure" might be an intentional link between King Hamlet and Ophelia, but only in a metaphorical and allegorical sense.

(That grave is not only crowded with old bones and new mourners - it's also crowded with symbols and metaphors.)

- Ray

[Gladys]

The whole play is a filial drama about Hamlet and Ophelia being untrue to themselves because filial duty leads them to follow their fathers' values instead of their own. The Mousetrap is Hamlet's filial drama, endangering his own life in order to fulfil his father's commandment.

In what sense is the play within a play a filial drama? The Mousetrap lacks son or daughter.

Thanks for explaining so well other matters - much food for thought.

[Ray Eston Smith]

You're right, Mousetrap is only filial in the sense that Hamlet's motivation for staging it was fililal duty.

I believe Hamlet and Henry VIII were Shakespeare's filial plays. I believe that at the beginning of his career Shakespeare swore to his secret-Catholic father that he would write an incendiary play about Henry VIII. Hamlet was partly an apology to Shakespeare's recently deceased father for delaying Henry VIII. When he finally did write Henry VIII, it was not incendiary (except in a literal sense - it burnt down the Globe).

The following lines might refer to Shakespeare's deer-poaching incident, his early plays about the War of the Roses, how he acquired a share in an acting company, and his delay in writing the History of Henry VIII:

HAMLET
Why, let the stricken deer go weep,
The hart ungalled play;
For some must watch, while some must sleep:
So runs the world away.
Would not this, sir, and a forest of feathers-- if
the rest of my fortunes turn Turk with me--with two
Provincial ROSES on my razed shoes, get me a
fellowship in a cry of players, sir?
HORATIO
Half a share.
HAMLET
A whole one, I.
.....
HORATIO
You might have rhymed.
[Might have gone to Rheims and become a Catholic missionary,
if he hadn't first gotten in trouble for poaching from and satirizing a local Protestant lord.]
HAMLET
O good Horatio, I'll take the ghost's word for a
thousand pound.
.............
GUILDENSTERN
Good my lord, vouchsafe me a word with you.
HAMLET
Sir, a whole history.
GUILDENSTERN
The king, sir,--

My highly speculative biography of Shakespeare is at:
http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Where_Truth_Is_Hid

[Gladys]

So her grave is an allegory for both the death caused by filial duty and for the death of filial duty, as Hamlet finally shakes off his father's spirit when he exits Ophelia's grave.

Does Hamlet unequivocally shake 'off his father's spirit' here? Is there indisputable evidence or must we infer this?

Hamlet seems calmer on returning to Denmark with the pirates perhaps, paradoxically, because his own life is now overtly threatened by Claudius. Having chosen the dreadful 'not to be' option by killing Polonius, Hamlet's life is not worth 'a pin's fee'. He has finally taken 'arms against a sea of troubles' and there is no turning back.

You cannot, sir, take from me anything that I will more
willingly part withal - except my life, except my life, except my life

Hamlet's long-standing death wish, as expressed to Polonius, is to be granted: 'if it be not now, yet it will come'.

Nevertheless, both his father's ghost and the regicidal, incestuous Claudius are still at large, and Hamlet's regal ambitions, however limited, remain thwarted. I suspect 'his father's spirit' is even more influential than at first on a Hamlet, reconciled to impending oblivion, who is already preparing to say, 'the rest is silence'.

[Ray Eston Smith]

The last evidence that Hamlet was possessed by his father’s ghost was when he was in the grave and he said “yet I have something in me dangerous, which let thy wiseness fear.” His mother predicts that Hamlet’s “fit of madness” will end with his current rant from the grave. Later we have definite evidence that the ghost has left him: “Hamlet was from himself taken away” (past tense).

After Hamlet learns that he is dying from the poisoned sword, he is free to kill Claudius without endangering his own soul. It would no longer be a suicidal attack because “the sea has come to him so he is not guilty of his own death.” Even more important, since he is dying, Hamlet won’t inherit the kingdom (at least not for long), so it won’t drag him down to hell as it did Claudius. Just to make sure of that, Hamlet cedes the kingdom to Fortinbras before he dies. Fortinbras has his dying voice (the voice of Denmark) from which Hamlet is now free. The rest is silence.

Carrying that thought a step farther (fyi, see http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/76-451/watts.html on farther/further) than Shakespeare intended, Prince Fortinbras would likely lead Denmark into many more senseless wars. Perhaps a wiser but still peace-loving Prince Hamlet would have led a mob to overthrow Claudius and then led an army to defeat Fortinbras, thereby securing a lasting peace. However, when you’re teaching a child how to use a gun, it’s best to begin by teaching him when NOT to shoot. Throughout history, most rulers seemed to have skipped that first lesson. Anyway, although “Hamlet” may have been intended to “catch the conscience of a king,” it was not intended to be a manual on statecraft, so we may forgive Shakespeare for leaving bloody Prince Fortinbras in control of Denmark.

Here’s an ending I like better: Hamlet leads peaceful anti-war protests which lead to a bloodless defeat of Denmark by Fortinbras. Then Hamlet continues the anti-war protests, this time against the rule of Fortinbras, forcing Fortinbras to give up his war-mongering. Impractical? Were Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King impractical? Buddha was born rich and died poor. Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King were murdered. But they won greater victories than any general.